Toothache.

Published Meath Chronicle 21st October 2014.

He switched on the bedside lamp, the clock beamed 5.22am. It was now seven minutes since the man had become acquainted with his pain, yet he still didn´t know it. His thoughts flustered over damp floorboards, the warm air forcing him outside. A streetlamp puddled rainy light upon the stairs, the bannister led down, down until he landed in the kitchen. With the first mouthful of whisky the discomfort eased and suddenly he became aware of its absence.

As the storm abated he now felt alive and tingling like an electric fence. In the toaster´s reflection he drew back his lips to see canines project from a cloud of tartar, rattling each molar without joy, the gum looked red but that could be the light and anyway his tongue had already failed to find any cavities. He finished the glass and took off again.

At the door, the queasiness returned. Square miles of waves began to roll and pitch their heaped suffering upon his lower jaw; the pain swept him back to the table. Gently cradling his head, he popped pill after bitter pill, drowning each one in alcohol. He waited for the miraculous transition but it never came. Chaos and treachery reigned. The gates of misery opened and so started a slow, monotonous descent to hell; the man dug his nails in. Then he made himself small to resist the pain however it multiplied quickly, extending its territory until throbbing radiated from above the temple all the way down his neck.

With his head flat on the table between two bags of frozen peas, he tried to stop the advance. Contorted and gasping, he struggled again for clarity. At 6.38am, the analgesic Cavalry arrived. He welcomed them, whooping and chuckling as the pain receded but he could soon tell by their poor equipment and lack of numbers that the relief wouldn´t last long; the man grabbed the phone and dialled her number.

He heard himself imploring repeatedly “Hello? Hello? Hello?” even before she´d answered. “What do YOU want” she finally responded recognising his voice “Do you know what time it is?” “You´ve got to help me, I´m in agony…please…” She cut him off, “We´ve been through this a million times”. “But, you don´t understand, my tooth is killing me, I can´t stand it any…” Before he could finish the sentence she´d hung up. When he rang back he got a high-pitched melancholic drone that penetrated his ear, down his jaw and the ache stirred again.

Back in the bedroom, it grew worse. The dentist would be open in two hours but the man knew how he´d react from painful experience, “Don´t be a coward, man, it´s only an abscess. If you can stand a small injection we´ll take it out for God´s sake”. He could see it all clearly now, he had entered a new state, the agony had revealed his reality – he was weak and completely alone.

After that, the pills didn´t taste so bitter.

Dr Don Mac Auley.

Spinning a jig.

Published Meath Chronicle 23th April 2014.

If, in public, you´re used to flipping your nipper bottom-up to sniff his latest offering or your “wheels on the bus go round and round" all the aisles of the local supermarket then you could be accused of baby bliss; that complete lack of self-awareness parents wear with such ease, as if your little one had infected you at birth. And often to reach out to him you too regress to being an infant, squeaking, gurgling, thrumming and fee-fi-fo-fumming. You develop your act, first in private, on the bed or sofa until you take it on the road. Before you know it you´re just another street act, with a captivated audience of one. One that will smile and laugh while others whisper and stare.

But don´t take your unique fan for granted as research now shows that even newborns, despite their unfocused eyes and lack of coordination, have built in body awareness and can even learn in their sleep.

At the University of London researchers showed that when healthy newborns were shown a video of another baby´s face being stroked by a soft brush, at the same time as their own face was stroked by a similar brush they showed interest. When the video was played upside-down or the stroking was time delayed, the newborns were less interested. They concluded young babies have the ability to differentiate themselves from others - when what babies see in relation to their own bodies matches what they feel they can empathise just as adults do. Another study looked at sleeping infants just 1-2 days old. Scientists played a musical tone followed by a puff of air to their eyes 200 times over the course of a half-hour. Rapidly, the newborns learned to anticipate the puff of air upon hearing the tone by tightening up their eyelids.

