Dear All,

The letters keep rolling into President Bok on the Harvard “whitewash” of the Douglass misrepresentation of his graduate student’s thesis on fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Over 70 individual letters so far. There are far too many to print all of them, but below I have printed out letters from Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea to give you some idea how people in other countries are reacting to this story.

Before I get to these I would like to share with you what I wrote to President Bok this morning:

For those who have already written to President Bok, thank you very, very much. For those who haven’t and you really do care about scientific integrity please do write.

Most of us seldom achieve our ideals, but it is important that we keep striving for them. If there isn’t an “ideal” at the end of the tunnel of struggle then why bother?

When the US Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950 (for whatever reason) before a single trial had been complete, its leaders lost an ideal. The medical, dental and public health communities have tried to cover for this ever since. It has led to one lie after another. The latest - and perhaps greatest - lie in this sordid history is that of Professor Chester Douglass.  Will Harvard cover this up with another lie?

If you are pushed for time simply choose one of the letters below, or one from the 20 printed yesterday, and simply say Dear President (after saying who your are), I support the sentiments in the letter below, signed____ and send  to derek_bok@harvard.edu>. Please also copy (cc)  the deans at

, , , , , , ,

and blind copy (bcc) me at

Thank you all again especially the writers below from around the world.

Paul Connett

—————————————————-

Dear President Bok

My name is Henry Micklem. I hold MA and DPhil degrees from the University of Oxford, UK, and am Emeritus Professor of Immunobiology at the University of Edinburgh. While not myself a graduate of Harvard, I do strongly support the letter recently addressed to you by Dr Albert Burgstahler and other Harvard graduates.

The Chester Douglass affair has attracted international interest and concern on two general grounds that have significance far beyond the walls of Harvard: (1) the safety or otherwise of fluoridated

water supplies, and (2) the increasing extent to which Universities worldwide are dependent on funding from large corporations, with the inevitable conflicts of interest that ensue.

It appeared to me that the Environmental Working Group’s complaint had substance in relation to both these issues and I was surprised at the extreme brevity of the University’s statement dated 15 August 2006. I note from its first paragraph that the review “concluded that Douglass did not INTENTIONALLY (my capitals) omit, misrepresent, or suppress research findings… ” .  That seems to imply that he did indeed omit, misrepresent etc, but unintentionally. If I may say so, that does rather strain credulity.

Greater clarity in this whole matter would be widely appreciated and, indeed, expected.

Sincerely,

Henry Micklem

————————————————————

Dear President Bok,

I´m not a Harvard graduate, I merely write to you because of that certain glitter in the eyes of some students at the local University at Saarbruecken, Germany, when they -occasionally in a conversation - speak of their dreams to visit Harvard University at some time. As you probably know, Harvard has a high standing over here.

Harvard is even seen as a stimulus for some of our Politicians to undertake efforts to create “Elite Universities” (also called Universities of Excellence) in Germany. Critics of such a project say that this will merely create dependence of such Universities and their teachers on the Industry which will be funding their research projects and educational matters.

The recent discussion about the possible misconduct of Dr. Chester Douglass in the matter of fluoride´s contribution to osteosarcoma in young boys might add oil to the fire of the critics of our “Elite University” Projects in the planning phase. So I think it would be a rather good idea to explain somewhat detailed to the public, how Harvard came to its decision in the matter of the Douglass case.

I believe this matter merits further review from the President’s office, and a fuller and more open public accounting to remove any taint of a Harvard “whitewash.” Ultimately, people around the world look to you, President Bok, to uphold the University’s motto: “Veritas” (truth).

Sincerely,

Peter Meiers

Saarbruecken

Germany

——————————————————————–

Dear President Bok,

A graduate of both the Sligo Institute of Technology and the National  University of Ireland, Maynooth, I’m writing from Ireland to express  my strong support for the ‘Burgstahler letter’ below.

Due to it’s inadequate response to the charges brought by the  Environmental Work Group concerning Prof. Douglass’s treatment of Dr.  Bassin’s thesis linking fluoridation to osteosarcoma, I feel Harvard  stands to lose credibility in more than just the United States.

In our small country we are renowned for our ability to talk and  spread news.  In fact, some consider it a hobby while still others  consider it to be their life’s vocation.  Consequently, in recent  years, all institutions have suffered fast-growing public distrust as  stories quickly spread of some protecting their own at the expense of  founding principles and/or less prestigious members.  People  associated with such institutions are no longer as socially lauded as  they used be.

Being a welcoming and affable lot, always eager to have visitors  relax with us, it could be quite a challenge to explain away the  awkward silence that might fall on a group after a visiting Harvard  graduate proudly mentions their Alma Mater.

Still, we’d probably manage to console both ourselves and any  crestfallen Harvard garduate with another well-established pasttime -  drink!

Hoping Harvard can do better justice to itself and the “VERITAS” it  proclaims.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Callagy,

Rosses Point,
Co. Sligo,

Ireland.

————————————————————————

Dear President Bok

As a medical sciences graduate of the University of Melbourne, Australia, I can assure you that the report of Harvard’s apparent “whitewashing” of the charges against Prof Chester Douglass’ “cover-up” and misrepresentation of graduate student Elise Bassin’s thesis on fluoridation and cancer, is resounding around world academic circles.

