Keyword search
News 2018


26th December 2018:  It may be Christmas but we are not on holiday.  The LINK takes you to short abstracts of 6 pieces of research published in 2018.  They sum up how fluoride causes neurological damage in humans.  (When you get there, CTRL and the + sign pressed together wil enlarge the text.)

15th December 2018: Letters and statements from the York Review team (2000) and the Cochrane Review (2015) relating to conclusions about safety and effectiveness of swallowing fluoride as a prophylaxis against dental decay:  LINK  In short, the York Review did not find that systemic fluoridation reduced dental health inequalities across social groups.  That's right:  water fluoridation is a programme which perfectly illustrates the art of smoke and mirrors.    

11th December 2018: The US National Toxicology Programme: Fluoride

We had hopes that this programme would have confirmed 21st Century science which demonstrates that fluoride is harmful to the fetus and the new born. Perversely, it was not to be and the programme has been criticised for being biased.  Here is a Video which explains the main flaws in the programme: LINK 

10th December 2018: Alzheimer's Disease is caused by systemic fluoride

Marta Goschorska and colleagues have published a review which describes how fluoride causes premature apoptosis (cell death) and inflammation in the central nervous system.  This includes the brain.  Although genetic predisposition can be wholly responsible for AD, this is rare and it's more likely for AD to occur due to a combinaton of genetic factors and environmental factors such as overexposure to fluoride which easily crosses the blood-brain-barrier.   The LINK takes you to the full report which is free to view.  The following diagram explains the biological pathways:

27th November 2018: Our Researchgate article "A Complete Waste of Money" has reached 1004 reads.  This is really extra-special.  People are sitting up and taking notice.  All the money spent on water fluoridation programmes is wasted in leaks, used by industry and agriculture and through household uses other than as drinking water.  Also, young children are not drinking their ration of the poison per day according to the UK's National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2014.

So why bother to add it to drinking water in the first place.  It can't surely be because shareholders of Israel Chemicals (the supplier) have the ear of UK Government officials, can it?                                         LINK

25th November 2018:
  A new kid on the block!

Finally, good sense has broken through the murky curtain of fluoride.  A new mouth rinse based on iodine, and not on fluoride.  Not only does it kill oral  bacteria but it reduces LDL cholesterol, and it is claimed that this will protect the heart.  Since most of human civilization is thought to have borderline iodine levels or is deficient in iodine, such a mouthwash ought to help to reduce dental decay WITHOUT poisoning our bodies as is the case with fluoride-based preparations.  Now all we need is to see iodide toothpaste and the 'age of fluoride' will be banished altogether.  LINK  
Caution: as with anything to do with the thyroid gland, it is vital that people consult their GPs since it can be health-damaging to ingest too much iodide which can cause hyperthyroidism.
14th November 2018:  Video from Fluoride Action Network.

Paul Connett, a retired Professor of Chemistry, explains the origin of H2SiF6   LINK

13th November 2018:  Vets warn not to brush a dog's teeth with fluoride toothpaste. 

"Small doses of fluoride can give dogs diarrhoea and induce vomiting as it reduces the calcium in the blood and increases potassium levels, Dr Nicola Robinson, head of the Veterinary Poisons Information Service, said."

Thinks!  If it reduces calcium in the blood of a dog, will it also do this in a small child's blood?  Will the potassium levels of a small child also increase?  I rather think that the answer to both questions is "YES".  How many small children swallow their toothpaste while their parent's back is turned?   LINK

29th October 2018:  Useful quotes from Activists in the USA.

"Recent science is CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS about the biological impact of fluoride consumption and the policy of fluoridation. Modern studies document that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, but rather is a dangerous practice of all risk with little or no benefit."

"This is no longer about tooth decay. This is about permanent brain damage and other illnesses in susceptible populations, such as hypothyroidism, and ADHD, requiring other medications with other potential side effects."    Please copy freely.

