Thanks for raising this aspect of the issue, Ecu.

evercloserunion wrote:

As a law student the main contact I would have had with the question is the landmark 1965 case of Ryan v Attorney General...

That judgement falls largely on the scientific question of whether fluoride is harmful to human health so it may be useful to read. The following is an extract...

Firstly, note that the High Court case, before Judge John Kenny, took place in 1963. The appeal was heard before the Supreme Court in 1964. The SC judges, led by Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, upheld Kenny's judgement, and fluoridation commenced later that year.

The judgement does not "fall largely on the scientific question of whether fluoride is harmful to human health." The judgement fell on the whim of Judge Kenny, who displayed such a misunderstanding of the nature of science, or the science of nature, that it is comical to us now -- if we actually read that judgement. Either Kenny, with his non-scientist non-medic blind spot, couldn't see the wood for the trees (the trees being all the side-issues, important as they were and are -- constitutionality, implied rights, education, and so on), or... he had his mind made up in advance.

One man can make a blunder, but then the whole Supreme Court, with time to read and reflect?

In December 1961, Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court unanimously agreed that "the possibility cannot be precluded that fluoridation will involve certain risks or disadvantages to the health of those who are constrained to make use of this water." The court ruled that fluoridation was not permissible under the Swedish Health Act.

The Irish judges could not have been unaware of that legal precedent. What were they thinking? Did they hear such incredibly strong pro-fluoridation evidence that they were utterly convinced? That does not seem possible, because the pro-fluoridation evidence was not impressive, and has since been thoroughly discredited. On the other hand, the anti-fluoridation evidence presented in the High Court in 1963 has never been refuted.

Ecu, your extract gives us very little idea about those 1963/64 judgements. Let me offer another set of extracts -- in the next post...

Note that the following scientists named in the judgements gave evidence for the plaintiff (the anti-fluoridation side): Waldbott, Gordonoff, Rozeik, Dillon, Benagiano, Fiorentini, Steyn. The other scientists named were pro-fluoridation.

[I have added a few notes in square brackets -- like this.]

Quote :

High Court
Gladys Ryan (Plaintiff) v.
The Attorney General (Defendant)

Kenny J.

. . . If then the Act of 1960 [the fluoridation law] imposes the consumption of fluoridated water on the citizens and if that is or may, as a matter of probability, be dangerous or harmful to the life or health of any of the citizens, the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity would be infringed and the legislation would be unconstitutional.

. . . I am satisfied that the plaintiff and any of the citizens of the State can, by the expenditure of a few pounds [to use crushed bones as a filter], remove all or almost all the fluoride ions from the water coming through the piped water supply. I accept all the evidence of Dr. Fremlin on this aspect of the case.

[Kenny implies that fluoride is a medicine:] The opponents of the fluoridation of the public water supply constantly use the words "poison," "toxic" and "toxicity." They say that a high concentration of the fluoride ion is poisonous and toxic. Evidence was given in this case to establish that a high concentration of the fluoride ion is toxic and it was then suggested that any introduction of the fluoride ion into water must therefore involve an element of risk to health. This, however, begs the whole question for many substances used in modern medicine are, when taken at a sufficiently high degree of concentration or in considerable numbers, poisonous and even lethal. A lay man knows that arsenic and strychnine are used in medicine today and also knows that these can be poisonous: even the harmless and beneficial aspirin when taken in sufficient numbers can have fatal results.

Having heard the evidence and read the literature which it was agreed I should read, I am satisfied that the fluoridation of the public water supplies at the concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not, in our temperate climate, be dangerous to anybody, old, young, healthy or sick. I am also satisfied that, there is no reasonable possibility that it may involve an element of danger or risk to life or health to any of the citizens of this country.

. . . Let me say then that I am satisfied beyond the slightest doubt that the fluoridation of the public water supplies in this country at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not cause any damage or injury to the health of anybody, young, old, healthy or sick, who is living in this country and that there is no risk or prospect whatever that it will. [As if medicine is an exact science!] The evidence on which I base this view consists of a number of separate items each of which is conclusive; when taken together, they are overwhelming.

. . . I accept the whole of the evidence of Professor Hodge and of Dr. Schlesinger about these examinations [in Newburgh].

. . . I have heard evidence about the Bartlett/Cameron [Texas] study and I accept this summary as being correct.

