june 28, 2018
Fluoridation is Mass Medication, New Zealand Supreme Court Rules
Water
fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights,
the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that
fluoridation is a medical treatment as
claimed by opponents for over 60
years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as
claimed by the Ministry of Health.
The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.
Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.
Chief
Justice Sian Elias then held that fluoridation was not prescribed by
law (i.e. is unlawful), applying section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act.
That was the correct decision in Fluoride Free NZ’s view.
The
rest of the majority held that it was prescribed by law, and it was
then necessary to apply a balancing test to determine if the breach of
the right – not to be subject to medical treatment without consent – was
justified in the case of fluoridation.
Justice
Glazebrook held that it was for a local authority to do this when
making its decision, potentially taking into account specific local
circumstances.
On
the balance of information before the Court – the misinformation
promulgated by promoters that water fluoridation measurably reduces
tooth decay and presents no real health risk – two judges held that it
was justifiable. This is despite the court reiterating that it is now
accepted that benefit for fluoride is from topical application, not from
ingestion.
The
Court did not consider information published since the original High
Court case, and the recent US Government multi-million-dollar study by Bashash et al,
published in Environmental Health Perspectives, carried out by top
scientists and researchers in top North American universities – had not
yet been published. This study found that children exposed to fluoride
at the same levels as New Zealanders had significantly reduced IQ, which
could easily have shifted the Justices’ perception of safety.
Importantly,
the Court held that this question of whether fluoridation is
justifiable is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. There
is no requirement for absolute proof of harm, as long-maintained by the
Ministry of Health. As a question of fact, the two judges’ conclusion is
not binding on any lower court or any statutory decision maker. With
the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that water fluoridation
is ineffective and poses significant health risks, this opens the door
to end the practice at any time.
The
majority held that tooth decay was a condition in the community that a
local council could address (through fluoridation) under section 23 of
the Health Act. It necessarily follows that any aspect of health in the
community, good or bad, must also fall under section 23. This includes
the current IQ level of inhabitants. Therefore a local council is
required to protect that condition under section 23. So if, on the
balance of probabilities, water fluoridation reduces IQ significantly –
and half a standard deviation (5 points on the scale used in recent
studies) is significant – a council must not implement fluoridation, and
in fact must cease it if it is currently in place. Arguably, this
mandatory requirement would override any direction that a District
Health Board might give a council under the proposed legislation
currently before Parliament.
Now
that the Supreme Court has ruled fluoridation is medical treatment
without consent, and with the mounting evidence that it is ineffective
and carries significant health risks, it is time for politicians and the
health sector to rethink the practice. Its days are clearly numbered
following this judgment.
See:
- New Zealand Bill of Rights
- June 27, 2018. Supreme Court Ruling (Medicines Act).
- June 27, 2018. Supreme Court Ruling (Bill of Rights).
No comments:
Post a Comment