So would censoring debate on the issue
For the past year or so, I’ve been following a critical situation in New Zealand, where local communities decide whether to fluoridate their water supplies. A number of communities have said no.
A bill in the national parliament would change all that.
If the bill passes, the decision to fluoridate would fall into the hands of so-called District Health Boards—which are part of a federal system. At that point, New Zealand would be fluoridated as a matter of top-down command; local choice would be gone.
Now, there is a battle going on in the parliament about allowing debate on the science of fluoridation. Apparently, the pro-fluoridation forces are terrified that open presentations will expose official lies and destroy their position.
A press release (1/31) from Fluoride Free New Zealand describes the situation:
National Health spokesperson, Jonathan Coleman, is castigating the Government for allowing the latest science on fluoridation to be aired. “This is now going to unfairly colour the debate and raise questions in people’s minds, especially MPs who are going to vote on these Bills,” says Coleman.
It is hard to fathom why listening to both sides of an issue will “unfairly” colour the debate.
Prof Paul Connett is booked to give a presentation to all Parliamentarians in February during his speaking tour of New Zealand. He will explain the latest science on fluoride’s adverse health effects – particularly the growing research on the link between fluoride and the lowering of IQ.
A multi-million-dollar landmark US Government funded study published last year found that children who were exposed to fluoride in utero (at the same levels NZ children are exposed to) caused a drop of around five IQ points. This study was carried out by researchers in the top Universities of North America, such as Harvard, Michigan, Toronto and McGill…This comes on top of the 52 (out of 58) human studies and hundreds of animal studies that have also found fluoride interferes with brain function.
For Jonathan Coleman to call this “junk science” is preposterous.