. . . Similar results, both in the reduction of dental caries among children by the introduction of fluoridation and the absence of any injury to health, were found in Anglesey [Wales] and I accept the whole of the evidence of Dr. Wynn Griffiths, who gave evidence about them. . .

The reports of the Commissions which have studied the matter provide cogent evidence of the safety of water fluoridation. There is, in the first place, the report of the Irish Fluorine Consultative Council [1958] . . . There is, in the second place, the report published in 1958 of the Expert Committee on Water Fluoridation set up by the World Health Organisation. The members were drawn from many countries and were very highly qualified; one of them, Professor Ericsson, gave evidence in this case and I accept the whole of his evidence. . .

. . . Then there is the report of the Committee set up in Ontario to report on water fluoridation as a public health measure. . . There is also the report of the Commission in New Zealand; it was set up to consider the fluoridation of water supplies as a public health measure and reported in its favour. . .

I come now to deal with the evidence in this case. I accept the whole of the evidence given by Professors Hodge and Ericsson and by Dr. Galligan. . . I also accept the evidence of Dr. Schlesinger, Dr. Arnold, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Dirk. If their evidence in any way contradicts that of Professors Hodge and Ericsson or that of Dr. Galligan, I prefer the evidence of Professors Hodge and Ericsson and Dr. Galligan. I reject the evidence of Professor Gordonoff, of Dr. Rozeik, of Dr. Waldbott and of Dr. Dillon. . .

The evidence of Professor Benagiano and Dr. Fiorentini was based almost entirely on observations in the towns of Campagnano di Roma, Cesano, Bracciano, Anguillara and Castel Nuovo, all of which are near Rome. These observations suggest that there is a relationship between the presence of the fluoride ion in the drinking water and a high incidence of goitre together with an unusual basic metabolicrate. These observations and the conclusions drawn from them by Professor Benagiano and Dr. Fiorentini are not, in my opinion, reliable. . .

Professor Steyn, who came from the Union of South Africa to give evidence, was a most impressive witness. . . He favoured the use of fluorine in the battle against dental decay but thought it should be used topically, that is by application, and that it should not be put into the water supply. He also said that at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. fluorine does not produce severe mottling of the teeth. His objection to the use of fluoride ion in the water supply was that he thought that there was a connection, in the Union of South Africa at least, between the presence of the fluoride ion in water and a high incidence of goitre. I do not accept the view that the presence of the fluoride ion in water at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. will produce goitre in anybody: it seems to me more likely that the high incidence of goitre in many parts of the Union of South Africa is caused by iodine deficiency. I think that the Newburgh-Kingston observations show that the fluoride ion at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. or even higher does not cause goitre in any of those who drink water containing that concentration.

. . . Dr. [H. McDonald] Sinclair, a Fellow of Magdalen College, gave evidence for the plaintiff . . . I do not think that any of his evidence supports the view that the fluoridation of the public water supplies at this concentration is dangerous or that there is a reasonable possibility that it may be dangerous. If any of his evidence supports this view, I reject it.

[On skeletal effects:] . . . When the water contains less than 5 p.p.m. of the [fluoride] ion, the evidence is coercive that it does not cause any osteosclerosis or osteoporosis. . . I am satisfied that a concentration of 1 p.p.m. of the fluoride ion in the water, though it produces an increase in the concentration of the ion in the bone by a gradual process, does not involve any risk of damageto life or health for anybody, young or old.

[On mottled enamel:] . . . If the water in Ireland is fluoridated to a concentration of 1 p.p.m., ten per cent of the children will develop mild, and very mild mottling of their teeth. Dr. Galligan distinguished between disfiguring mottling and mild and very mild mottling. I accept the view that the mottling of the teeth of ten per cent of the children in Ireland will not be an indication of fluorosis or of any damage or harm having been done to the children's teeth by the fluoride ion in the water which they have drunk. This mild and very mild mottling is not a condition which will be perceptible by most people; indeed, Dr. Galligan suggested that mild and very mild mottling might improve the appearance of the teeth. I am, however, satisfied that the mild and very mild mottling which will be produced in the teeth of some children is not an indication of any element of risk to health or of dental harm or damage to any of the children who get it.

