From Ann Wills

“Dark Waters” is a recent film, which we ordered from Prime Video about a local population made ill & farm animals dying near DuPont Teflon plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, USA. 

For decades, fluoride was released from the factory into the air & Ohio river.  Lawyer Rob Bilott took up the case, which was dragged out for decades as the dangers of PFOAs were denied.  This is perfluorooctanic acid, also called C8 (fluorotelomers.)   PFOAs were found to cause thyroid disease, bladder cancer, serious birth defects, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pre-eclamsia (pregnancy complication,) high cholesterol, bowel diseases, leukaemia, miscarriages & many other cancers in local people.  The US Environmental Protection Agency set no limit on the emissions permitted & allowed DuPont to set their own limit.   But DuPont failed to even keep to their own limit, which allowed them to be taken to court.  DuPont said they would fight every individual case in court.  In the end Du Pont kept losing court cases & eventually agreed to pay out for all the cases.   PFOA is now found in almost every human.  There are calls to ban PFOAs & to investigate the 600 related “forever chemicals” which are virtually impossible to get rid of from the environment.  Nearly all these chemicals are unregulated.

-

Walter Graham’s talk on Southern Ireland Radio some years ago in which he quoted the following:

1943 “Journal of the American Medical Assoc.” (JAMA) editorial stated:

“Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzyme systems.  The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluoride.”

On 1st Oct. 1944 “The American Dental Assoc. Journal” stated:  “The use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 – 3ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis & osteoporosis, as well as goitre & we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent dental disfigurements among children.  In the light of our knowledge or lack of knowledge, of chemistry on the subject of fluorine, the potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”

(Walter’s comment:  This was before the PR started for fluoride toothpaste & water fluoridation & before the large chemical companies started splashing money to promote fluoride.  The chemical hasn’t changed - but now the American Dental Assoc. & American Dental Assoc. endorse fluoride.)

-

Ann

Shiloh Water to end fluoridation Aug. 31 after DEP approval

Tina Locurto York Dispatch
Published 9:38 PM EDT Jun 24, 2020

Lee Woodmansee, of Shiloh Water Authority, speaks during a special meeting held by the board of supervisors at the West Manchester Township Municipal Building in West Manchester Township, Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020. The authority submitted an application the Department of Environmental Protection in November requesting permission to discontinue adding fluoride to water. Dawn
Shiloh Water Authority will be removing fluoride from its water in West Manchester after receiving approval Wednesday from the state Department of Environmental Protection, authority officials said.

Fluoridation will cease in the authority's water on Aug. 31, officials announced Wednesday night.

"The general feeling was that there is enough fluoride available nowadays," said water authority Manager John Horvatinovic. "I thought they made the right decision."

Customers will be notified 30 days before fluoride is removed, said Jim Bentzel, the water authority board's chairperson.

Shiloh Water Authority serves more than 9,000 residents in West Manchester.

More: Shiloh Water Authority to reconsider fluoride removal plan

More: West Manchester water supplier aims to remove fluoride; township officials say they can't stop it

After reconsidering the push for removal in January, the water authority's board voted 3-1 in May to continue pursing the removal of fluoride.

Board member Rick Steinfeld voted against removal.

An ongoing debate between residents and officials citing reasons both for and against fluoridation has continued for months.

A public hearing in February brought people of both sides weighing in, including residents, dentists and activists.

"There is a crisis with cavities, and dental decay is an epidemic," said York City-based dentist Joe Mountain in the meeting. "Fluoride in water is one of the few tools we have. It is very safe. The history is there; the evidence is there."


Shiloh Water System in West Manchester Township, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020. Dawn J. Sagert photo
The York Dispatch
The CDC has called fluoridation of water systems one of the most successful public health initiatives in the country's history. Fluoride has been shown to prevent cavities and have an overall positive effect on dental health.

Several of Shiloh Water Authority's board members have been outspoken about their reasons for removing fluoride, including member Lee Woodmansee, who said chemicals don't belong in the water.

