Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

The 2nd session of Day 7 of the 2nd Phase of the #FluorideLawsuit has resumed.

EPA is asking Dr. Savitz about the NTP monograph.

EPA changes mind, says they want to ask Dr. Savitz about the WHO study on fluoride.

EPA asks Savitz about the WHO's assessment of fluoride in seafood and how this would impact measuring fluoride.

Remember: Dr. Grandjean told me that the WHO has been infiltrated by the "Fluoride Lobby"

https://x.com/DBrozeLiveFree/status/1753970739085254717?s=20

Now, the EPA switches back to the NTP monograph.

Dr. Savitz, as a member of NASEM, reviewed the NTP monograph, which is an unusual move in the first place.

EPA is reading the NASEM statement on the NTP Conclusion. NASEM said:

"...the monograph falls short of providing a clear and convincing argument that supports it assessment."

Dr. Savitz is outlining why he believes the NTP scientists fell short.

Savitz: "That's not to say that their conclusions were wrong..."

Savitz explains that the NTP was underestimating how their work would be "misused" as a tool for setting policy on water fluoridation.

Savitz says its not surprising that a report on fluoride and neurotoxicity is going to get attention and be used in ways "the authors might not have intended."

EPA showing Savitz the 2021 NASEM review of the NTP Monograph:

"the monograph cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations, including those typically associated with drinking water fluoridation."

EPA: Following the 2020 and 2021 NASEM reviews of the NTP monograph, what did NASEM do?

Savitz says he thought the communication was "tempered" and "I think more consistent with what they were trying to do and able to do."

EPA asks Savitz if he reviewed the May 2022 draft of the NTP report and subsequent peer reviews. He agrees. EPA asks Savitz how he would evaluate the 2022 monograph.

FAN Connett objects and says Savitz previously testified that he did not evaluate this 2022 report.

FAN Connett says his discussion on the 2022 report goes beyond the scope. EPA says they can find examples of Savitz discussing the 2022 draft report.

EPA says they aren't sure about the objection. Judge Chen is explaining his view of the objection.

EPA says they are "a little caught off guard by this objection" bc they are saying Savitz has been testifying about the NTP monographs already.

FAN Connett is showing Savitz' previous statements where he said NASEM (And he) did not assess the May 2022 report for the case.

FAN Connett: If the EPA wants to illicit just general statements from the BSCWG and get Savitz' views on that, but if they want Savitz to speak on this a an expert I would object for undisclosed testimony.

EPA and FAN are going back and forth, showing the judge why they believe Savitz should be allowed to speak on the May 2022 NTP draft report.

Judge Chen doesn't exclude Dr. Savitz' testimony, allows EPA to proceed.

EPA: What are are the weaknesses you found in regards to the 2022 draft of the NTP report?

Savitz: I found a lack of appreciation for the fact that some studies are worth more than others.

Savitz: I am not claiming I reviewed every page of that but on the key parts on the lower-exposures I did review that, and it's better.

Judge Chen is trying to clarify Savitz' critiques.

Savitz says there is a smaller subset of data which carries more weight (which says fluoride is safe), even if there is more "volume" on the other studies (which found harm).

EPA resumes its questioning of Dr. Savitz.

(BTW on the previous break I asked Savitz if he would allow me to interview him so I can hear from all sides. He seemed nervous about it, says he will asks his lawyers)

EPA: so what impact does the latest NTP monograph have on water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L relating to neutotoxicity?

Savitz: the evidence is quite mixed and quite uncertain.

EPA: can you remind us the NTP's conclusions for neurotoxic effects at 1.5 mg/L?

Savitz: it's an inconclusive.

EPA asks Savitz his knowledge of the literature on fluoride exposure between 1.5 mg/L - 2 mg/L?

Savitz: there's very little confidence in the 1.5-2 range.

Judge Chen asks Savitz about his thoughts on fluoride exposure at levels above 1.5 mg/L.

Savitz: I haven't done a parallel assessment, but I do tend to be skeptical of drawing strong inferences from what others say.

Savitz is careful not to fully say that fluoride is causing harm, but also not saying the researchers made mistakes.

Judge Chen asks if there was any particular criticism regarding the NTP's data on the impacts of fluoride above 1.5 mg/L.

Savitz can't recall exactly, but "it appears that there is this association of higher fluoride exposure" and lower IQ across these studies.

EPA continues their questioning of Savitz.

Moves to show him another table. FAN Connett objects to this line of questioning.

Judge Chen allows it, EPA says they just want to hear Dr. Savitz opinion on the table for the court.

EPA is showing Savitz now the table titled "Dose-Response Meta-analysis Using Mean Effects".

FAN Connett objects, saying Savitz doesnt know how the NTP developed the table.

Judge Chen asks the EPA to establish foundation, allows them to continue.

EPA now asking Savitz to go over the table & identify how many studies looked at various fluoride exposure levels (< 4 mg/L, <2 mg/L, 1.5 mg/L).

EPA is attempting to show the court that the NTP monograph looked at a limited number of studies on fluoride exposure for the less than 1.5 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L.

EPA repeating the same exercise with the next table looking at urinary fluoride studies and the various levels of fluoride exposure.

EPA: Did you try to figure out what number of observations means in the NTP monograph?

Savitz: I did, but couldn't find it in the foot notes or anywhere I could find what that signifies.

EPA: In your opinion, why is it important to separate the analysis on high vs low doses of fluoride?

Savitz: the most directly relevant info comes from studies looking at the a specific range of fluoride exposure.

EPA asking Dr. Savitz about his opinions on the MIREC study and the weight he would give to the BMCL.

EPA: do you recall what the literature cutoff date was for the NTP monograph?

Savitz: I am sure it preceded the Danish study that just came out, I think sometime in the early fall of 2023.

EPA: do you think the story here with fluoride is the same as the story with lead?

FAN objects, says it sounds like an undisclosed opinion. Judge Chen allows it.

Savitz is claiming that the fluoride story is not the same as lead. He says with lead there was more confidence about the harms caused by lead. Says scientists weren't "taking a leap" with the data.

"this is very different from where we are with fluoride."

Savitz: the future will hopefully tell the fluoride story, I dont think it will follow the path of other neurotoxicants.

FAN objects again. Says Savitz testimony requires him to speak on the high dose of fluoride and lead which he does not have expertise on.

EPA asks Savitz how the research on fluoride has been impacted in the last few years.

Savitz: says the INMA study and more recent data are "less convincing of there being an effect" in the lower dose range.

EPA has no further questions. Judge Chen has a few before we break.

Judge Chen says given the data going in different directions, you can't foreclose on the idea that there is harm, correct?

Savitz says to prove or disprove the harm we would need more evidence.

Savitz says its not conclusive in one direction or the other.

Judge Chen asks about the evidence for harm at higher levels, and the ultimate question of whether or not there is a risk at lower levels.

Judge Chen is asking Savitz some more follow up questions about the studies finding harm at higher exposure levels.

Judge Chen again seems genuinely interested in making the right decision to protect those who might be at risk.

Judge Chen ends his questions and the final break begins for today.