The following notes are taken verbatim from the pages of the October issue of Prevention, a health magazine published in Emmaus, Penna.
* * *
Dr. George Waldbott, the eminent allergist who has done so much fine work against fluoridation, wrote a letter to the editor of the American Journal of Nursing protesting an article by a Public Health official which had appeared earlier in that journal. Said Dr. Waldbott in part: "At present no reliable laboratory or biochemical criteria are available for assessing damage from fluoride. Therefore, clinical data, especially on individuals... are needed to properly evaluate any possible ill effects. Such data are either lacking or highly inadequate particularly on nephritics (kidney) who cannot eliminate fluoride as readily as normal persons, on diabetics who drink more than the average amount of water, and on allergic individuals who are less tolerant to drugs... Fluoride is not harmless like chloride or bromide. It is known to be one of the most reactive of all ions. In minute doses it is a toxic as arsenic and lead... To state that millions are drinking fluoridated water and therefore such water must be safe does not constitute scientific evidence any more than to maintain that smoking causes no ill effects because millions have been smoking for generations."
* * *
Some time ago Prevention published an article on the work of a University of Wisconsin scientist, Dr. Ionel Rapaport, dealing with the possible relation of fluoridated water to the incidence of mongolism. (Mongolism is a malformation of the head, characterized by slanting eyes, an enlarged tongue and a broad, flat skull, and many times by imbecility. Ed.). Dr. Rapaport's articles on the subject were published in France. We translated them and wrote an article on them, because we thought that his findings, which seemed to show a very definite relationship between mongolism and fluoridation would be interesting to our readers. We said in our article, "even if Dr. Rapaport's findings were a coincidence, shouldn't such a coincidence have been investigated carefully by the Public Health Service before this agency spent so much of its time and our money trying to ram fluoride down our unwilling and resistant throats?".
Our article caused quite à stir even in high academic circles. A recent letter from the Director of Dental Health of the State of Wisconsin tells us that the State Board of Health does not consider Dr. Rapaport's article on fluoridation to be scientifically accurate.
He enclosed information showing that a committee at the University of Wisconsin consisting of the Dean of the Medical School and five members of the scientific faculty have met on three occasions to discuss the affair. The committee decided that the statistical evidence does not prove that fluoridation is related to mongolism and that further studies should be made. Such a conclusion is very interesting, because all that Dr. Rapaport did was to present figures for how many mongoloid births there were in different communities and how much fluoride was in water there. If such figures are of no importance, as the University committee implies, why should they recommend further study? And if they recommend further study, shouldn't they also recommend that fluoridation of any and all communities be stopped or postponed until they have the results of further studies? The committee carefully points out too, that Dr. Rapaport was called in and asked to explain. He stated that he made no effort to give publicity to his report and no claim that his studies revealed a cause of mongolism. "Because of his desire not to be involved in a controversy, he published his results in France where there is less of a public issue", says the committee.
The above sentences, we believe, are among the most outstanding we have ever seen in relation to a matter of scientific investigation. An expert university researcher turns up a fascinating and provocative piece of evidence which seems to show that a widespread public health measure may result in harm to future generations. But because of the controversial nature of the information he felt that he had to publish his findings in a foreign country.
The very life's blood of scientific inquiry is controversy. Over the centuries, everything we have discovered, scientifically speaking, has been discovered because free, creative, inquiring minds have raised questions challenging old concepts. Invariably the new concept is the subject of controversy, it has to be. Why should a scientist try to avoid controversy? It leads to further inquiry and, if he is convinced of the rightness of his idea, he is sure that further inquiry will result only in acceptance of it.
But the people who promote fluoridation want no one to raise any question about the possible harmful effects of their drive to fluoridate. Surely nothing could be less scientific than this!...
But saddest of all is the statement from Dr. Rapaport that he published his article in France so that he could avoid controversy and that he has made no effort to give publicity to his findings. Statements like these reveal better than anything we could say the pitiful state of scientific inquiry in this country...
We are afraid that the largest part of the answer lies in a small word that has been used recently to castigate another professional group - Payola. Universities receive financial grants from the United States Public Health Service. It follows that the findings reported from their laboratories will probably agree with the current programs of the Public Health Service. Won't they? Will the Public Health Service donate millions of taxpayers dollars to universities which challenge the programs like fluoridation on which Public Health officials have staked their professional reputations? It seems unlikely to us.
*
The American Bar Association Journal for May, 1960, carries an excellent article by John. E. Auchter of Springfield, Massachusetts, on the constitutionality of fluoridation. Mr. Auchter analyzes one of the fluoridation court cases which was taken to a state supreme court and was lost, as indeed all of them were. The quotes from the dissenting judges make fine reading. For example: "While dental caries may be termed a "disease" which is prevalent in the teeth of almost everyone, it is not contagious or communicable in any way.
Dental caries in no way endangers the public health in the sense that its existence in the teeth of one individual might adversely affect the personal health of any other individual. To thus extend the concept of "public health" would open the door to compulsory mass medication or preventive treatment on the ground that it is for the individual's own good, without regard to his inherent right to determine such matters for himself." Mr. Auchter concludes his article by saying, "As we seek our way out of the dilemma, we would do well to be mindful that a man is free because he is responsible and he is responsible because he is free."
* * *
The San Francisco Chronicle for June 8, 1960, carries the news that 3 California counties turned down fluoridation: Marin county (13,285 14,499 no), Contra Costa County (2,183 yes 3,246 no), and Alameda County (10,187 17,338 no). Fluoridation is losing ground rapidly.
* * *
Congratulations to Dr. Frederick Stare of Harvard for the first sensible word about nutrition he has said for a long time! Speaking at dedication ceremonies of a laboratory of the United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in Gloucester, Massachusetts, Dr. Stare declared that the battle over fluoridating drinking water to retard tooth decay can be solved by forgetting the water and leaving the job to the fish. Fish from the ocean, he said, provide sufficient fluorine the protect dental enamel and prevent decay. According to the New York Times for June 19, 1960, he also recommended eating small fish, bones and all, for calcium, phosphorus and other elements essential to good health. Better be careful, Dr. Stare next they'll be calling you a faddist!