Thread by @DBrozeLiveFree

The 9th day of 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit resumes with FAN attorney Michael Connett cross examining EPA witness Dr. Stanley Barone.

FAN: you agree that fluoride has been found to be a neurotoxin at certain levels?

Barone: yes.

FAN: you agree that there is an association of neurotoxicity with water fluoridation above levels of 2 mg/L?

Barone: at some level above 2, yes.

FAN: let's talk about the NTP. The NIEHS is one of the premier environmental research institutes in the world, correct?

Barone agrees.

FAN: the NTP has a well earned reputation for producing reliable assessments on toxicity, correct?

Barone agrees.

FAN: you agree that the NTP May 2022 monograph is a high quality report, correct?

Barone: it is, but its lacking some of the more recent studies.

FAN moves to introduce impeach testimony on Barone. pulls up statement from deposition.

FAN Connett shows Barone previously calling the NTP draft a "high quality review".

FAN: you agree that the NTP had a rigorous approach, correct?

Barone agrees.

FAN: you agree that the NTP had an exhaustive report, correct?

Barone: up to the point their report cut off, yes.

FAN: you agree that the body of evidence on fluoride neurotoxicity, that the NTP evaluated, is sufficient to draw a hazard identification from for TSCA?

Barone: I think it's very hopeful, but its not complete.

Connett pulls up deposition.

(BTW a moment ago:

Barone: I agree with the conclusions that at some level, above 1.5 mg/L, there is an association between fluoride and neurotoxicity.)

FAN Connett reads from Barone's previous statements in his deposition where he says the NTP monograph meets the TSCA standards.

FAN asks Barone about the bar graph that was shown earlier, comparing urinary fluoride levels in mothers who are fluoridated vs non fluoridated.

Barone says he doesnt think water fluoridation can account for the differences in urinary fluoride levels.

FAN pulls up deposition testimony where Barone said "it's the most parsimonious explanation".

FAN Connett asked Barone during deposition to clarify what is meant by parsimonious, he said "its the simplest explanation".

FAN Connett: do you feel comfortable, as a risk assessment scientist, with a pregnant woman who has so much fluoride in her system that her kidney is over saturated?

LONG SILENCE

Barone offers a qualified no.

FAN Connett pulls up impeachment testimony again, shows Barone a previous question relating to adults who have lived in fluoridated areas who have high concentrations of fluoride in their bones.

FAN: at your deposition you agreed that a pregnant woman living in a fluoridated area will have more fluoride in her blood and urine than a woman who has lived her whole life in a non-fluoridated area, correct?

Barone: I think so.

Connett reads deposition testimony regarding there being a gap in the data regarding how to convert a urinary fluoride level into an intake level.

In that testimony, Dr. Barone acknowledged that there was a data gap.

FAN Connett asks Barone about the new report from Health Canada, EPA objects says beyond the scope.

Connett says Barone directly testified about the Health Canada report relating to the choice to use dental fluorosis as the POD rather than neurotoxicity.

Judge Chen over rules the objection, allows FAN to question Barone about the recently published systematic review by the Risk Sciences International, contracted by Health Canada.

FAN shows Barone that the RSI team was able to calculate a BMCL for fluoride in the drinking water based on Dr. Grandjean's work.

Barone acknowledges they did come up with a calculation but he say he doesnt think its accurate.

Barone: "This uncertainty here is part and parcel why the RSI said they calculated the BMCL but they didnt depend on it."

FAN: but they did use an uncertainty factor to say you have to protect against neurotoxicity.

Barone: you can calculate a BMCL with a lot of assumptions and there's gonna be a lot of uncertainty.

FAN: you agree that TSCA does not require "factual certainty" to act on a potential harm?

TSCA requires us to evaluate the risk for COU and we do our best with strengths and uncertainties under our risk determination.

FAN: you agree that uncertainties as to the threshold level of causation is not... EPA objects, Judge Chen is confused. Connett rephrases.

FAN asks again, Barone says he is still confused. Connett rephrase again.

