QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE

In October, 2024 the following article was sent to each councillor in
Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d’Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal.

RECENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RAISES MULTIPLE RED FLAGS ON THE
SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

For more than 75 years, drinking water fluoridation has been presented to us by health authorities, including Health Canada and the provincial health ministries, as one of the ten great public health achievements, and that it is absolutely safe and effective.

Yet in 2000, the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination literature review titled A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation (McDonagh et al.) showed just 39 studies on the effectiveness, and 176 on the safety of fluoridation – far fewer than the often-quoted “thousand studies” supporting water fluoridation. Additionally, according to the authors, the majority of these studies were of low quality.

Science had not had the last word on this either: a mounting number of recent scientific studies and reviews have raised red flags that seriously call into question both the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

Municipal councils that relied in good faith on health authorities to fluoridate their drinking water now face a modern-day dilemma. Recent science has demonstrated that fluoride and artificial water fluoridation are neurotoxic, especially to babies and young children. Evidence of damage to other organs and systems in the human body continues to accumulate, while the evidence for the ineffectiveness of the antiquated practice of water fluoridation is now overwhelming.

In view of its negative impact on children intelligence quotient (IQ), recent fluoride research has now transformed what used to be considered one of the ten great public health achievements, into one of the worst public health mistakes.

Please consider this abbreviated list of major red flags below, and then ask yourself: Can we, in good faith, ethically and morally, continue with this now proven harmful, risky and ineffective practice?

RED FLAGS ABOUT THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

One particularly erroneous claim is that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 25%. This statistic has been circulating for many decades, but is no longer supported by current research. The October 2024 Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review, the 2024 LOTUS Retrospective Cohort Study, conducted over 10 years and involving more than 6 million participants, and the 2022 CATFISH prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study, all show that the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental caries is closer to 2% and certainly less than 4%. Moreover, contrary to claims, disadvantaged populations do not benefit more than the rich.

RED FLAGS ABOUT FLUORIDATION NEUROTOXICITY

The U.S. Northern District of California Federal Court: After a seven-year science-based lawsuit, ruled that fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children" and ordered the EPA to take measures to eliminate this risk. (Sept. 25, 2024)
The National Toxicology Program (NTP): The USA's highest-level scientific review committee concluded higher water fluoride concentrations "are consistently associated with lower IQ in children". The NTP cited that 18 of the 19 highest quality studies link higher fluoride with lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. (August 21, 2024)
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, PhD, retired NTP director: "It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride". (Environmental Health News, 10/7/20)
Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD, pediatrician, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics: "I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant". (Washington Post, 8/20/19)
Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research and former Head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto and one of twelve experts on the US National Research Council's fluoride report (2006): "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming". (Personal communication 9/27/24)
American Academy of Environmental Medicine: "Fluoridation has been called one of the ten great public health achievements. Fluoridation is more likely one of the ten most dangerous public health practices in this country and in the world". (website accessed 10/2/24)
Food and Water Watch: "Today's [federal court] ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water". (9/25/24, website accessed 10/2/24)

RED FLAG ON THE CONFUSION BY AUTHORITIES ON THE FLUORIDE DOSE

The absence of control of the dose administered is a very obvious flaw in science of the concept of fluoridation. Health authorities have established the "optimum fluoride concentration" in drinking water at 0.7 mg/liter, as if this concentration determines the dose (milligrams per day) consumed by each individual of a fluoridated community. In fact, the dose of a drug or nutrient dissolved in a liquid is not determined by the concentration alone, but by two parameters: both the concentration, and the quantity of liquid consumed. As there is great variability in both the quantity of water consumed, as well as water used for food preparation, there is great variability in the dose of fluoride consumed from one individual to another.

In nutrition, pharmacology and toxicology, it is also necessary to take into account the weight of the subject. It is therefore necessary to measure the intake in milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/d). In addition to fluoridated water, there are other sources of fluoride exposure, including tea and dental hygiene products, both of which often contain high concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, depending on what they eat and drink, many individuals may be inadvertently overexposed to fluoride, with deleterious effects on their health.

RED FLAG ON LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDATION PRODUCTS

The legal classification of a substance determines its use and under which government authority that substance will be approved and regulated. Fluoridation chemicals are added primarily to prevent tooth decay by changing the composition of the tooth's enamel. The sole objective of fluoridation is therefore therapeutic.

Products with a therapeutic use and claim are defined in the Food and Drugs Act as having to necessarily and legally belong either to the legal classification of drugs or natural health products. Such products should then be approved and regulated as such by Health Canada.

Surprisingly, this is not the case for fluorides.

Health authorities instead compare fluorides added to drinking water as belonging to the legal classification of nutrients for food fortification, like vitamin D added to milk or iron added to flour. Nutrients for food fortification also fall under Health Canada’s jurisdiction.

Yet, you may be surprised to learn that Health Canada does not regulate fluoridation chemicals as sources of fluoride for the fortification of drinking water.

Asked to explain itself through the process of a petition (299, 299B and 299C) to the Commissioner of the Environment at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Health Canada affirmed that it does not approve or regulate chemicals used to fluoridation because they are simple water treatment products and water treatment products fall under provincial jurisdiction. Fluorides used for water fluoridation are therefore not approved for the therapeutic use of preventing dental caries.

Environment Canada, the federal ministry that manages toxic and hazardous materials, classifies and controls fluoridation chemicals under the legal classification of hazardous and corrosive products. It has also set the toxic threshold of fluoride concentration at 0.12 ppm for the protection of fauna and flora in fresh soft water, while the concentration of effluent from a municipality is 3 to 4 times higher. Note that the level of fluoridated drinking water is 0.70 ppm, 6 times the toxic threshold for this environment. Already the concentration of the water in the St. Lawrence River is around 0.15 ppm, exceeding the critical threshold standard of 0.12 ppm.

