To date, probably the best, most comprehensive documentation of fluoride interactions with living organisms.


FLUORINE INTOXICATION
A Clinical-Hygienic Study
With A Review Of The Litterature And Some Experimental Investigations.
By Dr. Kaj Eli Roholm



Published by NYT NORDISK FORLAG, Arnold Busck, Copenhagen 1937
Published by H.K. LEWIS & CO. LTD. 136 Gower Street, London 1937

A quotation from a "White Paper: The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health" which is the official response to public concern about fluoride's role in everyday life, from the medical profession, published by Institute for Science in Medicine (ISM) April 2012)
A quotation from a White Paper: The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health which is the official response to public concern about fluoride's role in everyday life from the medical profession, published by Institute for Science in Medicine (ISM) April 2012:

"Institute for Science in Medicine (ISM) is an international, educational and public-policy organization comprised of health care professionals, scientists, and researchers who agree that the best science available should be used to determine health policy and to establish a standard of care that both protects and promotes the public health. We necessarily oppose policies which erode a science-based standard of care and thereby significantly expose the public to fraudulent, worthless, or harmful medical practices and products."

"Declared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be one of the ten greatest public-health achievements of the Twentieth Century [1], community water fluoridation has been under attack by a small band of critics since its inception. The scientific consensus over fluoridation’s health benefits, safety, social justice, and economies has been firmly established over six decades of widespread use in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless, anti-science critics have never relented in their opposition — recycling previously disproven charges of harm, inventing new ones out of whole cloth, misrepresenting scientific facts and research, exaggerating risks, understating benefits, inappropriately invoking the precautionary principle, and accusing public health officials of corruption, conspiracy, and ‘mass medication’ of whole populations."

If it is not corruption and conspiracy, then it must be a bottomless ignorance that makes modern doctors cluster to statistical algorithms, they call for evidence-based medicine, rather than they are seeking real knowledge and clinical science. And they really call themselves doctors?

Do you still think, the Institute for Science in Medicine (ISM) and other mainstream doctors are indeed serving the "do no harm" principle ?

We do not think so. Not after years of bad, painful, annoying and disappointing experiences with doctors, who are much more loyal to their colleagues and teachers than they are loyal to their patients.

Primum non nocere ("First, do no harm")
From a oath of ethical professional behavior sworn by new physicians and attributed to Hippocrates.

The “do no harm” principle
Humanity, Neutrality, Impartiality

"Humanitarian principles and standards of conduct for humanitarian workers have been developed by various actors over the past several years, based largely on international humanitarian law and the work of the ICRC. The Red Cross Movement and many of the major humanitarian NGOs have adopted a 10-point Code of Conduct. The “do no harm” principle, developed by Mary B. Anderson in the 1990’s, has developed into an approach, inspiring a series of training workshops for humanitarian workers. The Sphere Humanitarian Charter includes a set of principles that constitute an operational framework for accountability for the Steering Committee on Humanitarian Response, Interaction, VOICE, ICRC, and ICVA. The UN agencies are committed to the three core humanitarian principles listed in GA Resolution 46/182 which established the present system of UN coordination in humanitarian crises, i.e. humanity, neutrality, impartiality."

Source: 4.2 UNICEF’s (therefore also UN's/red.) Humanitarian Principles (Doc)

Now is the time to think for yourselves: who - do you think - in fact cares more for human kind? Us - who does warn ordinary, defenseless people of any age against fluorides, or the medical profession and dentists, who in fact do the opposite by supporting the use of fluorides in everyday life. What do you think?