Fluoridation of Our Water: An Urgent Concern for Public Health and Individual Freedom

Fluoridation of water, in an at best ill-advised attempt to improve dental health, not only condemns the population to significant health risks, but also represents yet another example of forced mass medication and the trampling of individuals’ fundamental right to informed consent. NZDSOS has joined forces with Fluoride Free New Zealand and lawyer Sue Grey to bring legal action against the Hastings District Council in the form of an injunction against continued fluoridation pending court rulings on its legality. This is a case which we believe will have repercussions across the nation. We urge you to take action with us.

Water Fluoridation

It can be argued that the proposed nation-wide fluoridation of drinking water, without the need to consult the public is possibly more insidious even than the covid response, since the negative safety data goes back far longer, and there is a public record of our officials ignoring judicial directives and trying to deceive the governments of the day by downplaying the significance of studies proving brain damage. 

Firstly, calling this intervention “safe and effective” is untrue. It is a matter of scientific FACT that fluoridation chemicals damage the brains of young children, including during pregnancy. Decades of research have shown an intelligence deficit of, on average, 5 IQ points in fluoridated areas around the world. This is mammoth in neurodevelopmental and societal terms. Unsurprisingly, other issues like behaviour, learning and the spectrum of neuroregressive disorders are on the radar too. Some dentists have been calling the alarm since the 1950s. (Show us a dentist now that still thinks that mercury in amalgams is good for us!) Remember, progress in science is the battle against entrenched error, and NZDSOS will not wait for everyone else finally to agree that fluoridation was always dangerous and proven scientifically to be so.

Secondly, the lack of widespread awareness of the issues means that individuals are denied the opportunity to voice their concerns about what enters their bodies.  This is the informed part of Informed Consent (a fundamental medical principle).

Thirdly, legislative changes, such as the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021, directing councils not to consult with their residents regarding the fluoridation of water, further erodes the principle of consent to medical treatment that is set down in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the HDC Code of Consumers’ Rights.

Fourthly, the resultant very poor choices left to citizens are fraught with trade-offs. For most, the options boil down to drinking fluoridated water, purchasing an expensive filter, locating an alternative source of public drinking water or resorting to expensive plastic-bottled water, potentially exposing themselves to harmful chemicals like BPAs or BPS.  Even if an alternative for drinking water is found, those in fluoridated areas still need to wash and water their gardens with fluoridated water, another source of exposure.

As with the covid response, particularly the covid injection, Dr Bloomfield has advised that this intervention is ‘safe and effective’, protecting our most vulnerable. However, as mentioned, studies have long indicated adverse effects on neurological development, raising serious concerns about the impact of fluoride on brain function, especially in the most vulnerable – the unborn, babies and developing children. NZDSOS has written about the toxicity of fluoride previously.

The emphasis on water fluoridation as a panacea for dental health ignores more important issues, those of  nutrition and oral health. By fixating on fluoridation while neglecting broader public health interventions targeting sugar consumption and dental hygiene, the government risks exacerbating the very health inequalities that they are purporting to address.

Lack of Choice

Even if fluoride does improve tooth enamel (which is extremely dubious), parental choice around dental health vs brain function in their children has been removed.  Parents have alternative ways to access fluoride if they determine its benefits outweigh the risks for their child. eg, use fluoride toothpaste or have topical fluoride applied by the dental nurse. Individual choice and indeed informed consent have once again been discarded.

Are we as Kiwis happy to be ‘medicated’ without our understanding or consent?  Are we happy to have no means not to take the medication? Not only do we have now a synthetic vitamin, folic acid (which a proportion of the population cannot metabolise) in our bread, but now we all face having a chemical which is frankly toxic and ineffective, in our water.  What is next?

What NZDSOS is Doing

NZDSOS, along with Fluoride Free New Zealand have taken action that we believe will help to halt the roll-out of fluoridation by ensuring that local councils and indeed, health authorities and the judiciary uphold the right to decline medical treatment as outlined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

Background

In his last week as Director General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, ordered 14 local councils where the water was not fluoridated to add fluoride to the drinking water, with massive fines if this was not done. This was stated as being the first “batch” of councils and that fluoridation would eventually be implemented nation wide.  There are a further 27 local authorities that are being actively considered for a direction to fluoridate one or more of their drinking water supplies.  

 A case was taken by New Health New Zealand against the Director General of Health alleging that the directives were illegal. The substantive case will be heard later this year. In the meantime, in February of this year the court ruled that Dr Bloomfield should have provided an explanation as to why the fundamental right to informed consent to medical treatment was being overridden.  However, the judge did not rule that the directives needed to be cancelled or suspended. Some councils (e.g. Hastings District) have proceeded with the fluoridation process and others (e.g Nelson) have asked for extensions/exemptions until the BORA assessment is completed and legality is clarified. It needs to be noted that some districts have had fluoridated water for many years (e.g. Auckland, Palmerston North).

For more information on water fluoridation in New Zealand we recommend this short but very informative documentary.

Action

NZDSOS, along with Fluoride Free New Zealand filed for an injunction against the Hastings District Council, to suspend the fluoridation of the district’s water immediately, pending the outcome of the BORA assessment (New Health New Zealand case). The hearing will take place in the Wellington High Court on the 16th of May 2024.

We are appalled that so few people are aware of this toxin that if not already in their water, soon will be and that no government effort has been made to inform them.  We are appalled that no ethics debate was undertaken before mass medicating the population and that no robust scientific debate, in public, has been undertaken.

NZDSOS stands for medical freedom and informed consent. As doctors, when people are being harmed in the name of medicine and health, we cannot be silent.

The Bigger Picture

The issue of water fluoridation extends beyond the realm of public health; it highlights grave concerns about individual freedom and democracy in New Zealand. The imposition of mass medication without conversation or consent underlies the train-crash towards authoritarianism that we are experiencing – an authoritarianism where individual rights are sacrificed supposedly in the name of the collective and where the intervention imposed causes great harm to both individuals and the collective.  It serves, once again, as a stark reminder of the pervasive influence of powerful interests—be they financial, political, pharmaceutical or eugenicist — that shape public policy to serve their own nefarious ends.

When Will You Stand Up?

If it is not enough that medication is already in our bread and water, what will be enough for us collectively to say “NO”? How many more assaults on our freedom, whether by stealth or by coercion, are we going to tolerate? Only through collective action can we ensure that our country remains true to the principles of freedom, democracy and respect for individual autonomy.

In conclusion, fluoridation of water represents not only a public health issue but also a direct challenge to our democratic values and individual freedoms. How many will rise to this challenge?