Keyword search
Restoring your Human Rights

West Midlands Against Fluoridation and for Pure, Clean Water 

We exist to persuade

   policy-makers to STOP fluoridating West Midlands' drinking water

and to spread awareness.

We hope that you will like this site and the valuable information which we've worked hard to uncover and publish.  
If you want to spread the word, please contact  

Good Gopher is an ethical search engine and the inspiration of Mike Adams of Natural News who is one of the good guys.  

to the "Money Down the Drain" Initiative

Archived News

2016 News (January - July)

2015 News             2014 News          2013 News          2012 News          2011 News        

2010 News





23rd November 2017:  Putin confirms that systemic fluoride for the hopeful prevention of dental decay 
is banned in Russia

Pinch me or am I dreaming?  That's refreshing and totally unexpected. .  

This needs to be confirmed though.


22nd November 2017:  The Battle for Pulloxhill and Flitwick.

Where's that?  They are both villages in Central Bedfordshire (very close to Centre Parks, Woburn) and are threatened, along with several other villages totalling 15,000 residents with Water Fluoridation by Bedfordshire Public Health England without going out to consultation. 

How can that be?  

Pulloxhill and District were fluoridated in the 1970s and the fluoridation programme continued until 1996 when Anglian Water (AW) discovered that they could no longer provide treated fluoridated water from Water Treatment Works Asset No. MW57 in New Rd, Pulloxhill.  Had the fluoridation equipment been at fault, MW57 would have still been able to provide water, but non-fluoridated.  So MW57 closed down and the villages in the District were supplied by water from an alternative source - water which could not be fluoridated because no contract existed.  The situation has rumbled on peacefully for 21 years since 1996. 

It is doubtful if villagers were told that they were getting potable water after 1996.  Villagers were definitely not consulted about fluoridation in the 1970s.  In those days it was a decision of the local Health Authorities to fluoridate.

Pulloxhill, Bedfordshire and surrounding villages.

Now Public Health England has been informed by AW that MW57 is re-opening and that the Treatment Works will provide water from an alternative source.  With eyes bright and shining, PHE has asked AW to undertake a feasibility study to work out if the fluoride taps can be turned back on after a break of 21 years!  Remembering that PHE is a successor organisation to the Strategic Health Authorities, PCT's and earlier Health Authorities and that any documents relating to WF in the area would have been archived long ago, how on earth did PHE discover that Pulloxhill had once been fluoridated so long ago?

This is taking place against a background of Bedford Borough planning to go out to public consultation in order to ask residents if they are agreeable to not being fluoridated in future.  

So, what's going on?  Despite a piece of research in November 2015 by Bedford PHE which couldn't  prove that swallowed fluoride prevents dental decay, it seems that PHE Bedfordshire is determined to make up lost ground by authorising the fluoridation of 15,000 unsuspecting residents in these Bedfordshire villages.  Is it a case of sour grapes?

There is a petition on-line: (spelt Pulloxhill) which we are asking visitors to this site to sign and spread around.

A Freedom of Information request to Bedfordshire PHE is about to be sent asking some embarassing questions.  In particular, can they quote the piece of law which allows them to order AW to resume WF after a break of 21 years when the original fluoridation dosing equipment is probably no longer fit for purpose and when they haven't proven that dental decay in the villages has worsened since 1996.

It's likely to be an interesting scirmish between opponents.  We're rooting for our partner organisations - the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance and Fluoride Free Beds - and send them all the luck in the World.  


11th November 2017:  What would be the outcome if fluoridated parents followed the advice on a carton of fluoridated toothpaste?

Here is the advice:

Always follow the label directions: Brush twice a day and not more than three times, minimise swallowing and spit out.  Keep out of reach of young children.  Children of 6 years and younger: use a pea-sized amount for supervised brushing to minimise swallowing.  In case of intake of fluoride from other sources, consult a dentist or doctor.  If irritation occurs, discontinue use. (Source: Aquafresh little teeth, 3-5 years toothpaste carton and tube)

Thus, if they follow the advice, all parents in a fluoridated area ought to consult their dentist or doctor before using fluoridated toothpaste!



9th November 2017:  Motion passed in The House of Lords on 7th November 2017 approving the formation of a Joint Health and Social Care Public Health Department for Greater Manchester 
which " ... will confer local authority public health functions on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority as agreed in the devolution deals, and support Greater Manchester’s programme of public sector reform." 

In short, an umbrella Public Health Department will look after all local authorities in the Greater Manchester area.  There will be will be no chance of any local authorities adopting individual courses of action. 

The new department will be headed by "a chief officer for health and social care who has been appointed in Greater Manchester. That person is an NHS England employee because the NHS is a national health service and NHS functions have not been devolved."

What has this to do with Water Fluoridation?  A careful read of the debate having put the word fluoridation into the search bar will reveal that the new Mayor of Greater Manchester is Andy Burnham who was once President of the British Fluoridation Society and who is a committed pro-fluoridationist.  He will no doubt aim at influencing the new Chief Officer to consider Water Fluoridation when they review oral health needs in Greater Manchester as part of public health policy.

The last time that fluoridation was proposed for Greater Manchester, it was defeated due to the difficulty of getting all local authorities in the region to agree to the proposition and due to the huge cost entailed.  Now that local authorities in Greater Manchester are being integrated with regard to public health policy, one of these obstacles is removed.  That leaves the revenue expense to be overcome.  In the meantime, Starting Well (see below) is being paid for by a DH oral health underspend.  There may come a time when the underspend will be proposed by the DH as being available for capital costs of water fluoridation for Greater Manchester.  Before that happens however, the entire region would have to be involved in a public consultation.

Starting Well has to succeed if WF is to be avoided for Greater Manchester.



5th November 2017:

"The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.”  (Professor Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.,  2014)

The full publication is "Rita Barnett-Rose, Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014)."

5th November 2017:  Further news on the DH "Starting Well" Child Dental Oral Health Programme
During a debate in Parliament on 31st October at a session of the Child Oral Health Committee under the chairmanship of Peter Bone MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, Steve Brine, made the following announcement which adds details to the Starting Well programme:

The important Starting Well initiative was recently launched for children under five, and as a number of Members have mentioned, the programme will work in 13 high-priority areas, with the aim of supporting dentists to see extra children under the age of five who do not currently visit a dentist. It will provide a model that ensures that when they are seen, the focus is on reducing their risk of future disease, as well as treating existing problems. The aim of Starting Well is to reduce the unacceptable oral health inequalities that exist for those children.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked how long it would run, how areas will be selected and how it will be funded. It will run for as long as is needed locally—that is a decision for local commissioners.

I will give him a bit of detail about how the areas will be selected. Selection of the 13 areas was based on 2015 oral health survey results that identified the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth—DMFT, as it is known in the trade—in those under five. To select the areas for Starting Well, a cut-off of 1.6 DMFT was the established marker, and that identified 13 upper-tier local authorities that would benefit from the Starting Well approach. Areas that scored below 1.6 DMFT were not selected, as it was agreed that those resources should be directed to areas where oral health had either declined or remained static. 

NHS England is funding the programme locally in those areas through underspends and, where the NHS chooses, the prioritisation of funds.

