Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

Day 8 of the 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit resumes.

FAN Attorney Michael Connett begins 2nd cross on EPA expert witness Dr. David Savitz.

Connett is asking about the Taher 2024 study decision to use a "benchmark dose modeling of moderate dental fluorosis in the Dean (1942) data".

Connett asking Savitz about the data around the Dean 1942 study relating to race, etc.

Savitz says he is not aware of the details.

Connett shows Savitz the NTP 2016 monograph. Connett wants to focus on the conversation relating to the 1-2 mg/L range.

Connett showing Table 6 of the 2016 NTP draft relating to studies on IQ in children. Showing Savitz the Ding, 2011, study from China that says found association with fluoride and IQ.

Connett gets Savitz to admit he has not read this study, though he is here as an expert.

Connett shows Savitz the Cui et al, 2018 study, which also looked at the exposure range of 1-2 mg/L and found association "between IQ score & log-transformed urinary fluoride".

Connett gets Savitz to acknowledge he didnt read this study either.

Connett showing Savitz the Wang, 2020 study which also found associations between IQ and urinary fluoride levels.

Connett gets Savitz to acknowledge he didn't read this study either. Connett has no further questions.

Savitz is allowed to go.

(BTW, I have asked Dr. Savitz for an interview. The other day he nervously told me he wasn't sure. I will ask him again today.)

EPA and FAN submitting docs to the court relating to Dr. Jesus Ibarluzea's deposition. Again, earlier Judge Chen agreed that this prerecorded testimony would take place after the in person witnesses.

FAN also submits emails related to Dr. Ibarluzea.

Dr. Stanley Barone is now sworn in as the EPA's next (and final) expert witness testifying in person.

EPA is going over Dr. Barone's credentials. He is a Senior Science Policy Advisor with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) in the EPA. He was also involved in the 1st 10 risk assessments under TSCA.

Interestingly, Barone was called by both the FAN (plaintiffs) and the EPA (defense) because of his experience with risk assessment.

Barone says 20 years of his 30 year career has been focused on risk assessment.

EPA: you were asked to assess the weight of the evidence regarding fluoride and IQ, correct? Barone confirms.

EPA wants to ask him about his previous work on fluoride. Asks if he has been involved exposure assessments, conducted studies, etc etc.

EPA: why should the court listen to your opinions on fluoride?

Barone: I am a risk assessment scientist with years of experience with the EPA and TSCA.

Barone describes more of his relative experience after EPA asked if he had experience in any of the chemicals in which he participated in risk assessments.

EPA asks if not being an expert on the chemicals limited his ability to do hazard assessment.

Barone answers no.

FAN Connett expresses concern to Judge Chen that EPA is attempting to get Barone to speak beyond his deposition and might be "undisclosed opinions".

Judge Chen says I think we will have to take the objections 1 at a time.

EPA: Dr. Barone, based on all the testimonies you have heard, what is your expert opinion on the association with water fluoride levels and lower IQ?

Barone: There is a lot of uncertainty related to the epidemiological data. There is a lot of uncertainty for the NTP report.

Barone: at this time I would have to agree that the evidence is weak and suggestive at lower doses. Doses below 2 mg/L, I have more doubts than I did then after listening to trial testimony and looking at newer data,

EPA now wants to go through each step of the Hazard Assessment with Barone.

EPA is asking Barone about the Hazard Identification process.

EPA: Do you believe IQ decrements are a potential hazard of fluoride exposure?

Barone: agrees with qualifications.

EPA moves to discuss the 2nd step of the Hazard Assessment, the Weight of the Scientific Evidence

Barone: I think the consistency of the data along the biological gradient is in doubt.

EPA: what is your opinion on the consistency of evidence?

FAN Connett objects, says these questions are going beyond Barone's previously stated opinions.

Judge Chen allows the questions to proceed.

EPA continues asking Barone about the Hazard Assessment process.

EPA asks Barone how he feels about the strength of the evidence across the various studies.

Barone: "taking all of that together... influenced my opinion" that fluoride exposure at recommend levels are not harmful.

EPA: do you have an opinion on the weight of the evidence for thyroid function related to fluoride exposure?

Barone says he has concerns with the way studies have only observed the thyroid issue in the cohort with moms who've previously had thyroid issues.

Barone says this make the findings "somewhat more questionable". He says there is an "inconsistency". He doesnt think the scientific data substantiates the concerns around fluoride.

EPA asks Barone to share his personal opinion based on testimony relating to dose-response relationship.

FAN objects again for an undisclosed opinion.

Judge Chen asks EPA to be more specific on what testimony they want to illicit an opinion.

EPA asks Barone how he is forming his opinions. Then asks his opinion on the dose-response relationship data on fluoride.

Barone outlines why believes there are better models that fit in Dr. Grandjean's 2020 study, as opposed to the linear model.

FAN Connett objects and asks the EPA to provide a detailed example of Dr. Barone expressing the opinion he just shared in previous deposition testimony.

Connett says there's no in depth discussion on the linear model in the deposition. EPA is looking in the statements.

EPA is sharing specific statements by Barone which they think qualify as testimony and not previously disclosed opinions.

Connett doesnt agree, says EPA is pointing to a different question.

Judge Chen agrees.

EPA asks if they can go into deposition testimony to search for relevant statements. Judge Chen says do it on the next break, move to another line of questioning until then.

EPA asks Barone about the INMA study.

EPA asks what impact not using the INMA study would have on Dr. Grandjean's work.

EPA: do you think Dr. Grandjean was justified in not using the INMA study in his data?

Barone: I didn't hear a substantial reason in Grandjean's testimony for not using it.

Barone: I do not believe omitting the INMA cohort study from the overall meta-analysis bc they conflict with your data is a proper response.

EPA moves to discuss the Exposure Assessment step of the EPA's hazard assessment process.

EPA: in your opinion, has the FAN witness Dr. Thiessen perform an adequate Exposure Assessment to get to her conclusions of hazard?

Barone: From what I understand there is not a full exposure assessment that has been provided.

EPA: is 0.7 mg/L for water fluoridation a media concentration level, an exposure level, or something else?

Barone: 0.7 mg/L is a media concentration level, its not an accurate assessment of the exposure level. We need to consider what the intake rate is.

Judge Chen calls for the final break. Will resume shortly.