So what does this mean for your distracting performances? Well, you´ll have to find new material, better routines and like every entertainer gauge the audience´s reaction, as unpredictable as it may be. For example, the other day I thought I´d brighten up the baby´s mood by showing him his reflection in the mirror; it had always worked with the dog who barked and threw mid-air tilts. At first, the baby really stared as if he didn´t recognise himself, then he put his hand up to his chin like an auld boy rubbing stubble between chubby fingers. Still looking in the mirror he wasn´t rubbing, I realised he was cleaning. The rediscovered carrot was off his chin and in his mouth before I could scrape my own chin off the floor. He gave me one of his big, thoroughly entertained smiles.

“Hey diddle diddle” seemed hollow after such a humbling experience. Like half of Ireland I had the DVD somewhere so I´d have to dig it out. Twenty years was a long time ago, worn legs and tired shoes, but it would really blow him away. It may also explain why you see your dentist jigging his Riverdance between the aisles in Tescos!

Dr Don Mac Auley.

Swings First.

Published Meath Chronicle 18/02/2014.

Becoming a father for the first time is a joyful, emotional, if shocking prospect. His eyes blinking against the bright hospital lights, your brain too searched its deepest recesses for this shiny face that stared back, one as helpless as the other. The shock passes slowly. But the first months fly by. Then one day he wants to sit up. He likes to watch the fire, the lamps and next he tries to stand. Up until this point you think you have it sorted.  If he can walk then he´ll be able to run. Down the park danger lurked everywhere – bikes, dogs, cars, your mind boggled and soon enough you feared for his future safety under a cloud of overprotection.

Now was the time to take a trip down the memory lane of my own childhood.  We would all like our youngsters to have that same carefree, happy time, as I did, playing outside in a gang of kids. Unfortunately, more and more children are finding their childhood stolen.  And the culprit is, like mine, parents´ fears. Recently, a class of eight to nine year olds was asked to describe happiness and one replied, ‘‘Happiness is being able to pay the mortgage.” Now that answer didn’t originate in the playground. The reality is kids are spending too long indoors with adults and not enough time outside with their peers.

Instead, recreation is now locked up in a home flush with gadgets. Excused as educational devices, televisions and computers become their convenient window on the world where, with less monitoring, our children make their first decisions alone. Changing the channel or surfing the web, there is no democracy of the gang and there is no social or sharing experience. We are creating a generation of individuals, mere fodder for advertisers who ruthlessly exploit them for profit. So you can’t really blame kids for wanting more stuff. And when refused we find we´re breeding resentment, not the well-adjusted offspring we hoped for.

But at least inside they are safe, I hear you cry. Safe from what? The bombardment of hungry corporations, the violence of negligent TV programmers or the obesity of inactive lifestyles; take your pick. In the 1970s, Northern Ireland wasn’t exactly the safest place on the planet yet we played outside from dawn until dusk. We heard bombs, we were aware of the dangers but it didn’t rule our lives or our parents’ every waking moment.

It is, however, silly to argue that nothing has changed since then or that nothing changes for the worse. Still we passively accept the hype and fear thrust upon us, forcing decisions that are not in our children’s best interests. We also share little or no responsibility for this unsatisfactory situation and often make the mistake of concluding that everything outside must be bad. Alternatively, we could question the world around us with more interest. We could take stock of the past and place trust in our children giving them more time together on their own terms.

I thought, we´ll start with the swings then maybe the slide. He looked chuffed.

Dr. Don Mac Auley.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Fluoride in our water – Money down the drain.

Published Meath Chronicle - 1st Jan 2014

The Irish government has been adding fluoride to our tap water for the last 49 years to supposedly reduce tooth decay. It costs the state €12 million annually to buy, transport, store and inject the chemical into our drinking water. And next year thanks to their generous new meters we´ll be paying for the privilege. However, with the truth the government is more selfish; they don´t tell you the chemical they dose us with is an industrial waste product imported from phosphate manufacture in Spain. They don´t confess it´s NEVER been passed as safe by the Irish Medicines Board. Nor do they reveal that nearly all of this fluoride will end up in the Irish environment.

