The F Crime: Limb amputations and Chester W. Douglass, DMD, MPH,PhD

THE F CRIME: LIMB AMPUTATIONS AND CHESTER W. DOUGLASS, DMD, MPH, PhD

Attention Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers ):

Most ³fluoridation² (the F crime) involves the injection of known poisons
(FSA, lead and arsenic) into public drinking water.

The mass water poisoning promoted by Dr. Chester Douglass may be causing
LIMB AMPUTATIONS in children. PLEASE END IT IMMEDIATELY IN OREGON.

IT'S OBVIOUS MASS CHILD ABUSE: Mass water poisoning/forced medication
(euphemistically known as "fluoridation") is mass battery; and mass battery
against children is mass child abuse.

For relevant case law (albeit from other states)...

See The F Crime: Has Chris Gupta (of Friends of Freedom) reported it?
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/0f5eb2d170f04051

PREGNANT WOMEN: If you can¹t breastfeed, please don¹t reconstitute your
baby¹s formula with poisoned (³fluoridated²) water. Babies who drink
formula reconstituted with poisoned (³fluoridated²) water reportedly can get
up to 100X more of the poison fluoride than breastfed babies receive * and
recent Harvard research indicates that the poison fluoride can increase the
risk of limb amputations in boys by 700%... See www.fluoridealert.org.

LADIES: See below for an easy way to help avoid episiotomies and
c-sections...


CHESTER W. DOUGLASS, DMD, MPH, PhD

Hopefully, Chester W. Douglass, DMD, MPH, PhD will reverse course and join
me in calling upon Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers to immediately end the mass
water poisoning in Oregon.

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)

Chester W. Douglass, DMD, MPH, PhD
Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
188 Longwood Ave
Boston MA 02115
Phone: (617) 432-1455
Via

Chester,

Will you reverse course and join me in calling upon Oregon Attorney General
Hardy Myers to immediately end the mass water poisoning in Oregon?

Paul Connett, PhD quotes the "preliminary thoughts" of researcher Chris
Neurath on your recent letter to Cancer Causes and Control. (Your letter
was also quoted by Connett. See below.)

Neurath's "preliminary thoughts" call attention to evidence that the mass
water poisoning ("fluoridation") causes osteosarcoma, as in,

"Osteosarcoma strikes several hundred teenage boys a year, and if Bassin's
findings are borne out, a large portion of those may have been the result of
fluoride exposure through fluoridated water..."

Osteosarcoma often results in limb amputation - sometimes death.

Connett and Neurath failed to mention that common law indicates that the
mass water poisoning/forced medication is a crime and would still be crime
even if Bassin had found that the mass water poisoning/forced medication
PREVENTS limb amputations.

I mention this latter point because you concluded your letter to Cancer
Cause and Control by cautioning readers "to await the publications from the
full study...before influencing any related policy decisions."

Please immediately write to Cancer Cause and Control and advise that the
"policy decision" to force medicate (commit battery against) Americans
should be immediately reversed everywhere - even if the poison fluoride is
ultimately found to have prevented limb amputations.

Please immediately email Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers and join me in calling
upon Hardy to end the mass water poisoning in Oregon.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


PS1 Chester, it appears that you forgot to note in your most recent
scientific interpretation of the Bassin (your letter to Cancer Causes and
Control) that you are being investigated by Harvard for scientific fraud in
regard to your previous interpretation of the Bassin study. Shouldn't you
mention this possible source of bias whenever you publicly interpret the
Bassin study? (I am assuming researcher Chris Neurath is correct regarding
Harvard investigating you for "scientific fraud" as he is quoted by Paul
Connett below.)

PS2 Paul Connett, PhD mysteriously refuses to call attention to the criminal
aspect of the mass water poisoning; indeed, Paul has asked me not to keep
reminding him/emailing him about this important fact.

KEY POINT: Paul, who identifies fluoride as a "cumulative poison," obviously
suspects the mass water poisoning is causing limb amputations.

I'd say most reasonable persons would agree that Paul suspects child abuse
but is bizarrely failing to identify it as such - not to mention failing to
report it and failing to urge others to report it. (One of Paul's favorite
facts about the mass water poisoning is that babies fed infant formula
reconstituted with poisoned/"fluoridated" water may get 100 times the amount
of poison that breastfed babies get.)

Readers who wish to encourage Paul to begin calling attention to the
criminal aspect of the mass water poisoning and the fact that mandated
reporters MUST report if they so much as suspect child abuse - and the fact
that (in Oregon at least) EVERYONE is encouraged to report suspected child
abuse - should contact Paul via:

Dr. Paul Connett
Professor of Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY 13617.
315-229-5853


It is conceivable that Paul Connett, PhD could end the mass water poisoning
in Oregon (where EVERYONE is encouraged to report suspected child abuse)
just by urging everyone who receives his FAN Bulletin globally to report to
Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers via .

