Drops of Water Onto Surface of Water
Canadian Fluoridation Class Action Lawsuit
Isn't tap water great? Yes, but many of us can NOT drink it.
Water is for everyone, fluoride is not

"Why I'm suing Canada over public water fluoridation"

By, Kevin James Millership
#6-206 Nicola Street
Kamloops, British Columbia
V2C 2P4 Canada


NOTE: corrections for current data are in “[ ]”


Public water fluoridation is the addition of 1 [now 0.7] milligram of the element fluorine [of a fluoride substance] to every liter of water (1 mg F/L [now 0.7]) pumped through a community's public water system for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. The "artificial" fluorine used by most fluoridated communities is hydrofluorosilicic acid - an acid containing by weight 18.5%[23%] fluorine [fluoride as H2SiF6]. Drinking "optimally" (1 mg F/L) fluoridated water reduces tooth decay - according to the defendant's in my case - by "re-mineralizing" decayed tooth enamel. The fluorine, when swallowed, circulates through our bloodstream and body organs - with 50% being excreted (if you're [a] healthy [adult, children will retain approximately 20%]) and 50% [80% for children] depositing in our bodies - with some (1/100th) making it into our saliva. Once in our saliva, the fluorine [supposedly] "bonds" into any decayed surfaces on our teeth - "re-mineralizing" them (fluorine is the most negatively charged ion on earth, bonding to anything but itself to make "fluorides" - bound fluorine).

The problem with swallowing fluorine though is that it's highly toxic, more toxic than lead!

"Fluorine" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as: "a mineral [it's actually a gas - so Webster's is really defining bound fluorine] belonging to a group including fluorite: a nonmetallic univalent element belonging to the halogens that is normally a pale yellow flammable irritating toxic gas, that is one of the most powerful oxidizing agents known, attacking water, most metals and organic compounds… "

Fluorine [Fluoride - actually, the fluoride chemical used] is a toxic industrial pollutant [contaminant] that's released and/or captured during phosphate, aluminum, steel, cement, oil, etc. production!!! During the "Roaring 20's" and the "Dirty 30's" fluorine lawsuits were threatening these industries - the fluorine emissions were harming/killing everything downstream [downwind] or within a 5 mile radius - a solution had to be found.

The U.S Public Health Services, headed by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon (a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA - a large aluminum company facing fluorine emission lawsuits) facilitated the solution. Their solution to fluorine/fluoride pollution was "dilution"- into the public water systems! Public water fluoridation was thrust on the world in 1945, just before World War 2 ended.

Drinking fluoridated water will not prevent tooth decay, only "re-mineralize" (to an "insignificant" degree - half a tooth surface out of 128) decayed teeth - while poisoning our whole body [this last statement is now totally refuted]! Public water fluoridation, at best, is a harmful "treatment" for tooth decay. For a safe "cure" for tooth decay, brush your teeth! Tooth decay is caused by bacteria living in our dental plaque - not by a lack of fluorine! <== this is a most excellent statement - need sources


Public water fluoridation is illegal under many different laws - both national and international.

  1. Forcing everyone in a community to ingest the [drug fluorine/fluoride=>fluoride drug], for a non-fatal, non-contagious disease is [illegal=>not lawful].
  2. Causing diseases with the drug fluorine/fluoride [idem] and poisoning people with the drug fluorine/fluoride is illegal [idem].
  3. Polluting the environment with fluorine/fluorides [idem] through public water fluoridation schemes is illegal [idem].


My fight against public water fluoridation in Canada started back in 1996.

I had just moved back to Kamloops, British Columbia (my hometown), and the first day back, I found out that Kamloops' public water systems were still fluoridated - which shocked me because the last time I was home, in 1992, a city-wide referendum on public water fluoridation was brewing and I had thought for sure that the citizens of Kamloops would of[=>have] voted out public water fluoridation. I thought wrong (1993 vote: 64% for, 36% against) and vowed it wouldn't happen again.

I went in to see Kamloops' city council and mayor at the first meeting possible (3 days later), to ask them why Kamloops was still being fluoridated? I told them about the dangers involved with drinking fluoridated water (dental and skeletal fluorosis, cancer, hypothyroidism, gastrointestinal disorders, neurological and dermatological problems, higher fracture rates, the list goes on…), but all I ever got back from them were smiles, sneers, and shrugs. Nobody on council, including the mayor, would even read anything I brought to them about fluoride[=>using the highly hazardous, toxic fluoride industrial waste product called Hydrofluorosilicic acid for artificial tap water fluoridation]. They were simply ignorant, and refused to be educated (caused by fluoridation?).

I unfortunately spent the next 2 years lobbying Kamloops' municipal council to stop public water fluoridation in Kamloops. I continued to bark up the municipal tree - for possibly too long - and it took the election of 5 new city councilors and mayor in 1999 [to change my approach].

I also ran for city councillor, (on an anti-fluoridation/pollution ticket, but[=which] I lost) to finally wake me up.

I started lobbying Kamloops' five new city councilors, and new mayor, at their swearing in ceremony. I gave each of them a package of material on the danger of fluoridation and told them that Kamloops' fluoridated water was causing physical and mental harm to anyone drinking it, bathing in it (fluorine/fluoride is absorbed through your pores), gardening with it (plants absorb fluorine/fluoride [very few, actually do this]), and that it was polluting Kamloops Lake and the South Thompson river through sewer discharges. They wouldn't listen to me either, and after about 6 months of lobbying, I started to lobby British Columbia's provincial government and eventually Canada's federal government.

I wrote to Howard Kushner, British Columbia's Ombudsman (a government mandated watch-dog), and told him that Kamloops' municipal council will not listen to me about the very real dangers occasioned by public water fluoridation, and that they will not stop fluoridating Kamloops' water systems. I told him about my evidence against fluoridation, and told him he must act now to protect the public's interest by advising the British Columbia government to stop all public water fluoridation schemes in B.C.

His office wrote back to me March 21, 2000 stating that the Ombudsman was unable to investigate my claim that public water fluoridation was harming people because I had failed to put in writing my complaints about fluoridation to Kamloops' municipal council. Under Sections 57 and 58 of the British Columbia Health Act, any aggrieved person must submit in writing (not verbally, like I had been doing for almost 3 years) any public health concerns to the local board of health, and the Act requires the local board to investigate the cause of the complaint. Section 37 of the Health Act defines the local health board as: "A local board of health is established in each municipality, consisting of the council of the municipality."

I marched back to Kamloops' Board of Health (the municipal council), at their next meeting, and asked them, in writing this time, to sit as a Local Board of Health and investigate my complaints about public water fluoridation. On April 4, 2000, Kamloops' city council by resolution denied my request. Kamloops' acting Corporate Administrator, Wayne Vollrath, wrote me on May 1, 2000 saying: "After reviewing Part 4 of the Health Act, it is our opinion that the addition of fluorides to the City's drinking water as approved by the Medical Health Officer is not a health hazard as defined under the Health Act. It is also our opinion that the jurisdiction for water quality rests with the Medical Health Officer and any health hazard or unsanitary condition related to water should be referred to the Medical Health Officer." Wrong.

I argue that British Columbia's Health Act does define fluoridation as a "health hazard". Section 55 (2) of the Health Act states: "In addition to the requirements of the Waste Management Act, a person who causes or permits the discharge into the land, water, or air of a substance that is, or maybe, a health hazard must: (b) take immediate action to prevent and cease the discharge." The defendant's argue the exact opposite.

Most communities in North America use Hydrofluorosilicic acid as their artificial fluoridation agent of choice (it's the cheapest, but also the most dangerous). Webster's Dictionary describes (hydro)fluorosilicic acid as: "an unstable corrosive poisonous acid H2SiF6". Hydrofluorosilicic acid is created when producing phosphate fertilizer. The phosphate/fluoride containing rocks are cooked in sulfuric acid, releasing hydrogen fluoride gases, and other toxic minerals and wastes, which are captured in the pollution control scrubbers, and then sold to communities to add to their public water systems!

So by discharging "corrosive poisonous acid" into Kamloops' water systems, the city wasn't breaking the law under Section 55 (2) of the Health Act because drinking "corrosive poisonous acid" isn't considered a health hazard according to Kamloops' municipal government! A sad sight: spineless, gutless, city politicians. I had to move on.


I wrote back to British Columbia's Ombudsman and asked him now to investigate my claims against public water fluoridation (He could now because I had exhausted the administrative route with Kamloops' municipal council). He wrote me back on August 29, 2000 and told me: "we are not able to pursue this matter further." He wimped out!

