NZ anti-fluoridation lobby may need to change argument


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.

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

24 thoughts on “NZ anti-fluoridation lobby may need to change argument

  1. “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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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”


    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?


    • 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.

      • lol, another ad hom in the place of evidence.

        Any 18 year old undergrad could dissect such a silly position.

    • 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

  4. 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

    • 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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”

  10. 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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s