[On thyroid conditions:] Another ground of objection to the introduction of the fluoride ion into the drinking-water is that it would or might cause goitre or other thyroid conditions. The suggestion is that the fluoride ingested affects the functioning of the thyroid gland. I am satisfied that it does not. The basis for the view that it does is the assumption that there is an antagonism between the fluoride ion and iodine so that the fluoride ion will absorb the iodine which is in the human body or which is acquired from food and water. In my opinion, there is no antagonism between fluoride and iodine. [Cf.
http://bruha.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_page.html] . . . I think that the observations in the United States of America show conclusively that there is no connection between goitre and the ingestion of the fluoride ion.

[On enzyme interference:] . . . There is strong evidence that a high concentration of the fluoride ion interferes with the action of sonic enzymes but there is absolutely no evidence that a concentration of 1 p.p.m. or even of 2 or 3 p.p.m. will affect enzymatic action in any way; this conclusion gets support from the experiments on animals. In my opinion the evidence is coercive that a concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not affect enzymes or the enzymatic process in any way.

. . . The Ontario Committee in their report referred to a work by Elwell and Easlick, called "Classification and Appraisal of Objections to Fluoridation," and in para. 142 of the report a summary of the objections to fluoridation and the answers to the objections taken from that "monumental" work is quoted. I do not wish to lengthen this long judgment by quoting this exhaustive treatment of all possible objections to the fluoridation of water. It is enough to say that the authors and the members of the Committee conclude that none of the objections have any validity, a conclusion with which I respectfully agree.

Moreover, I accept the evidence that there is in the human body what one of the doctors called "a homeostatic process." This is a kind of guard or balance by which the defences of the body go into action when anything in the body goes wrong: when the illness is serious, the homeostatic process is not strong enough to save life but if there were any cases where the fluoride ion might produce some ill-effects in the human body (I am not satisfied that there are) the homeostatic process would go into action and would counteract any harmful effects which might be produced.

It was also suggested that if the fluoride ion had to be taken, there were other methods available which did not involve any element of risk. . . If it is accepted that the problem of dental caries has to be dealt with (and I think it imperative that it should be), water fluoridation seems to me to be the only practicable method. . .

. . . I am convinced that the amount of the fluoride ion ingested at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. in the water together with the amount of the ion in the food, in drink, in the air and in drugs (in so far as we know it) does not involve any element of danger or risk to health.

There is some suggestion in the literature that the machinery which is used to put the fluoride ion into the water may be unreliable. This case was not made by the plaintiff. There is no evidence whatever that the machinery which will be used is unreliable. Even if it were, the daily check which the regulations make compulsory and the other check by the distillation method provide a complete safeguard against any risk from this. [The fact is that, since fluoridation started in Ireland, exceedances of the upper limit of 1 ppm (now 0.8 ppm) have been outrageously frequent. See annual EPA reports.]

In my judgment, the fluoridation of the public water supplies in this country is not a violation of any of the plaintiff's constitutional rights and this action must be dismissed.

Supreme Court judgement below...

Supreme Court, 1964

Quote :

Supreme Court
Gladys Ryan (Plaintiff) v.
The Attorney General (Defendant)

Judgement of the Supreme Court (O Dalaigh, Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, Haugh, Walsh):

This appeal is brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. Gladys Ryan, against an order of Mr. Justice Kenny, dated the 31st July, 1963, dismissing, with costs, the plaintiff's action. . .

[On Judge Kenny's judgement ("findings"):] Having read the oral evidence and the documents submitted, this Court is satisfied that these findings are correct and cannot be challenged.

The basis for the plaintiff's complaint that bodily integrity has been violated rests on the probability of mild or very mild mottling in the teeth of up to 10 per cent of the children who drink the fluoridated water and on the small deposition of fluoride ions in the skeletal frames of both children and adults. Neither of these effects is harmful or involves any risk to health. The effect on the teeth is demonstrably beneficial. The purpose and effect of fluoridation is to improve children's teeth and so, indirectly, their health. These benefits to a great extent are carried forward into adult life. Adults by ingesting fluoridated water obtain little or no advantage, but neither do they suffer any disadvantages.

Are these minute changes, almost imperceptible, usually beneficial, and at worst harmless, a violation of "bodily integrity"?

The Court's answer is emphatically, "no." . . .

It is beyond question that dental caries in children has become a national problem in this State. . . The State has the duty of protecting the citizens from dangers to health in a manner not incompatible or inconsistent with the rights of those citizens as human persons.