Government dentists dictate that diluting this toxic slurry in our water strengthens kids´ teeth however the mathematics of fluoridation leaves you wondering whether it´s more about waste disposal than cavity prevention. The Commission for Energy Regulation confirmed last month that 41% of our water nationally is lost in leaks – that´s €4.8 million´s worth of fluoride directly dumped into Irish streams, rivers and lakes. Of the remaining 59% that actually reaches a tap, close to 9/10s is used by industry and farming. Therefore, only 0.06% of the chemical arrives at any given house. But we only drink about 1% of the water we consume; the rest is used for washing machines, showers, toilets etc. And considering the target audience for fluoride is kids with developing teeth who don´t brush their teeth, this means that 99.9994% of the fluoridating chemical is wasted every year, €12million down the drain. That´s if fluoridation worked!

What our government can´t explain is why other European countries that don´t fluoridate have better teeth than the Irish.  World Health Organisation 2012 data for 12 year olds shows us Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands all have less decay. 98% of Europe drinks water free from fluoride chemicals, countries that have also enjoyed vast improvements in dental health since the 1960s. Germany tried fluoridation but stopped in the 1970s, The Netherlands prohibits the addition of fluoride by law. Across the world, the fluoride tide is turning with regions in Australia and Canada now voting it out. Last summer, Israel´s Supreme Court declared the 1930s science behind fluoridation was seriously outdated so much so the danger to health far outweighed any possible benefits for teeth.

These are the same health concerns that Fine Gael cited in 2001 when they made a pre-election promise to stop fluoridation upon winning office. Their declaration referred to “skin irritations, mouth ulcers, headaches, stomach upset and it could also cause irritable bowel syndrome”. However last month, FG voted with Labour and FF to continue forcing fluoride down our throats. Profound memory loss and the ability to perform U-turns would appear to be a new fluoride side-effect that only plagues political parties in power.

Mary Raftery, the journalist who exposed child abuse in church-run schools once posed the question – Do they think we're eejits? Regarding fluoride in our drinking water, the answer is yes. And next year they'll expect us eejits to pay for their poison – as if we haven't already paid enough.

Dr Don Mac Auley.

Fluoride Debate - An exercise in truth decay by Dr Don Mac Auley.

Published in Hotpress 18th December 2013.
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/The-Fluoride-Debate-Ion-An-Exercise-in-Truth-Decay/10748804.html

Micheal Martin has questions to answer?

We drink it every day without a moment´s thought. Soon we´ll be paying for it. But what price have we already paid for our drinking water over the last fifty years? 

There is a growing belief that the chemical fluoride, added to our drinking water in Ireland since the 1960s to reduce tooth decay, has caused – and continues to cause – damage to both the health and the teeth of Irish citizens.
A cumulative poison, fluoride has been linked to hip fractures, reduced IQ in children, bone cancer and thyroid problems. The majority of European countries have tried fluoridation and stopped it. Some have gone as far as banning it.

As readers of Hot Press will know, Ireland is the only European country to mandate this mass-medication from central government and, as a result, we have the highest levels of fluoride-induced tooth damage in Europe. Called dental fluorosis, this damage manifests itself as white lines or pitting on the surface of teeth.

Dental fluorosis is the first sign of fluoride poisoning.

So, why is there no uproar? Why are people not marching the streets, demanding an end to this outrage?

Well, we did protest. Back in 2000, new international studies linking water fluoridation to serious health damage led to a nationwide campaign, with – as reported in the Irish Independent in June 2001 – 32 town and county councils voting to take the chemical out of Irish tap water.

