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.  

WMAF is a member of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA).  


and a Founding Member of the Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation


We support Facebook: Friends of West Midlands Against Fluoride




Archived News and Comment
Select NEWS from the left-hand-side of this home page 


To these threats, we now have to add County Durham, South Tyneside and Sunderland City (February 2018).  We'll also be keeping an eye on the situation in Bradford.



We're hosting the "Bees Need Dandelions" postcard this spring.  LINK

When you get there, please copy and paste the postcard and send it to your local authority or send it to your friendly printers and get lots printed            to hand out.

This website is all about a precious resource: water.   We'll be featuring the photography of Heidi Westum over the next few months by uploading her series of water droplets' photographs.

Credits: Heidi Westum (

                  Fluoride Analysis Database Service for Tap Water.

Results 2010 - 2017.  This includes analyses of Lincolnshire and Central Bedfordshire fluoridated water.  To view, click on Fluoride Analysis Database Service in the menu on the left-hand-side of this screen. 


Why is it alright to give a 3-year-old 0.25 mg fluoride in a tablet while a pregnant woman should not take these tablets but is urged to drink lots of water containing 1 mg fluoride/litre?  

Why are these tablets not to be used if the drinking water contains more than 0.3 mg fluoride/litre?  0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8 mg which is still less than the fluoride added to our drinking water.  

Why do the instructions urge us not exceed stated dose when every day of our lives we have to drink twice the amount of fluoride/litre than is found in each tablet?

If we drink 2 litres of fluoridated water a day, we ingest 4 times the dose of a tablet.

WHY?     WHY?      WHY?

It's alright to 'cause a stink'.


Contact if you want to do something about stopping water fluoridation.

28th March 2018:  Email Letter from Fluoride Action Network: the Neurotoxicity of Fluoride

We've copied the relevant part of the letter which relates to the neurotoxicity of fluoride.  This is an extremely important issue which should be taken on board by couples planning a family.  LINK


25th March 2018:  Water Fluoridation: A Complete Waste of Money.

We're pleased to say that our first research report has reached 882 reads.  Here is the url:  LINK .  It describes in detail how much of your money is wasted by WF programmes.


24th March 2018:  We're publishing a recent statement from Fluoride Action Network (LINK) which goes some way towards countering the ludicrous PHE 2018 Health Monitoring report.  And it's in plain easily-comprehensible English! 

It really is important for those who question WF (CWF in the USA) to continue to ask the questions: (1) where is the proof that swallowing fluoride is safe, and (2) if there is doubt, the Precautionary Principle ought to be observed.   

We've already reported that PHE has no robust evidence that swallowing fluoride is safe.  That organisation can try to confound us as much as it likes, but the pure truth lying hidden underneath all their obsfucation is that the monitoring report is designed in such a way as to blind us with pseudo science.  This is a vain attempt to hide the fact that PHE can't prove anything because they haven't done the Randomised Controlled Trial research.    


22nd March 2018:  Today is World Water Day  LINK


22nd March 2018:  Today is also the publication day of the 2nd Public Health England's Gobbledegook Fluoride Health Monitoring Report.   Is it an accident that this report has been published on World Water Day? It's probably an accident because it is unlikely that PHE would want to draw attention to the fact that fluoridated water is polluted water (which, let’s face it, it is).

The definition of Gobbledegook is: “language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports”.   I don’t believe that the PHE report would pass the Plain English test.

Because of its tortuous nature, it's going to be some time before the report can be dissected and a critique prepared.  There is an Executive Report which is a little easier to understand BUT overall, the report is weak because of the aspects of WF which are omitted from it.                                                                                                              LINK


21st March 2018:  Public Health England (PHE) does NOT have any research proving that swallowed fluoride is safe!  To see the correspondence, follow the LINK.   We're told that swallowed fluoride is "safe and effective".  There are no Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) research anywhere which confirms this.  If there was any research, surely PHE would have it in their departmental library?  Well, they don't and since they haven't been able to provide us with references or abstracts of this research, then this research doesn't exist.

                                   No research = no proof of safety


Letters sent by the York Review Team to the Department of Health 2000-2003 and which were ignored:  LINK  The last page includes an extract from the Cochrane Fluoridation Review (2015).


Here is a really good article on fluoride and fluoridation from  LINK 

12th March 2018Dated advice links breastfeeding to tooth decay

by Jackie Sinnerton, The Courier-Mail, Australia

NEW mums are being bombarded with ill-advised warnings that babies who fall asleep on the breast while feeding end up with tooth decay.