So what is the legal classification of fluoride that municipal councils have decided to put in our water? Do municipalities add a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a hazardous and toxic substance for the purpose of preventing tooth decay among their citizens?

RED FLAGS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FLUORIDATION

The Food and Drugs Act does not allow:

A therapeutic role and claim to be assigned to a substance not approved and not regulated by Health Canada;
Administration of a substance with a therapeutic objectiveto humans, if it is not manufactured, packaged, transported and stored under the required sanitary conditions for a drug or for a source of a nutrient for fortification by Health Canada.

Canadian provincial governments require that fluoridation products meet the standard established by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). NSF certification requires that toxicology tests demonstrating safety be carried out by the NSF.

Yet, these tests have not been carried out by the NSF or other government agencies. Fluoridation products are therefore not compliant as required for certification, and do not meet the requirements of the law.

RED FLAGS ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS OF FLUORIDATION

Administering a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a toxic and dangerous substance to an entire population for therapeutic purposes is a complete breach of medical ethics.
This breach of medical ethics is exacerbated when the so-called therapeutic substance is not even approved and regulated by Health Canada.
It is unethical to fail to inform each person subjected to a therapeutic treatment, of the exact real and legal nature of the product, its unsanitary nature and its health risks.
Medical ethics does not tolerate administering said substance without obtaining a consent from the subject. (Respect also to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
It is medically unethical not to assess the age, weight, sex, state of health and other needs of each subject before administering a random dose of a remedy – random, since the quantity of water consumed cannot be controlled.
During treatment, medical ethics also requires individual and regular medical monitoring to evaluate the positive or negative effects of the treatment, to ensure the removal of the treatment if deleterious effects occur. Municipal water fluoridation does not offer a fair and affordable way to opt out of treatment, and subjects would still need to be informed of the deleterious effects of fluoridation in order to stop consuming fluoridated water.

When water is fluoridated at “optimal concentrations”, municipalities, health authorities, attending physicians, dentists and individuals cannot possibly know the dose of fluoride to which people are exposed, or what deleterious effects it may have to human health.

The effectiveness and safety of fluoridation was, until now, a dogma that even science had no right to challenge. With the recent studies and scientific reviews cited above, isn't it time to review fluoridation?

WHICH AUTHORITIES CAN BE TRUSTED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT FLUORIDATION?

If all the health authorities you rely on have not yet informed you of all of these troubling red flags highlighted above, there is a real problem. It is impossible to make an informed policy decision regarding fluoridation without knowing the facts.

How is it that you have not yet been made aware of these red flags? Many of them are obvious and only require common sense. Any member of a municipal council has this competence.

As many of the scientific studies have been published in the last few years, it may be difficult to draw a clear conclusion at first glance in order to make a decision about the future of water fluoridation policy. Often this requires extensive analysis and revision by groups of experts, experts who are not biased or who are willing to modify their prejudices in the face of evidence.

Faced with the slow public reactions of Canadian health authorities to new scientific revelations on fluoride, we can assume they do not have the necessary skills to carry out a serious analysis, the experts on fluoride are rare, or they are currently seeking to defend, at the cost of the health of your community, a questionable public health measure of which they have become the greatest promoters and instigators. Admitting a mistake is not easy!

THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MATTERS OF FLUORIDATION

Since it is the municipalities that make the decision to fluoridate drinking water, they bear full responsibility for the safety of fluoridation because they are the ones who decide so, by resolution. Contrary to the impression you may have been given, no other superior government in Canada has agreed to take legal responsibility for fluoridation.

Higher levels of governments have delegated legal and political responsibility for fluoridation to municipalities; despite the fact that municipalities have neither the competence to scientifically evaluate its merits, nor the leisure to bear the blame and financial burden, in the event of prosecution for damages.

The Decision of the Federal Court of the Northern District of California, following a seven-year trial and the review of studies on the effect of fluoride on the brain, concluded that fluoride is neurotoxic. It would be difficult to find a better-informed contrary opinion.

Other red flags, such as studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of fluoridation and the legal and ethical aspects of fluoridation, weigh even more heavily in the balance of reasons supporting ending water fluoridation, even if only as a precautionary principle.

Municipalities do not have to ask for permission to put an end to fluoridation, as this power already belongs to them.

We can meet with you at your convenience to discuss this critical and urgent matter. As the file is complex, we can take the time to sit down with you, respectfully, in order to explore the subject in more depth, to provide you with the most objective information possible to enable an informed decision. We can also provide you with references to many additional scientific studies and reviews.

Faced with the seriousness of recent scientific discoveries, for the sake of our children, the least you can do is to impose a moratorium on water fluoridation, and to provide clear warnings to pregnant women and those with young children, until the opinion of experts on both sides can be heard.

Thank you for your time and attention on this important and urgent matter.

Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP
FOUNDER Safe Water Calgary
www.safewatercalgary.com

CHAIR, Fluoride Free Canada
www.fluoridefreecanada.ca

Board member of ABC (Associacion Buen Commune, parent organization of Project Ixcanaan)www.ixcanaan.com

Gilles Parent, ND.A.

Founding member of Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca/fr

Coauthor with M. Pierre Jean Morin, Ph.D. in experimental medicine and attorney John Remington Graham, of La fluoration : autopsie d’une erreur scientifique, 2005 and Fluoridation : Autopsy of a Scientific Error, 2010

Expert advisor on fluoridation at Eau Secours