- A New Direction
- Children And Families
- Irish Post Offices
- Irish Water
- Consumer Protection
- Economic Justice
- The Economy and Jobs
- Energy Independence
- The Environment
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Foreclosure Crisis
- Greening the Capitol
- Oil And Gas Recovery
- Health Care
- Human Rights
- The Unborn
- Animal Welfare
- Innovation Agenda
- Peace and Neutrality
- Seanad Reform
- Real Security
- Retirement Security
- Mental Health and Addiction
- Culture and Heritage
Paul Clarke Offers a 8-point Plan to Improve Public Health Care
- Add 1,000 more beds to Irish hospitals. Paul supports opening 1,000 more beds in Irish hospitals as the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation called for earlier this year. The current crisis in Irish medicine is made decidedly worse by the fact that our hospitals do not have the capacity for everyone that needs treatment.
- Streamline admission systems to keep current beds open. Paul supports implementing effective pre-operative assessments that allow patients to be admitted for elective surgery the day of surgery, rather than the night before. In addition, Paul supports establishing practices that allow patients to be discharged earlier in the day after treatment to free up beds for patients who urgently need them.
- Improve efficiency in the system to end waiting list bottle necks. Paul supports creating a specialised short-stay unit for patients that need quick diagnosis and treatment, as well as access to senior doctors and specialists early in their treatment that can quickly and efficiently diagnose the patient and make necessary preparations should surgery or other treatments be required.
- Encourage alternative treatments for Cancer. Paul supports the exploration and potential implementation of alternative treatments for cancer such as Gc-MAF protein that have shown serious potential in eradicating cancer in patients altogether. Irish medicine should do more to educate cancer patients about the potential of such treatments, which are far less expensive than conventional treatments and may in fact be more effective.
- Discourage Euthanasia for sufferors. Paul supports measures that discourage the promotion of euthanasia and assisted suicide as a practice in Ireland. Without impeding a patient’s right to refuse treatment, which is a fundamental and natural right of all human beings, Ireland must send a clear message that, just as the life of an unborn child is precious, so too is the life of any person suffering from any injury or illness. As such, Ireland must endeavour to provide all its citizens the best opportunity to alleviate pain and suffering without communicating acceptance of euthanasia or suicide as a means for achieving that goal.
- Ensure information is shared throughout a patient’s treatment. Paul supports implementing digital information systems that allow a patient’s diagnosis and treatment path to be clearly visible to appropriate health care providers throughout that patient’s journey through the health care system. This will dramatically decrease treatment times, improve patient outcomes, and reduce the burden placed on NHS when there are gaps or redundancies in a patient’s treatment.
- Maintain clear and measurable standards for emergency care. Paul supports designing and implementing standards for emergency care that are clear, articulable, and measurable in order to improve patient experiences and outcomes are consistent from patient to patient. Every patient deserves the best treatment and the best care. The only way to ensure that all patients are receiving the best care possible is to design and hold health care workers to standards for care that are uniform in their implementation.
- End the fluoridation of Irish water by our government. Paul supports a total ban on the fluoridation of Irish water by the government of Ireland and municipalities. It is a scientific fact that fluoride treatment above very low levels--levels far exceeded currently in Ireland--has detrimental, even poisonous, effects on the human body and especially infants and young children under 6. And yet, the Irish government continues to fluoridate all public drink water in spite of numerous laws in the Irish Statute Book, EU law, and the European Convention for Human Rights and Biomedicine, that codify the fundamental right of all Irish (and European) citizens freedom “with regard to the application of biology and medicine.” The practice of introducing any biological or medicinal element into something as ubiquitous as public drinking water is an affront to basic human liberty and should be stopped with all due haste.
Paul Clarke, Independent
Fluoride In Drinking Water
Ireland has the sickest population in Europe. This country is also the only one in the EU which engages in mandatory fluoridation of the water.
