Keyword search
News 2016

January - December 2016 News and Editorial Archive

29th December 2016:  The EU Bans Mercury Amalgam Fillings for children and Pregnant or Nursing Women

In 1994, Panorama made a programme about the dangers of mercury amalgam fillings.  Later in 2009, on ITV, we were regaled by a short video in which the reporter interviewed Barry Cockcroft (Chief Dental Officer for England) and Peter Ward (CEO of the British Dental Association).  Both officers attempted to deny that mercury fillings leach mercury vapour into our bodies after they are placed in the mouth. The Reporter made mincement of them!  T
he LINK is a video which combines the Panorama and ITV Tonight Prorammes.

What does this have to do with fluoride?  Well, mercury will soon be outlawed in the EU for children and pregnant and nursing mothers. Soon it will be banned altogether.  Mercury poisoning is described as being low-level chronic poisoning but there are also fears that Mercury causes Alzheimer's disease.  

Fluoride has been shown to reduce the intelligence of children.  The brain is the target of this second toxin although other body systems are slowly poisoned.  So, how long will it be before the Chief Dental Officer for England and the CEO of the British Dental Association admit that fluoride is health-damaging?  If fact, have they yet admitted that mercury is poisonous or are they just going to quietly phase out its use without a fanfare?  This is most likely. 

Due to health concerns, Sweden banned mercury amalgam outright from the year 2000.  Sweden is not a million miles away from the UK.  No-one at the BDA took any notice even though they have officers who are paid to keep an eye open for such developments.

We can only conclude therefore that the BDA is not concerned about our overall health and that the focus of this "Trade Union" is trained only on what goes on in our mouths.  Such short-sightedness is criminal!

For the comprehensive report of the European ban on mercury amalgam go to this LINK


28th December 2016: The Death of Boots' 'Smile Non-Fluoride" Toothpaste

Alas, Boots no longer stocks its own non-fluoride brand of toothpaste. The Company, which is owned by USA's Walgreens, has also stopped selling "Smile Fluoride".

The removal of this non-fluoride toothpaste from the market is a truly retrograde step and means that those of us who are either sensitised to fluoride or who do not wish to have fluoride in their lives have now had their choices severely limited.

On its website, immediately below telling us that there are no stocks available, Boots states "
Smile non-flouride toothpaste is suitable for young children, people who are sensitive to flouride and people who have been advised to avoid flouride by their dentist."

It's not the end of the World, but this decision by a market leader has removed the least expensive non-fluoride toothpaste from the shelves, thus making it more difficult for fluoride-avoiding families on low incomes to cope with their weekly shopping bill.

Boots continues to sell Euthymol but this is a very strong-tasting toothpaste which costs £2 + for a 75ml tube. (Smile Non-Fluoride used to cost £1.39 for a 100 ml tube).  All other non-fluoride toothpastes available in the UK in shops or on-line are more expensive.

Those people who do not purchase on-line and who do not wish to purchase Euthymol can visit their local Health-Food Shops or Waitrose to purchase K
ingfisher Brand non-fluoride toothpaste if that is their ultimate choice as a replacement brand. The toothpaste retails at £2.85 - £3.60 per 100 ml tube and comes in several flavours.  Other non-fluoride brands exist on-line and in health-food shops.


10th December 2016:  Fluoride Alert Network's Petition to the Environment Protection Agency (USA)

Is this the 'end game'?  FAN has written a petition to the EPA in which it quotes relevant law which the EPA has a duty to enforce.  Fascinating stuff and a really good read. Note the very comprehensive Reference section at the end of the Petition. If the Petition succeeds, the UK Government would have no further excuse to continue fluoridation in the UK.  Currently, when we finally get replies from the Department of Health, they are very quick to remind us of supporting research from the USA as an excuse not to stop fluoridation in the UK.  So if fluoridation ceases in the USA due to all the good sound reasons used in the Petition, then it should cease in the UK.

The 'infection' that is water fluoridation began in the USA and it's denouement may start there.  We can but hope.

The Petition can be read at 


5th December 2016:  Fluoridation research recently commissioned

We have received an email today from the Fluoride Alert Network (USA) in which they have listed research on fluoride which has been recently funded.

Ongoing Neurotoxicity Studies 

FAN's relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride's neurotoxicity seriously is beginning to pay off. Hitherto, for many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300) but that is changing:  

1. There is a new National Institute of Health funded fluoride/brain study.  Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S. This is what Robert Flemingof the national group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation (COF-COF) wrote: “This is possibly the most important recently evolving development in water fluoridation to date.”

2. A new rodent study that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing using low levels of fluoride exposure. We have concerns over the consultation process that NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken, see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of bulletin.

3. Dr. Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, from Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí in Mexico is currently working with Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador on three U.S. government funded studies by the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies (NIEHS) on fluoride neurotoxicity: (1) an examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water, (2) estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure, and (3) investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children.  Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women. She also published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.

4. Dr. Philippe Grandjean (Harvard School of Public Health) is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology. (Choi 2015). 

5. An NIEHS-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment,” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study is available online.

6. An NIEHS-funded animal study, titled “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study is available online.

7. The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 ISEE conference andcan be accessed online.

Historical footnote:

When Phyllis Mullenix et al published their groundbreaking animal study on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe dental center. That sent a chilling message to US researchers - research on fluoride toxicity is a "no go area." Now with the U.S. government funding several important studies this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved.  

Vigilance still needed 

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skewer the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm - which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans. Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals order to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive.


25th November 2016:  The Birth of Fluoridation and the Possible Role of the US Military

Today, I came across a 1967 article by Albert Burgstahler Ph.D. in which he stated "In 1941, dental defects resulting mainly from caries and lack of adequate dental care were the leading medical cause for rejections from selective military service.  Over 188,000 or nearly 10 per cent, of the first two million men examined for the draft had to be rejected because they had less than 12 useful teeth out of the normal adult complement of 32 permanent teeth."  