Copied from


4th November 2017:  
Advance notification: 1st UKFFFA Conference, 13th January 2018, Euston, London.

This is the first conference to be organised by the newly-formed UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance in association with Safe Water Information Service. The one-day event is for anyone involved in campaigning, or organising opposition to new or existing fluoridation schemes. The day will include sample presentations, the latest news and reports from those involved in local battles, and interactive sessions arranged so as to give everyone the chance to have their say on ‘ What we should be doing?' and 'What do we need to be really effective?’ This is a chance to get to know everyone, learn and exchange information, and set up ways that we can work together to rid the UK of the menace to our human rights and health that is water fluoridation.

If interested, please email the Organising Coordinator, Ivor Hueting:


5th October 2017: The Department of Health's Starting Well Programme
In reply to our Freedom of Information request relating to Starting Well, we have been told the names of the 13 areas in England which are to be visited by hit squads of dentists in order to reduce dental decay and to improve dental health education.  They are:

Blackburn with Darwen













Note that if these areas are being helped out by the Dental Health teams, there can be no justification to rush ahead to consult the public on fluoridation while the Starting Well programme is in operation in these areas.  

Copied from: relating to FoI-1097054 dated 4th October 2017.


5th October 2017:  Bedford Borough Council writes to the Secretary of State for Health.

Bedford City Council Executive has now sent the Preliminary Scoping Exercise report, prepared for them by PHE, to the Secretary of State for Health.  Jeremy Hunt is being asked to approve Bedford's request to go out to Public Consultation to determine whether or not the public wants or does not want Fluoridation to resume.

7th September 2017:  
Karen Favazza Spencer in the USA has compiled a list of health professionals who have become vociferous against water fluoridation.  LINK

6th September 2017:  
New Technology Paper on the Costs of Water Fluoridation in England, 2013 - 2021.  Published in Research Gate.  LINK  

23rd August 2017:  I am an altered human!

People and domestic pets who are born in a non-fluoridated area have normal bone development. The material out of which their bones are formed is called hydroxyapatite.  After becoming fluoridated their bones change because fluoride deposits in the bone material.   The hydroxyl radical is chucked out and fluoride bonds with the calcium naturally present in the bone.  This new bone material is called fluorapatite. Paradoxically, that's the name given to the phosphate rock which is mined for the phosphate fertiliser industry.  In order to reverse this bone-altering process, one has to avoid fluoride ingestion completely. After one year of abstention, 3% of the cortical bone material (which forms long bones) turns  over. The turnover is more rapid for trabecular bone (i.e. vertebrae) and here there is 26% remodelling each year.  

With the alteration in bone material, the activity of osteoclasts slows down and less collagen is formed although the activity of osteoblasts remains the same.  The result is that the bones become denser. This new state can progress to the osteosclerotic state and from there to skeletal fluorosis. Fortunately, the concentration of fluoride in our environment is not enough to cause Stage 3 Skeletal Fluorosis although there are undoubtedly people alive today in the Industrialised fluoridated world who are experiencing Stage 1 Skeletal Fluorosis, aka Arthritis.  

In the 1970s in the USA, patients with osteoporosis (porous weak bones) were given 50-60mg/day fluoride together with calcium and oestrogen supplements.  It was reasoned that since fluoride densifies bones, the bioaccumulation of fluoride would strengthen porous bones.  Alas, it was not to be, although trabecular bones showed more resistance to breaking after the treatment ended than cortical bone.  The explanation was that because 26% of trabecular bone turns over each year, the new bone material was taking in more of the fluoride than the cortical bone which only turned over 3% each year.  The result was that the fluoride treatment densified the trabecular bone and made it more resistant to fracture.  

Here is what one commentator (Freeze, 2009) has written: "Overall, however, the judgment of the medical fraternity has been negative.  Some studies seem to indicate that despite the increase in density, newly formed, fluoride-rich bone often exhibits reduced strength and increased fragility, leading to more rather than fewer bone fractures.  In 1989, an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (USA) was the first to conclude that fluoride therapy was not effective for the treatment of osteoporosis."  Another commentator (Lockyer, 1999) stated that "Not only is there no consistent proof of good, but the therapeutical dose rates are so high that they could possibly engender harm."

A very balanced research paper was written in 2011 which has just popped into my in-tray and it explores the bone alterations by fluoride slightly differently. It discusses the onset of osteosclerosis in the light of an individual's genetic makeup.  This is interesting in that it explains why some people are more likely to experience the life-changing alteration of their bones and others are less likely to in the presence of fluoride. (E.T. Everett, 2011: Fluoride's Effects on the Formation of Teeth and Bones, and the influence of Genetics.)

It's a fascinating topic.  However, the most important question which can be asked of researchers who promoted the fluoridation of our water supply in the 1970s is "Since it was known that fluoride altered bones and caused osteosclerosis, why did the fluoridation experiment not cease then and there? Why did scientists compound this insult on our bodies by further poisoning patients who were suffering from osteoporosis with huge doses of the toxin?

I thought that it was unethical to give patients medicine and treatment without their full informed consent.  In their anxiety to be the first to find a cure for osteoporosis, the researchers were blind to the possibility that these patients would contract osteosclerosis from a dose which was known to cause skeletal fluorosis if taken over a longer period of time.  I wonder if the patients were informed that they were going to be getting megadoses?


19th August 2017:  UK Government clamps down on prescribing T3 - Liothyronine to patients with hypothyroidism.
                                                                HIGH PRIORITY

"Under-active Thyroid patients are given T4 (Thyroxine) to make up for their bodies not being able to naturally make enough of this hormone. T4 is then converted by our bodies into T3 (Liothyronine) which is the active hormone that controls every part of our body (in the same way that your car needs petrol for it to work.) There are a significant number of patients who cannot convert the T4 into T3 and this group of patients need to take an extra supplement of T3 or they will become very ill. Up until September these patients were given this extra T3 on prescription via the NHS. Now due to cost cutting the T3 has been stopped and is only available via a private prescription from an Endocrinologist at a cost of £516.00 for a month’s supply." 

HM Government can't be serious about this can it?  It's tantamount to manslaughter.  There can be no excuse for withdrawing a medicine which patients have demonstrated a need for in the past just because the NHS needs to cut costs.  Treating patients with hypothyroidism as being all the same in their response to the disease is foolish.  Whoever proposed to Jeremy Hunt that some patients can get by just on T4 needs to go back to medical school and sit on the naughty stool.

We're featuring this foolish decision because much thyroid disease is caused by over-exposure to fluoride.  It's ironic that people are being made ill by an excess of fluoride in their diet and environment and made even more ill when the medicine which they need to survive is to be withdrawn.

Fluoride messes with the conversion process of T4 to T3.  Depending on what the thyroid status is of the individual, it can produce both hyper- and hypothyroid states. It can produce iodine deficiency symptoms, although there is no deficiency of iodine, simply by enhancing the conversion of T4 to rT3. Reverse T3 binds to T3 receptors but which is biologically inactive. In order to find out what is going on with a fluoride poisoned person, a  complete bank of thyroid tests panel needs to be done, which GPs rarely request to be done.  The bank of tests comprises TSH, Total T, Total T4, Total T3, Free T3 and rT3.