23rd October 2018:  Parry Sound (Ontario) Anti-Fluoridation success


In the past 24 hours, 1500 Parry Sounders have voted against WF and 882 have voted in favour.  Parry Sound will not become fluoridated.  Wish that we could say the same for the West Midlands (UK).

22nd October 2018:  Compensation finally to be paid to children poisoned with 6.9mg fluoride/litre

Hundreds of children in Tibiri, Niger are to be paid compensation after 3 decades of delay.  Even though the Judicial Review ruled 3 years ago that they should be compensated for the health damage caused by too much fluoride in treated water for too long a time in the late 20th Century, the Niger Government has dragged its feet.  Compensation will amount to $3.5 million.  Deformities caused by the overdose are skull enlargement, convulsions, severe bone pain, deformed bones and fragility, as well as our old friend, dental fluorosis.  In the case of the Tibiri children, their teeth have turned reddish in colour.  LINK and LINK

20th October 2018:  Guest article by pharmacist, Kris Phillips: Fluoridated water - a drug by any other name.  LINK

17th October 2018:  A Complete Waste of Money: Water Fluoridation Costs for England, 2013-2021.

This technical report has been read 973 times.  Here is the LINK to the report.

Updated revenue expenditure for 2017-2018 is not in the report.  Go to LINK to see them.  Costs decreased during 2017-2018.  We think that this is because the supplier of the fluoridating acid has changed from D.D. Fluor (Spain) to Israel Chemicals.  The originating country of the new supply of fluoridating acid is unknown but we are told by the Drinking Water Inspectorate that it comes from phosphate fertiliser manufacture.  Therefore it is still the same poisonous muck that YARA International supplied up to 2016 to England and it still contains carcinogens and heavy metals.  

We are not allowed to copy material from the relevant British Standard (BSEN 12175) but the following is a list from p.8 of the Chemical Parameters (contaminants) in the acid:

Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium. (The latter is beneficial)

There are other contaminants present but the British Standard states that these don't matter because they are not found in the original feedstock (phosphate rock).  So that's alright then!  Although all appear in your drinking water in minute concentrations, and a glass of water is not going to make you ill, remember that you're drinking the stuff 24/7, 52 weeks of the year for a lifetime so the bioaccumulation is bound to have negative effects on your health.   However, if you're amongst the 1-2% of people who are sensitised to fluoride, you will become almost immediately ill with 'minor' illnesses such as eczema, hives, headaches and dicky tummies.  After 9 months in the womb you will be born with reduced intelligence and possibly with ADHD.  If you are bottle-fed using fluoridated tap water, the assault on your intelligence continues and you will start bio-accumulating fluoride in your permanent teeth which will cause dental fluorosis.  After 30 years or so, the chances are that you will experience low thyroid, particularly since most UK residents are low in iodide.

There is a new report which links low iodide and fluoride ingestion with hypothyroidism.  We knew this was the case and this piece of research confirms our suspicions.  LINK  This is a 'free to view' research report.

15th October 2018:  Research pointing to harm to our children from fluoride now coming thick and fast.

A succint summary of three recent pieces of research has just been published on-line by Scoop.  All three establish a link between fluoride and harm to children.  LINK  Isn't it time that the UK Government sat up and took notice?  Ah no - the Government can't do that because it has delegated responsibility to the local authorities - presumably in an effort to divide and conquer opposition to its daft Water Fluoridation policy. 


14th October 2018:  Increase in crumbling hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM) in fluoridated Australia.

According to an Australian Journal (The Conversation), "up to 14% of pre-schoolers may have “hypomineralised second primary molars” (HSPM), where the enamel (outer layer) of the second baby molars doesn’t develop properly, making them weak and prone to damage."  LINK 

The author's hypothesis is that the weak enamel which is formed halfway through gestation is caused by maternal illness, smoking and alcohol.  Since these teeth erupt at age 2, they are exposed to systemic fluoride for 2 years 4 months while still under the gum.  4-5 months gestation plus 24 months post-natal is an appreciable time for damage to occur while the baby is in the womb and by fluoride in baby formula made up with fluoridated water plus fluoride in baby food and swallowed toothpaste and, if the theory is correct, skin absorption while having baby baths.

