Search Results

What's New – A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: November 25th , 2024 Added to the New Science page a November, 2024 study from Public Health Challenges, entitled: Community Water Fluoridation, a Cost-Benefit-Risk Consideration. November, 2024 View Added interactive Google map to "Who Fluoridates and Who Doesn't" page. Most locations in Ontario will also include a link to that municipalitie's water report. November, 2024 View Added to Fluoride Free Montreal on the Advocacy page that Quebec will be 99.75% fluoride free on December 20, 2024, with a link to a letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections November, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip: Press Conference of Florida's Surgeon General, saying fluoridation is medical malpractice | October, 2024 podcast, where Michael Connett is interviewed by Dr. Ken Berry's on "Fluoride Dangers You Don't Know About" November, 2024 View Added a button to the New Science page to see the bios of key scientists associated with Canadian research: Bashash, Birnbaum, Hu, Lanphear, Till November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: October 2024 - Cochrane Study: Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay? | November 2022 - CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study: Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK November, 2024 View Added a Frequently Asked Questions button to the home page Court Case section. November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: February 2021–Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample | June 2023–Health Canada expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water October, 2024 View Updated Court Case page with information on the decision from the US Federal Court, including a video of Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, on the "Fluoridation Win". September, 2024 View Added new February, 2024 study to Science page: Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies. September, 2024 View Added a link to a May, 2024 podcast hosted by former Ontario physician Dr. Trozzi with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning to the current lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency. (Video no longer available.) June, 2024 Added to the home page video strip, a May, 2024 podcast (in French) where Gilles Parent ND, Director of Fluoride Free Canada, is interviewed by Franc Masson's "Eye Opener" podcast "Dans le franc des yeux". Dr. Parent is an expert in everything fluoride, from co-authoring "Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error ", to being instrumental in Quebec being 99% fluoride-free. June, 2024 View Added two additional studies to the New Science page: (1) May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months (2) July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells. June, 2024 View Added to the home page "Presentations to Government Bodies", two presentations done by Windsor, Ontario; one in 2012 with a positive result (which was overturned in 2022; and one in May, 2024 showing current science. June, 2024 View Added to the bottom of the New Science page, a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation, published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm; created by Brenda Staudenmaier, a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintained on her website fluoridelawsuit.com. February, 2024 View Added two additional Canadian studies to the New Science page: (1) January, 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy; (2) November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water February, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, lead attorney Michael Connett's interview on the Kim Iversen Show where he talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride; as well as his interview at trial and int erviews by FAN's expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Updated the Court Case Progress page with the latest on the trial, including a chart of the trial timeline, and video interviews of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Added to the History page, a February, 2024 article for Druthers newspaper, written by Dr. Bob Dickson, summarizing the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. February, 2024 View Added to the New Science page, a January, 2024 report: The Lotus Study which is the largest fluoride study ever conducted, concluding NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, the Zoom link to the live Court Case, and added a video to the end of the Court Case updates page, where Michael Connett is being interviewed a day before the trial. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, a mini documentary by Michael Connett, the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the EPA trial, entitled: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health January, 2024 View Added to the home page, a short video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology on The National Toxicology Program and Fluoride Neurotoxicity. November, 2023 View Added "Sept. 23: One-Page Fact Sheet & Status" button to the lawsuit section on the home page . September, 2023 View Added July 5, 2023 video interview with Paul Connett PhD, with an update on the EPA lawsuit and detailing VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. See "Fluoride in Water: The TRUTH" on the video strip. September, 2023 View Added August, 2023 Rumble.com podcast with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! (Video no longer available) August, 2023 Added February, 2023 scientific study by Till and Hall on an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy February, 2023 View Added a detailed report on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid): Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water to the History page February, 2023 View Sent out Notice of the Fluoridation Hearing with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the follow-up report. January, 2023 View Added the video of the October Hearing in the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency December, 2022 View The latest status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency (Merged all updates onto one page) November, 2022 View Added to video strip on home page: 5 Minutes of Hard Core Truth - Toxins in Water October, 2022 View Updated the status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency September, 2022 View Added Resource page of Highly Recommended Resource Materials (books) June, 2022 View Added End Fluoride Toronto to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook May, 2022 View Added Fluoride Free Montreal to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook April, 2022 View When Citizens Get Involved - Article added to Eau Secours on Advocacy page February, 2022 View Added Regina to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook February, 2022 View Added Vancouver to the Advocacy page and linked to Media Challenges February, 2022 View Added "Who is With Us" page to show organizations against fluoridation January, 2022 View Restructured homepage and added Memes and "What's New" button January, 2022 View Added "Case Status - Dec. 31/21" link in Court section of home page linking to video January, 2022 View Added Presentations to Government videos to bottom of homepage December, 2021 View Donate page updated with request to eTRANSFER to save PayPal fees December, 2021 View 1952 video on fluoridation posted as a link at the top of When Did Fluoridation Start December, 2021 View "Our Message" video posted - Intro on home page and full video on the About page October, 2021 View New Science page updated with Christine Till bio and video October, 2021 View Videos and Media articles posted to Advocacy page September, 2021 View 1st Newsletter Posted (link to Newsletter page in footer) September, 2021 View Website Live September 1st, 2021 View

TERMINOLOGY AND BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTS The Fluoride Report Issue #9 Regarding fluoride, if it is an essential trace element, then there should be an optimal dose that will have a beneficial effect on health, including dental health, and an excessive dose that will become toxic. This leads us to elaborate on the terminology and on some basic scientific facts that are not often addressed in the debate. The voluminous U.S. National Research Council report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards , published in 2006 is the most serious analysis of fluoride intake in the United States as it calculates risk factors. DOSE-RESPONSE OR DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP We talk about dose-response or dose-effect relationship or even exposure-response relationship, to refer to the effects of a dose of an active substance, be it a trace element, on an individual or on a group of people. The dose-response or dose-effect relationship depends on several factors, such as age, weight, state of health or nutrition, the presence of other toxic substances, the type of substance and the duration of exposure. The substance can be medicinal in nature, but also chemical, natural or toxic. The timing of exposure in the life cycle may also be important because some products may have no effect on an adult individual but may be more beneficial (as is believed for fluoride during tooth formation), but be deleterious to an embryo or a young baby. The dose-response relationship must be studied from all angles to understand the action of a substance in terms of health. The dose-effect relationship or exposure-response relationship or more simply written dose-response expresses the change of effects on an organism, caused by a different quantity of the active substance after a certain time of exposure. It can apply to individuals, for example, where a small amount has no effect, a larger dose can be fatal. In a population, a number of individuals may be affected while the majority will not. Pharmacokinetic and toxicology studies help to understand the mechanisms of action of the substance and the target tissues that will be affected. The concept of dose-response relationship is therefore at the heart of scientific studies on nutrients, trace elements, toxic substances and contaminants. TOXIC THRESHOLD The concept of a toxic threshold is important for a nutrient because it serves to set standards for the optimal amount for the maintenance of health and for the amount at the upper limit that will become toxic. The threshold value represents the minimum quantity below which no toxic effect occurs. Above this threshold, the observed effect will be dose-dependent. This threshold is explained by the fact that the human body is made up of a large number of types of cells, tissues and organs with varying sensitivity, some being more sensitive to certain substances than others. In addition, the body has mechanisms of defense, excretion or adaptation. These mechanisms consequently monopolize a part of its energy to achieve these. The same principle applies to a population of individuals, because the effect or many possible harmful effects can manifest themselves differently from one person to another, despite being exposed to the same dose of a nutrient or a poisonous substance. NO OBSERVABLE ADVERSE EFFECT LEVEL (NOAEL) From these concepts of toxicology, an associated terminology has been developed. Among the most important, we must speak of the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), also called level without toxic effect, maximum dose without effect or maximum dose without observable adverse effect. It is defined as the highest dose of a substance producing no observable harmful effects during a toxicity study. This unit of measurement is used more particularly in the field of low doses, therefore very applicable for fluoride. TOLERABLE UPPER INTAKE LEVELS (ULS) The Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) are the maximum levels that can be consumed daily on a chronic basis without adverse effects. The Tolerable Upper Intake Levels will generally be much lower than the levels that would cause adverse effects. It is also recommended that the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels be used as the reference exposure