Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

3rd day of the 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit resumes with EPA cross of Dr. Grandjean, FAN's witness.

EPA: you only published the Danish OCC results with the combined results of the MIREC cohort?

Grandjean: we decided that enough was published in the cohort and that we could easily put everything relevant into this joint paper.

EPA: you didnt find the Danish results interesting enough to publish on their own?

Grandjean: that was not a consideration.

EPA calls for reviewing Grandjean's deposition statements again.

EPA: you did not personally carry out the analysis in the Danish study, did you?

Grandjean: I have a colleague who was responsible for the analyses.

EPA: so you calculated the BMCL on just the Danish OCC data? Grandjean affirms.

EPA: and in the OCC you had a BMC of .92 mg/ L using just the Danish data, correct?

Grandjean doesnt recall. EPA pulls up the study.

Grandjean still does not agree with the EPA's framing.

EPA tries again, asks Grandjean again. Grandjean confirms.

He has been repeating himself and stating that the EPA is taking some of the data out of context.

EPA: the Danish study found no association between fluoride exposure and IQ, correct?

Grandjean: yes, but your question is not relevant, sorry.

EPA asks Grandjean about his 2022 study called A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34101876/

EPA asks Grandjean if he conducted the BMCL calculations in the 2022 paper. Grandjean says no, it was done by a colleague who he trusts and is qualified.

EPA: in addition to the linear model in your 2022 paper, you also ran a piece wise model and a square model, correct?

Grandjean: yes.

Grandjean says his team felt the linear model was the best fit.

"we want transparency so we find additional information for the interested reader."

EPA: just to be clear, the square model calculated a .0768 mg/ L, right?

Grandjean: if thats what the paper says, yes.

EPA is showing table 2 from Grandjean's Danish study.

They are asking Grandjean to confirm the numbers and figures within the table.

Grandjean is explaining that his team put all the numbers and tables in the study to provide readers with more data, but "they don't mean the squared model is better than the linear model."

EPA is asking Grandjean if he "edited out" the square model of their conclusions. Grandjean says he doesnt recall.

EPA calls to pull up Grandjean's deposition again. In his statements he said, "I think we edited that out".

EPA: is a chi-squared test another method to see if your model fits?

Grandjean: it's not a test I would recommend as a preferred test. The purpose of using chi-squared test is different.

EPA wants to read the EPA's definition of a chi-square Goodness-of-Fit Test to impeach the witness. EPA is reading it now.

Grandjean responds that the Chi-square test definition is relevant to animal data, not to his data.

EPA responds and asks if he has ever seen Chi-square used in human studies.

Grandjean says yes, but "I'm sorry, this is not relevant."

EPA wants to switch gears. They are bringing up Grandjean's trial declaration for the 1st trial. They are showing a "box plot" submitted by Grandjean relating to the 2019 Green study.

side note: Grandjean is a hilarious witness. He's not giving in to the EPA's attempt to impeach him. They appear to have frustrated him a few times though.

EPA is reviewing the box plot from Green and asking Grandjean about the data, particularly the number of circles above the median box.

Judge asks EPA about the sample size. Judge Chen says that the circles above the median represent more than 1 person. Asks EPA if they are attempting to say each circle is one person. EPA says yes.

gets frustrated, asks "why are we spending time on this? let's move on."

Judge Chen asks to see the box plot again. He is asking questions about why the EPA is wanting to focus on this box plot.

EPA: this goes to the question whether we should use the Green 2019 study as part of the NTP study.

Judge Chen: maybe we should clarify what these circles mean? rather than trying to get this out of the witness.

FAN Connett asks Judge Chen if he can add some clarifying info. Judge Chen allows it.

FAN Connett says the box plot has an incorrect reference to the "90th percentile" and that figure does not appear in the actual Green study.

Judge Chen asks what are we looking at?

EPA explains that the box plot was submitted by Dr. Grandjean during his trial declaration.

Judge Chen gets clarification that this box plot was provided by Grandjean himself with notations that appear to be confusing.

Grandjean offers some clarification. EPA says they will just read directly from the deposition.

EPA reads his statement, wants to move on. Judge Chen says it will still be helpful to know the sample size of the study.

FAN Connett objects, says we should be showing the actual study stats, not just this box plot.

Judge Chen: this is your exhibit, its kinda odd to object to your own exhibit.

EPA is showing the box plot again (originally submitted by Dr. Grandjean) and Judge Chen is still interested in the sample size.

EPA moves on to the NTP monograph...

EPA: you believe that on balance the NTP monograph is a quality study?

Grandjean: I do, I am surprised it's not been published.

EPA: you would agree that the studies looking at the association between fluoride and neurological effects beyond IQ are less strong?