Back then, dentists too, were complaining about the epidemic levels of dental fluorosis in children's teeth. Even the Minister of Health at the time, Micheál Martin's own Cork Corporation voted for an end to fluoridation in October 2001. This decision, however, was not theirs to make. Under the law, fluoride is centrally mandated. The only way it can be removed from the water supply is by a change in the law, meaning that the decision is in entirely in the hands of the Department of Health and the relevant Minister, currently a Junior Minister, Alex White.
In response to the wave of public concern, in May 2000, Martin set up the Forum on Fluoridation. It was heralded as an opportunity to “independently review the fluoridation of piped water supplies.” But what happened over the next two years is a chilling tale of cover-up, amounting to scientific fraud, when (a) a clique of researchers went to great lengths to defend existing public health policy instead of public health; and (b) the Food Safety Authority of Ireland changed minutes of meetings, buried a damning report and ultimately appeared to mislead the Dáil.

At the heart of it all are valuable research grants, where the same researchers received millions in tax-payers money as they continued to lobby to keep fluoride in our drinking water.
It is safe to suggest now that the real reason for the forum may have been to take the heat out of the situation and to provide a platform to undermine the anti-fluoride campaign. As is the case throughout this extraordinary story, the language used by Micheál Martin, in the press release issued by the Department of Health, gives the game away. "The Forum will perform a very valuable function in looking into all aspects of the fluoridation debate, answering concerns which the public may have…" he said.

The assumption from the outset therefore was that the concerns would be "answered". Lest there be any doubt about the Department and the Minister's position, at the start of what was supposed to be an independent review, he nailed his colours firmly to the fluoride mast.  "Fluoridation," the Minister continued, "has made a major contribution to the oral health of the Irish population over the last thirty seven years. Oral health gains have been made by children, adults and especially the socially deprived with a reduction in dental decay rates of 70%."  

Clearly, the forum was never going to be the detailed health study required by law. That became even clearer when the membership of the Forum was announced: it was top-heavy with pro-fluoride “experts”, as analysed on the Fluoride Free website at the time. Many were government dentists or dental researchers who had already travelled the world promoting water fluoridation in other countries. Among these was Professor Denis O Mullane, the head of the Oral Health Services Research Centre at UCC. O Mullane describes himself as an “independent research worker” who has been studying, as he put it to the Oireachtas' Joint Committee on Health & Children in 2003,  “the effectiveness of water fluoridation for 32 years”. 

---

Denis O Mullane - promoting fluoride in Ireland and abroad.

Every study carried out by O Mullane has supported his opinion that fluoridation is safe and more importantly cost-effective. The vast majority of Irish studies regarding fluoride have passed through O Mullane and his team in Cork. His track record is flawless: not one study from Europe, in countries without fluoridation which havebetter teeth than the Irish, that can't be explained away.What no one had figured, in their rush to rubber stamp the fluoridation of the Irish people, was that there were a few independent scientists on the Forum, interested in a genuine review. Dr. Wayne Anderson represented the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), an organisation that holds a statutory responsibility for the safety of our food. After all, once you dump fluoride into the water you also contaminate any food that requires water in its preparation.

One in particular that uses fluoridated water drew interest from the FSAI: baby formula feed. Since 1994, a growing number of international studies had shown babies living in areas with water fluoridation were being overdosed with fluoride. These studies showed that, due to their large consumption of water in relation to their small size, infants were particularly sensitive to the chemical, showing worrying levels of fluoride poisoning – dental fluorosis.
Aware of these concerns, the FSAI commissioned Anderson and two other toxicologists to carry out a fluoride assessment on Irish infants under four months of age to see if there was a similar risk of damage here. Incredible as it seems, this was the first toxicological investigation of fluoridated water in the history of the Irish state. But, according to the records we have seen, Anderson didn't inform his dentist colleagues on the Forum of their work: there is no reference to the study in the minutes of the many meetings. Why? After all, it was groundbreaking research.

It was also the first fluoride study that hadn´t been carried out by dentists, nor had it passed through O Mullane in Cork. Could the FSAI have chosen not to inform the Forum, because they felt other researchers on the Forum would try and influence the independence and findings of their study? Either way, this is, indeed, exactly what did happen later, when the FSAI finally presented their 25-page report to the Forum on Fluoridation.