"We should not be putting chemicals in the water," Woodmansee said. "Why should we add anything that we don't have to?"

— Reach Tina Locurto at tlocurto@yorkdispatch.com or on Twitter at @tina_locurto.

Published 9:38 PM EDT Jun 24, 2020

Get fluoride out of our water

(6/24/2020)

From: Rachel Eliason

Winona



It’s time to stop poisoning our drinking water with fluoride. There are many studies that can be found on the internet that prove that fluoride is very harmful. Because fluoride is added to tap water, the amount we are exposed to varies from person to person, as this depends on how much tap water a person drinks, bathes in, brushes their teeth with, etc. The opportunity for fluoride overexposure is a cause for concern. Fluoride is highly poisonous. Not calcium fluoride, which occurs naturally in many foods, is not retained in the body, and has been shown to promote strong teeth. I’m talking about sodium/silico fluoride, a man-made byproduct of aluminum that builds up in the body like arsenic. Check your toothpaste tube and read the admission that fluoride is a poison: DIRECTIONS: Children two to six years: Use only a pea-sized amount and supervise child’s brushing and rinsing (to minimize swallowing). WARNING: As with all fluoride toothpastes, keep out of the reach of children under six years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately.

Major George Racey Jordan (USAF ret) delivered a speech titled “Fluoridation of  Water” in 1956. He stated that during the war he learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cow-like, and more resigned to their slavery. America first rejected and was highly opposed to the addition of fluoride to the water supply. But in 1945, Oscar Ewing, a former attorney for Alcoa (Aluminum Company of America) took the administrator position of the U.S. Public Health Service. It stands to reason that Oscar had ties to the aluminum industry, saw an opportunity for Alcoa to make money off sodium fluoride (which they had a lot of and had a hard time disposing of as it’s toxic), and what better way to increase Alcoa’s profits than to begin to require water municipalities to purchase sodium fluoride to add to the water supply? To make matters even worse, fluorosilicic acid (FSA), an inorganic fluoride compound that is a waste product of synthetic fertilizer production, is being added to our drinking water because it’s cheaper than sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride and FSA have been shown to lower IQ, delay neurobehavioral development in children, decrease fertility, cause fluorosis of teeth and bones, cause hypothyroidism, cause cancer, increase children’s lead absorption, increase women’s risk of hip fractures, and contribute to DNA damage. Breathing FSA’s fumes causes severe lung damage or death. An accidental splash on skin leads to burning and extreme pain.

Ninety-five percent of the world does not fluoridate their water. Why? Because they care about their citizens. Numerous studies show that children and adults who drink non-fluoridated water have the same or fewer dental caries than those who do. There is absolutely no good reason to fluoridate our drinking water. Why can’t anyone seem to grasp this? Any time I talk about this subject people turn on me and treat me like I’m a criminal. I’m trying to save your children from irreparable damage. Sodium fluoride is a drug. We are being drugged. Is it OK for the government to force feed its citizens drugs that do significant harm? What if they added nicotine to our water? Would you be OK with that? This is no joke people. It’s time to show that you do care about your children and your grandchildren and tell our City Council that we don’t want to be poisoned and drugged. Or have you already become too docile and cow-like?

F.A.N.

One of the nice things about our fundraisers is we get to read many letters of warm support for our efforts.

Yesterday we received a lovely example from a very special person.  Here is her letter announcing a donation that put us over the top and over the moon! We have held back the dollar amount and the name of this supporter for privacy reasons - suffice it to say she has been one of our most generous supporters for many years.

Dear Paul and Ellen,

I have just authorized an additional donation to AEHSP in honor of the spectacular achievement of the TSCA trial.  Michael was brilliant in his handling of the science as well as his overall leadership for our side.  

It's still shocking that the major media have not been covering the trial but that is, sadly, a very large part of what has kept fluoridation going for all these years.  Shameful. I join you in the deep hope that this is the beginning of the end for this always incredibly stupid and immoral practice.

I thank you both and Michael for the immense time, work and dedication that you have so generously given over these past 20 years.  This is one of the hardest and most frustrating issues that exists and you have stayed with it courageously for so long.  I am deeply grateful to the Connetts for this.  

