Search Results

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 ].

Help Us $ave Your Children's Brains from Fluoride's Neurotoxicity DONATION METHODS We offer several 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. Click the link to donate via our GIVESENDGO online fundraiser. 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.

QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE In October, 2024 the following article was sent to each councillor in Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d’Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal. RECENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RAISES MULTIPLE RED FLAGS ON THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION For more than 75 years, drinking water fluoridation has been presented to us by health authorities, including Health Canada and the provincial health ministries, as one of the ten great public health achievements, and that it is absolutely safe and effective. Yet in 2000, the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination literature review titled A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation (McDonagh et al.) showed just 39 studies on the effectiveness, and 176 on the safety of fluoridation – far fewer than the often-quoted “thousand studies” supporting water fluoridation. Additionally, according to the authors, the majority of these studies were of low quality. Science had not had the last word on this either: a mounting number of recent scientific studies and reviews have raised red flags that seriously call into question both the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Municipal councils that relied in good faith on health authorities to fluoridate their drinking water now face a modern-day dilemma. Recent science has demonstrated that fluoride and artificial water fluoridation are neurotoxic, especially to babies and young children. Evidence of damage to other organs and systems in the human body continues to accumulate, while the evidence for the ineffectiveness of the antiquated practice of water fluoridation is now overwhelming. In view of its negative impact on children intelligence quotient (IQ), recent fluoride research has now transformed what used to be considered one of the ten great public health achievements, into one of the worst public health mistakes. Please consider this abbreviated list of major red flags below, and then ask yourself: Can we, in good faith, ethically and morally, continue with this now proven harmful, risky and ineffective practice? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION One particularly erroneous claim is that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 25%. This statistic has been circulating for many decades, but is no longer supported by current research. The October 2024 Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review , the 2024 LOTUS Retrospective Cohort Study , conducted over 10 years and involving more than 6 million participants, and the 2022 CATFISH prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study , all show that the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental caries is closer to 2% and certainly less than 4%. Moreover, contrary to claims, disadvantaged populations do not benefit more than the rich. RED FLAGS ABOUT FLUORIDATION NEUROTOXICITY The U.S. Northern District of California Federal Court : After a seven-year science-based lawsuit, ruled that fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children" and ordered the EPA to take measures to eliminate this risk. (Sept. 25, 2024) The National Toxicology Program (NTP) : The USA's highest-level scientific review committee concluded higher water fluoride concentrations "are consistently associated with lower IQ in children" . The NTP cited that 18 of the 19 highest quality studies link higher fluoride with lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. (August 21, 2024) Dr. Linda Birnbaum, PhD, retired NTP director : "It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride". (Environmental Health News, 10/7/20) Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD , pediatrician, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics: "I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant". (Washington Post, 8/20/19) Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS , former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research and former Head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto and one of twelve experts on the US National Research Council's fluoride report (2006): "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming". (Personal communication 9/27/24) American Academy of Environmental Medicine : "Fluoridation has been called one of the ten great public health achievements. Fluoridation is more likely one of the ten most dangerous public health practices in this country and in the world" . (website accessed 10/2/24) Food and Water Watch : "Today's [federal court] ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water" . (9/25/24, website accessed 10/2/24) RED FLAG ON THE CONFUSION BY AUTHORITIES ON THE FLUORIDE DOSE The absence of control of the dose administered is a very obvious flaw in science of the concept of fluoridation. Health authorities have established the "optimum fluoride concentration" in drinking