The toxicologists' conclusions in that report were genuinely shocking. Having accessed it under a Freedom of Information request, we can confirm that it states that bottle-fed infants were receiving up to seven times the safe dose of fluoride.

“Fluoride is a potentially hazardous substance that exhibits a wide range of health effects in man," it warned. "These range from mild effects such as mild dental fluorosis at low doses to severe acute toxic effects at high doses.” The toxicologists' concerns about the fluoride levels swallowed by babies went far beyond concern for their teeth. “It is also envisaged that doses of this magnitude could result in significant levels of skeletal fluorosis,” the report stated.

In other words, the water in Ireland, fluoridated by the Irish state,  could be causing bone damage in babies, when used to make up formula milk. At the Scientific Committee meeting of the FSAI on 3 October 2001, the minutes of which we have seen, the full board supported the position that, because of this new evidence, “infant formula should not be reconstituted with fluoridated tap water.” The FSAI scientific committee was clear: Irish tap water was not safe to make up babies' bottles.

However, there was no rush to inform the public. On the contrary, in what, in my view, amounts to scientific fraud, the FSAI subsequently buried the report and changed the minutes of meetings. What's more, their member on the Forum would later fail to inform the Dáil of everything he knew. The timeline of what happened presents a damning indictment of those charged with responsibility for public health in Ireland.

A week before the FSAI's Scientific Committee reached their original conclusions, the Forum on Fluoridation held its last meeting for which there are minutes. Everything was rosy and members were reminded that there were only two meetings left, on  October 18 and 25 respectively, before the Final Report would be presented to the Minister of Health at the end of October.

On 11 October, the FSAI findings were circulated to members. The mood changed dramatically: the Forum went into information shutdown. No minutes would be taken for the final two Forum meetings. This was a remarkable decision considering the Forum had been funded from the public purse and would decide on a policy that affected every Irish citizen.

What exactly the Forum discussed during these meetings we'll never know. But thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we do know now what happened to the FSAI study and why it was never made public.
The reason we know this is that there was a third, top-secret meeting – a meeting that never took place, according to the website of the Forum on Water Fluoridation in Ireland. At this meeting, held on 23 October, the minutes from which we have accessed under the Freedom of Information Act, the same researchers who had spent their careers promoting fluorides were in the remarkable position of having to discuss an end to water fluoridation in Ireland.

The meeting had been organised by the Forum Chairman, Professor Patrick Fottrell, “to consider the implications” of the FSAI study on water fluoridation. Note the wording here: there was no question about the results. This was a meeting to plan the next move, given the FSAI's damning conclusions.

Among those in attendance was O Mullane, who had informed the Dáil the year before, “For over 30 years, I have conducted epidemiological studies in Ireland and overseas. A major focus of my work has been measuring the effectiveness of fluoride.”

The question might have been asked of O Mullane: if he had been so busy studying fluoride in his research centre in UCC, for more than three decades, why did he not know that bottle-fed infants were receiving unsafe amounts of fluoride from Irish tap water? After all, this was not new information – published studies hadhighlighted similar concerns dated back to 1994. Or – as elsewhere in this saga, is the clue to O Mullane's apparent lack of interest in fluoride damage betrayed by the language in his Dáil statement: “I have been measuring the effectiveness of water fluoridation for 32 years”?

If he had only been reviewing the positive effects of fluoridation, had he been ignoring the damage inflicted on those most vulnerable in society, as the FSAI states: Irish infants under four months of age, who have no teeth. Maybe O Mullane saw the toxicological report, agreed by nine independent Irish scientists, as the writing on the wall for a public health policy he had spent 32 years defending. That this is what was at stake is clarified in the minutes of the meeting, with the heading: “Stop Fluoridation or continue fluoridation.”
Another revelation from the meeting clarifies that the number of infants being damaged by fluoride was significant. “In 1998, there were 53,551 births," the minutes record, "therefore at any one time there will be a large cohort consuming infant formula… As the rate of breastfeeding in this country is extremely low, the number of infants receiving infant formula is considerable.” Reading the minutes you get the feeling there was a tug of war in progress: on the one side the pro-fluoride side questioning the study, while the others preach the importance of the precautionary principle.