It wasn't until 1945 that the first fluoridation trials took place in the USA. The trials were cut short after 5 years (instead of 10) and fluoridation was introduced indecently quickly throughout the States. Could it be that the USA military was concerned that they would never be able to conscript enough men during the 1950s with the Cold War looming?  Was it thought impossible to prevent dental decay with properly targetted dental health education?  I rather think that that was the case since it would have been a huge and expensive task.  So the US Government encouraged mass medication in the mistaken belief that fluoride would prevent dental decay and provide the State with more cannon fodder.  This would explain why many military bases are fluoridated even though the surrounding area often isn't.  

When fluoridation was first introduced in the USA, it was believed that it would have a positive effect on the teeth of all people, no matter what their age.  This has largely been debunked and these days, even the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) is coming around to stating that it's topical fluoride brushed on teeth which is the main preventative mechanism, although they curiously try to maintain that fluoride in saliva is also helpful (and that's another story for another day).


1st November 2016:
  Trick or Treat

We have recently talked to a couple living in a non-fluoridated area who took their little boy to their private dentist for a check-up.  Now this couple is thoroughly against fluoride and fluoridated toothpaste so the dentist must have perceived that the little boy was "in peril" of getting toothache.  Without telling the parents what he was about to do, he painted the child's back teeth with fluoride varnish.  Upon being asked what he had done, he confessed he had used fluoride varnish.  He was apparently somewhat bashful about his sleight of hand.

The dentist knew about the parents' objections to fluoride treatments and still went ahead and treated the child without the parents' permission.  What is the legal and ethical position?  At the very least this particular treatment was without consent and the dentist, knowing about the parents' abjection to fluoride treatments, violated a medical ethic which is embodied in the NHS Constitution.

So what to do now?  Changing dentists would be the first line of attack after having written a letter of complaint to the dentist.  Any reply should then be sent to the dentist's governing body together with a further letter of complaint.  

The problem is that dentists are somewhat gung-ho about fluoride.  After all, it's "safe and effective" and people are making too much of a fuss about such a little thing.  Well, no!  The young boy will now be swallowing his fluoride varnish for the next few months.  Since there has been no research on the possible bioavailability of the swallowed varnish, there is no-one it seems who can predict the health outcomes of swallowed varnish for the thousands of children who have already been treated.  Most have received fluoride varnishes with their parents' consent but this little boy is different.  No permission was sought and no permission was given.

Will dental fluorosis in the little boy's permanent teeth have been caused by one application of fluoride varnish?  We don't know but the parents are advised to keep strict records from now on until the age of eight is reached when any fluorosis damage would be detectable in the child's upper incisors.


31st October 2016
  Attendance at the Wolverhampton Vegan Fair 29-30th October.

WMAF had a very successful couple of days at the Vegan Fair and we were able to increase our mailing list and got almost 100 postcards signed.  The postcards are being sent to the NHS's CEO in batches of 200 using Recorded Delivery.  This gives us the opportunity to enclose a letter to tell Professor Simon Stevens of recent discoveries about the ineffectiveness of fluoride as a prophylaxis for dental decay.

Visitors to the stall were asked about hypothyroidism.  The majority of older lady visitors had hypothyroidism or knew of someone who had the problem.  This is in line with the research conducted by researchers at Kent University into the prevalence of hypothyroidism.  It bears repeating:  there is almost double the number of women with hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands when compared with non-fluoridated Greater Manchester.  In England as a whole, there is 30% more hypothyroidism in fluoridated England when compared with non-fluoridated England.  The correlation with fluoride is highly significant BUT the Department of Health doesn't want to know about this because it wasn't their research (i.e. the DH didn't sponsor it) and if it was admitted by them, Flagship Fluoride would capsize.

The LINK takes you to the Kent University research.  If you have hypothyroidism and if you want fluoridation to cease, please send a letter and a printed copy of the research report to Duncan Selbie, CEO of Public Health England. Ask him to sponsor research into individual patients with hypothyroidism so that causation can be established now that we have such a strong correlation.  Patients have to be asked if they take frequent hot baths and whether they have lived in a fluoridated area for many years prior to the time when they were diagnosed with hypothyroidism. The link with hot baths is key to understanding the disease.  The LINKED document explains why it is important NOT to take hot baths in a fluoridated area.  The physician who wrote the report in 1932 had great success at dampening down over-active thyroid glands (thyrotoxicosis) with hydrofluoric acid which he added to hot bath water.  Some of his earlier patients had too many hot baths and this resulted in hypothyroidism.  

The fluoridating acid used in English fluoridation programmes contains a small volume of hydrofluoric acid which is readily absorbable through the skin, especially when the body is surrounded by hot water.  Fluoride is anti-thyroid!

It really is a case of pushing at an unlocked door.  If more people were to contact those who think they have power over us (PHE, DH, Councillors and MPs), they will get the message sooner or later.  On the other hand, if we remain silent and acquiescent, nothing will change and the door will remain closed.

                                Be the change you wish to see in your lives!


25th October 2016 We've just noticed that the CEO of Public Health England has been sent the results of the NDNS 2014 so our conclusions should come as no surprise to him.  See our report dated 14th October below.

22nd October 2016:  Hull Fluoridation moves a stage further.

Two days ago, the ruling Labour Party on Hull City Council voted, in camera, to continue exploring water fluoridation now that they have established with Yorkshire Water that the scheme is practicable.

During the past year or so that fluoridation has been threatening Hull, the Health and Well-Being Board has put into operation alternative dental decay prevention programmes.  We don’t know how successful these programmes have been but surely they should be allowed to bed in and to produce results – whether good or not - before prematurely spending money on a controversial Public Consultation?

The Hull Labour Party’s haste to rush towards fluoridation is indecent.  Is the Party presupposing that alternative dental health programmes won’t work?

