Click here to edit subtitle


view:  full / summary


Posted by ruth.bednar on October 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM Comments comments (0)

Education NOT Fluoridation! World-Renowned Scientist from India to Speak in Ontario on Harmful Effects of Artificial Water Fluoridation


Canada NewsWire


MISSISSAUGA, ON, Oct. 11, 2016


Fluoride Expert Dr. A.K. Susheela (India) Coming to Peel Region/Oakville


MISSISSAUGA, ON, Oct. 11, 2016 /CNW/ - World-Renowned scientist Dr. A.K. Susheela, PhD, F.A.Sc, F.A.M.S., will be speaking in Oakville, Ontario on Wednesday, October 12, 2016 on the "Harmful Effects of Fluoride on Human Health".


Based in New Delhi, India, Dr. Susheela is a global leader in Fluoride Toxicity and Fluorosis research, having studied the adverse effects of ingested Fluoride for over three decades. Dr. Susheela speaks regularly to global audiences on the adverse effects of fluoridation, including the UK Parliament in 1998.


Dr. Susheela is the executive director, of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in India, Professor of Anatomy (Histocytochemistry) and Chief of the Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.


Dr. Susheela is a member of the faculty of the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. She is also a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences in India and a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. She has been awarded the Ranbaxy Research Foundation prize for her outstanding contributions in the field of fluorosis research and is elected Ashoka Fellow for her lifetime achievements in mitigation of fluorosis.


"I am absolutely certain that large numbers of persons all around the world are suffering from fluoride toxicity, to one degree or other,'' said Dr Susheela.


"The evidences we have provided on the harmful effects of fluoride on human health, unequivocally prove the point that fluoride is disease-causing and not disease preventing. Our scientific publications would not only stand the test of time but also before any judiciary in any part of the world, as it is based on biomedical research of highest standards,'' says Dr Susheela.


Dr. Susheela's visit and presentation in Peel Region/Oakville is well-timed, as the Community Water Fluoridation Committee continues to debate whether to end artificial water fluoridation in Peel's drinking water, and amid an increasingly fractious debate across the country on whether municipalities ought to continue to fluoridate municipal drinking water, given the harmful long-term health effects of artificial water fluoridation.


In regard to claims by Ontario's health authorities that water fluoridation strengthens teeth surfaces and prevents dental caries (cavities), Dr Susheela's research indicates the opposite.


"The findings emerging from the studies on both tooth and bone have made significant contributions to negate the belief that fluoride is good for teeth. Instead, fluoride does more damage to teeth than any good, " says Dr. Susheela.


Dr. Susheela's presentation takes place on Wednesday, October 12, 2016 from 7:30-9:30 pm at Le Dome, 1173 North Service Road E, Oakville, ON.


The event is sponsored by Concerned Residents of Peel to End Artificial Water Fluoridation.


Dr. A.K. Susheela Interview on the dangers of Fluoride


For most comprehensive information, please visit: and


SOURCE MISTMA Consulting Inc.




Posted by ruth.bednar on September 17, 2016 at 4:10 PM Comments comments (0)

Re: Decision of Councillor Terry Ledger's Proposed Resolution

Dear Dr. Gardner, Medical Officer of Health:

My husband and I, along with many of Muskoka safe drinking water advocates, attended the Muskoka Lakes Council Meeting on Friday, September 16th  2016, in hopes that the Council Members would have done their due diligence regarding the excellent proposed Resolution from Councillor Terry Ledger.

We are not at all surprised by the outcome of this meeting, because the Councill members and the public were not given all the facts on the chemical used to fluoridate the drinking water, therefore, how can Councillors make an informed decision on whether to support or oppose the resolution in question.

The good news is, September 16th 2016, marks the day that Councillor Terry Ledger is on record for having done her due diligence. Also, the Council is on notice for having received the proposed resolution highlighting the seriousness and the legal ramifications for all decision makers who decide to continue the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

On behalf of the concerned citizens, Councillor Ledger is to be highly commended for her efforts.  As well, Councillors Ruth Nishikawa and Donelda Kruckel are to be congratulated for their support of the proposed Resolution.

