Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex

Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex We are a group of concerned citizens committed to helping our community become aware of the dangers of swallowing fluoride.

Beyond ridiculous… corruption at its finest displayed by fluoride promoters. First they insist the judge wait for the NT...
05/24/2026

Beyond ridiculous… corruption at its finest displayed by fluoride promoters. First they insist the judge wait for the NTP review, then they try to get the NTP to soften the language of the their draft conclusions, then they try to delay publication of the final review and now they are asking the judge to go back in time and ignore the review.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1419971386840069&id=100064816623767

Appeals Court Makes Decision On Our Fluoridation Lawsuit

A three-justice panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided to send our case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Edward Chen will be required to make a second ruling based only on scientific evidence and testimony presented prior to August 2020.

The decision by the Court of Appeals was based solely on interpretations of technical procedural steps taken during the litigation and did not dispute the science showing harm or the lower court’s 2024 determination that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health due to the significant side-effects on fetal and infant brain development. It’s also important to note that while this isn’t the immediate outcome FAN wanted, the Appellate Court did not agree with the EPA’s request to reverse the lower court’s decision. The Court also didn’t agree with 2 of the 3 objections the EPA had as part of their appeal. FAN hasn’t lost and the EPA hasn’t won. In short, the case is still ongoing and our legal team is looking at all scenarios and all possible next steps available. But for now, the decision means that Judge Chen will have to write a new ruling based exclusively on the evidence presented during the first phase of the trial.

In a memorandum issued last night, the Court of Appeals vacated–or set aside–the lower court’s ruling, arguing that Judge Chen didn’t follow the “party presentation principle” that limits how active judges can be in allowing the introduction of new evidence and/or legal issues into proceedings. The Court wrote that Chen violated this principle with his 2020 decision to put the case in abeyance after the conclusion of the first bench trial to wait for the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review of fluoride and developmental neurotoxicity so that it could be included as evidence.

While Judge Chen chose to extend the proceedings to incorporate the most recent and robust scientific findings, the appellate court characterized his due diligence as a form of judicial overreach simply because both the plaintiffs and defendant expressed in 2020 that they would prefer not to delay the case.

Michael Connett, our legal counsel, told The Defender that this disappointing decision by the Court of Appeals was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.” He added that “The Court has instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record. Their directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).”

As was described in the lower court’s ruling in our favor, the scope of the harm occurring throughout the US on a daily basis due to fluoridation is significant, and the most disappointing aspect of this legal decision is that our eventual success will continue to be delayed, causing further unnecessary harm to the public:

“The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L…. Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water.” [p. 76]

Please stay tuned for further updates as they happen, and thank you again for your continued support. We promised our supporters that we would fight to the end, no matter how long it took, and we’re going to fulfill that promise.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1397385722431969&id=100064816623767
04/27/2026

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1397385722431969&id=100064816623767

Thread on Fluoridation’s Ineffectiveness

The largest, most recent, highest-quality scientific studies on water fluoridation’s effectiveness have shown NO significant reduction of cavities.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit organization of 30,000 expert researchers and health professionals from around the world, is considered the gold standard of evaluating effectiveness of health interventions.

Its latest (2024) systematic review analyzed data from the 21 highest-quality studies. It found that fluoridation increased cavity-free results in primary (baby) teeth by only 4% and in permanent teeth by only 3%. Neither result is statistically significant and include the possibility of no benefit at all.

It also found no sufficient evidence that fluoridation benefitted low-income families.

This is consistent with the 2024 LOTUS study, the largest ever done – analyzing 6.4 million people in the UK’s National Health Service. It found a miniscule 2% lower cavity rate in permanent teeth of adolescents and adults drinking fluoridated water – with “no meaningful reduction in social inequities”.

Its also consistent with the Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS), funded by the National Institutes of Health, the most comprehensive research project in the U.S. The 2018 IFS study found no significant correlation between ingested fluoride and cavity reduction, further validating its 2009 study that stated “recommending an ‘optimal’ fluoride intake is problematic.”

Many on-the-ground experiences in cities such as Boston, New York, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh also showed fluoridation hasn’t prevented cavities in low-income children.

