Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

The final session of Day 5 of the 3nd Phase of the #FluorideLawsuit begins with the EPA cross examining witness Dr. Kathleen Thiessen.

EPA: let's start by talking about the NTP's monograph and the "moderate confidence" in their finding that higher fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children.

EPA says this mention of "higher fluoride exposure" was based on amounts higher than the WHO's guideline.

EPA: you believe that the animal studies support your view that the NTP authors could have been more confident? Thiessen affirms.

EPA: in your view, there's no scientific reason that the NTP's moderate confidence shouldnt be higher? Thiessen affirms.

EPA working quick to impeach the credibility of Dr. Thiessen.

EPA reads statement from the NTP state of science which says that it remains "unclear" the association between fluoride exposure at the levels recommended by the WHO (1.5 mg/ L)

EPA: do you disagree with the NTP's authors statement about it being unclear?

Thiessen: i dont agree with the statement that its unclear. I dont think its as unclear as they claim. "certainly we could always use more evidence, but its clear.'

Judge Chen interrupts to say that he doesnt find this line of questioning to be particular helpful.

EPA: you believe we already have enough data to determine fluoride's risk? Thiessen yes.

EPA restates the NTP's authors statements, asking if Thiessen agrees with it. She says yes but we have more recent studies and "There's enough info to determine there is a hazard."

EPA: the MIREC IQ study was the only high quality study examined by the NTP at the current levels of exposure, correct?

Thiessen: No, the Bashash study also looked at this.

EPA: the Bashash study looked at fluoridated salt, correct?

Thiessen affirms.

EPA: I am asking about high quality studies specifically related to water fluoridation, the MIREC IQ study was the only high quality study examined by the NTP relating to water fluoridation, correct?

Thiessen affirms but says there are other studies.

EPA: you believe the MIREC study alone is sufficient to use to judge for the whole U.S. population?

Thiessen: I believe 1 good human epidemiology stuff is needed.

EPA pulls up the NTP BSC Working Group report:
"although we tend to agree that "studies of fluoride exposure at levels typically found in the drinking water in the U.S. are inconclusive", Green, 2019 was the only high quality prospective study included in the 2022 NTP Mongraph."

EPA is referring to the NTP BSC WG report, which BTW, was originally created because of the behind the scenes interference being run by Director Woychik and ASH Rachel Levine. The report would have already been published were it not for them.

EPA shows Dr. Thiessen where this statement comes from to establish foundation.

EPA asks Dr. Thiessen about total fluoride exposure and some of her previous statements. EPA is pulling up the deposition which outlines what opinions she would present in court.

Showing her a statement of hers saying there is no "apparent threshold" for the risk of adverse effects at exposures similar to those resulting in fluoridated drinking water. EPA asks her if she "applied any specific methodology" when drawing her conclusions.

Thiessen: I looked at NTP's conclusions in the context of other available evidence.

EPA: you took an oath to tell the truth, correct? She affirms. Lets look at your deposition.

EPA (from Deposition): Are there any other methodologies employed as part of your opinion that NTPs finding demonstrate negative harms by fluoridate water?

Thiessen answered that she didnt use any specific methodology but just her own experience taken with the NTP report.

EPA: your opinion regarding "no apparent threshold" is based on the NTP's finding in the monograph, correct?

Thiessen: In general, there is no obvious threshold for neurotoxicity, as you've seen with lead.

EPA is doing their best to claim that Dr. Thiessen is basically making assumptions without evidence.

EPA has pulled up another statement from her deposition.

EPA pulls up the BSC WG report and highlights a few specific statements relating to threshold.

EPA is saying Dr. Thiessen relied on these statements by the NTP to make the claim that there is no threshold level.

Now showing that that the BSCWG said the NTP's authors statements were inadequate.

Remember, the BSCWG was formed after the NTP's report had already undergone multiple peer reviews. This was formed as a final way to prevent the release of the report by delaying it yet again.

Thiessen is explaining the nuance in the BSCWG comments, saying inadequate doesnt mean the evidence isnt strong but inadequate in the context.

EPA pulls up another exhibit from the BSCWG comments on the NTP report.

EPA is showing comments from the BSCWG to impeach statements previously made by Dr. Thiessen.

EPA is reading from the NTP's meta analysis now.

"analyses were restricted to <4 mg/L, the EPA's recommended standard and <1.5 mg/L, the WHO's recommended standard."

EPA is outlining NTP's statements, showing a table titled "dose-response meta-analysis using mean effects-model selection".

EPA is having Thiessen go through and pointing to various levels and asking her if the data confirms there are not "statistically significant" effects.

EPA is going through the "AIC score" of each of the different models used to measure the impacts of fluoride exposure.

EPA wants to focus on just low risk-of-bias studies. EPA asks Thiessen if those studies also show no "statistically significant" effect.

Thiessen agrees but says they are "close", EPA asks for clarification.

Thiessen explains that they are close to showing a significant impact. That the data is leaning in that direction.

Judge Chen calls for break till tomorrow morning. Day 5 comes to a conclusion.

Thanks for following! Please continue to share about the #FluorideLawsuit and donate here if you can to cover my costs: givesendgo.com/fluoridetrial