Dear All,

In addition to a short piece in today’s Integrity in Science Watch (printed below) on the EWG’s dramatic news that Harvard broke federal rules in the manner it investigated Professor Douglass (see FAN bulletin #684) I have links to three articles to share with you.

1) An article by Elizabeth McDonagh in the British magazine Namaste. She reports on the poisoning of horses by fluoridated water in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. It can be obtained as PDF file (replete with many colored photos) by emailing Cathy and Wayne Justice at  .

2) An article by Robert Pocock of the Group VOICE for the Irish Environment, entitled: “Fluoridation of UK Water Unpopular, Unscientific and Unnecessary.” This article appeared in the journal of the Dr. Rath Foundation, Rath International Worldwide edition 2, 2006, and can be accessed at  http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/uk/index.html

3) An article on fluoridation’s dangers which appeared in the Sept 2006 issue of Kevin Trudeau’s  Natural Cures newsletter, can be accessed at http://www.naturalcures.com/NC/newsletters/September_final.pdf

Paul Connett

PS If these links are not “live” please copy and paste them into your search window.

———————————————————————–

October 16, 2006

Anti-Fluoride Activists Charge Harvard with Breaking Fed Ethics Rules

An environmental advocacy group has launched another round of criticism at Harvard University’s investigation of a professor’s alleged misrepresentation of bone cancer research. In a letter to Harvard University interim president Derek Bok, the Environmental Working Group accused the panel charged with investigating Chester Douglass, who heads Harvard’s Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, with breaking federal rules. The internal panel released a statement in August saying that Douglass did not “intentionally” misrepresent or suppress research findings on fluoride intake and bone cancer from one of his students. EWG said that the panel’s conclusion did not follow Department of Health and Human Services misconduct rules, which state that any inquiry into an ethics breach cannot pass judgment on whether the breach was intentional. Judgment may only be passed when the panel conducts a full investigation, which requires contacting and interviewing the complainant, which EWG said never occurred.

————————————————————————————————————