Research is definitely needed into this enamel damage which is 13.9% higher than previously recorded.   Perhaps researchers ought to start by asking if the mother was fluoridated, if the baby was given fluoridated baby formula, if the baby eats baby food made from de-boned meat and if the baby swallows its fluoridated toothpaste.  Now that could produce valuable results.

13th October 2018: Higher levels of urinary fluoride associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children

Press Release by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health on their latest study of fluoride's neurotoxicity:   

Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City

Higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy are associated with more ADHD-like symptoms in school-age children, according to University of Toronto and York University researchers.

“Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Morteza Bashash, the study’s lead author and researcher at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico City,” published today in Environment International, analyzed data from 213 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fuelled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

The research team — including experts from the University of Toronto, York University, the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Michigan, Indiana University, the University of Washington and Harvard School of Public Health — analyzed urine samples that had been obtained from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the child’s performance on a variety of tests and questionnaires that measure inattention and hyperactivity, and provide overall scores related to ADHD. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birth weight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

“Our findings show that children with elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity,” said Bashash.

This work builds off of previous research the team published on this population demonstrating that higher levels of urine fluoride during pregnancy are associated with lower scores on tests of IQ and cognition in the school-age children.

ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in childhood, affecting between five and nine percent of all school-aged children.

“The symptoms of ADHD often persist into adulthood and can be impairing in daily life,” said Christine Till, Associate Professor of Psychology at York University and co-author on the study.

“If we can understand the reasons behind this association, we can then begin to develop preventive strategies to mitigate the risk,” said Till, who is also the principal investigator of another National Institutes of Health-funded grant examining fluoride exposure in a large Canadian sample of pregnant women.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded this study.


10th October 2018:  The Environment Committee, House of Commons, UK, has published their findings regarding regulation of the Water Industry.  LINK One of their recommendations is that smart metering of water supplies should become compulsory as quickly as possible.  This is because householders need to be persuaded to stop wasting water.  However, more water is lost as leaks before it gets to our houses.  There's a target for reducing leaks but some MPs believe that the current target of a reduction of 15% by 2025 is not ambitious enough.

We are not happy about being forced to have smart meters installed because of the additional EM waves generated.  More importantly, having metered water supplies will make using Reverse Osmosis more expensive, thus reducing choice.  R/O uses more water when the system flushes minerals and chemicals out the filters and that will increase water bills.  This is not a concern for MPs who live in London or in non-fluoridated areas of the UK and we expect that it has never crossed their minds that increasing numbers of people are filtering their adulterated tap water using R/O which would make their water bills higher than normal if they have to have a compulsory water meter. 

The unknown factor is whether paying a fixed amount each year is less expensive than using metered water when the householder has a Reverse Osmosis system under the kitchen sink.  However, it would probably be more expensive to be metered if a whole house R/O system is installed.

Please exercise your democratic rights and write to your MP to protest.

Note that if a property changes hands, the water company has the right to have a water meter installed.  Therefore, the selling potential of family-sized homes is not likely to be affected by the presence of a water meter because a meter will now be installed anyway following a successful sale.

