|
Feb/Mar 2001: Chris
Holdcroft
Holdcroft 2001
Letters
From: "Chris" <anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <tas5@york.ac.uk>
Subject: Fluoridation
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 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
http://www.fluoride.org.uk
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:17:18 GMT
From: TA Sheldon <tas5@york.ac.uk>
To: anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk
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
mp33@york.ac.uk
From: "Chris" <anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "Trevor Sheldon" <tas5@york.ac.uk>
Subject: REMINDER: Fluoridation
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:21:14
REMINDER
[* Original Message of 12th Feb. enclosed]
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:57:05 +0000
From: Trevor Sheldon <tas5@york.ac.uk>
To: Chris <anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk>
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.
Trevor
From: "Chris" <anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "Jos Kleijnen" <jk13@york.ac.uk>
Cc: "Kate Misso" <kvm1@york.ac.uk>,
"Penny Whiting" <pfw2@york.ac.uk>,
"Paul Wilson" <pmw7@york.ac.uk>
Subject: Unanswered questions
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:06:34
05-03-2001
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
12-2-2001
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
appear's 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 very well for the NHS/CRD to claim misrepresentation by the pro-fluoride
lobby on a raft of issues. But when the same organisation 'maniputlates' data to
suit a particular perspective, you can hardly complain, can you.
Regards
Chris Holdcroft
http://www.fluoride.org.uk
From: "Chris" <anti-fluoride@fieryhorse.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "Jos Kleijnen" <jk13@york.ac.uk>
Bcc: "Trevor Sheldon" <tas5@york.ac.uk>,
"Penny Whiting" <pfw2@york.ac.uk>,
"Paul Wilson" <pmw7@york.ac.uk>,
"Kate Misso" <kvm1@york.ac.uk>
Subject: Fw: Unanswered questions
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:27:07
REMINDER
IN ADDITION TO THIS REMINDER, ALSO VISIT: http://www.fluoride.org.uk/
Click on 'Infodocs' ( bottom left-hand corner of the screen ) and then click
on Infodoc 7 for my full criticism.
If there is NO reply to this reminder, I shall take the matter further.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris To: Jos Kleijnen
Cc: Kate Misso ; Penny Whiting ; Paul Wilson Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001
8:06 PM Subject: Unanswered questions
05-03-2001
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
|
