Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

Day 7 of the 2nd phase of #FluorideLawsuit is beginning.

EPA attorney Paul Caintic and FAN attorney Michael Connett are discussing details of court exhibits.

EPA arguing that FAN should not be able to introduce the abstract of a recently published study based in Canada to use in their cross examination of EPA witness Dr. David Savitz.

FAN arguing that EPA has previously submitted an abstract that hadn't been seen by the court, and conducted testimony based on that. FAN is asking for the same. Judge Chen is saying EPA can object if they think the questions around the abstract are unfair.

Judge Chen says he is ok with hearing about the abstract and he's "not going to be swayed by evidence that is not admissible".

EPA calls Dr. David Savitz back to the stand.

EPA: asks Dr. Savitz if he made use of the systematic review which was recently published based on the Health Canada research on fluoride, which Dr. Savitz reviewed as a member of an expert panel.

HC Report:

Systematic Review: canada.ca/en/health-cana…
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38318766/

EPA now showing Savitz about a table which is highlighting the differences between the Mexico ELEMENT, Canadian MIREC, Spanish INMA, and Danish OCC studies.

EPA asking Savitz if its possible the studies could display different results and still be showing the same conclusions. Savitz says its unlikely to get diverse results and still believe they are pointing in the same direction.

EPA asks Savitz what would happen if you remove the INMA, Ibarluzea, 2022, study if that would make a difference. (this is the study which claims fluoride increases IQ)

Savitz says yes if you remove that study you get a different picture but not as accurate.

EPA asks Savitz his thoughts about Goodman, 2022, and whether or not he thinks its a recreation of the ELEMENT, Bashash study of 2017.

This study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35276192/

EPA asks Savitz if the court should focus on Goodman, 2022, and now ELEMENT, 2017, (which are based on the same cohort), and not use both?

Savitz: I dont recall anything that was unique to the Bashash study that wouldnt be in Goodman.

EPA wants to go over studies presented by FAN's experts and get Dr. Savitz' opinion on them.

EPA actually starts with the Ibarluzea study and the FAN's criticisms of this study (which found fluoride increases boys IQ!)

Savitz is discussing the methodology of the Ibarluzea study. He said its a credible but surprising results.

Judge Chen asks if the result is actually credible.

Savitz: the question I would ask, is this study indicative of an adverse effect? It would be a whole different process if we were looking for a benefit.

I can't explain why they got it (these numbers) but I certainly wouldn't argue that it saying fluoride is beneficial.

Judge Chen: does this not raise some question about whether there is something wrong with this study? You got this result that seems totally counter-intuitive and not consistent with the other literature.

Savitz: Absolutely, it raises the question.

Savitz saying the researchers would want to look for a particular error that might be creating results they found. Savitz say, though, that the study looks sound and like researchers adjusted for variables etc.

Savitz: I'd need to have a particular theory of how it went wrong so we could go in and test that.

Judge Chen: you've looked at this study closely, and you can't find some explanation that you think hasn't been explored?

Savitz says he doesn't seen any reason that the study shouldn't be trusted.

Judge Chen asks about variables like the aforementioned seafood consumption in the Basque area of Spain and how this needs to be controlled for mercury.

EPA asking Savitz about the connection between mercury and fish.

Savitz explains that the accumulation of mercury in the body is usually a biomarker for fish consumption.

EPA is asking Savitz if the authors of the Ibarluzea study find any significant adverse effects on neurodevelopment relating to fluoride exposure after adjusting for mercury. Savitz says no.

EPA asking Savitz about the most appropriate way to control for fish consumption, a mercury biomarker or a survey.

Savitz: If I only had one, I would probably prefer that one (mercury biomarker) over a self-report.

EPA moves to asks Savitz about some of the criticisms of the Ibarluzea study. Showing him table 20, looking at urinary fluoride, broken down by subsets based on community fluoridation levels.

Judge Chen is asking some clarifying questions to Dr. Savitz about the table figures.

Savitz: is there evidence of harm? well, no. Is there evidence they made some serious epidemiological error? well, no not either.

EPA asking Savitz about the number of tables used in other studies compared to the Ibarluzea, and whether if any of the tables in Ibarluzea the researchers found any negative association. Savitz says no.

EPA asking Savitz about FAN expert Dr. Grandjean's previous testimony about the need or benefit of adjusting for Creatinine levels when measuring for fluoride exposure.

EPA shows Savitz a table from Ibarluzea relating to adjustment and unadjustment for creatinine levels, asks what the differences in the chart is.

Judge Chen asks Savitz about the chart and a "big sex differential", do you have an explanation for that?

Savitz: there's a tendency across the data for higher positive coefficients for boys than girls.

Savitz: I agree it looks peculiar, but no, I don't have an explanation for the sex differences.

EPA asks Savitz his thoughts on Dr. Grandjean's concern about the Ibarluzea study focusing on the Basque region of Spain, which is known to have higher seafood consumption.

Savitz says Basque is more of a homogeneous region, and focusing on this area alone was beneficial.

Savitz asked to look at another table from the study, comparing fluoride intake during different points of pregnancy, and IQ at two different ages.

EPA: did you review the INMA adhd study in coming to your conclusions for this case? Savitz affirms.

Looking at a table from Ibarluzea on ADHD, asks if the table accurately displays the results, asks Savitz to confirm the studies methods.

EPA asks Savitz about a study in Mexico, Cantoral, 2022:

Asks him about the study design.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34478773/

Savitz says the overall results of this study is not supportive of an adverse effect from fluoride.

EPA asks Savitz if he would agree with Grandjean's belief that this study found harm from fluoride.

Savitz does not agree.

EPA is now asking Savitz about Dewey, 2023, and the conclusions from this study.

Fluoride exposure during pregnancy from a community water supply is associated with executive function in preschool children
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37236475/

EPA asks Savitz about Dr. Grandjean's criticisms of the Dewey study.

FAN Connett objects and says this line of questioning is going beyond the scope of deposition testimony.

Judge Chen sustains Connett's objection, EPA changes line of questioning to focus on Do, 2022.

referring to this one: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00…

EPA is asking Savitz about the methods of this study and its conclusions.

Judge Chen asks if the study accounted for people moving from one area to another.

Savitz says yes, to some degree.

EPA's ready to move to discussing the NTP monograph with Savitz.

Judge Chen says this is a good time for the first break.

Will resume in 10-15 minutes.