It seems like a lifetime ago now that I ran in the 2007 Far North District Council elections.
Having completed an eye-opening Indigenous Fellowship with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights the previous year in Geneva, I returned home with a heightened appreciation of what constituted injustice. No doubt, my new-found awareness made me sensitive to one of the hot issues at the time – water fluoridation. I was armed with knowledge of the human right to self-determination (Article 1, ICCPR and ICESCR), to safe, quality water, and the right to not be medicated without our consent (Article. 7, ICCPR), / the requirement for free, prior and informed consent (Articles. 19, 23 and 29, UNDRIP), among others. I recognised these as rights closely aligned with tino rangatiratanga and protection of taonga (such as te mana o te wai/ the integrity of water, and oranga/ health) under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
I also had an understanding of the internationally accepted precautionary principle and its application in relation to public and environmental health. Concerns of local activists resonated with my own instincts, so I conducted a basic search on the issue which quickly revealed a mountain of scientific research calling fluoridation into question due to safety and effectiveness concerns (see Fluoride Free NZ’s site here for a selection of updated materials). These combined factors drove me to make a stand in the 2007 local body election, and call for a comprehensive review of the council’s decision to fluoridate the water supply.
18 years on as Aotearoa heads into 2025’s local body election, I find it very upsetting that fluoridation continues to be relentlessly and ruthlessly foisted on the population by Health NZ (HNZ). Indeed, circumstances around this matter have ostensibly worsened.
The body of scientific evidence that either indicates, or concludes, that fluoridation is unnecessary and harmful, is compelling. The latest data opposing fluoridation is a “landmark” 2024 US Federal case which, having heard evidence as to neurotoxicity, determined fluoridation to be an unreasonable risk to human health, especially to developing children’s brains (ironically, children are the very cohort HNZ claims to want to protect). This should, at the very least, trigger HNZ to review the precautionary principle’s application to this scenario. Instead, the Director-General of Health has completely ignored that standard and, shockingly, reverted to “chilling” iron fist tactics reminiscent of authoritarian dictatorships. Health Minister Simeon Brown seems to be happy to abandon his duty of care and delegate full decision-making responsibility to HNZ, reiterating the agency’s edict that the fluoridation policy will remain no matter what (since when did New Zealanders find acceptable one agency holding so much unelected power?). The Minister and HNZ doubling down despite compelling scientific and legal developments, is ideological, and advancing an agenda which is in fact ‘anti-science’. It’s sickeningly hypocritical to wax lyrical about the importance of science-based policy, while cherry-picking the credible science to be recognised.
Most countries don’t mandate fluoridation, and push-back at provincial and state level around the world to outright ban fluoridation is on the rise. Perhaps they all know something that New Zealand doesn’t know or, more likely, refuses to admit?
Besides the attack on human rights and democracy, the government’s approach is also incredibly dangerous for another systemic reason. Science is inherently sceptical. That is to say researchers should question assumptions, be constantly vigilant of their own biases, and be open to the fact that today’s accepted theories may be disproven by new evidence in the future. Policy-makers who rely on scientific viewpoints must therefore be responsive to new scientific discoveries and change. Were it otherwise, human civilisation would be time-warped and stunted, never to evolve, never to make new discoveries, and crucially our attempts to progressively uncover truth (as opposed to stubbornly clinging to debunked dogma) would be thwarted. However, HNZ’s stance is a tell that it doesn’t understand the iterative way science of integrity operates to reveal truth. This includes the accumulative and synergistic effects of pollutants and chemicals in air, water, soil, food and in our bodies, making this “one of the great existential challenges of the Anthropocene epoch”. The undisputed fact that people are already exposed to an unprecedented baseline of ubiquitous toxicity must be considered alongside any proposal to add even more chemicals to our drinking water (cue precautionary principle again).
Concerning fluoridation, however, policy-makers seem to be ignorant of this vital context, demonstrating yet another deficiency: their inability to comprehend (let alone respond to) complex systems. Merepeka Raukawa-Tait offers a good model of systems due diligence when she says “You can’t fluoride Ourselves out of poverty”. She recognises, as do many, that oral health exists in the context of socio-economic health. Even if fluoridation could survive the attacks against its safety and effectiveness, there’s still that inconvenient truth that other factors such as poor diet, economic status and education have much greater impact on oral health outcomes than the unnecessary ingesting of a neurotoxin ever will.
