July 28


News Updates July 28 

July 24  This item seems strangely out of step with the PHE’s recent propa- sorry, report. A smile in the direction of Jack Straw, too.

Rates Of Decay Among Under 5’s Fall in East Lancashire

New figures have revealed that rates of tooth decay among under 5’s have fallen in six boroughs in East Lancashire. According to statistics from Public Health England, the number of children requiring hospital treatment for dental issues has also decreased.

Improvements are particularly welcomed in Blackburn with Darwen, which was once the worst borough in England in terms of oral health standards. Since 2007/2008, the proportion of under 5’s suffering from decay has fallen by 10 per cent to 41.1 per cent. Although there is still a long way to go, this marks a significant improvement. The number of children requiring extraction in hospital has also decreased from 466 to 438 in the 12 month period leading up to April 2013 in the borough.

MP for Blackburn, Jack Straw, has also reiterated his stance on the introduction of fluoridated water, suggesting that he is firmly against mass fluoridation in the UK.



July 21

Dublin City Councillor Anthony Connaghan puts down a motion to End Water Fluoridation in Dublin

Brief video interview – worth hearing how proponents of fluoridation repeatedly failed to turn up to meet the Councillor and then refused to answer questions.
Anthony also tells us how Fianna Fail recently passed the motion in their Ard Fheis (annual party conference) that they are AGAINST the FLUORIDATION of Irish Water.

Anthony’s motion which will be heard in September 2014 says:   That Dublin City Council calls on the government to repeal the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supply) Act 1960 and to make it AN OFFENCE for ANYONE to ADD FLUORIDE or ANY DERIVATIVES to the public water supply.



Prince George  continued. First, the response to class action:

City hopes to squelch fluoride lawsuit

City hall is seeking to have a class action lawsuit over fluoridation of Prince George’s water supply thrown out because the plaintiff is not a lawyer. According to a notice of application filed Thursday at the Prince George courthouse, only a person acting solely on his or her own behalf can pursue a legal action without representation under the Legal Professions Act. “Our courts recognize that few, if any, lay persons can adequately and capably represent the interests of a proposed class in a class proceeding,” the city’s lawyer, James Yardley goes on to say in the filing.

It also cites potential conflicts of interest between the representative of the proposed class and the rest of the class, as well as within the class, and a lack of liability coverage for any negligent conduct of the proceeding as reasons to dismiss the action.

 In March, Kevin Millership, a landscaper who lives in Slocan in the Kootenay region, filed a lawsuit alleging the city’s fluoridated water is the cause of a degenerative tooth disease. Millership maintains one in 10 people in Prince George has “objectionable” dental fluorosis, He also claims most dental plans do not cover the cost of treatment in addition to the psychological damage. He is seeking damages from the city on behalf of those who have the condition.

In a response filed in April, the city denies the allegations, saying Millership has not identified an applicable standard of care.  The city also argues those who have dental fluorosis have failed to get proper treatment, such as tooth bleaching, micro-abrasion or getting composite restorations or veneers, to mitigate against the effects.

 A referendum is already scheduled for Prince George this November. A hearing on the city’s application is set for Aug. 11 at the Prince George courthouse.



Then, more on the referendum:

Fluoride referendum question OK’d

The city is in a unique position when it comes to putting the fluoride question to a vote, according to the director of legislative services. During Monday night’s meeting, city council approved the wording of November’s referendum question regarding the continued addition of fluoride to the city’s drinking water. The question, as approved, will read: The city of Prince George currently fluoridates its water supply. Are you in favour of the city of Prince George fluoridating its water supply?

But the results of the vote are not binding on the next council, “The authority for the fluoridation,” said Walter Babicz, noting the Community Charter doesn’t allow for a binding referendum. ” arises from some independent provincial legislation relating to the fluoridation of the water supply.” This makes it different from other communities.”It is also too bad that all of this was already cooked up, so to speak, years ago,” said Coun Albert Koehler, who has been a vocal opponent of fluoride and voted against Monday night’s referendum question, calling it leading. “We can’t have a binding referendum because years ago as Mr. Babicz already mentioned, the fluoride was injected without the consent of the taxpayer.”