9th October 2018:  How do you detox from fluoride?  Here's a new on-line publication from the USA-based Best Osmosis Systems to help you through the process.  LINK

8th August 2018
: Short video on concentration, dose and dosage by Fluoride Alert Network.    LINK

8th August 2018:  Here's a brilliant and delightful video by Felicia LeFish (USA) on the dangers of swallowing fluoride:  LINK


26th July 2018:  Fluoride Action Network posts to PRNewswire:

Why is US Failing To Inform Pregnant Women to Limit Fluoride Ingestion

25th July 2018


Fluoride Action Network 

11:37 ET

NEW YORK, July 25, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- A recent government-funded study (Bashash et al. 2017) corroborates hundreds of previously published studies showing fluoride damages the brain. These shocking findings cannot be dismissed as "just one study" because they provide compelling evidence that pregnant women's fluoride intake is linked to lower IQ in their offspring at levels commonly consumed in the US, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Paul Connett, FAN Director says, "We are shocked and dismayed that public health officials and the media aren't informing pregnant women to limit their fluoride intake."

The Bashash study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Environmental Protection Agency, and published in the US government journal, Environmental Health Perspectives.

This landmark study involved 299 mother-child pairs. IQ tests of the children were at age 4 and again at 6-12. After controlling for many potential confounding factors, the results show a loss of IQ points in the offspring strongly correlating with the measured amounts of fluoride in the mother's urine during pregnancy.

When the mothers' fluoride levels are compared on a graph to the children's IQ scores, an increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/liter is associated with a loss of 5 to 6 IQ points. The correlation is statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level, which means that the results of this study are very reliable.

"These findings are highly relevant to Americans because 1 mg/liter corresponds to the difference in urine fluoride levels between adults living in communities that add fluoride to their drinking water compared to communities that don't add fluoride," says Connett.

In news stories, fluoridation advocates use a few limited or poorly done studies to dismiss hundreds of studies linking fluoride to negative brain effects.

"There is no longer any doubt that fluoride gets into the brain and causes damage," says Connett. "Fluoride doesn't belong in our brains or in our water. It's time to invoke the precautionary principle and stop artificial fluoridation worldwide."

FAN has begun the Moms2B Avoid Fluoride campaign to inform women and families about this study and the need to limit fluoride intake during pregnancy – see

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network


21st July 2018:  A very strong research report by Bashash et al (2018) conclusively shows that maternal fluoride where the mum-to-be drinks water containing between 0.7 and 1.0 ppm fluoride has the effect of reducing the intelligence of the unborn child by 5 IQ points.

We're taking the opportunity to display a poster which highlights this scandalous state of affairs. (NB.  To improve readability, press CTRL and the + sign a few times.)


We've uploaded an important document here which clearly states that Water Fluoridation Does Not Reduce Dental Health Inequalities.  This document is for the specific attention of any politicians who happen upon this site.  LINK
A second important document which deals with a treatment to cure hyperthyroidism using hydrofluoric acid and which was first successfully practised in Austria in the 1930s is also available to be read here.  LINK


This website is all about a precious resource: water.   We'll be featuring the photography of Heidi Westum over the next few months by uploading her series of water droplets' photographs.
Credits: Heidi Westum (

                  Fluoride Analysis Database Service for Tap Water.

Results 2010 - 2017.  This includes analyses of Lincolnshire and Central Bedfordshire fluoridated water.  To view, click on Fluoride Analysis Database Service in the menu on the left-hand-side of this screen.

Why is it alright to give a 3-year-old 0.25 mg fluoride in a tablet while a pregnant woman should not take these tablets but is urged to drink lots of water containing 1 mg fluoride/litre?  

Why are these tablets not to be used if the drinking water contains more than 0.3 mg fluoride/litre?  0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8 mg which is still less than the fluoride added to our drinking water.  

Why do the instructions urge us not exceed stated dose when every day of our lives we have to drink twice the amount of fluoride/litre than is found in each tablet?

If we drink 2 litres of fluoridated water a day, we ingest 4 times the dose of a tablet.

WHY?     WHY?      WHY?

It's alright to 'cause a stink'.


Contact if you want to do something about stopping water fluoridation.