We know that the Chairman of the Health and Well-Being Board has been persuaded that fluoridation is highly effective at preventing dental decay.  We can only hope that if a Consultation runs its course where the majority of Hullites are against the Public Health measure, that the Health and Well-Being Board members respect the wishes of Hull Constituents.  Otherwise we will find ourselves in the same situation that Southampton was in 2008 when the Strategic Health Authority ignored the wishes of 72% of those who took part in the Southampton Consultation.

We wonder what has happened to dental decay in Southampton since 2008 without Fluoridation. Is it better or worse?

The East Riding of Yorkshire County Council has to be consulted next and that authority has 3 months in which to consider the issue. Consequently, nothing will be decided until March 2017 when the Health and Well-Being Board will review the situation.  We hope that, by then, they will have acquired statistics on the success of the alternative dental health programmes.  If decay has reduced by March 2017, there would be no justification in going out to public consultation.


15th October 2016:  Influential ex-American Ambassador calls for Fluoridegate Hearings in Georgia (USA)

The LINK takes you to the letter sent by Andrew Young to Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal and to House Speaker David Ralston.  The letter is unusual because here, for the first time, gathered together in one place are the ways in which the story-board for fluoride has changed since fluoridation began in the 1940s.  "It was thought .... now it it thought ..... actually we don't really know for sure but it really is safe and effective, honest!"


14th October 2016:  The puny amount of fluoridated water drunk by tiny children

We've finally found the survey relating to the amount of water drunk by small children between 2008 and 2012 in the UK.  The results are from the rolling programme and are averaged.

In short, 
Children aged 1.5 - 3 years      Water (and tea and coffee)  184 gm/day
Children aged 4 - 10 years       Water (and tea and coffee)  270 gm/day

Other liquid is consumed but we are concerned here with beverages which might contain fluoride when living in a fluoridated area where all water, tea and coffee will probably contain fluoride unless the child drinks Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water or certain types of table water.  If that is the case, then children would be drinking even less fluoridated water than is implied in the statistics above.

So, instead of drinking 1 litre of tap water a day containing 1mg fluoride, fluoridated children drink 
between 0.184 - 0.270 mg fluoride per day.  Since the UK optimum of fluoride is 1mg per litre, it is really difficult to work out how on earth the fluoride in tap water can be decreasing tooth decay in small children.  

The current 'theory' is that the fluoride in saliva which is present in the mouth day and night is the silver bullet for the prevention of tooth decay.  However, Richard Sauerheber has calculated that the saliva of fluoridated people contains 0.02mg fluoride per litre of saliva and that's based on optimum ingestion of at least a litre of fluoridated water containing 1mg fluoride.  Since it seems now that children do not drink anywhere near that amount of tap water per day, then the concentration of fluoride in their saliva originating in fluoridated water would be vanishingly small. Since we don't produce much saliva when we're sleeping and since the saliva in our mouths is constantly being swallowed, the remineralisation theory for water-derived fluoride in saliva is, well let's face it, now shot to pieces. 

We were prepared to accept that 0.3% of the fluoride added to drinking water of 6 million people in England was being ingested by disadvantaged tiny tots, but that figure has to be revised downwards in light of the nutrition statistics tabulated above.  It would seem that only one-fifth of 1 mg fluoride per day is ingested by children up to 3 years of age meaning that only one-fifth of 0.3% of the fluoride purchased "hits the target".  That's 0.06% of the fluoride purchased.  For ages 4 - 10, the amount ingested is one-third of 0.3% which is 0.1% of the fluoride added to tap water.

Thus, the total waste of money of the fluoridating acid is almost completely 100% and so too is the cost of the equipment and maintenance costs.

Dental decay still exists and we're told by those who protect this quirky medical (mal)-practice that fluoride can't possibly stop all dental decay, just much of it. Well, now it seems that it hasn't been doing a very good job at all since children are just not drinking enough of the stuff.  In short, the pro-fluoridationists might just as well give up and pack their bags.

As far as dental fluorosis is concerned, if children are not drinking enough fluoridated water, then the disfigurement of their teeth is probably caused by swallowing their fluoridated toothpaste. 

Thinks!  Where does this leave Project Catfish in West Cumbria?
  Up the River Suwannee perhaps.

LINK: Full NDNS survey and appendices
LINK: Extract of Table 5.1c from the appendices
LINK: Richard Sauerheber's article on water fluoridation


13th October 2016:  Fluoride varnishes - update

What happens in the body when fluoride varnish erodes off children's teeth and is inevitably swallowed.  Is it bioavailable and if so, where does it accumulate in the body?  So we asked this question of Newcastle University and specifically contacted the man who should know the answer.  Bearing in mind that tiny flakes of eroded varnish would contain millions of fluoride atoms, our quest to establish bio-availability was justified.

Here is the reply from Christopher Vernazza who is NIHR Clinician Scientist, Paediatric Dentistry, at the School of Dental Sciences,:
"Unfortunately, we have not conducted any research at Newcastle that relates to this particular question.  I am sorry we cannot be of any further help."

So it would appear that the toxicity of fluoride has gone under the radar of at least one dental researcher.  It could just be that the fluoride is swallowed as a compound and cannot bio-accumulate but surely someone should have checked this out?


30th September 2016:  Hamilton City Council, New Zealand, is providing non-fluoridated water at a service point for residents who don't want to drink fluoridated tap water.

What an indictment of New Zealand fluoridation policy!  The water company serving Hamilton provides treated water to customers and which is then adulterated by the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid which destroys its potability (because the acid contains arsenic and fluoride and 28 other contaminants).  It would have been simpler not to have added the acid in the first place.

The water at Claudelands is purified by a Reverse Osmosis filter which removes all the minerals - both natural and artificial.  This means that residents need to remember to add minerals in order to restore the health-giving properties of the filtered water.  Meanwhile residents are still paying full whack for their contaminated domestic water supply.

This is a strange way in which to promote pro-choice!         

It would be a bit interesting if very long queues formed and the purified water ran out!

Let's hope that Hamilton City Council remembers to change the filters and membrane on a regular basis after having analysed the product water.