Love

While these large donations are very exciting we should add that we have been equally excited by the steady stream of smaller donations which underlined for us what a team effort this whole 20 year project has been. Clearly, nearly 500 people wanted to be included in thai winning team.  Our current total stands at $53,453 from 480 supporters.

We also want to share just a sample of the strong support we received on Twitter for the lawsuit and trial from many around the world:

     

        

Ask FAN Anything

Do you have a question about our #FluorideLawsuit or trial against the EPA to end fluoridation due to neurotoxicity; or even the science or history of fluoridation that led up to this moment?

Email your question to stuart@fluoridealert.org by midnight on Thursday, and later this week or early next we will release a video of our Director, Paul Connett, PhD answering as many as we can.

Thank you all again for your very generous and loyal support - and your lovely comments. It has made our long journey all worthwhile. Our fundraiser for our 2021 campaign will begin on Dec 1 of this year. 

Paul and Ellen Connett, Stuart Cooper, Jay Sanders and Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh
FAN's fundraising team

Fluoridation real risk for neurotoxicity scientists tell judge in TSCA trial against EPA

NEW YORK, June 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in a just-concluded trial (June 8 -17) on the neurotoxic risks posed by water fluoridation, was encouraged by a statement made by Judge Edward Chen after both sides had given their summations. According to FAN director Paul Connett, PhD, "He has not yet made a ruling, but he said it was undeniable that fluoride posed a neurotoxic hazard and that EPA was basing their defense on an overly restrictive standard with respect to what constituted an "unreasonable risk".

The trial in federal court in San Francisco was brought under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act. This allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate specific uses of chemicals to prevent "unreasonable risk" of harm to the general population or vulnerable subsets.

The trial, Food & Water Watch, et al. v EPA, was conducted on Zoom. FAN was the original petitioner and a lead plaintiff in the case. Plaintiffs' experts presented their research that revealed fluoride is a neurotoxic hazard to the fetus and the bottle-fed infant in fluoridated communities.

Plaintiff's lawyer Michael Connett in his summation pointed out that with water fluoridation "you have millions of susceptible people being exposed on a daily basis, including 2 million pregnant mothers and over 400,000 exclusively formula-fed babies." He noted that the EPA, at least on this particular issue, "has failed to responsibly carry out its duties to protect this nation from harm."

Judge Edward M. Chen gave the plaintiffs a major boost, declaring that fluoride was undeniably neurotoxic at some level and that the EPA had applied a wrong standard in judging the rigorous science that FAN had presented.

Plaintiff's attorney Connett showed how two Exponent firm scientists hired by EPA had a history of consistently finding, on behalf of industry, there was "insufficient evidence of harm" from many toxic chemicals. In contrast, Connett continued, "We brought before your honor, world class experts that the EPA has consistently depended on for assessments."

The judge asked both parties to discuss a way forward, but that if they could not agree, he was prepared to issue a decision.  The implication was that it would behoove EPA to find a way to reduce the risk without being forced to do so by the court.

F.A.N.

There were so many highlights in our 7-day TSCA trial against the EPA - and we did our best to summarize them in our daily accounts - but the best summary came in Plaintiff's lawyer Michael Connett's closing statement. Using the transcript, Michael's power point slides, Chris Neurath, Michael and I have attempted to capture this key moment in the trial: See The Closing Statement & PowerPoint. Please feel free to share this with anyone you know who may have missed the trial.

Running parallel with the trial was our very successful mid-year fundraiser. As always the number of people making donations underlined what a magnificent team effort this has been. As of Sunday night we had raised $42,821 from 417 supporters. So we have already exceeded the number of donors we had hoped for and we are very close to our goal of $50,000 to keep our operation going to the end of the year.

So if you haven't already joined our "winning team" now would be a great time to do so. Meanwhile, a huge thank you for all those who have helped get us to this point - not only in terms of your financial support - but for everything else you have done over the years to educate your friends, your colleagues, your decision-makers and the media about the dangers this unnecessary practice poses to our children.