Please, please go to this LINK and sign the petition.  It strikes us that withdrawing T3 medicine is tantamount to denying patients the right to life since many who are unwaged will have to cut down on buying essentials in order to afford £516 per month.  Perhaps the UK Government can be sued under the Human Rights Act?


17th August 2017:  The current state of play in the Irish Republic.

Follow the LINK to read a message from Ireland.  Not only is Water Fluoridation mandatory in the Republic but it seems as though every loophole is being steadily closed in order to prevent activists achieving their goal.  Many local authorities in the Republic have voted against WF recently but the Irish Government will not move its position.  Such stubborness is indicative of something else going on in the corridors of power.

12th August 2017:  The inadequacy of information on fluoride in Dental Schools (USA).

A dentist in the USA has just posted a long message on Fluoride Open Resource Group .  It seems that dentists are not given any meaningful information about fluoride apart from the mantra that "it's safe and effective".  That which they are taught is sacrosanct and it is a brave dentist who questions this mantra.  Jim Maxey is a whistle-blower.  He also has a web-site: LINK which is a good read!

So what is the situation in the UK?  What sort of information do UK Dental School graduates get taught about fluoride?  Visitors to this site who are against water fluoridation are asked to quiz their dentists the next time they have a dental appointment.  Please email this information to


6th August 2017   LINK to the Newcastle University Bioavailability study (2014).  For the reason why this item is placed here without an explanation, please visit our sister Blog:

This report can be read by following the LINK .  It was written in 2012 by a team of Japanese researchers.  Fortunately, it has been translated into English.  The report contains electron micrographs of the crystalline structure of teeth before and after exposure to fluoride gel.  

Yet another nail in fluoride's coffin?  



Following a FoI request, we've received fluoridation costs for F/Y 2016 - 2017.   These have been transferred to a spreadsheet and some of the data turned into a bar chart.  The cost of the fluoridating acid is higher now with ICGL as supplier than it was with YARA UK as supplier of the fluoridating acid.  There has also been an increase in the cost of using contract manpower.  (Costs for 2015-2016 are missing and these are currently being requested from Public Health England.)

This LINK takes you to the Categorised costs 2013-2017

This LINK takes you to the amount of money each fluoridating Local Authority has to send to Public Health England.  PHE pays the invoice from the fluoridating English water companies and recovers the money from the fluoridating local authorities.

An FoI request has been submitted for F/Y 2014-2015 in order to complete the record.

A question could be asked of each fluoridating local authority Full Council meeting regarding these costs.  However, it is important to accompany the question with the shocking information that only 1% of fluoridated tap water is drunk by householders and in that 1%, a very tiny amount is drunk by disadvantaged small children who are the target group of Water Fluoridation proponants.  Moreover, small children only drink one-third of a litre of water per day.  The ghastly truth then is that where a local authority spends £100,000 on fluoridation, the amount of fluoride drunk by the target group is perhaps worth no more than £1.  Moreover, the amount of fluoride in the saliva of these disadvantaged small children is so insubstantial that it cannot have any effect whatsoever on teeth.  We don't produce much saliva when we're sleeping and, during the day and night much will be swallowed without bathing the teeth.

                                             WATER FLUORIDATION IS AN ENORMOUS WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

13th July 2017

None of these harms are imagined.  They are underpinned by hundreds, if not thousands, pieces of research.  Of great concern is the "reduced glucose utilization" which implies that Diabetes II would be more prevalent in fluoridated areas.

Water fluoridation is truly the greatest medical mistake of all time.

Review the research which has studied the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the brain in this publication by Australian scientist, Geoff Pain: LINK .  Also access a recent assessment of the USA's National Toxicology Program's neurotoxicology of fluoride:  .  However, please read the comments below the video in order to acquaint yourself with the downside of the National Toxicology Program:  they are apparently only studying Sodium Fluoride for toxicity!

6th June 2017
EDITORIAL  Have we been looking in the wrong place all this time?

A brief glance at the analysis table a little way below may shock you.  Yes - The Department of 'Health', Public 'Health' England and the 'Health' and Well-Being Boards of fluoridating local authorities are actually sanctioning the addition of several heavy metals and other health-damaging substances to the drinking water of 6 million people living in England.  Now, once diluted, the concentrations of these substances is miniscule ... but ... many are bioaccumulative and many act in synergy with each other to cause ill health far more quickly than if they acted on the body as single substances.

The analysis table omits to mention silica, fluoride, hydrogen, phosphate pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid.  Silica, fluoride and hydrogen are in the chemical formula so it is understandable that they were not analysed. However, phosphate pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid are not.  We have recently acquired a copy of BSEN 12175: 2013 and this is a revelation.  We already knew that the fluoridating acid contained chemical parameters but were unaware of the presence of 'contaminants'. (The contaminants are compounds and the chemical parameters are elements.) BSEN 12175 controls the maximum concentrations of chemical parameters and contaminants.

Let's look at the contaminants - phosphorus pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid.

Phosphorus pentoxide cannot be be higher than 0.75% of the total fluoridating acid added to drinking water.  This compound is a main ingredient of super-phosphate fertiliser, e.g. Growmore which gardeners and farmers use to fertilise the soil.  Recently, an initial analysis of a sample of super-phosphate gave a result of 4ppm fluoride which is understandable because super-phosphate derives from fluorapatite ore.  Adding fluoride to agricultural land may not be a wise policy in the long-term, especially if certain crops absorb the fluoride, thus making it bio-avaiable.  Although phosphate pentoxide is not a recordable poison, compounds of phosphoric acid are listed in the UK's Deregulation Act 2014 as being recordable poisons.

However, this is the least of our worries.  Hydrofluoric acid is a Recordable Poison.  The chemical formula is HF, i.e. Hydrogen + Fluoride in solution as a compound in hexafluorosilicic acid.  It does not dissociate in the acid and does not dissociate in water.  It is known as 'free' hydrogen fluoride and cannot be higher than 1.5% of the total acid added to drinking water.  We are currently attempting to determine which company in the supply chain ensures that HF is not present at greater than 1.5%.  

In drinking water at 2 litres per day, the concentration of hydrofluoric acid is very small indeed and would only cause stomach discomfort in those people who are prone to stomach problems.  In bath water, it's a different story altogether.  If each bath contains 130 litres of fluoridated water, then we are being exposed to quite a lot of hydrofluoric acid.  Artificially fluoridated people, especially women, are damaging their thyroid health if they bath in artificially fluoridated water.  If they are deficient in iodide, the negative health effects would be worse.  In short, many cases of hypothyroidism are caused by an over-sufficiency of fluoride and an deficiency of iodide.  If women of a certain age (possibly from 30 years +) enjoy having hot fluoridated baths, they are highly likely to develop hypothyroidism when they reach their 4th or 5th decade.

Where is the proof?  There are two soundly-based research reports which complement each other but which are 80 years apart. 