Dr. Gardner, you and Dr. Luks will also be on record with the information you both provided in light of emerging scientific studies showing harm, as well as the current status regarding many communities who are ending the practice for the very reasons that are highlighted in the proposed Resolution from Councillor Ledger which cannot be ignored.

Following the meeting my husband and I spoke with you briefly and mentioned the pending lawsuit in Peel Region regarding the practice of Artificial Water Fluoridation represented by lawyer, Nader Hasan.

The lawsuit states that the Fluoridation Act violates S.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002,S.O.2002,c.32; the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985,c.F-27; and a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Peel was negligent in its failure to ensure the safety of municipal drinking water.

Just a reminder, under the new regulation in the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, Section 19, which now includes a broader statutory of care for individuals who have oversight responsibilities for municipal drinking water systems that extend to our municipal Councillors.

Dr. Gardner, during Friday’s Council meeting, the Councillors relied on you as their Medical Officer of Health to provide solid evidence on the safety and efficacy of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a known neurotoxin, which is what is used to fluoridate the municipal drinking water systems.

As you know, Councillor Ledger raised many concerns regarding the fluoridation of water in her proposed resolution ending with a clear understanding that ultimately, it will be the decision makers which includes Councillors who will be held liable.  Excerpt from revised Resolution from September 16th Agenda:  (page 11-13) 

AND WHEREAS, elected municipal officials are PERSONALLY liable for the drinking water in their municipalities

I will send you a follow up letter with some key questions that I hope you will be able to answer as we, the concerned residents continue to bring the much needed awareness to the residents of Muskoka District regarding the many adverse health effects caused by the continuation of this unsafe, ineffective and illegal practice.

Dr. Gardner, as the community continues to fluoridate, we the residents, will continue to educate.

Thank you for your time.


Ruth Bednar R.H.N., R.N.C.P., R.O.H.P,

and Richard Bednar




Posted by ruth.bednar on June 22, 2016 at 9:50 PM Comments comments (0)


Buffalo's City Council announced at their Tuesday meeting that there will be no fluoride added to Buffalo's municipal water at least for the foreseeable future.


After months of discussions, public hearings where citizens and public health officials debated the issue and after the city council themselves considered the possibility, they have unanimously decided to leave the system alone, but are wanting to pursue other areas to help with the county's oral health issues, which are significant according to local dentists and the county's health officer, Dr. Brian Schueler, who was behind this latest push to get more fluoride added to the city's water to improve the oral health of the children in the county.


Buffalo Mayor Mike Johnson made the announcement during Tuesday's regular meeting, and explained why the council chose not to fluoridate the water.


Sheridan resident John Fafoutakis, who has spoken out against fluoridating Buffalo's water at numerous recent meetings, thanked the council for “turning down that hideous fluoride business,” and thanked them for their “exceptional courtesy.”


Posted by ruth.bednar on June 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM Comments comments (0)


After reading Dr. Charles Gardener’s letter in the Gravenhurst Banner May 12th re: “We can all minimize exposure to lead”, he failed to mention studies such as Maas, Patch, Christian and Coplan in the journal Neurotoxicology which shows that children with elevated blood lead is about double that in communities that add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water.


These studies explain how undissociated silicon fluoride complexes enhance the uptake of the lead ion (from any source) across the gut wall. This new evidence of increased leachability of lead from brass fittings may offer an additional explanation of their findings for this apparent association between the use of the silicon fluorides in fluoridation programs and children’s increased blood lead levels.


Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Muskoka Lakes (Bala, Port Carling), and Georgian Bay Township (McTier), have decided to continue Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) using these silicon fluorides also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid.


Residents should be informed and aware of the fluoridation chemicals added to their drinking water especially since these chemicals have nothing to do with water purity. Don’t we have the right to refuse toxic drugs added to our clean water supply?