. . . To deal with the problem the Oireachtas has chosen a method, namely, the fluoridation of the public water supply. The plaintiff has failed to refute the evidence that this is not only the most effective method but is indeed the only effective method. The method undoubtedly does result in a minimal interference with the constitution of the body, but such interference is not one which in any way impairs the functions of the body or, to any extent discernible by the ordinary person, its appearance.

The Court is left in no doubt that the fluoridation of water . . . cannot be said to involve physical changes which affect in any way either the wholeness or the soundness of the body of the person concerned. . .

The Court does not accept that the fluoridation of water is, or can be described as, the mass medication or mass administration of "drugs" through water. . . This matter was examined in detail by the Commission set up by the Government of New Zealand to enquire into "the Desirability or otherwise of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies" and the conclusion was reached that "fluoride is not a drug but a nutrient and fluoridation is a process of food fortification." It is, in the opinion of the Court, a misuse of words to refer to this process as mass medication or mass administration of drugs. [Fluoride of course is not a nutrient of any sort.]

. . . For the reasons stated this appeal fails.

Laughable stuff, isn't it?

Look, at this stage it's time to be blunt about this: Kenny was just chancing his arm, and the SC judges didn't have the bottle or the cop-on to question it. You can speculate as much as you like about political influence: fluoridation was coming from Washington who handed over huge sums of money to Dublin for fluoride promotion, everything American was magic... with an Irish-Catholic President in the White House, the booming Irish fertilizer industry (allied to the booming Irish sugar industry) was ready to provide the fluoride for next to nothing, there was so much genuine suffering from tooth decay in Ireland at the time...

One other amazing aspect of the whole sorry business of the Ryan case is that, as far as I'm aware, not one Irish lawyer has ever come out in public and called a spade a spade in relation to the above judgements. Are lawyers so unscientific that they can't see a blunder when it's staring them in the face? Is it some code of honour in the profession... a closing of ranks?

Thanks for posting the HC judgement, that was the more important of the two judgements but I couldn't find it online on a non-subscription service.

Thanks for posting that Soubresauts -- a bit of Irish legal/scientific history ?

Some questions for you - is there a toothpaste I can buy or you can recommend which comes without sodium fluoride or the other stuff - nexafluorosilic .. ??? is there other flouride compounds in toothpaste ?

edit - please don't say I have to order it over the internet - or go from Clare to Norn Irn

Do you know if anyone has tried to do a 'hunger strike' with fluoride ? Hunger strikes are often very effective and I wonder if anyone has done one with fluoride ? This would work in reverse - you'd boil water until reduced, add more water and continue to reduce until you have water with a high concentrate of sodium fluoride. You would drink this daily under the watch of a medical establishment who would monitor and publish your medical data like on Supersize Me. It might be a very effective campaign if you suffered very harsh side effects from fluoride overdose.

Do you know if there are detectable psychological effects from it like a mild drug or something ? This is the normal dose I'm talking about now - the 6mg recommended max consumption quantity.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Some questions for you - is there a toothpaste I can buy or you can recommend which comes without sodium fluoride or the other stuff - nexafluorosilic .. ??? is there other flouride compounds in toothpaste ?

edit - please don't say I have to order it over the internet - or go from Clare to Norn Irn

Euthymol is the most widely available. Probably in every pharmacy, and some supermarkets. Better quality, and more expensive, is Weleda -- in some pharmacies and health food shops. Less pleasant, but much cheaper, are salt and bread soda.

The fluoride in toothpaste is usually sodium fluoride or sodium monofluorophosphate, both highly toxic.

Quote :

Do you know if anyone has tried to do a 'hunger strike' with fluoride ? Hunger strikes are often very effective and I wonder if anyone has done one with fluoride ? This would work in reverse - you'd boil water until reduced, add more water and continue to reduce until you have water with a high concentrate of sodium fluoride. You would drink this daily under the watch of a medical establishment who would monitor and publish your medical data like on Supersize Me. It might be a very effective campaign if you suffered very harsh side effects from fluoride overdose.

Have you been drinking -- alcohol? Fluoridation is a major public health problem, and the only one that can be solved overnight. We just need the Government to act. We don't want anyone else damaged by the stuff.