We now know which side prevailed in the debate – but at what cost to the credibility of the FSAI? And more importantly, to the health of Irish babies?

The very next day the foregone was concluded. The possibility of causing bone damage in infants under four months old hadn't even given the Forum a bad night's sleep. On 24 October, the chairman of the Forum, Dr.Patrick Fottrell sent a confidential note stating that “The Forum recommends the continuation of fluoridation of public piped water supplies.”

The statement prepared by the Chairman and the Forum members, and handed to Christy Mannion for the Minister´s attention, amounts to scientific and medical negligence.
Not only had they ignored the scientific evidence, the Forum subsequently went on to pressurise the FSAI into withdrawing their study. Three days after the crucial, secret meeting Wayne Anderson, the FSAI´s representative on the Forum, wrote to the FSAI's own Scientific Committee explaining that they'd missed the deadline. “The risk assessment had to be withdrawn…" he added… "the document cannot now be re-submitted and there will be no mention of the risk assessment in the final report of the Forum to the Minister.”

Although Anderson apparently had buckled, at first the FSAI were not for turning. At the following meeting of the Subcommittee on Additives, Chemical Contaminants and Residues, on 30 Oct 2001, the FSAI again reiterated its position and “decided to adopt the precautionary principle in this matter”, confirming that infant formula not be made up with fluoridated tap water.
Later, according to reports in The Examiner at the time, the minutes of both these FSAI meetings would be changed and the FSAI study buried. The Forum delayed its report for another year while the Forum and FSAI debated the fluoride poisoning of Irish infants. And it all happened behind closed doors.

On 10 Sept 2002, the Forum finally published its recommendation  that the levels of fluoride in our tap water should be reduced. This also is extraordinary: in all of the public documents presented by the Forum there is not one reference to turning down the fluoride taps. It is only ever mentioned in the minutes of the top-secret meeting, during which the debate raged about what to do with formula fed infants. “It was found," the minutes note, "that while tighter control (of fluoridation) coupled with a lower target value of 0.6 to 0.8 mg would decrease the degree of overexposure it would not eliminate it completely.” 

---

In other words, fluoridation will still cause damage to bottle-fed infants, just not as much.

Dr Wayne Anderson FSAI misled Dail?

The subsequent collusion between the FSAI and the Forum to keep this information from the public was staggering. In 2003, before the Oireachtas Health Committee, Dr Wayne Anderson completed the obfuscation. John Gormley (Green Party) asked Anderson: if the original report had not been changed would it have meant an end to water fluoridation in Ireland? His answer was this: “I do not know the full details of how that would have affected it, I would be speculating.”

It seems impossible to square that statement with the minutes, which confirm that Dr. Anderson was present at the top-secret meeting when Forum members discussed and debated an end to fluoridation on the back of a study he himself had presented two weeks earlier.

In 2007, the Minister for Health in the Fianna Fáil/PD coalition government, Mary Harney, finally acted on the Forum's primary recommendation to reduce the level of fluoride in our drinking water. This was all of six years after the FSAI study reported that formula fed infants were receiving SEVEN times the safe dose. Interestingly, three years earlier, in 2004, Micheál Martin actioned a lesser recommendation, when he set up the Irish expert body on fluorides and health; clearly, the “expert” body was more important than the health of Irish infants.

