Search Results

26 items found

  • Advocacy | Fluoride Free Canada

    ADVOCATES FOR THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT Many Canadians are actively pursuing a ban on fluoridation in their municipalities and Fluoride Free Canada offers its support. Feel free to use the following information as resources. Our Director of Fluoride Free Canada , Dr. Bob Dickson, is also the President of Safe Water Calgary. He is interviewed here on his involvement in Human Rights. SAFE WATER CALGARY ​ Safe Water Calgary is dedicated to working with City officials and qualified experts to ensure that our water is the SAFEST POSSIBLE given our available resources. Various individuals and groups on occasion attempt to influence City Council to re-introduce fluoridation chemicals to our water. This website is dedicated to providing the most relevant, verifiable and least biased data available about the nature and physiological effects of fluoride ions and fluoridated water. ​ Contact: SafeWaterCalgary@gmail.com ​ CALGARY CAMPAIGN to Vote NO on Oct, 2021 plebicite ​ MEDIA BIAS IN CALGARY - We're not taking this lying down! FLUORIDE FREE WINDSOR-ESSEX ​ ​Fluoride Free Windsor is dedicated to keeping citizens of Windsor and Essex County up-to-date on their campaign to have their water supply free of the product called hydrofluorosilicic acid. Environment Canada calls this product "hazardous waste" but the Public Health Unit has convinced the Windsor Council and Windsor Utilities Commission that it is effective at preventing tooth decay and safe for all citizens to ingest every day for their lifetime. However, this is not true. This industrial waste has not been properly tested for safety and has not been shown to be effective, as you will see if you read the entries on this website. ​ Media Article: September 1st, 2021 CTV News: September 1st, 2021 Media Article: September 2nd, 2021 ​ Contact us through Facebook: Fluoride Free Windsor Ontario ​ VIDEO & ARTICLE : Public Health Officer Admits Fluoridation Chemical is NOT Tested nor Regulated by Health Canada, 2011 QUEBEC COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE WATER MANAGEMENT ​ ​November 1996 provoked many debates until giving birth to the Coalition for a Public Debate on Water, which in 1997 became the Quebec Coalition for Responsible Water Management - Eau Secours! The mission of Eau Secours in Quebec, is to promote the protection and responsible management of water from a perspective of environmental health, equity, accessibility and collective defense of the rights of the population. ​ Contact: direction@eausecours.org ​ CTV NEWS VIDEO : Petition calling on Montreal to remove fluoride from water, August 2021 ​ "WHEN CITIZENS GET INVOLVED" December 2021 – An article published by The Nouvelliste in Three-Rivers, QC in which the journalist recalls many "David & Goliath" citizens’ battles including that against fluoridation in Trois-Rivières which lasted 6-year. Yes, six years against a powerful and obstinate mayor and all the money of the Health Ministry and Public Health. The contract to the builder was already allocated, but because Public Health could not respond properly to our challenge, the project was abandoned at the very last minute. Also, 20,000 signatures proved to them that the social acceptability was not there. Conclusion...never quit! [Article in French ] FLUORIDE FREE LETHBRIDGE ​ The mission of Fluoride Free Lethbridge (Alberta) is to inform the public and our city officials of the hazards of fluoridation and to put a stop to this egregious practice. Get involved. We’re in this together. ​ Contact us through Facebook: FluorideFreeLethbridge ​ VIDEO : Lethbridge Fluoridation Forum 2013 FLUORIDATION FREE OTTAWA ​ We are working to end the injustice of fluoridation for healthier drinking water. See the evidence about fluoride in our drinking water. You will never look at tap water the same way again. ​ Contact: info@ffo-olf.org FLUORIDE FREE REGINA ​ Regina City Council moved to implement water fluoridation in August, 2021. Fluoride Free Regina was formed in October to bring the message to the citizens of Regina, to ask their citizens to contact their councillor to have them repeal the motion, and to get signatures for a referendum. Unfortunately not enough signatures were obtained. Fluoride Free Canada has stepped in to offer their resources. ​ Contact: fluoridefreeregina@gmail.com or via Facebook FLUORIDE FREE MONTREAL ​ Hello and welcome to Fluoride Free Montreal, this group is set up around one clear goal: ending water fluoridation in Pointe-Claire and Dorval, thus ultimately ending it for the Island of Montreal. These are the last two locations on the Island of Montreal where that is happening. With those two locations being two of only four places left in the entire province of Quebec. Fluoride Free Canada has stepped in to offer their resources. ​ Contact: Ralston@live.ca or via Facebook END FLUORIDE TORONTO ​ We are ordinary citizens who believe that medication should never be added to the water supply under any circumstance. We are fighting to get fluoride out of Toronto's water supply. We are fighting for our health. We are doing this out of our own pockets, and out of our own hearts. The scary truth is that fluoride is not medication; fluoride is poison plain and simple. Fluoride is actually a chemical waste called "hydrofluosilicic acid" and it comes from smokestacks. ​ There is a reason your toothpaste says "Poison: Do Not Swallow." Please read all the studies provided in this website. Questions or comments? Please visit our Contact Us page to send Danny a direct message. You can also visit our Facebook page, Fluoride Free Toronto . VANCOUVER – CHALLENGING THE MEDIA ​ Article in the CBC News inferring Metro Vancouver is the "Rotten tooth capital of Canada". Challenge from the Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP to the Producer of the story. Response from CBC's Shiral Tobin and further challenge to Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman. CITIES ON A WATCH LIST ​ Fluoridation Free Canada is also supporting the following cities where the local government is in the process of mandating water fluoridation: ​ Kingston, Ontario

