Fluoride Action Network

The Fluoride Trial

Substack | Feb 22, 2024 | By Maggie Russo
Posted on February 22nd, 2024

It has been a whirlwind. Beginning on January 31, 2024 and ending on February 20th, those of us who were interested were able to Zoom into the live trial held in the U.S. 9th District Courtroom of Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco, CA.

The lawsuit, brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was filed in early 2017 after the EPA rejected a Citizen’s Petition in 2016 out of hand by citing incorrect statements of fact.

PHASE 1: June 2020

The trial actually began in June 2020, also via Zoom, but the EPA convinced the Judge to delay his ruling until after the National Toxicology Program (NTP) report was published so he could review that information. We were promised publication was just a few months away.

In late 2022, Plaintiffs became aware that government players had made considerable efforts to alter, suppress or outright kill that report – and they succeeded in May 2022 when the small Oral Health Division of the CDC managed to convince Admiral Rachel Levine, second in command of Health and Human Services (HHS), to cancel publication just days before it was slated to go public. Remember, all the while the EPA attorneys at the DOJ were urging the court to wait, promising Judge Chen that the NTP report was going to be published any day, as was a new “Spanish study.” (Click here and here.)

PHASE 2: February 2024

The Plaintiffs had five expert witnesses with stellar credentials who all acquitted themselves admirably. The Defendants originally had four witnesses, but two were stricken from the slate, one by mutual agreement between attorneys on both sides because the potential witness performed so badly in his deposition and Plaintiffs had FOIA evidence verifying the dental scientist had committed fraud – in other words this American Dental Association leader and his study were a complete waste of time.

The other witness, the lead author of the “Spanish study,” voluntarily withdrew from the trial when he realized defending his work with its ‘improbably large and not biologically possible’ finding that boys in fluoridated communities had IQs 15 to 28 points higher than boys in non-fluoridated towns was not going to be a pleasant experience for him. Yet, the EPA Defense Counsel consistently pointed to this study as reason to doubt the scores of other studies finding fluoride exposue consistent with fluoridation lowers IQ, including those in the NTP report.

By the end of the trial, the EPA narrative had shifted. They admitted fluoride in water at concentrations considered safe by EPA (1.5 ppm) is harmful to the majority, and there was evidence of “something there” at the lower “optimal” concentration of 0.7 ppm for at least 5% of pregnant women, but that the Plaintiffs had not provided EPA with an appropriate Point of Departure (POD) that is consistent with fluoridation at 0.7 ppm with which to do its risk assessment work.

The Judge intelligently queried, that if the water is fluoridated couldn’t we assume half or more of the fluoride is from water, but Defense Counsel agreed that 70% could be from water but claimed making that assumption or any “thought experiment” using 1.5 or any other number as a POD is interesting, but its not up to the EPA scientific standards despite the fact that the work of several of Plaintiff witnesses have been used by the EPA for setting safety standards, and that we have three Bench Mark Dose Concentration Levels for developmental neurotoxicity which are the preferred POD.

The Judge pressed by asking: Isn’t protecting the developing brains of babies important to the EPA? The Defense pressed back that the Court must justify its Point of Departure, and if the Judge were not to do so – he’d be an outlier saying something that no other regulatory agency has said. In other words, it felt as if the Defense for the EPA was trying to intimidate the Judge.

However, one of the highlights of the trial was when EPA witness Stanley Barone tried to avoid saying that the dangerously high amounts of fluoride in the urine of third trimester women whose children had cognitive deficits was because of fluoridated water, and instead said it could be because their kidneys were oversaturated with fluoride. Barone finally admitted the high fluoride in urine as compared to women in non-fluoridated communities was most likely because of fluoridated drinking water. He also avoided answering Plaintiff Counsel’s question if he was comfortable with the kidneys of pregnant women in fluoridated communities becoming “oversaturated” so that function was compromised. Barone ultimately gulped and said his comfort level was not “germane to the matter.”

The other EPA witness, David Savitz, was no better. Like Barone, he was caught lying several times, but whereas Barone was clever, Savitz who claimed studies did not find adverse effects when they in fact did came off as an ignorant fool and industry tool.

BOTTOM LINE: EPA does not have any evidence of fluoridation safety, and admits evidence of neurological harm to babies at concentration levels very close to fluoridation concentrations, but claims it cannot and will not take any actions, such as performing a risk assessment, that will threaten fluoridation policy without a solid statutory justification. However, if the Judge determines that the scientific evidence makes it clear there is an “unreasonable risk” of developmental neurotoxicity to the brains of babies in the womb and who are bottle-fed in fluoridated communities, then the EPA must initiate a “rule-making proceeding” to eliminate that risk. The obvious way to do so is to end fluoridation policy which intentionally adds fluoride chemicals to drinking water. The EPA can appeal. (Plaintiffs Ask Judge to Take Swift Action as Landmark Fluoride Trial Wraps Up)

EXPERTS AGREE: Fluoridation Poisons Baby Brains

I recommend the following from Plaintiff Witnesses:

NTP Scientific Director Tells the Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court” by Brenda Baletti, CHD, 2/6/2024.

Interviews with investigative reporter Derrick Broze:

The fifth witness, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, had to rush to catch her plane and so wasn’t available for interview. Dr. Thiessen is an internationally renowned risk assessment expert who served on two National Research Councils for NASEM concerning fluoride as well as several EPA committees. In her testimony, she emphasized that there is more than enough “fit for purpose” material to establish a safety factor and that EPA’s own tables confirm fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is unacceptably close to levels demonstrated to produce a hazard to consumers.

  • “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations) … the majority of the population is deliberately exposed to a contaminant (fluoridations chemicals) for which safety, with respect to many endpoints, cannot be clearly demonstrated.” – Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

In my humble opinion, it is apparent that fluoride exposure consistent with fluoridation policy does make you stupid, as well as narcissistic, sociopathic and sadistic.

Original article online at: https://maggierusso.substack.com/p/the-fluoride-trial