Quote :

Do you know if there are detectable psychological effects from it like a mild drug or something ? This is the normal dose I'm talking about now - the 6mg recommended max consumption quantity.

I haven't heard of psychotropic effects. It's a drug all right, but the effects to be worried about are the same as hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid). You probably know someone who's hypothyroid (it's so common in Ireland now); ask them about it. See this.

Ah the pink toothpaste in the tin tube ? I'll get some of that mouth-burning baby tomorrow. I would like to do an experiment on myself y avoiding fluoride to see if any of the possible 'psychotropic' effects of fluoride can be isolated. It might mean me living in the woods for six months again though so I'll go in summer.

Some possible psycho effects there are

Autism
Behavioural Problems
Blind Spots
Body temperature disturbances
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Coma
Concentration Inability
Convulsions
Crying easily for no apparent reason
Death
Decrease in Testosterone (i.e. girliness in men ?)
Dementia
Depression
Dizziness
Dry Mouth (get this when you're stoned too apparently)
Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty
Epilepsy
Excessive Sleepiness
Fatigue
Fearfulness
Forgetfulness
Headache
Hearing Loss
Hypertension
Incoherence
Irritability
Loss of Consciousness
Loss of IQ
Mental Confusion
Multiple Sclerosis
Polyneuropathy (?)
Restlessness
Senstivity to Light
Seizures
Sleep Disorders
Sluggishness
Thirst


Seriously though has anyone gone on a fluoride diet ? If I were to boil water down like I said above, reducing ordinary tap water 50 times and inducing it over a period of time then I could have myself monitored before and regularly during and then after to see if there was a marked difference. Would you think there would be a difference ?

We're going to die anyway might as well die doing something useful for science and society.

Hasn't everyone blacked out whilst brushing their teeth with flouridated toothpaste? I know I have lots of times... possibly because I fell over because I was brushing my teeth in the dark owing to the flouride induced sensitivity to light that I suffer.... you see I was bending over to get some water because of the thirst I get and it was in the dark, and then I lost consciousness... yea...

johnfás wrote:

Hasn't everyone blacked out whilst brushing their teeth with flouridated toothpaste? I know I have lots of times... possibly because I fell over because I was brushing my teeth in the dark owing to the flouride induced sensitivity to light that I suffer.... you see I was bending over to get some water because of the thirst I get and it was in the dark, and then I lost consciousness... yea...

I've met people - nay, I went to university with people who revealed to me that they used the pink stuff to avoid the fluoride. At the time I had no interest in this or must have been suffering from forgetfulness or lack of concentration to take it seriously - feck it anyway - I wonder is it too late now ? I'm very very fearful now, i don't think I'll sleep well tonight

again

Doesn't bother me unduly to be honest. The water out of my tap tastes lovely and I brushed my teeth with some of Fiacla's finest this evening. Night all!

Auditor #9 wrote:

Thanks for posting that Soubresauts -- a bit of Irish legal/scientific history ?

Some questions for you - is there a toothpaste I can buy or you can recommend which comes without sodium fluoride or the other stuff - nexafluorosilic .. ??? is there other flouride compounds in toothpaste ?

edit - please don't say I have to order it over the internet - or go from Clare to Norn Irn

All of the ones made by Weleda have no flouride in them. Try their Salt Toothpaste if your REALLY want to feel wide awake in the morning! An Siopa Beag in Killaloe has them - as do nearly all healthfood shops, and a fair few chemists.

Weleda ... name rings a bell now. Salt toothpaste though ??

yehbut_nobut do you also avoid the fluoride ?

johnfás could end up feeling like this after the fiacla

Dizziness
Dry Mouth (get this when you're stoned too apparently)
Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty
Epilepsy
Excessive Sleepiness
Fatigue
Fearfulness
Forgetfulness
Headache
Hearing Loss
Hypertension
Incoherence

Auditor #9 wrote:

Weleda ... name rings a bell now. Salt toothpaste though ??

yehbut_nobut do you also avoid the fluoride ?

Can't say I actively avoid it, but I don't like not having a choice. I remember when I was a kid, my second teeth came through discoloured, and I remember someone (a visiting aunt from uk?) saying it's because of the flouride... never trusted it since.


Weleda do great stuff cosmetics and natural medicines- company was founded by Rudolf Steiner. They do little travel/trial size 10ml tubes of stuff too - give the salt toothpaste a go! It's like your mouth's been skiing!

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Weleda do great stuff cosmetics and natural medicines- company was founded by Rudolf Steiner. They do little travel/trial size 10ml tubes of stuff too - give the salt toothpaste a go! It's like your mouth's been skiing!

Rudolph Steiner ... can't say I know him.

I love that little travel stuff ! It's great to make presents up of travel stuff and give it to people at Christmas.

Really though I can just imagine the toothpaste being like one of those chips you get from Lennox's ® where at least half the salt seems to have fallen on one chip ... euch. I'll try to avoid fluoride as much as I can though because I don't want to suffer from

Restlessness
Senstivity to Light
Seizures
Sleep Disorders
Sluggishness
Thirst

Auditor #9 wrote:

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Weleda do great stuff cosmetics and natural medicines- company was founded by Rudolf Steiner. They do little travel/trial size 10ml tubes of stuff too - give the salt toothpaste a go! It's like your mouth's been skiing!

Rudolph Steiner ... can't say I know him.

He was an interesting person. As good an overview of the man and his philosphy as ive found is here.

Well Rudolph Steiner sounds interesting from your link ..

Quote :

anthroposophy

Philosophy based on the view that the human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds. It was formulated in the early 20th century by Rudolf Steiner and was influenced by theosophy. Steiner wanted to develop a faculty for spiritual perception independent of the senses, which he believed was latent in all human beings, and to this end he founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912. Now based in Dornach, Switzerland, the society has branches worldwide.

Today I went out and bought Pink Mouth-Burning toothpaste so I won't suffer from bouts of the following please God

Incoherence
Irritability
Loss of Consciousness
Loss of IQ
Mental Confusion

There still is lots of sodium stuff in it - silicate --- is that related to the little packet of silica gel you get in moisture-prone goods which says on the packet DO NOT INGEST ?

Your neck of the woods was ground zero in the Steiner Schools war that lasted 10 years. The State here obviously considered Steiner schools as way-out loopiness, but Waldorfschulen are mainstream in Germany.

coc wrote:

Your neck of the woods was ground zero in the Steiner Schools war that lasted 10 years. The State here obviously considered Steiner schools as way-out loopiness, but Waldorfschulen are mainstream in Germany.

I'm laughing at the idea of a Steiner Schools war! Led, no doubt by a combat sqaud of trained Eurythmists!

That reminds me of Trotsky's

Quote :

“You may not have an interest in war, but war has an interest in you.”

The Steiner schools may not have had much martial intentions, but they certainly found themselves at the pointy end with respect to the Dept of Education.

The latest Irish Medical News has a revealing letter about the "unauthorised and untrialled counterfeit medicine" added to our drinking water.

Dental fluorosis is a biomarker for systemic fluoride poisoning. The medical establishment accepts that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis. Ergo...

There is a pdf linked to the Dept. Health/Children which displays fluorosis - pity it's gone. If a rake of people are suffering from fluorsis or worse and this is due to the counterfeit medicines that the Commissioner is talking about, couldn't Ireland's people not sue the Government ??

Quote :

The package announced by EU Commissioner Guenter Verheugen to reform the pharma sector (IMN 05/01/2009) for the benefit of European citizens, including protecting them better from counterfeit medicines, is very interesting, but as far as Ireland is concerned purely aspirational. Why is this?

Because in Ireland today, an unauthorised and untrialled counterfeit medicine – fluorosilicic acid – is distributed to millions of people by most public water plants. They do not employ licensed pharmacists nor do they provide patient information on individual dosage, needs assessment, or side effects of this medicine, all of which are statutorily required in the EU.

While this medicine was claimed in the 1960s by then Health Minister Sean McEntee to prevent dental caries in children, today so over-exposed to fluoride are the population of Ireland that, according to University College Cork’s (UCC) North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health, 2003, one-in-three Irish teenagers now has dental fluorosis or abnormal tooth enamel (1).

Suppressed report, here:
http://fluoridereports.com/index.html

Why did Jimmy Devins suddenly go all pro-fluoridation?

Pity it finished at the second page - it was only starting to get going.

Why did Jimmy go all pro-fluoridation?

Maybe the mercury in the MMR finally started to effect him neurologically?

More to the point, how is Gormley walking away from his own report?
(all 116 pages of it!)