By Keri Molloy

Health New Zealand is ploughing on, saying that adding fluoride to water is not a treatment to individuals but to the water.

Actions

New Zealand First has introduced a Member’s Bill which would restore decision-making power to local communities.

Fluoride Free New Zealand has called for an immediate moratorium on fluoridation until a public inquiry, looking at the latest scientific evidence, can be held.

NZ First’s Bill will amend the Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956, mandating local authorities to hold a binding referendum on water fluoridation.

The Mayor of Whangarei, Vince Cocurullo, and six councillors have voted to seek an Interim Injunction against starting fluoridation. Cocurullo said he would go to prison over the principle of democratic freedom and the community being able to make its own fluoridation choice, rather than being directed to do so by one person.

Rotorua Lakes District councillors resolved to write a letter to the Minister of Health asking for the directive to fluoridate their water be withdrawn until there has been a public inquiry into the latest scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation reported back to Parliament.

Those who oppose the enforced fluoridation of water see it as a breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.

But Health New Zealand medical officer Dr Phil Shoemack is quoted saying: “No-one will come to harm in New Zealand from drinking fluoridated water.”

A Rotorua Lakes councillor asked at a meeting how it was justified as a medical treatment without individuals' consent.

Shoemack said that adding fluoride to water was not treatment to individuals, but to the water, similar to how folate was added to flour or chlorine to water.

Deputy Director-General of Health Dr Andrew Old insists that more than 60 years of research shows that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective and affordable way to improve oral health.

On the contrary, Fluoride Free New Zealand says of fluoridation:

“It’s not safe. It doesn’t work. It robs you of choice.”

A study published in JAMA Pediatrics this year found correlation between fluoride exposure and children’s IQs. Study co-author Kyla Taylor said in an interview there is concern that pregnant women and children are getting fluoride from many sources, including drinking water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss and mouthwash, and that their total fluoride exposure is too high and may affect fetal, infant and child neurodevelopment.

She encouraged pregnant women and parents of small children to be mindful of their total fluoride intake:

“If their water is fluoridated, they may wish to replace tap water with low-fluoride bottled water, like purified water, and limit exposure from other sources, such as dental products or black tea. Parents can use low-fluoride bottled water to mix with powdered infant formula and limit use of fluoridated toothpaste by young children.”

Background

COVID pandemic policy driver Ashley Bloomfield set the ball rolling as he left his job of Director General of Health to join a World Health Organisation team. Bloomfield is now involved in public policy processes and decision-making at the University of Auckland.

His successor Diana Sarfati picked up his baton.

In a 2023 court decision Justice Paul Radich found that decision-makers were required to show they had considered the Bill of Rights in decisions that touched upon it.

“It should be perceived as a positive and integral part of a society in which fundamental rights are defined and cannot be limited arbitrarily.”

Sir Ashley Bloomfield's fluoridation orders unlawful, court rules | RNZ News

However the Director-General of Health still has the legal authority to require local water suppliers to fluoridate their water supplies under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021 – based on public health considerations, including dental health outcomes.

Dr Sarfati told the Whangarei council in a letter that it was an offence under the Health Act 1956 for a local authority to contravene her direction to fluoridate.

She said the Minister of Health could seek a rare court writ of mandamus – a type of court order directed to an inferior authority, commanding the performance of a specified duty.

Such a writ would enable the Director-General to turn on the fluoridation switch, or order council staff or contractors to do so.

Sarfati went so far as to threaten dissenting district councils with huge fines if they disobey.

Since then she has resigned her position.

She may have dodged a legal bullet. Perhaps she realised that where a High Court Judicial Review is outstanding, the writ of the threatened mandamus is underhanded.

A continuance with the direction, in the face of fluoridation causing injury, could see a civil claim of malfeasance in public office. There would be risk.

The meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics found that the vast majority of the 74 studies examined reported a link between fluoride exposure and decreased IQ, including at the lowest range of exposure.

Numerous other studies have found cause for concern, including a May 2024 paper published in JAMA Network Open that found higher levels of fluoride in the urine of pregnant women were associated with more neurobehavioral problems in their children.

Bruce Lanphear, an expert on environmental neurotoxins and a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, said the research provides a turning point in the scientific and public understanding of the practice:

“The evidence [is] quite convincing that fluoride is toxic down to the levels that are found routinely in fluoridated communities. The more people will look at the evidence it will become obvious that we need alternative ways to protect children against tooth decay and water fluoridation is not a good way to do that. We can no longer afford to sweep this under the carpet.”

Opposition to fluoride in drinking water grows – The New Lede

Although the accumulation of scientific studies is generating greater public debate and scrutiny, a stubborn Ministry of Health is sticking to the findings of an old 2014 report it describes as still appropriate today. The message is that there are no adverse health effects of any significance from fluoridation levels used in New Zealand.