level for human health risk assessment. It is the term published by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM). TOXICOLOGICAL REFERENCE VALUE (TRV) The Toxicological Reference Value (TRV) is a toxicological index making it possible, by comparison with exposure, to qualify or quantify a risk to human health. The method of establishing TRVs depends upon the data available on the mechanisms of toxicological action of the substances and commonly accepted assumptions. In the case of fluoride toxicity, moderate dental fluorosis could be taken as the minimal index of its toxicity, whereas it may well not be the most sensitive index despite being the most commonly accepted. Toxicological Reference Values are widely used in the quantitative health risk assessment process, a decision-making process aimed at providing the essential scientific elements of a proposal or recommendation. REFERENCE DOSE (RfD) Another term closely related to the Toxicological Reference Value (TRV) is the Reference Dose (RfD), which aims to adequately protect infants and children but which, generally, has not been considered for embryos. It is defined as an estimate of the daily exposure for a human population (including the most sensitive subgroups) that would probably be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime. ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKE (ADI) or TOLERABLE DAILY INTAKE (TDI) The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) is the amount of a substance that an individual should be able to ingest each day, without risk to health. It is usually expressed in mg of substance per kg of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). It should be understood here that the maximum daily dose is proportional to the weight of the individual. The maximum dose is therefore, in fact, much lower for an infant than for an adult individual. RECOMMENDED DAILY ALLOWANCES (RDA) The Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) are benchmark values for the quantity of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) necessary for the health of an average adult. They are used as a reference for the labeling of food products. The terms Nutritional Reference Values (NRVs), Reference Intakes, or Daily Reference Intakes may replace the term Recommended Daily Allowances or RDA. RECOMMENDED DAILY DOSE The Recommended Daily Dose also comes back to this same concept in relation to a nutritional supplement or a drug and it will generally be adjusted according to the weight and age of the subject according to a dose scale. SAFETY FACTOR (SF) This concept grants a margin of safety, generally 10, particularly essential when the variables involved are numerous (age, weight, nutritional status, state of health, environment) and when the sources of intake of the substance studied are multiple and variable, depending on the individual, in their potential for quantitative contribution and over time. DESCRIPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH In many cases, risk decisions on systemic toxicity have been made using the concept of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) derived from an experimentally determined No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). The ADI is commonly defined as the amount of a chemical to which a person can be exposed on a daily basis over an extended period of time (usually a lifetime) without suffering a deleterious effect. The ADI concept has often been used as a tool in reaching risk management decisions (e.g., establishing allowable levels of contaminants in foodstuffs and water.) A NOAEL is an experimentally determined dose at which there was no statistically or biologically significant indication of the toxic effect of concern. In an experiment with several NOAELs, the regulatory focus is normally on the highest one, leading to the common usage of the term NOAEL as the highest experimentally determined dose without a statistically or biologically significant adverse effect. The NOAEL for the critical toxic effect is sometimes referred to simply as the NOEL. This usage, however, invites ambiguity in that there may be observable effects that are not of toxicological significance (i.e., they are not "adverse"). For the sake of precision, this document uses the term NOAEL to mean the highest NOAEL in an experiment. In cases in which a NOAEL has not been demonstrated experimentally, the term Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) is used. Once the critical study demonstrating the toxic effect of concern has been identified, the selection of the NOAEL results from an objective examination of the data available on the chemical in question. The ADI is then derived by dividing the appropriate NOAEL by a Safety Factor (SF), as follows: ADI (human dose) = NOAEL (experimental dose)/SF. (Equation 1) Generally, the SF consists of multiples of 10, each factor representing a specific area of uncertainty inherent in the available data. For example, a factor of 10 may be introduced to account for the possible differences in responsiveness between humans and animals in prolonged exposure studies. A second factor of 10 may be used to account for variation in susceptibility among individuals in the human population. The resultant SF of 100 has been judged to be appropriate for many chemicals. For other chemicals, with databases that are less complete (for example, those for which only the results of sub-chronic studies are available), an additional factor of 10 (leading to a SF of 1000) might be judged to be more appropriate. For certain other chemicals, based on well-characterized responses in sensitive humans (as in the effect of fluoride on human teeth) , an SF as small as 1 might be selected. While the original selection of SFs appear to have been rather arbitrary (Lehman and Fitzhugh, 1954), subsequent analysis of data (Dourson and Stara, 1983) lends theoretical (and in some instances experimental) support for their selection. Further, some scientists, but not all within the EPA, interpret the absence of widespread effects in the exposed human populations as evidence of the adequacy of the SFs traditionally employed.