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donate:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Thank you,

Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

Rock Springs discontinues using fluoride in drinking water 

12 hours ago - According to minutes from the April 20 utility board meeting, the pump was not functioning as it should. The motion was made to discontinue the use of fluoride in ...

UK not allowed to view

F.A.N.

The landmark federal trial pitching FAN and others against the US EPA over water fluoridation came to a dramatic turning point yesterday.  FAN has argued that fluoride's ability to impact the mental development of both the fetal and infant brain posed an unacceptable risk to millions of Americans (and others) drinking fluoridated public water supplies. The dramatic moment came when, after both sides had completed their summary statements, the federal judge surprised everyone by recognizing the key plank in the plaintiff's case and undermining the key argument in the EPA's case. 

The judge said:

So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.

The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard. 

In short, after 20 years of work by FAN and it’s supporters, and 70+ years of campaigning by opponents of fluoridation since it’s inception, yesterday felt like a moment in time where the validity of our objections was finally recognized on a world stage.

According to FAN director Paul Connett, PhD, "While this is not a final victory for FAN it indicates a path forward to achieve that final victory. Needless to say we are very excited about this outcome. We had our 7 days in court: we had some of the best experts in the world testify on our behalf and our lawyers, especially Michael, were brilliant in presenting our case. Here now is the day in more detail. The invisible science is now visible and the voiceless have been heard. It's official it is in the record- and no one can take that away."

Closing Statements

Here are just some of the powerful points from Michael Connett’s closing statement for the plaintiffs:     

• "In this case, the EPA has failed in its duties to protect the public from harm."
• "TSCA commands that the EPA not just protect the general public...if there is one unreasonable risk, to just one susceptible subpopulation, the EPA must take action to remove such risk."
• "We brought before your honor, world class experts in the highest order. Experts that the EPA has consistently depended on for assessments...The EPA has based their regulations on lead and mercury on our experts."
• “It's undisputed that fluoride will pass through the placenta into the brain of the fetus. It's undisputed that babies who are bottle fed with fluoridated water receive highest doses of fluoride in our population at the moment of greatest vulnerability.  It's undisputed that fluoride damages the brain.
• At the start of the trial I said there are three key questions that need to be answered. Is there a hazard? Is there a risk? Is the risk unreasonable? The answer [to all three questions] is a resounding yes."
• "We have 4 high quality cohort studies. Each has found associations between early life exposures to fluoride and lowered IQ…by around 5 IQ points. The effect size rivals the neurotoxic effects of lead.”
• "There is no dispute that the developing brain is the most susceptible to neurotoxic side-effects."
• "The most likely explanation for the observed adverse effects...is that fluoride is a neurotoxin at the levels found in fluoridated communities across the United States."

Connett also pointed out that the experts the EPA relied upon, including the two Exponent employees, were not experts on fluoride, and that the agency did not call their own employees to answer key questions in the case.  He was referring to EPA’s foremost expert on fluoride, Dr. Joyce Donahue, as well as Dr. Kris Thayer.  Additionally, he said the EPA never once attempted to determine an estimate of what the levels are that cause neurotoxic effects. Connett added that the EPA witness Joyce Donohue, PhD said the National Institutes of Health funded-studies were "well conducted" and "warrant a reassessment of all existing" fluoride studies.

Then Connett concluded his statement by showing the true extent of potential damage, saying we have 2 million pregnant mothers in fluoridated areas and over 400,000 exclusively formula-fed babies in fluoridated areas, all presently being exposed to fluoride-contaminated drinking water.

EPA’s Turn

The EPA’s attorney started by questioning whether fluoride posed a hazard.  Early on in her closing statement, the judge stopped her—which would become a very common occurrence--and said, "The way you're framing this is not helpful. I don't think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard…the critical question is at what level it poses a risk.” 