water at 0.7 mg/liter, as if this concentration determines the dose (milligrams per day) consumed by each individual of a fluoridated community. In fact, the dose of a drug or nutrient dissolved in a liquid is not determined by the concentration alone, but by two parameters: both the concentration, and the quantity of liquid consumed. As there is great variability in both the quantity of water consumed, as well as water used for food preparation, there is great variability in the dose of fluoride consumed from one individual to another. In nutrition, pharmacology and toxicology, it is also necessary to take into account the weight of the subject. It is therefore necessary to measure the intake in milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/d). In addition to fluoridated water, there are other sources of fluoride exposure, including tea and dental hygiene products, both of which often contain high concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, depending on what they eat and drink, many individuals may be inadvertently overexposed to fluoride, with deleterious effects on their health. RED FLAG ON LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDATION PRODUCTS The legal classification of a substance determines its use and under which government authority that substance will be approved and regulated. Fluoridation chemicals are added primarily to prevent tooth decay by changing the composition of the tooth's enamel. The sole objective of fluoridation is therefore therapeutic. Products with a therapeutic use and claim are defined in the Food and Drugs Act as having to necessarily and legally belong either to the legal classification of drugs or natural health products . Such products should then be approved and regulated as such by Health Canada. Surprisingly, this is not the case for fluorides. Health authorities instead compare fluorides added to drinking water as belonging to the legal classification of nutrients for food fortification , like vitamin D added to milk or iron added to flour. Nutrients for food fortification also fall under Health Canada’s jurisdiction. Yet, you may be surprised to learn that Health Canada does not regulate fluoridation chemicals as sources of fluoride for the fortification of drinking water. Asked to explain itself through the process of a petition (299, 299B and 299C) to the Commissioner of the Environment at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Health Canada affirmed that it does not approve or regulate chemicals used to fluoridation because they are simple water treatment products and water treatment products fall under provincial jurisdiction. Fluorides used for water fluoridation are therefore not approved for the therapeutic use of preventing dental caries. Environment Canada, the federal ministry that manages toxic and hazardous materials, classifies and controls fluoridation chemicals under the legal classification of hazardous and corrosive products . It has also set the toxic threshold of fluoride concentration at 0.12 ppm for the protection of fauna and flora in fresh soft water, while the concentration of effluent from a municipality is 3 to 4 times higher. Note that the level of fluoridated drinking water is 0.70 ppm, 6 times the toxic threshold for this environment. Already the concentration of the water in the St. Lawrence River is around 0.15 ppm, exceeding the critical threshold standard of 0.12 ppm. So what is the legal classification of fluoride that municipal councils have decided to put in our water? Do municipalities add a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a hazardous and toxic substance for the purpose of preventing tooth decay among their citizens? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FLUORIDATION The Food and Drugs Act does not allow: A therapeutic role and claim to be assigned to a substance not approved and not regulated by Health Canada; Administration of a substance with a therapeutic objectiveto humans, if it is not manufactured, packaged, transported and stored under the required sanitary conditions for a drug or for a source of a nutrient for fortification by Health Canada. Canadian provincial governments require that fluoridation products meet the standard established by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). NSF certification requires that toxicology tests demonstrating safety be carried out by the NSF. Yet, these tests have not been carried out by the NSF or other government agencies. Fluoridation products are therefore not compliant as required for certification, and do not meet the requirements of the law. RED FLAGS ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS OF FLUORIDATION Administering a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a toxic and dangerous substance to an entire population for therapeutic purposes is a complete breach of medical ethics. This breach of medical ethics is exacerbated when the so-called therapeutic substance is not even approved and regulated by Health Canada. It is unethical to fail to inform each person subjected to a therapeutic treatment, of the exact real and legal nature of the product, its unsanitary nature and its health risks. Medical ethics does not tolerate administering said substance without obtaining a consent from the subject. (Respect also