Water Fluoridation: A Violation of Human Rights, the Health Care Consent Act and the Nuremberg Code

Is Fluoride a drug/medicine

Fluoridation’s sole claim to legitimacy is founded on the spurious claim that fluoridated water is not a medicine.

 

 

Governments everywhere are trying to avoid the issue that water fluoridation is in fact forced medication. Why? Because it is illegal and violates your human rights. Here are a few articles from different countries that look into that.

 

 

 

Fluoridation Is Meant To Treat Tooth Decay

Promoters of fluoridation clearly claim that fluoride chemicals are put in the water to treat tooth decay, a disease, therefore it’s a drug: anyone denying that fact is just plain ignoring the reality of the definition of a drug.

By putting a fluoride chemical in the water supply that everyone has to drink and can’t avoid other than at great cost, it becomes mass medication, 100% of the population are targeted with the drug. However, only children are the expected beneficiary of this medication, less than 17% of the population. That’s wrong. Arguments that even non children’s teeth also benefit are the worst misrepresentations ever made akin to out and out lies……

 

 

Waterloo: Legality of fluoride questioned

Source: Waterloo Chronicle | Chronicle Staff

Posted on April 14th, 2010
Location: Canada, Ontario

A local woman is challenging the legality of using hydrofluorosilic acid to fluoridate Waterloo’s drinking water by filing a complaint with Health Canada.

Carole Clinch, research coordinator for People for Safe Drinking water, said under the new Natural Health Products Regulations, under the Food and Drug Act enacted in 2006, all substances claiming to have a therapeutic effect have to be regulated for use by Health Canada.

Any approval would have to follow a review by Health Canada for the product’s safety, efficacy and quality. “They (the fluoride producers) would have to obtain a market authorization, product license and a site license in order to be sold,” said Clinch.

She said that due to a backlog of requests from manufacturers for regulatory approval that Health Canada provided a moratorium for manufacturers of fluoridation products until Jan. 1, 2010. That moratorium was extended to March 31 of this year.

That deadline has since come and gone.

But when Clinch went to find any evidence that the importers or producers of hydrofluorosilicic acid had complied with the new standard, including producing any new research to back up its claims of reducing dental caries without causing any health harms, she was told they hadn’t even applied for approval.

“I have a statement from Health Canada after I asked them if any manufacturer or importer has made a submission for the approval process?” said Clinch. “They said ‘No’ — not one manufacturer or importer has applied.”

That makes artificial water fluoridation products unregulated, unapproved, uncontrolled and illegal under the new Health Canada standard. Clinch called on the federal government body charged with protecting Canadians health to stop the importation of hydrofluorosilicic acid, or the production of the water additive.

She filed a formal complaint with Health Canada just before the end of the deadline and received confirmation of its receipt from Tom Barker, supervisor of Health Canada’s Drug Compliance and Verification and Investigation Unit. He said the matter would be forwarded to an inspector for appropriate action.

“Thank you for bringing this potential violation of the Food and Drugs Act to our attention,” said Baker in a letter obtained by the Chronicle. “Such information helps us to meet our mission which is, ‘To ensure that the drugs, medical devices and other therapeutic products available in Canada are safe, effective and of high quality.”

The Chronicle called Barker for confirmation of the complaint about hydrofluorosilicic, and about the process Health Canada’s Drug Compliance and Verification unit would follow, but he has not returned the calls.

Without that approval Clinch said that it puts the “lie” to claims by dentists and various other health authorities that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe because it is certified.

“The onus is on the manufacturer to be in compliance with Canadian law,” said Clinch. “They are not in compliance with Canadian law.”

This development has already caused a stir in several Quebec jurisdictions that use hydrofluorosilicic acid, and led to a call to stop using it immediately, said Clinch.

She’s calling on the Region of Waterloo to follow suit and stop putting hydrofluorosilicic acid into Waterloo’s water.

“The onus is on the Region of Waterloo to make sure the product they’re buying and putting into our drinking water is legally being sold in Canada,” said Clinch. “This is now a legal requirement under the Natural Health Products Regulations which is a subset of the new Food and Drug Act.

“The citizens of Waterloo deserve better than this, and they should be protected by this regulatory approval process by the highest health authority in the country, Health Canada.”

