Fluoridation promoters always manage to weasel out of charges of ‘mass medication,’ yet anti-fluoridation groups don’t seem to learn from the experience.
Once again, a case has been lost on technicalities surrounding water fluoridation and whether it does or does not constitute ‘medication.’
According to a recent article, “A High Court judge said that the concentrations they [fluoridation chemicals] were used at did not class them as medicines.”
We have written about this before, so we won’t re-state the whole point here. However, we offer these posts below as food for thought; that it may be time to stop beating the old ‘medication’ dead horse – it obviously doesn’t work in relation to water fluoridation – and start talking about what cannot be denied… i.e. treatment. Explained below:
– Avoiding the ‘Mass Medication’ Trap: Things you Need to Know
– Debunking the ‘Warfarin Defense’
– Final Nails in the Ethical Coffin of Water Fluoridation
– Open Admission of Long-Term, Uncontrolled Experimentation in NZ Opens the Floodgates of Litigation
– Therapeutic Goods and Medicinal Products: Another ‘Checkmate’ for Fluoridation
In a nutshell, it may save a lot of stress for activists to stop trying to ‘prove’ water fluoridation is ‘medication,’ and start focusing on the more fundamental FACT that it is indeed treatment of the human being without informed consent. Key word: TREATMENT.
afamildura.wordpress.com 
September 10, 2015 at 04:10
“If you want fluoridated water..”
…,just drink from any tap, whether ‘fluoridated’ or not.
Fluoride is ubiquitous silly. You ingest it from your food, and the air you breathe.
No need to be scared, or try and scare others!
September 9, 2015 at 23:35
The forced medication argument is bullshit.
According to your logic, because optimally fluoridated water has 0.7 ppm fluoride in it, and because fluoride in higher concentrations really can be considered medicine, then optimally fluoridated water must also be medicine. Your logic falls apart the minute we apply the argument to another substance.
By your logic you are being medicated right now. Concentrated bottled oxygen requires a prescription from a doctor for use and is considered medicine. You are breathing lesser amounts of oxygen right now. You are being medicated. Did you offer consent before your last breath? Give it up, man. Nobody is buying into your lame scare tactic, especially the courts. That’s your real problem.
And this infinitesimally small amount of reasoning from Dan Germouse: ” there is no harm from forced-fluoridation. So how about you provide some evidence to back up your completely unfounded assertion? . . ” I’ll tell you what, Mr. Germouse. I will give you the deed to my house if you can prove to me that using a cell phone is completely harmless. Your request for proof of the absolute safety of CWF must have originated from a con artist.
September 9, 2015 at 17:34
Mr Mouse,
“I have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia’s Group of Eight universities, one of which is an honours degree”
Touchy!
Why are you so defensive?… I mean why do you feel you have to make out you are so ‘special’ with your “two” very average qualifications – Oh, I forgot “honours” – you must be special!
Why can’t you rely on the strength of an argument rather than advertise how average you are?
Sad
September 9, 2015 at 19:16
Christopher, you have nothing to say, and make retards look like geniuses. Stop wasting people’s time, do the world a favour and shuffle off, troll.
September 9, 2015 at 20:59
lol, another ad hom in the place of evidence.
Any 18 year old undergrad could dissect such a silly position.
September 10, 2015 at 05:45
I have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia’s Group of Eight universities,
One for Big Macs and one for Filletofish
September 9, 2015 at 17:18
Haw can any fluoridated water be forced,when it is your choice to drink it or not.
Maybe the person you get the”informed consent” from could help you answer this
September 9, 2015 at 23:07
If you want fluoridated water, go to a phosphate fertiliser plant, get some Fluorosilicic acid, and add it to your own drinking water. Leave the rest of us out of it.
September 9, 2015 at 17:02
MMmmm…
So you will be aware of the of semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit or, “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who asserts the proof”
So… you are the one asserting harm (a positive) – not me silly!
I really don’t care what ‘degrees” you have. Really. There are plenty of idiots out there with ‘qualifications’ .
What do you do now?