Meanwhile I had started lobbying Kamloops' Medical Health Officer (Dr. James Lu) to do something, as well as British Columbia's Medical Health Officer (Dr. Perry Kendall), British Columbia's Minister of Health (Mike Farnworth), British Columbia's Dental Health Officer (Dr. Malcolm Williamson), Canada's Minister of Health (Allan Rock), Canada's Minister of the Environment (David Anderson), Health Canada's Head of the Drinking Water Section (Michele Giddings), Canadian Senators, Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and Members of Parliament. I have quite the paper trail, a trail leading right to the truth!

Dr. Lu, Kamloops' Medical Health Officer wrote to me April 26, 2000 that his January 2000 review on the state of science related to water fluoridation has: "led him to the conclusion that (he) support(s) the fluoridation of the water supply for the City of Kamloops as an effective public dental health measure." And that: "Along with the Calgary report, which you requested, (his) office also forwarded (me) a copy of a [resent=recent] study on fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture, reported in the respected scientific journal the Lancet (Hiller et al, the Lancet vol. 355, Jan 22, 2000)." Well reading this Lancet study that Dr. Lu sent, I came across this reference on pg. 268: "Also, if the risks of fracture depends on the cumulative exposure to fluoride throughout life, the full effects of fluoridation may not be apparent for many years." I asked Dr. Lu about this risk, he didn't know. I tried to educate him on this risk, he didn't care - a dead end - I moved on.

Dr. Williamson, British Columbia's Dental Health Officer wrote to me July 4, 2000: "at the present time independent major studies from around the world all state that fluoridation within the normal range of daily intake does not endanger human health." Another dead end, after many calls and letters, I moved on.

Dr. Kendall, British Columbia's Medical Health Officer wrote me on July 26, 2000 and stated that: "(He) would like to reassure (me) that all expert advice we received to date supports the fluoridation of drinking water as a means of limiting dental caries." He wrote me on August 25, 2000 and stated that he had: "looked at the references provided (that "a retention of 2 mg/day (of fluoride) would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years"), scanned the most recent reviews of health affects of fluoride and discussed the issue with our local dental and public health experts. We do not believe that the published literature supports the assertion noted above." Wrong.

Mike Farnworth, British Columbia's Minister of Health wrote me on September 28, 2000: "Having consulted with Ministry of Health experts in public health and public health dentistry, I can inform you that the Ministry does not believe this statement ("a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years") to be supported by the scientific literature. The Ministry continues to believe fluoridating drinking water is a safe and effective measure of preventing dental caries." Again, wrong.

Dr. Kendall wrote back to me on October 3, 2000 after reviewing the N.A.S publication and stated: "As you can see, your reference of a retention of 2 mg/day (of fluoride) would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years is viewed as ‘questionable' as are the implications. Taken all together, this document (N.A.S. 1977 Drinking Water and Health) does not support your contention that fluoridation within recommended range poses health hazards." I smelt something!

Page 372 of the N.A.S. Drinking Water and Health publication ( www.nap.edu/openbook/0309026199/372.html ) states that: "Also, a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yrs, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash. However, these new estimates for fluoride in food are questionable; consequently, so are their implications."

The fluoride levels in food are "questionable," note the reference! See how they lie. Dr. Kendall tried to throw me off by saying my reference was "questionable". He didn't [throw me off]!

North Americans on average ingest 4.23 mg/day of fluoride (2 mg/day from water, 1.8 mg/day from food, and 0.43 mg/day from fluoridated dental care products according to Health Canada). This means that an average person WILL get skeletal fluorosis if he/she drinks fluoridated water for "forty years". Dr. Kendall tries to tell me it's "questionable," but if you look at the N.A.S. publication it states that what is "questionable" is the amount of fluoride in food - not the fact that 2 mg/day of fluoride retained (50% of ingested fluorine/fluoride is retained) will cause skeletal fluorosis in forty years! I've had enough, off to the federal government.

Dr. Michele Giddings, Head of Drinking Water Section at Health Canada wrote to me on October 3, 2000 and stated that she had: "received (my) telephone message of this afternoon re fluoridation", and that she has: "previously spoken to (me) on the telephone on this very subject (August 21, 2000) and directed (me) to Health Canada's Water Quality www site for more information on the drinking water guidelines for fluoride." Another dead end, nobody's listening, it's off to Court!

I had also wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister's of Health and the Environment, and the Premier of British Columbia on July 28, 2000, but have yet not received any response to those letters.


I filed my court case (case # 30272, Kevin James Millership v. The City of Kamloops, The Province of British Columbia, and The Federal Government of Canada. Supreme Court of British Columbia, Kamloops Registry) on October 23, 2000. I had no choice; the last straw was when Kamloops' city councilor Pat Wallace told Kamloops' city council on October 3, 2000 that she had seen a fluoridation program on television (well in Kingston, Ontario attending her mother's funeral) that "kind of scared her". She told Kamloops' city council that: "(fluoride's) a poison, it stays in your system and how do you know if you have too much in your system?" Heavy stuff! A city councilor (Health Board Member) now "scared" about public water fluoridation. I expected action now, an investigation at the very least.

I waited until the next city council meeting, seven days later, and went in to see Kamloops' mayor and council to ask them what's happening with fluoridation, are they investigating Councilor Pat Wallace's concerns? Will they stop fluoridating[ well=, will they be] investigating? I reminded them that as Kamloops' Municipal Council, they are Kamloops' Local Board of Health, and that Board Member Wallace, just days before, declared that public water fluoridation "kind of scared her." I couldn't believe it, Councilor Wallace, who just one week before hand was "scared" of public water fluoridation, now sat there glaring at me! Nobody on council would speak to me other than saying that no investigation will be done. Now I was mad! I thought they were truly brain dead! I had no choice; a couple of weeks later, on October 23, 2000, I filed my lawsuit against them.


Canada's Minister of the Environment, David Anderson, wrote to me on August 10, 2001 thanking me for my: "correspondence concerning the use of fluoride in drinking water", but: "The responsibility for drinking water quality lies with Health Canada, the provinces and municipalities. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Health, for his consideration." I haven't as yet heard back from Canada's Minister of Health. See how the bucks get passed, but this time it's going against them! Canada's Environmental Protection Act, section 22 (1) states that: "An individual who has applied for an investigation may bring an environmental protection action if: (a) the Minister failed to conduct an investigation.

David Anderson, Canada's Minister of the Environment, failed to conduct any investigation into my concerns about public water fluoridation, he just passed the blood-soaked buck, which is illegal to do under the Canada Environmental Protection Act (sec. 22 [1]).

Canada's Minister of Health, Allan Rock wrote to me on December 21, 2001. It had nothing to do with what the Minister of the Environment sent to him from me, or what I had wrote to him on July 26, 2000, but was a letter on the Canadian definition of a "drug". Minster Rock wrote: "Drugs are defined, in part, as a substance intended to treat, mitigate or prevent diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states or their symptoms in human beings. Products such as fluoride drops or pills are generally intended to be used to help prevent tooth decay, which is considered to be a disorder or abnormal physical state. Health Canada has issued a number of marketing authorizations for fluoride preparations."

Ah, the smoking gun, or should I say the dripping faucet! The defendant's in my case are arguing that the "artificial" fluorine (hydrofluorosilicic acid) they allow to be added to public water systems in Canada is a "beneficial element", not a "drug", because public water fluoridation would (will) be illegal if it was (is) a drug!!!

In Canada it's illegal to: "distribute or cause to be distributed any drug as a sample." (Food and Drug Act, section 14 [1]). By adding the drug fluorine/fluoride to a community's water system, a municipal government breaks the law under the Food and Drug Act because anyone drinking, and/or absorbing (through bathing, food, etc.), the fluoridated tap water who voted no to fluoridation, didn't vote, or who's just passing through, is being drugged by a sample of fluorine/fluoride! Putting "samples" of the drug fluorine/fluoride into a municipal water system is quite illegal under this Act.

It's also illegal to practice medicine "while not registered" under British Columbia's Medical Practitioners Act. It's an offense under this Act (section 81 [1]) to "prescribe or administer a drug" without being a registered doctor under the Act. It's quite illegal for a water works engineer to "administer a drug" to the public's water system, only a doctor can under the British Columbia Medical Practitioners Act!

Get that, how convenient, fluorine/fluoride is classified as a "drug" in one form (drops, pills, dental products), but in another form (water fluoridation), it's a "beneficial element" - at the same dose! All that I have to do to win my case is to prove that the artificial fluorine/fluorides added to public water systems, through public water fluoridation schemes, are drugs - not "beneficial elements". Simple.