In summary, it is not just the fluoride in our drinking water which is totally responsible for causing ill-health and nor is it just the chemical parameters such as arsenic and lead which will be mainly responsible for the onset of ill-health. The main damage is being done by absorbing measurable quantities of hydrofluoric acid through the skin when taking hot baths.  Even having a hot fluoridated shower is a practice which needs to be re-assessed by many of us.

Is this the reason then, why people living in fluoridated West Midlands have almost double the level of hypothyroidism when compared with non-fluoridated Greater Manchester? The factor of there being low calcium levels in drinking water in districts in west Birmingham could explain the difference between the occurrence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated West Midlands when compared with other parts of fluoridated England where there is 30% more hypothyroidism in comparison with non-fluoridated England.

If this theory is correct, then shouldn't the Department of Health be doing some research?  The sticking point is getting past the pro-fluoride gate-keepers!  There is also a problem with getting the Labour Party to drop its outdated, erroneous policy regarding fluoride reducing dental health inequalities.   Finally, how much is it costing the NHS to diagnose and treat hypothyroidism?  It looks as though middle-aged fluoridated women are the collateral damage hidden by the misguided water fluoridation policy.


3rd June 2017.  We have recently completed a fluoride survey of fluoridated Lincolnshire.  Please go to our page which analyses fluoride.  LINK

14th March 2017.  Does Bottled Water Flatter to Deceive?

The LINK takes you to an article on the ever-changing world of water bottlers.


17th February 2017: Laboratory analysis of Hexafluorosilicic acid (performed in 2000), as supplied by a Spanish Company to Irish and English Fluoridating Water Companies - placed here to support a Freedom of Information Request about the illegality of adding heavy metals to drinking water.


15th February 2017:  What a waste of money!

We've been told today that Hull City Council is pressing ahead with requisitioning a fully engineered feasibility study costing £50,000 from Yorkshire Water despite the fact that the City's Health and Social Care budget is about to be drastically cut.  

"Drugs, alcohol abuse and stop smoking services while sexual health, obesity and children and young people's public health services will all be cut from April".

Hull City Council is dwelling in an alternative universe.  Instead of investing in services which do the most good, the Council has decided to invest in a service which does harm.  Moreover, water fluoridation is such a waste of money.  

Cutting all of the above services surely means that Council employees will be made redundant.  Even the jobs of Public Health specialists are not safe. However, Hull's Health and Well-Being Manager, Tim Fielding, will be sitting pretty if the feasibility report is acceptable to the Health and Well-Being Board.  We also have to assume that Julia Weldon, Hull's Director of Public Health and Adult Services, will continue in employment but with a much reduced staff.

The pie chart below was produced by Southern Water, Water Wise, National Statistics and the Drinking Water Inspectorate about 10 years ago.  100% of Hull's treated water may become fluoridated but only 4% of the 31.5% of the water used by households is actually drunk.  Thus 99% of the water is not drunk and 99% of the fluoride is not drunk.  Of the remaining 1%, very little is drunk by disadvantaged small children - the target group for water fluoridation.  According to the most recent National Diet and Nutrition Survey, small children drink just one-third of a litre of water per day.  


Wasting money on feasibility studies, on the public consultation, on the capital cost of fluoridating equipment and on the cost of the fluoridating acid is an outrage.  And now we are told that Hull's residents will no longer be helped by the City Council when they are in need of social care.

One of the Water Treatment Works which supplies treated water to Hull extracts groundwater to which chlorine is added.  No other treatment is necessary.  This implies that the groundwater is really pure.  In fact, the best Yorkshire water possible.  If the public consultation finds in favour of Hull City Council, this pure water will become adulterated.  A foolish UK law allows this to happen! 


3rd February 2017: The magic of turmeric

The LINK takes you to a short article about how turmeric prevents fluoride from adversely affecting your brain.  In other words, turmeric (which contains several valuable substances such as phenolic curcuminoid and immune-boosting polysaccharides
) prevents alzheimer's and dementia.  It's best to use fresh turmeric which can be purchased from Asian food stores.  It can be grated and sprinkled on salads or eaten in a raw soup which is made by blitzing carrots, peeled apples, garlic, salt, chopped turmeric root and water.  Use gloves when chopping the fresh root to protect the hands from staining yellow.

31st January 2017:   All that glisters is not gold!

This month, I attempted to have my mercury amalgan fillings removed by a dentist practised at doing this work.  Alas, once I asked the fatal question "what do you use to replace the fillings and I hope that they do not contain fluoride", I was told that there were no products on the market which were guaranteed not to contain fluoride and that therefore the surgery could not accept my patronage and money. The money for the initial consultation is to be returned to me and I should look elsewhere!

Does this mean that the great god fluoride is still ruling the British Dental Association's roost?  It would appear so.  I am to be denied the removal of a toxin because I do not want another toxin to take its place!

In July 2017, mercury amalgam fillings will be banned in the EU for children, expectant mums and those who breast feed.  

If visitors to this site decide to have their mercury amalgam fillings removed, they need to make sure that they consult an holistic dentist.  A dental surgery which is a member of the BDA and which accepts NHS patients but says that it can remove mercury amalgam fillings is not going to cut it!  My experience is that the protocols are half observed!

The questions which need to be asked of the Dental Practice are:

  • Are you observing all the IOAMT protocols?
  • Do you have a cavitat scanner which pushes out very low levels of radiation. (If the equipment is not state-of-the-art, then walk away. No-one should want X-rays, especially if the thyroid gland and brain are not protected.  In particular, avoid hospital CT scans.)
  • Have you heard of the V-Tox protocols which are used by holistic dentists?
  • Do you advise the use of Vitamin C and glutathione immediately prior to and after surgery for the neutralisation of mercury in the blood-stream? If you tell your patients to stop Vitamin C therapy on the day of 'surgery', why do you tell them to avoid this?  Is this advice which has been inherited from surgeons with experience of general anaesthetics (GA)?  Dental surgeons who remove mercury fillings will surely only be administering local anaesthetics which are somewhat different to GA?
  • Are you able to give intravenous Vitamin C and glutathione injections?  (These two substances disable fugitive mercury and ensure that it is escorted out of the body via the kidneys.)
  • When your patients are asked to rinse their mouths after the removal of mercury fillings, are they asked to rinse with mouth-wash containing fluoride? (If this is the case, then avoid this intervention.  You do not want to be poisoned with another element as soon as another poison has been removed.)

You can probably understand that I am disappointed that I cannot have the mercury amalgam fillings removed at this time.  However, I am not going to be defeated.  If all is against you, carry on .....

Believe that you are right: you have the power to fight a health service which preaches a doctrine which is harmful, old-fashioned and wrong!


13th January 2017:  Further information on Fluoride Action Network's Petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (USA)

The LINK takes you to the Lund Report where Rick North discusses the background to this Petition.  Comments below the article on the report are from Anti-Fluoridation and Pro-Fluoridation organisations and individuals.

3rd January 2017:  Welcome to the New Year!

The WMAF Team enters the New Year full of hope. We eagerly await the next stage of the Fluoride Action Network's Petition to the USA's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  A failure by the EPA to act on the Petition's request will result in a Federal court case. 

