Re: Thanks [For response on Johns Hopkins Thesis Availability Thread"

[RADPROJECT@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/3/99 2:15:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gerald_falo_at_chppm7__apgea@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil writes:

<<  Mr. Farber:
      
      I see where I missed the orginal postings and discussions about this 
      discussion.  I suspect that the thread started as part of the the 
      Nasal Irradiation thread.  I probably skipped over your original post 
      and came in on the "Johns Hopkins Coverup" thread.  Based on what you 
      have said, I too would share your concerns about the ethics of 
      withholding information.
      
      I apologize for coming late into the *fray* and for any 
      misundrstanding that I caused. >>

I responded earlier today to Gerald Falo regarding the misunderstandings by he
and now many other members of RADSAFE, based on their not reading earlier
posts about the Nasal Radium Irradiation issue as follows:

<<Gerald:
No problem. Thanks for the note.

I was beginning to feel like I was in the middle of a "Who's on first"
routine, however. One of the more common "threads" on RADSAFE is how the HP
community is unable to communicate with the public. At times, it seems that we
can't even communicate that well even with ourselves, even when we're posting
comments in writing via e-mail.

Hopefully we can begin by communcating clearly to each other, digest the
information we exchange before jumping to any unsupported conclusions or
statements, and get to the truth. >>>

2/3/99 COMMENT BY S. FARBER:

Numerous persons are posting pointless questions about the availability of
theJohns Hopkins Thesis which I cited as Yeh, 1997 in my post of 2/1/99
because they have not even bothered to read the original posts and have not
followed the thread. If readers have deleted earlier posts on the subject, go
to the RADSAFE archives and do a search on "radproject" or "nasal
radium".Melissa has set up an easy search function.

If a person is going to make a post on a subject questioning, or criticizing,
something written, there is no excuse for ignoring information presented
earlier which explains the issue in some detail.

The  truly minor "thread" about the Yeh thesis availability [which many seem
to misunderstand] needs to reconnect with the facts as presented in my posts
on the larger subject of Nasal Radium Irradiation since 2/1. To help with this
[hopefully],  I've provided excerpts from my post to RADSAFE of 2/1 responding
to a question from Holloway 3, where radsafe wrote:

<<The thesis by H.C. Yeh [Health Effects After Childhood Nasopharyngeal Radium
Irradiation] was submitted to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health dated
June 1997.  ...   From Aug. 1997 forward there were feature investigative news
reports in Baltimore and front-page feature articles in the Baltimore Sun
about potential health risks of NRI to treated children. Johns Hopkins medical
and public affairs spokesperson told reporters during October, Nov, and Dec.
1997  that the epidemiological study [NOTE insert: the Yeh thesis in progress]
which had been initiated in Hagerstown on children treated with NRI by Johns
Hopkins [which had been earlier studied as to health effects through 1978, and
reported on as Sandler, 1978; Sandler, 1980, and Sandler, 1982  -see REAP
Annotated Bibliography] was still underway and no results were yet available.
Hopkins issued dismissive statements in late 1997 that "There are no
consistently demonstrated health risks from NRI" and there was no need for
medical notice and follow-up. At the time Hopkins put out these incorrect
statements, the Yeh, 1997 Ph.D. thesis had already been accepted by Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health documenting numerous long-term health effects
which were to say the least startling, and totally contrary to Hopkins
spokesperson statements. In fact, Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Dr. Yeh's thesis
advisor on the new research at Hagerstown on NRI health effects, was
interviewed in Oct. 1997 for a WJZ-TV news report about NRI and failed to
mention the research in Hagerstown was complete and showed various additional,
large,  and highly statistically significant long term effects consistent with
radiation injury. >>>>

<<For example. The Yeh summary of malignant and benign brain tumors among
about 600 NRI treated children followed through 1996 notes 3 malignant [fatal]
brain cancers [observed 12, 25, and 18 years post irradiation] and 4 benign
brain tumors [observed 41, 35, 39, and 44 years post irradiation]. The new
study shows 3 salivary gland tumors in the NRI treated group where 0 were seen
in a control group more than twice as large.  In Dr. Yeh's thesis she writes
concerning brain tumors:
"However, the evidence for radiation-induction of these brain tumors cannot be
ignored.....The corrected relative risk was estimates as 14.8 ....for brain
cancer, and was 30.9 ...if the 4 benign and 3 malignant brain tumors were
combined" [p. 212; Yeh, 1997].  .....>>>