  • *** WHAT'S NEW *** | Fluoride Free Canada

    What's New - A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: May 15th, 2022 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

  • Home | Fluoride Free Canada

    To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. PRESS RELEASE & MEDIA COVERAGE – 09/01/21 LAUNCH Recent government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children. CANADIANS ADVOCATING FOR THEIR RIGHTS View WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T View HOW DID WE GET HERE & WHAT DIFFICULTIES AROSE View NEW SCIENCE THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW! View WHO IS WITH US View When municipalities fluoridate our tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether they wish to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. At Fluoride Free Canada we support all efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We will endeavour to help both municipalities and individuals by providing them with the best science that indicates that this practice is harmful to health, especially the dangers it poses to the brains of our children and the bones of the elderly. Please join us by supporting our efforts to make a measurable difference in the lives of others. LETTER TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Even though fluoridation is a municipal responsibility, Fluoride Free Canada has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to inform him that water fluoridation has the potential to threaten the brains of our children. We believe he must act on their behalf. Feel free to modify/alter this letter, for presentation to your own Provincial and Municipal bodies. SEND YOUR OWN LETTER TO TRUDEAU We urge you to send out your own copy of this letter and get as many other people you know to do so as well. There is much information in this letter that the other political leaders and Canadian citizens do not know, so circulating this letter far and wide is a splendid educational tool for all Canadians. Help us move Prime Minister Trudeau and the Provincial and Territorial Premiers to protect Canadian childrens' developing brains from fluoridated tap water. Dear Prime Minister Trudeau Top Canadian scientists concur that the fetal and infant brain can be damaged by fluoridated tap water... LETTER TO TRUDEAU SENT SEPT. 1, 2021 THE UNITED STATES IS GETTING CLOSE Food and Water Watch, et al. is in the middle of proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . A Federal law Judge heard the case in June 2020 (via Zoom). In the case, testimony was provided by Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu (co-author of the Bashash (2017 , 2018 ) studies and Bruce Lanphear, co-author of the Green (2019 ) and Till (2020 ) studies. The judge appears to be very interested in the new science and has delayed his ruling until he has in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (expected before the end of 2021) and the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis by Grandjean (et al) which was published in June of this year. This could bode VERY WELL for Canadians if Food & Water Watch wins the case, as it would be hard for the Canadian government to ignore any changes implemented by the EPA in favour of defluoridation. CASE STATUS CASE STATUS - Dec. 31/21 The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has existed since the year 2000 and rather than duplicate the information that they have on Canadian activity, it is included here: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES Paul Connett, PhD, is a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology. He is the current director of the Fluoride Action Network, which he helped to found in 2000. He co-authored the book The Case Against Fluoride [Chelsea Green, 2010] with Dr. James Beck from Calgary and Dr. Spedding Micklem from Edinburgh, Scotland. He is featured in several of the videos below. He has been involved since 1996 and has helped many communities in Canada fight fluoridation. He has given presentations on the topic in many cities in Canada, including: Toronto, Ottawa, Oakville, Brantford, London, Mississauga, Peterborough, Dryden, Waterloo, Calgary, Montreal and Prince George. INFORMATIVE VIDEOS AND INTERVIEWS PRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Use this content to formulate your own presentation! UK Parliament Dec/2021 Result: Still outstanding Orillia, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation Calgary, AB 2011 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Vote 10-3) HELP US $ HELP YOU WE ARE ALL IN ! Stay up to date on all fluoridation related news, advocacy, science, and actions you can take locally to help end this practice. Sign-Up “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.” Voltaire