 

Water Fluoridation Confirmed As A Medication

Medical Ethics expert Dr David Shaw, Lecturer in Ethics in Dentistry at Glasgow University, concludes that the practice of water fluoridation in the UK relies entirely on ‘the legal fiction’ that it is not a medicine. This new analysis provides expert confirmation that fluoridated water must now be subject to regulation under the strict provisions of the Medicines Act Read Article.

 

Government plans to ignore Human Rights violation over water fluoridation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights last week revealed to UKCAF that it will allow the Health and Social Care Bill to pass through Parliament without challenging the government’s power to impose fluoridation, despite its blatant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Doug Cross
8th February 2012

Why are government Ministers appointed to manage fields in which they have no professional competence?

Followers of Parliamentary debate may recall the astonishing claim in the Lords last September by Earl Howe thatany infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health’.

Like innumerable Secretaries of State for Health for the last century or so, the noble Earl’s background is unfortunately somewhat transparent when it comes to both science and law. So it was obvious that he had been fed this startling one-liner by our old antagonists at the MHRA. But sadly, Earl Howe was unable to reveal where his remarkable and out-of-context assurance to the Lords first appeared in print.

Continue reading

 

 

By Dr. Mercola

Did you know there’s an “invisible” drug that a majority of Americans consume on a daily basis—a drug so harmful it’s been proven to cause serious health issues, including damage to your bones and teeth, as well as your kidneys, thyroid, pineal gland, and even your brain. This drug is so pervasive that over 40 percent of all American teens between the ages of 12 and 15 show visible signs of having been overexposed to it, and, shockingly, recent international studies indicate that even small doses of this drug can lower the IQ in children.

What is this drug?

Fluoride.

You are Being Drugged Without Your Consent…

Many do not realize that fluoride is indeed a drug. In fact, if you decided you wanted to take it, you’d have to get a prescription for it. Yet it’s added to municipal water supplies reaching more than 180 million Americans, including infants and the elderly. This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water supply, you have no way of gauging how much of the drug any particular person will consume on any given day.

Consider this: It is illegal and unethical for a medical doctor to give you a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to monitor your health for side effects from the drug. Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a toxic drug—fluoride—to your drinking water without your consent and without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much, and the effect it is having.

The Science Incontrovertibly Opposes Water Fluoridation……

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/07/professional-perspectives-documentary.aspx

 

Lawsuit to Stop Artificial Water Fluoridation in Peel

 

 

 

So what is the medical definition of a drug?

Some may think it to be extreme, but I have listed all the definitions available. I want this to be very clear to all. Water fluoridation fits all the medical definitions of a drug/ medicine contrary to what some believe or may have been told.

Medical Definition of a drug

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/drug

drug

(drŭg),

1. Therapeutic agent; any substance, other than food, used in the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, treatment, or cure of disease. For types or classifications of drugs, see the specific name.
See also: agent.

2. To administer or take a drug, usually implying an overly large quantity or a narcotic.

3. General term for any substance, stimulating or depressing, that can be habituating or addictive, especially a narcotic.

[M.E. drogge]

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

drug

(drug)

1. a chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body.

2. any chemical compound used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of disease or other abnormal condition.

3. a substance used recreationally for its effects on the central nervous system, such as a narcotic.

4. to administer a drug to.


 

Dorland’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

drug

(drŭg) n.

1.

a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.

b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

tr.v. drugged, drugging, drugs

a. To administer a drug to, especially to treat pain or induce anesthesia.

b. To give a drug to, especially surreptitiously, in order to induce stupor.

The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by . All rights reserved.

drug

Etymology: Fr, drogue

1 also called medicine, any substance taken by mouth; injected into a muscle, the skin, a blood vessel, or a cavity of the body; or applied topically to treat or prevent a disease or condition.

2 (informal) any substance that can be abused for its stimulant, depressant, euphoric, or hallucinogenic effects.

Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

 

drug

(1) An article other than food that is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or is intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. The term does not include a device, or a component, part or accessory of a device.
(2) A substance recognised by an official pharmacopia or formulary.

Segen’s Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

drug

NIHspeak Any chemical compound that may be used on or administered to humans to help diagnose, treat, cure, mitigate, or prevent disease or other abnormal conditions Regulatory definition An article or substance that is

1. Recognized by the US Pharmacopoeia, National Formulary, or official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, or supplement to any of the above.

2. Intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or animals.

3. Intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals. Substance abuse Any medication; the word drug also carries a negative connotation–implying abuse, addiction, or illicit use.

McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

 

drug

(drŭg)

1. A therapeutic agent; any substance, other than food, used in the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, treatment, or cure of disease.
See also: agent, medication

2. To administer or take a drug, usually implying that an excessive quantity or a narcotic is involved.

3. General term for any substance, stimulating or depressing, that can be habituating or addictive, especially a narcotic.

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

drug

1.Any substance used as medication or for the diagnosis of disease.

2. A popular term for any narcotic or addictive substance.

Collins Dictionary of Medicine © Robert M. Youngson 2004, 2005

 

drug

  1. any substance used as an ingredient in medical preparations.
  2. any substance that affects the normal body functions.

Collins Dictionary of Biology, 3rd ed. © W. G. Hale, V. A. Saunders, J. P. Margham 2005

drug,

n nonfood physical material that alters an organism’s normal func-tioning by affecting physiologic processes. Preferred homeopathic terminology is medicine or remedy rather than drug.

Jonas: Mosby’s Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (c) 2005, Elsevier.

drug

(drŭg)

1. Therapeutic agent; any substance, other than food, used in the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, treatment, or cure of disease.
See also: agent

2. To administer or take a drug, usually implying an overly large quantity or a narcotic.

3. General term for any substance, stimulating or depressing, which can be habituating or addictive, especially a narcotic.

Medical Dictionary for the Dental Professions © Farlex 2012

 

drug(s),

na substance used in the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease or pain or as an aid in some diagnostic procedures.
Mosby’s Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

Ethical Considerations Regarding
Public Drinking Water Fluoridation.

The ethical argument is clear. The canons of medical ethics require that a drug or procedure, before administration, must have been approved by an appropriate body (usually, in North America, by Health Canada or the Federal Drug Administration in the USA) for its specific use and must be administered under supervision of a qualified professional (physician or dentist in this context).

The recipient must have been informed by a qualified professional and must have been able to question said professional and must have given consent for taking the drug or procedure.

The recipient must have the choice of stopping the administration at will. The effects of the drug or procedure on the individual must be monitored by a qualified professional and such information must be available to the recipient.

The administration must be controlled with respect to dose or intensity and safety.

Clearly the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies does not meet any of these requirements.

 

 

Author: Dr. Beck is Emeritus Professor of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary. He has doctorates from University of California at Berkeley and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

http://fluoridefreewindsor.com/category/facts/Presentation – Dr James Beck – Fluoride

 

 

Here is a copy of the letter Submitted by: Dr. James Beck, MD, at the meeting SPC for Utilities and the Environment. City of Calgary Council Chambers. Wednesday January 26, 2011. Dr Beck was instrumental in the ending of water fluoridation in Calgary.

In 1957 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication”. The court’s ruling is significant because it legitimizes the common-sense conclusion that we are being medicated and it puts the matter clearly in the realm of medical ethics. Medical ethics in turn is embedded in human rights.

Here is how fluoridation violates the code of medical ethics. It is administration of a drug without control of dosage (controlling concentration in our water is not controlling dose or dosage). It is administration of a drug without informed consent of the recipient. It does not provide monitoring of the effects on the recipient. It is not possible for the recipient to stop receiving the drug (many can not get nonfluoridated water and none of us can avoid exposure from foods and drinks processed where tap water is fluoridated). The drug has not been shown to be safe for human consumption.

Fluoridation of a public water supply is not only an ethical offense against us all, it is clearly a more serious offense against those subgroups of our population which are particularly at risk of harm from fluoride. These groups include infants being fed with formula reconstituted with tap water, diabetics, persons deficient in iodine intake, persons with kidney disease, boys during the eight-year-old’s growth spurt, and others. It is an obligation of city councils and of Alberta Health Services to protect all, not just the average or just the majority.

Several councilors have rightly been concerned about the dental health of children of low-income families. It is said that fluoridation is of particular benefit to poor children. That has been investigated. It is found that the fluoridated poor groups have no better cavity experience than do the nonfluoridated poor groups. Furthermore, it is found that the prevalence of cavities increases as family income decreases. It’s not fluoride that would benefit poor children; it’s a higher standard of living, probably better diet and better oral hygiene.