It was at this point, that the EPA’s closing statement turned into a 40-minute inquisition by the judge.  First he started asking about the EPA’s claims that the animal studies showed fluoride to be safe.  This resulted in him getting their attorney to admit that if the studies found a moderate effect in adult rats, then why wouldn’t there then be a prenatal and neonate effect?  This put the EPA in a corner, causing them to ditch their line of argument and admit that the human studies are in-fact more relevant.

The judge then reprimanded the EPA for challenging the reliability of Philippe Grandjean's benchmark dose, but never taking the time to calculate their own to prove their point.  EPA quickly pivoted to an argument that the Canadian and Mexican cohorts weren’t applicable to the US; probably one of the dumbest arguments we hear from proponents.  The judge intimated that he was aware of the new study out of California proving otherwise, which appeared pretty devastating to the EPA. 

The judge concluded by asking one final question, “Under TSCA, can the court find an unreasonable risk without finding causation?” EPA replied, "yes."

Judge Makes Recommendations

After closing statements, Judge Chen immediately started sharing his views on the case and making recommendations.  This is when he said (it’s worth repeating):

So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.

The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard.

Chen continued by asking the parties whether they could discuss the possibility of an amended petition and re-assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, leaving his ultimate ruling until that was complete.

To many observers, it felt as though Chen was intimating that FAN had essentially won the case, but the he was giving the EPA a chance to right their original wrongs.

Michael Connett pointed out that the EPA has dragged their feet for a long, long time (it has been 14 years since the NRC report recommended that the EPA determine a new safer drinking water standard). So plaintiffs are in a situation where the EPA has made a political decision not to do anything, which is why we brought this petition in the first place.  He also expressed concern that for a citizen's group this is a massive undertaking, pointing out that the plaintiffs have spent 4 years building this case, and the concern is that the time and resources necessary to go through the process a second time would be prohibitive.

At this point, the EPA claimed that they couldn’t just re-evaluate our amended petition, because their guidelines for TSCA require an impossible burden of proof that no one could possibly meet to trigger a meaningful review.  They also claimed that the U.S. EPA does not have the resources or expertise to undertake a risk evaluation of fluoride neurotoxicity.

Judge Chen then made clear that a lack of resources is not an excuse, and said that if both parties can’t figure out a solution he'll rule on it himself, as he's been given the power to do so.

Connett then said that we can't ignore the evidence we have in front of us, and the EPA needs to do something RIGHT NOW to warn people of this risk.   

(Sir Austin Bradford Hill)

Fundraising Update

If you don’t want to wait months to see action, help FAN now, by contributing to our educational and advocacy work.  A huge thank you to all who have donated so far to our campaign.  We have raised $35,213 from 299 supporters on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 300 donors to fund our operating budget through the reminder of 2020.

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donate:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

New Health Data Puts EPA’s Fluoride Toxicity Trial on Ice (1)

• Plaintiffs, EPA to return for update in August
• Parties considering new petition, other avenues

Health advocates’ concerns about fluoride in drinking water will have to wait a bit longer, as the EPA and a federal judge in California consider new data about the chemical’s health risks.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen in the Northern District of California postponed further proceedings Wednesday at the end of a two week trial over advocates’ concerns that fluoride is a neurotoxin, and that the Environmental Protection Agency should stop the decades-long practice of adding it to drinking water.

The advocacy groups, which include Food and Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network, and Moms Against Fluoridation, petitioned the EPA to regulate the chemical in 2016. After the agency denied the petition, they sued in 2017.

Since then, new data has been published about fluoride’s health effects, and the National Academies of Science expects to publish another study later this year.

Chen suggested the plaintiffs file a new petition, or the agency reconsider the 2016 petition. Both parties took issue with that approach, and have yet to decide what action they will ultimately take.

A Path Forward

Defending their existing petition and bringing witnesses to trial has been a “massive undertaking,” said Michael Connett, a Waters Kraus & Paul attorney representing the plaintiffs. Starting a new petition could take more resources and time than the advocates have, he said.

“We would rather see EPA do something now to help begin trying to protect the public,” he said.

