Keyword search
News 2015

2105 News and Comment

The situation in naturally-fluoridated countries

Geogenic Contamination Handbook: Addressing arsenic and fluoride in drinking water. The WHO Collaborating Center for Sanitation and Water (2015)


23rd October 2015
New Poster for our "Down the Drain" initiative:

Fluoridation equipment breakdowns in Australia:  could it be that replacement will be rather too expensive to contemplate?

Fluoride plant failures prompt closure calls

Over a five-day period in early October 2015, breakdowns of an inlet pump join and screw feeders caused highly concentrated fluoridated water to leak over the floor of the plant,’ she said.

‘Workers were put at extreme risk and had to wear full protection suits to clean up the water and the plant was immediately shutdown for another four to five weeks so as contractors could be found to make repairs.

‘When the plant became operational again another similar leak appeared and fluoridation was again suspended for a number of weeks.’

Ms Connell said the breakdowns being experienced at northern rivers plants were also happening at other plants in Queensland and across New South Wales.

‘For example not only are there malfunctions, but the Casino plant has broken down over ten times in the last three years.  LINK

22nd December 2015
I've just picked up a feed from 
The House of Lords.  This is a written question to the Health Minister relating to the concentration of fluoride in our drinking water.  Hope you're ready for this!

Hansard Source.  Citation HL Deb, 21 December 2015, cW 
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley    Crossbench
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view on the merits of reducing the concentration of fluoride in water supplies subject to fluoridation schemes from 1.0 to around 0.7 part per million, in the light of the experience of countries such as Canada, the Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Lord Prior of Brampton    Conservative
Public Health England advise that there is no current evidence from monitoring data to support a variation of the target level of fluoride in drinking water.

This is entirely unsatisfactory of course.  Out of 240, 12-year-olds surveyed in Bedford Borough in 2009, 19.1% stated that they had white marks on their teeth.  We've repeatedly stated that a spokesperson for the Department of Health admitted in 1999 that Dental Fluorisis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999: WA 158). 

The Spokesperson's statement must have been extracted from a primary research source and is therefore what the DH likes to term "evidence-based".  And yet, here we have Lord Prior being fed a whole load of rubbish by PHE.  Anything will be denied and/or attempted - even lies - to protect the Great God Fluoride.



20th November 2015

In the past few days, the UK Alliance Opposed to Water Fluoridation has been formed.  The aim is to bring together all people throughout the UK who are known to existing UK groups.  WMAF will continue and will be part of UKAOWF.  The Coordinator of this website has been asked to be the Coordinator of the new Alliance.  A Blog has been started and can be viewed on  We need the names and emails of interested visitors who are happy to swell the numbers of folks already known to us.  Please contact either or

Because Hull, Wakefield and Bedford are all going to be threatened with fluoridation during the remainder of 2015 and forward into 2016, it's time to up the ante !  

18th November 2015 - Mexico

"The results suggest that subpopulations with chronic undernutrition are more susceptible to dental fluorosis."  (Fluoride News 11/08/15).  

This is a news service and you need to subscribe (free) to the NYSCOF bulletin service in order to read news on fluoride and fluoridation throughout the USA.  Don't worry - it's easy to subscribe.  

By the way, when you see the word 'benefit' or 'benefitting', be afraid, be very afraid!


11th November 2015
Yesterday, three of us went to Bedford (UK) where we took part in Bedford's Overview and Scrutiny Committee's review of water fluoridation.  That town has not been fluoridated since 2009 when Anglian Water stopped fluoridation because their dosing equipment had become corroded.  Public Health England is proposing adding the fluoride back into the Borough's water supply but instead of acting unilaterally, PHE is consulting with Bedford Borough Council which will therefore have to share the burden of the responsibility of compelling constituents to take their daily doses of poison!

No decision was made at last night's meeting to recommend resumption of fluoridation.  The OSC cannot make a decision, only recommend and the Chairman was at pains to emphasise this.

PHE has now had a chance to present to the PSC twice whilst those opposing fluoridation were granted a paltry 30 minutes to answer questions from the OSC some months ago.  Unfortunately, the Committee members were ill-prepared and the questions were not penetrating.  Thus we were not able to emphasise all the factors which make fluoridation an unwise intervention.

Possibly because the Chairman perceived that we had not had a fair crack of the whip, we have been allowed to make a presentation to the Committee in February 2016.

So relax, all of you who are living in Bedford and who are reading this bulletin:  you can eat your Christmas Dinner, fluoride-free, this year at least.