  • Newsletters | Fluoride Free Canada

    The FLUORIDE Report Enjoy the archives of newsletters from Fluoride Free Canada #11 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 4 May 15th, 2022 – NEW View #10 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 3 April 15th, 2022 View #9 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 2 March 15th, 2022 View #8 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 1 February 25th, 2022 View #7 Fluoride Report – Media Bias - We're not taking this lying down! January 25th, 2022 View #6 Fluoride Report – Can You Count on the Advice of the "Experts"? December 3rd, 2021 View #5 Fluoride Report – The Legality of Fluoridation November 20th, 2021 View #4 Fluoride Report – Lies the Media Tell Us November 6th, 2021 View #3 Fluoride Report – Science Lost in Calgary October 22nd, 2021 View #2 Fluoride Report – Canadian's Challenges with Biased Media October 9th, 2021 View #1 News Alert – Calgary in Crisis September 24th, 2021 View Update to Trudeau Letter September 17th, 2021 View

  • Newsletter9-terminology | Fluoride Free Canada

    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.

  • Privacy Policy | Fluoride Free Canada

    PRIVACY POLICY This privacy policy sets out how Fluoride Free Canada uses and protects any information that you give them when you use this website. Fluoride Free Canada is committed to ensuring that your privacy is protected. Should we ask you to provide certain information by which you can be identified when using this website, then you can be assured that it will only be used in accordance with this privacy statement. Fluoride Free Canada may change this policy occasionally by updating this page. You should check this page from time-to-time to ensure that you are happy with any changes. This policy is effective from August, 2021. WHAT WE COLLECT We may collect the following information: Name Email Address Other information we may collect relevant to customer surveys ​ WHAT WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION WE GATHER By providing your name and email, you are giving Fluoride Free Canada express permission to add your information to a distribution list, so that we may send you updates on our activity, as well as any fund-raising that may be required, in order to support this Canadian effort. SECURITY We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect online. LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES Our website may contain links to other websites of interest. However, once you have used these links to leave our site, you should note that we do not have any control over other websites. Therefore, we cannot be responsible for the protection and privacy of any information which you provide while visiting such sites and such sites are not governed by this privacy statement. You should exercise caution and look at the privacy statement applicable to the website in question. CONTROLLING PERSONAL INFORMATION We will not sell, distribute or lease your personal information to third parties unless we have your permission or are required by law to do so. If you believe that any information we are holding on you is incorrect or incomplete, please write to or email us as soon as possible. We will promptly make any corrections.

