Search Results

SCIENCE THAT SHOWS FLUORIDE IS NOT SAFE T here are strong Canadian connections with most of the following studies. SEE BIOS: Key scientists associated with Canadian research June 2025 - Fluoride, Teeth, and Developing Brains: Dental Health in Tension With Environmental Health, Millions Affected: Howard Hu MD, MPH, ScD, and Linda Birnbaum PhD call for a reevaluation of water fluoridation policy—prioritizing topical fluoride methods and reducing prenatal/infant ingestion—to better protect vulnerable populations. They note that while fluoride in water has long been celebrated for preventing tooth decay, recent evidence shows that higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy and early childhood is associated with reductions in children’s IQ (roughly 1.6–2 IQ points per 1 mg/L increase), as well as anxiety and behavioral effects via mechanisms like oxidative stress and thyroid disruption. April 2025 - Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy: This scientific review of the current literature by Christine Till, Philippe Grandjean , E. Angeles Martinez-Mier , Howard Hu and Bruce Lanphear documents the risks to human health of community water fluoridation. It was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science and the National Institutes of Health. January 2025 - Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies, which included three Canadian studies, found inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. The quality of individual studies, also called risk-of-bias, was independently evaluated using the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Risk of Bias Rating Tool. In the 22 low risk-of-bias studies, the association between fluoride exposure and IQ was inverse, even when exposure was restricted to <1.5 mg/L fluoride in drinking water, as well as <1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine. November 2024 - Community Water Fluoridation a Cost–Benefit–Risk Consideration : The authors compared the economic value of dental caries averted by community water fluoridation to the costs of treating the harms of fluoridation. They determined that fluoridation is not cost-effective when the cost of harm (the cost of treating cosmetic dental fluorosis and lower wages due to developmental neurotoxicity) is included. They concluded that all streams of evidence should be considered for policy evaluation, including: lack of individual choice, risks, desired dosage, total exposure, jurisdiction, research quality, environmental justice, ethics, alternatives, and lack of a cost–benefit. October 2024 - Fluoride Ingestion Induces Formation of Unusual Macromolecular Complexes in Gut Lumen Which Retard Absorption of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements by Chelation : This study found that fluoride in the stomach chelates minerals, reducing their absorption. Blood concentrations of essential minerals were significantly lower in fluoride-exposed groups compared to the control, while excretion of essential elements in stool was significantly higher in fluoride-administered groups. October 2024 - Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay? : Researchers from the international Cochrane Network reviewed the scientific literature to evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of community water fluoridation (CWF) on dental caries and they concluded that CWF may lead to a slightly greater reduction in decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and a slightly greater increase in the proportion of caries‐free children, but with smaller effect sizes than pre‐1975 studies. They found insufficient evidence to determine the effect of cessation of CWF on caries and whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries according to socioeconomic status. July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells – This Chinese study explored the mechanism of fluoride interference in the immune system and the key indicators of fluoride-induced immune damage. It represents the first evidence suggesting that Protein Kinase C-θ (PKC-θ) may be the key to immune imbalance in the body under fluoride exposure. May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months – This study published in JAMA Network Open found that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase the risk of neurobehavioral problems among children living in an optimally fluoridated area in the United States. A 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of borderline clinical or clinical neurobehavioral problems. February 2024: Grandjean, Hu, Till et al . Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies - This study merged data from a prospective Odense Child Cohort (OCC) with results from two previous birth cohort studies from Mexico and Canada to characterize fluoride’s dose-effect relationship, and found a statistically significant association between urine-fluoride and IQ. The study concluded that pregnant women and children may need protection against fluoride toxicity. January, 2024: The LOTUS Study – With 6.4 million study subjects, this is the largest fluoride study ever conducted . Its aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridatio n for adults and adolescents. Over 10 years, people receiving optimally fluoridated water experienced only a 2% reduction in the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth, compared to those whose water was not fluoridated. The study found NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation , nor any compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. [ WATCH VIDEO - 1:37 minutes ] January 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy – This is the first study to investigate sex differences in the association between fluoride exposure and maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy. It found that 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a 35% increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) among women pregnant with girls. Urinary fluoride concentration is an objective biomarker of short-term fluoride exposure. It allows for more precise estimates of fluoride intake from multiple sources. *The MIREC Study, which started in 2007, is an ongoing study to examine the effects of prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals on the health of pregnant women and their infants. November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water – This Canadian study identifies both dental fluorosis and reduction in children's IQ scores as key endpoints for establishing a health-based value (HBV) for fluoride in drinking water. The authors state that neurodevelopmental cognitive effects may warrant special consideration in determining HBV. They suggest a “point of departure” of 1.56 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water for establishing a reference dose and public health safety guidelines, based only on the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for moderate and severe dental fluorosis. They do not address the potential impact on IQ scores. September, 2023 – A study by University of Calgary researchers found “poorer inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility” in preschool children whose mothers were pregnant during times when the water was fluoridated in Calgary, Canada. The authors said their tests measured “executive function deficits [that have been] consistently associated with behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and specific learning disorders”. Executive dysfunction disrupts the ability to manage thoughts, emotions, and actions, including the ability to pay attention, solve problems, listen, and multitask. June 2023: Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water – Health Canada engaged six experts to consider scientific evidence on fluoride exposure, dental fluorosis, and potential effects on neurocognitive development in children. They were also tasked with providing scientific recommendations for Health Canada to consider in deriving a health-based value for fluoride in drinking water. A supporting statement in the summary report notes that several studies have raised concerns regarding the potential neurocognitive effects of fluoride at community exposure levels and that some of these studies suggest adverse effects at lower exposure levels than those that cause dental fluorosis. The experts stated that the science concerning neurocognitive effects and fluoride is rapidly evolving, and consideration should be given to new studies as they become available. Till et al., April 2023 – Professor Christine Till and PhD student Meaghan Hall found an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy . They say this latest study may explain an earlier study looking at maternal fluoride exposure in pregnancy and lower IQ in boys. “The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” says Till. Hall and Till say they hope that policy makers will consider this new research when evaluating the safety of community water fluoridation. November 2022 – Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study : The aim of the CATFISH (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) study was to address the question of whether or not the addition of fluoride to community drinking water, in a contemporary population, led to a reduction in the number of children with caries and, if so, is this reduction cost-effective. It concluded that the prevalence of caries and the impact of water fluoridation was much smaller than previous studies have reported. June, 2021 - Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA as well as Health Canada, have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada (Bashash, 2017, 2018 and Green, 2019). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury” , as detailed in this risk analysis . February, 2021 – Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample: This study examined associations between fluoride exposure and sleep outcomes among older adolescents and adults in Canada. It found that fluoride exposure may contribute to sleeping less than the recommended duration. Fluoride from dietary and environmental sources may concentrate in calcium-containing regions of the body such as the pineal gland. The pineal gland synthesizes melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. Till et al., 2020 have shown a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the U.S. NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies (Green, 2019 and Till, 2020), ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit ( see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). An important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as Canada fluoridates its water [ Helte et. al., 2021 ] . This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shortens the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a whole lifetime of exposure. BRENDA STAUDENMAIER was a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintains on her website fluoridelawsuit.com 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. The following lists the number of studies she lists and an example of the topics covered: 2024 - 32 (Cost-Benefit, Baby Formula, Topical v. Systemic, more...) 2023 - 28 (Hypothyroidism & Pregnancy, Eczema, Oral Microbiome) 2022 - 28 (Nutrition & Politics, Lower Performance IQ, Blood Pressure) 2021 - 30 (Genes, Osteoarthritis, Toddlers) 2020 - 18 (Blood, Bones, Sperm Motility) 2019 - 24 (Kidney & Liver, Alzheimer's, Dementia) 2018 - 15 (Overdosed Babies, Pregnant Women, Dental Fluorosis) 2017 - 10 (Preschool Diet, Prenatal Poison, Immunity) 2016 - 5 (Osteoporosis, Diabetes, IBD) 2015 - 7 ( Thyroid, ADHD, Inflammation) SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & REPORTS "These items provide compelling evidence that 0.7 ppm is neither optimal nor safe and that any claims to the contrary are ill-founded. Moreover, protests that more study is required before banning fluoridation is a tacit endorsement of human experimentation without individual consent which is medical assault." —Karen F. Spencer, member of Food & Water Watch (another plaintiff in the fluoride law suit)

Help Us $ave Your Children's Brains from Fluoride's Neurotoxicity DONATION METHODS We offer two different donation methods: Use your online banking to eTransfer directly to info@fluoridefreecanada.ca Donate via Zeffy , an online platform that charges us zero transaction fees. We are grateful for all donations, no matter how big or small. We happily volunteer our time and talents for Fluoride Free Canada, but funds are required for operating costs.

THE U.S. LAWSUIT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION — Food and Water Watch, et al. vs Environmental Protection Agency TRIAL TIMELINE In the Fall of 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the public drinking water, because they posed an unacceptable risk to the brain. Hard copies of approximately 300 animal and human studies were offered in support of this petition. In 2017, the EPA rejected the petition. FAN, along with several other groups and individuals, appealed this decision in Federal Court (the 9th District, located in San Francisco). The case was heard (via Zoom) in June 2020 over a period of two weeks, with Judge Edward Chen presiding. Even though the weight of evidence on fluoride’s ability to harm the human brain was very convincing, FAN’s case was greatly bolstered in September 2017, when the first of several U.S. Government-funded mother-offspring studies was published (Bashash, 2017). This was the first major study that had examined exposure to fluoride during pregnancy (i.e. exposure at the fetal change). The results were very striking and could not have been more helpful to FAN’s case. Bashash found a strong relationship between the level of fluoride exposure to pregnant women (as measured in their urine) and a lowered IQ in their offspring. The studies were very rigorous (confounding variables were controlled for and all measurements were made at the individual level). Moreover, the mothers’ exposures were at levels commonly experienced in artificially fluoridated communities in Canada and the USA. FAN’s case was furthered bolstered by three other studies published before the trial began (Bashash, 2018; Green 2019 and Till 2020). In the June trial, FAN was able to produce expert testimony of two of the key authors of the mother-child IQ studies (Bruce Lanphear (Green 2019 and Till 2020) and Howard Hu (Bashash, 2017). They also had expert testimony from two risk assessment specialists, Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, a member of the National Research Council that researched fluoride toxicity in 2006 (NRC 2006) and Philippe Grandjean, a key author of the Harvard meta-analysis of IQ studies published in 2012, and the lead author for the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis (subsequently published in 2021). The big surprise was the that EPA chose not to use any of its own fluoride experts in defending their position but instead hired the company Exponent to do so. Exponent is renowned for defending a whole range of very toxic products and by-products for the chemical industry (Dow, Dupont, Monsanto etc.) which have included: dioxins, PCBs, glyphosate and PFAs. Even though the Exponent lawyers did their best to muddy the waters by arguing that FAN had failed to perform a state of the art systematic review of the literature before declaring that fluoride was a neurotoxic hazard, even they had to conceded in cross-examination, that the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)-funded studies mentioned above, were the most important and rigorous studies conducted to date. The Judge surprised those watching the case via zoom, when he interrupted the EPAs lawyer in her closing argument when she was trying to establish that fluoride was not a neurotoxic hazard. The judge opined that (1) fluoride was clearly a neurotoxic hazard citing, what both parties had agreed were the strongest studies conducted to date; and (2) argued that the EPA was demanding a standard of proof that even the best epidemiological studies cannot provide: namely, cause and effect. To the plaintiff’s ears, this sounded like a victory, however the judge has postponed his final verdict until he has seen two more documents: the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) systematic review of Fluoride’s Neurotoxicity (requested by FAN in 2016) and a published version of the BMD analysis (risk assessment to determine a safe reference dose for fluoride based upon the pooled data in two of the mother-child studies (Bashash , 2017 and Green, 2019). The BMD analysis was published in June, but we are still waiting for the final report from the NTP. The judge has indicated that when the studies are in his hand (and possibly other mother-child studies being conducted), that he would probably entertain some more expert testimony from both sides on these published findings. To date all attempts by the EPA to throw out the plaintiff’s case on the issue of standing have failed as well as the EPA's argument that FAN should refile their petition, because key evidence has been published since the original petition was filed in 2016. Throughout the proceedings, the judge made it clear that he is interested in what the best science has shown, rather than EPA's arcane arguments about what constitutes systematic reviews. Hence he insists on waiting for the NTP’s own review, before he makes his ruling. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Review is expected before the end of this year and the final ruling possibly in early 2022. DECEMBER 31, 2021 SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 The next status hearing for our federal TSCA lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end the use of fluoridation chemicals was originally scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, September 20th, but has again been rescheduled by the Court. While I suspect that you are as frustrated as all of us here at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) about the two year delay since our trial was held, we have some promising news. First, the next hearing before the Court is now scheduled for Thursday, October 20th, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. (US Pacific) / 4:30 (US Eastern). Second, the October hearing is expected to be more than a typical status update from both parties. For the past two years, the Court has been awaiting the final publication of the National Toxicology Program’s review on fluoride's neurotoxicity . This final publication was expected at the end of 2021, then promised again earlier this year, with May being the long-awaited release date. However, May came and went without any sign of the NTP report. For this reason, the Court continued to postpone our status hearings throughout the Summer. In response to this indefinite postponement, last week FAN's attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to restart it with an abbreviated second trial to review the latest scientific studies and NTP review. The NTP report is the culmination of years of research and work, and has already gone through at least three peer reviews. There is no longer a reasonable justification to wait for the powers-that-be to decide when, or if, it should be released to the public. We feel there is enough evidence available from the publicly available draft NTP reports and from other materials since the trial in June 2020 to complete the case and for the Court to render a decision. We’re confident the evidence is also strongly in our favor, including from the NTP’s review. In short, we’ve patiently waited for the National Institutes of Health and the NTP to finalize this review of fluoride's neurotoxicity. We’re done waiting. It’s time for justice to be served, and we’re hoping that the October hearing will bring us closer to that end. Thank you for your continued support, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network OCTOBER 31, 2022 BIG NEWS! The Court ruled in favor of our motion, and the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court is moving forward, bringing us another step closer to a final ruling. If you missed Wednesday's exciting hearing in federal court, you will be able to watch it. The court recorded the proceedings and will release it to the public. I was waiting to include a link to the recording in this bulletin, but it hasn't been released yet. When it is, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will immediately share it with you in an email and on social media. Stay tuned! In the meantime, here's what happened. At the end of the initial trial in June of 2020, the Court put a stay/abeyance on the proceedings, wanting to wait for the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to finalize its review of the science on fluoride and human neurotoxicity. At the time, lawyers for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the Court that the review would be forthcoming, and based on the NTP's typical review process, the delay on our trial ought to have been short-lived. However, in unprecedented fashion, the NTP has subjected their fluoride report to at least three separate peer-reviews, with a fourth currently ongoing. This is in contrast to previous NTP Monographs on other chemicals, where there has only been one public peer-review culminating in a public vote by a panel of scientists. More than two-years after the Court was assured a final document, the NTP has yet to publish one. FAN and our attorneys felt that we had waited patiently for long enough. Prior to Wednesday's hearing, our attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to hold a second trial where our experts can comment on the latest scientific studies, including existing versions of the NTP review. If the Court wasn't inclined to hold a second phase of the trial, we also expressed support for a ruling based on the existing record rather than continue waiting for the NTP. The EPA objected to ending the stay, preferring the Court to either wait for the final NTP review or make a ruling based on the existing court record. The EPA were not in favor of reopening the trial to more expert testimony, new evidence, or any version of the NTP report but the "final" version, if one is ever published. That timeline would have likely delayed the trial into late 2023 or beyond. On Wednesday, the Court ruled in favor of our motion to lift the stay on the proceedings . Not only did this signal the Court's desire to move forward with our case, but the Court specifically reopened discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine an updated version of the NTP's review, without it needing to be published. The EPA's objections to using any version of the NTP report besides the "final" version was based on their concern that the NTP's findings would be made public prematurely. To circumvent this objection, the Court placed the NTP's review under protective order so that it will only be available to the parties involved, the Court, and expert witnesses. The public will not have access unless the Court decides otherwise, or if FAN wins a separate pending legal case on our Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) for the report. Thankfully, the Court made it clear to both parties that it expects to be provided with the NTP review before the next status hearing set for early January, regardless of what process is used to get it. The Court urged both parties to come together and find a way to get the current NTP review into the Court's hands "voluntarily," but our attorney, Michael Connett, was also told that if he needs the Court's help "using subpoenas or a motion to compel," he knows where to find the Judge. This was another victory for our side, as the Court clearly agreed with our argument that the updated NTP draft was worth looking at, and took action to obtain it. In agreement with FAN's position, the Court reiterated its preference for a phase-two of the trial, with additional expert testimony. The Court also wants the NTP Director to explain in detail the remaining timeline for publishing their "final" review and the criteria for determining whether the review will be published or not. Once the Court has the NTP review, the Judge will read it, as well as consider the NTP Director's responses to his questions. A determination will then be made whether to wait a little longer for the NTP to publish a "final" report, or admit the NTP draft as evidence, allowing us to immediately move the trial into the next phase. We should find out at the next status hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, January 10, at 2:30PM (Pacific). For more information about lawsuit, including a trial timeline and documents, click here . For more information on the NTP's Review, click here . Thank you for your continued support, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network PS: Video of the Motion on October 26th now available (below). OCTOBER 26, 2022 In this video you will see our attorney, Michael Connett, argue successfully on behalf of our motion to end the stay on the trial and reopen discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine the final draft of the NTP report that was supposed to be published in May of 2022. You will also see the attorney for the EPA, Brandon Adkins, argue to keep the trial suspended, and argue against additional expert testimony on new evidence, and against the National Toxicology Program having to turn over their final draft from May. The Department of Justice--on behalf of the EPA--has since complied with the Court and turned over a copy of the unpublished NTP report, though it is under a protective order and not available to the public at this time. NOVEMBER 30, 2022 JULY 5, 2023 In the following interview, Paul Connett, PhD , a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, gives an update on the lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency, and details VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. JANUARY 13, 2024 In this video, lead attorney on the case, Michael Connett , sits down with Children’s Health Defense President, Mary Holland to pull back the curtain on fluoride and provide a blow-by-blow review of documents unearthed by the Freedom of Information Act. These documents show that a landmark federal review of fluoride’s hazards to the brain has been blocked by political leadership at the highest levels of the Department of Health & Human Services. Several shocking interviews of federal health experts deposed in the case, including representatives for the Center for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency, reveal the unsettling