Editorial - 10th November 2015:   Birmingham City’s Public Health Director’s Interesting Use of Logic (UK)

A little while ago, WMAF wrote to all Birmingham City Councillors regarding recent research into fluoride's negative health effects on our bodies.  The letter as an attachment to an email (LINK) was sent to the Director of Public Health for comment. His scanned reply can be read at this LINK

Nothing changes!  Despite the poor dental health in the West Midlands and in Birmingham as evidenced by three separate newspaper reports in 2008, 2011 and 2014, fluoridation is still hailed as the miracle cure for dental caries. Perhaps Adrian Phillips can tell us if fluoride prevents early childhood decay (aka baby bottle caries), if it causes deep fluoride bombs (large cavities which appear overnight) or if Birmingham children with a poor diet which is low in calcium can have dental decay prevented by swallowing a developmental neurotoxin?  The newspaper reports relating to all those rotting teeth would seem to argue against the pretended efficacy of fluoride as an effective prophylactic.

WMAF has been asked to provide a compelling argument before Adrian Phillips is prepared to revisit the matter.  "I am keen that water fluoridation continues in the city." 

What can be more compelling that almost double the incidence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands compared with non-fluoridated Manchester?  The last time I looked, the inhabitants of both regions have the same genotype and are being polluted by the same chemical nasties, so unless another cause can be identified then fluoride can be the only substance which could cause a low thyroid.

There's nothing radically different between the two populations.  But, to call the Kent University flawed because it's an ecologic, historical study which looked at populations instead of looking at individuals is a bit rich.  The GPs in England diagnosed each patient with hypothyroidism and reported each patient to the NHS. That's the nearest best thing to a research team going out into the towns and cities examining individuals.  Also, is Adrian Phillips saying that the GPs' diagnoses are unreliable and that these poor women have to be examined by researchers in order to confirm the diagnoses?

Moreover, what can be more persuasive than the very large number of research reports from China which have proven that fluoride reduces a baby's intelligence? What can be more persuasive than thousands of research reports going back decades which tell us about the negative effect that fluoride has on enzymes, the endocrine system, bones and organs?

Here is a little known fact in today's world but which was known in 1975:  FLUORIDE INCREASES THIRST.  (Manocha et al., ‘Cytochemical response of kidney, liver and nervous system to fluoride ions in drinking water’. Histochem J. 1975, 343-55.)  Thus, fluoridated people drink more liquids and if they are not enlightened, they drink more fluoridated tap water. Where does that leave people with diabetes who drink more liquid?  What happens to those patients with Chronic Kidney Disease?  I would suppose that they are advised to drink large amounts of water in order to help flush toxins out of their kidneys.  Yet, if they are fluoridated individuals, they're already drinking more than enough toxins.  So they're using toxified water to flush out toxins! Damaged kidneys cannot efficiently flush out fluoride from the body and this then goes on to becoming stored in other organs and in bones.  Drinking more of the stuff doesn't make sense.

Expectant mums are advised to drink more water and the placenta allows fluoride through into the unborn child ... and so it goes on.

Before I leave this subject, I’ve been reading an interesting piece of 2015 dental research entitled “Dental health impact of water fluoridation in children living in Bedford Borough Council in 2008, 2009 and 2015: Cross-sectional ecological study of the impact of water fluoridation on dental health.” 

I would very much like Adrian Phillips to give me his opinion on the validity of this ‘flawed’ piece of research. 'Flawed' because it's ecological!  Also, even though the Kent researchers didn't examine the poor women with hypothyroidism, their diseases were diagnosed by qualified GPs.  So where's the difference?  Is there any, since the children were examined by trained dental researchers and the women patients with hypothyroidism were examined by trained GPs and hospital consultants?  

The Kent hypothyroidism research was historical, but all research is historical, even the Bedford Dental Health Survey of 2015, since both reported on hypothyroidism and dental decay caused in the past.  The Kent research used very recent data and the dental researchers also used very recent data gleaned when the children were examined.  Admitedly, women with hypothyroidism were not asked about their diet, the taking of hot baths and any habitual fluoridated toothpaste swallowing, but then, neither were the 5-year-old children.

