“Just Following Orders” – and The Fluoride Fraud

Fraud Fluoride
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License

Mass medication by water fluoridation for the benefit of teeth is a fraud.  That is now obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the data and science.

All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force.
– George Orwell

So, it seems we are at the ‘force’ stage now.  Justice La Hood delivered his judgement a week after the Hastings District Council (HDC) fluoride hearing, in another judicial demonstration of protecting the machinery of government over the rights of people. These must include the right to benefit from progress in science, which shows chemical fluoridation causes brain damage and spectrum disorders. 

Both written and oral submissions for the Director General of Health (DGoH) in the court hearing were heavily reliant on the word ‘comply’.  Justice La Hood’s verdict is in the same vein – much reference to comply and compliance. e.g. “And the Council’s role under s 116I is limited to mandatory compliance with any direction once made.”

The “Yeah, Right” to Decline Medical Treatment

Justice La Hood has answered our question – Does the NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA) mean anything?

No, it doesn’t.  It is now plain for all to see that ordinary Kiwis do not have rights that the courts are willing to uphold or protect.

This was evident to us during the covid ‘pandemic’ when the ‘demonstrable justification’ supposedly required to overrule or limit the right to decline medical treatment was non-existent.  There was (and still is) no document explaining how it was justified to force an experimental gene injection that did not stop infection or transmission of an illness onto the population ‘for the greater good’, particularly when death could result.

Only a segment of the population was interested in that topic, but water fluoridation is likely to affect nearly every Kiwi (babies in particular, by brain damage), as more and more councils are ordered to medicate their drinking water with fluoride.  The first 14 already have their orders.  There are another 26 orders in the pipeline.

The BORA and Health and Disablity Code of Rights both include the right to decline medical treatment.  But they are meaningless if no-one is willing to uphold them. These rights are not just nice-to-haves, they are there to protect us from lawlessness, abuse – and terrible medical errors, like chemical fluoridation and the covid jabs. They should have been the first and last line of defence against someone like Dr Bloomfield, granted the sole opinion on said medical matters from which all other lackeys take their cue without the knowledge, training or interest to double check for themselves. 

Informed Consent – or Else!

The Medical Council of New Zealand has thorough guidelines on Informed Consent which indicate that the prescriber of the medication must discuss the benefits, risks, uncertainties and alternatives of the proposed treatment – but is the prescriber the Director General of Health or each individual council?  And informed consent cannot be provided under coercion, it must be given freely. 

In the case of water fluoridation for prevention of dental decay (poppycock by the way) informed consent should include:

  • Benefits – none, it is not a nutrient, any possible effect is only topical (ie toothpaste) and thus not administered by drinking water
  • Risks – damaging to brains (especially those of babies), thyroid glands, bones, environment
  • Alternatives – avoiding sugary drinks, brushing teeth, improving gum health with good nutrition, topical application if one really wants fluoride
  • Uncertainties – effects on all those organs that have not been studied; additive effects with chlorine also in the water; cumulative effects with fluoride from medications and other sources as well as drinking water

If the public were fully informed and had a choice, would the majority consent?  We think it unlikely but they have not been asked.  And what happens to the individuals who do not consent? 

As the Fluoride Fraud Continues – What now?

The question is now – when will Dr Diana Sarfati (the current DGoH) do her BORA analysis – the ignoring of which by Dr Bloomfield was judged unlawful.  Will she put it further on the back burner while mandating all the councils nationwide to add this industrial poison to their water supplies?  How many babies’ brains and adult thyroid glands will be damaged while she dilly dallies?

When the courts do not respect the concerns of the citizens of a country or uphold their rights, what is the population to do?  Where do they turn? Apparently not to the Wellington High Court, where Judge La Hood just overturned repeated Supreme Court validation of the Bill of Rights as superior legislation – and certainly well above government policy, especially a shockingly bad one like compulsory chemical fluoridation, long dropped by most of the world by the way.

When the authorities are so determined to add a proven neurotoxin to the water supply, against overwhelming science, and when there are superior alternatives to achieve the stated outcome, one has to wonder WHY? And who is benefiting? Following the dollar takes us to big sugar and big fertiliser, but who are their fixers in the government?

Further Reading on Fluoride Fraud:

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 130 Average: 4.9]
Share this post

Similar Posts


  1. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 is inferior legislation because the rights therein can be overridden by any legislation destroying our unalienable God given birth rights, being created equal, as confirmed as the common law in the Magna Carta 1297 c29, which came with the flag in the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 Article 3, including our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rule of law, to freedom of thought, speech, movement, association, to informed consent and the right to refuse any medical treatment, to respect for our inherent human dignity, to access to our courts and to freedom of religion which allows God’s true religion to be taught and practiced in our land. So why not try this superior old Great Charter?

  2. When were we asked if we want fluoridation in our water? When were we asked if we want an experimental neurotoxin injected into our arms? Oh that’s right, we weren’t.

  3. Individual compensation to obtain alternative water supply (eg bottled) could be possible. Small Claims across enough people might make the policy uneconomic. Use the existing court cases about forced medication plus contract law.

  4. There are less than ten countries left in the world that still fluoridate their water.
    So that being the case and fluoride supposedly stopping tooth decay, should those countries not have a serious tooth ache (pun intended)?
    But no, they don’t.
    What does that tell us?
    Come on NZ, wake up and catch up!

Leave a Reply

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