Now what kind of ethical consciousness allows one to continue to apply a possibly harmful process to unwilling people until there is absolute proof that it is harmful? I have seen this backward approach to safety in government reports on fluoridation. It goes like this: this study that shows association of fluoridation with this harmful effect is not a perfect study; there are weaknesses; therefore we will continue the process until it is shown with certainty that it is harmful. And no further research is recommended; no responsibility to support a better study is accepted. In the presence of a small and dubious benefit such a conclusion, more than being irresponsible, is outlandish.

You don’t have the moral right to do this to us, to one million people. You should stop it now.

James S. Beck, M.D., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary

 

 

The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation

• Howard Cohen, BA, MA, PhD • • David Locker, BDS, PhD •

excerpt

In the absence of comprehensive, high-quality evidence with respect to the benefits and risks of water fluoridation, the moral status of advocacy for this practice is, at best, indeterminate, and could perhaps be considered immoral.

Conclusion

These scientific and moral issues must be addressed and resolved if policy and practice with respect to water fluoridation are to be considered ethically sound. Yet it is not clear that this work can be accomplished satisfactorily. The conventional view that the ethical dilemmas posed by water fluoridation can be resolved by balancing the benefits and harms actually begs the question, for it presumes that such a balance can be achieved. The preceding arguments indicate that this view needs to be replaced by a moral account showing an appreciation for the ineradicability of the conflict of values that water fluoridation engenders. They also raise the question of whose values should take precedence when decisions regarding water fluoridation are being made. Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits, by themselves, justify continuing the practice of fluoridation. This position presumes the constancy of the environment in which policy decisions are made. Questions of public health policy are relative, not absolute, and different stages of human progress not only will have, but ought to have, different needs and different means of meeting those needs. Standards regarding the optimal level of fluoride in the water supply were developed on the basis of epidemiological data collected more than 50 years ago. There is a need for new guidelines for water fluoridation that are based on sound, up-to-date science and sound ethics. In this context, we would argue that sound ethics presupposes sound science.

 

As the saying goes “If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it’s a duck”

Don’t get confused by the play on words. It’s all designed to confuse people.

 

 

 

In fact there are laws that regulate how a person can be medicated.

 

Councillors are doing what no doctor is allowed to do, forced medicating people without their informed consent. (also practicing medicine without a license)

Health Care Consent Act 10(1)(a).

Consent to Treatment

No treatment without consent

10.  (1)  A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,

(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or

(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 10 (1).

 

Elements of consent

11.  (1)  The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

1. The consent must relate to the treatment.

2. The consent must be informed.

3. The consent must be given voluntarily.

4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).

Informed consent

(2)  A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,

(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment;

and

(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (2).

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_96h02_e.htm#BK13

 

 

NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO FORCE MEDICATE YOU OR ANY ONE WITHOUT THEIR INFORMED CONSENT. THAT IS THE LAW.  IT IS YOUR BODY AND YOUR RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR BODY. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT, THEN YOU  ARE CONSENTING TO BEING FORCED MEDICATED NOW AND BY BEING SILENT YOU ARE BASICALLY GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO MEDICATE YOU AND ANYONE IN THE FUTURE IN ANY MANNER THEY SO CHOOSE.

 

 

Water fluoridation is an experiment that was never completed to see if it worked. Part way through , they just arbitrarily began fluoridating without out any scientific proof that it even worked and as well it has never been proven safe to this day.  

 

The Courts have said …

Illinois Trial Court:

“This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.” – Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann

http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Court_Opinions.pdf

 

 

 This is no difference between water fluoridation and the Nazi experiments that were done to prisoners during second world war. That is why they put together the Nuremberg Code.

Mandatory water fluoridation programs are “A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.”

The Nuremberg Trials: The Doctors Trial

The Doctors Trial considered the fate of twenty-three German physicians who either participated in the Nazi program to euthanize persons deemed “unworthy of life” (the mentally ill, mentally retarded, or physically disabled) or who conducted experiments on concentration camp prisoners without their consent. The Doctors Trial lasted 140 days. Eighty-five witnesses testified and almost 1,500 documents were introduced. Sixteen of the doctors charged were found guilty. Seven were executed.

