Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

Day 1 of the #FluorideLawsuit has begun with FAN attorney Michael Connett presenting his opening arguments. He is going over the risk hazard for fluoride.

BTW the Court is still requiring everyone in attendance to wear masks....

Judge Chen has questions dose, notes that any element at a high enough dose could cause harm. FAN Connett is explaining how dose relates to fluoride intake.

FAN Connett: How does the EPA determine risk?

Connett says the EPA determines the "hazard level" by a Quantitative Dose-Response Analysis, then an "Exposure Assessment" to determine exposure level within communities.

"What constitutes a risk? I would say there are 2 types."

1. The observed hazard is the first type of risk. "But the challenge of risk assessment is this type of risk is rare. When EPA decided to ban lead we didn't have risk observed risk in this area" despite there being harms.

The 2nd type of risk is inferred risk. "This focuses on if there is enough of an inferred risk for vulnerable populations".

Connett is showing examples of how previous toxic chemicals (dry cleaning material, lithographic printing) have shown up BELOW the levels of inferred risk

FAN Connett notes that just bc there is not hazard levels at observable levels does not mean there is not human harm.

Connett: What does EPA do when determining a risk?

They ask, 1 is the effect (loss of IQ) adverse?
2. what is the known extent of human exposure?
3. Are susceptible populations being exposed?

Connett says the EPA did not look at the totality of data when denying the FAN's TSCA petition on Fluorides toxicity.

Connett: What evidence do we have of fluoride's harm? "undisputed fact that fluoride passes into the placenta (during pregnancy) and into the fetal brain"

Discussing the fact that the blood-brain barrier is in development and considered to be a "critical window of development"

Connett outlining several of the EPA's own employees who agree with the assessment that fluoride is a neurotoxin.

Connett moves to discuss the human studies now. Discusses how the National Toxicology Program has already determined Fluoride does lower IQ.

The Court will hear from Dr. Brian Berridge about the "hazard based focus" of the NTP and why that matters when considering the NTP's process for determining fluoride is a neurotoxin.

Remember, this NTP study is the one which has been blocked by folks at the CDC and HHS.

Connett quotes directly from the NTP, "there is, however, a large body if evidence on IQ effects in children."

18 high quality studies viewed by NTP confirmed the lowering of IQ in children.

Connett also says the NTP has consistently found higher fluoride exposure can lead to lower IQ scores.

3rd, the NTP noted that "bias due to confounding is not considered to be a concern in the body of evidence".

Fourth, the NTP found that "exposure characterization" is unlikely to explain the association (of lower IQ), according to FAN attorney Connett.

Connett is explaining how the NTP found a dose-response relationship at higher levels of fluoride exposure. Judge Chen is curious about the data for lower levels of fluoride exposure.

FAN Connett: Makes it clear that the U.S. NTP found that fluoride neurotoxicity is the most likely source of lower IQ.

NTP also stated that a "spurious association" is unlikely.

FAN Connett outlines the witnesses who will be speaking today, including Dr. Howard Hu, co-founder of the ELEMENT research project 3 , a pregnancy and birth cohort funded by the EPA and the NIH. The Element Cohort studied prenatal exposure to toxins.

Other witness to testify includes Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH | Professor of Health Sciences at
Simon Fraser University who Authored the seminal research on the neurotoxicity of lead.

FAN Connett also outlines how the court will hear of recent research which did not find fluoride is a neurotoxin. Connett outlines how the people behind the study are long time promoters of water fluoridation.

Connett gives a preview of what's to come regarding the Spanish study in the Basque area conducted by Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea.

This study found that fluoride increased IQ for boys by 15 points! Connett calls these "implausible findings"

Discussed here: thelastamericanvagabond.com/2nd-phase-fluo…

3rd implausible finding from Spanish study:

"the dramatic association evaporates when removing creatinine adjustment from the equation"

"There's no plausible reason for why adjusting creatinine should have such a dramatic effect. (in terms of increasing IQ)"

FAN Connett: The problem with the Spanish study also relates to the methodology. I encourage the court to pay close attention to the discussion on seafood. Coastal Spain, including the Basque region, had the highest intake of seafood in the world!

Connett: you have to control for seafood and the potential toxicants within when considering the impact of fluoride on pregnant mothers. Spanish study never bothered to control for seafood in their analysis.

Connet moves on to discuss the work of Dr. Phillipe Grandjean, University of Southern Denmark, famous for his work on PFAs, forever chemicals.

Connett says Dr. Grandjean's work needs to be taken serious. Says the EPA itself points to Grandjean's analysis of mercury as the benchmark for analyzing such risks.

Connett notes that in the NTP's own words fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L is "consistently associated with neurotoxicity".

Connett goes into the exposure levels for fluoride. Showing chart that says "high end consumers of tap water drink almost 3x as much as average consumers".

Connett says bc we know how much water intake a pregnant woman has we can assess the fluoride intake levels. He is saying a pregnant woman will be exposed to much higher levels of fluoride exposure through their water intake.

Connett: when you look at the differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in maternal urinary intake you can see how much more fluoride intake happens in fluoridated areas.

Connett explains to Judge Chen that even in non-fluoridated areas there is exposure to fluoride via processed foods and drink, etc.

Connett: one of the striking factors is we have fluoride exposure which is actually exceeding the hazard levels. He says even if we imagine a hypothetical hazard level of 3.0 mg/L, pregnant women are still close to reaching that level of exposure.

Connett moves to talk about "The Science of Uncertainty". Discusses how the threshold level for toxic effect varies substantially across the human population but the point is to protect the most vulnerable population.

Connett mentions Dr. Stanley Barone, Jr, risk assessment scientist with the EPA.

Dr. Barone testified that in his estimation we should have an "uncertainty factor" of at least 10x. This means we should err on the side of caution when it comes to toxins.

Connett: TSCA commands us to protect the vulnerable. EPA is following that command (in other areas). You have to look at the potential risk for the 95th percentile of the population.

Judge Chen asks Connett if he plans to show evidence of the top 5% being impacted by fluoride exposure.

Connett says yes, when considering the totality of exposure he will show the impact of fluoride's neurotoxicity. EPA will consider "aggregate exposure if the data permits".

Connett makes his final point: Finding #3 - The Risk is Unreasonable. Confirms that the EPA themselves will not dispute this fact.

Connett outlines the duration, frequency, magnitude, patterns, and number of people who are being exposed to water fluoridation.

Connett hammers the point that babies are the highest exposed through their mothers and formula bottle feeding.

Connett: "over 400k exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed in fluoridated communities"

Judge Chen asks if the number differentiates between bottle fed and non bottle fed babies. Connett says he doesnt know but even if you cut the 400k number in half, thats still 200k humans being exposed, a higher number of people affected by other toxins the EPA has regulated.

Connett says that there will always be some uncertainty when conducting a risk assessment. Still, "you can't wait for the last puzzle piece to fit in before you take action.

Connett: We do not dispute that there will be uncertainties in the data, but if we are held to the burden of answering every question about fluoride exposure, thats not the standard the EPA uses under TSCA.

Connett outlines how the FAN expert witnesses have all worked with the EPA and been relied on as experts by the US government in the past. They are also subject matter experts on fluoride.

Connett outlines the EPA's experts including Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea, Dr. Stanley Barone, Jr., Dr. David Savitz.

Connett says Dr. Savitz is very accomplished but the problem with his analysis is that he doesnt know the standards of TSCA. He doesnt know how EPA defines risk etc.

Connett says Dr. Savitz is going to try to cause doubt and that the FAN does not need to be held to his standard for risk, but rather the EPA's TSCA risk standard.

Connett closes statements. Court is taking a 20 minute recess.