28th March 2018:  Email Letter from Fluoride Action Network: the Neurotoxicity of Fluoride

We've copied the relevant part of the letter which relates to the neurotoxicity of fluoride.  This is an extremely important issue which should be taken on board by couples planning a family.  LINK


25th March 2018:  Water Fluoridation: A Complete Waste of Money.

We're pleased to say that our first research report has reached 882 reads.  Here is the url:  LINK .  It describes in detail how much of your money is wasted by WF programmes.


24th March 2018:  We're publishing a recent statement from Fluoride Action Network (LINK) which goes some way towards countering the ludicrous PHE 2018 Health Monitoring report.  And it's in plain easily-comprehensible English!  

It really is important for those who question WF (CWF in the USA) to continue to ask the questions: (1) where is the proof that swallowing fluoride is safe, and (2) if there is doubt, the Precautionary Principle ought to be observed.   

We've already reported that PHE has no robust evidence that swallowing fluoride is safe.  That organisation can try to confound us as much as it likes, but the pure truth lying hidden underneath all their obsfucation is that the monitoring report is designed in such a way as to blind us with pseudo science.  This is a vain attempt to hide the fact that PHE can't prove anything because they haven't done the Randomised Controlled Trial research.    


22nd March 2018:  Today is World Water Day  LINK


22nd March 2018:  Today is also the publication day of the 2nd Public Health England's Gobbledegook Fluoride Health Monitoring Report.   Is it an accident that this report has been published on World Water Day? It's probably an accident because it is unlikely that PHE would want to draw attention to the fact that fluoridated water is polluted water (which, let’s face it, it is).

The definition of Gobbledegook is: “language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports”.   I don’t believe that the PHE report would pass the Plain English test.

Because of its tortuous nature, it's going to be some time before the report can be dissected and a critique prepared.  There is an Executive Report which is a little easier to understand BUT overall, the report is weak because of the aspects of WF which are omitted from it.                                                                                                              LINK


21st March 2018:  Public Health England (PHE) does NOT have any research proving that swallowed fluoride is safe!  To see the correspondence, follow the LINK.   We're told that swallowed fluoride is "safe and effective".  There are no Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) research anywhere which confirms this.  If there was any research, surely PHE would have it in their departmental library?  Well, they don't and since they haven't been able to provide us with references or abstracts of this research, then this research doesn't exist.

                                   No research = no proof of safety


Letters sent by the York Review Team to the Department of Health 2000-2003 and which were ignored:  LINK  The last page includes an extract from the Cochrane Fluoridation Review (2015).


Here is a really good article on fluoride and fluoridation from  LINK 

12th March 2018: Dated advice links breastfeeding to tooth decay

by Jackie Sinnerton, The Courier-Mail, Australia

NEW mums are being bombarded with ill-advised warnings that babies who fall asleep on the breast while feeding end up with tooth decay.

An Australian breastfeeding expert says some health practitioners are scaring new mums with dated information that breast milk can cause decay, and some are warning to brush the tiny tots’ gums.

Research from the 1970s suggested breast milk pools in the child’s mouth and rots the teeth, similar to a child being left to suck on a bottle. But evidence-based research has since debunked that theory.

“Sadly, I hear all the time about anxious mums thinking they should give up breastfeeding as they don’t want to harm the child. It is very concerning that some medics cite old studies and don’t keep up with research,” national breastfeeding expert Pinky McKay told The Courier-Mail.

“Sucking on a bottle and sucking on the breast are completely different. In bottle feeding, the milk is released into the front of the mouth and sits around the teeth, but in breastfeeding, the nipple is drawn far back into the mouth and the milk is released into the throat,” she said.

The Australian Breastfeeding Association confirms that this is a common misconception.

“Research strongly opposes the notion that breastfeeding has anything to do with tooth decay. This evidence includes population studies that have shown no relationship between breastfeeding and tooth decay in large groups of young children.”

The association wants mothers to know that research suggests breastfeeding may actually protect against tooth decay, while formula may play a role in its development. Antibodies in breast milk help to impede bacterial growth.

