Keyword search
Health Aspects

Many people in England and in the Republic of Ireland have woken up to the
fact that because they have been drinking fluoridated water for many years,
it could be endangering their long-term health.

Health impacts from long-term use of fluoride-bearing water have been summarised (Dissanayake, 1991) as:
ParameterHealth outcome
< 0.5 mg/lDental caries
0.5-1.5 mg/lPromotes dental health
1.5-4 mg/lDental fluorosis
> 4 mg/lSkeletal fluorosis
> 10 mg/lCrippling fluorosis

Most researchers begin the report on their research study using words such as "Fluoride has been found to have a significant mitigating effect against dental caries and it is accepted that some fluoride presence in drinking water is beneficial." (Ref:  Even geologists can't resist pressure to add something of the sort when talking about fluorine gas and its anion, fluoride.

However, the conclusion of SCHER is that "There is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical application, that is via toothpaste, mouthwash or gel. The effect of continued exposure to fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted."  (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks: Fluoridation)

Note the very small margin for safety between 0.5 (promotes dental health) and 1.5 (dental fluorosis)!
As well as the negative effects on bones and teeth, fluoride in the public water supply is strongly suspected by thyroid specialists to be one of the major causes of hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid gland) in people of all ages. Other long-term negative health effects of systemic fluoridation have also been researched and proven in many cases. Research conclusively shows that there is a higher incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young boys who live
in fluoridated areas when compared to young boys in non-fluoridated areas.  (Bassin, E. et al. (2006). “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma.” Cancer Causes Control  17:421–428.)

But of equal concern in the systemic fluoridation controversy is the denial of the individual’s rights: giving
everyone preventative medicine which is only meant for young children creates a “one size fits all”
situation which is completely against medical ethics. Thus, not only are we being given fluoride without
our informed and explicit consent, adults are being compulsorily forced to drink a medicinal substance
at the incorrect concentration, i.e. both adults, babies and children are receiving fluoride at the same concentration.

Of greater concern is the fact that the current concentration and dose is too much for an infant and toddler. No
conscientious GP or Dentist would prescribe medicine formulated for an adult for frail seniors, teenagers, children and babies without first calculating the correct concentration of the medicine in the carrier fluid (in this case,

We are also urged to take as many doses per day (i.e. litres of water) as we wish and few health-care
professionals belonging to the orthodox medical tradition are urging caution.  How often have we been told "drink plenty of water to flush out your system"?  Do doctors, consultants and nurses really know what they're saying?  Is it ever specified that 'lots of water' ought to be bottled water just to be on the safe side?  It's preposterous for people in fluoridated areas to drink lots of tap water since that increases the body burden of fluoride.  Furthermore, fluoridated people who are advised to drink 'lots of water' over a long period of time are endangering their health even more if they take this advice to mean 'tap water'.  And we all do what the doctor tell us to do ....... don't we?

In the fluoridated areas of England with a population nearing 6 million, fluoridation is compulsory. You are told that you must drink water containing hexafluorosilicic acid for the rest of your life even though you are not part of the target population and even if you have no teeth.  Some people don't even know that they're drinking a medicine.  Informed consent is the principle which is being flouted by those vested interests who are promoting fluoridation.  Go to Informed Consent

Now, it seems that no account has ever been taken by the medical profession and the research community of the antagonism between fluoride (an enzyme inhibitor) and prescription medicines.  Could it be that the efficiency of certain prescription medicines is reduced by the presence of fluoride in the patient's body?  Could the NHS be wasting a lot of money on prescription drugs which can't work efficiently because of the disruptive influences of the fluoride anion?  Clearly more research needs to take place - but where is the political will to sponsor this research.  Seemingly, it's no-where! 

The current British National Formulary (BNF) contains 88 pages dealing with the wide variety of drug interactions, but there is no official congisance of even the possibility that adding the most reactive ion of all (fluoride) to drinking water could cause any interaction with prescribed medication or anything else.  Even more alarmingly, there is no mention in the BNF of the effect of fluoride on patients with impaired kidney function even though there is a section in the BNF urging caution in prescribing for such patients.

It's not possible to immediately repeal the section in the Water Industries Act 1991 (as amended) and Commencement Regulations, and it’s an uphill struggle influencing the mindset of those in the Department of Health and in Public Health England. So a strategy for protecting our individual health and asserting one’s human rights is prudent until such 
time as fluoride is no longer deliberately and foolishly injected into the public water supply. The strategy involves taking
avoiding action and installing an efficient water filter. Click here to view the Avoidance Strategies page  

The other strategy involves joining together in a Network and becoming proactive in order to fight this injustice.  Since 2016, the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA) has existed as the UK Network.

Fluoride is described as a general protoplasmic destroyer. It adversely affects health in many different ways
according to an individual’s susceptibilities. So the ‘cherry-picking behaviour’ of fluoride makes it really difficult to
state categorically that fluoride has caused such-and-such an illness, particularly since the Department of Health
has failed to sponsor meaningful research, despite recommendations made by the Medical Research Council.  Nor
can the lay-man easily gain access to health statistics in order to do some private study!

Compare this attitude with the effects of lead on the body. Once a robust correlation was established between lead
and neurological dysfunction or tooth decay (yes, lead really does causes tooth decay), it became easier to end the
practice of putting lead in petrol and in paint. No-one is saying that lead disappeared overnight but because laws were
made which banned the substance, it and the negative health effects were phased out.  Even with a reduction of lead
in the atmosphere, cases of lead poisoning still occur, e.g. rifle ranges where employees are at risk.

Few countries have laws which ban fluoride per se, although West Germany altered its constitution after the 2nd World War
to contain an article which guarantees the inviolability of the human body. In 1983, a similar amendment was added
to the Dutch Constitution. These amendments mean that mandatory fluoridation is unconstitutional in those countries.
The relevant human rights clauses are now embodied in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and
1997. However, the UK Government has failed to become a signatory to this Convention and until it does,
it won't become translated into UK law.

Without anyprimary law preventing fluoridation programmes,  we are all vulnerable to attempts by Public Health England to give us a compulsory but illegal functional food (aka illegal medicine).  The establishment thinks that it can do this because the 1985 Water (Fluoridation) Act legalised water fluoridtion as a backlash to counteracting Judge Lord Jauncey's opinion in 1982 that fluoridated water is a medicine. (In 2018, the Supreme Court of New Zealand came to the same conclusion.)

However, with the passing of the Medicines Directive 2001 (as amended in 2004) and a qualifying ECJ ruling in 2005,
people who are resistant to becoming compulsorily medicated have a really strong case to fight off attempts to
fluoridate us.  For those of us who are already fluoridated, invoking the European Medicines Directive is indicated.

I always thought that I lived in a democracy. I thought that my human rights were well protected in the UK.  I thought that
my government wanted me to be strong, healthy and feisty.  I thought all this until I started researching into water fluoridation.

I now know that I do not live in a democracy. My human rights are not well protected in the UK. My government is careless of my health.  My government wants to stultify my independence of thought and deed.

“The same pattern emerges time and again. It is the pattern of a
small, arrogant elite posing as a public benefactor, using innocent
fellow travellers as useful idiots and laughing to scorn the
timid attempts to resist.”

Source: Moolenburgh, H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 1 85158 040 9. p. 126

They won't succeed!

Click here to view Ailments Caused by Fluoride
Updated September 2018.