So it seems that there is a tendency to decry research which has not been sponsored by the establishment and to laud research which has been sponsored by that very same establishment.  The Kent University research spotlighted an inconvenient truth. On the other hand, the 2015 Bedford Dental Health Survey of 5-year-old children tried to prove that dental decay had increased since fluoridation ceased in that Borough in 2009 but failed to do so. This was because their findings were not statistically significant even though an attempt was made to produce pretty bar charts to mesmerise the reader but which proved nothing because the confidence limit bars which overlaid the pretty bars completely contradicted the message with which the researchers attempted to hoodwink the reader.  (Pretty bars in the bar charts: dental decay increased since fluoridation ceased - YES.  Overlapping confidence limit bars overlying the pretty bars: dental decay increased since fluoridation ceased - INCONCLUSIVE.)  Anomaly:  children in the upper income bracket - dental decay had increased (but the confidence limit bars still overlap so inconclusive).  Instead of investigating why, the researchers from PHE are content to accept this anomaly without question.  

Shouldn't they have tried to find out why? Ah, best not to otherwise they may find that the affluent children, as toddlers, were swallowing their toothpaste and causing 'fluoride bombs' (LINK) to develop in the milk tooth dentine.

The LINK will take you to the Bedford research.  To be fair, the PHE researcher has said in several places that the findings were statistically insignificant.  But at the same time, there is an attempt to mislead the reader with pretty bar charts which, to the uninitiated, seem to show an increase in dental decay when, in fact, to the statistician, they show that dental decay had not worsened after fluoridation had ceased.

Joy Warren, Coordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation

5th November 2015

NEWS: San Marcos says NO to Fluoridation
San Marcos (Texas, USA, pop. 45,000) approved a resolution on 3rd November ending and prohibiting the fluoridation of the public water supply with 61% of the vote.  Voters passed the following language into law. "The City of San Marcos shall not add, or direct or require its agents to add fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride to the San Marcos municipal water supply".  

Comment:  Yee-ha!  If the issue is decided in the Council House and if constituents aren't asked a direct question, the result is more often than not a vote in favour of fluoridation.  The notable exceptions to this are Rotherham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council who both voted not to start fluoridation in 2007 and 2008 respectively.  When folks in Southampton were asked a direct question however, 10,000 people took part with a result of 7,200 voting against fluoridation.

Once they have been given relevant information, constituents do not demonstrate public support.  Those who support fluoridation and who know about this, are reluctant to allow voters to have the final say.  Is that why once a consultation has occurred, once the voters have said 'no' but if the decision is still that fluoridation should be put in place (as happened undemocratically in Southampton), there is no chance for another consultation for 20 years in that area?

The 'public support' factor is often overlooked.  Surely if it's such a serious matter such as what we individually want to allow in our bodies, then there has to be public support?  Since none of us who are currently fluoridated have ever voiced our public support, then continuing fluoridation or making a proposal to fluoridate, both being thoroughly undemocratic practices, should cease or not proceed. 

Hull is currently going through the process of proposing fluoridation. Wakefield is also on this rocky path.  Bedford Council is deciding soon whether it can be justified in re-fluoridating its constituents.  All three Councils should take note of the following gem of information gleaned from an article on Hull and fluoridation written in 1970 by Dr Alan Brier, a lecturer in Politics at the University of Southampton.  Hull City Council discussed the proposal to fluoridate the City.  The proposal came to nothing because Hull Councillors perceived no 'public demand' for fluoridation. (Brier, A.P. 1970. 'The Decision Process in Local Government: A Case Study of Fluoridation in Hull' in Public Administration, Summer 1970, Vol. 48, p. 167)

Surely the time has come to remind Councils that where there is no 'public demand' for a measure which would affect everyone for the rest of their lives, then they cannot proceed.  Those Councillors who ignore this factor could be regarded as being too big for their boots.  

Joy Warren, Coordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation, 5th November 2015


Listen to the radio interview between Richie Allen and Joy Warren on     2nd November 2015  


Editorial, 30th October 2015

I'm currently working my way through a 1977 publication from the States.  It's a special triple issue of Cancer Control Journal.  This is no longer available and I was fortunate to be given it by Hampshire Against Fluoridation (UK) which no longer needs literature on the topic because that group WON their fight in 2014.  Now it's Bedford's (UK) turn to do battle.

Between 1950 and 1970, cancer rates in fluoridated cities in the USA increased relative to cancer rates in non-fluoridated cities.  In other words, the researchers found a strong statistically significant association.  The study cannot be repeated because America is awash with fluoride and because many of the 1950-1970 non-fluoridated control cities are now fluoridated.  Despite the Delaney Amendment and evidence presented to Congressional sub-committees in 1977 that the National Cancer Institute's rebuttal research was severely flawed (that organisation did not find any link but they used very strange statistical methods in an attempt to prove this), Congress never got around to grasping the nettle and recommend the cessation of fluoridation. 