The familiar figures of Anderson, O Mullane and other pro-fluoride members of the Forum were predictably invited to participate in yet another quango paid for by the Irish tax-payer. This was not the only benefit for O Mullane: at the height of the storm over the infant formula in 2002, he received an award from fellow Corkman Martin of €500,000-€1,000,000 to conduct research into "the benefits and risks of water fluoridation."
Wading through the relevant documentation, it becomes ever clearer that what happened between the Forum and the Food Safety Authority regarding water fluoridation in Ireland is scandalous.

The way in which a report from the FSAI was subverted by the Forum on Fluoride surely has implications for the ethics and independence of scientific study in this country. But, more importantly it shows us fluoride health researchers prefer to protect policy than the most vulnerable in our society. This was the case in the 1960s when a group of dentists and the Fianna Fail government thought they knew better; and they still think they know better, even though international research increasingly links fluoride to serious health and teeth damage.

Mary Raftery, the journalist who exposed child abuse in church-run schools once posed the question – Do they think we're eejits? Regarding fluoride in our drinking water, the answer is yes. And next year they'll expect us eejits to pay for their poison – as if we haven't already paid enough.

Dr. Don Mac Auley.

Fluoride Debate: Another Whitewash on the Way?

Published in Hotpress 18th Dec 2013
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/Fluoride-Debate-Another-Whitewash-on-the-Way/10748636.html

Though organisations such as Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation continue to highlight 
major concerns about the Irish water system, there are fears that a new government review 
will fail to tackle the real issues.

Don MacAuley was a key fluoride whistleblower back in 2000. He founded the 100-strong group, Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation, helping to generate a significant breakthrough in public and media awareness of the health risks associated with fluoride in the early years of the Noughties.

That campaign was effectively smothered by the ‘Forum on Fluoridation’, set up by then Minister for Health Micheál Martin in 2002. Over the past year, however, fluoride awareness has taken another leap forward, urged on by the combined efforts of The Girl Against Fluoride, Aisling FitzGibbon; the research of scientist, Declan Waugh; the ongoing Hot Press investigation; Sinn Féin TD Brian Stanley, Labour TD Emmet Stagg and other individual politicians; and the work of many grassroots campaigners.

Dr MacAuley has now returned to the fray. Originally from Co. Tyrone, he studied in the UK to be a dentist and, having qualified, worked abroad. He first became aware that there was an issue about fluoride when he returned to Ireland in 1998.

Initially he was sceptical that there were health risks, but he quickly uncovered what he believed were convincing studies linking fluoride to serious adverse health effects.

Unable to get straight answers from the Department of Health and the Irish Dental Association to his queries about fluoride, MacAuley began using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to gather information. He says that he received several warnings from senior dentists in the Health Board to drop his FOI investigation and that he ultimately lost his job. Finding it impossible to get work, MacAuley set up his own practice in Navan, Co Meath, which he still runs.

It was only by chance that, in January 2002, MacAuley happened upon a mention on the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) website of a fluoride assessment being conducted by the FSAI. A week later when he looked, all mention of the assessment had been removed. It was only by pushing to the max through the FOI (with the FSAI resisting all the way) that MacAuley was able to find out more about the FSAI report. That information is revealed in full for the first time in the accompanying article.

As we have previously suggested in Hot Press, the level of resistance in the Department of Health to anti-fluoridation views is almost impossible to understand. Thomas Sheridan, an internationally known Irish expert on socialised psychopaths, and author of several books on the subject, believes that it is very sinister.

“Fluoride could be the most negative and damaging issue since the Catholic abuse situation,” he told Hot Press. “Because if this thing comes out – that we are a sick, ill, damaged nation because of government policy constantly passing the buck – it could lead to a flurry of law suits.”

That seems an ever-more likely outcome. What emerges in Don MacAuley’s article is that, in full knowledge of the risk of poisoning our infant population, the Irish authorities have continued to facilitate the overexposure of hundreds of thousands of bottle-fed babies to fluoride.

Meanwhile, in a response to questions posed by Hot Press, the Department of Health has promised a review of the impact of fluoride on human and environmental health in Ireland.

