Stop fluoridation

More information

Lack of benefit   Harm   Unethical   Deception   FAQ   More websites

More on lack of benefit

Dr John Colquhoun in New Zealand said that, as a dental student, "I had been taught and I believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoride and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it".

Colquhoun became chairman of a national committee to promote fluoridation and, later, Principal Dental Officer of Auckland. He then found that fluoridation was not benefitting but harming children's teeth. He compared the data for tooth decay in children in New Zealand aged 5 and 12, and found that those in unfluoridated areas had teeth as good as those in fluoridated areas. His reports were unwelcome, and he was sacked.

After doing further research, Colguhoun wrote: "From other lands – Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Greece, Malta, Spain, Hungary, and India – a similar situation has been revealed: either little or no relation between water fluoride and tooth decay, or a positive one (more fluoride, more decay)".

Back to Home page

More on harm from fluoridation

By the early 1930s there was much concern in the United States about the health risk from low-level fluoride exposure, and in 1933 a senior government toxicologist said, "Only recently, that is within the last ten years, has the serious nature of fluorine toxicity been realized, particularly with regard to chronic intoxication". (The fluoride deception, 2006, p39.)

Dr James Sumner in the USA, a Nobel Laureate in 1946 for his work on enzymes, said, "We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances and we use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body". (The case against fluoride, p117.)

Professor Hugh Sinclair was a biochemist and director of Oxford University's Laboratory of Human Nutrition. In 1955 he warned that, "the Health Ministry's plan to put chemicals called fluorides into drinking water may poison millions of people".

Dr George Waldbott was an eminent medical specialist and the author of hundreds of scientific papers. He did pioneering research on penicillin shock and on allergy-induced respiratory problems. Using double-blind tests, he found that some people are especially sensitive to fluoridated water, and in 1956 he reported more than 50 cases of chronic fluoride toxicity. (The case against fluoride, pp126-7 and 130.) However, when he reported such adverse effects, he was mocked and vilified, as described in his book, A Struggle with Titans (2nd edition, 1965, Chapter 12).

The following paragraphs are based on a letter sent to the Prime Minister on 27 August 2021 by Emeritus Professor Vyvyan Howard, Professor Paul Connett and Dr H.S. Micklem.

Studies, funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA and 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 very serious.

In addition, 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).

In addition, 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 the UK fluoridates its water [Helte et. al. 2021].

This is very serious because hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride, which accumulates in the bone and other calcifying tissues, can affect our health over a lifetime of exposure.

Fluoride’s Harm to the Developing Brain: The Recent Science, also deals with this subject.

Back to Home page

More on why fluoridation is unethical

According to PHJ Law, "The right to decline treatment is a human right of bodily autonomy which no person including the government can trespass on without there being exceptional circumstances relating to a lack of capacity", and "The right to decline treatment is recognised as a long established common law right".

Lawyers for Liberty states that, "The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (section 45E) provides that Regulations made under certain sections of that Act "may NOT include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment", including prophylactic treatment. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states that "any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information".

Back to Home page

More on deception

The importance of Bryson's research is indicated by a review, of his work The Fluoride Deception, in the scientific journal Nature, saying that he reported "a great deal of relevant and often alarming research" in his "thought-provoking and worthwhile book". Here is just some more of what Bryson discovered.

Important in what happened was the Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bombs. It required a huge quantity of fluorine to make a gas, uranium hexafluoride. There were hundreds of chemical injuries, mostly from this gas, although this was not revealed until fifty years later.

Atomic scientists had a large role in a fluoridation experiment in Newburgh, secretly obtaining blood and tissue samples from local hospitals. In 1948 a study that found evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Harold Hodge had been the Manhattam Project's senior wartime toxicologist. "For many, Harold Hodge's image of respectability collapsed completely in the late 1990s. The reporter Eileen Welsome found a once-classified memo that implicated Hodge in perhaps the most diabolical human experiments ever conducted in the United States." This involved injecting plutonium into unsuspecting patients at a University of Rochester hospital. In the 1990s the federal government settled a lawsuit with family members of the victims, paying about $400,000 to each family. (The Fluoride Deception, chapter 7.)

Back to Home page

More FAQ

Q. Is fluorine important for good health, like several other chemical elements such as calcium and magnesium?

A. Fluorine is not needed in the human body for the sake of good health, contrary to the claims some fluoride enthusiasts make.

Q. If fluoridation is neither effective not safe, why do the medical and dental authorities in some countries think otherwise?

A. One reason is that important organisations that endorsed fluoridation will suffer a serious loss of credibility when found to have been grievously wrong for so long in spite of all the evidence they chose to ignore. Another reason is "groupthink", whereby people don't like to disagree openly with a prevailing belief, or can't even think that it might be wrong.

Consider how the NHS and the government denied for years their culpability for the scandal of contaminated blood - just one example of many of organisations, including the NHS, trying to protect their reputations as long as possible.

The Haemophilia Society states: "We accept that our actions and statements at the time, while well intentioned and based on expert advice, have subsequently been shown to be damaging to the community and false".

Q. Is the chemical used for fluoridation the same as the fluoride that some water contains naturally?

A. No. The natural sort is calcium fluoride. Artificial fluoridation sometimes uses sodium fluoride, but usually hydrofluorosilicic acid (also called hydrofluosilicic acid). Dissolved in water, all produce fluorine ions. However, the acid is obtained as an industrial by-product that is difficult to dispose of safely (it is so poisonous it is illegal to put it into rivers, lakes, seas or rubbish dumps), and it is used without being purified, despite containing small amounts of other chemicals, including arsenic.

Q. How is fluoride supposed to benefit teeth?

A. It used to be said that it was necessary to ingest fluoride for it to work, and pregnant mothers were even advised to take it for the benefit of their children's teeth. However, now it is said to act mainly topically. Therefore it does not need to be part of anyone's diet, either voluntarily or compulsorily.

Back to Home page

More websites

All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation
Needs much updating but still has some useful commentary.

The History of Fluorine, Fluoride and Fluoridation
Background details.

Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research. A scientific publication.

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
Also mainly for scientists.

Back to Home page