In the UK, we have the opportunity to repeat the American research on a smaller scale and I really do think that preliminary research should be conducted to find out if fluoridated Birmingham (UK) has a larger cancer cluster than non-fluoridated Manchester.  Even though the situation is muddied by fluoride being everywhere these days, it should be possible to identify a statistically significant increase in cancer in Birmingham.  Note that a very strong statistical association was found this year by Kent University between fluoride and hypothyroidism:  almost double the incidence of that disease in the fluoridated West Midlandsincluding Birmingham compared with non-fluoridated Manchester.   PHE's attitude?  "The methodology used is not strong enough to support any change in practice or policy".  (Hansard, Written question - 227426.)  Yet, the methods were no worse and no better than the 1977 American study when a positive association between fluoride and cancer was demonstrated.

In 1977, fluoride was regarded as being a mutagen as well as being tumorogenic.  We don't hear much about that these days and yet the fluoride ion in 1977 was chemically the same as the fluoride ion is in 2015.  Note what an eminent chemist wrote in October 1977: "Physiologically, the fluoride ion is an avid bone seeker and a potent enzyme inhibitor." (Burghstahler, 1977).

I don't expect the Department of Health and Public Health England to step up and volunteer to sponsor research though.  Well, why would they? After all, they published a heavily-criticised shallow and spurious piece of research on our health in relation to fluoridation in 2014 and found no cause for concern.  Again, well why would they want to find cause for concern? Water fluoridation is deeply embedded political policy and we must all become fluoridated eventually because fluoride is 'so good for teeth'.  This has NEVER been proven satisfactorily.  The Cochrane and York Reviews (2015 and 2000 respectively) found a mixed bag of evidence regarding any positive effect which fluoride might have on dental decay.  The evidence that fluoridation reduces dental health inequalities across all social groups was even weaker.

Fluoridation is a con. "The King has a new suit of clothes' but in my eyes, he's parading in his long johns.

It's up to us all to fight the imposition of forced medication.

Joy Warren, Coordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation, 30th October 2015

20th October 2015

OUR DAILY DOSE - A powerful film - a "must-watch".  
 LINK    (To access the film scroll down the page.)

The Director's statement can be read at LINK

Please tell all your friends and relatives and ask them to also watch the film.

9th October 2015

Fluoride is responsible for many cases of hypothyroidism.

If you're a woman approaching the menopause and if you live in a fluoridated area, then please, please, be aware of the damage that fluoride can have on your metabolism.  Because it's a slow-acting chronic poison, ill-health is likely to creep up on you and GPs are not trained to make the link between the onset of hypothyroidism and fluoride.  Very recent research from the University of Kent has found a strong association between hypothyroidism and artificial fluoridation.  There is almost twice as much hypothyroidism in the fluoridated West Midlands, including Birmingham, when compared to non-fluoridated Manchester. Throughout England, there is 30% more hypothyroidism in fluoridated areas compared with non-fluoridated areas.  

If you are affected by strange symptoms the cause of which cannot be explained, then we advise that you initially consult Severn Trent's Water Quality page for your postcode and download a .pdf file which lists all the chemicals in your drinking water. You'll see the fluctuating levels of fluoride and concentrations for all the other nasties in your water supply.   Although the concentrations are extremely low, no account is being taken by the DWI and the DH of the very real effect of accumulative poisons over the course of a lifetime.  

We're now in our 51st year of water fluoridation (Birmingham was fluoridated in 1964) so the tip-over point into ill-health has already been reached for many people. Will the incidence of ill-health in the fluoridated population increase year-on-year from now on thus bringing the NHS to its knees?  


15th October 2015

This is very powerful image of a fetus at 8 months. 


30th September 2015


On the other side of the World (India), they are trying to reduce the concentration of fluoride in drinking water:  LINK

If it's dangerous to have 1.5ppm and more of fluoride/litre of water why is it OK to have 1ppm fluoride in the UK's drinking water.  Will someone please explain this to Andy Burnham (ex-vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society).  


Open letter to Andy Burnham, Ex-Shadow Health Secretary for Health

Dear Andy

Re: Water Fluoridation

The margin of safety is so small that it beggars belief.  Why should British people be subjected to the presence of this artificial toxin at 1ppm in their drinking water when in India, 1.5ppm is regarded as injurious.  Surely, the margin of safety is really so very small.  Are you a super god that you can contemplate having this toxin in your drinking water in outer Manchester for the rest of your life or are you going to instal Whole-House filtration so that you and your family are not poisoned?