I proved fluoridated water is "drugged water", not "beneficial water" as the defendants claim, during my November 7, 2001 Interim Injunction application in front of Mr. Justice Powers. I showed Mr. Justice Powers (by using the defendant's affidavit no less! -Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 22, pg.492) that Canada's Food and Drug Regulations: "prohibit over-the-counter (and in public water fluoridation's case, under and through the counter) sale of a tablet containing fluoride if the largest dosage would result in a daily intake of more than 1mg of fluoride ion."

This means that if more than one liter of artificially fluoridated water (one "optimally" fluoridated liter of water contains 1mg of fluorine/fluoride ion) is drunk per day, the fluorine/fluoride being ingested becomes a drug under the Food and Drug Regulations! 90% of children (also according to the defendant's affidavit - Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.80) drink 1.5 liters of water a day! Adults have been known to drink 2-5.5 liters of water a day!!! "Artificial" fluorine (hydrofluorosilicic acid, etc.) is a drug!!!


So that's how I found myself in British Columbia's Supreme Court against Her Majesty the Queen in right of The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia (the Federal Government of Canada and the Provincial Government of British Columbia). I dropped The City of Kamloops from my case after the October 13, 2001 citywide referendum where public water fluoridation got voted out of Kamloops! One down, one to go- Planet Earth!!!

My trial starts April 22, 2002 (Earth Day!). Its my Summary Trial application (a trial by paper, no witnesses), and is set for 10 days. I'm asking for: 1) a Declaratory Order declaring public water fluoridation unconstitutional; 2) a Permanent Injunction stopping and barring public water fluoridation in Canada, and; 3) $250,000 in damages (I have "very mild" dental fluorosis, caused and/or worsened by drinking fluoridated water)

Mr. Justice Powers (the judge now assigned to hear all applications in my case) commented to Canada's lawyer (after finding out from him that April 22nd was "Earth Day"): "Mr. Zachernuk, maybe the Gods are against you, or not." We all laughed, it's been that kind of case.

I've already been in front of Mr. Justice Tysoe on March 28, 2001 to argue against the application of the City of Kamloops (a defendant at that time) under Rules 18 (6) and 19 (24) - an application for a dismissal of my action against them. They lost, and I won the right to take my case to trial.

Mr. Justice Tysoe stated in his Oral Reasons for Judgment, dated March 30, 2001 that: "The Plaintiff asserts in his Amended Statement of Claim that the bylaws authorizing the addition of fluoride to the water systems are ultra vires and are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Plaintiff claims that the City is liable in nuisance under the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher and in negligence."

And: "The Plaintiff has filed a letter from his dentist stating that he has dental fluorosis as a result of consuming fluoridated water. He has also filed an affidavit of Dr. Foulkes who deposes that he has formed a conclusion that fluoridation in water supplies can no longer be held to be either safe with regard to human health or effective in the reduction of tooth decay. He says that exposure to fluoride can lead to dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis, and that fluoridation is dangerous to the health of consumers."

And: "it is not plain and obvious that (the Plaintiff's) pleadings disclose no reasonable cause under the Rylands v. Fletcher principle."

And: " In the Amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff asserts that he has occupied land within the city limits of Kamloops and that the addition of fluoride to the water systems interfered with his use and enjoyment of the land. During submissions, the Plaintiff gave an example that the fluoride in the water could affect vegetables grown on the land. It is not plain and obvious that the pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action in nuisance."

Ruling: "Turning to the claim of negligence, it is not plain and obvious that the City did not owe a duty of care to the residents of the City, including the Plaintiff. In my view, it is not plain and obvious that there is not a prima facie duty of care or that there are policy considerations such as indeterminate liability which ought to negative the duty of care. The law is clear that the City is not liable in negligence with respect to policy decisions but, in the circumstances, the authority provided by the Municipal Act, may not protect the City from liability."

I was in front of Mr. Justice Powers on November 6, 7, 8, and 9th, 2001. I was arguing for an Interim Injunction (Rule 45) to stop and bar public water fluoridation in Canada until my trail is heard. I failed. On December 4, 2001, Mr. Justice Powers handed down his Reasons for Judgment. He stated, in part, that: "Mr. Millership firmly believes that the addition (of) fluoride to the public water system causes irreparable harm to himself and others."

And: "The Plaintiff does submit affidavit evidence indicating that long-term exposure to high-level fluoride may result in skeletal-fluorosis, but I am not satisfied that any exposure to the products created with fluoridated water between now and the time of trial will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff."

Ruling: "I am satisfied that the balance of convenience weighs against the plaintiff in his application for interim relief and therefore dismiss the same."

Kamloops was no longer fluoridated when I argued my Interim Injunction application, weakening my argument because I had to prove that "I" was going to suffer "irreparable harm" - not anyone else if public water fluoridation wasn't stopped Canada-wide. I only had two arguments to use now: 1) I couldn't move to Edmonton, Alberta for work because it was fluoridated, causing "irreparable" harm to my case because I couldn't move there to earn money to get a lawyer, and; 2) I argued that the "halo" effect of fluoridated water distributed the drug fluorine/fluoride into food stuffs and beverages made in fluoridated communities in Canada causing me to ingest this drug even though Kamloops wasn't fluoridated anymore, causing me irreparable harm (I recently discovered a law contained in the British Columbia Trade Practice Act [sec 18(1) - see: Laws section #25] that I could of used - next time!). No dice.

I wasn't directly affected by fluoridated water anymore to the degree of "irreparable" damage needed to win- according Mr. Justice Powers - because Kamloops had quit fluoridating it's water systems 2 weeks before hand, and since I wasn't personally being drugged and/or harmed by the artificial fluorine in Kamloops' tap water anymore, I lost, for now.

Mr. Justice Powers did state in his December 4, 2000 Reasons for Judgment that he was: "…satisfied that (my) action is not frivolous or vexatious."

And: "Mr. Millership and both counsel have been able to muster support for their positions from the scientific community. This appears to be a matter that even knowledgeable and informed scientists disagree upon. I pointed out to Mr. Millership and counsel during submissions that it would not be appropriate for me to attempt to resolve these issues on an interlocutory application."

Interim Injunctions are harder to get then Permanent Injunctions because in an Interim Injunction application you have to prove "irreparable" harm to "yourself" if not granted. In a Permanent Injunction application (which my April, 22, 2002 application is) you just have to prove harm will be done to you, or anyone - a harm that outweighs the benefits.


My case is being fought on many different levels (I'm proving that Canada, it's provinces and communities, are breaking the law by promoting, allowing, and/or administering public water fluoridation). I'm using Canada's municipal, provincial, and federal laws, and International laws against the defendants. Here's a list of some of the laws I'm using (I'm still investigating others):