We urge Fluoride-Free Hamilton to purchase a Hanna HI729 Fluoride Low Range Gauge so that that group can keep Hamilton Council on its toes. Knowledge is power!

The more residents who use the facility the more frequently the filters and membrane will need to be changed.  That could become quite expensive for Hamilton.


22nd September 2016: MP under investigation for not declaring his Vice-Presidency of the British Fluoridation Society

Sir Paul Beresford MP (who is a former dentist from New Zealand) has had a complaint made against him for not registering his interest in the British Fluoridation Society AND for taking part in a House of Commons debate in February 2016 in which he urged the fluoridation of the UK.  LINK  This is a definite conflict of interests for which he is being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS).  Moreover, many of the facts stated in his speech are completely untrue - but them what's new in relation to politicians and spin?

Sir Paul was a Vice-President of the British Fluoridation Society in 2013 and evidence acquired this year shows him as being a Vice-President for the same pro-fluoridation pressure group.  The investigation was published on the PCS's website and picked up by a Telegraph reporter who questioned Sir Paul.  In the short article on 18th September, Sir Paul stated that he had resigned from the BFS's Vice-Presidency some time ago and that the BFS were continuing to use out-dated letterhead stationery.

We await the outcome of the PCS's investigations.

19th September 2016:  Disturbing attempt by PHE Barnsley to persuade Council to investigate fluoridation.
This is disturbing news indeed, especially since Anita Dobson, Barnsley's Dental PH Consultant has disseminated information about systemic fluoride which is completely out-of-date.  It's more than a bit strange that PHE seems unable to take on board recent research on fluoridation.  For example, PHE has not distributed throughout its organisation and internally discussed the statistical insignificance of Bedford PHE's report in which 5-year-olds in Bedford had no more tooth decay after fluoridation had ceased for 6 years compared with tooth decay levels in 2008, one year before fluoridation stopped temporarily due to technical problems.

For the relevant document please go to LINK.

25th August 2016:  Another inconvenient truth.

Just finished reading a study published in the US from 2005 which tested blood fluoride levels in 1300 women in different communities. Two communities had artificially fluoridated water at 1.0mg/l but different concentrations of calcium in water. In the high calcium community the mean blood serum fluoride levels were 31% lower than the community with low calcium in drinking water. This is an important study as it conclusively shows that the effect of fluoridation will vary depending on natural calcium levels in drinking water. So if you live in a soft water area the accumulation of fluoride will be significantly greater.  

This means that people living in West Birmingham (UK) are in double jeopardy since the water is soft with a t.d.s of 77.  Now looks at the Kent research which stated that there was alomst double the prevalence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands (including Birmingham) than found in non-fluoridated Greater Manchester where the calcium levels are higher.


23rd August 2016:  Bantry, Republic of Ireland, starts to become fluoride-free.

This is not such an inconsequential occurance as you might at first think. The Governement of the Republic of Ireland remains (unreasonably) wedded to fluoridation so for a province to 'kick ass' is unusual.  Well done Bantry!


20th August 2016:  "Until a government for the common good stands upright, without loyalty to corporations who pour funds into party coffers, there will be no justice for these victims."  (John Adams, President of the United States of America).  

Now, have a look at what is happening in the USA regarding the Federal Drugs Administration and Big Pharma, and the Environmental Pollution Agency and

Monsanto and then tell me if John Adams hope for justice has come true.  I think not!


12th August 2016
: Fluoride Varnishes - reply to Freedom of Information request relating to adverse reaction and the Yellow Card scheme.  LINK

In a nutshell, there have been adverse reactions and there may be more because incidents are not always reported via the Yellow Card scheme.  The writer of the FoI reply tells us that the Yellow Card scheme was used more in Scotland once parents were made aware of the scheme.  Thus, 5 incidents were reported in 2014 and 19 reported in 2015.  

It's also of interest to note that varnishes are categorised as either Medicinal Products or Medical Devices.  It seems that only adverse reactions after the administration of a Medicinal Product such as Duraphat are reported to the MHRA.  Medical Devices are regulated under a different set of laws and as such the MHRA cannot let us have any statistics relating to adverse reactions following the use of a device.

We are open to polite suggestions from visitors to this site for further questions which can be asked of the MHRA relating to fluoride varnishes. Email

11th August 2016: An update of the situation in New Zealand. 

If you think that what is happening in New Zealand is a walk in the park, think again. The NZ Government is hell-bent on getting people fluoridated no matter what.  Fluoride-Free New Zealand is fighting this and has asked for Financial help from folks in other parts of the World who are also opposed. I have sent £100 for the cause.  Please help them since if New Zealand becomes 100% fluoridated, that spells the end to freedom of choice worldwide.


9th August 2016 "A fluoride free version of BioMin is also being developed for individuals who do not want or need fluoride toothpaste."  

Observations:  So there is now going to be a toothpaste which doesn't contain fluoride and which will be effective at reducing sensitivity due to its remineralising effect!  The inventors of Biomin tell us that fluoride in toothpaste is particularly beneficial in helping the remineralisation of enamel but that conventional fluoride toothpastes only last in the mouth for 2 hours while the new Biomin lasts for 8-12 hours and especially overnight.  However, the researchers at Queen Mary University of London are now saying that they will develop a fluoride-free version of Biomin which will also work on remineralising the teeth overnight.

So, calcium + phosphate + fluoride remineralise teeth using the new formula, and calcium and phosphate will possibly remineralise teeth using the fluoride-free toothpaste.  If the latter prerparation proves to be effective at remineralising tooth enamel, why bother with adding the fluoride?


Glycerin, Silica, PEG 400, Fluoro Calcium Phospho Silicate, Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, Titanium Dioxide, Aroma, Carbomer, Potassium Acesulfame.  Available Fluoride content maximum 1000ppm when packed. ( )

29th July 2016:  Visitors who visit this website and who live in Hartlepool are invited to get in touch with WMAF by email:

27th July 2016:  Sometimes you have to pinch yourself since this piece of news is so unbelievable ..