  • Vancouver | Fluoride Free Canada

    VANCOUVER – CHALLENGING THE MEDIA On October 24, 2021 , the CBC posted an article , authored by Bethany Lindsay, calling Vancouver "The rotten tooth capital of Canada". ​ ​ CHALLENGE TO BETHANY LINDSAY FROM THE CHAIR OF FLUORIDE FREE CANADA, DR. BOB DICKSON, MD, CCFP, FCFP October 31, 2021 I am writing you as the chair of Fluoride-Free Canada, whose mission is to eliminate water fluoridation in Canada based on safety and ethical grounds. ​ Please consider this a formal request to have a follow-up article to your October 24 CBC story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for 'rotten tooth capital of Canada.” Frankly, we were appalled, for several reasons: Your headline, sensationalizing a 1976 quote from one fluoridation advocate, is not only woefully outdated, it’s simply false. Province-wide data shows B.C., which has the lowest fluoridation rate in Canada (excluding Yukon), actually has a slightly lower cavity rate in young children than Ontario, which has the highest fluoridation rate. Your story was completely one-sided, quoting three fluoridation promoters and none that were opposed. Your story violated several of CBC’s own principles promoting factual information, lack of bias and diversity of opinion. Your story also completely ignored extensive scientific studies, many led by prominent Canadian scientists, linking fluoridated water with lower IQs in children, along with several other serious health risks. Could you please answer me directly by this Tuesday, November 2nd, on whether you will produce another story on this issue showing the other side? RESPONSE FROM CBC'S SHIRAL TOBIN AND FURTHER CHALLENGE TO JACK NAGLER, CBC OMBUDSMAN ​ Date: December 16, 2021 To: Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsperson cc: Shiral Tobin, Brodie Fenlon Good day, Mr. Nagler. My name is Robert Dickson, MD, and I’m the Chair of Fluoride-Free Canada , the nationwide organization leading the opposition to artificial water fluoridation. This is my third communication with CBC staff regarding the CBC’s October 24 story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for ‘rotten tooth capital of Canada.’” On Nov. 1st, I had e-mailed Bethany Lindsay, Producer of the story, citing the inaccuracy and bias of the story, and asking for a follow-up that would clear up the misconceptions it created. I received no response from her. On Nov. 8th, I e-mailed your office, citing these inaccuracies, biases, and contradictions with CBC’s own principles and standards. On Dec. 3rd, I received a response from Shiral Tobin, who disagreed that the article violated your standards. She said if I wasn’t satisfied with her response, I should contact you. I am not satisfied with her response. I don’t believe it’s necessary to repeat what I’ve already said in my initial complaint. I’ll just concentrate on responding to Ms. Tobin’s comments, beyond noting that neither Ms. Lindsay nor Ms. Tobin responded to my request for a follow-up story giving other major health perspectives on this issue. MS TOBIN: “The headline is eye-catching but it cites back to a CBC interview from a former medical health officer, which is appropriate to use in the context of this story.” RESPONSE : The headline is what people often remember the most. In many cases, it may be all they read. The fact that it was made by a former medical health officer isn’t the point – it’s a false statement, as shown by the government statistics we provided, and that’s what completely contradicts your stated journalistic standard of providing “professional judgment based on facts and expertise”. We would hope that any CBC reporter would take a few minutes to check the accuracy of a quote from 1976 before putting it into the headline. Ms. Lindsay did not, and Ms. Tobin is defending this headline. The quote is factually incorrect and it was the most prominent statement in the entire article. Inaccuracy is never “appropriate . This is not responsible journalism. MS TOBIN: “This is a story about people calling for a change to the status quo, which is why those voices are the focus of the article.” RESPONSE : Fluoride Free Canada has no quibble with a particular focus. Our complaint is that there is no balance to put the issue itself in focus. In CBC’s own words: “We contribute to informed debate on issues that matter to Canadians by reflecting a diversity of opinion. Our content on all platforms presents a wide range of subject matter and views. On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are.” I don’t know how much more obvious it could be that there was no diversity of opinion whatsoever in this article. How can this not be a violation of your own standards? MS TOBIN : “The article offers up additional information and links to back up the claims made by the experts and doctors quoted . . .” RESPONSE : Well, yes, the article did offer this information, but as stated above, it’s only one from one side. MS TOBIN : “I am not aware of the studies (on fluoridation lowering IQ) you mention in your letter linking fluoride to intelligence and you do not provide any links. But the one I know of shows correlation, not causation, and even that is not a very strong effect.” RESPONSE : I think this goes to the crux of CBC’s problem. No, you’re not aware. Ms. Tobin is correct in that I didn’t provide documentation, so let’s address that right now. In July 2019, the University of Calgary’s O’Brien Institute of Public Health, after an extensive review, published its report on fluoridation saying “In summary, there is some new emerging evidence that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of children, with important studies having been published subsequent to the review of this evidence by the National Research Council in the U.S. in 2006.” By way of reference, the U.S. NRC report (p.222) concluded “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” In preparing your response to me, I ask two things: Keep an open mind. I realize you’re busy, but please take half an hour to read and view the following by world-renowned scientific experts, many of whom are Canadians. (Please note that one of these experts, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, is a professor and scientist at Simon Fraser U. in Vancouver. I would hope that any future articles you do regarding fluoridation, especially in B. C., include reaching out to him for comment.) By doing so, I believe you’ll be surprised to learn that there is NO question that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain and extensive evidence that water fluoridation, at Canadian levels, affects pregnant women, unborn children and infants by lowering IQ and increasing ADHD rates. Environmental Health News article : “It is Time to Protect Developing Kids’ Brains from Fluoride” (2 minute read) Dr. Bruce Lanphear : “The Impact of Fluoride on Brain Development” (5 minute video) Dr. Christine Till : Calgary Rotary Club presentation September 28, 2021 (22 minute video) I also refer you to two one-pagers on fluoridation’s lack of effectiveness and neurotoxicity – again at levels in Canada’s fluoridated water. They each take about one minute to read. Fluoride Efficacy Fluoride Neurotoxicity Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Robert Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP Chair, Fluoride Free Canada ​ WILL UPDATE THIS PAGE IF AND WHEN WE RECEIVE A RESPONSE