The aggregate result of all these governance failings is a growing deep mistrust in institutions – in bureaucracy, politics, science, and by association health professionals, community leaders, the media and other actors who unquestioningly accept and advocate the establishment narrative. It doesn’t help where authorities pump out statements which are patently untrue. For example, HNZ’s medical officer Dr Phil Shoemack, who claimed that fluoride levels take into account “people’s diet, different people’s sensitivity and medical conditions.” You don’t need to be a medical expert to spot the fatal error of logic here: Unless all New Zealanders are being monitored across those dietary metrics (and of course they aren’t), his claim is shameful, brazen disinformation. Neither does it engender trust to decree fluoridation to be exempt from the Medicines Act when clearly fluoridated water is a form of medication.
This critical lack of trust among the citizenry for nation’s institutions is incredibly corrosive to a well-functioning society. Policy-making and implementation exists only to serve the sovereign people. But if it becomes clear that the system no longer serves the interests of ordinary folk, that system loses any legitimate claim to exercise decision-making powers on the people’s behalf. Situations like fluoridation, on top of other policies being identified as worthy of scrutiny (like the Covid-19 response), are bringing this broader issue of unscientific policy, State human rights violations and government over-reach into sharp relief. With a stronger sense of civic intuition that something’s terribly awry, and a memory of past betrayals of the colonialist state and its various apparatuses, HNZ and the health Minister can no longer take compliance of the masses for granted. This is especially the case in a time of tangata whenua tino rangatiratanga resurgence; and where citizens have access to more information, including from other progressive jurisdictions, and to a broader range of experts with diverse opinions. So expect more people to truth-test propositions (rather than taking any authority’s word at face value), to push back more forcefully against establishment narratives and stand up when they feel their rights and interests are under attack.
This is why I strongly support the Whangārei District Council’s bold stand against the Director-General’s fluoridation directive, and I encourage others to do also. We rarely see local elected officials having the courage to face imprisonment for what they believe in, so policy-makers and politicians would do well to take the hint and temperature-check the room. It’s also heartening to see the Rotorua Lakes Council’s call for an independent inquiry into the health and environmental impacts of fluoridation, in addition to reports of resistance shown by the Far North District, Waipa District and Tauranga City Councils. We’re to be thankful for this growing opposition. But as this could be a test-case for other anti-democratic and anti-Te Tiriti moves that are surely looming, more councillors around the country need to join the campaign. Health professionals, including Māori health professionals, and iwi leaders also need to re-evaluate their positions. It’s timely to reflect on whether fluoridation of our wai is just another alluring coloniser psyop, and critically analyse if that directive is in our people’s best interests according to our ancestral values, expert knowledge and intuition.
My moments of agreement with Winston Peters are increasingly few and far between. But on his excoriating HNZ’s fluoridation mandate as a “despotic Soviet-era disgrace“, I’m a hundred per cent in agreement. On a matter of such significance on so many levels, his call to return fluoridation decision-making back to local constituencies is a move in the right direction. I’m gunning for him to persuade his ministerial colleagues to put HNZ’s fluoridation policy under the independent, transparent microscope. The Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry provides a precedent here. Better yet, skip the costs of an inquiry and abandon this tyrannical experiment altogether.
Last but not least, it’d be great to see the Human Rights Commission chime in. Back in 1980, the Commission concluded that fluoridation didn’t constitute a breach of human rights. But that landscape has most definitely shifted. In 2018 the Supreme Court found fluoridation to be a form of compulsory medical treatment, and in 2023 the High Court required the Director General to explicitly consider s11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 concerning the right to refuse medical treatment. It’s time for a refreshed perspective.
Mauri ora te wai!
Image credit: David Becker
This Aotearoa Te Tiriti centric place sounds like it’s under the thumb (spell) of the Zionist NWO communist agenda masquerading as the UN. I wish it well.
There are over-arching themes about the impact of the globalists’ attack on ordinary folks’ health and sovereignty, that’s for sure. The sicker a population is, the easier it is to control, apparently.
Thanks for publishing. There are some issues like fluoridation where people of all backgrounds need to come together. Thats what these bureaucrats and globalists fear.