We have been told by Fluoride Action Network that "Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (USA), the EPA has just 90 days to either accept or reject Fluoride Action Network's petition.  The deadline is 20th February 2017. If they reject the petition, Fluoride Action Network has the option to take the issue to Federal Court so that their case can be adjudicated on its scientific merits.  In which case, instead of the issue of fluoride’s neurotoxicity being resolved by public relations outfits and trolls on the internet, it will be examined more objectively with experts from both sides being cross-examined under oath.  This is the last thing that promoters of fluoridation want to see.  Thus there will  we many attempts by promoters between now and 20th February to undermine the Petition by fair means or foul."

Update, 15th February 2017:  The EPA has referreded the petition to the National Research Council so that the facts contained in the petition can be thoroughly checked.

29th December 2016:  The EU Bans Mercury Amalgam Fillings for children and Pregnant or Nursing Women

In 1994, Panorama made a programme about the dangers of mercury amalgam fillings.  Later in 2009, on ITV, we were regaled by a short video in which the reporter interviewed Barry Cockcroft (Chief Dental Officer for England) and Peter Ward (CEO of the British Dental Association).  Both officers attempted to deny that mercury fillings leach mercury vapour into our bodies after they are placed in the mouth. The Reporter made mincement of them!  T
he LINK is a video which combines the Panorama and ITV Tonight Prorammes.

What does this have to do with fluoride?  Well, mercury will soon be outlawed in the EU for children and pregnant and nursing mothers. Soon it will be banned altogether.  Mercury poisoning is described as being low-level chronic poisoning but there are also fears that Mercury causes Alzheimer's disease.  

Fluoride has been shown to reduce the intelligence of children.  The brain is the target of this second toxin although other body systems are slowly poisoned.  So, how long will it be before the Chief Dental Officer for England and the CEO of the British Dental Association admit that fluoride is health-damaging?  If fact, have they yet admitted that mercury is poisonous or are they just going to quietly phase out its use without a fanfare?  This is most likely. 

Due to health concerns, Sweden banned mercury amalgam outright from the year 2000.  Sweden is not a million miles away from the UK.  No-one at the BDA took any notice even though they have officers who are paid to keep an eye open for such developments.

We can only conclude therefore that the BDA is not concerned about our overall health and that the focus of this "Trade Union" is trained only on what goes on in our mouths.  Such short-sightedness is criminal!

For the comprehensive report of the European ban on mercury amalgam go to this LINK


28th December 2016: The Death of Boots' 'Smile Non-Fluoride" Toothpaste

Alas, Boots no longer stocks its own non-fluoride brand of toothpaste. The Company, which is owned by USA's Walgreens, has also stopped selling "Smile Fluoride".

The removal of this non-fluoride toothpaste from the market is a truly retrograde step and means that those of us who are either sensitised to fluoride or who do not wish to have fluoride in their lives have now had their choices severely limited.

On its website, immediately below telling us that there are no stocks available, Boots states "
Smile non-flouride toothpaste is suitable for young children, people who are sensitive to flouride and people who have been advised to avoid flouride by their dentist."

It's not the end of the World, but this decision by a market leader has removed the least expensive non-fluoride toothpaste from the shelves, thus making it more difficult for fluoride-avoiding families on low incomes to cope with their weekly shopping bill.

Boots continues to sell Euthymol but this is a very strong-tasting toothpaste which costs £2 + for a 75ml tube. (Smile Non-Fluoride used to cost £1.39 for a 100 ml tube).  All other non-fluoride toothpastes available in the UK in shops or on-line are more expensive.

Those people who do not purchase on-line and who do not wish to purchase Euthymol can visit their local Health-Food Shops or Waitrose to purchase K
ingfisher Brand non-fluoride toothpaste if that is their ultimate choice as a replacement brand. The toothpaste retails at £2.85 - £3.60 per 100 ml tube and comes in several flavours.  Other non-fluoride brands exist on-line and in health-food shops.


10th December 2016:  Fluoride Alert Network's Petition to the Environment Protection Agency (USA)

Is this the 'end game'?  FAN has written a petition to the EPA in which it quotes relevant law which the EPA has a duty to enforce.  Fascinating stuff and a really good read. Note the very comprehensive Reference section at the end of the Petition. If the Petition succeeds, the UK Government would have no further excuse to continue fluoridation in the UK.  Currently, when we finally get replies from the Department of Health, they are very quick to remind us of supporting research from the USA as an excuse not to stop fluoridation in the UK.  So if fluoridation ceases in the USA due to all the good sound reasons used in the Petition, then it should cease in the UK.

The 'infection' that is water fluoridation began in the USA and it's denouement may start there.  We can but hope.

The Petition can be read at


5th December 2016:  Fluoridation research recently commissioned

We have received an email today from the Fluoride Alert Network (USA) in which they have listed research on fluoride which has been recently funded.

Ongoing Neurotoxicity Studies 

FAN's relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride's neurotoxicity seriously is beginning to pay off. Hitherto, for many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300) but that is changing:  

1. There is a new National Institute of Health funded fluoride/brain study.  Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S. This is what Robert Flemingof the national group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation (COF-COF) wrote: “This is possibly the most important recently evolving development in water fluoridation to date.”

2. A new rodent study that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing using low levels of fluoride exposure. We have concerns over the consultation process that NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken, see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of bulletin.

3. Dr. Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, from Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí in Mexico is currently working with Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador on three U.S. government funded studies by the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies (NIEHS) on fluoride neurotoxicity: (1) an examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water, (2) estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure, and (3) investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children.  Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women. She also published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.

4. Dr. Philippe Grandjean (Harvard School of Public Health) is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology. (Choi 2015). 

5. An NIEHS-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment,” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study is available online.

6. An NIEHS-funded animal study, titled “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study is available online.

7. The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 ISEE conference andcan be accessed online.

Historical footnote:

When Phyllis Mullenix et al published their groundbreaking animal study on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe dental center. That sent a chilling message to US researchers - research on fluoride toxicity is a "no go area." Now with the U.S. government funding several important studies this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved.  

Vigilance still needed 

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skewer the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm - which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans. Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals order to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive.


25th November 2016:  The Birth of Fluoridation and the Possible Role of the US Military

Today, I came across a 1967 article by Albert Burgstahler Ph.D. in which he stated "In 1941, dental defects resulting mainly from caries and lack of adequate dental care were the leading medical cause for rejections from selective military service.  Over 188,000 or nearly 10 per cent, of the first two million men examined for the draft had to be rejected because they had less than 12 useful teeth out of the normal adult complement of 32 permanent teeth."  

It wasn't until 1945 that the first fluoridation trials took place in the USA. The trials were cut short after 5 years (instead of 10) and fluoridation was introduced indecently quickly throughout the States. Could it be that the USA military was concerned that they would never be able to conscript enough men during the 1950s with the Cold War looming?  Was it thought impossible to prevent dental decay with properly targetted dental health education?  I rather think that that was the case since it would have been a huge and expensive task.  So the US Government encouraged mass medication in the mistaken belief that fluoride would prevent dental decay and provide the State with more cannon fodder.  This would explain why many military bases are fluoridated even though the surrounding area often isn't.  