Your behavior implies you don’t know how to think rationally let alone scientifically.
You are an angry person aren’t you? No need for the aggression – my!
Not only can’t you think, but you can’t act in a civilized manner!
September 9, 2015 at 23:11
http://critiquingfluoridation.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/dose-vs-concentration-clearing-up.html
September 10, 2015 at 04:24
Oh my.
You purport to be mildly educated but the first person you cite is Connet.
And you want to be taken seriously??
September 9, 2015 at 16:58
They hardly lost on “technicalities.” Their claims were thrown out because they were just wrong. They just did not have a case – claiming, for example, there was no consultation while they themselves consulted (and organised a campaign of consultation from fellow thinkers).
This group, New Health NZ, is part of the NZ Health Trust – a big business lobby group for the “natural”/alternative health industry. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from this big business has gone into these legal action – 4 in the last 2 years. They have lost them all.
They are just shills for big business and anti-fluoride propagandists are similarly shills for the same industry.
September 9, 2015 at 19:17
Says Parrot, the shill.
September 9, 2015 at 16:24
Water New Zealand welcomes court decision to reject appeal by fluoride opponents
Water New Zealand has welcomed the decision by Justice Kos in the High Court (4 Sept) to reject an appeal by opponents of water fluoridation.
“This is the fourth time in two years that opponents of public water fluoridation have lost cases in the courts,” says John Pfahlert, CEO of Water New Zealand.
Lobby organisation, New Health, had been seeking to overturn Government regulations specifying that fluoridating agents used for the fluoridation of drinking water are not medicines made for the purposes of the Medicines Act.
September 9, 2015 at 15:58
It’s possible that the word “treatment” would get through to more people than “medication”. However, the fact that forced-fluoridation is a form of medication cannot be denied any more than the fact that it is a form of treatment. It is the medical claim which is made for forced-fluoridation which makes it medication, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the concentrations of fluoridation chemicals in water or the health effects. The real problem here is the incompetence and/or corruption of the judge, and it is unlikely that any form of argument will change that. Airheads and hardened criminals don’t respond to reason.
September 9, 2015 at 05:58
Going further with Chris,s comment, I would like to know who are you going to go to get this, “informed consent”so you can eat,and drink from, each time you want to do those things??
Or is a consent form going to be produced by the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby that you lot have to sign
It wont apply to anybody who does not think that “informed consent” is required, because we dont need “informed consent”
September 9, 2015 at 04:07
But if you concede that fluoridation is not a ‘medicine’ and concentrate on ‘treatment’ then you have an added difficulty of trying to emphasise the ‘harm’ – (for which there is none!)
For example, food also ‘treats’ malnutrition, while water ‘treats’ dehydration.
At the end of the day, this is just political rhetoric and semantics.
If there was really a case – you could easily focus on what you are really trying to do – emphasise the harm.
The thing is…there is none.
September 9, 2015 at 15:50
I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
September 9, 2015 at 16:11
Mr Mouse,
I realise you want an answer to a question that cannot be scientifically answered.
Do you have any scientific qualifications?
and how does this relate to my comment?
🙂
September 9, 2015 at 16:22
Christopher, you said twice that there is no harm from forced-fluoridation. So how about you provide some evidence to back up your completely unfounded assertion? Oh, that’s right, you can’t provide any credible evidence to back up what you said because there isn’t any. You are a fucked unit, just like all of the other forced-fluoridation fanatics. I have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia’s Group of Eight universities, one of which is an honours degree. How about you, genius?
September 9, 2015 at 16:28
No no No you have that in the wrong order, you are supposed to use capital letters before you call people names and start swearing, Go sit on the naughty chair in the corner
September 9, 2015 at 16:37
My friend went to macdonalds uni too
September 9, 2015 at 16:55
“I have two degrees”
Yet it is impossible for us to actually check if this is true. Why do you keep your identity a secret Dan?
You don’t even say what degree. Astronomy?
-Dan
September 9, 2015 at 17:07
See https://afamildura.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/nz-anti-fluoridation-lobby-may-need-to-change-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-2356