Fluoridation of the public water supply, without obtaining informed consent, is, in my view and the view of the plaintiffs of a recent lawsuit, a violation of medical ethics.
Michael Connett, “lead attorney in a groundbreaking lawsuit against the EPA that seeks to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water” filed in California, joined Kim Iversen recently to discuss the pending litigation he is leading:
We now have data — high-quality data funded by the NIH [National Institutes of Health] — linking maternal exposure to fluoride with deficits in IQ … that’s really the focus of our lawsuit.
“The court has one question before it, and that is: Does fluoridation present an unreasonable risk of neurodevelopmental effects? … If the court rules that it does, then the EPA will be mandated by law to take action to address that risk.
The logic of the lawsuit discussed here is air-tight:
- The principle of informed consent requires the full disclosure to the patient(s) of the risks associated with any drug or medical procedure, and sober acknowledgment and consent to said drug or medical procedure by the patient, before it is applied
- Fluoridation of the public water supply is a medication
- The public is not informed of the risks of public water fluoridation, nor is their consent granted
- Ergo, every governmental body that approves water fluoridation is guilty of violating informed consent.
For the record, to assuage any skepticism, I have previously documented at PJ Media the evidence that fluoride, indeed, lowers IQ — and that the government has gone to great lengths to cover that fact up.
Related: Report: The Science™ Hid Data That Fluoride Lowers IQ
Frankly, in my view, along with all of the abuses over the past several years related to COVID-19, this is Nuremberg II-tier criminality.
But, as that is arguably currently an extreme minority position, I’ll settle for the pending lawsuit in the interim period until that becomes more politically feasible (which requires the citizenry to mobilize and demand it; corrupt government actors aren’t going to voluntarily go after their own).
For its part, as I covered recently for PJ Media, the Public Health™ goons at the FDA don’t apparently have much use any longer for even maintaining the pretense of respecting informed consent, the cornerstone of Western medical ethics.
Related: FDA Quietly Eliminates Informed Consent Requirements For Medical Experimentation
Until very recently, informed consent was a non-negotiable ethical cornerstone enforced by both government and non-governmental professional associations related to the medical field. Doctors who violated informed consent were subject not just to losing their licenses but criminal charges.
Here’s a radical proposal: if the government is so concerned with actually improving public health — a laughable premise, I know, but bear with me — why not simply supply anyone who wants to fluoridate their water with their own little fluoride packets to dilute in their morning coffee, thereby granting each individual the choice as to whether he or she would like to ingest toxic nonsense because the state says it’s necessary for dental hygiene on flimsy evidence while ignoring the countervailing negative health effects?