On the other hand, the EPA doesn’t have a mechanism under the Toxic Substances Control Act to re-review a petition it’s already denied. Even if a new petition was submitted, there’s “no way” the EPA could conduct a thorough review within the 90 days it has to review new petitions, said Debra Carfora, who represented the agency during closing arguments.

The advocates’ petition would need to meet the same “rigor and standards” the EPA follows for its own reviews, she said, which the agency uses to decide whether to set regulations for chemicals.

“We welcome the public’s help in helping EPA evaluate these chemicals, but there’s specific guidance, and interested persons should follow that guidance,” Carfora said.

The 90-day deadline is a tough one for the agency to meet, said Erik C. Baptist, partner at Wiley Rein in Washington and former deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s chemical safety office.

“It’s a very difficult position that Congress put EPA in, given EPA’s resources,” he said.

Chen said it’s likely he’ll still rule on the case, but didn’t point the parties toward a particular strategy. “Better minds in the legal field, including yours, including all of you, should be able to figure that out,” he said.

The court will hold a status briefing for both sides via video conference Aug. 6.

‘Uncertainty and Variability’

Rather than focusing only on whether the chemical poses an “unreasonable” amount of risk—a standard the petitioners must meet before the EPA can decide whether to regulate—the court is considering whether it can decide that risk without solid proof that fluoride causes neurological effects.

That might be possible if there’s enough evidence to show that fluoride leads to other health effects, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C. in Washington.

The EPA insists there is “too much uncertainty and variability” in the scientific literature to make regulatory decisions about fluoride in drinking water, Carfora said.

The U.S. Public Health Service recommends communities add fluoride to drinking water to reduce tooth decay, but the decision to fluoridate water systems rests with state and local governments, according to the EPA.

The case is Food & Water Watch Inc. v. EPA, N.D. Cal., No. 17-02162, closing arguments 6/17/20.

(Added insight from Erik Baptist in 11th and 12th paragraphs.)

To contact the reporter on this story: Sylvia Carignan in Washington at scarignan@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Gregory Henderson at ghenderson@bloombergindustry.com; Rebecca Baker at rbaker@bloombergindustry.com

F.A.N.

You're invited to join the FAN team for a very special Zoom gathering after the court adjourns and the trial is complete.  We will share our thoughts, hopefully hear from our attorneys, and celebrate what has been the culmination of 20 years of work by the Fluoride Action Network and our supporters.

FAN's Zoom account has a limit of 100 participants, so access will be on a first-come-first-serve basis!   

If you find you are having difficulty signing into the call, I would suggest quitting or closing your Zoom app and restarting and trying again.  This worked for others in the past, especially if you just left the Zoom court proceedings and remained signed into Zoom.

If you cannot connect by video, I would suggest using the phone call-in information as those with technical difficulties are having better luck with that approach.

 

Here is the Zoom link to join the gathering:

Topic: FAN TSCA Trial Debrief Zoom Meeting
Time: Immediately following adjournment
 

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84424831291

 

Meeting ID: 844 2483 1291

Password: 739523

F.A.N

Recap of Day Six

In a nutshell, day 6 was the conclusion of the EPA's defense and simply put they did not put a dent into the plaintiff's case that the deliberate addition of fluoride into the public drinking water presented an unreasonable risk to the mental development of the fetus and the infant. 

First up was Dr. Ellen Chang an expert from the Exponent, the firm that many polluting industries use to protect their chemicals. Before she spoke the EPA told the court that they were dropping their use of the abstract of a fluoride/IQ study using a new cohort from Spain that has yet to be published.  Discussion of this abstract made up much of Chang's testimony on day five, so throwing it out as evidence was a major blow to the EPA's case.   

When Chang spoke she appeared somewhat chastened, and in her responses to questions from the judge she essentially acknowledged that the human cohort studies of pregnant women and their offspring in Mexico City (Bashash 2017, 2018) and Canada (Green 2019) were of high quality and her reservations were fairly mild.  When Judge Chen dug deeper and asked her directly to provide examples of errors in these studies, her answer was that she didn't want to provide any because they would be speculative as she didn't have the raw study data, inflicting serious damage to her claims of errors.  