Let's face it.  Politicians are not listening.  Well, why would they when they are engaged on more meatier issues such as ensuring that half the population of England do not survive with good health into a decent old age.  By this I mean the vexed issues of avoiding regulation against or solutions for fracking, aspartame, MSG, Smart Meters, waste disposal of nuclear waste, hospital infections, MMR vaccination programmes, polypharmacy, GM Foods, Round-Up, withdrawal of benefits from people too ill to withstand the stress ....... the list seems endless.

Oh, brave new world ....


29th September 2015

Here's an interesting snippet of information:  In New Zealand it has now been admitted that hexafluorosilicic acid is industrial waste.  

Fluoride Free New Zealand Statement

Tuesday, 29 September 2015, 9:55 am
Press Release: Fluoride Free New Zealand

Industry Waste Exec Demands Increase of Toxic Fluoride Disposal, Via Nationwide Fluoride in Drinking Water

John Pfahlert, Water New Zealand's CEO, has made repeated calls to roll out nationwide mandatory fluoridation, over-riding communities that have already rejected the outdated practice, or have remained happily free from fluoridation. Water New Zealand is an industry lobby group, formed from the now dissolved New Zealand Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association, so it comes as no surprise that this group would lobby for an increase in the disposal of Industrial Grade fluoride chemicals into the public water supply.

The Industrial Grade Fluoride most widely used in fluoridation is Hydrofluorosilicic AcidHFA is the liquid by-product from the collection of two toxic gases, Hydrogen Fluoride and Silicon Tetra-Fluoride. It contains contaminants of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and sometimes, uranium.

The president of Water New Zealand is also the Group Manager for Engineering Services at South Taranaki District Council. This Council has been embroiled in a legal battle costing hundreds of thousands of dollars since they were taken to court after trying to force fluoridation on Patea and Waverley residents who had said they did not want it.

Fluoride itself is now categorised as a neurotoxin, as published in The Lancet, last year. Kent University’s Thyroid Study this year, showed water fluoridation increased hypothyroidism in women by 60% in fluoridated communities.

This waste management, spin doctor, and industry front man is now making the mistake of publicly outing one of the real reasons behind water fluoridation: industry waste disposal


6th September 2015.  This image should make you think.  The young girl in the picture is all-knowing, all-seeing, but is still unable to stop drinking fluoridated water.  Why? 


Well, we've all been lulled into drinking something which is so commonplace, so harmless, that we don't know which way to turn any longer.  But what if the fluoride changes her body's metabolism, thus making her into an all-knowing, all-seeing adolescent when she is only 9 years old.  If this is what is happening, why are we allowing it to happen?

Oh - and yes, if you're new to the issue of water fluoridation, you probably haven't yet realised that the fluoridating acid contains up to 28 contaminants including arsenic, lead, nickel, aluminium and cadmium.  LINK


New Guest Article (4th September 2015)  LINK

Although written in 2014, the information contained in the article by Dan Germouse is up-to-date and relevant.  The article describes the concentration of fluoride which accumulates in our bones over time which produces symptoms of Skeletal Fluorosis.  The issue of 'altered' bones is one which is very controversial.  Since the alteration can't be seen it's almost as though it doesn't happen.  Yet, the scandal of water fluoridation is that no-one in the Government is prepared to undertake any research into fluoride bio-accumulation.  What is the Government afraid of?

1st September 2015  

Here is an informative Web Page on dental hygiene which does not involve swallowing or using fluoride topically.                                                      LINK

16th August 2015.  New Zealand Survey on fluoridation.

"58% of people did not support fluoridation even “somewhat”.   As with anything to do with water fluoridation, there is controversy in this survey.  The local TV journalist does not deign to reference this work and you have to search elsewhere for the name of the journal in which the report of the survey appears.  Even then, it is not printed in the Journal’s August addition but as an add-on.  To view the full article it is necessary to subscribe.  The abstract does not tell the whole story but the sentence "Overall, 42% of respondents were strongly or somewhat in favour of CWF" gives us a clue regarding the origin of “58%” not being in favour.

Moreover, Fluoride Free NZ states that "58% of people did not support fluoridationeven "somewhat", so that group has probably taken this quote from the full report.  We certainly hope so. 

The use of the word "most" in the title of Fluoride Free NZ’s article has been criticised by pro-fluoridationists but since the survey ..."used quantitative data from the NZOHS" this is regarded by the survey’s researchers as being "nationally representative" and hence the assumption that if all Kiwis were asked for their opinions, then the results would have been the same, viz. 58% were not in favour of fluoridation.