SHERIDAN — Clean Water Sheridan has hired an attorney and announced it will file for a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction against the city of Sheridan in order to halt the addition of fluoride to Sheridan’s water supply. The group, which became an official non-profit association Wednesday, is contending that a vote in the general election of 1953 that enacted a ballot resolution to end water fluoridation can only be overturned by a new vote of the people.

 According to a press release, Clean Water Sheridan further contends that City Council overstepped its bounds in 2010 by passing a resolution that negated the results of the binding vote of 1953.

. Clean Water Sheridan was established more than a year ago to fight the addition of fluoride to Sheridan’s water, operating a grassroots effort that included public education and gathering signatures on a petition against fluoridation. The group became an official non-profit association on Wednesday, just a week after hiring Cheyenne-based attorney Robert Moxley to represent its case.

Moxley specializes in civil rights litigation and cases involving government overreach, according to his website. Marty DaBell, a member of Clean Water Sheridan, said the group received an anonymous donation in June that provided the needed funds to hire legal counsel. “We knew it would likely come to the point where someone in power would have to make a decision,” DaBell said. DaBell said the group tried to find a local attorney but was unsuccessful. Moxley was recommended as an option. Alternative report here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/07/21/3757650/sheridan-group-seeks-to-block.html?sp=/99/215/167/#storylink=cpyn.

An interesting comment from Larry Lull · University of Idaho:

Mayor Kinskey avoided me for two years because I would ask him questions on who voted for the Fluoridation Program. His response was “the city counsel”. I ask how many people are in the City Counsel? Seven was his reply. I asked him what is the population of Sheridan? He walked away and said he was busy. That is the mentality of one whom would push for the addition of Rat Poison into its city’s drinking water. I have no doubt that he is invested in Fluoride Water Filters and is getting a kick back on the sales of this insidious chemical. Even without Fluoride added to our water it is not clean as one would suspect. There are six major chemicals added to our water supply. Do your own research. I filter my kitchen sink and shower water

 For three  examples of an unusually intelligent crop of general comments, see ‘resources’


· Saline County, Kansas, July 21

Salina is a city in and the county seat of Saline County, Kansas, United States. As of the 2010 census, the city population was 47,707.

Group presents petitions to place fluoridation on November ballot

Salina Cares, an organization of Salina citizens concerned about the health risks of fluoride in the public water supply, presented petitions containing 2,041 signatures to Salina City Clerk Shandi Wicks, Monday morning.

Salina Cares, an organization of Salina citizens concerned about the health risks of fluoride in the public water supply, presented petitions containing 2,041 signatures to Salina City Clerk Shandi Wicks, Monday morning.

The petition asks that city voters decide in the November general election if the city should continue to add fluoride to the public water supply. Currently, the city’s water has fluoride levels between 0.54 and 0.64 parts per million,  according to the city of Salina consumer confidence report.

According to Lou Tryon, president of Salina Cares, 988 valid signatures are required to force a vote on fluoridation. Representatives of Salina Cares were  expected to speak before the Salina City Commission at Monday’s 4 p.m. meeting.



Healdsburg…the debate continues

July 21

Healdsburg asks ‘Save Our Smiles’ to write pro-fluoridation ballot argument

Healdsburg Mayor Jim Wood is a dentist who is against a November ballot measure to remove fluoride from the city’s water.  Wood on Monday night convinced his fellow council members to have a group of health professionals instead write a defense of fluoride for voters to consider.

Healdsburg, the only city in Sonoma County to fluoridate its water, has been doing so since voters approved the practice in 1952. But a group of anti-fluoride activists gathered more than sufficient signatures to put the issue on the ballot to try to get voters to end fluoridation.

It’s part of an even larger struggle activists are waging to keep fluoride from being added to the Sonoma County Water Agency’s system, which is delivered to Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Windsor, Sonoma Valley and northern Marin.

Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh, a nutritionist and former Rohnert Park councilwoman who spearheaded the signature-gathering campaign for the Healdsburg measure, told the City Council “it’s not your fault it’s fluoridated. It got voted in by the people. It needs to be voted out by the people.”


 Valpariso continued

VALPARAISO — A recommendation on whether the city should continue to fluoridate its drinking water will come in two to three weeks.

The Valparaiso City Utilities Fluoride Commission will make a decision at its fifth meeting and formulate a report on it for the City Utilities Board. If it passes there, it will go on to the City Council for a vote.

On June 19, pro-fluoridation experts spoke before the commission, and on June 26, anti-fluoridation experts spoke.

The commission first began looking into fluoride in May. City Utilities Director Steve Poulos said the city chose the six members from among residents with a diversity of backgrounds, including Valparaiso University chemistry professor and water quality expert John Schoer and a nurse and mother, Jennifer Waldo.


 New Zealand

July 20

This is just what the fluoridationists want. Cannot anyone say that this is NOT a public health issue?. It is a human rights issue.

Council body ponders fluoridation

Local body representatives want the central government to take the reins when it comes to fluoridating water supplies.

At the annual Local Government NZ conference in Nelson yesterday delegates from councils around New Zealand voted in favour of Local Government NZ advocating central government on three key issues., including putting the decision making power on water fluoridation in the hands of the health ministry’s director general.

Kapiti Coast District mayor Ross Church put the fluoridation proposal in front of delegates and said leaving the decision to local authorities resulted in inconsistent polices and wasted money and resources as councils seesawed on fluoridating water supplies.  

“It’s not a decision for us for lots of reasons. We are not scientists and there is no local in fluoride – no body can tell me why it’s a local issue,” he said. “It’s a national health issue and so that’s why it should go to a national level.”

He said there was overwhelming support at the Local Government NZ’s annual general meeting for the issue to be handled by central government, but some authorities without fluoride in their water supplies were understandably worried about becoming involved in the issue and upsetting residents by having to introduce fluoride.


 July 22

The meaning of this article is the exact opposite of that  implied in the heading…

Fluoridation decision won’t affect local health experts

 Dentists are adamant local voices won’t be drilled out, if fluoridation decisions are moved away from councils.

It comes as Local Government New Zealand recommends moving that decision to a government level, saving council resources.

But Mary Byrne of the Fluoride Action Network vehemently defends any time or money spend on the conversation.

“Well we wouldn’t have this problem if they didn’t have fluoridation.”

Byrne says the decision would undermine the choice of individuals and communities.

“Why is it that we have to think that the Ministry of Health is always right when they were wrong for 50 years about how fluoride works.”

Meanwhile, the Dental Association’s thrown its support behind Local Government New Zealand’s recommendation.

It comes after a year of legal wrangling in Hamilton and South Taranaki, with those councils fighting anti-fluoride campaigners.

Dental Association spokesman Dr Rob Beaglehole says the campaigners have been wasting resources with what he calls pseudo-science.

He says fluoride’s a no-brainer and that locals will still have a say through the district health boards.

“There is this issue about local engagement and it would be important for local communities still to have a voice.”

Dr Beaglehole says at the moment, anti-fluoride campaigners waste council resources using flawed science.


Final contribution from New Zealand on the same topic, following a televised item with three politicians including a Green, none of whom questioned the efficacy or principles of fluoridation.

Fluoride Free NZ: Open letter to Labour’s David Shearer

25 July

Open Letter to David Shearer from Fluoride Free New Zealand 25th July 2014

Fluoride Free NZ is surprised to hear you refer to those of us who take an active concern of clean pure drinking water as parasites. We find your comments baseless and insulting to the majority of international scientists and world governments, who have rejected fluoridation as ineffective, unsafe, and unethical. It also seems a rather foolish thing to call a large number of NZ-ers in the lead up to a national election given half of the country is not fluoridated.