For instance, San Antonio reported in 2011 that “After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research show(ed) tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children. It has only increased – up 13 percent this year.”

Even the American Dental Association’s and Center For Disease Control (CDC)’s highly questionable claims of 25% cavity reduction6 in children equates to only half a cavity per child.

There is now a consensus (including CDC) that fluoride’s effectiveness in preventing cavities is mainly topical – NOT swallowed.

04/24/2026

Fear of professional repercussions should never prevent important research….but it does. This is just a short list of researchers who have warned the public of their findings and have been attacked for it.

Exciting news…Fluoride Free Canada is confronting the legitimacy of artificial fluoridation chemicals. https://www.fluor...
04/14/2026

Exciting news…Fluoride Free Canada is confronting the legitimacy of artificial fluoridation chemicals. https://www.fluoridefreecanada.ca/news

Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds.

03/28/2026

A few key hero researchers who reported Career Repercussions following publication of their findings:

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (PhD): Former Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Centre in Boston. She was dismissed shortly after publishing a 1995 study in Neurotoxicology and Teratology showing that sodium fluoride was neurotoxic to developing rats, affecting their central nervous system.

Dr. William Marcus (PhD): Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division. He was fired after expressing concerns about EPA-funded research regarding fluoride and bone cancer (osteosarcoma), though he was later reinstated following a lawsuit.

Dr. Christine Till (PhD): Associate Professor at York University. Following her research that linked fluoride in drinking water to lower IQ in children, she faced calls for an independent investigation into her work and accusations of misrepresenting science, creating a hostile professional environment.

Dr. Rivka Green & Dr. Bruce Lanphear: Researchers involved in a Canadian study (MIREC) finding associations between maternal fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children reported that their study was attacked by "experts" linked to industry-funded groups, and one was told they had "sabotaged" their career.

Dr. Hardy Limeback (PhD, DDS): Former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research. While he did not lose his position, he faced intense pressure and became a prominent whistleblower after reversing his support for fluoridation upon reviewing the evidence of its systemic, rather than just topical, effects.

Contextual Findings:
"Taboo" Research: Studies indicate that investigating fluoride safety is often treated as a "taboo" subject in academic circles, with funding applications dismissed with comments such as, "This study is not needed. We know that fluoride is safe".

Industry Influence: Recent research has highlighted the historic role of the sugar industry and others in influencing scientific literature, which has led to distorted records regarding fluoride safety, as documented by researchers like dentist Cristin Kearns.

NTP Report Delays: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) experienced significant delays in publishing a report that concluded high fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children, amidst intense scrutiny from industry and dental groups.

03/11/2026

EPA’s Bid to Overturn Landmark Fluoride Ruling Based on Process, Not Public Health Concerns

The EPA in a hearing on Tuesday urged a federal appeals court to reverse a landmark 2024 decision ordering the agency to regulate fluoride added to drinking water.

The agency argued to a three-judge panel that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen overstepped standard judicial process when he put the original trial on hold in 2020 to wait for new scientific evidence. That evidence was later considered during the second phase of the trial.

EPA's defense is “a policy critique … disguised as statutory interpretation” said attorney Michael Connett.

Story by CHD

01/27/2026

EPA Announces Accelerated Review Of Risks From Fluoride In Drinking Water

Last Friday, EPA announced the next step in the agency’s accelerated review of public health risks from fluoride in drinking water.

The new fluoride assessment will inform potential revisions to federal drinking water regulations in the United States.

"Every American should be able to count on safe, healthy drinking water when they pour a glass to drink or use it to cook a meal, especially for a child. The Trump EPA is working in lockstep with Secretary Kennedy and following gold standard science to guide our next steps to protect drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.” - Lee Zeldin

Federal regulatory standards set by EPA apply regardless of whether fluoride is naturally occurring in a system’s source water or is intentionally added by the water system.

"A growing body of evidence indicates that ingesting fluoride can cause neurological harm, and other adverse effects. By contrast, fluoride's benefits to teeth come almost entirely from topical contact, not from ingestion. Most of Europe has already moved away from water fluoridation in favor of topical products such as toothpaste, and it may well be time for the U.S. to follow suit.” -
Secretary Kennedy

Address

Windsor, ON

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share