The spin and deception which can be easily detected in the pro-fluoridation publicity regarding this survey is of interest to those of us who are aware of the shenanigans which frame this most divisive of public ill-health policies.  Even our two "favourite" American pro-f provocateurs are already 'in on the act'.  It’s unfortunate (for them) that they will not be allowed to comment on the news item via the WMAF website!


11th August 2015

What actually causes tooth decay in tiny tots and why is decay more prevalent in disadvantaged families?

A clue to the answer lies in Section 6.3.5 of Rotherham's Fluoridation Review Panel Report (2007). LINK

“Babies mainly pick up the Streptococcus mutans germ from their mothers during delivery (it is also found in the genitourinary tract) or after birth by kissing or other direct contact with saliva, coughing, sneezing or handling).  The most vulnerable time for infection is between 6 and 31 months.  Mothers with high levels of Strep. mutans infection due to poor oral hygiene are most likely to infect their children.  The later in childhood that a child becomes infected, the lower his lifetime risk of infection. 43

Thus prevention of tooth decay in children requires delay or prevention ofStrep. mutans infection or suppressing the germ’s activity together with attention to a mother’s oral health before and after childbirth, since she is the prime source of infection.

In Sweden since the 1970s there has been a programme targeted at pregnant women and children from disadvantaged communities aiming to removeStrep. mutans by using a range of preventative interventions.44   This has been shown to be effective in reducing dental decay over a long period.”


44.  Axel Tollskog G and S. Nordensten  (1993).  ‘Integrated caries preventative program on dental caries in children after 12 years.’  Caries Res. 1993 (suppl 1), 83-84.

It's a tragedy that the affection of a mother for her baby should cause the baby to experience tooth decay from the age of six months when the first milk tooth appears.  We have to ask "what steps are being taken by health visitors, post-natal clinics and mother and baby groups to tell young mums that it really is not a good idea to kiss their young baby on the mouth.  And horror of horrors - could the young mum be using her own toothbrush to brush the young child's teeth?  If the infection being passed from mother to child is one of the main reasons for infant tooth decay, then surely it is outrageous that the health of fluoridated people is being jeopardised while health authorities are not censuring this familial habit?

Postscript:  In 2007, Rotherham Borough Council decided against water fluoridation as a means of preventing tooth decay.

30th June 2015   Editorial

There have been quite a few research reports published in the last two years which have pushed the practice of water fluoridation to the edge of the abyss.  First of all, we have had many reports from China, Mexico and Iran which have pointed to the fact that fluoride reduces a child's intelligence. Then we are told that fluoride thickens the internal walls of arteries leading to the heart.  Next, a repeated assertion that fluoride causes renal distress was published last year.  Following quickly on its tail, a report demonstrates that fluoride causes ADHD.  Most recently, Kent University in February 2015 obtained data submitted by all English GP Surgeries which, when analysed, showed that the occurrence of hypothyroidism was almost twice as high in fluoridated Birmingham when compared with non-fluoridated Manchester. The overall conclusion was a strong statistically significant increase of 30% in fluoridated areas of England when compared with non-fluoridated England.  How much more proof that fluoride is damaging our health do we have to furnish?

The references to all these reports is LINKED (Work in progress).  We will also be adding the references to Friends of West Midlands Against Fluoride in the next few weeks.  Finally, all the titles will be brought to the attention of Public Health England which maintains that fluoride is 'safe and effective'.  Their spring 2014 report on the safety of fluoride in relation to several carefully cherry-picked human illnesses did not mention any of the illnesses which are the subject of our research reports.

Finally, the Cochrane Review has, this month, published a report which states that there is nothing in current research literature which testifies to the efficacy of swallowed fluoride as being a prophylactic (preventative) against dental decay.  In fact, The Cochrane Review Team had to go back several decades, pre-fluoridated toothpaste, in order to find anything which was worthy of examining by them.

Throughout all of this too-ing and fro-ing, one salient principle has been overlooked or obfuscated by pro-fluoridationists: if 50% of swallowed and absorbed fluoride exits our bodies via the bladder and colon, it can only do so if it is bonded with electro-positive cations - calcium, magnesium and potassium, for example.  This means that these essential minerals also exit the body to the detriment of our health.  The 50% of the fluoride which remains in our bodies becomes bonded to calcium, magnesium and potassium (and hydrogen) which are present in our tissues (bones, organs and teeth) meaning that these essential atoms are also rendered non-bioavailable. With much of the essential elements exiting the body and some of the rest being rendered non-bioavailable, it is amazing that we are still in the land of the living.   Non-bioavailable essential elements cannot carry out their proper function - they are rendered non-functional.