Mother-of-four Brianna Fear-Keen is breastfeeding her 10-week-old twins. The dietitian says she reads all the recent research and is a strong advocate for the benefits of breastfeeding.

“There is so much misinformation thrown around when it comes to new mums. They are struggling enough at times and don’t need to feel unnecessarily worried that they are doing harm,” the Gold Coast mother said.

Comment:  we’re sure that most new mums in the UK are told that breast-feeding is best for a newborn and that no-one would ever hint that a 6-month-old’s teeth are damaged by breast milk.  But this news story has brought to light an interesting item which needs to be investigated:  does baby formula cause dental decay if it is given after the first tooth has erupted?  And, if the fluoride in the baby formula delays, but not always, the growth of primary teeth, perhaps the baby could never develop dental decay if formula-fed because there are no erupted teeth by the time it stops formula-feeding.  For those babies who do develop their first tooth at age 6 months, apologists for water fluoridation may try to claim that it’s the fluoride in the baby formula which actually prevents dental decay.  Lots of imponderables there ….


If you suffer from migraine, have you tried avoiding fluoridated water and ordinary every-day tea processed from Camellia sinensis leaves which contain quite a lot of natural fluoride?

The above PowerPoint slide appears in a longer Australian presentation which can be sourced at LINK      Most of Australia is fluoridated.

Dental fluorosis is damage to the  enamel of permanent teeth which have to last a lifetime.  The York Review (2000) found a prevalence in the UK of 48% when the water is dosed with 1mg fluoride/litre water.

Video on Dental Fluorosis in the USA: LINK


26th February 2018:   ... just a reminder of what is in your tap water:

BSEN12175:2013 lists the "chemical parameters" present in the fluoridating acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) which is used to artificially fluoridate your drinking water as: 

Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Nickel.  

The "impurities" are: 

Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) and Phosphate at 1.5% and 0.75% respectively.  

HF is a reportable poison (UK Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4.)

A few of the parameters are carcinogenic.  How can any Government justify the deliberate addition of carcinogens to drinking water?

British Standards are restricted by copyright law and cannot be reproduced here.  However, the information itself is not copyright.  In order to read the British Standard one has to pay over £100 for a copy.  The information is not in the public domain.   Basically you need to know the information exists before you can try to find it.  But you cannot find it because it's behind a 'pay-wall'.  However, unless we can copy the relevant pages, who is going to believe that the fluoridating acid contains cancer-causing substances?  More to the point, those who promote Water Fluoridation are highly likely to ignore information which isn't widely available but when it is made available, cannot appear in its published format and is therefore not as believable as information in its published format.  

Although water companies have to analyse and publish the concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogens in their treated water at the kitchen tap (the point of compliance), they do not have to publish the concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogens in raw water.  So we have no way of knowing the percentage of cancer-causing substances which are added during the fluoride dosing process after the water has done through normal treatment. 

This means that we, their paying customers, cannot discover how much additional poison is added to our drinking water when it is dosed with hexafluorosilicic acid at 6.3 mg of the acid/litre water.  That's right: in order to give us the 'benefit' of 1 mg fluoride/litre water we have to drink 6.3 mg of the fluoridating acid/litre water!  

Water companies like to boast that they are giving us 'pure' water.  It certainly has to be potable.  Does treated water pass the potability test after it has been dosed with Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Hydrofluoric Acid?

15th February 2018:  Iranian Thyroid Study supports Kent University Research

This Iranian report which is published in Nature, states "Application of standard household purification devices was recommended for hypothyroidism." LINK

In their conclusions, the Iranian researchers report that: 

"The major findings of this study is that TSH values are higher with a higher fluoride concentration in the drinking water, even for generally low fluoride concentrations ...... cases tend to have higher TSH values (greater impairment of thyroid function) with higher [fluoride] concentrations in the water.  Controls, with normal thyroid function, also have higher TSH values with higher fluoride concentrations, even though their TSH values are still within the normal range.  TSH values are higher (in both cases and controls) with higher levels of water consumption.  This is consistent with an association between increased fluoride intake (due to increased water consumption) and increased TSH.  It was found that fluoride impacts human thyroid hormones, especially TSH and T3 even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L.

