Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

My live tweeting of the #FluorideTrial #FluorideLawsuit will begin now

Judge Chen: Let's talk about the larger question of where we go from here, and the EPA's motion to ostensibly impose a stay and not have further proceedings pending further dev re: NTP fluoride review. What's changed now from when I lifted the previous stay in Oct?

EPA: So the motion is asking the court to hold off on scheduling expert disclosure deadlines until further development from the NTP monograph. Our admin motion is an effort to provide an update to the court on where NTP is in that process.

EPA: The NTP has made progress, they've gone through the process of setting up a working group. We are getting closer what I think the NTP has set out. I am not here to say we know when these reviews/monographs are going to be published but we should wait until completion...

before going further.

Chen: Didn't we at one point have a date set for the release of the NTP monograph?

EPA: I don't expect there to any publication in March 23 but the benefit of waiting 6 months is the potential to get the NTP final results.

EPA is essentially continuing to argue that the Judge should wait (again) until the NTP decides if it will ever release the monograph on fluoride's toxicity. The Judge is asking for any kind of timeline, EPA can offer none but says it could be a year...

Judge Chen: Optimistically, we might have a final report - if Dr. Woychik approves its release - and that's a big if, within a year.

EPA: That seems about right.

Chen asks @FluorideAction Michael Connett if the draft report would be enough to gain insight into the toxicity.

Connett says he believes the "state of the science" monograph, with previous studies in evidence are sufficient to correctly draw conclusions. "The state of the science monograph is a critical document in determining toxicity".

Connett says "I dont think we have the luxury of waiting" for a separate meta analysis to be published.

EPA: We believe it would be difficult for the EPA to consider the plaintiffs original petition and weigh the evidence without both final reports

Connett: your honor, if I could regarding waiting longer for the final report. This court has been waiting for 2 years for the scientists at the NTP to provide their final assessment. As you may recall, the NTP provided us with the remaining process back in Jan 22. That process..

was a single review with 5 experts. NTP promised us that if the 5 external reviewers - selected by the NTP - agreed with their conclusions, it would be released. The 5 experts did agree. It's clear according to the emails released the NTP agreed the review was ready for release

Judge Chen interrupts Connett, "Yeah I know, I am familiar with the briefs you submitted, and the narrative you believe. But the NTP study is not finalized even if you feel we have enough evidence".

Judge Chen: Another question, once the working group submits its comments, we still dont have any idea how long it would be before Dr. Woychik decides to release the conclusions or not. Connett agrees, continues to explain the unusual approval process at play here.

Connett: There is nothing in Dr. Woychik's second declaration that provides any kind of clarity for whether the NTP will ever decide to release this. There's no further certainty or clarity. If anything, we have less certainty if this report is ever going to be released.

Connett: Clearly we have seen that higher authorities within the HHS have the ability to influence Dr. Woychik decision on the report.

Judge Chen: What are you proposing? Connett: Are experts would be ready to go to trial within 2-3 months. I think we should the remaining schedule for this litigation. I anticipate that we have some fact discoveries coming up. Our proposal would be to set the trial date in July.

Connett: In Dr. Woychik's statements he said that officials above him submitted comments which lead the HHS to put the report on hold. As Dr. Woychik noted he "wanted to adjudicate" the comments submitted to him. We believe we need to know these comments, what were the criticisms

Connett: We believe that those comments basically eliminate the need for the NTP to complete this unusual and never ending process because the court would have the NTP documents and the criticism from the individuals who promote fluoridation. The court would have all the data.

Connett: upon received Dr. Woychik declaration, I asked counsel if they would produce these comments to Dr. Woychik, they have refused and I believe they are going to claim they are privileged conversations and not reveal them to the court or us.

Connett: I believe this presents a real problem for the government. These comments should be made public, at least for the disclosure of this trial.

Connett: We believe it would be more efficient for everyone to have these comments up front. Plaintiffs seek to discover those comments and provide them to our experts.

Judge Chen: one more question then back to EPA, the NTP monograph hasnt been published, whats your position, if the govt claims its privileged, then what does that do to your case and your experts reliance on that?

Connett: We don't believe they can make that information privileged. Chen: I understand that, we might have to litigate that, but if its found to be privileged, how could we litigate it or discuss this?

Connett: Every single time the NTP has released a monograph, every single time, it has released the draft monograph. EVERY SINGLE TIME. now the govts position is that when it's fluoride, we will release it to the @AmerDentalAssn but not the American people!

EPA: What we are asking the court to do is wait just a few more months so NTP can conclude the process it set out to do. Chen: well let me explore that with you. Let's say in 6 months, maybe we have a decision but maybe not? Chen seems skeptical of the process and the delays

Chen: Is there some scenario where you would say, well we thought we would know more, you say you are not going to keep asking for a 6 month extension, but whats to prevent that?

EPA: we and I want to see this case move along. We dont want to see this case just stick around.

EPA: I think in 6 months we will have some information on where the NTP is and I think we would be in a good position to set a trial date in 6 months.

Chen: Ok Mr. Connett, I know more time is justice delayed, and in your view this is a public health emergency and there's a lot at stake. Maybe we wait 6 months and get more info and then set trial?

Connett: Your Honor, based on the filings last month I have no confidence that the HHS will ever release this and that in 6 months time the govt will agree to go forward. The HHS will not release this if it doesnt agree with policy.

Connett: We ultimately don't need the NTP monograph to draw a conclusion. Judge Chen: so in other words, your experts would be willing to lay the case on the Mexico and Canada cohort studies? Connett: Yes.

Connett: Your honor, you saw in those emails, that NTP scientists considered their May 2022 assessment to be their final conclusion. We absolutely do not believe it is a privileged doc and will argue as such but my point is we shouldnt be waiting 2-3 years for this to be released

Judge Chen to EPA: tell me why I shouldn't allow litigating on the status of the comments from the govt re: the NTP monograph?

Chen: if we adjudicate this stuff and maybe in 2-3 months we have more info on the NTP study, so we move forward in some way. The plaintiffs concern about delay is addressed, the govt concern about release privileged docs is addressed, we'd be in a position to set a trial date.

EPA: Tells Judge Chen there's still discrepancy and uncertainty about what comments are privileged. Arguing for more filings. Connett argues against more paperwork. Judge Chen interrupts and says he will allow Connett to file discovery and then adjudication can proceed

Connett: As I said, my experts will be ready in 2-3 months, but obv these privilege issues we need to work out, I would still like a trial date, maybe in the summer. Maybe it would be helpful to have a date to work around.

EPA: This is the first time we are hearing of this date, I would like more time. Expert hearings in 2-3 months would be a "very difficult task" for the govt at the moment. If possible we'd like to confer with counsel.

Judge Chen: I have scheduling conflicts in the coming months. I have a little slot in May, I think that's a little ambitious. If you could reach a stipulation and maybe give me a range of dates and maybe come to an agreement. Anticipating that we will adjudicate these questions

EPA asks plaintiffs and govt to come back with him with a timeline for motions and filings. Let's set a status hearing for early April, 90 days from now. hopefully we will know more about the monograph, and at that point I am likely to set a trial date.

excuse me, Judge Chen*

Plaintiffs and EPA agree to an April 4th for a status hearing. Discovery requests and motions will be submitted. Adjudication of whether private comments from US govt health officials is privileged or not.

Never mind, now EPA says 4th no good - kids on spring break - next status hearing in #FluorideTrial #FluorideLawsuit set for April 11th

Thanks for following along. I will be explaining this in more detail in an article published tomorrow on @TLAVagabond Read my previous reports on the #FluorideTrial #FluorideLawsuit here: thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/healt…