Here, now, is Paul's latest FAN Bulletin failing to call attention to the
criminal aspect of the mass water poisoning...as he criticizes Chester
Douglass for failing to call attention to Bassin's finding...

------ Forwarded Message
From: Paul Connett
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:03:02 -0400
To:
Subject: [FAN Bulletins] #552: Douglass attempts to downplay Bassin.

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

FAN Bulletin #552: Douglass attempts to downplay Bassin.

April 5, 2006

Dear All,

After I circulated the last bulletin and after FAN had circulated our press
release on the Bassin article, we discovered that in the same issue of the
journal Cancer Causes and Control, Chester Douglass had submitted a 2-page
letter to the Editor attempting to downplay Bassin's findings. We have
printed this in full below.

However, Douglass seems to be digging himself a deeper and deeper hole on
this. He says that:

"We are also finding some positive associations between fluoride and
osteosarcoma in the overall (not age specific) analysis of the first set of
cases."

Why has he never mentioned this before? Why didn't he mention this in his
1995 abstract - the only thing he has published himself on this
multi-million dollar project? Why didn't he mention this in his presention
to the British Fluoridation Society in 2002? Why didn't he mention this in
his report to his funders at NIEHS in 2003? Why didn't he mention this in
his report to the NRC panel in 2004? In all these he said that he had found
NO asscoiation between fluoridation and osteosarcoma?

And of course, he is yet to explain why he did not mention Bassin's thesis
to the British Fluoridation Society, to the NIEHS and to the NRC. Was this
because he thought her work was not up to par? No. In the Boston Fox TV
interview, as EWG has pointed out:

"Douglass had nothing but praise for the work. 'She did a good job. She had a
good group of people advising her. And it's a nice - it's a nice analysis.
There's nothing wrong with that analysis,' he said."

As far as the rest of the arguments he presents in his letter, we asked
Chris Neurath to do a quick review. Here are his preliminary thoughts:

The study or studies which Douglass discusses were originally planned to last
for 4 years beginning in 1992. They were in direct response to the NTP rat
studies, the Hoover 1991 and Cohn 1992 studies, all of which found an
association between fluoride for males, especially young male humans. The
funding grants have been extended and renewed until the present date, a length
of 15 years, or 10 years beyond the initial planned conclusion date. Douglass
has been Principle Investigator for most of that time. To date, he has only
published the short 1995 abstract
http://www.fluoridealert.org/images/douglass-1995.gif with it's flawed
analysis methods (an analysis which focused only on the average F level of all
cases versus controls negates the entire point of conducting a case-control
study).

No one else associated with this 15 year project has ever published anything
until today with Bassin in this issue of Cancer Causes and Control.

FAN had to resort to a Freedom of Information Request to try to obtain any
interim reports of other progress updates for this 15 year project. Even
after almost a year, no reports from this project have been forthcoming under
our FOIA request. In fact, FAN would not have known of the existence of
Bassin's work except that Douglass submitted a "Final Report" to the NRC
committee reviewing the toxicology of fluoride in late 2004. In that report,
Douglass listed Bassin's thesis as a reference, but in the text of the report
claimed that the study had found no evidence of an association between
fluoride and osteosarcoma.

This misleading information about his government funded study was the basis
for a charge of scientific fraud by EWG which is still being investigated by
Harvard University. The investigation has gone on for almost 9 months and EWG
has not once been contacted by Harvard either to provide any evidence or to
update them on the progress of the investigation. Over a month ago a local
investigative journalist in Boston interviewed Dr. Douglass and Douglass said
he had just come from a meeting with Harvard lawyers where it had been decided
to "give them all the reports from the FOIA request". As FAN was the first
party to even learn of the existence of Bassin's thesis and discover
Douglass's misleading "Final Report" and we submitted our FOIA request soon
after that, we must assume he was referring to our FOIA request. His
interview was conducted more than a month ago and we have yet to see a single
document from Douglass or from his 15 year study, other than a few we received
from the very early years.

Douglass selectively cites Bassin's present paper to give the misleading
impression that Bassin herself concurs that his second set of data suggest no
association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. In fact, Bassin specifically
warns that reliance on either bone fluoride or lifetime cumulative exposures
is likely to miss finding a risk that exists only in a limited time span. Bone
fluoride reflects total lifetime accumulation of fluoride and can not be used
to determine exposure rates for specific periods of life such as ages 6-8.
The same goes without saying for lifetime cumulative exposure. Douglass says
both of these approaches seem to be showing no effect in his 2nd set of data.
Bassin warns that this is likely. For Douglass to imply Bassin's endorsement
of his methods distorts her paper.