Even after the addition of iodine to salt by the integrated program in Iran more than 27 years ago, this study showed that the problem remains unsolved.  The results showed that those who consume larger amounts of water per day have an adjusted Odds Ratio of 4.1 (1.2 - 14).  Hence the application of standard household water purification (such as reversed osmosis, electrodialysis, activated carbon filter, and other adsorption/ion-exchange methods) is recommended for patients with hypothyroidism since they have a higher consumption of drinking water.  The purification system can help remove fluoride that interferes with thyroid function."

In Iran, the fluoride in drinking water is calcium fluoride which occurs naturally.  An artificial fluoride acid is deliberately added to our drinking water in England at a concentration of 6.3 mg which contains 1 mg fluoride. The fluoridating acid contains heavy metals and hydrofluoric acid so if we are to believe this Iranian research, the prevalence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated England is greater.

The Iranian research is the sort of research which The Department of Health and Public Health England should have sponsored as soon as the Kent University research hit the decks.  We know that the DH and PHE know about the Kent University research: we've told them enough times already, but there is stunned silence on the subject.  Scandalous or what?

Kent University research LINK


9th February 2018:  Honolulu Water Board Rebuffs Attempts to Legalise Water Fluoridation.    LINK

Meanwhile in the UK:

1968:  Medicines Act (UK).  Any substance or product which is intended for the prevention of a disease is a medicine.

1983:  Judge Lord Jauncy ruled that fluoridation was unlawful (Mrs C. McColl v. Strathclyde Regional Council) at the Edinburgh Court of Session, after the longest running case in the history of Scotland, (201 days).  His judgement which also stated that fluoride in any form provided by Strathclyde Regional Council was a medicine, had no jurisdiction in England but Thatcher's government got nervous.

1985:  Water Fluoridation became legal after a disgraceful vote in the House of Commons where 399 MPs abstained from voting for or against the Water (Fluoridation) Bill 1985.  Some MPs who were against water fluoridation abstained and we have to ask searching questions why this was the case.  The Bill entered into law because 165 MPs voted in favour of WF and 82 voted against.

It's strange that the UK Water Industries Act 1991 (as amended) doesn't stipulate a similar prohibition as the Revised Ordinance of Honolulu.  Last time I looked, we were all homo sapiens and all of us are going to be adversely affected by poisons.

The irony of this situation is that in the UK, “water companies are permitted (ordered) to add carcinogens and heavy metals to our drinking water but they cannot add beneficial minerals such as magnesium”.

4th February 2018:  Today has been a good day

Despite having to deal with the intransigence of proponents of WF, some days thought-provoking information flies into our in-box.  Two particularly interesting pieces of information were received today.

Declan Waugh's letter to the Irish Examiner on 3rd February.  Irish beer contains quite a lot of fluoride since fluoridated water is used to brew beer.  Co-exposure to alcohol and fluoride results in higher risk of liver damage.  It gets worse but I'll let Declan explain the situation in his own words.  LINK

Dr Geoff Pain in Australia is a prolific researcher with papers relating to the Chemistry and Bio-chemistry aspects of WF.  His most recent offering is a short report on the dangers of drinking green tea.  Despite the much touted benefits of green tea drinking in the media in the past few years, the leaves also contain non-health-giving chemicals, including fluoride.  The report can be accessed via Researchgate.  Green Tea and its Fluoride Content, a Major Health Hazard.

1st February 2018:  The Surreal Chicksands Meeting  Editorial   LINK

PHE's attempt to fluoridate 15,000 people who were last fluoridated in 1996.