When fluoridation was first introduced in the USA, it was believed that it would have a positive effect on the teeth of all people, no matter what their age.  This has largely been debunked and these days, even the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) is coming around to stating that it's topical fluoride brushed on teeth which is the main preventative mechanism, although they curiously try to maintain that fluoride in saliva is also helpful (and that's another story for another day).


1st November 2016:
 Trick or Treat

We have recently talked to a couple living in a non-fluoridated area who took their little boy to their private dentist for a check-up.  Now this couple is thoroughly against fluoride and fluoridated toothpaste so the dentist must have perceived that the little boy was "in peril" of getting toothache.  Without telling the parents what he was about to do, he painted the child's back teeth with fluoride varnish.  Upon being asked what he had done, he confessed he had used fluoride varnish.  He was apparently somewhat bashful about his sleight of hand.

The dentist knew about the parents' objections to fluoride treatments and still went ahead and treated the child without the parents' permission.  What is the legal and ethical position?  At the very least this particular treatment was without consent and the dentist, knowing about the parents' abjection to fluoride treatments, violated a medical ethic which is embodied in the NHS Constitution.

So what to do now?  Changing dentists would be the first line of attack after having written a letter of complaint to the dentist.  Any reply should then be sent to the dentist's governing body together with a further letter of complaint.  

The problem is that dentists are somewhat gung-ho about fluoride.  After all, it's "safe and effective" and people are making too much of a fuss about such a little thing.  Well, no!  The young boy will now be swallowing his fluoride varnish for the next few months.  Since there has been no research on the possible bioavailability of the swallowed varnish, there is no-one it seems who can predict the health outcomes of swallowed varnish for the thousands of children who have already been treated.  Most have received fluoride varnishes with their parents' consent but this little boy is different.  No permission was sought and no permission was given.

Will dental fluorosis in the little boy's permanent teeth have been caused by one application of fluoride varnish?  We don't know but the parents are advised to keep strict records from now on until the age of eight is reached when any fluorosis damage would be detectable in the child's upper incisors.


31st October 2016
 Attendance at the Wolverhampton Vegan Fair 29-30th October.

WMAF had a very successful couple of days at the Vegan Fair and we were able to increase our mailing list and got almost 100 postcards signed.  The postcards are being sent to the NHS's CEO in batches of 200 using Recorded Delivery.  This gives us the opportunity to enclose a letter to tell Professor Simon Stevens of recent discoveries about the ineffectiveness of fluoride as a prophylaxis for dental decay.

Visitors to the stall were asked about hypothyroidism.  The majority of older lady visitors had hypothyroidism or knew of someone who had the problem.  This is in line with the research conducted by researchers at Kent University into the prevalence of hypothyroidism.  It bears repeating:  there is almost double the number of women with hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands when compared with non-fluoridated Greater Manchester.  In England as a whole, there is 30% more hypothyroidism in fluoridated England when compared with non-fluoridated England.  The correlation with fluoride is highly significant BUT the Department of Health doesn't want to know about this because it wasn't their research (i.e. the DH didn't sponsor it) and if it was admitted by them, Flagship Fluoride would capsize.

The LINK takes you to the Kent University research.  If you have hypothyroidism and if you want fluoridation to cease, please send a letter and a printed copy of the research report to Duncan Selbie, CEO of Public Health England. Ask him to sponsor research into individual patients with hypothyroidism so that causation can be established now that we have such a strong correlation.  Patients have to be asked if they take frequent hot baths and whether they have lived in a fluoridated area for many years prior to the time when they were diagnosed with hypothyroidism. The link with hot baths is key to understanding the disease.  The LINKED document explains why it is important NOT to take hot baths in a fluoridated area.  The physician who wrote the report in 1932 had great success at dampening down over-active thyroid glands (thyrotoxicosis) with hydrofluoric acid which he added to hot bath water.  Some of his earlier patients had too many hot baths and this resulted in hypothyroidism.  

The fluoridating acid used in English fluoridation programmes contains a small volume of hydrofluoric acid which is readily absorbable through the skin, especially when the body is surrounded by hot water.  Fluoride is anti-thyroid!

It really is a case of pushing at an unlocked door.  If more people were to contact those who think they have power over us (PHE, DH, Councillors and MPs), they will get the message sooner or later.  On the other hand, if we remain silent and acquiescent, nothing will change and the door will remain closed.

                                Be the change you wish to see in your lives!


25th October 2016.  We've just noticed that the CEO of Public Health England has been sent the results of the NDNS 2014 so our conclusions should come as no surprise to him.  See our report dated 14th October below.

22nd October 2016:  Hull Fluoridation moves a stage further.

Two days ago, the ruling Labour Party on Hull City Council voted, in camera, to continue exploring water fluoridation now that they have established with Yorkshire Water that the scheme is practicable.

During the past year or so that fluoridation has been threatening Hull, the Health and Well-Being Board has put into operation alternative dental decay prevention programmes.  We don’t know how successful these programmes have been but surely they should be allowed to bed in and to produce results – whether good or not - before prematurely spending money on a controversial Public Consultation?

The Hull Labour Party’s haste to rush towards fluoridation is indecent.  Is the Party presupposing that alternative dental health programmes won’t work?

We know that the Chairman of the Health and Well-Being Board has been persuaded that fluoridation is highly effective at preventing dental decay.  We can only hope that if a Consultation runs its course where the majority of Hullites are against the Public Health measure, that the Health and Well-Being Board members respect the wishes of Hull Constituents.  Otherwise we will find ourselves in the same situation that Southampton was in 2008 when the Strategic Health Authority ignored the wishes of 72% of those who took part in the Southampton Consultation.

We wonder what has happened to dental decay in Southampton since 2008 without Fluoridation. Is it better or worse?

The East Riding of Yorkshire County Council has to be consulted next and that authority has 3 months in which to consider the issue. Consequently, nothing will be decided until March 2017 when the Health and Well-Being Board will review the situation.  We hope that, by then, they will have acquired statistics on the success of the alternative dental health programmes.  If decay has reduced by March 2017, there would be no justification in going out to public consultation.


15th October 2016:  Influential ex-American Ambassador calls for Fluoridegate Hearings in Georgia (USA)

The LINK takes you to the letter sent by Andrew Young to Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal and to House Speaker David Ralston.  The letter is unusual because here, for the first time, gathered together in one place are the ways in which the story-board for fluoride has changed since fluoridation began in the 1940s.  "It was thought .... now it it thought ..... actually we don't really know for sure but it really is safe and effective, honest!"


14th October 2016:  The puny amount of fluoridated water drunk by tiny children

We've finally found the survey relating to the amount of water drunk by small children between 2008 and 2012 in the UK.  The results are from the rolling programme and are averaged.

In short, 
Children aged 1.5 - 3 years      Water (and tea and coffee)  184 gm/day
Children aged 4 - 10 years       Water (and tea and coffee)  270 gm/day

Other liquid is consumed but we are concerned here with beverages which might contain fluoride when living in a fluoridated area where all water, tea and coffee will probably contain fluoride unless the child drinks Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water or certain types of table water.  If that is the case, then children would be drinking even less fluoridated water than is implied in the statistics above.