As you are not aware of all the facts you may not realise that many towns have ceased fluoridation. Since 1985 fluoridation has stopped in Timaru, Gore, Bluff, Tauranga, Matamata, Kaitaia, Ashburton, Taumarunui, New Plymouth, Waipukurau and Hamilton

(Hamilton have now restarted). Again we are surprised that you choose to insult the people in these towns and communities who oppose fluoridation.

You say that you have reviewed the latest information on fluoridation but you obviously haven’t. What you appear to have done is review the latest endorsements. This is far different than reviewing the evidence for yourself. The York Review did this and found no proof of benefit to the poor. The US National Research Council Review raised serious concerns about health safety. A meta-analysis published in the Lancet, the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal in 2012, found that fluoride reduced IQ in children.

Please explain what evidence you have reviewed that proves New Zealand children are not being exposed to the same dose. Please explain what evidence you have that the arthritis suffered by hundreds of thousands of older New Zealanders, as an accepted effect of fluoride by WHO, or the low thyroid function suffered by hundreds of thousands of others, is not the result of chronic exposure to low dose fluoride poisoning.

And what real evidence do you have that fluoridation actually works?

Official Information Act request regarding the effect of ending fluoridation in Ashburton, the evidence shows that dental health has continued to improve in Ashburton despite fluoridation ending in 2002 and not the increase the Ministry of Health (MOH) declared would happen. In fact there has been a steady improvement in dental health in all places that have stopped fluoridation in New Zealand.

In contrast fluoridation has been proven to increase the prevalence of dental fluorosis in areas that are fluoridated. NZ studies show fluoridated areas have twice as much dental fluorosis as non-fluoridated areas (30%

compared to 15% of children). Dental fluorosis is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning. Our children in fluoridated areas are receiving too much fluoride. It gets worse, no safety studies have ever been conducted on industrial fluoride chemicals added to water supplies anywhere in the world.

So David, you say that another review of fluoridation is not required and we agree – we need to end fluoridation immediately





Video links

Can Fluoride Cause Severe Depression?

A doctor specialising in allergies explains (5 minute video)


This letter was published in the Irish Medical Times. ( Maynooth is in  County Kildare)Kildare)

 by  Dr. Neville Wilson.


The recent rejection by the IMO AGM, of a motion, calling on the Department of Health to reverse it’s current policy of public water fluoridation, raises a critical question of medical ethics.

The health risks of fluoridated water in Ireland have been highlighted by a growing band of campaigners whose concerns are rooted in, and supported by, credible evidence from several countries, where the implementation of a fluoridation policy has been rejected on medical and ethical grounds.

Arguments for the benefit of fluoridation centre on perceptions of improved protection against dental decay, but ignore the reported findings of the WHO that show no discernible difference in the rates of dental decay between countries that add fluoride to drinking water, and those that do not.

Ireland continues to ignore the reasons why 98% of Europe refuses to support a policy of water fluoridation, and the recent support by the IMO AGM for the continued implementation of state imposed fluoridation should be a matter of ethical concern for all practicing physicians.

The Irish Expert Body (IEB) bases it’s current support for the policy of fluoridation on perceptions of safety at public water levels of 0.6 – 0.8 mg/L.

This perception fails to account for the fact that a lifelong ingestion of public fluoridated water, in addition to it’s ubiquitous presence in widely consumed commercial foods, like beverages, teas, ice-creams and soy products, may give rise to  levels that exceed optimum safety, and thereby raise the risk of toxic effects, involving skeletal structures, thyroid tissue, reproductive organs and neurological systems in adults and children.

The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry lists fluoride as among the top 20 of 275 substances that pose the most significant threat to human health, a statement that questions  our official  assertions about fluoride safety.

An earlier Harvard Study conceded the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children’s neurological development,  and a recent report in the Lancet (March 2014) lists Fluoride as a “reclassified developmental neurotoxin”.

The authors of this report state “our very great concern that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behavior, truncating future achievements and damaging society”.