  1. British Columbia's Medical Practitioners Act, section 81(1): "A person who practices or offers to practice medicine while not registered or while suspended from practice under this Act commits an offence."
  2. British Columbia's Medical Practitioners Act, section 81(2): "For the purpose of and without restricting subsection (1), a person practices medicine who does any of the following:
    (c) prescribes or administers a drug, serum, medicine or substance or remedy for the cure, treatment or prevention of human disease, ailment, deformity or injury."
  3. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 14 (1): "No person shall distribute or cause to be distributed any drug as a sample."
    1. This Act defines "drug" as: "…includes any substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in:
      (a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms in human beings or animals, or
      (b) restoring, correcting, or modifying organic function in human beings or animals,"
  4. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 8: "No person shall sell any drug that:
    (a) was manufactured, prepared, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions, or
    (b) is adultered."
  5. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 9 (1): "No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quality, composition, merit or safety."
  6. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 10 (2): "Where a standard has been prescribed for a drug, no person shall label, package, sell, or advertise any substances in such a manner that is likely to be mistaken for that drug, unless that substance complies with the prescribed standard."
  7. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 12 states that a drug can not be sold in Canada unless: "indicated that the premises in which the drug was manufactured and the processes and conditions of manufacture there in are suitable to ensure the drug will not be unsafe for use."
  8. Canada's Food and Drug Act, section 30: "Governor General in Council may make regulations", to: "prevent the purchaser or consumer (of a drug) thereof from being deceived or mislead in respect to the design, construction, merit, safety thereof, or to prevent injury to the health of the purchaser of consumer (of a drug)."
  9. Canada's Environmental Protection Act, section 2(1): "In the administration of this Act, the Government of Canada, having regard to the Constitution and laws of Canada and subject to subsection 1.1:
    (a) exercise it's power in a manner that protects the environment and human health, applies the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, and promotes and reinforces enforceable pollution prevention approaches."
  10. Canada's Environmental Protection Act, section 22 (1): "An individual who has applied for an investigation may bring an environmental protection action if:
    (a) the Minister failed to conduct an investigation and report within a reasonable time, or
    (b) the Minister's response to the investigation was unreasonable.
  11. Canada's Environmental Protection Act, section 22 (2): "The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who commits an offense under this Act:
      (a) was alleged in the application for the investigation, and
      (b) caused significant harm to the environment."
  12. Canada's Environmental Protection Act, section 22 (3): "In the action (Environmental Protection Action) the individual may claim any or all of the following:
    1. (a) a declaratory order, or
      (b) an order, including an interlocutory order, requiring the defendant to refrain from doing anything that, in the opinion of the court, may constitute an offence under this Act, or
      (c) an order, including an interlocutory order, requiring the defendant to do anything that, in the opinion of the court, may prevent the continuation of an offense under this Act."
  13. Canada's Fisheries Act, section 36 (3): "Subject to subsection (4), no persons shall permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substances that result from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water."
  14. Canada's Criminal Code Act, section 245: "Everyone who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take a poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable:
    (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he intends to thereby endanger the life or cause bodily harm to that person, or
    (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person."
  15. Canada's Criminal Code Act, section 245 (1): "Everyone who commits a common assault is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction."
  16. Canada's Criminal Code Act, section 245 (2): "Everyone who unlawfully causes bodily harm to any person or commits an assault that causes bodily harm to any person:
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for 5years, or
    (b) is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction."
  17. Canada's Criminal Code Act, section 202 (1) states that everyone is criminally negligent who:
    "(a) in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do,
    (b) shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."
  18. British Columbia's Municipal Act, section 523 (1): "Subject to the Health Act, a council may, by bylaw:
    (a) regulate for the purpose of maintaining, promoting, or preserving public health or maintaining sanitary conditions, and
    (b) undertake any other measures it considers necessary for those purposes. (3) As a limit on subsection (1), a council must not fluoridate the water supply unless the bylaw has received the assent of the electors."
  19. British Columbia's Health Act, section 8 (1): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for the prevention, treatment, mitigation, and suppression of disease and regulations respecting the following matters: (d) the prevention and removal of nuisances or health hazards."
  20. British Columbia's Health Act, section 55 (2): "In addition to the requirements of the Waste Management Act,
    (a) a person who causes or permits the discharge into the land, water, or air of a substance that is, or maybe, a health hazard must:
    (b) take immediate action to prevent and cease the discharge."
  21. British Columbia's Environmental Management Act, section 5 (1): "The minister may declare, in writing, that an environmental emergency under this section exists if the minister considers that:
    (a) an environmental emergency exists, and
    (b) immediate action is necessary to prevent, or lesson or control any hazard that the emergency prevents."
  22. British Columbia's Waste Management Act, section 3 (2): "Subject to subsection (5), a person must not, introduce or cause or allow to be introduced into the environment waste produced by any prescribed activity or operation."
  23. British Columbia's Waste Management Act, section 34: "If the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that an activity or operation has been or is being performed by a municipality in a manner that is likely to release a substance that will cause pollution of the environment, the minister may, with respect to the manager, exercise the power that a manager may exercise under section 33 (2) in relation to other persons."
  24. Section 33 (2): "The Minister may: (d) adjust, repair or alter any work to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent the pollution."
  25. British Columbia's Sale of Goods Act, section 2: "A thing is done in good faith within the meaning of this Act when it is in fact done honesty, whether done negligently or not."
  26. British Columbia's Trade Practice Act, section 18 (1): "In an action brought by the director, or any other person whether or not that person has a special, or any, interest under this Act or the regulations, or is affected by a consumer transaction, the court may grant either or both of the following: (a) a declaration that an act or practice engaged in by a supplier in respect of a consumer transaction is a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice; or (b) an interim or permanent injunction restraining a supplier from engaging or attempting to engage in a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice in respect of a consumer transaction."
  27. British Columbia's Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, section 6: "An adult consents to health care if
    1. the consent relates to the proposed health care
    2. the consent is given voluntary
    3. the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation
    4. the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care
    5. the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
      1. the condition for which the health care is proposed
      2. the nature of the proposed health care
      3. the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
      4. alternative courses of health care, and
    6. the adult has an opportunity to ask question and receive answers about the proposed health care."
  28. The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) section 1: "It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and should continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, color, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely: (a) the rights to the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be derived thereof except by due process of law."
  29. Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada's Supreme Law): The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 1: "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
  30. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
  31. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 6 (1): "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada". And section 6 (2):
  32. "Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:
    (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."
  33. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 (1): "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disabilities."
  34. The Nuremberg Code (an International law that arose as part of the trial of the United States v. Karl Brandt. Karl Brandt and others were tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity) and it's ten requirements:

      1) "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person should have legal capacity to give consent: should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any effect of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conduced; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and their effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility, which may not be delegated to another with impunity."

      2)"The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature."

      3)"The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment."

      4)"The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury."

      5)"No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur, except perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subject."

      6)"The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment."

      7)"Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death."

      8)"The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment."

      9)"During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible."

      10)"During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject."

  35. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948), Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a sprit of brotherhood."

    • Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."

      Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

      Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

      Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

      Article 23(1): "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

      "Article 29(2): "In exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
  36. The Rio Declaration Of Environmental And Development,

    Principle 1: "Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature."

    Principle 13: "States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction."

    Principle 14: "States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health."

    Principle 15: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

    Principle 23: "The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected."

    Principle 25: "Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible."


I'm using my expert witnesses evidence, and the defendant's own evidence against them. It doesn't matter what public water fluoridation review you look at - pro or con - they all have huge red flags poking out of them! Its no wonder the defendant's are blind toward the danger of fluoridation, they've been reviewing fluoridation reports for so long the red flag poles have poked their eyes out! Seriously though, the defendant's 1200 page affidavit of studies and articles "proving" public water fluoridation's "benefits" and "safety" is my chief evidence - which is a good thing because in my upcoming April 22, 2001 Summary Trial application, I must show a prima facie case (a clear cut, no controversy case). I will show a prima facie case, I have the evidence.

This is my evidence sources (at present):

  1. Dr. Richard Foulkes' affidavit in support of my case sworn March 22, 2001
  2. Dr. Hardy Limeback's letter of support for my case filed August 27, 2001
  3. My affidavit filed June 5, 2001
  4. My letter from my dentist, Dr. Hugh Thomson, filed March 28, 2001
  5. A 1987 CDA article by Dr. Allan Gray entitled Fluoridation Time For A New Base Line?
  6. British Columbia's affidavit from Ken Christian (Director of Environmental Health for the Thompson Health Region) sworn December 7, 2000
  7. British Columbia's affidavit from Dr. Raymond Copes (B.A., M.D., M.Sc., British Columbia Ministry of Health) sworn November 2, 2001
  8. Canada's affidavit from Joel Paterson (B.Sc. Honours, Biochemistry, Acting Section Head, Existing Substances Section 2, Health Canada) sworn October 12, 2001
  9. Canada's affidavit from Michele Giddings (B.Sc., Acting Manager, Water Quality and Microbiology Division, Health Canada) sworn October 12, 2001
  10. British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines: 1998 Edition,
    k) Case law/Statutes/Authorities


Michele Giddings affidavit, Paragraph 34: "We believe the fluoridation of public water fluoridation is a beneficial, safe, effective and important public health practice."

Joel Paterson affidavit, Paragraph 61: "In the work shown in the exhibits and in much other work many scientists have investigated and reported their findings into whether consuming fluoride causes or contributes to the causes of other health problems including cancer, Down's Syndrome, effects on the blood system, liver, kidneys, reproduction and development, central nervous system and on the immune system. This body of work was considered during the development of the Supporting Document. I believe none of this research demonstrates that equivalent to or less than MAC (1.5 mg fluoride/liter) does or can or may cause any of the said health effects."

Ken Christian affidavit, Paragraph 11: "I am aware that the City adds fluoride to its domestic water supply. I do not have any objection to this as carefully controlled small amounts of fluoride in drinking water is an efficient means of protecting teeth from decay. As a public health measure fluoridation provides improved dental health to the community."