<<In October 1998, the Baltimore Sun was able to obtain after repeated
requests to the Hopkins School of Public Health, a copy of a brief Abstract of
a paper delivered by the then Dr. Yeh ["Cancer Incidence of Childhood
Nasopharyngeal Radium Irradiation"] at the Society of Epidemiological Research
31st Annual Meeting in Chicago on June 23-26, 1998, sponsored by Johns
Hopkins. Yeh's June 1998 Research abstract contained numerous shortcomings
IMHO and failures of proper emphasis vs. the actual research by Yeh documented
in her thesis. Dr. Yeh's abstract included editorial comments such as:
"Routine screening for all patients who have ever received radium treatment is
not practical". This latter comment by Yeh is nothing but a hollow attempt to
support the adamant position taken by Hopkins that nothing need be done to
notify NRI treated patients at risk. The subject of the efficacy of medical
notice and follow-up to former NRI patients  had nothing to do with Yeh's
research and ignored a 1977 consensus standard ["Irradiation Related Thyroid
Cancer - Information for Physicians] by the NIH/NCI that any children treated
with "unusual head and neck irradiation" ......including NRI treatment of
tonsils and adenoids represented a special population at risk and deserved to
be "recalled", offered a head and neck exam, and then reexamined every 2 years
for the rest of their lives.  ................. Of note, when the Boston Globe
reporter, Bob Keough, writing the just-published feature story for which I
posted a link yesterday [  
<A HREF="http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/1-31/featurestory1.shtml/";>Click
here: Boston.com / Boston Globe Magazine</A> ] asked Hopkins' in late June
1998 about the status of the Yeh research which had been underway at Hopkins
according to several earlier published notes and statements by Hopkins
spokesperson, he was told the research was not yet finished. This was one year
after the Ph.D. thesis by Yeh had been accepted by the Hopkins School of
Public Health, and the same week Dr. Yeh was delivering a paper at the Johns
Hopkins sponsored epidemiological conference on her thesis findings.>>>

<<>>

<>

<>

<>

<<The timeline and facts noted above show a clear, and long standing, pattern
of actions to withhold information about the health risks of NRI from the
public by Johns Hopkins.  >>

In summary, as noted above:

1)  In response to direct questions from numerous reporters and other
interested parties including myself, Hopkins spokespersons refused to let
anyone know from June, 1997 on-- the date the Yeh thesis was submitted to the
Hopkins School of Public Health -- that the research study of NRI treated
children being studied in Hagerstown had been completed.

2) Numerous statements were issued by Hopkins during late 1997 into 1998 about
the lack of health effects from NRI which are directly contradicted by the
Yeh, 1997 research results.

3) In June 1998, Hopkins School of Public Health again provided false
information to Bob Keough of the Boston Globe that the NRI research study by
Ph.D. candidate Yeh was not yetcompleted, when a paper was being given that
same week in Chicago by Dr. Yeh based on her June, 1997 Ph.D. thesis submitted
to the Hopkins School of Public Health.

4) In Oct. 1998 when I asked the school of Public Health at Hopkins how to
obtain a copy of Yeh's June, 1997 thesis, I was told completed Ph.D. thesis
are not made available to "outsiders".

5) I pointed out in my post of Feb. 1 to RADSAFE that 4) above was false,
since I was able to obtain the Yeh, 1997 thesis from UMI Dissertation Service,
a private company, in Michigan.

I am troubled by how many postings in the last day, including some repeat
postings by the same parties,  ignore the information I've provided in my
posts on Nasal Radium Irradiation. It's discouraging that  a few HPs cannot do
a better job of understanding each other regarding even one simple point about
the availability of a thesis, and the timeline of comments by Johns Hopkins
[which is based on simple points of fact]. Given this "failure to communicate"
among ourselves on such a simple issue, how are we ever going to get to having
a meaningful discussion and reach consensus among HPs on more contentious
issues that like the LNT debate, which involve multiple studies and
conflicting study results. 

Radsafe readers share the same jargon and a somewhat common technical
background. However, if we fail to read and understand what other Radsafe
members are posting, before jumping to a conclusion or criticizing a post
about even simple points of fact presented, how are HPs as a group ever going
to communicate  with the public? 


Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Director - Radium Experiment Assessment Project [REAP]
19 Stuart St.
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Phone/FAX: (401) 727-4947  E-mail: radproject@usa.net
            Web address: http://www.delphi.com/carsreap
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html