Gladstone, Queensland, Australia has voted to stop fluoridation and the practice will cease in August 2016.  This is nothing short of a miracle because the City is a marginalised community.  By this, we mean that it is heavily industrialised with aluminium smelters which emit noxious gases such as hydrogen fluoride into the atmosphere.  How on earth did the Regional Council pluck up enough courage to swim against the current?


17th July 2016
:  Does water fluoridation contribute to breast cancer and the early onset of puberty?

A table contained in a recent article LINK lists metalloestrogens which have been identified as having the potential of adding to the estrogenic burden of the human body.  We already knew that estrogen (oestrogen in the UK), when produced by the body for more years than normal, has a negative role to play in breast cancer.  Now we are told that too much estrogen could trigger early puberty, especially in young girls.  The table is reproduced below.  




















































The heavy metals which are expressed as ppb and ppm are those found in 1 litre of hexafluorosilicic acid. That's right: all the metalloestrogens are found in the fluoridating acid used to ensure that we have our daily dose(s) of fluoride.

These metalloestrogens are present in our fluoridated drinking water and in food manufactured in fluoridated areas.  Although the concentrations of heavy metals etc. contributed by the fluoridating acid to our litres of drinking water are minute, they ADD to those which are already in our lives.   For example, aluminium is found in vaccines, in cookware, in deodorants and in baking foil.  Lead is found in our drinking water before the fluoridating acid is added to treated water. Mercury is added to vaccines.  Nickel is used for jewellery.

The metalloestrogens are drunk by babies living in fluoridated areas when bottle-fed using fluoridated tap water.

There can be no excuse for adding metalloestrogens to drinking water - water which is supposed to be potable and health-giving.


 14th July 2016     Wakefield -  a follow-up thought

Proposals to introduce fluoride to Wakefield's water supply have been shelved for two years.  We persuaded Wakefield's Overview and Scrutiny Committee not to fluoridate and provided the Committee with several pieces of research which demonstrate health concerns where fluoride is added to drinking water and to food manufactured in fluoridated areas.  We had hoped that Wakefield Borough Council would have closed down on this PHE proposal. Instead, Wakefield BC has been persuaded to revisit the topic in 2018.

It is to be hoped that more research will be published in the two years leading up to revisiting the issue.  However, PHE is due to produce the second of its quaint health monitoring reports in March 2018.  Is it a coincidence that Wakefield has been persuaded to revisit the issue in the same year that this second monitoring report is due?  I think not!  Why did Wakefield choose 2 years instead of 3 or 4 years?  Is 2 years enough time to demonstrate a reduction in dental decay in Wakefield children due to targetted dental health programmes?  Probably not.  Also, will Wakefield's Overview and Scrutiny Committee be provided with dental statistics for the period up to April 2018?  There is normally a lag time before such statistics are available.  

Thus, any dental health programmes put into effect this year are not going to bed in properly and will probably not produce statistically significant data for 2016-2017. Another year's sampling for 2017-2018 is indicated but probably won't be available at the time the Committee sits down to deliberate on fluoridation.

If the Committee is shown a PHE health monitoring report in March 2018 which states that fluoride does not cause health problems (as did the first such whitewash report in 2014), then the Committee will be more likely to take notice of the report since this will be the most contemporary pro-fluoridation report seen by the Committee.

Note: We are scathing of PHE's Health Monitoring report since the authors cherry-picked illnesses and left out those illnesses which we are convinced are caused, either directly or indirectly, by fluoride in one's diet and environment.  After all, fluoride has been listed as being a developmental neurotoxin and there are millions of fluoride atoms in each glass of fluoridated tap water.

PHE's 2014 Health Monitoring report can be found HERE

13th July 2016

A written question on children's dental health was asked of Alistair Burt (Health Minister) in the HoC and answered today.  LINK

... but what does it all mean?  The population of children under the age of 10 has increased in the past 4 years accompanied by an increase in extractions. Can anything meaningful be read into this information or is it just another case of convoluted statistics?

One thing is certain though.  The word "fluoride" does not appear in the answer.  Instead, Burt talks about "targetted interventions in ten high needs areas and reform of the dental contract to focus on prevention."

Wow ... well, gosh!  Has the great god Fluoride been banished to the annex?

A recent piece of research which deals with BPa causing weak tooth enamel in the unborn child is surely one of the reasons why young children get tooth decay?  However, it is unlikely that this factor will reach dentists so that they can include it in advice given by them to female patients who are of child-bearing age. 


Quote of the year!

"Fluoridation is the hijacking of the public water supply to mass medicate non-consenting populations in wildly uncontrollable dosages of a known toxin which bio-accumulates in the body."


27th June 2016:  The email address linked to this website ( has been hijacked and emails are being sent out in our name.  We regret this and hope that it is not causing any inconvenience.  The topic of the emails relates to job offers from an international company to work from home. It's probably down to IT students 'testing' the system now that college exams have finished.  It's easy to see the attempts at breaching the password if one goes into Options, Security and Privacy, See My Recent Activity. The attempted attack had been going on for two months and originated in Reading.  Strangely, one rogue email was sent before the password was changed and two have been sent since changing the password.  Most odd! 

16th June 2016: House of Lords Written Question regarding PHE's 2014 reort on the monitoring of our health in fluoridated areas

Reproduced in full below:

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Crossbench

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Priorof Brampton on 17 November 2015 (HL3315), why the Executive Summary of the report by Public Health England Water fluoridation: Health monitoring report for England 2014 concludes that "The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure", when the Limitations section of the report states that "there was potential for considerable misclassification of exposure status" and the Conclusion section states that "the population-based, observational design does not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding any causative or protective role of fluoride".