  • Who is With Us | Fluoride Free Canada

    WHO IS WITH US? In stark contrast to the Center for Disease Control’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, it is one of the most widely REJECTED health interventions in the world. See the countries and communities who still fluoridate and the overwhelming majority who do not! Many organizations still support fluoridation, but those opposing it grows year by year. They include: Organizations Opposing Fluoridation In addition, many organizations once endorsing fluoridation have pulled back, no longer taking a position. Organizations Who No Longer Endorse Fluoridation Dr. Pamela Cunningham of HappyHealthyChildren.org provides parents with holistic and science-based information to raise happy, healthy children. The following is her blog on fluoride in drinking water ...

  • Home | Fluoride Free Canada

    To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. PRESS RELEASE & MEDIA COVERAGE – 09/01/21 LAUNCH Recent government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children. CANADIANS ADVOCATING FOR THEIR RIGHTS View WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T View HOW DID WE GET HERE & WHAT DIFFICULTIES AROSE View NEW SCIENCE THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW! View WHO IS WITH US View When municipalities fluoridate our tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether they wish to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. At Fluoride Free Canada we support all efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We will endeavour to help both municipalities and individuals by providing them with the best science that indicates that this practice is harmful to health, especially the dangers it poses to the brains of our children and the bones of the elderly. Please join us by supporting our efforts to make a measurable difference in the lives of others. LETTER TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Even though fluoridation is a municipal responsibility, Fluoride Free Canada has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to inform him that water fluoridation has the potential to threaten the brains of our children. We believe he must act on their behalf. Feel free to modify/alter this letter, for presentation to your own Provincial and Municipal bodies. SEND YOUR OWN LETTER TO TRUDEAU We urge you to send out your own copy of this letter and get as many other people you know to do so as well. There is much information in this letter that the other political leaders and Canadian citizens do not know, so circulating this letter far and wide is a splendid educational tool for all Canadians. Help us move Prime Minister Trudeau and the Provincial and Territorial Premiers to protect Canadian childrens' developing brains from fluoridated tap water. Dear Prime Minister Trudeau Top Canadian scientists concur that the fetal and infant brain can be damaged by fluoridated tap water... LETTER TO TRUDEAU SENT SEPT. 1, 2021 THE UNITED STATES IS GETTING CLOSE Food and Water Watch, et al. is in the middle of proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . A Federal law Judge heard the case in June 2020 (via Zoom). In the case, testimony was provided by Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu (co-author of the Bashash (2017 , 2018 ) studies and Bruce Lanphear, co-author of the Green (2019 ) and Till (2020 ) studies. The judge appears to be very interested in the new science and has delayed his ruling until he has in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (expected before the end of 2021) and the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis by Grandjean (et al) which was published in June of this year. This could bode VERY WELL for Canadians if Food & Water Watch wins the case, as it would be hard for the Canadian government to ignore any changes implemented by the EPA in favour of defluoridation. CASE STATUS CASE STATUS - Dec. 31/21 The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has existed since the year 2000 and rather than duplicate the information that they have on Canadian activity, it is included here: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES Paul Connett, PhD, is a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology. He is the current director of the Fluoride Action Network, which he helped to found in 2000. He co-authored the book The Case Against Fluoride [Chelsea Green, 2010] with Dr. James Beck from Calgary and Dr. Spedding Micklem from Edinburgh, Scotland. He is featured in several of the videos below. He has been involved since 1996 and has helped many communities in Canada fight fluoridation. He has given presentations on the topic in many cities in Canada, including: Toronto, Ottawa, Oakville, Brantford, London, Mississauga, Peterborough, Dryden, Waterloo, Calgary, Montreal and Prince George. INFORMATIVE VIDEOS AND INTERVIEWS PRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Use this content to formulate your own presentation! UK Parliament Dec/2021 Result: Still outstanding Orillia, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation Calgary, ON 2011 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Vote 10-3) HELP US $ HELP YOU WE ARE ALL IN ! Stay up to date on all fluoridation related news, advocacy, science, and actions you can take locally to help end this practice. Sign-Up “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.” Voltaire

