OPINION
New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science
In 2021 the ‘no jab no job’ mandates forced New Zealanders to take a novel and experimental medical treatment, and now we are facing mandatory fluoridation of our public water supply as per the 2022 instructions from Bloomfield (former, Director-General of Health). The toxic similarities between mandatory vaccination and fluoridation – both medical treatments forced on to the public by way of politics under the guise of science is concerning (to put it mildly).
The last few years have demonstrated that our democracy is built on fragile ground and that the perceived rights and freedoms we thought we had as New Zealanders can be trampled on, and swiftly removed without public consultation. It is our human right to freely choose what we put into our own bodies and the notion that the government via the district councils is able to forcibly medicate a whole population with fluoride is abhorrent. While many centres around New Zealand have been given a temporary reprieve, we are at a pivotal moment in determining our country’s public health policy and with the stakes high, we need to understand why this controversial issue is so critical.
In this article, Fre, dissident Master of Science in Dentistry shares his opinion on the toxic similarities between mandatory vaccination and water fluoridation.
Read: The Toxic Similarities Between Mandatory Vaccination and Water Fluoridation
On the 9th of April New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) along with Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) filed for an Injunction against the Hastings District Council in the Wellington High Court.
FFNZ and NZDSOS consider the Hastings District Council’s decision to resume fluoridating Hastings community water supplies to be unlawful, unscientific, undemocratic and a reckless wielding of power against a citizenship that will be forced to consume this toxic industrial byproduct. Hastings District Council had the same options that other councils have taken to wait until the lawfulness of water fluoridation was clarified by the Courts. Hastings District Council has instead decided to force this measure on its community.
In 2018 the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that fluoridation was “compulsory medical treatment” that violated section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment. No consensus was reached as to whether this was justifiable under section 5 of the Act.
FFNZ and NZDSOS have applied for an injunction that fluoridation be halted in Hastings until all legal matters are settled.
Both water fluoridation and mandatory vaccination programs instituted by governments represent overreach into personal health choices. While the intentions of protecting public health are understandable, forcing medical interventions on entire populations violates civil liberties and causes collateral damage.
In the case of water fluoridation, governments are adding fluoride, a biocide chemical wasteproduct of the fertiliser and aluminium industry, to municipal water supplies despite concerns from medical and scientific groups about proven harms. It is a known industrial toxic waste. More and more studies show fluoride reduces IQ in children and poses other risks. Most of the world has abandoned fluoridation, and yet New Zealanders have no choice but to consume fluoridated water, as it becomes integrated into the entire water system. Like mandatory vaccination, this removes the right to refuse a medical treatment and does not consider individual risk factors.
Forcing experimental gene transfer injections removes medical autonomy and informed choice and does not account for the fact that individuals may be even more susceptible to adverse reactions, due to genetic factors or other health issues, and it ignores the growing movement towards more natural health, based on non-allopathic and non-technocratic modalities.
Neither policies allow for informed consent. People are not fully told of the health trade-offs from water fluoridation chemicals or vaccine ingredients, including additives and contaminants like aluminum and plasmid DNA, repsectively. Consent obtained under threat of denial of public services or benefits such as education, work or travel cannot remotely be considered consent. It is coercion. In my new book I show the trend of creating a fear culture that leads to an endless list of licensing everything in the name of safety. I ask the question: what has to change to lose this fear?
Overall, water fluoridation and mandatory vaccination programs overstep the appropriate role of government in a free society. While protecting public health against genuine threats is important, it must not outweigh civil liberties. There are safer and more ethical alternatives that respect medical choice, such as educating the public, taxing surgary drinks and leaving pharmaceutical decisions to the individual and his/her health provider. When governments take away the right to refuse a medical intervention, it recalls troubling precedents, and markets perceived collective benefits over individual rights. Tyranny, exploitation, persecution and atrocity have usually followed. This time it won’t be different – unless we create more awareness and push back.
In 2023 and before, many evidence-based scientific sources have been identified that question the effectiveness of new vaccine technologies, and the safety of both vaccines and water fluoridation.
In an environment of rapidly decreasing trust in public health and government I would suggest to revert to the precautionary principle. This holds that if an action poses potential harm, in the absence of scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action.
This principle should be fully reinstated, and applied to slow down the introduction of new technologies such as mRNA and genetic modification of organisms.
The precautionary principle must be more appropriately applied to policies like water fluoridation and mandatory vaccination programs.
Unfortunately, we still see the Bio-medical Industrial Complex silencing dissident science-based opinions rather than restoring a scientific debate. Only a few weeks ago a whistleblower released secret emails that details how US government CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and NIDCR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research) successfully blocked an NTP (National Toxicology Program) report on fluoride neurotoxicity containing enough arguments to stop worldwide water fluoridation immediately.
This silenced war for freedom comes with total destruction of academic principles. It started with the invention of the germ theory which is the basis of the most profitable industry on earth: bio-tech. The creation of fear of invisible microbes and viruses has always paid out. We now know it was bad science. Does virology even deserve the name ‘science’? It has always been a theory and I have not seen much more, as surprising as that may sound. Maybe we find the basis of truth in biotech’s own semantic choice: the word virus originates from Greek. It means toxin or poison.
Fre is one of the co-founders of NZDSOS and author of the newly launched book “Free Your Smile”, a roadmap to a new holistic paradigm in dentistry: natural prevention first, minimal invasive therapies second. You can follow a free course on the book website: freeyoursmile.org
Actions You Can Take:
- Attend your local council meetings and ask to speak.
- Write to your council and councillors to let them know how you feel about forced fluoridation in your water.
- Phone your council and register your disapproval.
- Start conversations and plant seeds on the toxic similarities between mandatory vaccination and water fluoridation.
- Join local fluoride free groups to help gain momentum and support.
- Set up an information stand at your local market to help others wake up to this issue.
- Share this article: The Toxic Similarities Between Mandatory Vaccination and Water Fluoridation.