View report page

was part of the same investigation (Schlesinger et al.
1956a) the same authors documented their ignorance
of the problems they intend to study. From each of the
two cities, one hundred children are chosen for detailed
urine analysis with the intention of elucidating a possible
harmful effect on the kidneys from water fluoridation."
The authors of the report state that "no specimens were
taken if there was any history of clinical illness, no
matter how mild, during the previous two weeks." Prof.
Carlsson comments: "It appears that the authors have
not at all realized that, through such a selection method,
the significance of the findings is greatly reduced." They
had in fact excluded the cases from which they might
have learned something.
Mortality and Morbidity
Referring to the W.H.O. Report of 1969 Prof.
Carlsson mentions that the introductory text "states that
dental caries is a very widespread disease involving
many dangers to the general health; among other things
it interferes with digestion and causes acute and chronic
'septic conditions' in different organs." The Report
states that fluoridation can bring about a considerable
reduction in caries, and it states that in numerous
morbidity and mortality studies "results have repeatedly
shown no differences in mortality or morbidity that
could be attributed to fluoridation," and that "over 20
years of careful and intensive epidemiological studies
have demonstrated the safety of controlled water
fluoridation."
On this Prof. Carlsson comments: "On the surface,
all of this seems to be very confidence-inspiring. It is
perhaps somewhat surprising that the expected improvement
in general health due to reduction of caries has
completely failed to appear. How do we know that this
is not so because the expected positive influence is
counteracted by fluoride's own toxicity?" He points
out that no references to scientific literature are given
to support this statement of W.H.O. He says that the
Swedish Medical Board (which had relied upon this
W.H.O. Report) was unable to give any information
on this. He adds that the known fluoride experts Hodge
and Smith (1968) stated that "No specific large-scale
epidemiological studies are available comparing the
health of fluoridated communities with that of communities
where the water supplies contain only traces
of fluoride."
Prof. Carlsson refers to evidence that allergic reactions
may be caused by fluoride. He also mentions Rapaport's
researches on Down's syndrome (mongolism) which
showed that the incidence of this congenital defect was
increased by the presence of fluoride in the water supply.
He points out that Hodge and Smith on the basis of a
private communication from A. L. Russell have stated
that Rapaport's evidence of a relationship between
mongolism and fluoride "is not acceptable." On the
other hand they say: "The absence of a relationship
also is not convincingly established." Prof. Carlsson
comments that further studies of this question are needed
and that Russell's criticism should be published "in
order that it may be made available for evaluation by
other research workers and Rapaport be given a chance
for rebuttal."
Conclusions
The following are some of Prof. Carlsson's conclusions:
"There is no proof that fluoride is an essential
nutrient. All the talk of water fluoridation as being
merely a 'restoration of the natural balance' is groundless.
"It is not worthwhile to conceal the fact that it is a
question of supplying a pharmacologically active
substance to an entire population in order to induce a
systemic effect. The term 'mass medication' is therefore
adequate. Within pharmacology, any drug devoid
of side effects even at normal levels dosage is hardly
known. By adding a drug to tap water, the risk of overdosage
becomes greater than normally because of wide
individual differences in water consumption."
"The fact that most people do not get symptoms of
poisoning from moderate consumption of water with
1 ppm F is primarily due to the kidney's high capacity
to excrete fluoride. Recent years' research gives increasing
evidence that this safeguard is no more present
in cases of renal failure."
"There is now a considerable documentation showing
that, due to special conditions, single individuals react
in a different and unexpected way to biologically active
substances. It may be extremely difficult to discover
such unexpected side effects. 'It took 75 years to suspect
that phenacetin caused renal disease, 30 years that
amidopyrine caused agranulocytosis and 10 years that
tetracyclines disturbed bone development. This should
be proof enough that the medical profession does not
quickly discover what it does not look for,' (Modell,
1967). There are several reasons why it must be
especially difficult to show side effects of water fluoridation.
The connection between a drug and pathological
states is, naturally, more easily seen when individual
medication is practised than if the entire population is
treated. Of course the chances that a connection will be
suspected and reported decrease still more if, as is the
case with fluoridation, the responsible health authority
asserts that no side effects can be expected."
THE SWEDISH LAW PASSED IN 1962 PERMITTING
FLUORIDATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE HEALTH MINISTRY, WAS REPEALED
BY THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT ON 18th
NOVEMBER, 1971.
Copyright N.P.W.A. February 1972. Permission to reproduce in whole or in part to be obtained from the N.P.W.A.
Price: lp each.
Published by the National Pure Water Association.
Extra copies of this leaflet can be obtained from:
The Hon. Secretary: R. Maitland Earl, Holcombe House, Oakley, Hampshire. Tel. Oakley 361.