Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

The final session of day 8 of the 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit resumes.

EPA is going over Dr. Barone's previous testimony to counter FAN's Michael Connett objection that Barone is being asked to share opinions which go beyond his deposition.

EPA still highlighting Barone's testimony that they believe shows he had previously discussed linear modeling and other topics which FAN Connett says are beyond the scope of previously expressed opinions.

FAN Connett is responding to EPA's comments, clarifying how he still believes Barone is being asked to go beyond his deposition.

FAN Connett asks Judge Chen to strike from the record Dr. Barone's testimony earlier today about statistical modeling. Judge Chen agrees.

And now we're back to EPA questioning their witness, Dr. Stanley Barone of the EPA.

EPA asks Barone if he had based his opinions on the Board of Scientific Counselors Working Group report. (The BSC WG was one of the many peer reviewers of the NTP report)

Barone says they didnt have substantial data to find impacts below 1.5 mg/L.

Judge Chen asks if the NTP did find that the linear model was a good fit above 1.5 mg/L.

Barone agrees.

Judge Chen is asking more clarifying questions for Barone regarding the data.

Barone suggests it would be best to take the judge through the table to show him the data from the NTP BSC Working Group report.

EPA pulls up the table, Barone begins explaining what we are looking at to the judge.

Barone: says when you look at the number of studies associated with exposure more than 2 mg/L you only see a few studies.

Dr. Barone asks to see a different table that compares the linear and quadratic models for low risk-of-bias studies.

EPA doesn't have that so they focus on the current table comparing linear models at differing levels of fluoride exposure.

Judge Chen has more questions about the table and what is being shown. Also has questions about the levels of fluoride exposure.

EPA now pulls up a new table related to low-risk-of-bias studies from the NTP BSC WG. EPA asks Barone to confirm that there not statistically significant association below levels of 1.5 mg/L. Barone confirms.

Judge Chen has more questions.

One of the reasons this case is interesting and historic is bc it requires a federal judge to examine the U.S. government science and make a judgement on that science. Judge Chen is doing his damnedest to keep up with the science and ask important questions.

EPA: in light of your overall opinion on this data, would you even get to a risk characterization step?

Barone: the current evidence doesnt support a clear demarcation for a BMCL, and what shape that dose-response curve could be for a POD hazard.

EPA moves to talk about the Margin of Exposure discussion, but Judge Chen has more questions.

Judge Chen says that the studies done so far are pointing in the direction of an observable adverse effect. He asks Barone if he would say there are adverse effects at 4 mg/L.

Barone says yes there is stronger data at the higher levels but is not sure where to draw the line on the low end.

Chen asks Barone if he would agree with NTP's judgement of impacts at the 1.5 mg/L of fluoridate water.

Barone says he would not.

Judge Chen asks about the new study released last week. "Their conclusion was that 2 mg/L there were strong association".

Barone: the question is what are we going to use for Point of Departure?

Chen: a strong association is not a POD?

Barone: it is not.

Judge Chen: and it doesnt tell you the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)?

Barone: it does not.

EPA continues their questions, moves to Margin of Exposure.

EPA wants to focus on the water exposure Point of Departure and the work done by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, FAN's expert witness.

Barone is testifying that the methods used/promoted by Dr. Thiessen are not useful or credible.

EPA is showing Dr. Barone the low risk of bias studies, relating to fluoride exposure. EPA says they want to make it clear there is no statistically significant adverse effects.

EPA: we heard that the EPA prefers a BMCL over a NOAEL or a LOAEL, correct? Barone confirms.

EPA asks Barone if its true you cant convert a urinary fluoride level to an intake level, why is that important?

Barone explains the various factors that need to be considered. Says the data is not linear, which is another challenge of changing over a urinary fluoride level over time into an intake level.

Barone: I cant see how were going to estimate those risk and intake levels, to get back to what is TSCA.

Barone is making his case for why the EPA cannot rely on the current data to make the case that water fluoridation is associated with lower IQ in children.

EPA showing Barone a graphic that has been show before, comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations. Barone says that there is some physiological change that is creating "background chanes" (as opposed to water fluoridation itself).

Judge Chen calls for ending today's hearing.

EPA to resume questions for Barone tomorrow. FAN cross examination will begin after.

Final statements from the two sides will be next Tuesday via Zoom.

Thanks for following along! I have a few more days in San Francisco reporting on the #FluorideLawsuit.

If you can contribute to our crowdfunding, please use this link:

Thanks!givesendgo.com/fluoridetrial