I am appalled that action has not been taken against him and his apparently highly unprofessional behaviour. I am appalled that the Harvard committee did not even deign to give reasons for condoning his behaviour.

  

A highly competent and diligent graduate student does not undertake PhD level research work with the expectation that he/she will be blocked, denied and misrepresented by the very supervisor supposed to be supporting and assisting them.

  

Have you investigated thoroughly whether:

(1) Douglass has elsewhere publicly supported or endorsed adding fluoride to drinking water, and therefore was likely pre-judging and acting in a biased manner against the scientific findings of his student Bassin

(2) Douglass’ links with Colgate company would mean, as a corporate culture expectation, that he must oppose any findings of problems with fluoride as a chemical of “unquestioned” safety and effectiveness for dental health uses

(3) Why, in the same edition of Cancer Causes and Control as Bassin’s report of her work, Douglass chose to publish a piece  that talks down the validity of Bassin’s work and predicts that further work will find her discoveries to be wrong ?

Sincerely

David McRae

Health Promotion Officer,

Geelong, Australia

————————————————————————-

Dear President Bok,

My name is Gilles Parent,N.D., coauthor with Dr Pierre-Jean Morin, Ph.D. in Experimental Medicine and M. John Remington Graham, B.A., LL.B. of “Fluoridation : Autopsy of a Scientific Error” that will be published soon, the French version have already been published in November, 2005.   The legal and moral aspects of the debate of fluoridation have been covered in two chapters.  We are looking into whether or not we will address in this version Professor Chester Douglass and Mrs Elise Bassin’s thesis affair as the question of cancer is also an important part of the book.  I would have liked more light and transparency in the Harvard investigation report.

Because I am concerned about this, even though I am not a Harvard graduate, I support the letter below…

Yours truly,

Gilles Parent, N.D.

Montreal, Quebec,

Canada

————————————————————-

Dear President Bok,

You hold a responsible position in a famous university. It ill becomes you to whitewash the Douglass affair. Please come to your senses and remember the university motto does not allow you to manufacture the truth.

I am not a Harvard graduate but agree with every word below…

Bill Wilson

North Shore City,

New Zealand.

—————————————————–

Dear President Bok,

My name is Mark Atkin, BSc, LLB(Hons) Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, Barrister and Solicitor (non-practicing).  I am not a Harvard graduate but I am very concerned about this issue.

I write to express my disgust at the way this enquiry has been handled. Having specialised in public and administrative law, I am fully aware, as I would expect you to be, of the need for transparency, procedural propriety and natural justice (due process as you call it) in such matters. Harvard’s handling of this matter is starkly lacking in all three. I fully endorse the statements in the letter below, sent to you by Dr. Albert Burgstahler and other Harvard graduates.

Forty years ago my father studied at Harvard business school. As a young boy that was some source of pride to me. Harvard’s whitewashing of this appalling cover-up now leaves me with no respect at all for a university whose actions are so diametrically opposed to its motto “veritas”.

I urge you to put this matter to right before it permanently destroys the reputation of a once honoured US institution of learning.

Mark Atkins

Wellington

New Zealand

——————————————————

Dear President Bok

We, Douglas & Christine Sandra Banks of Greymouth, New Zealand, while not Harvard graduates or from America, have become very concerned about the issue of truth, scientific integrity and how these are upheld (or degraded) by Harvard and how the world has and will continue to view Harvard itself. We fully endorse the letter sent to you below by Dr. Albert Burgstahler and other Harvard graduates.

Douglas & Christine Sandra Banks

Greymouth

South Island

New Zealand

——————————————————-

Dear President Bok,

I am very concerned by the charge that a Harvard Professor, Chester Douglass, misrepresented important research findings from his federally-funded study on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma.

As detailed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Professor Douglass portrayed the research of his PhD student (Elise Bassin) as supporting his conclusion that there is no association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma (a rare, but often fatal, bone cancer). Douglass made this statement to a panel of the National Research Council (NRC) investigating the safety of fluoride in drinking water. As has now been discovered, however, the student’s work which Douglass cited, sharply contradicted his claim.

While I was disturbed to read the well-documented ethics charge against Douglass, I was even more disturbed to read Harvard’s very brief, and completely inadequate, response on August 15, 2006.

This statement - coming 13 months after the ethics complaint was filed - provides no explanation at all to justify the University’s position that Douglass did not “intentionally” misrepresent the research. Nor does it explain why the investigators failed to make contact with EWG and seek direct testimony on the matter.

In my view, neither Douglass’s behavior nor the University’s response, lives up to your ancient motto “veritas.”

I therefore ask you President Bok to use your office to provide a convincing explanation for the investigator’s decision. Failing that, I respectfully suggest that you set up a follow-up inquiry involving a panel drawn from those who are not employed by Harvard and who hold no allegiance to the water fluoridation program. These investigators would review the panels’ findings and seek a response from EWG, then report back to you.

Until such actions are taken, the public’s confidence in Harvard’s allegiance to the highest standards of academic integrity could be irreparably damaged.

Sincerely

Mr. Jong-Chul Kim

Seoul,

South Korea

jckim@greenreview.co.kr