Next up was Dr Tala Henry, Director of the EPA's Risk Assessment Division, who has 25 years of risk assessment experience at the agency. Her testimony focused on the many hurdles presented to those who attempt a risk assessment and risk evaluation of a chemical. 

Under questioning from EPA lawyer Debra Carfaora, she indicated that FAN's experts had not negotiated all those hurdles to her satisfaction. However, under cross examination from Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, he showed that she wasn't an expert on fluoride, and that her testimony on the stand contradicted in many ways what she had said in her deposition testimony. He offered about a dozen examples of impeachment testimony, making it painfully obvious that she wasn't a credible expert witness. 

In an article in Law 360 today, Michael's most destructive blow to Dr. Henry during cross-examination came when he asked:

"You held the plaintiffs to a burden of proof that EPA has not held a single chemical under section 6 [of the Toxic Substances Control Act] before, correct?" Connett asked.

"By the words on the page, I guess that's true," Henry said. "But it was really, my opinion was based mostly on the methodological problems."    

The EPA's attorney offered a good summation of their expert witnesses' testimony, when at one point the lawyer was caught on a hot mic saying, "This is not helpful!" 

The EPA closed its case with a short video segment of Dr. Joyce Donohue, the predominant fluoride expert in the EPA's Office of Water.  If anything, this video strengthened our case and did not weaken it.

Now onto day 7 - the final day of phase one of the trial. We will hear concluding statements from both sides. Whatever you do, don't miss this. It could be FAN's finest moment in our 20 year's existence and our scientific and educational effort to end fluoridation worldwide.

Watch The Closing Arguments

Our final day in court will start this morning at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern).  We are expecting some statements from depositions to be read into the record, followed by closing arguments, and possibly a short rebuttal from a witness. If there was one day to watch, this is it!

You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

If you cannot listen in on the trial, FAN will also continue LIVE Tweeting the highlights from the proceedings so even more of you can join in the excitement of this historic event.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose to listen by phone:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court**  

Fundraising Update

A huge thank you to all who have donated so far to our campaign.  We have raised $33,513 from 279 supporters on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 300 donors to fund our operating budget through the reminder of 2020.  

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donate:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Thank you, 

Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

F.A.N.

Recap of Day Five

Day Five of the trial began with FAN's attorney, Michael Connett's cross-examination of the EPA's first expert witness, Joyce Tsuji, PhD, a consultant from Exponent.  Tsuji spent much of the exchange doing a lot of talking but providing few answers.  This happened so often that the judge stopped the proceedings twice and warned her.  This turned out to be a reoccurring theme for her testimony on the stand, as her answers repeatedly contradicted the testimony from her pre-trial deposition.  Connett was able to get her to admit "there is enough literature for us to be concerned" about fluoride's neurotoxicity, and that despite touting in-depth systematic reviews, she had only skimmed through the animal studies showing anatomical changes to the brain shown in a large number of fluoride studies.  

Tsuji’s central argument was that animal studies that found neurological harm – especially behavioral changes indicating memory and learning impairment – were done at very high doses which were not relevant to human exposures. However, she conceded that the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) (20 mg/Liter) in the single study (McPherson, 2019) she thought was adequate in her review – would be equivalent to 1.3 ppm (well below the current MCL for fluoride of 4 ppm) for humans if the necessary scaling factors were applied. She also accepted it would have been better if McPherson had also included a higher dose – say 45 ppm (as used in many other studies)– to have looked for a LOAEL.