“Fluoridated Water Is Public Murder On A Grand Scale” – Dr. Dean Burk

https://i0.wp.com/www.nofluoride.com/images/Ireland_GP_quote2.gif

Here is an important documentary regarding the Nuremberg Code and Vaccines. Just change the word Vaccine to Fluoride or any other word. This is about your right to freedom of choice.

We were all born free. No one has a right to impose their will or beliefs on another. If you disagree, then you have developed a slave mind mentality. You are no longer a free thinking individual and are now part of a borg /hive mind collective where you beLIEve the rights of the individual do not matter.

From Nuremberg to California: Why Informed Consent Matters in the 21st Century – YouTube

Fluoridation and Human Rights – Fluoridation and Human Rights.pdf

The ethical and legal basis of fluoridation under International Conventions and
National legislation on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights

DOUGLAS W. CROSS, ROBERT J. CARTON, PHD

Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner.

 

Screenshot from 2017-11-30 06:48:19

 

 

 

Engineering consent

Legal Scholar: Is Fluoridation an Illegitimate Human Experiment?

from NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

NEW YORK, Sept. 3, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers and informed citizens,” argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, (online August 2014), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).

Evidence of fluoride’s harm is ignored, downplayed or not studied; benefits exaggerated and informed consent disregarded. “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive,” she writes.

After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

The National Research Council acknowledges significant fluoride health research has yet to be done – especially fluoride’s effect on the young brain.

Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent.

“Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies, supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment,” she writes.

“Continued imposition of compulsory water fluoridation schemes violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects’ research protocols,” argues Barnett-Rose.

“It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences,” she writes.

Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “Politics plays a heavy hand in fluoridation policy and promotion which seems to protect special interest groups, corporations and government agencies instead of the American public who are unwitting guinea pigs in this ongoing fluoridation experiment.”

Barnett-Rose writes: “Taking politics and long-entrenched agendas out of the mix, the risks of tooth decay, while perhaps still significant for a minority of individuals, are significantly outweighed by the human rights burdens, economic costs, and risks of other bodily harm for the majority of those affected.”

Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law

From the SelectedWorks of Rita Barnett-Rose

Fall 2014

Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable

Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental

Research Without Informed Consent

Rita F Barnett

INTRODUCTION

Most Americans are under the impression that compulsory water

fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to fight tooth

decay. Pro-fluoridation campaigns by the American Dental Association and

the Department of Health and Human Services have ensured this per-

ception, successfully obscuring the more disturbing reality that a signifi-

cant number of leading scientists, medical and dental professionals, and

educated members of the public continue to repudiate both the medical

necessity and ethical legitimacy of compulsory water fluoridation. 1 In

truth, scientific evidence is steadily mounting against water fluoridation,

with emerging studies showing that not only is fluoridation not effective at

achieving the stated public health goal of combating dental caries, but also

that excess exposure to fluoride contributes to a host of far more serious

health concerns, particularly in the very population the public health mea-

sure was originally alleged to benefit: children. 2 With growing evidence

suggesting that systemic intake of excess fluoride is linked to dental and

skeletal fluorosis, endocrine disruption, hypothyroidism, bone cancer,

and lowered IQs in children, it is not surprising that hundreds of U.S.

and Canadian cities and towns have now opted to either reject or cease

fluoridating their water supplies, joining over 97% of Europe and most of

the developed world in rejecting compulsory water fluoridation…….

https://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/download/

9 thoughts on “Water Fluoridation: A Violation of Human Rights, the Health Care Consent Act and the Nuremberg Code

  1. Thank you for this thorough research on the definitions of the word drug. It certainly makes very clear even to to the most uninformed that the use of any fluoride chemical or compound as a water additive to treat tooth decay is a drug treatment. This means the that contaminant euphemistically called “fluoride” and “Hydrofluorosilicic acid” and its many co-contaminants is a drug yet, as determined by Carol Clinch’s text, it is used with prejudice, without proper health approvals: there is no DIN (drug identification number) for this “drug” nor is there any control over its administration to the target population. It is also clear that more than the children are being treated. It is also clear that the “drug” has no proof of effect and no proof of safety, etc, etc

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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