AARP Eye Center
5 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court
EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial
Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial
My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024.
Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter.
Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz:
- Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
- Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
- Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
- Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
- Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests
- Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR.
Then there was the officious Stanley Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he:
- Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
- Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
- Pulled a couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs
- Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
- Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately.
When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue."
Really!!!!!
Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them.
Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned.
Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#
It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.
Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines.
When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge.
Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case.
On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment.
Really?
Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.
But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand:
- No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease.
Johnny,
The picture above is the picture you suggest evidence based dentistry would do a sealant instead of a filling.
Please provide your evidence, RTC study. But of course there are no such studies. At least find one clinical practicing dentist who agrees with you that a sealant on this tooth would stop the caries.
Bill
I'll get at your question on NTP this evening.
“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)
It took over 70 years and the dogged persistence of Clair Patterson to get the lead out of gasoline. Leaded gasoline, like asbestos and fluoridaton, was defended by the Kettering Institute under the direction of Robert Kehoe for whom the infamous Kehoe Paradigm was named. I already referenced over a dozen credible organizations with scientific, environmental or human rights missions who oppose fluoridation in the 21st century and provided links to several documents from EPA scientist unions likewise opposed to fluoridation and the politically set EPA MCL/MCLG.
I've also quoted dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds - a few of whom have openly opposed fluoridation on this forum. Many more, like several in my home town and even some sitting on boards of medical organizations, admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retalitation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients. A lawyer I know called me this week to tell me that another lawyer is threatening to file charges against him with the bar if he continues to openly oppose fluoridation. Dentists are even more vulnerable to this sort of bullying as the ADA will revoke their membership if they persist and the ADA provides financial business benefits to dentists just as fluoride interests provide financial benefits to the ADA. Bullying is effective - but only for so long.
Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt. I provided a quote from Dr. David Michaels, author of "Doubt Is their Product" and referenced the $289 million award last week to a man with cancer that unveiled the duplicitous deceit by vested interests that involved collusion between Monsanto with professional liars for hire and the EPA. I also provided a link to a relatively recent revelation that the sugar industry subverted dental authorities from pursuing sugar as a cause of cavities by diverting their attention to fluoridation; here's another that straignt out says that public health officials should recognize the sugar industry as an adversary. I also provided scads of links to modern science documenting harm, a number of which actually include words to the effect of 'in light of these findings, we suggest municipal fluoridation schemes require a fresh re-examination' and a few of which are more blunt 'avoid the fluoridation of drinking water.'
Emerging modern science, evolving medical opinion and the persistant voices of victims will end fluoridation. I'm doing my part to protect people & planet, just as vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions.
2016: Uncertainty Bias & Agnotology
2014: Controversy Manual
AARP - Your voice as an advocate with lobbying power matters. Oppose fluoridation!
"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679
