I'm not big on collective opinions. That is why I just emailed you a draft of a letter to send to Consumer Reports.

But if everbody chimed in that they like it, I would not object

I've copied it below in case some OCF members want to use portions of it in their letters to newspapers or TV. Folks, remember, Brian may not use any of it or take a different tack so this is not an official OCF position. But if each of us just did an short on line comment to our newspapers when they report it saying that the CR article conflicts with the official position of USPSTF despite implying it does not and is a flip flop from prior good advice to get oral screening from CR's own medical advisor, then the word may get out. Focus on "misleading" and "flip flop" without getting overwrought.

[quote]James A Guest
President & CEO
Consumer Reports

Dear Mr. Guest

It was deeply disappointing to read the March 2013 cover story of Consumer Reports (CR) which recommended avoiding a test for early detection of oral cancer. The full article is misleading in its implication that CR ratings were consistent with those of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Specifically, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening adults for oral cancer�(emphasis added). This is the equivalent of the white button (neither likely nor unlikely) instead of the lower half black button (unlikely) of CR.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsoral.htm#related
Consumer Reports decision to downgrade the USPSTF rating is especially puzzling since it flip flops CR medical advice , in your February 2012 issue. In her report on HPV, CR Medical Advisor, Dr. Orly Avitzur recommended Be sure that your regular dental visit includes an oral soft-tissue exam. Because the base of the tongue lacks pain fibers, tumors in this area often cause no symptoms until they've grown significantly.In effect giving oral screenings a positive rating of likely or very likely. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/02/how-can-you-get-HPV/index.htm
What has changed in one year that would cause Consumer Reports to reverse a well founded recommendation ? The article gives no inkling of any valid reason. Unlike some cancers, oral cancer is fatal if not treated. The only rationale given by CR is that the cancer is relatively uncommon.
The March article ignores the concerns of the special section on the trends of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) in the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer: 1975-2009 done by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/03/jnci.djs491.full
The optimal result would be for CR to acknowledge that the prior recommendation in February 2012 remains good advice and retract the misleading March 2013 test avoidance advice. Barring that, the Oral Cancer Foundation would be pleased to work with Consumer Reports to focus on a win win resolution: urging widespread HPV vaccination which if done broadly enough would make the current incorrect recommendation valid in two decades.

Sincerely

cc Paige Amadon,Vice President, Health Programs
Dr. Orly Avitzur. CR Medical Advisor [/quote]

So that's how I spent Saturday
Charm