I agree. The elites’ divide and conquer strategy is very effective. The antidote must be unity of a critical mass of the population on common priority concerns. But that requires Us to suspend our other differences long enough for our campaigns on shared interests get traction and make progress. Many believe it’d be helpful if Aotearoa had a written constitution that set out our nation’s core shared values – e.g. environmental wellbeing, human rights, the fact that these values are superior to corporate privileges (i.e. making legal personhood of corporations inferior), etc. It would then be somewhat easier to defeat policies that offend NZ’s standards because (1) we could argue unconstitutionality from the get go, and (2) citizens would have a clear, relatable standard to mobilise around (the Bill of Rights exists, but on the plane of legislation that is vulnerable to change – it’s not entrenched Higher Law of the land).
How the hell did we let these bastards gain control of our countries?
Greed.
The love of money is the root of all evil
👍
HNZ is nothing but a New Zealand domiciled arm of overseas interests. The people within HNZ are not acting in the best interests of New Zealand, and have not been for some time.
HNZ should be shut down immediately.
Kia Ora Catherine thank you, a timely article. Several states in the U.S. have just banned or are currently banning fluoride from their water supplies. As a five eyes member with access, presumably, to the latest research and statistics we should be looking at the same and politicians should be reading the room on the issue of the MIC /colonial dumping of waste products willy nilly a la du Pont. Mr Google says this about fluoride:
‘It is a chemical BY-PRODUCT of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Before the public was convinced that adding fluoride to their water was for their own good, the metal and chemical industries had the problem of disposing of their highly toxic fluoride waste.’ my capitals btw, just sayin’
Yea, I just saw Miami’s the latest to make a move. That’s encouraging.
Interesting analysis here: Let’s assess the legal jeopardy elected Councillors face under section 23 of the Health Act 1956, Part 2, specifically section 23(c), in the context of the water fluoridation scenario and my prior response recommending an immediate stop to fluoridation due to concentrations exceeding 1 mg/L. This section imposes a general duty on local authorities to protect public health, with specific powers to abate nuisances or conditions injurious to health. Here’s the analysis as of March 27, 2025.
Section 23 of the Health Act 1956: Overview
Section 23 – General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health states:
Duty: Every local authority must “improve, promote, and protect public health within its district.”
Specific Power (s 23(c)): If satisfied that a “nuisance” or “condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive” exists, the local authority is empowered and directed to “cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal of the condition.”
Scope: “Nuisance” and “injurious to health” are broad terms, historically covering sanitation, pollution, or hazards, but applicable to drinking water quality if evidence supports harm.
This imposes a proactive obligation on WDC to address health risks, complementing the fluoridation directive under s 23C.
Context: This would apply if the following Fluoridation Scenario was occuring:
Scenario: The water treatment station delivers fluoride concentrations >1 mg/L (beyond the 0.7–1 mg/L target), confirmed at community taps, due to flawed methodology (no tap monitoring, unverified dilution assumptions). My report flags this as an operational failure with unassessed risks (e.g., neurodevelopmental harm per JAMA Pediatrics 2025, NTP 2024).
Recommendation: Stop fluoridation immediately, citing the precautionary principle, to prevent potential harm while fixing the system.
Legal Jeopardy for Elected Councillors Under Section 23(c)
Councillors’ legal exposure under s 23(c) hinges on their response to the over-fluoridation issue, balancing their duty to protect health against the s 23C directive to fluoridate. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Continuing Fluoridation (Ignoring Over-Dosing)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors allow fluoridation to proceed with levels >1 mg/L, they may fail s 23(c)’s duty if this is deemed a “condition likely to be injurious to health.” My report cites evidence of potential neurodevelopmental risks at 1–1.5 mg/L (e.g., 1.63 IQ point loss per 1 mg/L urinary fluoride, JAMA 2025), especially for fetuses and infants. While not conclusive below the Taumata Arowai MAV of 1.5 mg/L, this suggests a plausible hazard.
Councillor Jeopardy:
Civil Liability: If harm (e.g., cognitive deficits) is later proven, residents could sue WDC for negligence under tort law, alleging Councillors failed to abate a known risk. The council, not individuals, would typically be liable, but Councillors could face scrutiny for ignoring evidence.
Judicial Review: A third party could seek review, arguing WDC breached s 23(c) by not acting on over-dosing. Courts might order abatement (e.g., stopping fluoridation), exposing Councillors to criticism if they resisted.
Personal Liability: Unlikely under Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) s 43 (indemnity for good-faith acts), unless Councillors knowingly disregarded clear harm evidence, constituting gross misconduct.