to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) It is medically unethical not to assess the age, weight, sex, state of health and other needs of each subject before administering a random dose of a remedy – random, since the quantity of water consumed cannot be controlled. During treatment, medical ethics also requires individual and regular medical monitoring to evaluate the positive or negative effects of the treatment, to ensure the removal of the treatment if deleterious effects occur. Municipal water fluoridation does not offer a fair and affordable way to opt out of treatment, and subjects would still need to be informed of the deleterious effects of fluoridation in order to stop consuming fluoridated water. When water is fluoridated at “optimal concentrations”, municipalities, health authorities, attending physicians, dentists and individuals cannot possibly know the dose of fluoride to which people are exposed, or what deleterious effects it may have to human health. The effectiveness and safety of fluoridation was, until now, a dogma that even science had no right to challenge. With the recent studies and scientific reviews cited above, isn't it time to review fluoridation? WHICH AUTHORITIES CAN BE TRUSTED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT FLUORIDATION? If all the health authorities you rely on have not yet informed you of all of these troubling red flags highlighted above, there is a real problem. It is impossible to make an informed policy decision regarding fluoridation without knowing the facts. How is it that you have not yet been made aware of these red flags? Many of them are obvious and only require common sense. Any member of a municipal council has this competence. As many of the scientific studies have been published in the last few years, it may be difficult to draw a clear conclusion at first glance in order to make a decision about the future of water fluoridation policy. Often this requires extensive analysis and revision by groups of experts, experts who are not biased or who are willing to modify their prejudices in the face of evidence. Faced with the slow public reactions of Canadian health authorities to new scientific revelations on fluoride, we can assume they do not have the necessary skills to carry out a serious analysis, the experts on fluoride are rare, or they are currently seeking to defend, at the cost of the health of your community, a questionable public health measure of which they have become the greatest promoters and instigators. Admitting a mistake is not easy! THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MATTERS OF FLUORIDATION Since it is the municipalities that make the decision to fluoridate drinking water, they bear full responsibility for the safety of fluoridation because they are the ones who decide so, by resolution. Contrary to the impression you may have been given, no other superior government in Canada has agreed to take legal responsibility for fluoridation. Higher levels of governments have delegated legal and political responsibility for fluoridation to municipalities; despite the fact that municipalities have neither the competence to scientifically evaluate its merits, nor the leisure to bear the blame and financial burden, in the event of prosecution for damages. The Decision of the Federal Court of the Northern District of California, following a seven-year trial and the review of studies on the effect of fluoride on the brain, concluded that fluoride is neurotoxic. It would be difficult to find a better-informed contrary opinion. Other red flags, such as studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of fluoridation and the legal and ethical aspects of fluoridation, weigh even more heavily in the balance of reasons supporting ending water fluoridation, even if only as a precautionary principle. Municipalities do not have to ask for permission to put an end to fluoridation, as this power already belongs to them. We can meet with you at your convenience to discuss this critical and urgent matter. As the file is complex, we can take the time to sit down with you, respectfully, in order to explore the subject in more depth, to provide you with the most objective information possible to enable an informed decision. We can also provide you with references to many additional scientific studies and reviews. Faced with the seriousness of recent scientific discoveries, for the sake of our children, the least you can do is to impose a moratorium on water fluoridation , and to provide clear warnings to pregnant women and those with young children , until the opinion of experts on both sides can be heard. Thank you for your time and attention on this important and urgent matter. Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP FOUNDER Safe Water Calgary www.safewatercalgary.com CHAIR, Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca Board member of ABC (Associacion Buen Commune, parent organization of Project Ixcanaan)www.ixcanaan.com Gilles Parent, ND.A. Founding member of Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca/fr Coauthor with M. Pierre Jean Morin, Ph.D. in experimental medicine and attorney John Remington Graham, of La fluoration : autopsie d’une erreur scientifique, 2005 and Fluoridation : Autopsy of a Scientific Error, 2010 Expert advisor on fluoridation at Eau Secours

WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T? According to the Public Health Agency of Canada. 14.4 million Canadians (38.8%) had Community Water Fluoridation in 2022. Canada is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world. In comparison, less than 5.7% of the world's population has their public water supply fluoridated. Most developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including 97% of Western Europe. More than 200 communities across Canada still fluoridate their municipal drinking water. Of these communities, over 100 are located in ONTARIO and include most of the large urban cities such as Toronto, cities within the GTA, Ottawa, Hamilton, and London. The only major urban cities in other provinces that fluoridate their municipal drinking water are Edmonton, Halifax, Saskatoon and Winnipeg. The State of Community Water Fluoridation across Canada To report any issues with the above interactive map, email info@fluoridefreecanada.ca Flags UNFLUORIDATED COUNTRIES FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES The following provides VERY interesting insight as to what other Countries are doing and saying Statements from European Authorities on Water Fluoridation The late Dr. Hans Moolenburgh of the Netherlands speaks out

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED RESOURCE MATERIALS The Following Books Can Be Read Online or Downloaded For Free The Following Books Can Be Purchased Online

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.

QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE In October 2024, Fluoride Free Canada sent a letter to each councillor in Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d'Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal. Since then, all Québec municipalities except for Saint-Georges in Beauce have stopped fluoridating their water. A decision was made on November 21, 2024 to discontinue the fluoridation process at the Pointe-Claire and Dorval drinking water production plants, following an analysis carried out by experts from the Service de l’eau, who determined that: Only 1% of the drinking water produced at the plants is consumed by humans. Fluoride is a highly corrosive product that can damage infrastructure in the long term. Wastewater treatment does not remove fluoride from the water. The water is discharged into the St. Lawrence River and there are few studies about its impact on aquatic plants and animals. There are other means than fluoridation to promote good dental health. 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. ONTARIO WORKING GROUP The Ontario Working Group (OWG) was formed to coordinate strategies aimed at ending water fluoridation in municipalities across Ontario. This effort is led by Gilles Parent, whose leadership was pivotal in making Quebec 99.75% fluoridation-free. The Ontario Working Group (OWG) is currently contacting all groups that they can locate online to confirm that they are still active. For access to OWG meetings, please contact: info@fluoridefreecanada.com 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 : 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. December 20, 2024 - Quebec is now 99.75% fluoride free. Read the letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections. 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

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 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