Grandjean agrees.

EPA: yesterday you testified about the NRC 2006 study?

Grandjean agrees.

EPA: you think the NRC 2006 study is quality? Grandjean agrees.

EPA: but the NTP study disagreed with that assessment, correct?

Grandjean says he doesnt know if they looked at animal data.

EPA reads statement from NTP about animal data not being sufficient.

EPA: so its beyond the NTP monograph to determine whether the level of fluoride added to the water poses a risk to neurodevelopmental harm?

Grandjean says that was a limitation placed on the NTP.

EPA: so you would agree it was not the job of the NTP monograph to determine whether the level of fluoride added to the water poses a risk to neurodevelopmental harm?

Grandjean says they were probably not allowed to make that determination but you can still draw conclusions.

EPA is now reading a statement from Grandjean written in a 2nd supplemental report relating to the NTP where he says the NTP's goal was not to make a determination relating to water fluoride.

Grandjean says the NTP was limited in what they could say or write.

Grandjean: I dont think its relevant to our dose response discussion whether 1.5 or 0.7 or particular points of deviation is relevant to the discussion on fluoride's neurotoxicity.

EPA moves to talk about the Basque Spanish study by Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea. EPA asks Dr. Grandjean if he likes the study.

Grandjean: I can't take it seriously.

Grandjean: it is so full of confusing statements and findings. I myself would have never submitted that paper for publication.

Grandjean makes a suggestion that the paper might have been written by a PhD student. EPA pounces on that and asks Grandjean if he himself published papers conducted by PhD students.

Grandjean dodges, but admits that is correct.

EPA is now asking Grandjean about some of the co-authors of the Ibarluzea study. He acknowledges he knows one of the authors and thinks they are credible.

He also says that privately this person is not satisfied with the study.

EPA shows a table rating studies as low or high risk of bias. EPA asks Grandjean to confirm if the Ibarluzea study was rated "probably low risk of bias".

Grandjean confirms that the table says the study was probably a low risk of bias, but says he doesnt think the evaluation is credible, calls it "very narrow".

EPA is now going through the legend for the figure, line by line.

Grandjean: if I was the one observing the study I would say why are they finding fluoridated toxicity in the non-fluoridated communities? it doesnt make sense.

The EPA is attempting to get Grandjean to place doubt on the credibility of the NTP report bc it includes a study he doesnt find credible.

EPA: you've expressed concern that seafood intake was a confounding factor in the Ibarluzea study?

Grandjean: yes, thats one factor. He goes on to say the study is not credible, that it found a positive association between mercury and children's IQ.

EPA is now asking Grandjean about Julvez 2016. Grandjean says he doesnt recall this study.

EPA pulls up study to confirm that Julvez used a food frequency questionnaire. Grandjean says he doesnt know.

FAN objects to the study being brought to the table. EPA says Grandjean had testified about this study in his deposition.

Judge Chen allows the questioning to proceed.

EPA: in your supplemental report on the NTP study you mentioned the Julvez 2016 study?

Grandjean says he doesnt remember. EPA wants to pull up the relevant statements.

EPA is showing Grandjean's supplemental report and a citation where he references Julvez 2016. EPA asks him to look to see if it refreshes his recollection.

Grandjean says he can only comment on the benefits of seafood, but tells patients to avoid contaminated seafood.

EPA: whether fish intake impact neurodevelopment is dependent on the type of fish, right?

Grandjean says yes.

EPA: so you're not an expert on the types of fish that can effect neurodevelopment, are you?

Grandjean: I dont know what it takes to be an expert so I can say without a doubt I am not an expert.

EPA: you cannot say that all types of food intake would also have an impact on fluoride intake?

Grandjean: I cant say that about all seafood, but if you go to the Basque area, I am very certain that in this particular cohort, seafood is an issue.

EPA: the WHO has acknowledged that fluoride content is low in meat and fish, right?

Grandjean if you say so. EPA restates the question.

Grandjean I dont recall.

EPA: you dont know if you would prefer having a food frequency questionnaire or a biomarker for intake, right?

you would rely on the experts when determining whether or how to control for seafood intake, right?

Grandjean: I would certainly listen to their judgements.

EPA is discussing a previous version of the Basque study, asks Grandjean if its true that when they looked at 4 different cohorts they still didnt find impacts related to fluoride?

Grandjean says he doesnt recall. EPA explains and he remembers.

Grandjean says he doesnt want to speculate why they found their conclusions.

EPA brings up deposition statements from Grandjean again.

EPA reads his statement affirming that he did say the data from 4 different areas also didnt find negative associations relating to fluoride intake.

Judge Chen calls for a break.

We will resume for the final hour shortly.