MEDIA PRESS RELEASE – SEPT. 1ST, 2021 Media coverage of our launch CTV News: Anti-fluoridation group calls on Windsor to reverse plans to reinstitute additive Blackburn News: Anti-fluoride group expected to bring back debate to Windsor-Essex Anti-fluoride group wants Windsor council to consider new studies Leading Canadian scientists concur that children’s brains can be damaged by fluoridated tap water. New group set up to end fluoridation nationwide. Sept 1, 2021, Ottawa. Today a coalition of over 125 citizens from across Canada announced the formation of a new national group. The group’s goal is to end fluoridation in every province and territory in the country. The group called “Fluoride Free Canada” has been spurred into action by two things: Alarming new science that indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the developing brain at doses commonly experienced in artificially fluoridated Canadian communities. Attempts by municipal government to re-fluoridate Calgary, Alberta, which stopped fluoridation in 2011, and also Windsor, Ontario, which stopped in 2013. Leading U.S. and Canadian researchers Bruce Lanphear and Christine Till have joined Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies (in the USA), in calling for warnings to pregnant women to avoid fluoridated water (Environmental Health News, Oct 7, 2020 ). But this has not yet happened in Canada. According to Gilles Parent ND, who has led a 45-year effort to completely rid Quebec of fluoridation, “It is incredible that, with top-quality science showing the dangers that fluoridation may be causing to our children’s brains, anyone would be considering re-starting this practice. You can repair a decayed tooth, you can’t repair a damaged brain.” Robert Dickson, a medical doctor who helped to end fluoridation in Calgary, dismissed claims that there is an association between an increase in tooth decay and cessation of fluoridation in the city. Dickson said, “Most scientists agree that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical, i.e. it works on the surface of the teeth. There is absolutely no need to swallow it and it is wrong to force it upon people without their informed consent. We want to keep our water in Calgary safe and not contaminated with hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Dentists should practice their art in their offices not in our water supply.” Dr. Paul Connett, a retired professor of chemistry who is acting as science advisor to the new organization, stated, “There are now over 69 human studies from China and other countries that indicate fluoride lowers IQ in children. Western scientists only really began to take the issue seriously in 2017, when a US government-funded study was published (Bashash 2017 ). This was a very well-designed study that found a strong association between the amount of fluoride in pregnant women’s urine (a measure of their total exposure to fluoride) and lowered IQ in their offspring. This finding was replicated in 2019 by Canadian researchers (Green et al., 2019 ) in a major study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Another Canadian study (Till et al. 2020 ) found a lower IQ in children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities in Canada.” Richard Hudon, who heads up the group Fluoridation-Free Ottawa, explained, “Our first campaign effort is to get people across Canada to sign a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau . We know he does not have jurisdiction over water fluoridation, but he does have a responsibility for the well-being of all Canadians, especially our children. We are urging him and all the Premiers to get health authorities to issue warnings to pregnant women and parents who bottle-feed their babies, to avoid fluoridated water.” Hudon added, “What annoys me is that Canadian health authorities, who have told us again and again that fluoridation is ‘safe and effective’ are not telling citizens about these dangers. They seem to be more concerned about protecting a policy than protecting our health. This is why we need Trudeau to intervene now—even during an election. Our children’s brains can’t wait a day longer.” Jennifer Marett, the acting secretary for the new group, said, “There are over 3,000 communities across Canada and the vast majority have never fluoridated their drinking water. Since 1990, 131 communities and 3 military bases are known to have either discontinued or rejected the proposal to introduce water fluoridation. It is estimated that 108 communities across Canada currently artificially fluoridate their municipal drinking water, including a number of large urban cities in Southern Ontario . Now with this alarming new science on fluoride’s dangers to the developing brain, I would expect more communities will wisely choose to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation.” More information on the new group can be obtained from www.FluorideFreeCanada.ca . Contact: info@fluoridefreecanada.ca