What's New – A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: November 25th , 2024 Added to new video content to the Home page; a letter by Bill Osmunson DDS MPH titled Reasons I No Longer Promote Fluoridation to the page Who Opposes Water Fluoridation; an Expert report written by Dr. Bruce Lanphear MD MPH for the January 2025 CPSA Tribunal hearing of Dr. Robert Dickson. February, 2025 Added to the New Science page an October 2024 study by Biological Trace Element Research, entitled: Fluoride Ingestion Induces Formation of Unusual Macromolecular Complexes in Gut Lumen Which Retard Absorption of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements by Chelation. January, 2025 View Added to the Advocacy page, a section for the Fluoride Free Canada, Ontario Working Group January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a January 2025 study from JAMA Pediatrics, entitled: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores. January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a November, 2024 study from Public Health Challenges, entitled: Community Water Fluoridation, a Cost-Benefit-Risk Consideration. November, 2024 View Added interactive Google map to "Who Fluoridates and Who Doesn't" page. Most locations in Ontario will also include a link to that municipalitie's water report. November, 2024 View Added to Fluoride Free Montreal on the Advocacy page that Quebec will be 99.75% fluoride free on December 20, 2024, with a link to a letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections November, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip: Press Conference of Florida's Surgeon General, saying fluoridation is medical malpractice | October, 2024 podcast, where Michael Connett is interviewed by Dr. Ken Berry's on "Fluoride Dangers You Don't Know About" November, 2024 View Added a button to the New Science page to see the bios of key scientists associated with Canadian research: Bashash, Birnbaum, Hu, Lanphear, Till November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: October 2024 - Cochrane Study: Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay? | November 2022 - CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study: Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK November, 2024 View Added a Frequently Asked Questions button to the home page Court Case section. November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: February 2021–Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample | June 2023–Health Canada expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water October, 2024 View Updated Court Case page with information on the decision from the US Federal Court, including a video of Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, on the "Fluoridation Win". September, 2024 View Added new February, 2024 study to Science page: Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies. September, 2024 View Added a link to a May, 2024 podcast hosted by former Ontario physician Dr. Trozzi with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning to the current lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency. (Video no longer available.) June, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, a May, 2024 podcast (in French) where Gilles Parent ND, Director of Fluoride Free Canada, is interviewed by Franc Masson's "Eye Opener" podcast "Dans le franc des yeux". Dr. Parent is an expert in everything fluoride, from co-authoring "Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error ", to being instrumental in Quebec being 99% fluoride-free. June, 2024 View Added two additional studies to the New Science page: (1) May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months (2) July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells. June, 2024 View Added to the home page "Presentations to Government Bodies", two presentations done by Windsor, Ontario; one in 2012 with a positive result (which was overturned in 2022; and one in May, 2024 showing current science. June, 2024 View Added to the bottom of the New Science page, a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation, published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm; created by Brenda Staudenmaier, a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintained on her website fluoridelawsuit.com. February, 2024 View Added two additional Canadian studies to the New Science page: (1) January, 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy; (2) November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water February, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, lead attorney Michael Connett's interview on the Kim Iversen Show where he talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride; as well as his interview at trial and int erviews by FAN's expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Updated the Court Case Progress page with the latest on the trial, including a chart of the trial timeline, and video interviews of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Added to the History page, a February, 2024 article for Druthers newspaper, written by Dr. Bob Dickson, summarizing the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. February, 2024 View Added to the New Science page, a January, 2024 report: The Lotus Study which is the largest fluoride study ever conducted, concluding NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, the Zoom link to the live Court Case, and added a video to the end of the Court Case updates page, where Michael Connett is being interviewed a day before the trial. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, a mini documentary by Michael Connett, the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the EPA trial, entitled: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health January, 2024 View Added to the home page, a short video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology on The National Toxicology Program and Fluoride Neurotoxicity. November, 2023 View Added "Sept. 23: One-Page Fact Sheet & Status" button to the lawsuit section on the home page . September, 2023 View Added July 5, 2023 video interview with Paul Connett PhD, with an update on the EPA lawsuit and detailing VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. See "Fluoride in Water: The TRUTH" on the video strip. September, 2023 View Added August, 2023 Rumble.com podcast with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! (Video no longer available) August, 2023 Added February, 2023 scientific study by Till and Hall on an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy February, 2023 View Added a detailed report on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid): Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water to the History page February, 2023 View Sent out Notice of the Fluoridation Hearing with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the follow-up report. January, 2023 View Added the video of the October Hearing in the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency December, 2022 View The latest status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency (Merged all updates onto one page) November, 2022 View Added to video strip on home page: 5 Minutes of Hard Core Truth - Toxins in Water October, 2022 View Updated the status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency September, 2022 View Added Resource page of Highly Recommended Resource Materials (books) June, 2022 View Added End Fluoride Toronto to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook May, 2022 View Added Fluoride Free Montreal to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook April, 2022 View When Citizens Get Involved - Article added to Eau Secours on Advocacy page February, 2022 View Added Regina to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook February, 2022 View Added Vancouver to the Advocacy page and linked to Media Challenges February, 2022 View Added "Who is With Us" page to show organizations against fluoridation January, 2022 View Restructured homepage and added Memes and "What's New" button January, 2022 View Added "Case Status - Dec. 31/21" link in Court section of home page linking to video January, 2022 View Added Presentations to Government videos to bottom of homepage December, 2021 View Donate page updated with request to eTRANSFER to save PayPal fees December, 2021 View 1952 video on fluoridation posted as a link at the top of When Did Fluoridation Start December, 2021 View "Our Message" video posted - Intro on home page and full video on the About page October, 2021 View New Science page updated with Christine Till bio and video October, 2021 View Videos and Media articles posted to Advocacy page September, 2021 View 1st Newsletter Posted (link to Newsletter page in footer) September, 2021 View Website Live September 1st, 2021 View

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

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