Dr. Raymond Copes affidavit, Paragraph 15: "I fully agree with the conclusions of Giddings Affidavit #1 at para. 34 that fluoridation of public water supplies is a beneficial, safe, effective and important public health practice."



Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 21, pg.471: "The FDA has not given approval for the therapeutic usage of fluoride supplements, as of the end of March 2000."

  • American Dietetic Association. The impact of fluoride on health J AM Diet Assoc 2000 Oct; 100(10): 1208-13

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg. 615: "Whitford (1990) has suggested that the trend in dental fluorosis is undesirable for several reasons:

  1. It increases the risk of aesthetically objectionable enamel defects. A study of the perception of dental fluorosis in children in the child fluoride study by the children and their parents revealed that the fluorosis score was a significant factor (p<0.05) in the model for satisfaction with the colour of the teeth, even when comparing cases with the TSIF score 1, very mild fluorosis or above, to those with unaffected enamel (Hoskin and Spencer, 1993). However, there was little perceived psychological or behavioural impact when fluorosis was of a very mild severity. Children with mild fluorosis are significantly move likely to show adverse psychological response to their dental appearance, in comparison to those with normal enamel. Riordan (1993) showed that an increasing proportion of lay observers found the appearance of teeth objectionable with the majority found teeth with TF scores greater than 2 unacceptable;
  2. In more severe cases, it increases the risk of harmful effects to dental function. Higher caries experience has been reported for children with moderate to severe fluorosis;
  3. It places dental professionals at increased risk of litigation; and
  4. It jeopardizes the perception of the safety and, therefore, the public acceptance of the use of fluorides;
  5. Furthermore, it signals over-exposure to fluoride which is an area of growing concern to health professionals due to possible links with increases in bone fracture rates and specific cancers."
  6. Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.157: "The threshold of 1.6ppm F in water to prevent the occurrence of moderate dental fluorosis was determined by examining the data from the many communities assessed by Dean and Elvove…"

      • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effect on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada. Report prepared for the Department of National Health and Welfare under research contract no. 3726.

    Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.157: "These findings indicate that the curves based on Dean's data still apply today except that total fluoride intake, on average, is now probably equivalent to about 2.0ppm of fluoride in water in Dean's time…"

      • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

    Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit K, pg.280: "While this increase has been observed primarily in the mild and very mild forms of dental fluorosis, there is also some evidence of an increased prevalence of the moderate and severe forms."

      • Clark, D.C. (1993). Appropriate use of fluorides in the 1990's. Canadian Dental Association Journal 59 (3): 272-279

    Kenneth Lorne Christian affidavit, Exhibit C, pg 11: "Although there is some controversy as to whether the more severe forms of dental fluorosis represents an aesthetic or a health effect, a limited number of surveys have shown that lay people view the more severe forms as socially embarrassing to the children afflicted."

    Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.114: "Current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. North American studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in the former and 12 to 45% in the latter."

    Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.145: "Although they are largely confined to the so called ‘very mild' and ‘mild' categories of dental fluorosis the increases are a cause for concern. The rationale underlying this concern is that fluorosis at this level is discernable by children aged 10 years and over and can lead to embarrassment, self-consciousness and a decrease in satisfaction with the appearance of the teeth (Spencer, et al, 1996). This work confirms and expands previous surveys which have shown that lay people can detect fluorosis and both professionals and lay people view the more severe forms as having negative consequences for children (Riordan, 1993; Clark, 1993; Hawley et al, 1996)."

      • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation. An update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial subcommittee report. Prepared for Public Health branch, Ontario Ministry of Health, First Nation and Intuit Health Branch, Health Canada by Community Health Services Research Unit. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, November 15, 1999.

    Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.151: "Clearly the simplest way of reducing the prevalence of fluorosis in child populations is to cease to fluoridate community water supplies."

      • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

    Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg. 617: "However, since we found that approximately 50% of children have fluorosis, albeit in it's milder form, when exposed to optimally-fluoridated water in addition to other sources of fluoride which abound in most societies in the 1990's, excessive fluoride intake would appear to be common."

      • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride sources. Melbourne Australia, 1999

    Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 36, pg. 12: "The diffusion of ‘halo' effect of beverages and food processed in fluoridated areas but consumed in non-fluoridated areas indirectly spreads some benefit of fluoridated water to non-fluoridated communities."

    Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg. 120: "However, there seems to be little control and knowledge of fluoride concentrations in foods and beverages."

      • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effect on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

    Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg. 46: "Better management of today's multiple sources of fluoride is needed."

      • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effect on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis."

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg. 115: "In Canada, actual intakes are larger than recommended intakes for formula-fed infants and those living in fluoridated communities. Efforts are required to reduce intakes among the most vulnerable age group, children aged 7 months to 4 years."

    • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.154: "It does not seem plausible then that water fluoridation programs represent a risk for bone health. However, there are factors other than intermittent and total exposure that may influence the bone effects of long-term or lifetime exposure to such levels of fluoride:
1. progressive accumulation in the skeletal system in the form of fluorapatite that is less resorptive than hydroxilapatite and therefore alters the remodeling cycle that in turn may result in impaired biomechanical properties,
2. exposure extended to more than 30 years,
3. substantial individual variations in the resorption from the stomach, and
4. renal insufficiency (the risk of which increases with the age) Therefore while serum fluoride levels induced by drinking water treated for caries prevention may not reach an osteoanabolic threshold, a long-term (>30 years) fluoride accumulation in bone has the potential to lead to a fluoride content which may adversely affect done strength."

    • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg. 585: "The pivotal cohort study of fluoridated water exposure and fractures or B.M.D demonstrated a trend for a decrease risk of hip fracture in France for water fluoride levels from 0.11ppm to 0.7ppm and an increase at 1ppm."

    • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements. Melbourne Australia, 1999

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 16, pg.261: "As the percentage of exposed to fluoride in water increased, the hip fracture rate generally increased."

    • Natural Research Council. 1993. Health effect of ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington D.C Subcommittee on Health effects of fluoride. Commission on Toxicology. Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Commission on Life Sciences, 1993

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg. 548: "Fluoride is largely excreted via. the kidneys. Patients with renal failure have plasma levels three times higher than normal individuals from the same area. The effect of such high plasma levels on the bone merits investigation."

    • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements. Melbourne Australia, 1999

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 16, pg. 290: "Walbott (1962) reported that ingestion of fluoride at 1mg/L of water produced numerous symptoms, which included gastrointestinal distress and joint pains."

    • Natural Research Council. 1993. Health effects of ingested Fluoride

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg. 532: "It has been suggested that fluoride exposure may delay tooth eruption and therefore studies should be designed to allow for comparisons of children who are one year younger in non-fluoridated areas than the fluoridated area."

    • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements.

Kevin James Millership affidavit #2, Exhibit 9, pg.25: "Undesirable side-effects (i.e., dermatological, gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms) were seen in one percent of a group of children and pregnant women ingesting 1.0-1.2mg fluoride per day in tablet-form."

    • National Research Council of Canada (1971) Environmental Fluoride. J.R Marier and D. Rose. NRC Publication No. 12,226

Kevin James Millership affidavit #2, Exhibit 4, pg.158: "The authors stated that all children in Calgary in 1985 were rated as ‘fluoridated' due to exposure to fluoride from other sources (toothpaste, dental treatments, etc.) even though fluoride was not added to the water."

    • City of Calgary, Expert Panel for Water Fluoridation Review, March 1998

( www.fluoridation.com/calgary.htm )

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit K, pg.281: "For children between the ages of three and six, the mean daily ingestion of fluoride from dentifrice could range from 0.12mg to 0.34mg per brushing. Again, given that brushing could occur twice daily, this level of intake could account for almost all of the daily optimal requirements."

    • Clark, D.C (1993). Appropriate use of fluorides in the 1990's. Canadian Dental Association Journal 59 (3): 272-279.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.81: "A resent study found that the average dietary fluoride intake for six-year-old children was 0.86mg/day in non-fluoridated areas, which is considered nearly optimal."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg. 52: "It should be emphasized that the objective of controlled water fluoridation has always been to increase fluoride exposure (hence ingestion) to a level which prevents caries, but does not result in an esthetic problem due to enamel fluorosis."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Ken Christian affidavit, Exhibit C, pg.8: "Based on the study results, the NTP concluded that there was ‘equivocal evidence' of carcinogenic activity (defined as a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be related to chemical administration) of NaF in male F344/n rats, but no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female F344/N rats or male or female B6C3F mice."

    • 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-Committee on Drinking Water report "Fluoride".

