A collection of Critiques of the York Review
The Holdcroft 2001 Emails!
There are two famous expressions. The first refers to 'reading between the lines'. The second is that 'silence is golden'.
For the latter, this can mean something more than is usually interpreted. But silence is sometimes worth a lot more than a few words. It can demonstrate that there is something to hide. It is, in effect, when you ask a question, and you are ingored. It's a bit like the move just before checkmate in the game of chess. Both have their value.
Now for the exchange of emails ...
From: (email address now obsolete)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:44:19
Dear Prof. Sheldon
With regards to the claim by the 'NHS/CRD Review' claim that fluoridation reduces dmft by 2.25 teeth.
I have today spoken to Penny Whiting concerning this issue. I am alarmed by the fact that the evidence used to derive this figure were generally of poor quality. In one instance, Brown (1965) clearly indicated that the Brantford study was not reliable.
Beals's (1981) study is worthless and Guo's (1984) is questionable. Kunzel's (1997) is none to impressive either.
These are the only four studies used to reach the figure of 2.25 dmft and I would like some feedback from your office as to why the pro-fluoride lobby, including Government Ministers, are triumphantly boasting that this is evidence that fluoridation is effective. Do you endorse these claims or not? If not, what do you intend to do to rectify this situation.
With reference to Hardwick's (1982) study, the figures presented show that dmft ( and dmfs ) went up after fluoridation in the fluoridated district and came down in the control district. The Review also states that Hardwick looked at the same group of children before and after the beginning of his study. So why are the sample sizes of different proportions? If this is not bad enough, it appears that your department has 'tweaked' the results to show a positive association with fluoridation when it should have been negative (based on the published figures).
It's (all) very well for the NHS/CRD to claim misrepresentation by the pro-fluoride lobby on a raft of issues. But when the same organisation 'manipulates' data to suit a particular perspective, you can hardly complain, can you(?)
Regards, Chris Holdcroft, (obsolete website address).
NB. 'Reminder' sent to the same email address. No date is available
EMAIL 'REMINDER' RESPONSE
To: (email address now obsolete)
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Fluoridation
I am away until Wednesday 21st Feb. If you have an urgent message please contact Marie Platts on 01904 435133 or firstname.lastname@example.org
EMAIL '2ND REMINDER'
From: Chris (email address now obsolete)
To: Trevor Sheldon email@example.com
Subject: REMINDER: Fluoridation
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:21:14
REMINDER*Original Message of 12th Feb. enclosed
From: Trevor Sheldon firstname.lastname@example.org
To: Chris (email address now obsolete)
Subject: Re: 2nd REMINDER: Fluoridation
I am not going to get into a conversation with someone who accuses the University of York of "manipulating data". I suggest you discuss this with those who carried out the review.
From: Chris (email address now obsolete)
To: Jos Kleijnen email@example.com
Cc: Kate Misso firstname.lastname@example.org, Penny Whiting email@example.com, Paul Wilson firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Unanswered questions
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:06:3405-03-2001
To: Prof. Jos Kleijnen.
cc. Paul Wilson, Penny Whiting, Kate Misso.
The following letter was sent to Prof. Sheldon who has stated that he is unwilling to answer the questions contained therein.
Prof. Sheldon has also asked that I pass on my concerns to those who conducted the research in the effects of water fluoridation( Fluoridation of drinking water: a systematic review of it's safety and efficacy ).
Considering the delays already experienced, I expect some prompt answers.
Yours sincerely, Chris Holdcroft.
NB. Enclosed with this email was a copy of my first email to Prof. Sheldon.
NB. This email was sent again one week later with the additional text: "IN ADDITION TO THIS REMINDER, ALSO VISIT: (obsolete website) Click on 'Infodocs' and then click on *Infodoc 7 (*active on this new website) for my full criticism. If there is NO reply to this reminder, I shall take the matter further."
EARLY (TECHNICAL?) KNOCK-OUT!
Nothing was ever received back in writing. Any conversations were exhausted. Would have liked a few more 'rounds', but when the other fighter leaves the ring, then it's all over. Ding, ding!
Contact was madew with Paul Wilson later in the year. This is what was written:
'Scientific' Review of Water Fluoridation: Opinion of moderate to severe fluorosis based upon observations of 14-year-old schoolchildren!
Headline: Dental fluorosis is a permanent condition which afflicts 48% of an exposed population with 12.5% badly affected (Review findings)
The 12.5% of the population that would normally be classified as suffering from moderate to severe fluorosis have been 'politically' reclassified as having fluorosis of "aesthetic concern".
The recent Department of Health / NHS executive sponsored Review of Water Fluoridation admitted that 48% of the population would suffer from fluorosis with 12.5% having fluorosis of "aesthetic concern".
It would appear that the term 'moderate' or 'severe fluorosis' is not politically acceptable as it would raise serious questions about the sanity of a Government who appear determined to permanently disfigure half the population in an attempt to help certain industries dispose of their toxic waste via UK water supplies.
Desperate to play down this potential tragedy, and in a disgraceful display of spin-doctoring, the parties involved in the recently completed review have apparently decided to reclassify the severity of a condition normally measured by one of several recognised indices.
Out goes the terms 'moderate' or 'severe' and in comes the 14-year-old children of Manchester!
In a 1996 study used to reclassify fluorosis, children from Manchester aged 14 were shown pictures of fluorosis classified using the 'T & F index' and asked to rate the appearance of each as either very poor, poor, acceptable, good or very good.
This admission has come from the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at York University. It was the CRD conducted the Review into water fluoridation. An employee of the CRD replied to the following letter:
E-Mail from Chris Holdcroft (obsolete website)
11th October 2000
Dear Paul Wilson
*Extract: "... Secondly, the term "of aesthetic concern" appears to have been used in place of the wording "moderate to severe fluorosis". Can you confirm that this interpretation is correct. ..."
11th October 2000
As to an explanation for the use of the term "of aesthetic concern", may I refer you to chapter 7 of the full report - which states:
"As there may be some debate about the significance of a fluorosis score at the lowest level of each index being used to define a person as 'fluorosed', a second method of determining the percent 'fluorosed' was selected. This method describes the number of children having dental fluorosis that may cause 'aesthetic concern'. The level at which fluorosis was judged to cause aesthetic concern was taken from a study by Hawley (1996). Children from Manchester aged 14 were shown pictures of fluorosis classified using the T & F index and asked to rate the appearance of each as either very poor, poor, acceptable, good or very good. The cut-off point for this analysis was taken as the level of fluorosis above which the children classified the photographs as "very poor" or "poor". This corresponded to a T & F score of three or more (Hawley, 1996). This was translated as being equivalent to Dean's score of "mild" or worse and a TSIF score of two or more. This additional analysis was restricted to these three indices, as the definition was not transferable to the other fluorosis indices."
with best wishes, paul
The reclassification of fluorosis has one again exposed the 'creative' language used by the fluoride lobby to deceive the public. The Government MUST accept that to introduce fluoridation on the basis of the flawed, flimsy evidence which underpins it's safety and efficacy, is not acceptable to the 48% of the population who will be inflicted with fluorosis. Even the 12.5% (of children) who will suffer the worst symptoms will be liable to suffer psychological trauma when their permanent teeth begin to appear.
The world we live in today presents many pitfalls for vulnerable children. They are exposed to different types of abuse, whether it be mental or physical, and corrupt influences. Parents have to be vigilant.
Now the Blair-led Government is forcing upon children another form of abuse - compulsory medication via water fluoridation.