An Australian breastfeeding expert says some health practitioners are scaring new mums with dated information that breast milk can cause decay, and some are warning to brush the tiny tots’ gums.

Research from the 1970s suggested breast milk pools in the child’s mouth and rots the teeth, similar to a child being left to suck on a bottle. But evidence-based research has since debunked that theory.

“Sadly, I hear all the time about anxious mums thinking they should give up breastfeeding as they don’t want to harm the child. It is very concerning that some medics cite old studies and don’t keep up with research,” national breastfeeding expert Pinky McKay told The Courier-Mail.

“Sucking on a bottle and sucking on the breast are completely different. In bottle feeding, the milk is released into the front of the mouth and sits around the teeth, but in breastfeeding, the nipple is drawn far back into the mouth and the milk is released into the throat,” she said.

The Australian Breastfeeding Association confirms that this is a common misconception.

“Research strongly opposes the notion that breastfeeding has anything to do with tooth decay. This evidence includes population studies that have shown no relationship between breastfeeding and tooth decay in large groups of young children.”

The association wants mothers to know that research suggests breastfeeding may actually protect against tooth decay, while formula may play a role in its development. Antibodies in breast milk help to impede bacterial growth.

Mother-of-four Brianna Fear-Keen is breastfeeding her 10-week-old twins. The dietitian says she reads all the recent research and is a strong advocate for the benefits of breastfeeding.

“There is so much misinformation thrown around when it comes to new mums. They are struggling enough at times and don’t need to feel unnecessarily worried that they are doing harm,” the Gold Coast mother said.

:  we’re sure that most new mums in the UK are told that breast-feeding is best for a newborn and that no-one would ever hint that a 6-month-old’s teeth are damaged by breast milk.  But this news story has brought to light an interesting item which needs to be investigated:  does baby formula cause dental decay if it is given after the first tooth has erupted?  And, if the fluoride in the baby formula delays, but not always, the growth of primary teeth, perhaps the baby could never develop dental decay if formula-fed because there are no erupted teeth by the time it stops formula-feeding.  For those babies who do develop their first tooth at age 6 months, apologists for water fluoridation may try to claim that it’s the fluoride in the baby formula which actually prevents dental decay.  Lots of imponderables there ….


If you suffer from migraine, have you tried avoiding fluoridated water and ordinary every-day tea processed from Camellia sinensis leaves which contain quite a lot of natural fluoride?

The above PowerPoint slide appears in a longer Australian presentation which can be sourced at LINK      Most of Australia is fluoridated.

Dental fluorosis is damage to the  enamel of permanent teeth which have to last a lifetime.  The York Review (2000) found a prevalence in the UK of 48% when the water is dosed with 1mg fluoride/litre water.


Video on Dental Fluorosis in the USA: LINK


26th February 2018:   ... just a reminder of what is in your tap water:

BSEN12175:2013 lists the "chemical parameters" present in the fluoridating acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) which is used to artificially fluoridate your drinking water as:

Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Nickel. 

The "impurities" are:

Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) and Phosphate at 1.5% and 0.75% respectively. 

HF is a reportable poison (UK Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4.)

A few of the parameters are carcinogenic.  How can any Government justify the deliberate addition of carcinogens to drinking water?

British Standards are restricted by copyright law and cannot be reproduced here.  However, the information itself is not copyright.  In order to read the British Standard one has to pay over £100 for a copy.  The information is not in the public domain.   Basically you need to know the information exists before you can try to find it.  But you cannot find it because it's behind a 'pay-wall'.  However, unless we can copy the relevant pages, who is going to believe that the fluoridating acid contains cancer-causing substances?  More to the point, those who promote Water Fluoridation are highly likely to ignore information which isn't widely available but when it is made available, cannot appear in its published format and is therefore not as believable as information in its published format.  

Although water companies have to analyse and publish the concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogens in their treated water at the kitchen tap (the point of compliance), they do not have to publish the concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogens in raw water.  So we have no way of knowing the percentage of cancer-causing substances which are added during the fluoride dosing process after the water has done through normal treatment. 

This means that we, their paying customers, cannot discover how much additional poison is added to our drinking water when it is dosed with hexafluorosilicic acid at 6.3 mg of the acid/litre water.  That's right: in order to give us the 'benefit' of 1 mg fluoride/litre water we have to drink 6.3 mg of the fluoridating acid/litre water!  

Water companies like to boast that they are giving us 'pure' water.  It certainly has to be potable.  Does treated water pass the potability test after it has been dosed with Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Hydrofluoric Acid?

