New Zealand government preparing to drown whole country in fluorides By Jon Rappoport


By Jon Rappoport
The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?
From The NZHerald, 3/13/16---my comments are in CAPS:
"MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week."
"The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government's plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs)." [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES---A TAKEOVER.]
"In a rare move, Parliament's Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission."
"In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all." [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON'T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION---A CLUE THAT THE "TOLERANCE" FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]
"'The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important', committee chairman and National MP Simon O'Connor said."
"'It's a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought ... the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard'." [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]
"Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O'Connor said."
"At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply." [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]
My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.
The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.
I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.
For the edification of New Zealand's feds, who believe "the science is settled" and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement- "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation"-written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
"...our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis."
"In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years."
"Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956..."
"EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding---that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA."
" showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus'] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired."
"Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston."
"John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation---until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled,'Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.' In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation."
"...mutation that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study...further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride."
"So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products...For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best."
"We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water...the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees."
"The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry."
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from. employees' union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.
The federal government of New Zealand doesn't care about any of this.
They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.
Use this link to order Jon's Matrix Collections.
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at

Views: 214

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wow, and if this latest hard-hitting news piece isn't the most compelling reason to drink pure Distilled H2O and Nothing else then God help us. Ever since I started consuming distilled water I've never looked back. You just can't beat the silky smooth texture/taste of H2O - minus all the crap (including fluoride) - and the way it makes you feel. I find distilled water the only water that satisfies and satiates thirst; most other waters - especially hard mineral waters -  make me feel more thirsty.

re-mineralised of course ;)

Re minerelise very important as de mineralised water will actually strip your system of vital minerals. The water tries to re acquire depleted minerals for itself (Ref Schauberger & Coates)

love it



— Nikola Tesla, when asked about his predictions for the next 100 years in an article appearing in Liberty magazine, February 9th, 1935


“Distilled Water is a pure water. A lot of people have been mislead into believing that it robs minerals out of the body. Well, in my life, I’ve been DRINKING DISTILLED WATER FOR 35 YEARS. University of California Los Angeles, several years ago, told me I had the bone density of a 22 year old athlete. So, if in fact Distilled Water robbed the body of minerals, I would probably be crippled by now”

—Dr. Brian Clement, from the video, “Why Choose Distilled Water?”

Good to see Rappoport is on the case.

Great article.

Spreading the word:

Funny how the topic comes up at the same time as the clean waterways bill and how our water is being shipped off to China for next to nothing. I can bet many MPs and their handlers have financial intrests in commercialised clean water alternatives.

When reading an article like this and relating it to everything else that is posted about NZ, one could easily come to think NZ is a test bed for the NWO.

As for drinking distilled water, it might taste good but it is not the best water to drink just because of the lack of minerals.  Of course it is assumed "good for you" minerals are being referred to here!  Distilled water has often been referred to as 'Dead Water'.  Gee, I wonder why?  It is suggested a little research be done before encouraging others to consider distilled water as an alternative.  Maybe doing a community well, or considering fluoridation removal techniques might be a better way to go.  If you do any investigating, consider checking out ionized water as well.  Here is one of my favorite ionized water links when trying to educate others about water. 7 minutes long

Respectfully, Steve

I'd have to agree with Jody, Steve, Ive been drinking distilled water and never felt better, no more sore neck or back, allergies all gone and lots more energy. All te talk of it being 'dead water' pales once you have drunk the distilled pure water for a few days and feel the difference. As for lack of minerals, perhaps but My view is that argument originates from the fluoride is good for you brigade,  if you eat a balanced diet of sprayfree natural foods I don't think its an issue at all, as for me, even my eyesight  improved and so has my sex life,so im totally sold. The final deciding factor will be when you put your ionised and filtered water into the distiller and then check it again after its finished distilling and then you will see the thick syrup of chemicals that remains, about a tablespoon is left after distilling a batch of 4 litres and it smells foul, no matter how clean you think your water is.Ive distilled water from everyone I know, which includes rainwater(nasty smell in NZ) deep bores,bush springs originating in untouched forests and municipal supplies through out Northland NZ (all of them are overdone with Alum and chlorine, giving a swimming pool like quality and undrinkable tea),and all non city water systems include types of carbon  filtering and other filters designed to stop chemicals and pesticides and of course ultra-violet treated, yet ALL of them once distilled leave a nasty goop in the distiller that YOU will be drinking thinking its pure and clean. The only problem we have found after owning several distillers over the years is keeping up with the demand and the cost of running the unit for just over a litre per hour of electricity, which is still way cheaper than discovering too late the long term effects of drinking aluminium and a host of other chemicals in a futile search for 'mineralised water', its a Con... go natural, batteries will fail with 'mineralised' water and at our essence we are an electric being and as such we rely on clean water so o every electrical impulse can operate at the optimum frequency...anyway, distilling works for me!

The case for distilled water was well presented and certainly very believable.  Thank you for the information.

I have been drinking well water for the better half of my 70 years.  However, I never distilled any of it.  That is something I will now have to do to see exactly what you are talking about.  I purchased an ionizer several years ago because the chemistry and physics of restructured water has been well established.  There is always room for improvement.

With regards to fluoridation, the case has been made over and over again on why it is not good for you.  Again, it is something that can easily be researched.  However that is the rub! Research requires effort and many are too far gone to pursue finding out the truth.  A different approach to this criminal assault on humanity needs to be put in place.  One suggestion for those that are willing is to develop an inner strength of character through meditation.  It is my belief that we need to become more powerful individuals than our adversaries through an assertive effort of doing more than just talk.  We need to overwhelm those that present arguments in favor of the destruction of humanity with better presentations of reality.  I know this is a very esoteric sounding approach to a fluoridation problem.  Keep in mind fluoridation is not our only problem.  Mandatory vaccinations, geoengineering, corruption of moral values name only a few examples of the problems we are facing.  We the people have to become power houses of chi and grow an inner strength to take on these demonic forces that appear to be presently winning the battle.

Hi Clyde. Do you have a distilling machine? I'd love some further info from you on this please. We have a Berkey filter here but I'm always open to refining/improving the way we do things so your input would be greatly appreciated. By the way, does distillation remove fluoride? As far as my memory serves me, I know reverse osmosis does, but I'm unsure about distillation. Thanks.

This is the one I use Vick - widely available in NZ.  Don't get the plastic one.


© 2018   Created by rose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service