The ethics of State sanctioned mass medication, and it’s support by the IMO, contradicts our acknowledged commitment to the ideal of practicing “preventative medicine”, and questions our declared support for the principle of “primum non nocene”.

Where is the physician who will impose a lifelong prescription for an untested potentially toxic substance, without proven clinical benefit, on a patient he/she has never met, interviewed or examined ?

Such dubious behavior would extract appropriate censure from the licensing authority of the physician involved, on the basis that it is unscientific, unscrupulous, unethical, and therefore unacceptable.

The European Court of Justice, in 2005, declared that no “medicinal product” defined as “any substance prescribed for treating or preventing disease in human beings”, may be given to consumers without appropriate risk assessments, taking into account the variations of fluoride sensitivity in high risk groups, such as infants, the elderly, those with diabetes, or people with thyroid or kidney disorders, or those with nutritional deficiencies.

The European Commissions Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER) has reported that the toxicity of hexafluorosilic acid used for water fluoridation in Ireland, and it’s hexafluorosilicate compounds, are unknown and incompletely investigated.

The continued mandatory policy of public water fluoridation is in breach of European law, and Councillors who are hoping for public support in the forthcoming elections should clarify their stand on this very important question of State supported mass medication with fluoride.

Dr. Neville Wilson.

The Leinster Clinic,





Comments from Sheridan, USA

1James Reeves · Top Commenter · Culver Military Academy

 Delivering medicine via the water supply is reckless,

           swallowing fluoride delivers risks without benefits,

          over 100 animal and 45+ human studies link fluoride to brain deficits,

          non-fluoridated and fluoridated countries have similar cavity rates,

          low-income families can achieve better dental health by safer means,

The US FDA says fluoride is an unapproved drug, and  fluoride-overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis (enamel damage) – is prevalent among America’s youth.

There are many studies done by research scientists which indicate the ineffectiveness to teeth and a variety of health dangers associated with water fluoridation. Many of them are presented at the site below.

For example, the National Institute of Dental Health published in the Journal of Dental Research, Volume 69, pages 723-727, in 1990 the largest and most comprehensive study ever on over 39,000 school children aged 5 -17 years. It cost $3.6 million and 39,000+ children were examined in 84 communities. The study showed no significant differences in cavities in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities. This study has never been refuted by the ADA.
The list is supported by over 40 scientific references. Take a look.


2 Dan Germouse ·

The following are some good sources of information on fluoride and artificial water fluoridation: the Fluoride Action Network, Declan Waugh’s work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.

The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the human… rights and medical ethics principle of informed consent to medical treatment, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative poison with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but harmful and useless in the 1940s and there still isn’t any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both harmful and useless, the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is immoral, illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and not worth the risk.

3 Gwendolyn Dennis ·

 Here is the “York Report”-the largest systematic, quantitative meta-analysis of water fluoridation ever conducted. Their conclusion? That water fluoridation is not proven effective by the standards of evidence-based medicine (i.e. the effect is not statistically significant). http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
Water fluoridation has never been tested in a randomized controlled trial. All water fluoridation trials have been NON-blinded. This is enormously problematic because cavity identification is highly subjective. Every single water fluoridation trial therefore has big problems with observation bias.

The science of water fluoridation efficacy SUCKS. It is not even close to being proven effective by the standards of evidence-based medicine.

 H. Trendley Dean was the father of fluoridation. Trendley Dean admitted under oath on a witness stand that his early data gave ZERO evidence that increasing fluoride concentration in the water supply reduced tooth decay. To paraphrase Dean’s findings, “As children’s teeth disintegrate, they may have fewer cavities”.

(H. Trendley Dean: Proceedings, City of Oroville vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Oroville, California, Oroville, California, October 20-21, 1955.)… also… (See 4-1: “Fluoridation Benefits – Statistical Illusion.” Testimony of Konstantin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar. 6, 1957).

Any potential “benefit” seen with fluoridated water was a statistical illusion. Fluoride just delays the eruption of children’s teeth giving the illusion it prevents tooth decay. In reality, it only delays them.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *