Censorship of Valid Scientific Findings: Hindering Informed Health Decisions.

Youtube censors the dissemination of scientific information, while Hulu needlessly prolongs the process.

The IAOMT recently made efforts to place our 30-second Public Service Announcement (PSA) video on the popular streaming service Hulu. The video aimed to raise awareness about the National Toxicology Program's findings on Fluoride Neurotoxicity. However, Hulu raised numerous concerns regarding the scientific merits of the video content and the potential reactions and actions of the public upon viewing the PSA.

Despite over a month of intense back and forth with multiple explanations and revisions to the video to address these concerns, Hulu has still not approved the 30-second PSA. UPDATE 06/20/2023: One day after posting this article, we uploaded yet another version of PSA to Hulu and we got an automated response that the ad was approved. It will now play on Hulu from 6/21 - 7/02, unless a human intervenes and cancels our ad, in which case… no take backs!

In a separate instance, YouTube has removed more than a dozen videos featuring speaker presentations from the IAOMT's YouTube channel, citing a violation of their Community Guidelines. Faced with this censorship, the IAOMT decided to back up its entire video library on the streaming video website Rumble.

These experiences have prompted us to write this article titled "Censorship of Valid Scientific Findings: Hindering Informed Health Decisions."   

Censorship

In the pursuit of public health, it is crucial to have open and transparent scientific discourse that allows for the exploration of diverse viewpoints and findings. However, when valid scientific research, which challenges prevailing public health policies, is suppressed or censored, it creates an environment where individuals are deprived of the information necessary to make informed decisions about their health.

Censorship of scientific findings limits our collective understanding of the world and impedes the development of new ideas and solutions to pressing societal challenges. By engaging in open scientific debate and discussions, society can collectively challenge existing paradigms and drive scientific progress forward.

This article delves into the concerning issue of censorship, highlighting how it impedes the dissemination of vital scientific knowledge and the adverse consequences it can have on public health decisions. Using the example of water fluoridation, we will examine how vested interests and unwavering protection of the status quo can impede the adoption of new science that challenges established public health initiatives.

The Importance of Informed Decision-Making

Informed decision-making lies at the heart of individual autonomy and personal health choices. People rely on accurate information to evaluate potential risks and benefits and make choices that align with their values and well-being. Access to diverse scientific findings is essential for this process, enabling individuals to weigh the evidence, question prevailing narratives, and adopt informed approaches.

Science and Public Health Policies

Science serves as a gradual process of learning and understanding, often surpassing the pace at which public health policies are updated. As new scientific findings emerge, they will challenge existing policies, revealing the need for adjustments to protect public well-being.

However, changes in public health policies require widespread awareness and informed consensus. When individuals are educated about the latest scientific evidence, they can advocate for policy modifications, thereby influencing personal health choices and fostering a society that aligns with current scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

Censorship and its Implications

Unfortunately, the censorship of scientific findings that challenge established public health policies restricts the flow of knowledge and undermines the principles of informed decision-making.

Valid scientific research, which is contrary to prevailing narratives, can face obstacles in publication, funding, and dissemination. This censorship not only deprives the public of information but also stunts scientific progress by inhibiting robust scientific debate.

The Role of Vested Interests

In some cases, organizations or individuals are financially tied to specific public health initiatives, which have been found to have adverse health outcomes. As a result, their livelihoods depend on promoting these initiatives, creating a conflict of interest that obstructs the acceptance of new scientific evidence.

"It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their salary depends upon them not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

The Fluoridation Example

Water fluoridation serves as a pertinent example of how censorship and vested interests can hinder the adoption of new scientific knowledge. For decades, water fluoridation has been promoted to the public as a safe and effective public health initiative to prevent dental caries.

However, over the last decade, many studies from around the world have found a multitude of adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity, from ingesting fluoride.

Pressure to uphold the status quo

Despite the emergence of valid scientific research supporting concerns about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation, proponents in public health are pressured to uphold the status quo and ignore new evidence that contradicts established narratives.