It is time we got rid of this poison imposed on us without our consent. After all it is the 21st century and we should not have to put up with this sort of behaviour by dysfunctional government and city councils.
Here we outline some key findings uncovered by environmental scientist Declan Waugh who decided to investigate this issue and produced a very detailed and comprehensive report back in Feb 2012 and what he found disturbed him.We should end this outrageous farce and start prosecuting those politicians, advisors and others promoting this poison. There is a potential here for a huge level of litigation against the government, councils and closed-minded scientists who pushed this on the population for the last 50 years.
And incidently the cost of fluoridation when the 250 water treatment plants are included are likely to be hundreds of millions of euros. See link at end of page.
So What's The Problem With Fluoride?
But first here are some quotes from interview with Declan Waugh in Hot Press Interview in Feb 2013
When I started looking at the health data for Ireland, I had no idea that our nation was as sick as it is. Ireland has:
- the highest cancer incidence of all European countries, even as far as Russia.
- the highest incidence of neurological illness
- the highest incidence of cardiovascular illness
- and the highest incidence of diabetes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the record-breaking levels of sickness in Ireland are related to our water fluoridation. Other European countries either never started the practice, or gave it up decades ago.
What about America?
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences in America published one of the most comprehensive reports on fluoride, known as the National Research Council (NRC) report. 12 experts from a whole range of medical and toxicological backgrounds spent four years reviewing all the data. The findings of their 500-page report were astonishing. It details how fluoride affects things like the thyroid, diabetes, cancer, neurological illnesses, gastro-intestinal diseases, skeletal and muscular-skeletal pain, lowered IQ and other neurological problems in children.
Here are some parts of this report below highlighted by the folks at: News-Beacon Ireland. You can read the full report here and the technical report here. It was sent to all TDs (members of the Irish Parliament), MEPs (members of the European Parliament) and County Managers amongst others by Declan Waugh. Follow up by asking them by phone, e-mail, letter to act on it!
Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation
A summary report prepared by Declan Waugh, B.Sc., C.Env., MCIWEM, MIEMA, MCIWM
The Author undertook this research as a concerned parent and care provider following the recommendations of scientific committees that parents should be knowledgeable about the adverse health effects of fluoride exposure on their children as well as their own individual dietary fluoride intake as a measure towards preventative healthcare.
There has never been any comprehensive environmental risk assessment examining human toxicity, the environmental impact and the legal implications of water fluoridation. This is both illogical and unlawful.
One central and astonishing fact that has been documented repeatedly by every assessment to date is that the products used for water fluoridation have never been tested for safety on humans nor the environment.
It is absolutely certain that the policy of mandatory water fluoridation violates both European and International Law.
In the context of existing EU and national regulatory legislation concerning the environment, health and food, it has been found that the policy of water fluoridation contravenes thirteen EU Directives, three EU Food Regulations, four Statutory Regulatory Instruments, one EU Medical Directive, One EU Product Directive, seven international Treaties, three European Conventions and six European Action Policies totalling thirty-eight separate acts of legislation.
(e.g.:) Fluoride is listed as an undesirable substance in Annex 1 of Directive 80/778/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.
Ireland is the only country in the European Union with a mandatory legislative policy on water fluoridation.
The ever-growing body of scientific literature examining the potential impact on humans and the environment of the toxic effects of fluoridation compounds are reviewed in this report. Over two hundred and twenty separate peer-reviewed scientific publications covering every aspect of medicine and environmental assessment from dental health to biochemistry, toxicology, metabolism, the blood, bone research, the brain, metabolism, epidemiology, pharmacology, neurotoxicology, molecular neurobiology, dental health and environmental toxicology have been examined and reviewed. In total over twelve hundred scientific references are provided in this report allowing the health, legal and environmental impacts to be examined in some detail alongside associated risks that have not yet been previously examined elsewhere. All of the evidence is convergent and demonstrates that fluoride compounds should not be added to public water supplies, when examined collectively the evidence clearly demonstrates that fluoridation of drinking water supplies is both unsafe and having significant negative health implications for human health, society and the natural environment.