·         Hansard source(Citation: HL Deb, 15 June 2016, cW) 

Lord Prior of BramptonThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

The Public Health England report, Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England 2014 was, of necessity, an ecological study. An ecological design is appropriate for monitoring health outcomes in fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations. All academic research has limitations. In designing and conducting research consideration must be taken regarding timescales for publication and cost to the public purse. Stating the limitations of the study within the body of a paper is considered good scientific practice.

The report discusses the limitations of this study design, including the potential for mis-classification of fluoride exposure status, using an ecological level of measurement with regard to water fluoridation rather than individual fluoride intake. The report’s findings, however, concur with those of numerous authoritative reviews of water fluoridation that finds levels of tooth decay are lower in fluoridated areas and that there is no convincing evidence that water fluoridation causes adverse health effects.

For these reasons the author’s conclusion "The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure" is appropriate.

With over 70 years’ experience of water fluoridation internationally and over 50 years’ experience in the United Kingdom, there has been no convincing scientific evidence to indicate that water fluoridation has caused harm to health.



14th June 2016:  Low fluoride toothpaste better for children.  Really?
This is an interesting news item from New Zealand where we are told that "... child strength toothpastes containing phosphate salts reduce decay significantly in children under the age of 6 when compared to adult strength toothpaste, without increasing health risks.

Apparently, a combination of sodium trimetaphosphate and 500ppm fluoride is 70% more effective at combatting decay than 1100ppm adult toothpaste.  However, we're not told if a toothpaste containing sodium trimetaphosphate and 0ppm fluoride would be even more effective.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far for Colgate Palmolive to cross ... yet.    LINK


13th June 2016: New article on the engineering of misinformed consent in relation to water fluoridation


Justification for a state policy on water fluoridation is found in the authoritarian approach to public health. The strategies employed to choose interventions are consistent with strictly utilitarian determinants that in practice rely on inadequate risk cost–benefit analysis, inflating the perceived benefits to the State whilst ignoring private sector costs when the socio-economic benefits to the State and the community are judged to justify abrogation of individual rights. 

This promotes reliance on the concept of proportionality in public health interventions, obstructing appropriate review of the ethical acceptability and legitimacy of water fluoridation. It is proposed that the underlying drive to retain fluoridation is mainly directed at preserving the power base of the dental profession; its persistence is reliant on collusion between the legislature itself and its regulatory and implementing agencies, and the tactics employed to maintain the status quo are everywhere dependent on a legal fiction, as well as on scientific fraud and deliberate misrepresentation. 

It appears, then, that the objective is to persuade key public sector influence groups to recruit the lay public’s support through the engineering of misinformed consent to the practice. This new cross-disciplinary analysis examines the underlying ethical and legal issues raised by fluoridation, and the role of the public sector and professional elites in manipulating the judiciary and State (including local authorities) to endorse the preservation of the expiring fluoridation paradigm.

Reference citation: Cross D. An unhealthy obsession with fluoride. Nanotechnology Perceptions 11 (2015) 169–185 doi: 10.4024/N11CR15A.ntp.15.03


A second article by Doug Cross published in June 2015 entitled "Lies, Dammed Lies and Dental Statistics" makes pithy reading.  LINK


10th June 2016: The unhappiest man in Wakefield

We're still bathing in the warm glow caused by Wakefield's Health Scrutiny Committee deciding not to recommend water fluoridation.  But we mustn't be complacent because the Committee has decided to review the situation in two years' time.  By that time, there ought to be more evidence stacking up against fluoridation which will persuade the Committee to reinforce its earlier recommendation.

In the meantime, here is a photograph of the unhappiest man:  he's Dr Andrew Furber and he's Director of Wakefield's Public Health Department.  He's unhappy because he will have vowed (along with all his PHE colleagues) to defend fluoridation with all that is holy to him.  It would be more fitting if his unhappiness was due to the fact that he is expected to uphold this complete con.

Dr Andrew Furber
Photograph: Courtesy of Wakefield Express

24th May 2016:  Worldwide petition on fluoridation by Colin Varian.  Please sign it.


20th May 2016:  Fluoride safe and effective????

In The Mail Online on 17th May, there appeared an article on Ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic which causes severe and permanent side effects.  LINK   

20th May 2016:  New Zealand Government announces its intention to completely violate the human rights of its total population.

This may sound a trifle too reactionary - but that is exactly what is planned. You see, up till now, the NZ Government has allowed local authorities to decide on whether they want to authorise fluoridation in their area.  Because quite a few local authorities have turned against fluoridation, the NZ Government wants to snatch back the power to decide on fluoridation.  Thus they will be proposing soon that District Health Boards will have the final say on fluoridation proposals.  Since the Health Boards are controlled by the NZ Government, it seems highly likely that 100% of NZ is destined to become fluoridated.  

In order to do this, there must be a supply of the fluoridating acid readily available in NZ or in Australia.  It may be that there isn't enough of the stuff in NZ to poison all of NZ.  Currently, the fluoridating acid is provided by the Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter at Bluff near Invercargill.  This company is 80% owned by Rio Tinto.  

However, Rusal/Rio Tinto has a smelter at Gladstone, Queensland, Australia so presumably has a hazardous waste product which needs to be massaged to produce a 'valuable co-product' for selling to countries wishing to fluoridate their citizens.  It would be easy to ship the haz. waste to NZ across "the ditch".  The imperative of 'big business' to off-load its haz. waste without having to convert it into non-haz. waste, powers the water fluoridation programme in fluoridating countries.  

The only unanswered question is "Why is the NZ Government so keen on water fluoridation?"  It can't be because the substance reduces tooth decay when swallowed.  That theory has been soundly debunked recently in NZ thanks to the Childsmile Programme in non-fluoridated Scotland which has shown NZ dental statistics up in a very poor light.

Perhaps, just perhaps, big business has reached out to the NZ Government and has not found it wanting!


17th May 2016:  New article by Dr Mercola on Fluoride: The drug you can't refuse to take.  LINK

15th May 2016:  Updated position on fluoride supplements in the USA.
The LINK takes you to a recent page uploaded to the Dr Mercola website.  It deals with the Food and Drug Administration's recent letter to a pharmaceutical company in which that company is ordered to remove fluoride supplements from sale because they are 'unauthorised drugs'. There's also a PETITION to sign.

