Bulletin #697
October 29, 2006
Dear All,
It has now been over two months since Harvard exonerated Professor Douglass of “intentionally” concealing his PhD student’s findings on a relationship between exposure to fluoride and an increase in bone cancer in young boys. It has also been over two weeks since EWG wrote to President Bok (see their letter at http://www.FluorideAction.net) pointing out that the Harvard “investigating” committee failed to follow federal rules on this matter.
This time, Harvard cannot use the claim of “confidentiality” to stonewall a response to EWG’s evidence that Harvard failed to follow Federal rules.
I suspect that Harvard believes that if they drag this out long enough those who are concerned about this matter will simply give up. We must not let that happen. The very least scientists and citizens, and particularly the taxpayers who paid for Douglass’ study, are owed, is either confirmation or rejection that Harvard followed federal rules on this matter.
If you agree, please copy and paste the letter below (or you own modified version) and send to President Bok at , and copy your US Senator, the Harvard Crimson , and your local newspaper. Please also bcc me at
.
.
Thank you all - yet again - for everything you continue to do to right this and many other wrongs in the continued US promotion of water fluoridation despite the clear evidence that it is unethical, unsafe, unnecessary and ineffective.
Paul Connett
————————————————————
Dear President Bok,
It has now been over two months since Harvard announced on August 15, that it had exonerated Professor Douglass of “intentionally” concealing from his peers, the National Research Council and and his federal funders, his PhD student’s findings on a relationship between exposure to fluoride and an increase in bone cancer in young boys.
Harvard officials, including yourself, have continued to use the cloak of “confidentiality” of the investigation process, to stonewall requests on a simple explanation of how such an exoneration could have been derived despite the concrete evidence against Douglass.
Now, however, the Environmental Working Group (letter dated October 11) has written to you charging that the Harvard committee failed to follow federal rules in the way they investigated this matter.
Clearly, the cloak of “confidentiality” cannot be used to stonewall this disturbing finding, and we call upon you to respond to EWG’s charge with the minimum of further delay. Simply put: did the Harvard investigation team fail to follow Federal rules on this matter, or did it not? Please explain.
Sincerely,
Posted by Anita
in FAN
0 comments