Professional backlash, reputational damage, loss of credibility

Many individuals and organizations have invested significant time and effort in supporting and advocating for water fluoridation as an effective preventive measure against dental caries.

As a result, their credibility and professional standing become intertwined with the success and continuation of these initiatives. Challenging the prevailing narrative and accepting new evidence that questions the safety or efficacy of fluoridation can be seen as a betrayal of their previous work, potentially damaging their professional reputation and credibility.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge."

-- Daniel Boorstin, American Historian

Additionally, organizations that have actively promoted water fluoridation may face challenges in embracing new scientific findings due to concerns about the impact on their funding, operations, and public image. Any indication that the initiative may have adverse health outcomes could lead to public scrutiny, loss of trust, and even legal ramifications.

Influences on Politics and Fluoridation Policy

The influence of vested interests plays a significant role in shaping the politics of public health, which can further contribute to the reluctance to embrace new scientific findings. Public health initiatives are not immune to the pressures exerted by powerful stakeholders who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

The American Dental Association possesses significant resources, lobbying power, and access to decision-makers, enabling them to help shape and influence public oral health policies that align with their interests, such as the promotion of water fluoridation.

The influence of traditional dental organizations can manifest in various ways, including campaign donations, political lobbying, sponsorship of research studies, and funding of advocacy groups. All of which can permeate the decision-making process and impede the acceptance of new scientific findings that challenge established practices or require regulatory changes.

Vested interests and industry influence can also extend to individuals within governmental bodies and regulatory agencies responsible for shaping public health policies. Revolving door dynamics, where individuals move between industry and government positions, can create situations where regulatory decisions are influenced by personal connections or potential future employment opportunities in the private sector. These dynamics can further perpetuate the resistance to embracing new scientific evidence that may disrupt existing policies.

Furthermore, industry-funded research and the selective use of scientific evidence can skew public health narratives and shape policy debates. The influence of industry-funded research can introduce biases, conflicts of interest, and methodological limitations, which leads to the cherry-picking of evidence that supports predetermined outcomes.

Such practices creates an imbalance in the scientific discourse, making it challenging for alternative viewpoints or contradictory findings to gain attention or acceptance.

The Way Forward

To ensure the public's access to accurate information and enable informed decision-making, it is vital to address the issue of censorship. This can be achieved through:

1. Fostering an environment of open scientific discourse: Encouraging scientific transparency and allowing dissenting opinions promotes robust scientific debate and encourages the exploration of different perspectives.

2. The scientific community, professional organizations, and policymakers need to promote a culture that values evidence-based decision-making over maintaining the status quo.

3. Transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence, funding allocation for independent research, and protections against conflicts of interest can help mitigate the pressures faced by proponents of public health initiatives when confronted with new scientific findings.

4. Independent research and funding: Allocating resources to independent research and funding agencies, free from industry influence, can help mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure the pursuit of unbiased science.

5. Promoting science literacy: Empowering individuals with the skills to critically evaluate scientific information enables them to make informed decisions and question prevailing narratives.

6. Prohibiting Censorship: Organizations and individuals should work towards prioritizing the open exchange of ideas and promoting the importance of evidence-based decision-making while challenging attempts to suppress scientific information.

Conclusion

The censorship of valid scientific findings that challenge existing public health policies undermines individuals' ability to make informed decisions about their health. The example of water fluoridation highlights how entrenched public health policies protected by biased individuals, organizations and vested interests can obstruct the acceptance of new scientific knowledge.

Through collective efforts, we can ensure that scientific knowledge remains unrestricted, enabling us to embrace a future built on the principles of transparency, intellectual curiosity, and unrestricted access to information.

To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to foster an environment of open scientific discourse, support independent research, promote science literacy, make evidence-based decisions and protest against organizations and individuals who practice censoring scientific information from the public’s view.

