Fluoride Free New Zealand Releases New "Controversial" TV Ads

When you look beyond what you are being told, and do your own research on topics such as artificial water fluoridation, the truth sometimes becomes so ridiculously apparent, that it is painful to read articles like this one recently posted from Stuff.co.nz in New Zealand "Anti-fluoride group air controversial TV ads." The mere title frames the article in a way that immediately places bias against anti-fluoride groups. However, what is actually controversial about the TV ads posted by Fluoride Free New Zealand? Is it "controversial" to inform the public on the origin of the chemical being used to medicate the entire population? Is it "controversial" to inform the public on the toxicity of the chemical being used by the government to treat you and your children? Is it "controversial" to display the statistic showing only 4% of the countries around the entire world fluoridate their population? Is it "controversial" to state that tooth decay has dropped just as fast if not faster in non-fluoridated countries vs fluoridated countries?

In the year 2016, it should be comically simple for scientists to finally provide conclusive evidence that ingesting fluoride works; however, that evidence has never been found. And since any evidence compiled so far is not conclusive, how can select 4% of governments around the world force this medical practice on entire populations without the consent of those populations and without scientific consensus?

If there is a consensus, the world has already spoken on the subject of artificial water fluoridation. As I mentioned, only 4% of the world artificially fluoridates their water supplies. This means that 96% of the world does NOT. That seems to be as close to a consensus as anyone could hope for from a global scientific perspective.

Over the past 50 years, 96% of the world has agreed that artificial water fluoridation does not work, violates our right to informed consent, causes more harm than benefit, and yet the following videos are "controversial":

[youtube_sc url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2knHrLHX1BM&list=PL26QR7zXwWRDJ2lUMiq_bWPATxFmsp0ZQ&index=4"]

[youtube_sc url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6txMDojbsA&list=PL26QR7zXwWRDJ2lUMiq_bWPATxFmsp0ZQ&index=3"]

[youtube_sc url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZrRIVZQzWs&list=PL26QR7zXwWRDJ2lUMiq_bWPATxFmsp0ZQ&index=2"]

[youtube_sc url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6mdKEpob60&list=PL26QR7zXwWRDJ2lUMiq_bWPATxFmsp0ZQ&index=1"]

On the other hand, adding toxic chemicals to the water supply to "treat tooth decay" despite 96% of countries around the world rejecting the practice... is not.