Likelihood: Moderate. Levels >1 mg/L but 1 mg/L a “condition likely to be injurious.” Unassessed risks, operational failure—provide a basis to argue this, satisfying their duty to “secure the removal of the condition.”
Conflict with s 23C: This pits s 23(c) against the Director-General’s directive (s 23C) to fluoridate at 0.7–1 mg/L. Stopping fluoridation risks non-compliance with s 23C, triggering fines ($200,000 + $10,000/day) and a mandamus order against the Council.
Jeopardy:
Fines on Council not Councillors personally, faces s 23C penalties for defying the Notice. LGA s 43 shields Councillors unless they act in bad faith (e.g., sabotaging staff efforts).
Court Challenge: The Ministry of Health could argue s 23C overrides s 23(c), as fluoridation is legislated as a health benefit. However, Councillors could counter that over-dosing negates this, seeking judicial clarification (e.g., via injunction).
Public Health Tension: If stopping fluoridation leads to dental health decline (unlikely short-term per Cochrane 2024), Councillors might face criticism, but not legal liability under s 23(c).
Likelihood: High for council-level fines if s 23C is breached, low for personal Councillor liability. Courts may prioritize s 23C’s specific mandate over s 23(c)’s general duty unless harm is imminent.
3. Failure to Act (Inaction)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors neither stop nor fix the over-dosing (e.g., delay decisions), they risk breaching s 23(c) by not abating a potential hazard, alongside s 23C non-compliance if fluoridation isn’t implemented.
Jeopardy: Dual exposure—civil claims for neglect (s 23(c)) and fines for defiance (s 23C). Personal liability remains unlikely, but reputational damage and court orders escalate.
Likelihood: Moderate, depending on how long inaction persists.
Reconciling s 23(c) and s 23C
Statutory Tension: Section 23(c) empowers Councils to act against health risks, while s 23C mandates fluoridation, assuming it promotes health. Over-dosing >1 mg/L creates a paradox—fluoridation complies with s 23C but may contravene s 23(c) if harmful.
Judicial Precedent: The High Court’s 2023 ruling (New Health NZ v Director-General) found the original directive unlawful for not assessing NZBORA rights, suggesting s 23C isn’t absolute. Councillors could argue s 23(c) justifies suspension if over-dosing poses a “condition injurious to health.”
Precautionary Duty: It is recommended to leverage the precautionary principle, aligning with s 23(c) to prioritize harm prevention over uncertain benefits (Cochrane 2024).
Specific Jeopardy Assessment
Personal Liability: Minimal. LGA s 43 protects Councillors acting in good faith (e.g., voting to stop fluoridation based on my report). Penalties or claims target Councils as a body corporate.
Council Liability:
Stopping Fluoridation: High risk of s 23C fines ($200,000+) and enforcement, mitigated by seeking an injunction.
Continuing Over-Dosing: Moderate risk of s 23(c)-related civil action or review if harm emerges, reduced by fixing the system.
Worst-Case Scenario: Continued over-dosing with proven harm (e.g., IQ loss) could lead to significant WCouncil liability (millions in damages), with Councillors indirectly implicated for oversight failure, though still shielded personally.
Recommendations to Minimize Jeopardy
Act Under s 23(c): Vote to suspend fluoridation, citing the evidence of a “condition likely to be injurious,” fulfilling s 23(c) duties.
Challenge s 23C: Apply for an interim injunction to stay the Notice, arguing over-dosing risks outweigh benefits, harmonizing s 23(c) and s 23C obligations.
Fix Methodology: Implement changes (tap monitoring, dosing control) to ensure 0.7–1 mg/L if fluoridation resumes, avoiding both risks.
Document Rationale: Record decisions as precautionary, referencing scientific uncertainty (e.g., JAMA 2025), bolstering legal defenses.
Conclusion
Councillors face limited personal jeopardy under s 23(c)—liability rests with Councils. Stopping fluoridation aligns with s 23(c) but risks s 23C fines, while continuing over-dosing risks s 23(c) claims if harm occurs. The safest path is suspension with judicial review, balancing both duties. Their jeopardy is more political (fines vs. community trust) than personal, thanks to LGA protections.