There is now far more exposure to fluoride than when CWF was initiated 60 years ago. Fluoride is found in dental care products, pesticides, food fumigants, drugs, processed foods and drinks. This overexposure has resulted in an increase of 40% in dental fluorosis in children, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely ‘‘cosmetic’’ but a ‘‘canary in the mine’’ foretelling other adverse health and behavioral effects.


Fortunately Huntsville and Lake of Bays decided to end CWF. And in Canada less than 30% of the population receive fluoridation chemicals in their community drinking water. Other neighboring towns, Parry Sound, in March 2016, ended CWF, Barrie and Orillia citizens have spoken up and never allowed fluoridation chemicals to be added to their clean water supply.


This should be a lead nail in the fluoridation coffin. And, in a rational world that paid attention to honest science, Community Water Fluoridation, much like leaded gasoline and leaded paints, should have ended.





Posted by ruth.bednar on April 15, 2016 at 8:55 AM Comments comments (0)

NZ Research Proves Fluoridation Not Needed


Thursday, 14 April 2016, 5:17 pm

Press Release: Fluoride Free New Zealand

NZ Research Proves Fluoridation Not Needed


A New Zealand study published in Bio Medical Central Oral Health last month shows dental health improved the greatest extent for children in non-fluoridated areas. There is now no difference in dental decay rates between non-Maori children who live in fluoridated areas and non-Maori children who live in non-fluoridated areas, proving that fluoridation is not needed for children to obtain good dental health. There has been an improvement in child dental health over the past ten years right across New Zealand.


Maori children living in all areas had poorer dental health than non-Maori children (both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas). This research shows that fluoridation has not closed the health disparity gap. If health authorities are serious about helping Maori children achieve the same outcomes as non-Maori, they need to look at what is different about the two groups, rather than clinging to a public health policy that they themselves have proved is not the answer.


The study showed Maori children are getting much less dental care in New Zealand. There was a big difference in how often examination rates carried out by the publicly funded, free for everyone, Child Oral Health Service between Maori and non-Maori children. Around 80% of non-Maori children underwent an examination, compared to only 60% of Maori children. Therefore, a programme focused on ensuring all children are seen by a dental health nurse every year should be key to improving the dental health outcomes and closing the health care gap between Maori and non-Maori children.


The study also found that between 2007 and 2014, pre-school enrolments in the Child Oral Health Service rose 73%. This adds more weight to the thought that receiving early childhood dental health care is vital if we want to improve dental health outcomes.


Authors of the study should now be analysing which Maori children received a dental examination. That is perhaps the reason Maori children in non-fluoridated areas have more dental decay. Non-fluoridated areas are generally the smaller towns and rural areas, with less access to services.


Some Health organisations’ dogmatic adherence and promotion of fluoridation is hampering proven successful programmes by diverting money into fluoridation programmes that not only do no good, they put people’s health at risk, potentially causing millions of dollars to be spent on other health problems.


According to the Ministry of Health, 40% of New Zealand children have some form of dental fluorosis. This permanent damage is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning. Now with this latest research proving that fluoridation is not needed, it is obviously unjustifiable to continue fluoridation. Instead, we need to take serious, immediate action to reduce fluoride exposure, as Auckland council has just done last week. The easiest way to do this is to stop fluoridation immediately completely, across New Zealand.


Claims by the Minister of Health and Dr Beaglehole, spokesperson on fluoridation for the New Zealand Dental Association are completely out of step with the facts and these people should be held to account for misleading the New Zealand public with false claims.


Note: Caries free means no dental decay. dmft = decay, missing or filled teeth.




Posted by ruth.bednar on February 11, 2016 at 2:00 AM Comments comments (0)


New York, N.Y.

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month, making it a great time to look at how families around the country are caring for their children’s teeth. Most parents believe they are doing the right thing by opting for popular brands of toothpaste and colorful products that will catch their child’s attention. Yet what these people are not usually aware of are all the hidden dangers in the mass-marketed products because of the ingredients they are made of.