Douglass claims he will also analyze the second set of data using an
age-specific analyses, just as Bassin recommends. As almost an afterthought in
the final paragraph he says:

"A parallel analysis of age-specific exposure to fluoride, especially during
growth periods, is also being pursued by our study team in the second set of
cases of our study."

This analysis is not dependent on the bone fluoride levels. Douglass states
that the second set of data was complete in 2003. It is now 3 years since he
had the data that could have been analyzed with an age-specific exposure
method, as Bassin recommended in 2001. Douglass has no explanations for this
delay in what must be considered a study of serious public health consequence.

Osteosarcoma strikes several hundred teenage boys a year, and if Bassin's
findings are borne out, a large portion of those may have been the result of
fluoride exposure through fluoridated water. Over 60% of Americans drink
water to which fluoride has been added so that it exceeds the level at which
Bassin found this strong effect.

As far as the claim by Douglass that an unpublished NIEHS report negates the
findings in the NTP rat study from 1990, this is a distortion of what the
researchers set out to study and what they found. FAN had earlier
investigated this study and spoke with the Principal Investigator. We will
cover this in more detail in another bulletin.

Despite all these weaknesses, we can rest assurred that the ADA will spin
this Douglass "rebuttal" into a huge cloak of distraction.

Paul Connett
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study
Chester W. Douglass & Kaumudi Joshipura
Received: 3 January 2006 / Accepted: 12 January 2006

Springer 2006
This issue of Cancer Causes and Controls includes a paper
with results from an analysis of a subset of participants in
our ongoing study of fluoride and osteosarcoma. The paper,
''Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and
osteosarcoma'', presents a partial view of this ongoing
study. We would like to advise the readers to be especially
cautious when interpreting the findings of this paper for
several reasons. The authors themselves have already
raised a flag of caution in their final paragraph with the note
that they are aware of additional findings from other incident
cases that appear not to replicate the findings from the
cases presented in their paper.
The Harvard School of Dental Medicine study of fluoride
and osteosarcoma has been a 15-year collaboration
among NIEHS, NCI, NIDCR, and Harvard. Two sets of
cases have been collected each with their own control
groups. The study started in 1992. The first set of cases was
recruited from existing cases between 1989 and 1992, and
the second set of cases was recruited from new incident
cases between 1993 and 2000. The Bassin et al paper
reports age-specific results among only the cases from 1989
to 1992. We are also finding some positive associations
between fluoride and osteosarcoma in the overall (not age specific)
analysis of the first set of cases. However, our
preliminary findings from the overall analysis of the second
set of cases (1993-2000) do not appear to replicate the
overall findings from the first part of the study. Our findings
currently being prepared for publication, do not suggest
an overall association between fluoride and
osteosarcoma. This seems particularly important since the
cases had been accrued essentially from the same hospitals
within the same orthopedic departments with the same
providers, and the same pathology departments making the
diagnosis of the osteosarcoma and also using similar
methods of fluoride exposure.
In addition to fluoride intake history, many of the cases
and controls that were accrued in the 1993-2000 time
period agreed to provide bone specimens. The cases provided
bone that was obtained proximal to the osteosarcoma
lesion as well as from their contra lateral hip. The control
group of non-osteosarcoma cancer patients provided bone
specimens. Our preliminary analysis of the fluoride content
of the bone specimens suggests that the fluoride level
within the bone is not associated with excess risk of osteosarcoma.
We are grateful to Dr. Bassin and her coauthors
for mentioning at the end of their paper that we are not
finding a positive association from the bone specimens in
the second set of cases.
Obtaining and analyzing sufficient numbers of bone
specimens has been a laborious and a time consuming
effort by many people throughout the hospitals and
research teams. The analysis of these specimens has
included quality control procedures on laboratory techniques,
pilot studies to test reliability, many runs of small
batches of specimens, the double checking of specimen
transport procedures, and the preparation of data sets for
analysis.
We are now in the possession of the complete analytic
data sets and are pursuing previously planned analysis and
comparisons with the earlier set of collected cases. We
have delayed publication of all the major findings until we
found replication or lack of replication of the earlier positive
findings. Our role model in this process has been Sir
Richard Doll, whose first publication associating smoking
with illness was rejected for publication until it could be
replicated (New York Times, July 26, 2005). It was too
important and too unexpected to be published on its own.
Professor Doll did replicate his initial findings; we apparently
have not and the bone specimens seem to corroborate
the lack of an association between the fluoride content in
drinking water and osteosarcoma in the new cases. Interestingly,
the NIEHS replication of their own earlier study
that found excess osteosarcoma in male rats was recently
presented on the NIEHS web site [1]. The findings of their
second study do not replicate their original widely quoted
National Toxicology Program study [2]. Drinking water
with very high fluoride content was not found to be associated
with osteosarcoma in either male or female rats.
A parallel analysis of age-specific exposure to fluoride,
especially during growth periods, is also being pursued by
our study team in the second set of cases of our study.
Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to generalize and
over-interpret the results of the Bassin et al. paper and to
await the publications from the full study, before making
conclusions, and especially before influencing any related
policy decisions.
References
1. The National Toxicology Program (NTP). Supplemental 2-year
study of sodium fluoride in male F344 rats (CAS No. 7681-49-4)
2. National Toxicology Program (1990) Toxicology and carcinogenesis
of sodium fluoride in F344 TN rats and B 6C3FL mice.
Technical Report Services 393, NIH Publication No. 90-2848
482 Cancer Causes Control (2006) 17:481-482


C. W. Douglass (&) Æ K. Joshipura
Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA;
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
e-mail:
Tel.: +1-617-432-1456
Fax: +1-617-432-0047
K. Joshipura
University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan,
Puerto Rico
Cancer Causes Control (2006) 17:481-482
DOI 10.1007/s10552-006-0008-8


_______________________________________________
Fan_bulletins mailing list

http://lists.fluoridealert.org/listinfo/fan_bulletins

------ End of Forwarded Message

MY PRIORITY...

While I am very interested in stopping the mass water poisoning - my
priority is stopping obstetricians from engaging in two bizarre behaviors:
closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their
blood volume.

Obstetric experts are LYING as they recommend KEEPING birth canals closed
the ³extra² up to 30% when babies get stuck!

For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...

See Dents in babies' skulls"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/08abfc7ff242150e

Alternate URL: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3897

MY POINT: Obviously, the mass water poisoning is not the only mass child
abuse crime being committed * and the crimes can easily be stopped * or
rather * law enforcement can be called upon...

UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES: Obstetricians slice vaginas
and abdomens en masse - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are
doing/have done everything possible to open birth canals - even as they
close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.

SPINAL MANIPULATION CRIME: With birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
obstetricians pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so
hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.

Some babies die - some babies get paralyzed - most "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched. (ALL spinal manipulation with the birth canal closed
the "extra" up to 30% is gruesome.)

NOTE: I am not saying that compelling obstetricians to allow birth canals
to open maximally will prevent all c-sections, episiotomies and forceps use.

It's just that obstetricians should not be closing birth canals...

MDs DEPEND ON LAW ENFORCEMENT LOOKING THE OTHER WAY...

When I identified another massive MD crime, Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly
boasted:

"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9

As I've noted so many times for Oregon's second highest ranking law
enforcement officer (Hardy Myers)...


Dr. Harris's arrogant boast came in reply to my having pointed
out another
massive MD crime...

See TIME magazine on chiropractors vs. vaccination
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/5d9a066386e4ef2f

BTW, I am in favor of vaccination - I am just not in favor of MDs
fraudulently promoting vaccination as they fail to promote
breastfeeding as
free daily immunizations that reportedly make MD-needle-
vaccinations work
better - but that is another story.


Speaking of that other story...

We could all help feed babies the BEST baby food - by urging that
MDs and
health agencies start informing pregnant women that they scan for
pathogens
and manufacture IMMUNIZATIONS which they inject with their
breasts - daily.

CDC's vaunted National Immunization [sic] Program doesn't even call
breastfeedings immunizations or mention that breastfeeding women
immunize
far more babies than MDs and reportedly make MD-needle-
vaccinations work
better.

What woman informed of these simple facts is going to fail to at
least
attempt to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily?

MDs are mysteriously ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding
(immunization) and vaccination rates skyrocket...

Just like MDs are mysteriously ignoring a simple way to allow
birth canals
to open an "extra" up to 30%...


Much of medical "science" is obvious criminal activity.

Again, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.

As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.



I wish to expose this law enforcement silence whereby "the People" let the
tiniest people be harmed by MDs and dentists.

I want everyone who suspects child abuse to join me in reporting to Oregon
Atty Genl Hardy Myers.

I SAY AGAIN TO CHESTER THE DENTIST:

Will you reverse course and join me in calling upon Oregon Attorney General
Hardy Myers ) to immediately end the mass water
poisoning in Oregon?

Please copy me when you do.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "The F Crime: Limb amputations and
Chester W. Douglass, DMD, MPH, PhD"