VIEWPOINT/INFECTION CONTROLDr. Neiburger’s article containing some pseudo-scientific statements, in my opinion, was presented for publication against my better judgment by a member of the Editorial Board of Oral health. The basis for my objection was: (1) awareness of the agenda of a group of dentists in Ontario who wish to dilute the standards of infection control in this province and: (2) past experience with the author’s publications. However, I was persuaded, and foolishly agreed, that I could not continue to reject such articles even if the pressure came from someone not associated with my area in the book. This “group”, under the guise of the well-respected “evidence-based” format has, in my viewpoint, used this system in many instances, including Dr. Neiburger’s article, to expand their own agenda. This agenda is designed to lower the high standards of infection control, which have placed the dental profession on a high pedestal and protected dentists, staff, patients and families. This high benchmark has made the dental profession the envy of the health care system. The deliberate attempt to reduce or dilute the standards of infection control is made easier by the fact that studies to prove the effectiveness of certain techniques or to prove the cross-infection of patients does not fall under the umbrella of pure science. You cannot invade the privacy of patients, nor endanger their well-being, to check the validity of an infection control procedure. Human beings cannot be treated like hamsters and the “group” knows that some of their accusations will never be answered and they use this as a lever against the present standards of infection control.