So, instead of drinking 1 litre of tap water a day containing 1mg fluoride, fluoridated children drink
between 0.184 - 0.270 mg fluoride per day.  Since the UK optimum of fluoride is 1mg per litre, it is really difficult to work out how on earth the fluoride in tap water can be decreasing tooth decay in small children.  

The current 'theory' is that the fluoride in saliva which is present in the mouth day and night is the silver bullet for the prevention of tooth decay.  However, Richard Sauerheber has calculated that the saliva of fluoridated people contains 0.02mg fluoride per litre of saliva and that's based on optimum ingestion of at least a litre of fluoridated water containing 1mg fluoride.  Since it seems now that children do not drink anywhere near that amount of tap water per day, then the concentration of fluoride in their saliva originating in fluoridated water would be vanishingly small. Since we don't produce much saliva when we're sleeping and since the saliva in our mouths is constantly being swallowed, the remineralisation theory for water-derived fluoride in saliva is, well let's face it, now shot to pieces. 

We were prepared to accept that 0.3% of the fluoride added to drinking water of 6 million people in England was being ingested by disadvantaged tiny tots, but that figure has to be revised downwards in light of the nutrition statistics tabulated above.  It would seem that only one-fifth of 1 mg fluoride per day is ingested by children up to 3 years of age meaning that only one-fifth of 0.3% of the fluoride purchased "hits the target".  That's 0.06% of the fluoride purchased.  For ages 4 - 10, the amount ingested is one-third of 0.3% which is 0.1% of the fluoride added to tap water.

Thus, the total waste of money of the fluoridating acid is almost completely 100% and so too is the cost of the equipment and maintenance costs.

Dental decay still exists and we're told by those who protect this quirky medical (mal)-practice that fluoride can't possibly stop all dental decay, just much of it. Well, now it seems that it hasn't been doing a very good job at all since children are just not drinking enough of the stuff.  In short, the pro-fluoridationists might just as well give up and pack their bags.

As far as dental fluorosis is concerned, if children are not drinking enough fluoridated water, then the disfigurement of their teeth is probably caused by swallowing their fluoridated toothpaste.

Thinks!  Where does this leave Project Catfish in West Cumbria?
  Up the River Suwannee perhaps.

LINK: Full NDNS survey and appendices
LINK: Extract of Table 5.1c from the appendices
LINK: Richard Sauerheber's article on water fluoridation


13th October 2016:  Fluoride varnishes - update

What happens in the body when fluoride varnish erodes off children's teeth and is inevitably swallowed.  Is it bioavailable and if so, where does it accumulate in the body?  So we asked this question of Newcastle University and specifically contacted the man who should know the answer.  Bearing in mind that tiny flakes of eroded varnish would contain millions of fluoride atoms, our quest to establish bio-availability was justified.

Here is the reply from Christopher Vernazza who is NIHR Clinician Scientist, Paediatric Dentistry, at the School of Dental Sciences,:
"Unfortunately, we have not conducted any research at Newcastle that relates to this particular question.  I am sorry we cannot be of any further help."

So it would appear that the toxicity of fluoride has gone under the radar of at least one dental researcher.  It could just be that the fluoride is swallowed as a compound and cannot bio-accumulate but surely someone should have checked this out?


30th September 2016:  Hamilton City Council, New Zealand, is providing non-fluoridated water at a service point for residents who don't want to drink fluoridated tap water.

What an indictment of New Zealand fluoridation policy!  The water company serving Hamilton provides treated water to customers and which is then adulterated by the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid which destroys its potability (because the acid contains arsenic and fluoride and 28 other contaminants).  It would have been simpler not to have added the acid in the first place.

The water at Claudelands is purified by a Reverse Osmosis filter which removes all the minerals - both natural and artificial.  This means that residents need to remember to add minerals in order to restore the health-giving properties of the filtered water.  Meanwhile residents are still paying full whack for their contaminated domestic water supply.

This is a strange way in which to promote pro-choice!         

It would be a bit interesting if very long queues formed and the purified water ran out!

Let's hope that Hamilton City Council remembers to change the filters and membrane on a regular basis after having analysed the product water.

We urge Fluoride-Free Hamilton to purchase a Hanna HI729 Fluoride Low Range Gauge so that that group can keep Hamilton Council on its toes. Knowledge is power!

The more residents who use the facility the more frequently the filters and membrane will need to be changed.  That could become quite expensive for Hamilton.


22nd September 2016: MP under investigation for not declaring his Vice-Presidency of the British Fluoridation Society

Sir Paul Beresford MP (who is a former dentist from New Zealand) has had a complaint made against him for not registering his interest in the British Fluoridation Society AND for taking part in a House of Commons debate in February 2016 in which he urged the fluoridation of the UK.  LINK  This is a definite conflict of interests for which he is being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS).  Moreover, many of the facts stated in his speech are completely untrue - but them what's new in relation to politicians and spin?

Sir Paul was a Vice-President of the British Fluoridation Society in 2013 and evidence acquired this year shows him as being a Vice-President for the same pro-fluoridation pressure group.  The investigation was published on the PCS's website and picked up by a Telegraph reporter who questioned Sir Paul.  In the short article on 18th September, Sir Paul stated that he had resigned from the BFS's Vice-Presidency some time ago and that the BFS were continuing to use out-dated letterhead stationery.

We await the outcome of the PCS's investigations.

19th September 2016:  Disturbing attempt by PHE Barnsley to persuade Council to investigate fluoridation.
This is disturbing news indeed, especially since Anita Dobson, Barnsley's Dental PH Consultant has disseminated information about systemic fluoride which is completely out-of-date.  It's more than a bit strange that PHE seems unable to take on board recent research on fluoridation.  For example, PHE has not distributed throughout its organisation and internally discussed the statistical insignificance of Bedford PHE's report in which 5-year-olds in Bedford had no more tooth decay after fluoridation had ceased for 6 years compared with tooth decay levels in 2008, one year before fluoridation stopped temporarily due to technical problems.

For the relevant document please go to LINK.

25th August 2016:  Another inconvenient truth.

Just finished reading a study published in the US from 2005 which tested blood fluoride levels in 1300 women in different communities. Two communities had artificially fluoridated water at 1.0mg/l but different concentrations of calcium in water. In the high calcium community the mean blood serum fluoride levels were 31% lower than the community with low calcium in drinking water. This is an important study as it conclusively shows that the effect of fluoridation will vary depending on natural calcium levels in drinking water. So if you live in a soft water area the accumulation of fluoride will be significantly greater.  

This means that people living in West Birmingham (UK) are in double jeopardy since the water is soft with a t.d.s of 77.  Now looks at the Kent research which stated that there was alomst double the prevalence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands (including Birmingham) than found in non-fluoridated Greater Manchester where the calcium levels are higher.


23rd August 2016:  Bantry, Republic of Ireland, starts to become fluoride-free.

This is not such an inconsequential occurance as you might at first think. The Governement of the Republic of Ireland remains (unreasonably) wedded to fluoridation so for a province to 'kick ass' is unusual.  Well done Bantry!


20th August 2016:  "Until a government for the common good stands upright, without loyalty to corporations who pour funds into party coffers, there will be no justice for these victims."  (John Adams, President of the United States of America).  

Now, have a look at what is happening in the USA regarding the Federal Drugs Administration and Big Pharma, and the Environmental Pollution Agency and

Monsanto and then tell me if John Adams hope for justice has come true.  I think not!


12th August 2016
: Fluoride Varnishes - reply to Freedom of Information request relating to adverse reaction and the Yellow Card scheme.  LINK

In a nutshell, there have been adverse reactions and there may be more because incidents are not always reported via the Yellow Card scheme.  The writer of the FoI reply tells us that the Yellow Card scheme was used more in Scotland once parents were made aware of the scheme.  Thus, 5 incidents were reported in 2014 and 19 reported in 2015.  

It's also of interest to note that varnishes are categorised as either Medicinal Products or Medical Devices.  It seems that only adverse reactions after the administration of a Medicinal Product such as Duraphat are reported to the MHRA.  Medical Devices are regulated under a different set of laws and as such the MHRA cannot let us have any statistics relating to adverse reactions following the use of a device.

We are open to polite suggestions from visitors to this site for further questions which can be asked of the MHRA relating to fluoride varnishes. Email

11th August 2016: An update of the situation in New Zealand. 

If you think that what is happening in New Zealand is a walk in the park, think again. The NZ Government is hell-bent on getting people fluoridated no matter what.  Fluoride-Free New Zealand is fighting this and has asked for Financial help from folks in other parts of the World who are also opposed. I have sent £100 for the cause.  Please help them since if New Zealand becomes 100% fluoridated, that spells the end to freedom of choice worldwide.


9th August 2016 "A fluoride free version of BioMin is also being developed for individuals who do not want or need fluoride toothpaste."  

Observations:  So there is now going to be a toothpaste which doesn't contain fluoride and which will be effective at reducing sensitivity due to its remineralising effect!  The inventors of Biomin tell us that fluoride in toothpaste is particularly beneficial in helping the remineralisation of enamel but that conventional fluoride toothpastes only last in the mouth for 2 hours while the new Biomin lasts for 8-12 hours and especially overnight.  However, the researchers at Queen Mary University of London are now saying that they will develop a fluoride-free version of Biomin which will also work on remineralising the teeth overnight.

So, calcium + phosphate + fluoride remineralise teeth using the new formula, and calcium and phosphate will possibly remineralise teeth using the fluoride-free toothpaste.  If the latter prerparation proves to be effective at remineralising tooth enamel, why bother with adding the fluoride?


Glycerin, Silica, PEG 400, Fluoro Calcium Phospho Silicate, Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, Titanium Dioxide, Aroma, Carbomer, Potassium Acesulfame.  Available Fluoride content maximum 1000ppm when packed. ( )


Earlier postings have been archived: News 2016



Water Fluoridation Wastes Public Money, Big Time!

If the cost of the fluoridating acid and associated infrastructure in a city costs £100,000 per annum, guess how much money is wasted?

The answer is £99,700.

This figure is based on data produced by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Southern Water, WaterWise and Water UK in respect of Southampton:

30% of our drinking water is lost as leaks

38.5% of our drinking water is used by industry and services

31.5% of our drinking water is for domestic use.  This includes 4% for drinking.

It therefore follows that 96% of the fluoride is wasted because 96% of the water is not drunk

Of the remaining 4%, 2% of the water containing fluoride is excreted and only 2% is bio-accumulated.

Of the 2% which is bioaccumulated, a minuscule percentage is drunk by the target group for fluoridation - tiny disadvantaged children whose parents do not have the wherewithal to teach them to clean their teeth.

For the sake of argument, let's say that this is 0.3% of the fluoridated population.

Therefore, the conclusion can only be that 99.7% of the money spent on fluoridation is wasted.

This is public money.  The Government tells us that it's trying to reduce our deficit and yet it is quite prepared to waste £99,700 out of every £100,000  spent on fluoridation.

                                            TIME TO CALL IT A DAY, CHAPS AND CHAPESSES.

                                             YOU'VE BEEN RUMBLED!



                      This produces FFS - Fetal Fluoride Syndrome.



Go to for a full list of supplements, foods and other substances which will aid your recovery.  A second web page by Mike Adams contains valuable information on de-toxing. LINK

This child is collateral damage.  We are all collateral damage

because we are being used to get rid of a hazardous waste

in the cheapest way possible - through our bodies and through

our English rivers.  Are you angry about this?

If so, contact  and CAUSE A STINK!


WMAF is a Founding Member of the
Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation

Supporting Evidence:

WMAF supports 
Facebook: Friends of West Midlands Against Fluoride
(367 members as of 11th March 2015)



The UK Alliance Opposed to Water Fluoridation





“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.  In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident”
Arthur Schopenhauer (German Philosopher, 1788-1860)




"Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person" 

   Charles Eliot Perkins, a US Gov't scientist who spent 20 years studying fluoride.




There are other anti-fluoridation petitions on the Internet including Ireland Avaaz Community and USA Avaaz Community.   Also have a look at Fluoride Action Network's Professionals' Statement which, in February 2015, had 4693 signatures.  

August 2014:  A new petition has been started in West Cumbria.  Please go to the site if you would like to sign it.   LINK

Hull and East Yorkshire are threatened with water fluoridation.  
Please visit LINK to sign it.
FADS February 2014  Database now available: LINK


For bottled waters which do not contain fluoride:


This is a real live fluffy Birmingham (UK) siamese cat who, four years ago had lost most his hair and who had to wear a woolly jumper to keep himself warm.  He regained his health with the help of his mum, Jayne.  He now only drinks Malvern spring water and eats organic food. 




We would be pleased to hear from people who have been avoiding fluoride in their environment and who have, as a result, regained their health.  Please email with full details.

A questionnaire is available for those who want to let us know about their health problems due to having too much fluoride in their lives.  This can be sent via email as a Word document on request.

It could just be that you feel that fluoride has improved your health.  We would be equally as pleased to hear from you.

An additional action that you can take is to fill in an official yellow card which the MHRA will be delighted to read: 



Are you fluoridated?

Severn Trent's Water Quality Page: LINK . Add your postcode, scroll down the page which appears and click on the .pdf file. Minimum, Average (Mean) and Maximum levels for aluminium and fluoride are listed. Severn Trent has told us that they don't use aluminium sulphate during the water treatment process. If we are to believe them, then the aluminium is coming from somewhere else.

South Staffs Water Quality Page: LINK. This site is not transparent. You need to determine the water zone name which delivers your tap water.  Even then, it's not certain that you are reading the relevant report.  This is because it would be rather forfuitous if the boundary of a town or village fitted neatly into the area covered by a water zone.  Minimum, Average (Mean) and Maximum levels for aluminium and fluoride are listed in the report but there is a lag time of at least one year and sometimnes 16 months.  This is not a full report and there are other contaminants in your drinking water which South Staffs Water seems to be shy about revealing. Therefore, you are not likely to learn the concentration of metaldehyde (slug pellets) in your treated water supply.  


It's alright to 'cause a stink'.

Contact if you want to do something about
water fluoridation.