  • Home | Fluoride Free Canada

    OUR MISSION Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds. Sign-up to receive updates Check out what is newly posted OUR VISION For Canada to be a country in which scientific integrity and sound medical ethics underpin every public health policy and one in which we can have confidence in public pronouncements from all health officials, especially community-based Medical Officers of Health. That has not been the case with water fluoridation. View full video CANADIANS ADVOCATING FOR THEIR RIGHTS View WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T View HOW DID WE GET HERE & WHAT DIFFICULTIES AROSE View NEW SCIENCE THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW! View To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. PRESS RELEASE & MEDIA COVERAGE – SEPT. 1ST LAUNCH Recent government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children. When municipalities fluoridate our tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether they wish to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. At Fluoride Free Canada we support all efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We will endeavour to help both municipalities and individuals by providing them with the best science that indicates that this practice is harmful to health, especially the dangers it poses to the brains of our children and the bones of the elderly. Please join us by supporting our efforts to make a measurable difference in the lives of others. LETTER TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Even though fluoridation is a municipal responsibility, Fluoride Free Canada has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to inform him that water fluoridation has the potential to threaten the brains of our children. We believe he must act on their behalf. Feel free to modify/alter this letter, for presentation to your own Provincial and Municipal bodies. SEND YOUR OWN LETTER TO TRUDEAU We urge you to send out your own copy of this letter and get as many other people you know to do so as well. There is much information in this letter that the other political leaders and Canadian citizens do not know, so circulating this letter far and wide is a splendid educational tool for all Canadians. Help us move Prime Minister Trudeau and the Provincial and Territorial Premiers to protect Canadian childrens' developing brains from fluoridated tap water. Dear Prime Minister Trudeau Top Canadian scientists concur that the fetal and infant brain can be damaged by fluoridated tap water... LETTER TO TRUDEAU SENT SEPT. 1, 2021 THE UNITED STATES IS GETTING CLOSE Food and Water Watch, et al. is in the middle of proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . A Federal law Judge heard the case in June 2020 (via Zoom). In the case, testimony was provided by Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu (co-author of the Bashash (2017 , 2018 ) studies and Bruce Lanphear, co-author of the Green (2019 ) and Till (2020 ) studies. The judge appears to be very interested in the new science and has delayed his ruling until he has in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (expected before the end of 2021) and the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis by Grandjean (et al) which was published in June of this year. This could bode VERY WELL for Canadians if Food & Water Watch wins the case, as it would be hard for the Canadian government to ignore any changes implemented by the EPA in favour of defluoridation. CASE STATUS CASE STATUS - Dec. 31/21 The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has existed since the year 2000 and rather than duplicate the information that they have on Canadian activity, it is included here: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES Paul Connett, PhD, is a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology. He is the current director of the Fluoride Action Network, which he helped to found in 2000. He co-authored the book The Case Against Fluoride [Chelsea Green, 2010] with Dr. James Beck from Calgary and Dr. Spedding Micklem from Edinburgh, Scotland. He is featured in several of the videos below. He has been involved since 1996 and has helped many communities in Canada fight fluoridation. He has given presentations on the topic in many cities in Canada, including: Toronto, Ottawa, Oakville, Brantford, London, Mississauga, Peterborough, Dryden, Waterloo, Calgary, Montreal and Prince George. INFORMATIVE VIDEOS AND INTERVIEWS PRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Use this content to formulate your own presentation! UK Parliament Dec/2021 Result: Still outstanding Orillia, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation Calgary, ON 2011 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Vote 10-3) HELP US $ HELP YOU WE ARE ALL IN ! Stay up to date on all fluoridation related news, advocacy, science, and actions you can take locally to help end this practice. Sign-Up “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.” Voltaire