Ken Christian affidavit, Exhibit C, pg.1: "Sodium fluoride (NaF) is used in varies pesticide formulations, including insecticide and wood preservatives."

    • 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-Committee on Drinking Water report "Fluoride".

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg543: "Metals in particular are especially susceptible to reaction. Iron corrosion or rust is well known, and brass alloys containing copper, zinc and lead, or silver solders containing cadmium, give rise to excessive concentrations of these heavy metals in domestic water, especially from hot water service (McCafferty, 1995). Fluoride can enhance the solubility of these metals as indicated by equation x.x, above, (Lin et al .1997) so it should not be added to reticulated water supplies in amounts beyond those deemed necessary for its therapeutic efficacy."

    • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride sources. Melbourne Australia, 1999

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 1, pg.9: "Referenda are frequently conducted in a heated acrimonious atmosphere, one not considered conductive to reasoned debate."

    • Burt, BA. 1982. The epidemiological basis for water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries. J Public Health Policy, 3(4) 391-407.

Dr. Richard G. Foulkes affidavit, Paragraph 11: "I have, reached the conclusion that from information readily found in reputable journals with peer review mechanisms as well as in varies government documents the procedure of fluoridation of water supplies can no longer be held to be either safe with regard to human health or effective in the reduction of dental caries (tooth decay)."

Dr. Foulkes affidavit, Paragraph 30: "Even though it may be said that the quality of much of the research on fluoridation over the past 50 years leaves much to be desired, it is possible to come to a definite conclusions. 1. Fluoridation of public drinking water is not significantly effective in the reduction of dental caries. 2. There is no proof of safety and there is evidence that it is a major factor in the increase of dental fluorosis and highly suspect in being the cause of numerous symptoms and disabilities, including an increase in hip fractures in the elderly and hypothyroidism. 3. Fluoridation uses the public drinking water supply as a medium to dispense a chemical substance on a ‘one dose fits all' basis to prevent a non-fatal disease. 4. The chemicals used for the purpose (the fluorosilicates) are commercial grade and have not been adequately tested for their safety."

    • Dr. Richard Foulkes is one of my expert witnesses. He's a medical doctor, former Professor of Medicine at the University of British Columbia and former Special Consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia (1972-1975), during which time he was commissioned by the Government of British Columbia to study the entire health care system of the Province and make recommendations for "rationalization" and program improvement. Dr. Foulkes, during this time, recommended the "mandatory" fluoridation of British Columbia's drinking water to the Government of British Columbia. During the 1980's, he completely reversed this position, broadly denouncing fluoridation as a health hazard - a position he holds to this day.

Dr. Hardy Limeback's critique of Dr. Foulkes affidavit, Paragraph 8: "Regarding item 11 (Dr. Foulkes' paragraph 11), I, too, have reached the conclusion from information readily found in reputable journals with peer review mechanisms as well as various government documents that the procedure of water fluoridation can no longer be held to either be safe with regard to human health or effective in reduction of dental caries (tooth decay)."

Dr. Limeback critique, Paragraph 23: "I agree with the information presented in this item and especially want to emphasize that some individuals living in fluoridated areas may be ‘retaining' more fluoride than what is recognized as ‘safe' with regards to osteofluorosis because of other underlying conditions such as kidney failure."

    • Dr. Limeback is another one of my expert witnesses. He is a Professor Dentistry at the University of Toronto in the area of preventive dentistry, with an expertise in tooth development and fluoride. He's held numerous grants from the Federal Government of Canada and was an MRC (Medical Research Council of Canada) Scholar from 1984-1989. He was the chair and co-chair of two landmark Canadian Dental Association conferences held in Canada and was an invited fluoride research reviewer for the National Institute of Craniofacial and Dental Research in the USA. Dr. Limeback, like Dr. Foulkes, was also a pro-fluoridationist scientist, until 1999, when he also completely reversed this position and has since also broadly denounced fluoridation as a public health hazard.


Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.186: " The United States national survey data also showed a 13% reduction, based on an absolute difference of 0.51 DMFS (2.97 vs. 2.46) at age 12."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.134: " In summary, Canadian studies carried out in the 1980's show that differences in caries prevalence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated children who were born and lived the first 6 years of their lives in their communities ranged between 17% to 39%. The difference in absolute terms is less than 1 DMF tooth surface."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.138: "Exposure to fluoridated water between birth and 4 years of age and the use of supplements did not have a beneficial effect on caries. These findings were interpreted to show that exposure to fluoride post-eruptively is more important than pre-eruptive effect. The risk of dental fluorosis increased significantly in those exposed to fluoridated water and fluoride supplements."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis.

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.113: "Although current studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have design weaknesses and methodological flaws, the balance of evidence suggests that rates of dental decay are lower in fluoridated than non-fluoridated communities. The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance."

    • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg. 141: "…the absence of fluoridated water, however, does not mean that the population is not exposed to an effective concentration of fluoride for the enhancement of remineralization. Therefore, water fluoridation should be targeted to areas where dental caries is high."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg. 142: "Universal application of fluorides should be discouraged because it erroneously assumes that all individuals have the same need for fluorides."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Michelle Giddings, Exhibit 36, pg.7: "Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low…approximately 0.016 parts per million in area's where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006ppm in non-fluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity."

    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 17, 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Fluoride Recommendations Work group. MMWR 50 (RR14); 1-42

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 36, pg.7: "The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and higher concentrations of enamel fluoride is not necessary more efficacious in preventing dental caries."

    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 17, 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States.

Joel Paterson, Exhibit B, pg.82: "Research findings also demonstrate the similarity in the benefits from systemic and long-term topical administrations."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.196: "Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that even if the 33% reduction were achieved in fluoridated communities, the background incidence of caries experienced by the majority of children would mean that very few surfaces could be saved from decay through this procedure."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effect on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Joel Paterson affidavit, Exhibit B, pg.179: "Possible other factors in the decline of caries include increased availability of dental resources; increased ‘dental awareness' coupled with greater utilization of dental services; the preventive approach by practioners; reduced sugar consumption, enrichment of flour and milk; and increased use of antibiotics for medical conditions which coincidentally reduce oral bacterial counts."

    • Advisory Review Panel (1994). Investigation of inorganic fluoride and its effects on the occurrence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in Canada.

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 13, pg.82: "In most countries the prevalence of decay in school children held steady from the 1930's until about 1940, when wartime rationing of sugar caused a decline in Europe and Japan."

    • Newburn, E. and H. Horowitz. Why we have not changed our minds about the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, Perspect. Biol and Medicine. 42, 526-543, 1999

Michelle Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 15, pg.139: "Only one of the three studies reported an increase in caries following the cessation of water fluoridation."

    • Locker, D. (1999) Benefits and risks of water fluoridation. An update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial subcommittee report.

Dr. Allan Gray's 1987 article, "Fluoridation, Time For A New Base Line?": "The type of caries now seen in British Columbia's children of 13 years of age, is mostly the pit and fissure type. Knudsen in 1940, suggested that 70 per cent of the caries in children was in pits and fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, 83 per cent of all caries in North America children is of this type. Pit and fissure cavities aren't considered to be preventable by fluorides, they are prevented by sealants."

And: "If caries rates in children drop much further in British Columbia, when only 11 per cent of the people are using fluoridated water, then our position on fluoridation will have to reflect that situation. There are some final points to bear in mind. People are using fluoride toothpastes whether they are on fluoridated water or not. Some concerns about an increase in fluoride hypoplasias (dental fluorosis) are being expressed."

    • J Canadian Dental Assn., NO. 10, 1987. Dr. Gray was the Director of Dental Health Services for the British Columbia Ministry of Health when he wrote this article.

Dr. Richard G. Foulkes affidavit, Paragraph 18: "It is, at present, generally accepted by the dental researchers now that any caries inhibiting effect of fluoride is topical rather than systemic as initially postulated. Fluoridation as a procedure for mass treatment has no rational basis."

Dr. Limeback critique, Paragraph 18: "Regarding item 18 (Dr. Foulkes' Paragraph 18), several dental researchers, including myself, have come to the conclusion, based on the literature, that fluoride works topically, not systemically, and any delivery method of the drug that includes ingestion is misdirected."


Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 27, pg.537: "Bergmann and Bergmann, 1995 have listed the advantages of (fluoridated) salt as: 1) Allows the consumer free choice. 2. Unlike tablets or drops, no attention has to be paid to daily compliance. 3. Like water, it is taken in small amounts throughout the day rather than as a bolus and this results in lower peak plasma concentrations. 4. Low cost"

    • NHMRC Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements. Melbourne Australia, 1999

Michele Giddings affidavit, Exhibit 22, pg. 490: "Production costs in Switzerland are US $0.2-0.4 per kilogram in (fluoridated) salt factories…"

    • Expert committee on oral health status and fluoride use. Fluoride and oral health: report of the WHO. WHO, technical Report Series, 846. Geneva, 1994.


  1. Adding the "optimal" (1 mg F/L) amount of fluorine/fluoride to public water systems (by way of hydrofluorosilicic acid or any other "artificial" fluorine/fluoride) for the purpose of fighting dental decay causes an increase in the occurrence and severity of dental fluorosis - a disease that disfigures your teeth with paper white spots and yellow stains in its mild forms and pits and brown/black stains in its moderate to severe forms. This disease weakens the teeth and is known by the defendants in my case to cause "social embarrassment to the children afflicted".
  2. Drinking fluoridated water adds the "toxic" mineral fluorine/ fluorides to your body which deposit in your hips, joints, ligaments, muscles, glands, organs, brains and blood - poisoning us, and causing diseases such as cancer, skeletal fluorosis, brittle bones, hypothyroidism, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders (heartburn), etc. - glass after glass, shower after shower, bite after bite! Great for the pharmaceutical industry, not great for us.
  3. Drinking fluoridated water, for the purpose of reducing tooth decay, works "insignificantly". The defendants in my case know that only one half of a tooth surface less decay can be expected to be saved by drinking "optimally" fluoridated water, and they also know that to save this "insignificant" half tooth surface from decay, they have to cause other diseases (dental and skeletal fluorosis, cancer, etc.)! They also know that they could drug (poison) us much cheaper with fluoridated salt or dental treatments than with public water fluoridation schemes.


I'm using a lot of old cases, Canadian and international, to prove my claim that public water fluoridation is unconstitutional under Canadian and International law.

  1. Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View Water Authority
    • Judge Flaherty's Nov 16, 1978 decision: "The sole issue before the court is whether or not fluoride may be a carcinogen. The issue of whether fluoride protects children's teeth was not before the court. This court ruled that no action to prevent a non-fatal dental condition could be justified if such action, might result in even one death."
    • And: "Point by point, every criticism defendants made of the B-Y Study (Burk-Yiamouyiannis) was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often, the point was turned around against the defendants. In short, this court was compelling convinced of the evidence in favour of plaintiff's."
    • And: "It is significant that Dr. Donald Taves, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, acknowledged certain unresolved doubts concerning the safety of fluoridation."
    • Ruling: "Whenever the public health may be threatened, a court of equity has a duty to act. Therefore, a preliminary injunction prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply at the Neville Island facility of the West View Water Authority shall issue."
  2. Illinois Pure Water Committee v. Director of Public Health
    • Judge Ronald Niemann's February 26, 1982 decision: "A conclusion that fluoride is a safe and effective means of promoting dental health cannot be supported by this record."
    • And: "There is a failure of the State to explain even the scope of the potential risks involved."
    • And: "Is this Court required to close it's eyes to the risks and await for someone in state government at some future date to say that new findings have left them concerned…"
    • And: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable, scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination that fluoridation of public water supplies is both safe and effective means of promoting public health."
    • Ruling: "It is Ordered and Decreed that in light of the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, and state of law applicable, the enforcement of lll. Rev. Stat. Ch. 111-1/2, Sec. 121gl by William L. Kempiners, or his successor in office and the Illinois Department of Public Health and Michael P. Mauzy, or his successor in office, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is an unreasonable exercise of police power, and therefore, they are enjoined from any future enforcement of the statute (mandatory state fluoridation) in question."
  3. Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston
    • Judge Farris's May 24, 1982 decision: "…artificial fluoridation of public water supplies…may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man."
  4. M'Coll v. Strathclyde Regional Council S.C 225
    • Lord Jauncy's June 29, 1983 decision: "…fluoridation of the water supply with the view to improving the general dental health of the populace which in no way facilitated nor was incidental to the supply of wholesome water was out with the powers of the Regional Council."
    • And: "I see no reason why a local body, so long as it acts in good faith, should not be entitled to take any reasonable steps it thinks proper to improve the quality of its available water supply as water. I agree that it must not attempt to introduce a substance which is foreign to the nature of the water for medical or other purposes, for this would render the water ‘impure'."
    • And: "It follows that fluoridation which in no way facilitates nor is incidental to the supply of such water is outwith the powers of the respondents. The petitioner therefore succeeds on this branch of her case."
    • Ruling: "I shall therefore repel the first and third pleas-in-law for the petitioner, sustain her second plea-in-law and grant interdict."
  5. Toronto v. Forest Hill, 9 D.L.R. 2d at 114-15
    • Mr. Justice Rand ruling: "But (the statute) is not to promote the ordinary use of water as a physical requisite for the body that fluoridation is proposed. That process has a distinct and different purpose; it is not a means to an end of wholesome water for water's function but to an end of a special health purpose for which water supply is made use of as a means."
    • Ruling: "In pith and substance the by-law relates not to the provision of a water supply but to the compulsory preventive medication of the inhabitants of the area. In my opinion, the words of the statutory provisions on which the appellant relies do not confer upon the council the power to make by-laws in relation to matters of this sort."
  6. Campbell v. Kingsville (1929) 4 D.L.R 772
    • Pg. 772 of the ruling: "A municipality which negligently fails to take adequate precautions to ensure the purity of its water supply will be liable in damages to a taxpayer who sustains loss by reason of the death of a member of his family from drinking same."
  7. Paul M and Verla Martin v. Reynolds Metals (1955)
    • The judge ruled that the couple had sustained: "serious injury to their livers, kidneys and digestive functions" from eating: "farm produce contaminated by (fluoride) fumes" - awarding them damages.
  8. Page v. Smith (1995) 2 All ER 736
    • Pg. 737 of the ruling: "In the case of primary victims of an accident the test in all cases was the same, namely whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that his conduct would expose the plaintiff to the risk of personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric."
  9. Sask. V. Redberry Dev. Corp. 2 C.E.L.R (N.S)
    • Pg. 12 of the ruling: "I am of the opinion that the respondents are clearly in breach of the statue and as the project is likely to cause widespread public concern because of the potential environmental changes, the public interest in having the law obeyed must outweigh any hardship the injunction would impose on the respondents."
  10. R. v. Nitrochem 14 C.E.L.R (N.S) 151
    • Pg. 158 of the ruling: "The test of inconsistency recognized by the courts as to whether a provincial law is to be rendered inoperative under the doctrine of paramountcy has progressed over the years from one of ‘covering the field' to one of express contradiction where the compliance with one law involves the breach of the other."
    • Pg. 162: "The defendants must establish on the balance of probabilities that they were duly diligent, that is, they must establish that they exercised all reasonable care by establishing a proper system to prevent commission of the offence and by taking reasonable steps to ensure the effective operation of the system."
  11. R. v. MacMillian Bloedal Ltd. 12 C.E.L.R (N.S) 230
    • Pg. 231 of the ruling: "To obtain a conviction under sec.16(1) of the Act, the Crown must prove that the material discharged may have impaired, or had the potential to impair water quality. It is the nature of the substance and not the quantity that determines whether it may impair water quality. There is no requirement that the Crown prove actual harm."
  12. Spraytech v. Town of Hudson 2001 SCC 40
    • Pg.231 of the ruling: "The interpretation of By-law 270 set out here respects international law's ‘precautionary principle' . In the context of the precautionary principle's tenets, the Town's concerns about pesticides fit well under their rubric of preventive action."
  13. R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd. SCC March 24, 1988
    • Pg.16 of the ruling: "In their Lordship's opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation: if it is of such that it goes beyond local and provincial concern or interest and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a whole, then it will fall within the competence of the Dominion Parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to provincial legislatures. War and pestilence, no doubt, are instances: so, too, may be drink or drug traffic, or the carrying of arms."
  14. Laporte v. Laganiere C.R.N.S Vol. 18 pg.357
    • Pg.361 of the ruling: "Every medical interference with the body of another is a prima facie assault; to justify such assault and escape both civil and criminal responsibility therefore, the physician or surgeon must be able to demonstrate either (1) that there was valid consent given by or on behalf of the patient, or (2) that the situation was one of extreme urgency, that the acts done were reasonably necessary for the preservation of life or safety of the patient and that the latter condition was such as to make the requisite consent impossible."
    • Pg.363: "The integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the constitution does not forbid the states minor intrusions into an individual's body under stringent limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions."
  15. R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 S.C.R
    • Pg.138 of the ruling: "…must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right of freedom."
    • Pg.139: "…must show the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified."
    • Pg.139: "Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as ‘sufficient importance'."
  16. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1911)
    • Ruling: "If there is any power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."
  17. Schloendroff v. The Society of the New York Hospital (1914) 211 N.Y. 125 at 129
    • Judge Cardozo heard the Schoendroff case and ruled: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body."