“Many of the products that parents are buying for their children to use are made with ingredients that they really shouldn’t have,” explains Dr. Bruno Sharp, a fourth-generation dentist who created a line of products called Dr. Sharp Dentistry, and is celebrating their 10th year as a Natural Oral Care provider. “Ideally, you want to use a natural product, so you avoid the ingredients that can be harmful to your child’s health.”


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 17 percent of children between the ages of 5-19 have untreated dental caries. Furthermore according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HSS) 41 percent of American children have some form of dental fluorosis, a white or brown mottling of the teeth caused by long term ingestion of fluoride during the time the teeth are forming. In addition, the FDA’s warnings on toothpaste read: “keep out of the reach of children less than 6 years of age. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact poison control center immediately.”


When it comes to avoiding ingredients that can be harmful to a child’s health, fluoride tops the list. Although many people have been led to believe that it’s a good thing, it is actually highly controversial and has been linked to such issues as hypothyroidism, among other adverse affects. Additionally, it’s a good idea to avoid products that contain artificial colors and flavors, and products that come in bottles and tubes that may contain BPA.


Additional harmful ingredients parents should read the label for to avoid include parabens, alcohol, triclosan, DEA, gluten, sodium lauryl sulfate, and products that contain GMOs. It’s also a good idea for parents to look for those products that are cruelty free, so they don’t contain animal products or involve animal testing.


“You want your child to have great oral hygiene habits, but that starts with the quality of the products that they are using each day. When you opt for safe ones, then your routine is off to a great start,” added Dr. Sharp.


Dr. Sharp is also taking National Children’s Dental Health Month to donate 1,000 tubes of their Wild Berry Kids toothpaste to Operation Smile, a Virginia-based global medical non-profit that provides free cleft lip and clef palate surgeries to children around the world. The products will be shipped just in time for Operation Smile’s dental missions in the Philippines and Vietnam, beginning in April.


“Following surgery to heal their lips, we love to be able to help children get their best start with oral hygiene care,” says J. Lindsay Tomberg, Director of Global Philanthropy for Operation Smile. “We are grateful for the donation of these natural products that will help many children create good life-long habits in caring for their teeth.”


Dr. Sharp created a line of oral hygiene products to give people a healthier alternative. His product line includes children’s toothpaste, adult toothpaste, fresh mint mouthwash, and dental tape. All products are safe to use, made in the USA, and are gluten free, have no artificial colors or flavors, are vegan, non-GMO, alcohol free, fluoride free, and cruelty free. Plus, they help whiten teeth and have xylitol, which is a natural sweetener that also helps to fight off cavities. The products are safe for the entire family. The products will be showcased at the Natural Products Expo West in March 2016, in the “hot products” section. To learn more about Dr. Sharp Natural Oral Care products or see where they can be purchased, visit the site at:


Posted by ruth.bednar on January 29, 2016 at 2:05 AM Comments comments (0)


By: Roger Belgrave, The Mississauga News, Mississauga, Ontario 28-Jan-2016 –

Peel Regional councillors have agreed to take a deeper look at merits and possible health risks associated with fluoridation of municipal drinking water and conduct broader public consultation on the longstanding practice.

During a regular meeting Thursday, councillors passed a motion to have a committee carry out a broad review of the issue and seek wide public opinion on whether the region should continue water fluoridation.

Councillors heard from experts on both sides of the debate during a special Jan. 21 closed-door meeting organized as an education session for the politicians.

In April 2011, the debate on local water fluoridation was closed when council unanimously voted to continue the practice Peel has been conducting for more than 40 years.

Council heard from a number of health officials, including Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, before concluding water fluoridation is a valuable public health tool in fighting poor oral health and other ailments that can stem from oral illnesses.

A vocal and persistent segment of the community argues exposure to the chemical on such a grand and widespread scale is actually harmful to public health.

Last year, council agreed to form a subcommittee to help educate newly elected councillors on the issue.

After last week’s education session, there came rumblings about growing political support for doing away with water fluoridation in Peel.

“I don’t think that’s doing our due diligence,” remarked Mississauga councillor Jim Tovey, who suggested Thursday that a decision of this magnitude cannot be made after an 80-minute education session and without broad public consultation.