“Two assessments are planned,” a spokesperson told Hot Press. “A review of evidence on the impact of water fluoridation at its current level on the health of the population and on the environment will be conducted by the Health Research Board on behalf of the Department of Health in 2014.”

No detail is provided in relation to how this review will be conducted, what evidence will be assessed, or whether international studies will be taken into account. The fear is that what is intended is another whitewash, specifically designed to bolster the State’s position, in defending any cases taken against it, including the one already being taken by Aisling FitzGibbon.

The Department also tells us that “a review of general health databases is planned to be supported by a public health specialist.”

However, as Don MacAuley’s accompanying report confirms, who is doing the review and how it is approached is vital. Anti-fluoride campaigners will be dismayed to see that the research is being carried out by one of Ireland’s long-time advocates of fluoridation, Professor Denis O Mullane.

“At present,” the spokesperson added, “the Department is collaborating in a University College Cork-led research project, ‘Fluoride and Caring for Children’s Teeth’ (FACCT) which will specifically examine the oral health status of children and inform national policy. The study will consider the impact of changes on the oral health of children, following policy decisions relating to toothpaste use by infants and young children made in 2002 and the reduction in the level of fluoridation in drinking water in 2007.”

Sceptics will point immediately to the title of the study, which presumes a connection between fluoride and ‘caring’. They will also be perturbed at a statement made in the answers provided to Hot Press. In advance of any study or review, we are emphatically told that “the Department does not accept that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence stacking up against the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.”

If that is already decided, then it is not worth wasting more public money on any review. 

Fluoride in our water - The controversy.

Published in Meath Chronicle 22/10/2013

We drink it every day without a moment´s thought but the Irish state has been dosing our tap water with chemical fluoride for decades.  Back in the 1960s, some scientists believed that by adding fluoride to drinking water they could reduce tooth decay. However, there is a growing controversy that this medication of the Irish population, whether we want it or not, is outdated and dangerous. After all fluoride is a toxic substance, found in rat poison and pesticides. The Food and Drug Administration recognised its toxicity in 1997 when it required by law that all fluoride toothpastes in the United States carry a poison warning – "If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately".

Government dentists contend that the levels of fluoride in our drinking water are so low that there is no risk of poisoning. But how do you control such levels when you are prescribing a medicine by thirst? Before I prescribe a medication for a patient, I know the patient's age, their medical history, and whether they have an allergy or not. All this information is taken into consideration before writing a prescription. In water fluoridation, you know nothing about the patient, whether they are taking other drugs, nor if there is an underlying medical condition, and very importantly, you´ve no idea whether that individual is allergic to fluoride or not.

In fact, not only do the government not know this information, they don´t care! Section 6 of the Health Act 1960 that allows fluoride in our water also required successive health ministers to carry out health studies. In nearly fifty years, not one study has been completed. In light of the scientific controversy linking water fluoridation to serious health conditions such as bone cancer, hip fracture, irritable bowel syndrome and decreased IQ in children, Micheál Martin set up the Fluoridation Forum in 2000. Unfortunately, it was a wasted opportunity made up with the same government dentists who have built their careers on fluoride. The only positive aspect was the involvement of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) who studied the fluoride intake of bottle-feeding infants. Due to their small body weight, infants consuming tap water in their feeds were receiving up to seven times the safe limit for fluoride; and even more shockingly 200 times the levels found in breast milk.

The FSAI concluded, “the precautionary principle should apply and recommends that infant formula should not be reconstituted with fluoridated tap water”. This was the end of fluoridation in Ireland; either breastfeed or buy bottled water to feed your newborns, the prescription by thirst would be fluoride´s final downfall. But the report never saw the light of day. Realising the significance for fluoridation, the government forum buried the report. And next year, the same government will fix meters to our taps, they will expect us to pay to be poisoned by fluoride, as if we haven´t paid enough over the last 49 years.

Dr. Don Mac Auley.