Yep, if money was no object groups could test different legal arguments in court. But it wouldn’t change the systemic problem (of which the decision in this case is merely a symptom of): the common law system is broken, and is kowtowing to the dictates of government’s dogma (apparently). The two branches of the State are meant to work independently, the former being a check on the latter’s power. But instead, they seem to be in lockstep. New Zealand used to be considered a socially progressive nation. Now it’s State-sponsored scientific lag and institutional inertia causing violations of basic freedoms and human rights. I’m drafting a request to the Human Rights Commission to review their stance on fluoridation, and I encourage others to do likewise.
The following is an assessment of the legal jeopardy elected Councillors face under section 23 of the Health Act 1956, Part 2, specifically section 23(c), in the context of a water fluoridation scenario where fluoride concentrations exceeding 1 mg/L; i.e. concentrations that have not been the subject of safety reviews. This section of the Health Act 1956 imposes a general duty on local authorities to protect public health, with specific powers to abate nuisances or conditions injurious to health.
Section 23 of the Health Act 1956: Overview
Section 23 – General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health states:
Duty: Every local authority must “improve, promote, and protect public health within its district.”
Specific Power (s 23(c)): If satisfied that a “nuisance” or “condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive” exists, the local authority is empowered and directed to “cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal of the condition.”
Scope: “Nuisance” and “injurious to health” are broad terms, historically covering sanitation, pollution, or hazards, but applicable to drinking water quality if evidence supports harm.
This imposes a proactive obligation on Councils to address health risks, complementing the fluoridation directive under s 23C.
Context: This would apply if the following Fluoridation Scenario was occuring:
Scenario: The water treatment station delivers fluoride concentrations >1 mg/L (beyond the 0.7–1 mg/L target), confirmed at community taps, due to flawed methodology (no tap monitoring, unverified dilution assumptions). This as an operational failure with unassessed risks (e.g., neurodevelopmental harm per JAMA Pediatrics 2025, NTP 2024).
Recommendation: Stop fluoridation immediately, citing the precautionary principle, to prevent potential harm while fixing the system.
Legal Jeopardy for Elected Councillors Under Section 23(c)
Councillors’ legal exposure under s 23(c) hinges on their response to the over-fluoridation issue, balancing their duty to protect health against the s 23C directive to fluoridate. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Continuing Fluoridation (Ignoring Over-Dosing)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors allow fluoridation to proceed with levels >1 mg/L, they may fail s 23(c)’s duty if this is deemed a “condition likely to be injurious to health.” There is evidence of potential neurodevelopmental risks at 1–1.5 mg/L (e.g., 1.63 IQ point loss per 1 mg/L urinary fluoride, JAMA 2025), especially for fetuses and infants. While not conclusive below the Taumata Arowai MAV of 1.5 mg/L, this suggests a plausible hazard.
Councillor Jeopardy:
Civil Liability: If harm (e.g., cognitive deficits) is later proven, residents could sue Councils for negligence under tort law, alleging Councillors failed to abate a known risk. The council, not individuals, would typically be liable, but Councillors could face scrutiny for ignoring evidence.
Judicial Review: A third party could seek review, arguing Councils breached s 23(c) by not acting on over-dosing. Courts might order abatement (e.g., stopping fluoridation), exposing Councillors to criticism if they resisted.
Personal Liability: Unlikely under Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) s 43 (indemnity for good-faith acts), unless Councillors knowingly disregarded clear harm evidence, constituting gross misconduct.
Likelihood: Moderate. Levels >1 mg/L but 1 mg/L a “condition likely to be injurious.” Unassessed risks, operational failure—provide a basis to argue this, satisfying their duty to “secure the removal of the condition.”
Conflict with s 23C: This pits s 23(c) against the Director-General’s directive (s 23C) to fluoridate at 0.7–1 mg/L. Stopping fluoridation risks non-compliance with s 23C, triggering fines ($200,000 + $10,000/day) and a mandamus order against the Council.
Jeopardy:
Fines on Council not Councillors personally, faces s 23C penalties for defying the Notice. LGA s 43 shields Councillors unless they act in bad faith (e.g., sabotaging staff efforts).
Court Challenge: The Ministry of Health could argue s 23C overrides s 23(c), as fluoridation is legislated as a health benefit. However, Councillors could counter that over-dosing negates this, seeking judicial clarification (e.g., via injunction).
