A recent landmark ruling by the Queensland Supreme Court against Covid vaccine mandates has sparked discussions about the potential ban on fluoride in drinking water. The court found that Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll failed to consider human rights when implementing the vaccine mandate, leading to the decision being deemed “unlawful” and having no effect.
The case was brought forward by police officers and ambulance paramedics who were sacked for refusing the mRNA Covid shots, which were claimed to be compulsory by the state Labor Party administration. Justice Glenn Martin stated that the directions given by the government were made in an emergency situation with the intention of preventing infection and serious illness among employees.
The ruling has set a precedent for other sectors, including Queensland Police Service (QPS), Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS), Queensland Health, and Queensland Education. State MP for Hill, Shane Knuth of Katters Australian Party, has called for all government departments to withdraw any Covid vaccination mandates and related disciplinary actions against government employees in Queensland. He emphasizes the importance of respecting individual rights and personal freedoms when implementing mandates.
While the ruling against Covid vaccine mandates has garnered attention, another significant legal case is progressing in the United States. Michael Connett, an attorney from the law firm Waters Kraus and Paul, is challenging the artificial water fluoridation practice. The case questions whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk of neurodevelopmental effects and aims to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address this risk.
Fluoridation chemicals are considered drugs, and therefore, Americans are entitled to informed consent before their water is automatically fluoridated. The case argues that public water systems should inform households of the risks associated with consuming fluoride, which has been linked to decreased IQ in children and other health problems.
Numerous scientific studies have shown that fluoride accumulates in regions of the brain responsible for memory and learning. This poses a significant risk, particularly for young children. The current maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride is not protective against its adverse effects on the brain, as deficits have been found at levels below the MCLG.
The case against water fluoridation challenges the government's violation of informed consent. Despite evidence of fluoride's potential harm, the establishment is resisting removing fluoride from public water supplies. Critics question the motivations behind maintaining water fluoridation and highlight the lack of a Medical Product's License for the practice.
The ruling against Covid vaccine mandates in Queensland and the ongoing legal battle against water fluoridation in the United States both address the issue of informed consent and individual rights. These cases prompt discussions about the boundaries of government intervention in healthcare decisions and raise awareness about potential risks associated with certain medical procedures.