Many other councillors who supported tasking a committee to conduct further review and consultation echoed his position.

Despite the issue being closed years ago, there appears to be some difference of opinion on the current council.

Last Monday, a joint letter signed by the mayors of Brampton, Mississauga and Caledon expressed support for the continued use of fluoride in municipal drinking water as a protective health measure.

Mississauga councillor Carolyn Parrish said she disapproved of Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie issuing that public position without consulting the rest of council.

“It really puts us all in an awkward position, particularly those who don’t agree,” Parrish said.

Brampton councillor John Sprovieri, who has been a vocal opponent of fluoridation, questions why municipalities are responsible for water fluoridation instead of the provincial government.

According to Region staff, the municipality spends about $450,000 annually to add fluoride to the drinking water. Last year, Peel bought about 460,000 kilograms of fluoride, staff told council.


Posted by ruth.bednar on January 27, 2016 at 5:55 PM Comments comments (0)

By: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 27-Jan-2016 –

The town (Parry Sound) is done adding fluoride to municipal water – almost.

Last night town council rescinded an earlier resolution approving fluoridation upgrades to the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant; the upgrades were necessary to continue fluoridating the municipal water supply.

The upgrade would have cost taxpayers $250,000.

Once again, the council chambers were packed with supporters and members of Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management – the group that has urged the town to drop fluoride treatment.

The motion was brought back by Coun. Paul Borneman, as he was on the prevailing side of the original vote to make the upgrades necessary in order to keep adding fluoride to the water supply.

In a recorded vote, all of council voted in favour of the resolution, except Coun. Bonnie Keith.

If approved by formal bylaw next month, the change must be posted for 21 days for public comment before coming into effect.

See the January 29 edition Beacon Star or for the full story.

United Voice Comes Together Against Water Fluoridation

Posted by ruth.bednar on December 18, 2015 at 1:50 AM Comments comments (0)


Parry Sound North Star

(Editor’s note: this letter was sent to Parry Sound council and a copy provided to the North Star for publication)

Dear Mayor and Council,

As primary healthcare providers, business owners and parents, we are concerned about the ongoing fluoridation of the town’s water supply. Whether we are all consuming town water or not, the continued practice of adulterating drinking water with a known toxic substance, described as a drug in most other countries, must be halted. The negative effects on health are being revealed consistently. The old adage of “if in doubt, leave it out” must be applied in this case of old science propagating an old practice which has been proven to be less efficacious than first touted and much less safe than first advertised.

Industries stuck with fluoride-containing compounds as industrial waste originally promoted fluoride as a means of reducing tooth decay. The quality of fluoride sources being used today are a significant cause of concern. As with any pharmaceutical compounding or manufacturing, the quality, as in proven potency and purity (free of impurities and additional toxic compounds), of a substance given as a medicine to a patient must be of USP, NF or BP grade. I would be curious to learn what certificate of analysis accompanies the supply of fluoride purchased by our Water Treatment Division. Interestingly, oral doses of Sodium Fluoride U.S.P. were prescribed by physicians in the late 1940’s to help tone down an over active thyroid in their patients. Fluoride essentially poisoned the gland and reduced thyroid output. As of July, 2015, the official definition of a drug, or Active Ingredient, as Health Canada calls it, is this; “An Active Ingredient is any component that has medicinal properties, and supplies pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body of a human or an animal.” Yet in numerous court cases seeking to have a Federal ruling, as it should be, on this dangerous fluoridation program, the government holds to an older definition that maintains that fluoride is a nutrient and therefore not governed by the laws involving drugs. Confusion at the highest levels? This issue will be taken up with the new Federal Minister of Health in the new year.