If packaged fluoride supplements with a concentration of 1mg each are ordered off the market, why is it then that fluoridated water containing between 0.7 and 1ppm fluoride is still sponsored by the American Fluoridation Society?  Is this another case of deliberate muddled thinking?


24th April 2016:  Hull City Council and Cllr Colin Inglis still determined that Hullites will be fluoridated.

Even though we've tried our best to determine from Yorkshire Water whether or not that company has been asked to undertake a feasibility study for a proposed Fluoridation programme for Hull, the news that a study HAS been commissioned by Hull City Council has taken us completely by surprise. After all, it's not pleasant to be told one thing when the exact opposite is the truth.

Surely customers of Yorkshire Water deserve to be given information when they seek that information.  After all, they are the people who are going to be drinking the adulterated water.  This is a poor show indeed and makes us fearful that residents of Hull won't even be informed when the feasibility study is finally sent to Hull PHE and to Hull City Council.  Perhaps Hull City council is even now in possession of the study?

LINK   The feasibility study is mentioned at the bottom of the article.


23rd April 2016: EDITORIAL  - A really disgraceful poster


Can't really believe that if something is 'tasteless' that that's necessarily a good thing since one of the ways that people can tell if there's something nasty lurking in their drinking water is if they can taste it. (Or perhaps the originator of the poster was trying to tell us that the employment of fluoride was in bad taste!)

The use of the word "pure" is a downright fabrication if Canada was using hydrofluorosilicic acid when this poster was printed and distributed.  The fluoridating acid could never be regarded as being 'pure' because it has at least 14 contaminants in it.  No matter the degree of dilution, pro-fluoridationists are not able to deny that arsenic is being added to our water supply.  As such our fluoridated drinking water is adulterated.  That means that the use of the word "safe" is also a porky.  "Effective"?  Well, not from this side of the great divide: 0.6 of a tooth surface difference is not statistically significant.  "Inexpensive"?  Not when we add up the extra cost to the NHS when treating mystery chronic conditions.  "Safe" - read on!

The ingredient of most concern in the fluoridating acid is 'surplus' hydrogen which forms a compound with fluoride even when in the acid.  Hydrogen fluoride (HF), we are told, does NOT dissociate in the fluoridating acid and when in water. It's true that the majority of compounds dissociate in water but not HF.

Why is this important?  We need to time travel back to 1932 to examine a research paper written in archaic Austro-German, and which has only recently been translated into English, in order to understand the significance of non-dissociation.  Viktor Gorlitzer von Mundy was a physician who specialised in curing thyrotoxicosis (hyperthyroidism to you and me). He knew that fluoride was anti-thyroid and developed a treatment which successfully cured his patients' overactive thyroid glands.

After experimenting with several formulations of fluoride, he determined that a highly diluted compound of hydrogen fluoride gas in a measured volume of hot water at a specific temperature did the trick?  He experimented on himself before dunking his patients in the bath water.  He came to no harm. So successful was his treatment that he continued to use diluted HF until the 1960s at which time, more easily measurable and safer medicines were developed and marketed.

Thus, he demonstrated that HF was absorbable by the skin whilst other compounds of fluoride dissociated in water which implied that the fluoride anion on its own did not get into the tissues.  It seems counterintuitive that a compound should breach the skin barrier whilst an element does not. However, that's the theory and Gorlitzer proved it.  We have to assume therefore, that bathing in water to which calcium fluoride has been added is not likely to have any effect on thyroid health because the fluoride, having dissociated from the calcium is not absorbable.

It was important for Gorlitzer to stop the treatment when the patient had reached the euthyroid (normal) state because continuing the treatment would have tipped the patient over into a state of hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid).  Thus we have the three states ranged along a continuum:


So Gorlitzer demonstrated that Hyperthyroidism and the Euthyroid state were on a continuum and when he sometimes continued his treatment for too long, some of his patients tipped over into hypothyroidism.

Why should this be relevant?  Women aged 40+ who live in fluoridated areas are more likely to experience hypothyroidism than women who live in non-fluoridated areas of England.  A quantitative piece of research was carried out in late 2014 at the University of Kent using GP practice data for the whole of England.  It was calculated that there was almost double the number of women experiencing hypothyroidism in the fluoridated West Midlands compared with non-fluoridated Manchester.

The country is awash with fluoride but fluoridated women bathe and swim in fluoride and they also drink fluoride and eat fluoridated food so they have far more exposure.

Adding industrial fluoride to our drinking water means that we are being damaged by Hydrogen Fluoride.  Even though the concentration of fluoride, Hydrogen Fluoride and contaminants are very diluted by the time they are added at the water treatment works, the bioaccumulation of the 'ingredients' over many years has had the effect of tipping many women over into chronic ill-health.  Also be aware that there are millions of fluoride atoms in 1mg of fluoride and the same must be true of Hydrogen Fluoride.

So, here are the facts:

·         Hydrogen fluoride (HF) - the compound - does not dissociate in water and is therefore highly absorbable.  This was established by Gorlitzer von Mundy;

·         In water, Hydrogen Fluoride is known as Hydrofluoric Acid - both are the same really;

·         The 'Hydro' in Hydrofluoric Acid and Hydrogen Fluoride is NOT water - it's hydrogen;

·         The hydrogen is present in the fluoridating acid because sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is used to break down the fluoride rock which is used for phosphate fertiliser manufacture.

·         2% of the fluoridating acid comprises HF;

·         In order to add 1mg fluoride to 1 litre of water, it is necessary to add 5.36mg of the acid to 1 litre of water because it's normally a 20% fluoride solution. Thus, if more fluoridating acid is added, then more HF is added per litre of water;

·         Fluoride cures hyperthyroidism but causes hypothyroidism;

·         Women who live in fluoridated areas bioaccumulate more fluoride over time than women who are not fluoridated.