Only then can we ensure that individuals have access to the most current and reliable scientific findings, allowing them to make informed choices that align with their personal health needs and values.

---

For those interested, here is our back and forth communication with Hulu, which inspired this article. Watch our PSA that Hulu thinks does not have relevance to the general public.

IAOMT

Dear Hulu, The ad our non profit submitted was rejected. I double checked the technical specs and all looks good, so that leaves me to believe it is based upon content.

Hulu stated in the rejection email "The Ad does not adhere to Hulu's Technical Specifications and Advertising Policies. Please review the guidelines and re-submit with a different Ad. Not all claims were substantiated."

HULU

Thank you for contacting us about your ad. I've escalated your ad for additional review with the details you provided below, and will followup once I have more details to share.

HULU

We have escalated your ad and will need a few updates for it to be approved. Please find our feedback below:

At a minimum this creative requires a "Paid for" disclosure.

This is less of a substantiation issue than an issue of potentially interfering with the doctor/patient relationship. In addition, we would ask the sponsor about the objective of this communication and its relevance to the public.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Thanks for getting back to me. I might need a little help deciphering what they are asking and what they want me to do. Please let me know what they mean by "paid for" disclosure. We are already disclosing who we are (and we are paying for the ad). Do I need to put any particular text on screen?

As a non profit in the dental sector we raise awareness about issues that concern dentistry and our patients.

In the video we state

• the government division

• the report the division released

• only the findings of the report (no opinion, conjecture or recommendations)

• go to our site for more information

We are not recommending any treatments, so I disagree that we are stating anything in a way that would interfere with a doctor patient relationship as we are solely reporting on the findings of the National Toxicology Program report on Fluoride Neurotoxicity.

Onscreen we list our our speaker Dr. Griffin Cole and the name of our Academy. Dr. Cole is past president of the academy, a current member and spokesperson on the IAOMT.

With this info, please help guide me as to what to do to get our video approved

HULU
As we continue to process the nature of the messaging of this creative, we still have some outstanding questions and comments:

1)    Due the non-profit organizational ad, this creative will need a paid for sponsorship identification: “Paid for by…” or “Sponsored by…”

A text disclosure on the end card is sufficient.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Not a problem, consider it done. Can you please show me where I missed this requirement in your terms of service?

HULU

2)    Please provide more specific information about the intended outcome and expectations of this messaging.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Intended Outcome = That our paid public service announcement ad raises awareness of the key findings of the National Toxicology Programs report on Fluoride Neurotoxicity.

Expectations = The public will have a more balanced view of the science surrounding fluorides impact on the brain due to new scientific findings in 52 studies analyzed and reviewed by the National Toxicology Program

HULU

3)    Are there behavioral issues relevant to the findings referenced within the creative?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

That would be conjecture as we are only mentioning the key findings of the report.

HULU

4)    To the extent that the messaging in this creative could suggest changes in health habits, please address the initial question we raised as to the potential impact on doctor-patient relationships and individual health maintenance.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

We are not aware of any instances where raising awareness of scientific findings impact the doctor patient relationship. We do not suggest any health habit changes what-so-ever, thus there is no interference and no impact on the doctor-patient relationship.  The video does not contain any recommendations, thus questions about potential impact on individual health maintenance is outside the scope of what we discuss in the video.

As a potential solution to your concern, we are open to putting text on the end card to address your concern. Potential wording could state "If you have any questions, please consult your dentist"

I look forward to hearing from you

HULU

Subject to responses to our questions/comments below in red and the receipt of a revised creative with the requested sponsorship super and the super, "If you have any questions, please consult your dentist," we look forward to reviewing a revised creative.

1.) This general advertising principal is applicable to all advertising for organizations as nonprofits, particularly in creative presenting as public service announcements, to ensure proper sponsorship identification.