The accusation that fluoride is a general protoplasmic poison is very true.   

Due to their untimely excretion, there is  a deficiency of essential minerals in our bodies due to the presence of fluoride in our food, water and bath water.

The situation as described above is a simplification but we hope that once you have grasped the basics of the explanation, then you will hopefully be enabled to understand that fluoride is far from being an innocent bystander.

Moreover, if fluoridated disadvantaged children do not have much calcium and magnesium in their diet, then they are dealt a double whammy in that they lack essential calcium and magnesium to help repair and build teeth and bones.  Also the viability of much of the low levels of available calcium and magnesium in their diet is fast lost when bonded with fluoride.  Is it any wonder then that fluoridated children and teenagers in the West Midlands are experiencing disturbing levels of dental decay despite being fluoridated?

A final nail in fluoride's coffin is the uneasy truth that the worse a child's dental fluorosis, the greater the reduction in IQ.


30th June 2015
We apologise to those of you who have signed up to receive a newsletter from WMAF.   Vol. 2, Issue 1 is well overdue.  We could do with an administrator who can prepare the newsletter for publication via Tiny Letter (an off-shoot of Mail chimp).  Please contact if you would like to volunteer.

28th June 2015

A vintage video which shows how fluoride at a concentration of 1 part per 30 million has a negative effect on the viability of cells.  LINK

27th June 2015
There is a link to an article by Jason Uttley which is obtainable on the Guest article page LINK and which makes a connection between fibromyalgia and fluoride.  We have now learned that, in the USA, one in six people diagnosed with FM is a child!  LINK   If this is truly the case that fluoride is implicated in the onset of FM, then the damage caused to the health of USA citizens is out of control but it may be that the health of the Republic of Ireland and fluoridated England is closely following.

26th June 2015

The LINK takes you to a well-written article about Austin (Texas) and residents' efforts to have fluoride removed from their drinking water.

24th June 2015
On 17th June, we promised an analysis of the BBC Humberside radio programme featuring Paul Castle of the British Fluoridation Society.  The process of analysing his interview proved to be highly rewarding.             LINK

Editorial 4th June 2015

The Fluoride Open Resource Group has just reminded us of a relevant 'poster' which contains a quote from a past president of the American Medical Association (AMA).

Many decades ago, the American Dental Association (ADA) was also dead against using fluoride in medicine and is on record as having said so.  "Fluorine is a general protoplasmic poison, but the most important symptoms of chronic fluorine poisoning known at present are mottling of the teeth and interference with bone formation”. (American Dental Association, 1936)  

This was in the days before the ADA conveniently forgot about the dangers of bioaccumulated fluoride and was roped into promoting fluoridation as a dental godsend!

Note that the 'interference with bone formation' issue seems to have been 'lost in translation'!  Or is it a case of "don't mention it and it will go away"?  This is a well-known diversionary tactic to draw attention from an inconvenient truth.

Our bones are altered by the long-term bioaccumulation of fluoride.  This is a scientific fact.  Regardless of whether or not we come down with arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis or osteopenia, the scandal of water fluoridation is that our bone material is altered - and not for the better.  An inferior bone material is produced in all of us fluoridated people for the sake of an out-dated, 'past its use-by date' dental fashion.  

Artificial fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is bio-available whilst calcium fluoride (natural fluoride) when it is in the stomach is not bioavailable unless the fluoride ion is present at high concentrations. Such high fluoride concentrations are not encountered in the UK.

We need to counter the BFS spokesman's assertions that natural fluoride is as bio-available of the 'valuable co-product' of the phosphate fertiliser manufacturing process.  Poppy-cock!  In the UK, natural fluoride is NOT bio-available despite the 'findings' of the strange research by Newcastle University on the bioavailability of fluoride in 2004. LINK

In order to be bio-available, fluoride needs to be in excess of calcium.  For example, CaF2 requires 2 fluoride atoms to 1 calcium atom.  If, in solution, (i.e. in water) there are more than 2 fluoride atoms to every calcium atom, then some of the fluoride atoms would be bioavailable since it would seek out calcium in the body.  Only those people who drink black tea or who swallow their toothpaste on an empty stomach or who drink artificially fluoridated water are likely to bioaccumulate fluoride. This is because fluoride has a very strong affinity for calcium (and for magnesium, potassium and hydrogen).  Putting this simplistically, when the water drains out of the stomach, calcium (if present) and fluoride form a strong bond and this bond prevents bioaccumulation of fluoride and, unfortunately, of calcium.  The fluoride (and calcium) will exit the body without bioaccumulating. If there is magnesium present in the stomach, then fluoride will prevent the bioavailability of magnesium.  This is a tragedy since magnesium is required for more than 300 enzyme pathways.

