A few days ago Michael Connett and Chris Neurath traveled to Goteborg in Sweden and had a videotaped interview with Dr. Arvid Carlsson. The interview took place on October 4, 2005, at Goteborg University.

Arvid Carlsson won the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology in 2000. For more information about Carlsson's research, see:

nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2000/carlsson-cv.html
www.arvidcarlssoninstitutet.se
www.carlssonresearch.com/index2.asp

Below we have printed excerpts from this interview. Michael plans to put some video clips from the interview on the web site. Eventually, the full interview will be made available, possibly in a compilation of statements from a number of leading scientists on this issue.

I urge readers to send this interview to any fluoridation promoter who is saying that only people outside the mainstream are opposed to fluoridation.

Paul Connett
 

The Connett-Carlsson Interview

CONNETT: So, what happened in Sweden. The fluoridation issue was proposed...

CARLSSON: Yes, I think it was up twice... The second time, there was a proposal that the Swedish Parliament should allow addition of fluorine to the water supplies in Sweden and I became rather active as I had been the first time, and I think I was the one who more than anyone else convinced the Swedish parliament that this was not a good thing. So, it was voted out, this proposal. And that was around 1980. So you can see, it's a long time ago. And after that, addition of fluorine to water supplies in Sweden has not been an issue anymore. These days nobody talks about it anymore.

CARLSSON: If you drink [fluoride], you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions. And, of course, there are such actions. We have the mottled teeth, which is not a small thing... There is no need, really, to go any further into all these other toxicity problems, because I think the mottled teeth is enough. This is something you shouldn't expose citizens to.

CONNETT: In the United States, the dental community says that dental fluorosis is just a cosmetic effect, it's just spots on the teeth. Do you see mottled teeth as a toxic effect of fluoride, or as simply a cosmetic effect?

CARLSSON: Well, it is a toxic effect and a cosmetic effect. These are not mutually exclusive. It's toxic and it's cosmetic.

CONNETT: What about this notion of using the water supply as a vehicle of delivering medication? Can you speak to what you see as the problems with that?

CARLSSON: Yea, it's absolutely obsolete. In modern pharmacology it's so clear that even if you have a fixed dose of a drug, the individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose. Now, in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption of this drug, whatever it is. So, it's against all modern principles of pharmacology. It's so obsolete, I don't think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question in Sweden anymore. It's really so absolutely awkward and I think that in those countries who have it, I don't understand how this can go on.

CONNETT: You mentioned that fluoride's benefits come from the local, or topical, effect. Could you just discuss a little more what you see as the significance of that fact? Why is it important that fluoride's benefit is topical, and not from ingestion?

CARLSSON: Well, in pharmacology, if the effect is local, it's of course absolutely awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is so obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff? I mean, that is so awkward. So I would think modern pharmacologists, they would never consider this seriously. I mean, suppose you have a new drug being developed and whatever tissue that you would like to treat is available for local treatment. Then there must be some very special reason for giving it systemically... But in the case of the teeth, it's actually the surface of the teeth that we want to treat. I see no reason at all for giving it in any other way than locally -- topically, if you wish.

CONNETT: And it has the added benefit where the individual can choose whether they want to use it.

CARLSSON: Of course, yes.

CONNETT: Dentists will often say that adding fluoride to water is just like adding iodine to salt, or folic acid to bread. What do you make of that?

CARLSSON: Well, it's very hard for me to follow that kind of reasoning. Of course, if you add iodine that is in an area where there is reason to be afraid of some shortage of iodine. And iodine is an essential element. We need it, otherwise we will get problems with the thyroid gland. So that is a treatment that is physiological I would say. And this is not what we are doing with fluorine. This [fluoridation] can not be said to replace something that is deficient. So it's a very different thing.

CONNETT: Do you think that your background in pharmacology sort of informed your view of fluoridation as a medical practice?

CARLSSON: Of course. I mean, as I said before, this is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete. No doubt about that. I mean, I think those nations that are using it, should feel ashamed of themselves. It's against science. Anti-scientific.

CONNETT: In the US, the Centers for Disease Control, which is a US government health body, has proclaimed water fluoridation to be one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century.

CARLSSON: I disagree profoundly.

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
www.fluorideACTION.net