truth about fluoride. JANUARY 30, 2024 One day before the start of the trial, lead attorney Michael Connett was interviewed on The Kim Iversen Show . He talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride: pregnant mothers, formula-fed babies and those with kidney disease. He also explained fluoride's correlation to hip fractures and hypothyroidism. JANUARY 31 to FEBRUARY 14, 2024 — T H E T R I A L Follow the fascinating "blow-by-blow" documented on the Fluoride Action Network's (FANs) website . Below are interviews with a few of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. DR. HOWARD HU was the principal investigator in the Mexican ELEMENT study, a pregnancy and birth cohort on fluoride’s impact on neurobehavioral development. The research was funded by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health. Hu has also been involved in research on lead toxicity and anti-social behaviour. DR. BRUCE LANPHEAR is a public health physician and pediatric epidemiologist who specializes in environmental exposures including lead and other toxic chemicals. Dr. Lanphear has an M.D. from the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an M.P.H. from the Tulane School of Public Health. He is an expert on lead toxicity whose own work has been used by the EPA to develop their standards on lead. DR. PHILIPPE GRANDJEAN is a Danish scientist working in environmental medicine. He is the head of the Environmental Medicine Research Unit at the University of Southern Denmark and adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. Grandjean has an extensive history of researching mercury. FEBRUARY 20, 2024 - THE TRIAL CLOSING STATEMENTS The TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit wrapped up on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 after a 3-hour hearing featuring interactive closing statements from both parties. NOW AWAITING JUDGE EDWARD CHEN'S DECISION. Timeline The Latest SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 - THE RULING - WE WON! History has been made . After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case . A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children , and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling: "The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." PRESS RELEASE Laissez l'avocat des plaignants, MICHAEL CONNETT , vous annoncer la formidable nouvelle suivante dans l'interview vidéo avec Del Bigtree du The Highwire, où il déclare : « La Cour a ordonné à l'[EPA] d'entamer une procédure d'élaboration de règlements pour éliminer ce risque pour le cerveau lié à l'ajout de produits chimiques fluorés à l'eau potable.» COURT CASE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT for letter sent to Prime Minister Trudeau and all Canadian Premiers September 1st, 2021 NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND DOCUMENTED HARM ON OTHER TISSUES Neurotoxicity There is an ever-growing body of peer-reviewed studies, beginning in the mid-1990s, that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic. To date, more than 76 human studies , most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. Promoters of water fluoridation have dismissed the relevance of these studies (a) because of methodological limitations and (b) because many—but not all—of these findings occurred at higher fluoride concentrations than those used in water fluoridation programs. Nevertheless, there has been general agreement that the findings have been remarkably consistent [Choi et al., 2012 ]. A very significant improvement in the quality of these studies occurred in 2017, when the first of four prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the United States were published: [Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018 ]; [Green et al., 2019 ] (also funded by Health Canada ) and [Till et al., 2020 ]. Canadian researchers were involved in all of these rigorously designed studies. For the first time, the studies included pregnant women and their offspring. This was important, because fluoride is known to cross the placenta. Measurements of both exposure and outcome were made at the individual level (previously these were made less precisely at the community level, in so-called “ecological” studies). Also, the study by Till et al., 2020 showed that the infant brain is also susceptible to damage from fluoride. They showed a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. Most importantly, the fluoride exposures in all these studies were at levels commonly experienced by pregnant women and children in fluoridated communities in Canada. The weight of evidence now strongly suggests that fluoride is capable of damaging both the fetal and the infant brain even at very low levels . Based upon Philippe Grandjean et al.’s Benchmark Dose Analysis , offspring born to women exposed to fluoride doses commonly experienced in communities at 0.7 ppm, would experience a loss of 4 to 5 IQ points. To put that into perspective, at the population level , a shift downward of 5 IQ points halves the number of very bright children (IQ >130) and increases by 57% the number of children needing special care (IQ <70). Both changes have enormous social and economic ramifications for Canada. According to Grandjean, because of the large number of children being deliberately exposed to fluoridated water, fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury. The loss of IQ points has lifelong consequences. For the individual , it has been estimated that a loss of one IQ point would reduce lifetime earnings by $18,000 [Grandjean et al., 2012 ]. For the whole Canadian population, we are talking about losses of billions of dollars in lifetime earnings. The Fluoride Action Network in the United States has prepared a review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the Mother-Offspring studies , accessible here . RECENT STUDIES PUBLISHED ON OTHER ORGANS, TISSUES AND BODY SYSTEMS Bone A major prospective cohort study from Sweden demonstrates a higher risk of hip fractures in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels that are in the same range as Canadian water fluoridation rates [Helte et al., 2021 ]. This is a very serious finding because it is well known that hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence, institutional care and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health from womb to tomb, effecting the brains of the fetus and the bones of the elderly after lifetime exposure. Kidney and liver function, hyperuricemia and reproductive endocrinology Recent epidemiological studies conducted in the United States, using individual biomarker measures of fluoride exposure, have found an association between low to moderate fluoride intake and impaired kidney and liver function [Malin et al., 2019 ], increased risk of hyperuricemia [Wei et al., 2021 ], as well as adverse effects on reproductive endocrinology in American adolescents [Bai et al., 2020 ].

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. When municipalities fluoridate their tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. Fluoride Free Canada supports all efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We help 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. Below is sworn testimony from Casey Hannan, the then Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. He admits that the CDC has no data that would establish the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite a growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin . CANADIAN ADVOCACY View WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T View HOW DID WE GET HERE View NEW SCIENCE View WHO OPPOSES WATER FLUORIDATION View FLUORIDE ON TRIAL On September 24, 2024 a US Federal court ruled in favour of Food and Water Watch, et al. in their proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . It was heard in June 2020, with testimony 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 was very interested in the new science and delayed his ruling until he had in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and the Grandjean (et al) Benchmark Dose (BMD) A nalysis . FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CASE HISTORY & THE LATEST The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has excellent information on Canadian activity, it is included here: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES HEALTH EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE Paul Connett, PhD, is a retired chemistry professor 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 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 Canadian cities, including: Toronto, Ottawa, Oakville, Brantford, London, Mississauga, Peterborough, Dryden, Waterloo, Calgary, Montreal and Prince George. Fluoride Free Canada Play Video Play Video 01:52 CDC Unable To Cite Studies Showing Fluoride Is Effective When Swallowed The Director of The Centers For Disease Control's (CDC) Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, fumbles during a deposition for the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit when asked to provide documentation of the studies CDC relies on to support its claim that fluoride reduces tooth decay when ingested. FAN is currently fundraising to meet our 2024 operational budget. Support from those who believe in this mission is crucial to our ability to continue this work. FAN has proven capable of taking on the big battles and winning. Please consider making a donation today. Your donation will go directly to funding our education, advocacy, and legal work. All donations large and small are important to us and are tax-deductible. https://npowebdonation.