2.) Thank you for this additional information. Even with this information, the context of this ad leaves us wondering what the viewer is supposed to do with this awareness?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Science serves as a gradual process of learning and understanding, often surpassing the pace at which public health policies are updated. As new scientific findings emerge, they may challenge existing policies, revealing the need for adjustments to protect public well-being. However, changes in public health policies require widespread awareness and informed consensus. When individuals are educated about the latest scientific evidence can they advocate for policy modifications, thereby influencing personal health choices and fostering a society that aligns with current scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

From our about webpage: "We are a non-profit organization and have been dedicated to our mission of protecting public health and the environment since we were founded in 1984. The IAOMT accomplishes our mission by funding and promoting relevant research, accumulating and disseminating scientific information, investigating and promoting non-invasive scientifically valid therapies, and educating medical and dental professionals, policy makers, and the general public."

When editing our PSA ad for Hulu, we choose to leave it up to the viewer, what to do with the PSA information as that seemed to be a straightforward approach to only supply the key facts, which presents a more neutral, less biased position.

HULU

What seems to be lacking in this creative is information on how viewers should process the information provided here. The scientific information, though measurable, seems to require additional clarity as to its everyday applicability to the lives and health habits of individuals.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

You really seem to want us to tell people what to do with the information instead of letting them choose to act on the information in what-ever way they deem appropriate.

To provide additional clarity, we can include in the video the guidance our doctors and dentist members provide as text... "Prevent cavities without fluoride. Floss and brush your teeth daily, eat a healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables, good fats and ample protein and of course reduce sugar consumption."

Alternatively we can lead into the text with video footage of our spokesperson stating the following "To Prevent cavities without the risks of Fluoride nothing beats good oral hygiene." The rest would be listed onscreen (time constraints).

If adding either of those suggestions for clarity would address your concern, please consider it done.

HULU

Are there additional relevant caveats that could be added to this creative that would render the messaging and awareness more relevant to viewers?

3.) Please follow up comments in #2.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Please see above, for our suggestion of what we could include in the video.

HULU

Why is the report called a "draft?" Can the advertiser provide a copy of the report for our review?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

The report, titled the “NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review”

has been an ongoing source of controversy due to its findings and delays in its release. It is also a pivotal piece of evidence in the ongoing lawsuit brought against the EPA by the Fluoride Action Network.

Through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Plaintiffs obtained email communications between the NTP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) regarding the NTP monograph. These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report. (pg 4).

A court order has led to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) releasing a finalized systematic review of fluoride's neurotoxicity that was blocked by government officials and concealed from the public since May 2022. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show government agencies that promote fluoridation, allied with dental interests, have tried to water down the report. When the NTP held firm, these agencies got HHS Assistant Administrator Rachel Levine to block its release.

The NTP’s 6-year Systematic Review has undergone an unprecedented peer-review process with five separate review processes done since 2019. The review consists of a monograph and a meta-analysis. A monograph is a specialized piece of in-depth scientific writing on a focused area.

The meta-analysis reported that 52 of 55 studies consistently found that people had lower IQ when exposed to higher levels of fluoride. Asked whether its meta-analysis had identified any safe dose of fluoride, NTP responded that they found "no obvious threshold" for total fluoride exposure or water fluoride exposure. NTP cited their report's graph showing a steep drop in IQ of about 7 points over a fluoride range from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L.

At its May 4, 2023, public meeting, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) voted unanimously to accept the BSC Working Group’s systematic review of the report

NTP director Richard Woychik, PH.D. is now ultimately responsible for deciding on the final publication. He said in his closing remarks that he will be working with the members of the working group and the NTP authors to make the revisions and try to get the report to publication as quickly as possible, hopefully in the next several weeks.

HULU

The claims and representations in this ad are clinical in nature

IAOMT RESPONSE:

If Hulu S&P are using the word "clinical" as commonly defined "relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients rather than theoretical or laboratory studies", Then we believe Hulu's S&P is inaccurately representing the claims made in our PSA as our "claims and representations" are not clinical in nature. Our ad presents statements of facts about the scientific findings (as outlined above) of the United States governments' National Toxicology Program report on fluoride neurotoxicity.