This then is our counter-argument.  Most of us drink tea with milk and that renders fluoride non-bio-accumulative.  And yet, they would have you believe that the tea-drinkers of England have been benefitting from fluoride in tea whilst the opposite clearly appertains: that is, tea-drinkers who add milk are healthy whilst tea drinkers who do not add milk are not healthy.

The bioaccumulation of fluoride in our bodies is a thoroughly undesirable thing.  Let's face it: no-one in England has skeletal fluorosis as severe as experienced by some inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent but perhaps those annoying arthritic symptoms that some of us are experiencing are Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis and not osteoarthritis as our GPs would have us believe.

Reflecting further on the issue, it seems obvious that since calcium in the stomach and in the bloodstream prevents the bio-availability of fluoride because calcium forms a very strong ionic bond with fluoride (CaF2), then the policy of water fluoridation denies disadvantaged children the benefit of calcium because fluoride makes calcium non-bioavailable so that their growing teeth and bones are therefore deprived of an essential element.  It’s no wonder that they experience dental decay, particularly if their diet is low in calcium, and we have to assume that it is, if they are disadvantaged. 

For an interesting  Newsweek article on hypothyroidism and the connection with fluoride, go to LINK

17th June 2015

Two weeks ago, WMAF took part in a news programme hosted by BBC Humberside regarding the proposals to start the process of fluoridating Hull City and East Yorkshire.  As well as two campaigners against fluoridation, there were two people representing the pro-fluoridation stance.  The item on fluoridation lasted periodically over 2 hours.  The last interviewee was Paul Castle, spokesperson of the British Fluoridation Society.  We are trying to remain dispassionate but, the truth to tell, we have never heard such a load of rubbish spouted in the cause of pseudo-science.  An analysis of this part of the programme has been uploaded now that we've recovered from our speechless incredulity at the spin doctor tactics employed by this former Communications Officer of Birmingham City Council.               LINK

I have never heard so much bunkum.   If anyone has the patience to listen to the programme, the LINK takes you to the Listen-Again page where, on 4th June, the fluoridation item from the David Burns Programme of 3rd June was discussed between 10am and 12 noon.  It will soon disappear so four audio files from the Programme are due to be uploaded to this page.



12th March 2015

Today, we publish news from the USA regarding a piece of research which has found a link between fluoride and ADHD.  Once again we now have the proof that denies the pro-fluoridationists the right to state that fluoride is safe and effective.  It is anything but!   

                                                LINK                                                Opens in a new window


8th March 2015

This is a discussion on fluoride's negative effect on thyroid function and human intelligence.  We finally have a definitive UK research study which links the incidence of hypothyroidism with fluoride intake and absorption (via the skin).  In relation to human intelligence, there are now 50 studies which have been conducted on human intelligence and fluoride's role on causing reduced intelligence.  The conclusions now completely debunk the belief that fluoride is safe and effective.
                                                 LINK          Opens in a new window

26th January 2015

Excellent news from Ireland:  both County Leitrim and County Wexford passed motions on 12th January to request that the Irish Government stops fluoridating their water supply - especially now that residents are being asked to pay for their water.  
This brings the total of residents represented by dissenting Councils up to 1.7 million.  It only needs representatives of another 0.7 million residents to swing the vote!


12th January 2015
Statistics on how much money fluoridating local authorities waste.  May be useful if visitors want to challenge their Local Authority's spending cuts.  How can they contemplate making such huge cuts when they are profligately wasting money by 'pouring' the fluoridating acid and its carrier, water, down the drain?   LINK


6th January 2015

Letter to the Sonoma Gazette, California from Doug Cross, Director, United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoridation (6th January 2015).  Doug comments on a particularly excellent piece of journalism by Marlene Lily.
We've sent an email to the journalist congratulating her for a very honest piece of writing.


5th January 2015 (evening)

A correspondent has said:

"Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year which is 11 times more than Southampton's extractions."

Can anyone out there confirm or refute this?

(Birmingham is fluoridated and has 4 times the population of Southampton.)


5th January 2015



Go to for a full list of supplements, foods and other substances which will aid your recovery.  A second web page by Mike Adams contains valuable information on de-toxing. LINK


1st January 2015

Professor Vyvyan Howard explains why he considers that fluoride should not be added to the water supply.  LINK  (1st Jan. 2015)