Following a comprehensive review of the most up-to-date scientifically valid information available, the inescapable conclusion reached in this study, is that the practice of water fluoridation results in the ingestion by the public, and release into the environment, of dangerous chemicals that are harmful to public health and the environment.
behaviour-altering pollutants such as fluoride
Research findings have demonstrated the ability of fluoride to act as an enzymatic poison in the human body inhibiting critical metabolic pathways required for healthy living. This report clearly demonstrates how inhibition of certain metabolic pathways is linked with increased neurological and cardiovascular diseases as well as dental, skeletal and mental fluorosis. Apart from bones and teeth many of the essential human organs in the body are directly affected by fluoride including the heart, kidneys, liver and pineal gland. Fluoride is now known to cause calcification in human arteries resulting in plaque formation and increased risk of stroke and heart disease. Significant calcification also occurs in the pineal gland and kidneys.
Fluoride is now known to act as a destabiliser of calcium and magnesium bonding in the human body with serious consequences for human health. Fluoride is also known to have major co-toxicity health implications when it complexes with other pollutants present in water such as aluminium. This is known to have major health implications including neurological and chronic bone pain.
Fluoridation of water supplies may be regarded as an insidious poison that accumulates in the human body and environment over time. As with any poison the severity of the health problems depends on how much fluoride an individual is exposed to and at what stage in their development. In many respects, the toxicity of fluoride is similar to both lead and arsenic.
It is also apparent that by ending the policy of water fluoridation, it would save the Exchequer much needed tax revenue that could be spent on critical healthcare, education, infrastructure or community and social programmes. Public finances could also be more appropriately directed to public dental health programmes for the disadvantaged. It is additionally apparent, given the alarming number of health risks and diseases resulting from exposure to fluoride, that the single biggest contribution and potential cost-saving exercise the current Government could make to support the Health Service in Ireland, while benefiting the health and welfare of its citizens, could be achieved by following the precautionary approach and ending the policy of water fluoridation.
The most recent investigations of fluoride and water fluoridation have documented the growing weight of toxicological and epidemiological evidence that there is a clear public health risk associated with the addition of fluoride (or fluoride substances) to public drinking water supplies. Fluoride is now known to be a risk factor in developing many of the most serious health problems prevalent in the population of Ireland. This includes neurological and cardiovascular disease, type ii diabetes, osteoporosis, hypercalcemia, sarcoidosis, skeletal fluorosis, skeletal muscular disorders and pediodontal disease.
The incidence of these diseases in Ireland is far above the global average. It is reasonable to conclude that fluoridation of drinking water supplies is having both a significant negative health and economic impact on consumers and wider society. Apart from the many health risks associated with over-exposure to fluoride, it is classified as a persistent inorganic pollutant that can bio-accumulate in the environment and food chain. Fluoride in the body is retained in calcified tissue, bone and teeth as well as the pineal gland, kidney and other tissues. In blood, fluoride acts an an enzymatic poison inhibiting normal metabolic processes in the body.
the following question must be asked; is it acceptable for the Government of Ireland to continue to conduct what amounts to an uncontrolled experiment on its own people?
Even the most rational person would agree that, given the potential risks and potent health hazards associated with water fluoridation, the small likelihood of any perceived benefit cannot be used as a basis for placing the entire population at risk to compounds that have not been thoroughly tested for their toxicity in humans.
Clearly therefore the only sensible, pragmatic, scientific, moral and legal approach is to end the policy of water fluoridation immediately.
Failure to do so, in light of the findings in this report, would represent a gross failure of responsibility and political leadership.
Statement from Declan Waugh -author of Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation Report.