FAN: you agree that uncertainties as to the threshold level at which the chemical causes an effect is not a basis for exclusion by TSCA?

Barone: do we have to know the NOAEL? no. We have to have some certainty about the strength of the evidence.

Judge Chen is now asking questions. Acknowledging that its clear that fluoride causes harm at higher levels and the evidence seems to be pointing towards an association.

Judge Chen: "Why cant one approach this from the LOAEL approach? We seem to know at some level there is adverse effect? Wouldnt it be proper to use at least a conservative LOAEL?"

Barone: says the NTP could not settled on a NOAEL, they used the WHO's benchmark.

FAN: when you were performing your risk assessment, you didnt even have this data, did you?

Barone: I understood there was a difference, I did have some emails from Dr. Ibarluzea and the NTP.

FAN: So you had the email from NTP and Dr. Ibarluzea?

Barone agrees.

FAN: with respect to the seafood component of the Ibarluzea study, you agree that its important to control for when the population has a high seafood intake?

Barone: again, I think its important to control.

Connett brings up more deposition testimony for impeachment.

FAN: you believe that the animal data supports an association between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity?

Barone offers a qualified yes.

FAN: you agree that rodents are less likely to show effects of fluoride exposure during pregnancy?

Barone says there is less data with rodents.

FAN: you published a paper in 2000 where you summarized alot of the neurodevelopment research you were looking at?

Barone explains the research, intended to help risk assessors extrapolate data from animals to humans.

FAN: and you looked at the sex differences between men and women? Barone agrees.

FAN: with respect to the NTP dose-response analysis, you are aware that they were looking at group average outcomes? Barone agrees.

FAN: you're aware that the NTP did a separate analysis where they looked at individual data, correct? Barone agrees.

FAN: counsel didnt ask you a single question about this data, right?

Barone says no bc this is a "sub analysis" looking at individual studies.

FAN (showing a table from the NTP study): is the effect of individualized fluoride intake and IQ statisically significant?

Barone agrees with qualifications.

FAN Connett has no further questions.

Judge Chen has some questions on the table being shown.

Barone is explaining the table and saying its just another way to review the data.

Judge Chen is asking about the stats on the table. He is asking about why the NTP gave the various studies listed in the table a "weight %".

EPA picks things back up for redirect of Dr. Barone.

EPA asks Barone about the email exchanged between Barone and Dr. Ibarluzea.

EPA: in your rebuttal report you wrote that the NTP misrepresents the data that Dr. Ibarluzea submitted?

Barone: That's correct.

Connett has no further questions.

The EPA has now officially rested their case.

Judge Chen will be watching the pre-recorded testimony of Dr. Ibarluzea in his own time.

FAN Connett is telling Judge Chen they may have some rebuttal testimony to add. 6 pages of testimony. Connett says this is related to the idea that dental fluorosis should be a Point of Departure.

EPA objects, "this was disclosed last night, not in Dec. as your honor ordered"

EPA: None of the plaintiffs have submitted evidence of dental fluorosis, if they did we would rule to dismiss. I dont think this is rebuttal evidence.

FAN Connett has concerns about the recently admitted Health Canada/RSI study & the term "database uncertainty factors".

FAN Connett says he can live without submitting this but wanted to help the court more fully understand what "database uncertainty factor" means. He doesnt think its most important and doesnt want to take up the courts time.

Judge Chen says he will exclude the submission.

Both sides have rested their cases. All evidence has been submitted to the court.

Judge Chen will review all of the evidence, & next Tuesday at 9:30 am the sides will reconvene via zoom for closing statements/questions.

The in person portion of the 2nd phase of the #FluorideLawsuit is officially over!

I will be releasing a new article tomorrow on @TLAVagabond on week 2.

Thanks for following along and donating. If you can donate still, please consider it: givesendgo.com/fluoridetrial

@TLAVagabond Judge Chen thanks everyone who has been here and who is helping provide clarity on this important issue.

Court is adjourned.