Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

Day 6 of the 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit resumes for the final session of the day with EPA expert witness Dr. David Savitz.

EPA: Dr. Savitz what is your assessment of what this conclusion from the systematic review means?

Savitz: the recommendation from them, was to focus on moderate dental fluorosis based on the research that is available at the time.

EPA: is this consistent with the Health Canada expert panel concluded?

Savitz: I believe so. We reached the judgement that it was not yet appropriate or ready to be used in a manner to judge neurotoxic effects so instead focus on dental fluorosis as the POD.

EPA: Dr. Savitz you testified earlier about who was on that panel, you struggled to remember who was on that panel. Would it refresh your mind to see a list of that panel?

Savitz says it would.

EPA asks Savitz about the various members of the panel and their backgrounds.

EPA says they have no more questions about the Health Canada report. Asks Savitz if he has anything to say about the Expert Panel's work.

Savitz says his panel did their own work, that there was no collusion between the panel and the group behind the systematic review.

EPA: I want to turn now to some epidemiological terms we've heard in the court.

EPA asking Savitz about "Non-differential misclassification error".

EPA: we've heard the term exposure contrasts being used, what is that?

Savitz: generally, it's the range of exposures in your study. If its very narrow, its limited.

EPA: we heard some testimony about whether urinary fluoride or water fluoride levels are better for measuring intake, what do you think?

Judge Chen asks for clarifying questions on Savitz' previous statements before moving on to the question.

As EPA continues, Connett objects that EPA is getting into these areas that they previously agreed Savitz would not testify on.

Judge Chen asks if this was discussed in the deposition. Connett agrees in a limited point, but not overall.

Chen says to raise objection if needed.

EPA asks again what's the different between tracking urinary fluoride vs water fluoride concentration levels?

Savitz claims that urinary fluoride levels are short term results typically and you want more long term data.

EPA asks Dr. Savitz based on his experience if he thinks the epidemiological evidence leans towards there being evidence of fluoride's neurotoxicity.

Judge Chen has questions for Savitz first.

Judge Chen: in the study you did, you didnt by chance study urine content?

Savitz: we did, there was one part where we looked at urinary biomarkers.

Judge Chen ends questions.

EPA: what is your opinion about fluoride and the epidemiological evidence regarding.... Connett objects. Judge Chen says to restate the question.

EPA asks Savitz for his opinion on the epidemiological evidence relating to fluoride exposure at .7 mg/ L in the U.S. and lower IQ.

Savitz doesnt think there is strong enough evidence.

Savitz says he used a few studies to draw his conclusions, including the MIREC, ELEMENT, Odense, and Ibarluzea.

EPA: were you focused on the studies methodologies or the results they found?

Savitz: the methodology. I don't need to see the introduction, just the methods.

Savitz is describing what he believe are the limitations of the MIREC cohort, ELEMENT etc

Savitz says he does not see the association described in the ELEMENT cohort.

Savitz says there's been some "strained digging deeper" and ignoring other aspects of the studies.

EPA: in your experience, do you think there is a convincing reason to separate out boys and girls?

Savitz: there's not for these types of outcomes.

Savitz: do these studies suggest sex-differences for fluoride exposure? one of them does, I acknowledge that.

Savitz says the quality of the studies makes them worth attention and they are meaningful, and they should all be considered.

Of course his view is that there is not enough data showing fluoride exposure can lead to lower IQ.

Judge Chen reminds the court we are at 1:30 and should wrap soon. First, he has questions for Savitz.

Chen asks why some of the studies are showing such diverse results for fluoride impacts on boys and girls.

Chen: you're looking at this and opining that there's not enough consistency to reach any kind of confident conclusion. You've probably looked at other studies, at what point... what is the tipping point for you? How do you judge that?

Savitz: it's challenging. It tends to be by weight of evidence. If there's 2 or 3 more of equal quality and they're all "red", ok maybe thats true, but then you 4-5 studies that are "green". you start to get somewhere.

Savitz' entire testimony is designed to plant doubt in Judge Chen's mind, to make it appear that there's not enough clarity to conclude that fluoride is a neurotoxin.

Savitz: it's more about the weight of the evidence.

Judge Chen: so it's not unusual to see some studies, that are done well, which reach different conclusions.

Savitz goes on to describe his research around impacts of Electromagnetic Radiation/Fields, which he claims show lack of harm.

Savitz: I think its about this incremental evidence that we can anchor ourselves to and make conclusions. And this doesnt say this to me.

EPA is asking Judge Chen questions about getting access to the Health Canada report with only 3 days of trial left.

Judge Chen, EPA and FAN are discussing what it will take to get access to the Health Canada report.

Judge Chen wraps the proceedings for the day.

Court is adjourned until Friday at 8:30 am Pacific.

That concludes Day 6 of the 2nd Phase of the #FluorideLawsuit

Thanks for following along. Please consider donating to our crowdfunding to help cover my costs. givesendgo.com/fluoridetrial