Since 2011 I have been engaged, purely on a voluntary basis, in research of the effect of fluoride on human health and the environment. In recent times the Republic of Ireland has witnessed a dramatic and unprecedented increase in medical ailments that has resulted in alarming levels of disease burden amongst the population. Environmental pollutants play a major role in promoting ill-health.
Fluoride has been scientifically documented to contribute to a wide range of illnesses and is known to be an enzymatic poison and metabolic inhibitor in humans, animals and aquatic species. Because of the lack of appropriate due diligence and environmental health risk assessment in examining this policy, in particular the complete lack of appropriate toxicological assessment of the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water, I decided to undertake my own independent research and to make this information available to the general public.
All of the information included in my study is sourced from peer reviewed scientific and medical journals including scholarly articles from reputable academics, professionals and organisations. To read the final report that was submitted in March 2012 to the Government of Ireland, the EU parliament and the WHO, please click here.
Further information is available to download by accessing the download menu at Enviro.ie
Additional information is available on this Blog website by clicking here
European Court of Justice ruling:
ECJ ruling in 2005 (Warenvertriebs and Orthica) states that where a product appears to be both a food and medicinal product, the medicinal legislation takes precedence. They must also be subjected to pharmaceutical scrutiny and be issued with a licence. We believe the addition of toxic fluorides to drinking water changes the function from a drink to a medicinal product and as such is subject to licence. Fluoridated water has no licence. We believe fluoridated water breaches this ruling and must be stopped immediately.
Feb 2013 Hot Press Report on Fluoride. - Interview of Declan Waugh
For more reports, see Reports, Rebuttals, Letters and Media Articles on Enviro.ie
Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation
Public Health investigation of Epidemiological data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Exposure. Feb 2013
Fluoride Free Water - Declan Waugh blog
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Irish Health.com - Scientists slam Irish fluoridation report
Fluoride Free Water submission to Department of Environment, Community and Local Government Position Paper January, 2012. from Environ.ie
Fluoridation is crude and ineffective treatment, declare top European scientists
HSE Cover Up on the Financial Costs and Sources of Fluoride for Water " ....The costs for the last three years for infrastructure was approximately EUR4,000,000. The overall infrastructure costs for all 250 water treatment plants are likely to be in the hundreds of millions of euros, but again this information was withheld......
Link to National Academies of Science 2006 Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards -also known as the National Research Council Report (2006) -a summary is available for free download whilst for the full 500 page report you need to register.
Template Letter For Your City Council
Please feel free to send the letter below to any Councillor's who publicly defend Ireland's illegal mandatory water fluoridation policy.
FFT would be grateful if any responses received were posted to the FFT & TGAF timelines so that members of the public are made fully aware of their representative's position on this matter.
The author makes no claim to ownership of the attached letter and therefore the public are more then welcome to edit and use/share this letter on public social media forums or any other platforms available to them to spread awareness of this public health threat being imposed by the Irish State to the entire Irish population.
Dear __________________________ ,
As a constituent of yours I’m aware that you publicly support Ireland’s illegal mandatory public water fluoridation policy which constitutes the involuntary and indiscriminate medication of the entire Irish population.
Please find below some queries I request, at your earliest convenience you return a written response too.
Do you, in the course of your duties as Councillor representing the people of ____________________ consider any personal obligation on yourself to be aware of the international human rights for which the Irish constitution and indeed European law has been established showing due consideration for? And that may I add, public water fluoridation being legislated for in this country is in breach of today, otherwise making the policy illegal.
To expand on this previous point and as I'm sure you're aware, the European Communities Act of 1972 effectively ensures EU law (human rights or commercial), has enforceable jurisdiction over Ireland's Constitution and indeed, Ireland's Statute Book (Statutory Instruments) and other Irish domestic law.