·         HF is a listed poison:  Poison List Order 1982;

·         HF has been responsible for many deaths during environmental pollution incidents.

Research questions which we would like to be answered by Public Health England - but don't hold your breath:     


1.  What is the incidence of hypothyroidism in areas of England which receive naturally fluoridated water (calcium fluoride)?

2.  If artificial fluoridation ceased, would there be less cases of hypothyroidism diagnosed each year?

3.  Are levels of hyperthyroidism in artificially fluoridated England remarkably low when compared to non-fluoridated England?     


14th April 2016:  Breaking News - Decision in Bedford (UK) by the O&S Committee to NOT support the continuance of water fluoridation.  LINK

It's not the end of the battle though:  Bedfordshire County Council will need to be consulted.


11th April 2016:  Article by Attorney James Deal with Dr Richard Sauerheber. The author discusses how Flint River (Detroit) came to be contaminated with lead, and yes, it was mainly because of the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid to treated water.  LINK  This article explains uncertainties with regard to the interactions between chemicals artificially added to water as it passes through the water treatment works.  Highly recommended reading.

6th April 2016: Dr Mark Hyman (USA) talks about the harm done by fluoride:

" There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain. A malfunctioning thyroid often leads to weight gain. And diabetics and patients with kidney disease are often thirsty, causing them to consume increased amounts of fluorides if they have access to only fluoridated water. 

Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides because most rely on municipal water sources, many of which continue to add fluoride, despite research showing the potential harms and negating the potential benefits. I support federal investigative hearings looking into why our cities and towns are allowed to continue to add fluoride to public water sources and why the whole story about fluorides is only just now coming out."

Source:  Dr. Hyman info:


5th April 2016: PHE Bulletin supporting water fluoridation.

"Water fluoridation toolkit published

PHE has published a water fluoridation toolkit to help local authorities make informed decisions on water fluoridation and the process to follow should they wish to implement, vary or terminate a scheme.  Water fluoridation is one of a range of safe and effective measures to help combat tooth decay and improve oral health.  Decisions on water fluoridation are the responsibility of local authorities and this toolkit will support their public health teams with advice and information." (PHE Bulletin: News and views for the public health sector. March 2016

Good grief: they don't give up on this "safe and effective" mallarky!  Who is composing their hymn sheet!  Also, how can it be 'informed' if local authorities are not provided with both sides of the argument?


4th April 2016:  Debris in Fluoride Chemicals

Our colleagues in New York have posted information regarding the adulteration of hexafluorosilicic acid with debris and toxic elements (arsenic and lead) in the fluoridating acid which is added by very many water treatment works in the USA.  LINK  This begs the question:  if this is happening the USA, could the fluoridating acid used in England and the Irish Republic be as adulterated?  Although BSEN 12175 is intended to guarantee a certain level of purity, the BSEN does not concern itself with black plastic flakes, dead birds and plastic bags.

30th March 2016:  Just out of curiosity when recycling a toothpaste carton, I read the warning on the back:  "X non-fluoride toothpaste is suitable for young children, people who are sensitive to fluoride and people who have been advised to avoid fluoride by their dentist".  


21st March 2016:  Yet more proof of there being a moral disconnect in Government.

The New Welfare and Pensions Secretary, Stephen Crabb, stated on Monday, 21st March that "Behind every statistic is a human being and perhaps sometimes in government we forget that."  LINK

Gosh!  This is a revolutionary thought.  It's a great pity that Stephen Crabb isn't Secretary of State for Health.  Perhaps then we would see an end to this ridiculous and unwise ill-health intervention - fluoridation.

2016  Water Fluoridation Toolkit released by Public Health England - and it's a whitewash, yet again.

Observations about the Toolkit are welcomed and these will be published here.

Ref: Public Health England (2016)  Improving oral health: a community water fluoridation toolkit for local authorities.  PHE publications gateway number: 2015737.  url:   LINK

A website, GM and Chemical Industry, has already posted comments on the toolkit:


Bibliography of publications relating to water fluoridation.  LINK
Yet to be added - research reports - but watch this space.

23rd March 2016

22nd March 2016: 
Debate in the House of Lords on the addition of folate to bread.  

The following quote is thought-provoking: 

Lord Prior of Brampton, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

"I will certainly draw that point to the attention of the SACN. It would be surprising if it was not already aware of that fact, but as I said I am addressing not really the science but whether it is right or proportionate to fortify bread for everybody to reach such a small number of people.

         Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 21 March 2016, c2061)"

It's very strange that the noble lord is concerned about whether it's proportionate to add folate to bread.  I wonder how he stands on adding fluoride to water?  Would he regard that as proportionate when it is only intended for a small number of disadvantaged toddlers?  Where would he stand after reading PHE Bedford's Dental Health Survey 2015 which found that there was a statistically insignificant difference in dental decay before and after fluoride ceased in Bedford in 2009?  LINK

January 2016

A new 5-year-contract has been signed with the supplier of the fluoridating acid. Northumberland Water was charged with the responsibility for going out to tender on behalf of all 5 fluoridating water companies in August 2015 with the new contract starting 1st January 2016.  The contract is worth between £3.8 - £4.8 exc. VAT.  The fluoridating acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) is to be provided as a 20% acid and it is expected that 2,100 tonnes pa will be delivered by the contractor to all water Treatment Works in England which dose their water with fluoride. 

Up to the end of 2015, the supplying contractor was YARA UK which operates out of Immingham Docks in North Lincolnshire.

The contract is flexible so that new fluoridation schemes or terminated fluoridation schemes can be catered for.

The new piece of information which we didn't have up till now is the cost per tonne which is £362 - £457.

2,100 tonnes per annum for fluoridating 6 million people!  That's an awful lot of fluoridating acid.  How much finds its way into our rivers after sewage treatment?  Why would the UK Government want to trash our rivers for the sake of this policy which is now past its use-by date?