Tsuji argued that “very high” doses of fluoride would interfere with other system effects (e.g. muscular) which might manifest itself indirectly as changes in neurological behavior. What she looks for in this case is changes in bodyweight at the chosen doses. But she conceded that not all the studies (even the majority) of the studies that Dr. Thiessen used to determine LOAELs in her risk assessment were not conflicted with levels that caused loss in bodyweight. These are the filled square red boxes in the figure below from Thissen’s testimony (all at 45 ppm). Thiessen used these LOAELS to determine safe (i.e. protective) reference doses for humans (RfD) which are all well below current exposure levels for bottle-fed infants in the USA (see the second figure below)

The EPA then called their second expert witness, Dr. Ellen Chang (also from Exponent), to discuss the human fluoride/IQ studies.  She spent much of her time attacking the quality of the studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ that were NIH funded, peer-reviewed, and published in leading scientific and medical journals.  She then pivoted and started to praise an abstract of a study that claims to have found the fluoride exposure actually increased IQ.  Despite not being accepted by a publication since being made public over 10-months ago, never being peer-reviewed, and the methodology remaining a mystery, Dr. Chang said she assumed--without justification--it was a higher quality study than those finding IQ loss.  

In this moment, her bias was painfully apparent.  Even the judge started asking how she could make such assumptions. What was abundantly apparent to viewers was the complete contradiction of how thorough and scrupulous Chang claims to be in selecting high quality studies and how willing she is to completely jettison those standards when clutching at straws to use this unpublished study support her client’s interests.

Connett continued his cross-examination, finding that Dr. Chang has billed the EPA around $150,000 for her work, bringing the total bill for Exponent to approximately $350,000.  The remainder of questions focused on Dr. Chang's long history of producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters showing that there was always "insufficient evidence" of causation for the severe aliments caused by their products.  This included reviews for DOW Chemical's Agent Orange, Monsanto's glyphospate, 3M's PFOAs, and pesticides from Syngenta and Croplife.  She also worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the Manganese Interest Group.

The most telling moment for exposing her methodology for the “industry friendly” instrument it is, came when Connett asked her about her findings on behalf of Dow and Monsanto that there was no convincing or causal evidence that Agent Orange caused specific cancers. After she explained what she found he showed her pages from the US Veterans’ Administration, which said that Agent Orange caused these very same cancers! Connett actually highlighted the word “Causes.” Change was left mumbling something about her definition of “causation” was different from the VA’s definition. Precisely!  Chang’s definition and her methodology is designed to protect industry’s profits but the VA’s definition was designed to protect the veteran who served in Vietnam.

Ultimately, Connett was successful in exposing her blatant bias and long track record of being on the wrong side of history and science.  He was also able to get her to admit that the fluoride/IQ studies from Till, Green, and Bashash remain the most rigorous neurotoxicity studies to date, and that all found lowered IQ.  

Here is the table summarizing Chang’s view of the 10 most relevant human IQ studies to date:

The top 5 found lowered IQ the bottom 5 did not.  According to Paul Connett, director of FAN, “Based on the quality of these two sets Chang has essentially lost the case for the EPA.”

Catch Up On The Trial

If you missed the first week, FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD has produced detailed and comprehensive summaries of the first three days of the trial: Day One / Day Two / Day Three. Paul has also provided a simplified version of Thiessen's evidence, which shows that safe reference doses (RfD) deemed to protect children from neurotoxic effects as demonstrated in animal studies - done using 5 different starting points - all reveal RfDs much lower than children receive in the USA.

Daily trial summaries are also being provided by the legal news website Law360, but registration with a "non-free email domain" is required to read the full articles.  If you have such an email domain, here are the three summaries thus far: Day One / Day Two / Day Three / Day Four / Day Five

• Day Five Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial.

Fundraising Update

A huge thank you to all who have donated so far to our campaign.  We have raised $22,008 from 259 supporters on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 300 donors to fund our operating budget through the reminder of 2020.  

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donate:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Day Six Of The Trial

Day six of the trial will start this afternoon (Tuesday) at 1:30PM (Pacific) / 4:30PM (Eastern).  It will begin with the continued cross-examination of the EPA's second expert witness, Ellen Chang, Sc.D. of Exponent.  We expect most of the questions to focus on an abstract of a study from a cohort in Spain that claims to have shown fluoride increased IQ. 

You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

If you cannot listen in on the trial, FAN will also continue LIVE Tweeting the highlights from the proceedings so even more of you can join in the excitement of this historic event.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801