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 00:18 CDC: Fluoride's Primary Benefit To Teeth Comes From Topical Contact CDC Admission Under Oath: Fluoride's predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth. Source: sworn testimony in the fluoride lawsuit from Casey Hannan, then Director of CDC's Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. Play Video Play Video 23:53 "No Safe Level Of Fluoride Exposure During Neurodevelopment" - Toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen An expert for plaintiffs in the fluoride lawsuit, toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen is interviewed by Children's Health Defense for her thoughts on the recent publication of NTP's meta analysis on fluoride neurotoxicity in JAMA Pediatrics. Play Video Play Video 01:15 CDC Oral Health Director: We Have No Safety Data on Fluoride and the Brain "As a rep of CDC to my knowledge we don't have any knowledge about that." - Casey Hannan, CDC oral health director, on whether the CDC has any safety data on fluoride exposures for neurotoxic effects on children that could prove fluoride safe. This video segment was extracted from the full deposition of the CDC by plaintiffs in the TSCA fluoride lawsuit (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/). Help us reach our 2021 fundraising goal by making a tax-deductible donation to FAN today! https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 29:27 Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo's News Conference On Fluoride In Water Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo spoke in Winter Haven on Nov 22, 20224, saying all communities statewide should stop adding fluoride to drinking water. Play Video Play Video 02:49:31 An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the City Hall in Portland, Oregon. http://AnInconvenientTooth.org http://Facebook.com/AnInconvenientTooth http://Twitter.com/intooth Play Video Play Video 59:58 FLUORIDE DANGERS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT [with Michael Connett] - 2024 Adding fluoride to drinking water without citizen's knowledge or consent is medication by force/fraud. I convinced the city council to stop fluoridating the our city's water back in 2014 and I encourage you to talk to your council as well. There is too much risk of harm with very little evidence of benefit. Follow your dentist's advice about topical application of fluoride to your teeth. Michael Connett is a partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP with extensive civil litigation experience in both the personal injury and regulatory arenas. Mr. Connett’s civil practice is focused on obtaining justice for individuals harmed by corporate negligence, misguided medical practices, and overreaching government mandates. He has successfully represented individuals and families who have suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of toxic substances, and has spearheaded groundbreaking litigation to challenge outdated chemical safety standards under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Served as lead attorney for environmental health groups in precedent-setting case (Food & Water Watch v. EPA) that resulted in a federal court ordering the EPA to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” posed by fluoridation of drinking water. Represented families of mesothelioma victims against a manufacturer of asbestos-contaminated talc, which resulted in over $50 million in settlements. Successfully obtained over $20 million in settlements for two families in lawsuit against a global aerospace company for birth defects caused by occupational chemical exposures. Spearheaded dozens of FOIA requests which unearthed emails documenting that federal health officials had suppressed a long-awaited government review on the health effects of fluoride. Served as co-counsel to former EPA Deputy Administrator in cases addressing asbestos and PFAS (“forever chemicals”) under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Ruling: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf Medicine that contains fluoride: https://youtu.be/Xwmh7vPdoHo Fluoride & Children's IQ: https://youtu.be/oSTTQKo6jxc Check your cities water (US): https://nccd.cdc.gov/doh_mwf/default/default.aspx Fluoride Action Network: https://fluoridealert.org/content/processed-drinks/ Research on Fluoride: https://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fluoride-iq-studies/ Mr Connett: http://x.com/michaelpconnett Join our COMMUNITY Support & Knowledge: https://drberry.com/community Proper Human Diet principles video: https://youtu.be/jwagCofBDj8 Proper Human Diet GUIDEBOOK: https://www.drberry.com/guidebook MINERAL Drops: https://saltt.com/ref/DrB (discount) Support the American Diabetes Society: https://www.americandiabetessociety.org/ LIES MY DOCTOR TOLD ME: https://amzn.to/2XvNNZm KICKING ASS AFTER 50 book: https://amzn.to/3LMj1ny COMMON SENSE LABS book: https://amzn.to/45rZ9NM PHD Merch: https://www.drberry.com/shop (T-Shirts, Tanks, Hoodies, etc) Holiday KETO Cookbook: https://bit.ly/ourholidaycookbook Great Keto Recipes: https://cookingketowithfaith.com/ Eat Real MEAT: https://bit.ly/USmeatDiscount (discount = BERRY) Pluck Organ Seasonings code = DRKEN for 25% off https://eatpluck.com Support Our Mission: https://bit.ly/DrBerrysCommunity LMNT electrolytes: drinklmnt.com/Neisha (free gift) Farm Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@UC4t_2ht6DlMdrWF0Q9b70Bw Neisha’s Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@NeishaSalasBerry Best JERKY I’ve tasted: https://matthatjerky.com/?ref=_vgzta3eC0uNy Awesome Coffee roasted in Tennessee: https://hollerroast.com/?ref=keto (discount) Disclaimer: Nothing in this video is Medical Advice. Dr. Berry does not diagnose, treat, or prevent any medical conditions online; instead, he helps people better understand their health and ways to avoid health problems and promote wellbeing. Make sure you are working with YOUR provider to monitor your health and medications. These posts and videos are not designed to, and do not provide medical advice, professional diagnosis, opinion, treatment, or services to you or to any other individual. As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from purchases. Play Video Play Video 01:47:15 DLFDY 38 - Gilles Parent, ND | L'essence du fluor - Partie I Bienvenue sur les ondes de Franc Masson! Pour supporter: Paypal: www.paypal.me/gabemasson Interac: donationgabemasson@gmail.com avec mot de passe: franc --- Vous écoutez le podcast "Dans le franc des yeux" - #DLFDY Thématique: La fluoration de l'eau Épisode 38 - Gilles Parent, ND | L'essence du fluor - Partie I Qui n’a jamais entendu dire que « Le fluor dans l’eau c’est poison, ça va calcifier ta glande pinéale ! » Ce genre de commentaires a eu tendance à être disqualifié de la conversation scientifique ou encore traité de « pseudo-scientifique » pendant des décennies par la majorité des institutions gouvernementales ou scientifiques qui gèrent notre vie. Avec notre invité, Gilles Parent, ND, nous allons en profondeur dans tous les racoins possibles de la question de la fluoration de l’eau dans cet épisode qui fut diffusé initialement au printemps 2020. De la « maison de fou gouvernementale » aux études scientifiques, en passant par la nature de « déchet industriel » des composites de fluorures qui ont été imposées à des populations (moi compris !) insoucieuses des effets néfastes potentiels de ces produits… tout y passe avec l’expert principal de la question du fluor au Québec. Soyez prêts car la semaine prochaine, on fait une mise à jour de mai 2024 avec Monsieur Parent, cet épisode est donc une mise en bouche pour le prochain (DLFDY 39). Avertissement : cet épisode est complètement jam pack d’informations, soyez prêts mentalement ! Bon show :) Ligne de temps: Non disponible pour cet épisode. --- Suivez Gilles Parent et ses travaux : Mémoires déposés lors du mandat « Étude de la pétition portant sur la fluoration de l’eau potable » : https://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/travaux-parlementaires/commissions/CSSS/mandats/Mandat-22599/memoires-deposes.html Amazon - La fluoration: Autopsie d'une erreur scientifique : https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Pierre-Jean-Morin-Ph-D-ebook/dp/B09X224QW8/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_fr_CA=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&sr=8-1 IG - Suivez le compte Fluoridealert: https://www.instagram.com/fluoridealert/ Si vous désirez suivre Franc Masson en ligne: Yt: https://www.youtube.com/c/FrancMasson Fb: https://www.facebook.com/lefrancmasson/ X: https://twitter.com/GabeMasson Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1241011 Odyssee: https://odysee.com/@FrancMasson Telegram: https://t.me/lefrancmasson --- Crédit audio: Aim to Head - TITAN - Song: Passage (Copyright Free) Thanks Aim to Head!! Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAguE62acA8&list=PLPn0o7NTblXpgmvuBBzOw1NZIzETC5XC7&index=3&t=1340s e-mail: aimtoheadmusic@gmail.com Spotify --- https://open.spotify.com/artist/ VIDEOS AND INTERVIEWS Regina SK: May 2, 2025 Reconsideration vote to postpone the introduction of fluoride to Regina's water supply until there is conclusive evidence that there are no significant neurotoxic effects or other bodily harms, to safeguard the health of the community and particularly that of the community's children. Ultimately, the motion was defeated and plans to introduce fluoride will proceed. Link to meeting agenda: City Council - Special - May 2, 2025 9:00 AM PODCASTS May 6, 2025: Sovereign Collective Podcast Dr. Bob discusses his initial discovery of the potential harms of fluoride and his efforts to remove it from Calgary’s water. He covers the toxicity of hexafluorosilicic acid, the legal and ethical implications of mass medication, the scientific studies showing minimal benefits and significant risks, including neurotoxicity, as well as the political and financial forces driving fluoridation. Apr 6, 2025: Truth Over Spin: Pam Killeen and Dr. Paul Connett discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding water fluoridation, highlighting recent scientific findings, legal battles, and the historical context of fluoride use in public health. For more information visit ⁠www.pamkilleen.com⁠ or ⁠www.truthoverspin.com⁠ March 24, 2025: Huberman's guest is board-certified dentist Dr. Stacy Whitman, DMD. Show notes at: How to Improve Your Teeth & Oral Microbiome for Brain & Body Health | Dr. Staci Whitman - Huberman Lab Danny Lit Show Podcast Episode 2 Artificial Water Fluoridation Part 1 Part 2 Dr Bob starts by highlighting the potential toxic effects of fluoride, comparing it to lead and arsenic. Dr. Bob delves into the wide range of potential consequences linked to fluoride exposure, such as increased rates of ADHD, decreased IQ in children, thyroid problems, kidney toxicity, and weakened bones. Unscrew the News Dr. Bob was a proponent for water fluoridation until activists had him look at a study back in 1998. He has been trying to expose the lies for 25 years. 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) Windsor, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Unfortunately, fluoridation reintroduced in 2022) 2024 Presentation Highlights Latest Science Windsor, ON 2024 DONATE TO FLUORIDE FREE CANADA 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 To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

WHO OPPOSES WATER FLUORIDATION? 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! Reasons I No Longer Promote Fluoridation Freedom, Science, and Jurisdictional Authorities A letter by Bill Osmunson DDS MPH February 25, 2025 Organizations Opposing Fluoridation Organismes s’opposant à la fluoration The number of organizations opposing fluoridation is growing. They include: In addition, many organizations once endorsing fluoridation have pulled back, no longer taking a position. Organizations Who No Longer Endorse Fluoridation Organismes qui n'approuvent plus la fluoration 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 ...

ONTARIO WORKING GROUP Brant County Fluoride Free Brant County Facebook Hamilton Fluoride Free Hamilton (20+) Fluoride Free Hamilton | Facebook Lambton Fluoride Free Lambton Facebook London Fluoride Free London Ontario Fluoride Free London Ontario | Facebook Oshawa Fluoride Free Oshawa Facebook Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa - Main Information Page - City of Ottawa - Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound | Facebook Peel Region Fluoride Free Peel Fluoride Free Peel Sudbury Sudburians for a Fluoride Free Sudbury Sudburians For A Fluoride-Free Sudbury | Facebook Toronto End Fluoride Toronto END FLUORIDE TORONTO | Help Us End The Use Of Fluoride Fluoride Free Toronto (20+) Facebook Windsor Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex | Windsor ON | Facebook

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE Why is fluoride added to water? Fluoride is added to water to prevent cavities (tooth decay), a disease that is not waterborne. However, fluoride should be applied topically to teeth, such as fluoridated toothpaste, rather than forced through tap water on adults, children, and infants What makes fluoride different from other water treatment chemicals? All water treatment chemicals except fluoride are added to make drinking water safe and pleasant to drink. Fluoride is the only chemical added to "treat people" consuming the water, rather than the water itself. Water fluoridation can be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected this practice. Do we need fluoride? No. It is now well established that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. This means that no human disease – including tooth decay – will result from fluoride “deficiency”. Fluoridation of tap water is therefore different from adding iodine to salt. Unlike fluoride, iodine is an essential nutrient. Iodine is involved in metabolism, moving cellular secretions from inside cells to the outside. Iodine is also involved in the frontline immune response, energy production, fetal and early childhood cognitive development, and hormone production, as well as in the detoxification of heavy metals, halogens, radiation and much more. No such need exists for fluoride. In fact, fluoride will displace iodine on cell receptors, creating an iodine deficiency. Is fluoride naturally present in water? Typically, the only fresh water with high levels of fluoride (other than water polluted by fluoride-emitting industries) is water from deep wells. Rather than being something to celebrate, high levels of naturally occurring fluorides have wreaked havoc on the health of tens of millions of people around the world. People consuming water containing naturally high levels of fluoride have been found to suffer from serious health problems, including disfiguring tooth damage, bone disease, ulcers, reduced IQ, thyroid disease and infertility. For this reason, international organizations like UNICEF are helping developing countries find ways to remove fluoride from their water. Fortunately, most freshwater sources contain very low levels of fluoride. The average level of fluoride in unpolluted fresh water is less than 0.1 ppm, which is about 7 times lower than the levels added to water in Canadian fluoridation programs (0.7 mg/L). The frequent assertion, therefore, that “nature thought of fluoridation first” does not stand up to scrutiny. Where does the fluoride added to the water come from? The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are called “silicofluorides” (ie hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical grade fluorinated products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides do not undergo any purification procedures, they can contain high levels of arsenic, more than any other water treatment chemical. Additionally, recent research suggests that adding silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, especially among residents who live in homes with old plumbing. Does fluoridated water reduce tooth decay? If water fluoridation has any benefit, it is minimal. Recent large-scale studies in the United States have found little real or statistical difference in rates of tooth decay in children living in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. Additionally, data compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that tooth decay rates have declined just as rapidly in non-fluoridated Western countries as in fluoridated Western countries. Should fluoride be swallowed to prevent tooth decay? No. Although water fluoridation was initially endorsed on the premise that ingesting fluoride is the most effective way to strengthen teeth, most dental researchers now agree that the primary benefit of fluoride comes from topical contact directly with the teeth, not from ingestion. You don't have to swallow fluoride to prevent tooth decay, whether it's in the form of water or tablets. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this point in the fluoride debate, especially when one considers that the risks of fluoride come primarily from ingestion. Are there any risks in swallowing fluoride? Fluoride has long been known to be a very toxic substance. This is why, like arsenic, fluoride has been used in pesticides and rodenticides (to kill rats, insects, etc.). It's also why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires that all fluoride toothpaste sold in the United States carry a poison warning that instructs users to contact the poison control center if they swallow more than should be used for brushing. Excessive fluoride exposure is well known to cause painful bone disease (skeletal fluorosis), as well as tooth discoloration known as dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride exposure has also been linked to a range of other chronic diseases, including arthritis, brittle bones, glucose intolerance, gastrointestinal disorders, thyroid disease and possibly heart disease and certain types of cancer. Although the lowest doses that cause some of these effects are not yet well defined, it is clear that certain subgroups of the population are particularly vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. Populations that have an increased sensitivity to fluoride include infants, people with kidney disease, people with nutritional deficiencies (particularly of calcium and iodine), and people with medical conditions that cause excessive thirst. How do I avoid fluoride in my tap water? If you live in a community that fluoridates its water supply, there are several options to avoid drinking the fluoride that is added. Unfortunately, each of these options will cost money (unless you have access to a free source of spring water). Options include: Spring water: Most spring water contains very low levels of fluoride (usually less than 0.1 ppm). Water Filtration: Water filters that remove fluoride include: reverse osmosis, deionizers that use an ion exchange resin, and activated alumina. Cheaper water filters (eg Brita) use an "activated carbon" filter which does NOT remove fluoride. Water Distillation: Water distillation is an effective way to remove fluoride from water. Water distillation units are available in different sizes, including a smaller countertop version. My child has dental fluorosis. What can I do to fix it? The tooth discoloration that fluorosis causes can be reduced and sometimes eliminated by relatively expensive cosmetic treatments. Treatment options for fluorosis, however, will depend on the severity of the fluorosis. If our water does not contain fluoride, should we give our child fluoride supplements? Supplements were developed on the mistaken assumption that fluoride is a nutrient and is effective when swallowed. Modern research has found that fluoride supplements greatly increase the risk of dental fluorosis and do little if anything to reduce tooth decay. Most Western countries have consequently begun to eliminate the use of fluoride supplements and even the American Dental Association (ADA) recommends them only for children who are at particularly high risk of tooth decay.

The FLUORIDE Report Enjoy the archives of newsletters from Fluoride Free Canada #26 Fluoride Report – Quebec to be 99.75% fluoride free by the end of 2024! | Let’s take advice from Gilles Parent, ND.A. November 25th, 2024 – NEW View #25 Fluoride Report – The Long Awaited Decision...We Won! (video message) | Press Release | Key Takeaways from the Court Ruling September 27th, 2024 View #24 Fluoride Report – Presentation to Windsor, ON Council | Setting the Record Straight June 15th, 2024 View #23 Fluoride Report – Dr. Bob Speaks Out | Dr. Bob shares with the Washington Ministry of Health March 17th, 2024 View #22 Fluoride Report – Historical Trial in Progress (Zoom link) | FAN Press Release February 5th, 2024 View #21 Fluoride Report – Help Spread the News—History in the Making | Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health (video) January 14th, 2024 View #20 Fluoride Report – Recap & Current Status of the EPA Fluoride Lawsuit | The Truth from a PhD in Chemistry (video) September 24th, 2023 View Webinar with Christine Till: What's the Fuss About Fluoride? VIEW BUTTON NOW UPDATED WITH THE WEBINAR RECORDING May 8th, 2023 View #19 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 7 Myth 76: That fluoridation will not materially alter dietary fluori d e intake.. March 15th, 2023 View #18 Fluoride Report – Hope For Canadians: Injunction Underway In Montreal | Help for your Campaign! February 10th, 2023 View Court Rejects EPA's Attempt To Delay January 15th, 2023 View Notice of Fluoridation Hearing January 10th, 2023 View #17 Fluoride Report – Important Law Suit Update | Colgate's Big Lie | CBC Ombudsman Reply December15th, 2022 View #16 Fluoride Report – Fluoride: A Root Cause of Harm to Humans | Fluoride: Source of Chronic Acne November 15th, 2022 View #15 Fluoride Report – Raisin Roulette: Fluoride Found Harmful to Pets & Plants October 15th, 2022 View A Message From Dr. Bob – 2022 Fundraiser October 1st, 2022 View #14 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 6 Myth #6: That it is possible to control daily fluoride intake for the entire population regardless of all sources of fluoride exposure. August 15th, 2022 View #13 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 5 Myth #5: That the optimal safe intake in milligrams/per kilogram of weight/per day of fluoride required for dental health is well known. July 15th, 2022 View #12 Fluoride Report – Warning: Sneak Attack: The Greatest Threat to Non-Fluoridated Communities is Here! | What Else is Fluoride Free Canada Up To? June 15th, 2022 View #11 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 4 Myth #4: That an optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water will ensure the administration of an optimal and safe daily dose of fluoride for the health of each citizen, dose-adjusted according to their weight, age, gender, state of health, diet, environment and physical activities, regardless of the amount of water consumed. May 15th, 2022 View #10 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 3 Myth #3: That drinking water is an excellent vehicle for the administration of an appropriate dose of fluoride to prevent cavities, without risk to health. April 15th, 2022 View #9 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 2 Myth #2: That health authorities know exactly how much fluoride is needed each day to ensure the apatite crystals in dental enamel will be transformed into a sufficient level of fluoroapatite, to make it resistant to tooth decay. March 15th, 2022 View #8 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 1 Myth #1: That the health authorities know the optimal concentration of fluoride in the enamel of the tooth to make it resistant to decay. February 25th, 2022 View #7 Fluoride Report – Media Bias - We're not taking this lying down! | Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex 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 | What Exactly is the Nature of the Chemicals in Fluoridation? November 20th, 2021 View #4 Fluoride Report – Losses in Calgary and Windsor Don’t Spell Defeat. Be Patient! | Pro-Fluoridation Now Targeting Vancouver, BC November 6th, 2021 View #3 Fluoride Report – Science Lost in Calgary | How Safe Water Calgary was Sabotaged October 22nd, 2021 View #2 Fluoride Report – Results of Vote | Introduction Video | Canadian's Challenged by Biased Media | Who Is Christine Till? October 9th, 2021 View #1 News Alert – Vote to Name this Newsletter | Introduction Video | How Calgary's Crisis Affects You September 24th, 2021 View Update to Trudeau Letter | Call to Share Your Talents September 17th, 2021 View

WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S. After a precedent-setting 7-year legal battle in federal court, an historic ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation. The verdict is a significant loss for the EPA and the promoters of fluoridation like the American Dental Association and the US Centers For Disease Control because the court found that their claims of safety–made for over 75 years–were in fact not supported by evidence. Senior Judge Edward Chen wrote, “the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.” "In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States…Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.” The ruling did not specify exactly what measures must be adopted by the EPA, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once the court rules that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA is obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk. Judge Chen described a range of options for regulating fluoridation, including banning it, but he warned, “One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." READ THE FULL RULING Here are some notable excerpts from the ruling: Pg 3: There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. Pg 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L. Pg 5: Even if the toxicologically determined hazard level of 0.28 mg/L were deemed insufficiently substantiated, evidence in the record still establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health. Pg 6: The EPA’s default margin of error requires a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities… Here, an even greater margin (100x) is owed because the methodology (which yields the 4 mg/L hazard level) uses the lowest observed adverse effect level (“LOAEL”); this methodology adds an additional level of uncertainty (and hence the application of a 100x rather than 10x margin). But even if only the default 10x margin is required, the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg/L (4 mg/L (hazard level) divided by 10). The “optimal” water fluoridation level in the United States of 0.7 mg/L is nearly double that safe level of 0.4 mg/L for pregnant women and their offspring. Pg 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present ; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply. Pg 78: There is significant certainty in the data set regarding the association between fluoride and reduced IQ. Namely, there is a robust body of evidence finding a statistically significant adverse association between fluoride and IQ . A large majority of the 72 epidemiological studies assessed by the NTP Monograph observed this relationship including all but one of the 19 high-quality studies, see ¶¶ 34-36, and literature published after the NTP Monograph cutoff date observed the same relationship, see ¶ 37 – and countervailing evidence, for various reasons described previously, are of little impact on this repeated, and consistently observed association between fluoride and reduced IQ, see ¶ 39. Moreover, complete consistency amongst studies is not expected. See Dkt. No. 414, Feb. 9, 20240, Trial Tr. at 1172:23-1173:6 (Savitz). Notably, notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing this association at lower exposure levels, studies assessing such levels still observed a statistically significant relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. See ¶¶ 42-44. Again, to put the breadth of evidence supporting this finding in perspective, the EPA has identified a LOAEL based upon far less in other contexts. For instance, in the EPA’s risk evaluation of Methylene, conducted pursuant to Amended TSCA, the EPA used a LOAEL for developmental neurotoxicity, derived from the analysis of one study conducted upon mouse pups (Fredriksson et al., 1992). See Methylene Risk Evaluation at 262. Compare this with 6 (water fluoride) and 9 (urinary fluoride), high-quality, epidemiological studies of human populations underling the 4 mg/L LOAEL underlying the POD here. Dkt. No. 431-2, Trial Ex. 68 at 39, 41 (eTable 4). The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. The qualitative evidence is superior. Pg 76: The size of the affected population is vast . Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water Pg 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk ; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. The Fluoride Action Network’s attorney, Michael Connett, said, “The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride. It’s a historic decision. And, as we await EPA’s rulemaking proceeding, policymakers would be well advised to ask: “Should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?” BACKGROUND The lawsuit was brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which allows citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated. It also empowers citizen groups to challenge the EPA in court after denial of a petition. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the particular use" of a chemical substance if it’s found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. FAN submitted a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016 requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied our Petition, FAN filed suit in federal court in 2017, joined by consumer advocacy groups, Food and Water Watch and Moms Against Fluoridation , public health associations, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine , and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology , as well as several individuals representing themselves and/or their children, including Brenda and Ko Staudenmaier and Kristie Lavelle. After a two-week bench trial held via Zoom in June 2020, the trial was placed in abeyance as the court awaited the finalization of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity. However, in 2022, pressure from pro-fluoridation interest groups led to NTP’s report being blocked from public release by top officials in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Plaintiffs submitted documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. This discovery led to a legal agreement forcing the report to be made public and prompting Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP. A second, and final, phase of the bench trial was held over several weeks during the winter of 2024. And just last month, the NTP finally published the first part of their report, finding a “large body” of evidence that fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” An accompanying NTP meta-analysis is soon to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Click here for a timeline of the lawsuit . Click here for FAN’s comprehensive webpage on the lawsuit PRECEDENT SETTING This is the first time a citizen's petition has gone to trial, and it’s the first time a citizen group has won a trial against EPA under TSCA Section 21. Our case and our victory will undoubtedly create opportunities for citizen and environmental watchdog groups to use the same blueprint as FAN in the future to force the EPA to adequately regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to public health. This trial was also the first time citizen groups have successfully obtained a full objective review of the science on fluoridation, in a courtroom, with experts under oath, under TSCA's provisions that create a level playing field between the citizen groups and the EPA defending a chemical. Under most statutes, when citizens sue a federal agency, the courts give deference to the views of the agency. But in this lawsuit, under a special provision of TSCA, the court does not give deference to the EPA. Congress specifically added this level playing field because it recognized EPA can be too slow to address harmful chemical exposures. INITIAL MEDIA COVERAGE The media is quickly picking up this story, with coverage thus far from the following outlets: CBS News: Federal Court Rules Against EPA in Lawsuit Over Fluoride in Water Bloomberg Law: EPA Must Reduce Fluoride’s IA Risks to Children, Court Says The Defender: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules Dr. Bicuspid: U.S. Court - Fluoride in Water Risky, Must be Addressed CNN: Fluoride in Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says Reuters: EPA Must Address Fluoridated Water’s Risk to Children’s IQs, US Judge Rules The Hill: Judge Orders EPA to Address Potential IQ Impacts of Fluoride in Drinking Water Politico: Fluoride Ruling Pushes EPA for Regulatory Action Associated Press / ABC News: Fluoride in Drinking Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says …and much more is expected over the coming days. NEXT STEPS The court has ordered EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to come up with a new regulation that will restrict or eliminate the risk posed by fluoridation chemicals to the developing brain. The ONLY way to effectively do this is to end fluoridation. Communities are currently adding this neurotoxin to the public water supplies voluntarily. The harm is needlessly self-inflicted, but this also means the solution is simple: ban the use of fluoridation chemicals. The EPA may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , or they could take a few years to develop rules. In our view, attempts by the EPA to appeal or delay this ruling will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water. We urge everyone reading this bulletin to share it, along with the ruling itself, with your local media outlets, decisionmakers, neighbors, and state legislators. Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decisionmakers can take action immediately. We have a very thorough decision made by the federal courts based on extensive evidence. The public didn’t sign up to have a chemical added to public drinking water that could adversely affect the brain. And while a cavity can easily be filled, damage to the brain is permanent, and the consequences are lifelong. There are no second chances when it comes to impaired brain development. Sincerely, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network

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 _____________________ To date...no reply.