For those not clear on what we are discussing, fluoridation involves the addition of Fluoride, a halogen and one of the most reactive substances on the Periodical Table of Elements, at the rate of 0.7-1.0 parts per million (PPM) to our municipal water supply. Early studies involving purified, pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride applied topically showed that the substance helped create somewhat stronger tooth enamel and more recent studies have demonstrated that fluoride in saliva also seems to affect how well bacteria can cling to teeth. Most dentists will agree that topical application of fluoride is the most effective use of the drug to help prevent tooth decay from acids produced when bacteria digest sugars and starches stuck to our teeth. Fluoride is actually more toxic than lead (Pb), and only slightly less toxic than Arsenic (As) and even Procter and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge this toxicity. Fluoride accumulates in both soft tissues and in bones.

There are many well designed studies that show many negative and very worrying ill effects from ingesting even small amounts of this drug, including a drop in IQ. Fluoride has been defined as a mutagen, which means it changes genetic material and it passes into the fetus through a mother’s blood supply. This alone has alarmed many health officials and most developed nations have never started or have long ago ended fluoridation programs.

There are too many questions, numerous international concerns and unclear studies showing any significant benefit as far as preventing cavities. I would challenge any healthcare provider, policy maker or consumer to come up with a sensible argument that adequately explains why we would continue to systemically dose an entire population with a known toxic substance which has not been shown to be absolutely safe and which studies show is not effective for its intended purpose when ingested wholesale. It is proven to accumulate in the human body, with probably the same accumulation occurring in wildlife and aquatic species as well. We flush a lot more of this stuff down the drain than we ever consume and yet we see diseases directly linked to fluoride in our population. What about the eco-toxic effects?

Another point to be made is in regards to the dose. As with any drug, adequate control over the dosage that any patient ingests is paramount for safety and efficacy. Fluoridation of drinking water does not allow any control of the dose of fluoride anyone receives.


Variables, including daily water intake, body weight and ability to eliminate the drug through the kidneys or the liver, leave a significant level of uncertainty surrounding overall intake of fluoride.

This greatly impacts safety and heightens risks to those with diseases that affect elimination pathways such as diabetics and those with organ transplants, not to mention children and seniors whose functions are undeveloped or compromised and people with poor nutrition.

The reduction in overall number of dental caries/cavities can be more accurately linked to the advent of fluoride in toothpastes, mouthwashes and dental applications initiated in 1970. Comparisons involving cavity counts in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities have shown almost zero difference around the world.

Fluoride is found in anything made with municipal water supplies that are fluoridated which means our foods, drinks and even instant coffee contains the drug. That includes Coke and our local micro-brewery products, unless they go to the effort of removing this substance. With this accumulated effect, there should be concerns for all ages.

While no one is going to die from drinking one glass of fluoridated water, just as no one will die from smoking one cigarette, it is the longer-term chronic effects of glass after glass of fluoridated water that will take its toll on human health. Stopping the fluoridation program will have no immediate negative effect whatsoever on tooth decay rates in our town. I understand that the Town has already spent money to have an assessment done on how to upgrade the corroded fluoride dosing system that we currently operate. A malfunction could dose the town water with a potentially toxic amount of fluoride.

Spending a huge sum of taxpayers’ money on a new system that might get pulled in the near future would be unfortunate. The money would be better spent on a fluoride application program local pharmacists and dentists could provide to those who really need it. In an effort to save throwing more good money after bad, we urge you to consider seriously the liabilities involved in continuing a program that, as dominos fall, is being dropped by municipality after municipality across North America. Be on the winning side of this local, national and international debate and please cease any further fluoridation of our water supply.


Kris Phillips B.S.P., R.Ph.

President/Chief Compounding Pharmacist/GMP QA Consultant

OmniVet Pharma Inc.

Hani Jaber – B.Sc.Pharm.

Gordon Lane – B.Sc.Pharm

Lewis Lau, B.Sc.Pharm

Mulin Yang, B.Sc.Pharm

Howard Oldham LLB

Bonnie Oldham, LLB

Bigi (Becky) He, Pharmacist, Shopper’s Drug Mart Parry Sound franchise owner

Gord Cole, Hon BSC, Aqua Cage Fisheries, owner

John Myers BSc, MSc, high school teacher

Fritz Distler, Distler Construction, owner

Sherry Keown, Ryman Titles, owner

Ann L. Moore, BsC pharmacist