Public Health Tension: If stopping fluoridation leads to dental health decline (unlikely short-term per Cochrane 2024), Councillors might face criticism, but not legal liability under s 23(c).
Likelihood: High for council-level fines if s 23C is breached, low for personal Councillor liability. Courts may prioritize s 23C’s specific mandate over s 23(c)’s general duty unless harm is imminent.
3. Failure to Act (Inaction)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors neither stop nor fix the over-dosing (e.g., delay decisions), they risk breaching s 23(c) by not abating a potential hazard, alongside s 23C non-compliance if fluoridation isn’t implemented.
Jeopardy: Dual exposure—civil claims for neglect (s 23(c)) and fines for defiance (s 23C). Personal liability remains unlikely, but reputational damage and court orders escalate.
Likelihood: Moderate, depending on how long inaction persists.
Reconciling s 23(c) and s 23C
Statutory Tension: Section 23(c) empowers Councils to act against health risks, while s 23C mandates fluoridation, assuming it promotes health. Over-dosing >1 mg/L creates a paradox—fluoridation complies with s 23C but may contravene s 23(c) if harmful.
Judicial Precedent: The High Court’s 2023 ruling (New Health NZ v Director-General) found the original directive unlawful for not assessing NZBORA rights, suggesting s 23C isn’t absolute. Councillors could argue s 23(c) justifies suspension if over-dosing poses a “condition injurious to health.”
Precautionary Duty: It is recommended to leverage the precautionary principle, aligning with s 23(c) to prioritize harm prevention over uncertain benefits (Cochrane 2024).
Specific Jeopardy Assessment
Personal Liability: Minimal. LGA s 43 protects Councillors acting in good faith (e.g., voting to stop fluoridation based on my report). Penalties or claims target Councils as a body corporate.
Council Liability:
Stopping Fluoridation: High risk of s 23C fines ($200,000+) and enforcement, mitigated by seeking an injunction.
Continuing Over-Dosing: Moderate risk of s 23(c)-related civil action or review if harm emerges, reduced by fixing the system.
Worst-Case Scenario: Continued over-dosing with proven harm (e.g., IQ loss) could lead to significant Council liability (millions in damages), with Councillors indirectly implicated for oversight failure, though still shielded personally.
Recommendations to Minimize Jeopardy
Act Under s 23(c): Vote to suspend fluoridation, citing the evidence of a “condition likely to be injurious,” fulfilling s 23(c) duties.
Challenge s 23C: Apply for an interim injunction to stay the Notice, arguing over-dosing risks outweigh benefits, harmonizing s 23(c) and s 23C obligations.
Fix Methodology: Implement changes (tap monitoring, dosing control) to ensure 0.7–1 mg/L if fluoridation resumes, avoiding both risks.
Document Rationale: Record decisions as precautionary, referencing scientific uncertainty (e.g., JAMA 2025), bolstering legal defenses.
Conclusion
Councillors face limited personal jeopardy under s 23(c)—liability rests with Councils. Stopping fluoridation aligns with s 23(c) but risks s 23C fines, while continuing over-dosing risks s 23(c) claims if harm occurs. The safest path is suspension with judicial review, balancing both duties. Their jeopardy is more political (fines vs. community trust) than personal, thanks to LGA
Democracy or whats left of it
If it ever existed
I, for one, won’t have fluoridation forced on me.
I’m a Whangarei rate payer and I applaud the council’s stand. I’m an old lady but happy to go to prison to uphold my right of having no medication forced on me. If I choose to take fluoride or any other medication let that be my choice not the government’s and certainly not Health NZ. If enough citizens of our beautiful country stand up and be counted our rights will be protected not walked over.
Very well written.
I think Catherine has summed up what we’re all thinking. I would like to point to one particular aspect of interest in this debate, but I can’t. It’s all incredibly important.
-Using ‘fluoride” as some sort of magic cure for tooth decay while ignoring other factors like diet and education is insane. Directly addressing these issues would help in so many areas beyond tooth decay.
-Adding yet another chemical into the cocktail of drugs, toxins, etc. that we are already exposed to is highly irresponsible.
-The DGofH’s ability to singlehandedly dictate mass medication based on cherry picked research is just plain wrong and a strike against democracy.
-Requiring councils to put this toxin in the water after the people have demonstrated that it is not wanted breaches their obligation to provide safe drinking water.
I’m so proud to be part of one of the few districts that are standing against this dictate.