However, the Ministry admits that formula-fed infants living in areas with fluoridated water may be exposed to higher levels of fluoride than deemed necessary for benefits, putting them at higher risk of experiencing mild dental fluorosis.

The Ministry ignores recent warnings of negative neuro-developmental and cognitive impacts.

It’s of no concern.

The cost of putting fluoride in two town water supplies in the Far North, where residents have already voted against, will cost some $6 million – plus about $142,000 in ongoing annual costs.

The Far North council has raised the issues of cost implications, potential health risks and the necessity for comprehensive community consultation but its request for an extension of time for implementation was declined.

In terms of doing what we’re told, we’re revisiting old ground. The fluoride ‘safe-and-effective’ message comes to us from the World Health Organisation, with whom Ashley Bloomfield has been closely linked. He co-chaired one of its working groups, aiming to shape the international health agenda.

New Zealand is part of the WHO’s global network, with WHO Collaborating Centres active at the University of Otago and the University of Auckland.

WHO CCs and their networks support WHO’s global mandates and goals and how the mechanism can be further strengthened. They provide strategic support for the WHO’s mandated programmes such as public health surveillance. They also help in spreading the WHO’s voice.

Loyal to the WHO’s safe and effective message, Otago University is not letting go of the COVID vaccine bone.

Students in health-related courses who will have direct patient contact or exposure to bodily fluids during their coursework are required to provide documented proof of all three COVID-19 vaccine doses, including vaccination dates.

What now with fluoridation?

Health Minister Simeon Brown has indicated government policy won’t change but the door is now open for a new Director General of Health to review recent research and rescind Bloomfields fluoridation directives.

The blinkers are off

We learned a hard lesson during COVID that the government’s “We are your single source of truth” advice did not serve us well and that we do indeed need to do our own research. We cannot rely on the WHO, government bureaucrats or compromised mainstream media to give us accurate information.

A recent research survey shows deep public distrust in New Zealand’s media. The survey found that trust in the media has plummeted, with only 27 per cent of New Zealanders expressing confidence in it, while 48 per cent do not. This makes the media the least trusted major institution.

Why?

Take news provider Stuff, for example.

Stuff claims it is “proudly independent”, and it boasts that its journalists “work around the clock to deliver trustworthy reporting that holds the powerful to account”.

Stuff’s “The Whole Truth” declared in 2021.

“Long-term side effects of Covid-19 vaccination are not a thing.”

For an alternative approach, view Correcting the Congressional Record on Covid Vaccines

We now know that USAID has pumped some NZD$883 million into a global media network of 120 countries, including New Zealand. The globalist propaganda machine has been well oiled.

Stuff’s The Whole Truth received funding from the Google News Initiative that works with publishers and journalists to fight ‘misinformation’.

To the present day, Stuff declares that it welcomes robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but says: “(We) will not provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy in either our reporting or in user comments”. In saying this, Stuff embarks on self-determined censorship and closes the door to open debate about a complex topic. Stuff will decide which facts it will report and has seemingly adopted the science-is-settled approach that it adopted in COVID times..

This article by research scientist Matthew Wielicki discusses the hazards of abandoning the scientific method for a political narrative:

“Scientists propose theories, test them, and invite critique from peers. If a theory fails under scrutiny, it is modified or replaced. If a theory consistently withstands critical tests, it gains acceptance (though not eternal immunity from further questioning). This is how scientific progress is meant to work.”

There are other scars. Remember COVID science communicator Siouxsie Wiles. It’s not surprising that the vaccine injured feel unforgiving after she famously said in an interview: “There are links between anti-vaccination and white supremacy.”

And there’s top epidemiologist Michael Baker who calls for greater support for international health organisations, notably the World Health Organisation.

The WHO claims that COVID vaccines saved at least an estimated 14.4 million lives worldwide, an estimate that is disputed. The WHO continues to encourage ongoing vaccinations despite considering only the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and not the risks.

In conclusion

This study, published five months ago, looked at 21 papers.

The authors said water fluoridation may lead to a slightly greater change over time to a difference in decayed missing or filled teeth of ‘approximately one‐quarter of a tooth’, in favour of community water fluoridation:

“The implementation or cessation of community water fluoridation requires careful consideration of the current evidence alongside the broader context of a population's oral health, oral health behaviours, diet and consumption of tap water, movement or migration, and the availability and uptake of other caries‐prevention strategies. In addition, factors such as acceptability, cost‐effectiveness and the feasibility of the implementation and monitoring of a community water fluoridation programme should be taken into account.

“Any initiation or cessation of a community water fluoridation programme should be fully evaluated using robust methods to address confounding, and should collect cost data to inform economic evaluation. These studies should include a concurrent control with comparable fluoridation status at baseline.”