Public water fluoridation is apparently enforced to treat less than 170,000 (3.7 % of the population or the socio-economically disadvantaged as identified in the North South report) people but instead, everyone in this country is treated (risk of overdose currently not acknowledged by any Irish regulatory authority though on this point alone they are in breach of their statutory obligations) for and indeed every person in a foreign country who consumes Irish beverages and foodstuffs is being treated for as well. Considering this and the fact that 98% Europeans have a choice on this matter, do you believe your constituents deserve a choice on this matter in light of the serious breaches to human rights and standard medical ethics that public water fluoridation violates?
Do you believe the Irish State have the right to involuntarily medicate it’s citizens? A situation that has been legislated for in order to prevent occurring, supported by the first point of the Nuremberg Code:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.
This same standpoint is covered by the 1st and 5th Articles of the European Convention for Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997 with quotes,
“Parties to this Convention shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine”.
“An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time”.
Are you aware that hydrofluorosilicic acid, the substance used to dose our public water supply contains lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, strontium, aluminium and as previously acknowledged by former Health Minister, Mr. Micheal Martin, also contains chromium?
Are you aware that the EU banned hydrofluorosilicic acid as a biocidal product in 2006 without stating fluoride has any pharamacological properties that permit dental caries or any other known human illness should be prevented through systemic fluoride ingestion?
Biocide is defined in Article 2(1)(a) and also contains referencing in the Irish Statute Book (S.I. No. 35 of 2008):
“Active substances and preparations containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means”.
Are you aware that fluoride at a certain level of ingestion, has a detrimental effect on human organs throughout the body? Please confirm in your position of defending fluoride, at what level of systemic fluoride ingestion does toxicity occur?
I realise negative effects of fluoride are denied by yourself and a few others, for your convenience please see the links below with attached quotes,
Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 2014 states:
A teratogen has been defined as a chemical that increases the occurrence of structural and/ or functional abnormalities in offspring if administered to either parent before conception, the female during pregnancy or directly to the developing organism.
This study reported that fluoride was teratogenic increasing the risk of congenital defects and the number of dead foetuses. The toxic mode of action was fluoride induced oxidative stress.
The European Food Safety Authority stated the following about fluoride in a report they published last year.
“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development. No signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified in humans. The Panel concludes that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. The Panel considers that the currently available data are suggestive for genetically determined differences in susceptibility to the adverse effects of fluoride on dental and bone health”.
The European SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environment Risks) report of 2011 includes the following quotes,
a) “Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development…”
b) “Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.”
c) “Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride.”
D) “For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL (The upper tolerable intake level) was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L (mandatory fluoridation level in Ireland) and assuming the worst case scenario for other sources. For infants up to 6 months old receiving infant formula, if the water fluoride level is higher than 0.8 mg/L, the intake of fluoride exceeds 0.1 mg/kg/day, and this level is 100 times higher than the level found in breast milk (less than 0.001 mg/kg/day).”
The US Government sanctioned NRC (National Research Council) report in 2006 concluded negative effects due to fluoride ingestion include thyroid impairment, impaired glucose tolerance, dental fluorosis, moderate skeletal fluorosis (arthritis), bone fractures, lowering of IQ and brain damage especially in the presence of aluminium. All of these effects, with possibly the exception of bone fracture and lowered IQ, can occur at 1mg/l. The committee found that bone fractures occurred at least as low as 1.5mg/l although they noted fractures may occur at lower levels and that lower IQ were found in China at 2ppm.
Are you aware that if there are any benefits provided by fluoride, it is through topical application as opposed to systemic ingestion. Please see the following quotes:
CDC (US Centre for Disease Control) quote,
“And its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children”.
SCHER (European Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risk) quote,
“Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride”.
Are you aware that public water fluoridation violates internationally recognised standard medical ethics (dose control) and medical margin of error (100x rule)?
Legal obligations enforced by the FSAI (Food Safety Authority of Ireland) that fluoridated mains water be used by all beverage or food producers in this country result in unknown quantities of fluoride being contained for Irish and international consumers of our country’s products.
Our country’s beverage and food products are also in breach of Irish and EU product labeling requirements within respective legislative references S.I. No. 381 of 2013 & Council Directive 2000/13/EC. Are you aware of this point and the fact that it breaches commercial law for which is legislated?
As fluoride is in our water to prevent dental caries, by default all our beverage and food products are medicinal products and all Irish products are in breach of the EU legislation:
Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83,
“Medicinal product' means, first, ' [a] ny substance or combination of substances (FLUORIDATED WATER) presented for treating or preventing disease (DENTAL CARIES) in human beings' and, second,'[a]ny substance or combination of substances which may be administered (FLUORIDATED WATER) to human beings with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions (DENTAL CARIES) in human beings”.
This previous point has been previously addressed by the ECJ (European Court of Justice), JUDGMENT OF 9. 6. 2005 — JOINED CASES C-211/03, C-299/03 AND C-316/03 TO C-318/03 for which the following was ruled and stated:
“The classification of a product as a medicinal product or as a foodstuff must take account of all the characteristics of the product, established both in the initial stage of the product and where it is mixed, in accordance with the method by which it is used with water”.
“A product which constitutes a medicinal product within the meaning of Directive 2001/83 may be imported into another Member State only upon acquisition of a marketing authorisation issued in accordance with the provisions of that directive, even where it is lawfully marketed as a foodstuff in another Member State”.
“The concept of 'upper safe levels' in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2002/46 is of no importance for the purposes of drawing a distinction between medicinal products and foodstuffs”.
The following EU legislation also states that no medicinal products be place on the market without appropriate classification and labeling,
Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83 provides:
'No medicinal product may be placed on the market of a Member State unless a marketing authorisation has been issued by the competent authorities of that Member State in accordance with this Directive or an authorisation has been granted in accordance with [Council] Regulation No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products".
Do you recognise that through the Irish Government’s mandatory water fluoridation policy, the rights of millions of citizens in the EU and internationally are being violated due to Irish beverage and food products being exported all over the world which results in involuntary and indiscriminate medication through the consumption of Irish products containing medical ingredients/ fluoridated water? This same point was raised at Cork County’s unanimous anti fluoride motion passed on the 10th of March 2014.
To some, these queries might fall under foreign policy and I apologise for bringing such an important aspect into consideration, but I believe the rights rights of our international neighbours should be treated with as much respect as our own.
If the State is permitted to medicate an entire population without consent through the public water supply, when and where is a line drawn as to the extent and limitations for allowing any other form of involuntary medication be imposed. With the current mindset, we should be using the public water supply to lower the levels of depression in this country as one example. Due to your publicly stated position of supporting public water fluoridation, it could be inferred that you believe the Irish State should be dosing the public water supply with Prozac?
For the record, in line with the stated position of the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), European SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental risks) and the NRC (US National Research Council), I do not believe we as human beings require fluoride ingestion for the prevention of any known human disease. These authorities I consider to be“reputable”, do you concur?
Overall, considering the implications of the reputable information I have brought to your attention on this matter, I would be grateful if you would re consider your position to this outdated and dangerous public health policy.
In conclusion, I have proven “doubt” exists and the “doubt” clause is the fundamental reason no other country in the EU mandates public water fluoridation and possibly why the internationally recognised Precautionary Principle has been in been invoked by many other countries worldwide in relation to this matter. In the case of Ireland, it would be morally and legally advisable to have immediately ceased in line with the calls of over 1.8 million people in this country who through 11 County Councils have demanded public water fluoridation be stopped. The County Councils of Laois and Cork having only passed these motions in 2014.
In light of the very important information I as an Irish citizen have brought to your attention pertaining to this matter, I would be grateful if you would confirm you are opposed public water fluoridation and support the immediate reversal of Ireland’s mandatory water fluoridation policy, and if not, please outline a formal response repudiating the professionally sourced and referenced document I have presented for your attention.
I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.