  1. Canadian Dental Law. L. Rozovsky. Published by Butterworth (1987)
    • Pg.109-110: "Compulsory vaccination legislation for school children may also be justified on the basis of the public's interest in protecting itself from a potential threat. These arguments cannot be applied to justify fluoridation since non-fluoridated water cannot be said to be a threat to the public. Dental cavities are also not a threat. Similarly fluoridation does not deal with a current disease but with the possibility of a future problem. Fluoridation to the water supply, according to these arguments, forces individuals to undergo a preventive health measure against a condition which they may not get, is not a danger to the public if they do get it and does nothing for a condition from which they may now be suffering."
  2. Traumatic Medicine and Surgery For The Attorney, Vol.7 (1962) Butterworths
    • Pg. 591: "Toxic dose: The careless handling of sodium fluoride and of sodium silicofluoride has often resulted in acute poisoning and, being relatively available, it has often been used for suicidal purposes. Severe non-fatal poisonings may result from as little as 0.25-0.45 gram, larger doses being increasingly more toxic and the fatal dose for man has been given as 5-15 gram but much smaller doses of 0.7-1.0 gram have been fatal within 3 1/2 hours."
    • Pg. 653: "The minimum toxic dose of colloidal lead has been given as 40 grams for females and 100 grams for males. The fatal oral dose of lead acetate has been given as from 20 grams to over 50 grams, that of lead carbonate as 23-40 grams, and it has been stated that the smallest oral dose of lead causing acute poisoning is 5 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight."
  3. American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
    • States: "To be deemed ‘disabled' for the purpose of the ADA protection, an individual generally must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. A ‘physical' or mental impairment could be any mental, psychological, or physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement…"
    • Pg. 66 defines "Disfigurement" as: "An altered or abnormal appearance of color, shaper or structure of the skin or of a body part."
  4. Schmidt's Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine
    • Pg. F-86 defines "fluorosis" as: "1. A condition of being chronically poisoned by fluorine or fluorides. 2. A condition marked by an increased density of the bones, discoloration or mottling of the teeth, stiffness of the spine, etc., caused by prolonged intake of an excessive amount of fluorides, as when a community water supply contains too much fluoride (2 or more parts per million in drinking water)."
  5. Stedmans Medical Dictionary, 27 th ed.
    • Pg.691 defines "fluorosis" as:
      "1. A condition caused by an excessive intake of fluorides (2 or more p.p.m. in drinking water), characterized mainly by mottling, staining, or hypoplasia of the enamel of the teeth, although the skeleton bones are also affected.
      2. Chronic poisoning of livestock with fluorides that blacken and soften developing teeth and reduce bones to a chalky brittleness; most often caused by ingestion of forage contaminants near large aluminum plants."
  6. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts, 18 th ed. (1981)
  7. Protection of Life, Medical treatment and criminal law
  8. Law for Canadian Health Care Administrators. JJ Merriss
  9. The Merck Manuel
  10. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
  11. The Canadian law of consent to treatment (Butterworth)
  12. Canadian Conflict of Laws (Butterworth)
  13. Canadian Medical Law (Carswell)
  14. Legal liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (Picard and Robeson)
  15. Private International Law (Butterworth)
  16. Medicine for Lawyers (Whiples)


So there you have it, my case. I believe you will agree the evidence you have just read confirms the conclusion I have reached - that public water fluoridation is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional! Public water fluoridation forces a population to ingest the drug fluorine - a drug that causes disease! Nobody - not your neighbor by way of referendum, not your doctor or dentist, and definitely not the government - has the right to force you to ingest a drug against your will unless it's to battle a contagious life-treating disease outbreak, or if your mentally incompetent and in their charge. Nobody! Case law backs this up.

When public water fluoridation started in North America (in the 1940's), it was thought by drinking "optimally" fluoridated water, the fluorine/fluoride would build a fluorine/fluoride mineral "shield" over the forming "pre-erupted" teeth of infants and children (under 6 yrs old) - strengthening the teeth. This "shield" theory has since been debunked - drinking "optimally" fluoridated water does not strengthen tooth enamel as was once thought and promoted by Health Canada until 1993. Nowadays, Health Canada's scientific "logic" behind drinking "optimally" fluoridated water is that it helps "re-mineralize" already "post-erupted" decayed teeth (they threw the "post-eruptive fluorine/fluoride-shield" theory out the window). The problem with this "logic" (besides the fact that were talking about drinking rat poison/insecticide for a health benefit) is that the exact same "optimal" amount of artificial fluorine is being added to Canada's fluoridated communities as was added in the 1945 (1mg/F/L), when the average level of fluorine/fluoride ingested by Canadians by way of their food has gone from 0.2mg/day in the 1940's, to 1.8mg/day today!!! Mad, mad, mad science. The defendants in my case know that Canadians are overdosing on fluorine/fluorides - their affidavits tell us this - but they keep on promoting public water fluoridation. They will be held liable for the damages to Canadians occasioned by public water fluoridation! Their negligent in allowing the average level of fluoride ingestion (4mg/F/Day) to climb as high as it has - to levels, according to their own affidavits, that cause disease - is criminal!

So according to the evidence I've uncovered to date: 1. Public water fluoridation schemes were created in 1931 by Andrew W. Mellon (a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA - a large aluminum manufacturing company facing fluorine pollution lawsuits!), the than head of the U.S Public Health Services, to dispose of his and others industrial pollutant fluorine/fluoride. 2. Public water fluoridation was sold to North Americans by Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward L. Bernays - the "father of public relations" - who was hired in 1947 by Oscar R. Ewing (a long-time ALCOA lawyer), the than head of the U.S Federal Security Agency, a position that placed him in charge of the U.S Public Health Services. 3. Public water fluoridation was used by Hitler (5mg/F/L) in his concentration camps to make his prisoners "docile" and "suggestible" (www.bragg.com/fluoride_grim.htm). 4. Public water fluoridation causes dental fluorosis, which in it's moderate and severe forms, causes more cavities to occur. 5. Pubic water fluoridation mineralizes your whole body with fluorides that eventually cripple or kill you. 6. Swishing and spitting out fluoridated water works as effectively, and without the risks, as drinking it! 7. "Optimal" levels of fluorine/fluoride are already ingested through eating food or brushing with fluoride toothpaste. 8. The "optimal" level of fluorine/fluoride added in public water fluoridation schemes has been the same (1/mg/F/L) since 1945, but the fluorine/fluoride levels in food have increased from 0.2mg/day/ingested to 1.82mg/day/ingested and fluoridated dental products weren't available in 1945. 9. Governments that allow fluoridation are negligent and liable for any "foreseeable" negative health consequences occasioned by its ingestion. 10. Public water fluoridation is illegal, unlawful, fraudulent and unconstitutional!

I could go on and on (I have pages more of evidence and references) but I'll leave you for now with the words of Dr. Frank Bull, chairman the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with The Public Health Service and Children's Bureau held June 6-8, 1951 at the Federal Security Building, Washington, D.C., to illustrate what I'm up against: "Now let's get into a couple of don'ts. We have had a little experience on some things to avoid. Don't use the word ‘artificial', and don't use sodium fluoride. You don't know what a community is going to end up using as a fluoridating agent. But don't let them raise the question of rat poison if you can help it. And certainly don't use the word ‘experimental'. (pg.19)"

And: "If it is a fact that some individuals are against fluoridation, you have just got to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it all together. Just pass over it, ‘We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay', you say, and go on. If it becomes an issue, then you will have to take it over, but don't bring it up yourself."

    • Main Library, Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare, 300 Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. The Health, Education and Welfare library file number is RK- 301C76- 1951.

For more info see:

      1. www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol142/Graham-final2.pdf
      2. www.fluoridealert.org
      3. www.nofluoride.com/reports/Natick%20Report.pdf

Kevin James Millership is 30 years old and was born in Kamloops, B.C on June 18, 1971. He has worked as an Occupational first aid attendant for the last 6 years in the oil, gas, logging, construction and hospitality industries in British Columbia.



to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa