Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

Testimony of Dr. Grandjean continues by FAN attorney Michael Connett in the final segment of today's hearings for the #FluorideLawsuit.

Connett: did you find that the NTP analysis of fluoride's impact on IQ to be credible?

Grandjean affirms that the NTP researchers are credible.

Connett shows Grandjean a figure from the NTP Meta Analysis, and asks him to explain what he sees.

He explains that its a way to judge the confidence in the various studies being reviewed.

Connett asks Grandjean about the studies being given a SMD value of -.46 and asks what it means. Grandjean explains the SMD value and how it relates to potential loss of IQ points in this table.

Grandjean says the NTP conclusions are the same as Grandjeans own analysis.

Connett asks Grandjean if there are any studies which show a benefit on IQ relating to fluoride exposure. He answers no.

Connett asks Grandjean if we should expect to see some variability in the outcomes of fluoride exposure based on population variables.

Grandjean confirms.

Dr. Grandjean: "when it comes to fluoride we have a massive amount of evidence. There is something very serious going on here that we must take seriously."

Connett: When the NTP did its dose-response analysis, it separately looked at urine fluoride and water fluoride, correct?

Grandjean: yes.

Connett asks a question, EPA objects, Judge Chen sustains. Connett rephrases the question about which method Grandjean would put more weight on.

Grandjean says there is greater imprecision in the water fluoride data vs the urine data.

Connett goes back to page 10 of the NTP's Meta Analysis. Connett quotes the NTP, "the linear model was the best fit for urinary fluoride." Asks if Dr. Grandjean agrees.

Grandjean says the linear model was the best fit and the standard from what he knows.

Connett has Dr. Grandjean look at another table in the supplemental material of the NTP Meta Analysis. He asks Grandjean to explain the tables.

Connett: based on your review of the available data (including from China and other countries, and the NTP monograph & meta analysis), do you have an opinion if neurotoxicity is a hazard of fluoride exposure?

Grandjean: it definitely is.

Connett asks Grandjean about EPA's assessment of perchloroethylene (PCE). EPA objects, Connett moves on.

Connett: Let's turn now to your analysis of the different cohorts. What did you use as the Benchmark Response?

Grandjean: I relied on the EPA's evaluation that any loss of IQ is a negative impact. 1 IQ point is the benchmark response we have to use in our calculations.

Connett continues asking Grandjean about the Benchmark Concentration Level (BMCL) relating to the various cohort studies.

Judge Chen is asking clarifying questions to Dr. Grandjean

Connett: to recap that your analysis was based on individual data, and the NTP's analysis was based on group data.

Grandjean agrees.

Connett: so clearly different methods of analysis. Would you consider these convergent findings or not convergent?

Grandjean: they are very much in accordance with each other.

Judge Chen adjourns the court for the day.

FAN says they want to raise on issue with the court before adjourning. Issue relates to an EPA expert witness.

FAN wants the EPA to reveal who their rebuttal witness is. EPA says according to court rules they dont need to reveal who witness is.

Judge Chen asks EPA to reveal rebuttal witness.

EPA says it would be Richard Woychik, Ph.D., Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). (he is implicated in the blocking of the NTP monograph in emails btw)

Judge Chen, EPA and FAN agree to rules about Woychik about rebuttal witness.

Day 2 of phase 2 of the #FluorideLawsuit is over.

Feel free to donate to our crowdfunding here: givesendgo.com/fluoridetrial