HULU

Therefore, as part of our review we continue to request information on how the findings of the report as portrayed in this creative are applicable to members of the audience.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

"Applicable" is defined as relevant or appropriate. As we have stated previously, we are raising awareness about an issue that is relevant and appropriate to the general public.

Making informed and educated decisions relies heavily on having access to complete and accurate information. The statements made in our ad are accurate as based upon new scientific findings by our government.

HULU

We are not intending to tell the advertiser what to write in its ads or what to tell the viewer to do.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

We appreciate that. We are simply trying to offer solutions so as to move forward with this process.

In addition to thoughtfully answering your questions, we have added "paid for by" to our video and as we previously outlined, we are offering to provide additional clarity

we can include in the video the guidance our doctors and dentist members provide as text... "Prevent cavities without fluoride. Floss and brush your teeth daily, eat a healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables, good fats and ample protein and of course reduce sugar consumption."

Alternatively we can lead into the text with video footage of our spokesperson stating the following "To Prevent cavities without the risks of Fluoride nothing beats good oral hygiene." The rest (above text) would be listed on screen (due to time constraints).

Please indicate if doing either of these suggestions would address your concern, and we'll be happy to implement the changes.

HULU

The notes below reference thresholds of fluoride reported. As we continue to understand the relevance of this report to our viewers, could you please provide more specific information about where the testing was conducted, on what population, and the amount of fluoride an average viewer consumes (or is exposed to) versus the amounts tested and reported?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

I am requesting the names of those on the Hulu S&P that are responding to our ad request and the name of their immediate manager.

Please share with me the credentials of the person requesting this information about the specifics of the fluoride studies as I would hazard to guess that in comparison to the team at the US government's National Toxicology Program you have no experience in trying to double guess their findings.

Now, if you want to understand their findings all you have to do is read the report, which we have already sent you. All the information Hulu requested is within the NTP's report itself, which indicates those at Hulu requesting this information are not scientifically savy enough to read the report to get the information they are requesting directly from the report itself.

Hulu S&P is abusing their position by continually requesting a different set of questions to be answered before approving our fact based ad and I am requesting to have direct communications with your manager as we have thoroughly answered the extended series of questions you have posed to us and changed our ad based upon your recommendations.

HULU

Regarding the ad IAOMT FLUORIDE PSA HULU 30SEC V2, we would like to clarify that we are not questioning the study, but we are determining the consumer relevance of the important information communicated in the ad.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Hulu posed several questions about the government study, which seemed to indicate you were questioning the merits of the studies evaluated by the government. These questions indicated you had not read the study, which you requested and I provided.

Additionally, Hulu has asked several times, over the last month of questioning, specifically about the relevance to the general public, which I've answered each time, apparently not to the liking of Hulu. This leads me to believe that whomever is in charge of approving the ad is holding it up by continually requesting the same subjective information over and over, with the result being a prolonged approval process that borders on harassment.

Here is your answer on relevance

It is relevant for the general public to be aware of different perspectives and ongoing research concerning fluoride and its potential effects. By being informed, individuals can engage in critical thinking and make well-rounded decisions based on available evidence. Open dialogue and access to accurate information allow people to consider various viewpoints and evaluate the credibility of scientific studies, which in this case have been thoroughly analyzed by the National Toxicology Program, which is under Health and Human Services of the United States government.

Here is the new version of the IAOMT’s PSA with the changes recommended by Hulu.

UPDATE 06/19/2023: still no word from Hulu whether they will air our PSA.

UPDATE 06/20/2023: One day after posting this article, we uploaded yet another version of PSA to Hulu and we got an automated response that the ad was approved. It will now play on Hulu from 6/21 - 7/02, unless a human intervenes and cancels our ad, in which case… no take backs! We have updated our subtitle to reflect this new information: “Youtube censors the dissemination of scientific information, while Hulu needlessly prolongs the process.”