15th February 2018:  Iranian Thyroid Study supports Kent University Research

This Iranian report which is published in Nature, states "Application of standard household purification devices was recommended for hypothyroidism." LINK

In their conclusions, the Iranian researchers report that:

"The major findings of this study is that TSH values are higher with a higher fluoride concentration in the drinking water, even for generally low fluoride concentrations ...... cases tend to have higher TSH values (greater impairment of thyroid function) with higher [fluoride] concentrations in the water.  Controls, with normal thyroid function, also have higher TSH values with higher fluoride concentrations, even though their TSH values are still within the normal range.  TSH values are higher (in both cases and controls) with higher levels of water consumption.  This is consistent with an association between increased fluoride intake (due to increased water consumption) and increased TSH.  It was found that fluoride impacts human thyroid hormones, especially TSH and T3 even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L.

Even after the addition of iodine to salt by the integrated program in Iran more than 27 years ago, this study showed that the problem remains unsolved.  The results showed that those who consume larger amounts of water per day have an adjusted Odds Ratio of 4.1 (1.2 - 14).  Hence the application of standard household water purification (such as reversed osmosis, electrodialysis, activated carbon filter, and other adsorption/ion-exchange methods) is recommended for patients with hypothyroidism since they have a higher consumption of drinking water.  The purification system can help remove fluoride that interferes with thyroid function."

In Iran, the fluoride in drinking water is calcium fluoride which occurs naturally.  An artificial fluoride acid is deliberately added to our drinking water in England at a concentration of 6.3 mg which contains 1 mg fluoride. The fluoridating acid contains heavy metals and hydrofluoric acid so if we are to believe this Iranian research, the prevalence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated England is greater.

The Iranian research is the sort of research which The Department of Health and Public Health England should have sponsored as soon as the Kent University research hit the decks.  We know that the DH and PHE know about the Kent University research: we've told them enough times already, but there is stunned silence on the subject.  Scandalous or what?

Kent University research LINK


9th February 2018:  Honolulu Water Board Rebuffs Attempts to Legalise Water Fluoridation.    LINK

Meanwhile in the UK:

1968:  Medicines Act (UK).  Any substance or product which is intended for the prevention of a disease is a medicine.

1983:  Judge Lord Jauncy ruled that fluoridation was unlawful (Mrs C. McColl v. Strathclyde Regional Council) at the Edinburgh Court of Session, after the longest running case in the history of Scotland, (201 days).  His judgement which also stated that fluoride in any form provided by Strathclyde Regional Council was a medicine, had no jurisdiction in England but Thatcher's government got nervous.

1985:  Water Fluoridation became legal after a disgraceful vote in the House of Commons where 399 MPs abstained from voting for or against the Water (Fluoridation) Bill 1985.  Some MPs who were against water fluoridation abstained and we have to ask searching questions why this was the case.  The Bill entered into law because 165 MPs voted in favour of WF and 82 voted against.

It's strange that the UK Water Industries Act 1991 (as amended) doesn't stipulate a similar prohibition as the Revised Ordinance of Honolulu.  Last time I looked, we were all homo sapiens and all of us are going to be adversely affected by poisons.

The irony of this situation is that in the UK, “water companies are permitted (ordered) to add carcinogens and heavy metals to our drinking water but they cannot add beneficial minerals such as magnesium”.

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 via our English rivers.  Are you angry about this?

If so, contact and CAUSE A STINK!  


4th February 2018:  Today has been a good day

Despite having to deal with the intransigence of proponents of WF, some days thought-provoking information flies into our in-box.  Two particularly interesting pieces of information were received today.

Declan Waugh's letter to the Irish Examiner on 3rd February.  Irish beer contains quite a lot of fluoride since fluoridated water is used to brew beer.  Co-exposure to alcohol and fluoride results in higher risk of liver damage.  It gets worse but I'll let Declan explain the situation in his own words.  LINK

Dr Geoff Pain in Australia is a prolific researcher with papers relating to the Chemistry and Bio-chemistry aspects of WF.  His most recent offering is a short report on the dangers of drinking green tea.  Despite the much touted benefits of green tea drinking in the media in the past few years, the leaves also contain non-health-giving chemicals, including fluoride.  The report can be accessed via Researchgate.  Green Tea and its Fluoride Content, a Major Health Hazard.

1st February 2018:  The Surreal Chicksands Meeting  Editorial   LINK
PHE's attempt to fluoridate 15,000 peopoe who were last fluoridated in 1996.

This page has been getting very long, so our new policy is to archive items from previous months.  Go to the side bar on the left-hand-side of this page and select the appropriate sub-page for NEWS 2018, etc.