Tag Archives: Flouride

#FluorideTrial: Ruling Delayed As Judge Asks Defense and Plaintiffs to Discuss New Evidence

Derrick Broze
JUNE 19, 2020

The historic trial examining the dangers of water fluoridation reached a temporary conclusion on Wednesday after the judge delayed the ruling so the parties may consider new evidence on fluoride.

(To read about week 1 of the trial, please see this)

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen delayed a ruling in the case between the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FAN is aiming to prove the harms caused by community water fluoridation. The government is defending water fluoridation and seeking a dismissal of the petition by the plaintiffs.

Over the last two weeks, Judge Chen has heard arguments from witnesses with the FAN and EPA. Attorneys with FAN argue that water fluoridation violates the 1970 Toxic Substances Control Act provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.

Judge Chen suggested the FAN file a new petition with the EPA, a suggestion which plaintiffs attorney Michael Connett was not eager to accept given the fact that it has taken four years to get the lawsuit to court. Connett told the court that the plaintiffs might not have the resources to continue this fight for another couple of years and cautioned against delaying a ruling because it would continue to endanger Americans due to ongoing fluoride exposure. The EPA’s attorneys were equally disinterested in a delayed ruling, stating that there is “no way” the EPA could conduct a review within the required 90 days.

Judge Chen said he was only discussing delaying the ruling for another couple of months, not years. Chen also noted that the evidence presented by both sides went “well beyond administrative record, because so much has changed since that petition was filed” in 2016. “Doesn’t it make sense to have the agency take a second look?” Judge Chen asked the attorneys for the EPA and FAN.

Judge Chen noted that the National Academy of Science is expected to publish a study later this year and the National Toxicology Program is working on a review of the literature on fluoride. These new studies, he said, should be considered by the EPA. The judge did acknowledge it is undisputed that fluoride can cause harm to the human brain and is a neurological hazard. The disagreement between EPA and FAN hinges on arguments over the levels at which fluoride causes neurological damage.

Ultimately, Judge Chen, the EPA, and the FAN agreed to delay a ruling until both parties have time to discuss whether the EPA will revisit the original petition, FAN will file a new petition, or the judge will rule on the current case. A briefing between both sides is scheduled for August 6.

During the discussions about the potential ruling, Judge Chen admitted that the EPA held the FAN petition on water fluoridation to a standard which is not typical of petitions under TSCA. “The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate, is not a proper application, not the proper standard,” Chen said to the EPA. This fact was acknowledged by FAN attorney Michael Connett on Tuesday during cross examination of EPA witness Dr. Tala Henry. Under standard TSCA procedure, parties must show an association — not causation — to prove the harm of water fluoridation.


Connett also spent much of his cross examination of EPA expert witnesses drawing attention to their previous testimony in defense of chemical companies and chemicals known to be hazardous to humans. Two of the EPA’s witnesses are employed by the corporate firm Exponent Inc. While cross examining EPA witness Dr. Ellen Chang, Connett asked how much biotech/pesticide company Syngenta paid her for a presentation she had given.

Connett also questioned Dr. Chang about how much she was being paid to defend water fluoridation. Chang stated that Exponent Inc was paying her an estimated $149,000. Dr. Chang was also questioned by Connett about her previous work for Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and other chemical companies and associations. Specifically, Connett called attention to the fact that Dr. Chang had previously stated that despite an association between Monsanto/Bayer’s glyphosate and cancer, she concluded there was no risk. Chang admitted that one peer-reviewer of her study on glyphosate found her analysis “devolved into a laundry list of every possible cause of bias.”

Despite arguments from the EPA’s attorneys that the EPA would never fail to act to protect Americans from harm, the fact remains that the U.S. government hired corporate scientists to defend water fluoridation. The EPA attempted to diminish the concerns brought by the plaintiffs and their experts, while simultaneously attempting to present last-minute evidence which had not been peer-reviewed. If the EPA wants to protect the American people they should accept the plaintiffs petition and end water fluoridation. If they refuse to do so, Judge Chen should see clearly that fluoride is a neurotoxin which poses an unreasonable risk to human health.

Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.

Source: The Last American Vagabond

#FluorideTrial: Scientist Says He Was Threatened Because of Fluoride Study – Week 1 In Review

Derrick Broze, The Last American Vagabond
June 14th, 2020

#FluorideTrial: Experts Admit Fluoride is a Pesticide

The first week of the historic water fluoridation trial wrapped up on Friday afternoon after four days of occasionally tense testimony from expert witnesses with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One expert witness claimed he had been coerced into signing a statement downplaying his study which claimed fluoride is a neurotoxicant. Another witness confirmed that at least one type of fluoride is a pesticide being added to the water supply.

Attorneys with FAN argue that water fluoridation violates the 1970 Toxic Substances Control Act provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.

The EPA is represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice who are presenting experts from the corporate firm Exponent Inc. The government is defending water fluoridation and seeking a dismissal of the petition by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the case include: FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and the Organic Consumers Association.

FAN attorney Michael Connett called 3 witnesses throughout the week, including Howard Hu MD, Bruce Lanphear MD, Philippe Grandjean MD, and Kathleen Thiessen PhD. Connett told the court that the EPA has previously relied on the research of all of these experts in the past on other toxicants like lead and mercury. Two of these experts have been authors of key fluoride studies funded by US government agencies. Connett noted that the EPA chose to use experts from Exponent rather than their own agencies experts.

The EPA did their part to question the Fluoride Action Network’s witnesses and diminish their credibility. Dr. KathleenThiessen made a powerful admission when interviewed by FAN attorney Connett, stating that sodium fluoride is a pesticide that is being added to the water supply. However, during cross examination of Thiessen, the EPA asked if she is personal friends with the Connett family, including Paul Connett, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, and Michaell Connett, the lawyer representing FAN. Thiessen said yes she is friends with the family. The EPA pressed further, asking if she had attended meetings sponsored by FAN, whether she is on the group’s mailing list, if she has appeared in interviews on their websites, and if she helped Paul Connett with his book The Case Against Fluoride.

Dr. Thiessen answered affirmatively to these questions but denied it had any influence on her conclusions that fluoride is harmful. When questioned whether or not she has been advocating for removing fluoride for decades, while maintaining a friendship with the plaintiffs, Thiessen said yes, but emphasized that her position was based on science. The EPA then showed the court emails between plaintiff’s attorney Michael Connet and Thiessen. Connett sent Thiessen a list of studies to review and the EPA was attempting to show the judge that the plaintiff’s may have influenced Thiessen’s opinions and statements.

Dr. Howard Hu provided further background on his research on fluoride, testifying on the difficulty of getting his research funded by the National Institute of Health and the steps for publication in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal. Hu stated that his study found a loss of around 3 or 4 IQ points and this impact on population should not be ignored. He also discussed the parallels to lead neurotoxicity.

Corruption of Fluoride Science

One of the strongest witnesses for the plaintiffs was Danish environmental epidemiologist Dr. Phillip Grandjean, known for his work on the neurotoxicity of mercury. Granjean helped the EPA establish safe regulatory levels for mercury in the diet.

Dr. Grandjean stated that he had been threatened or coerced by a colleague at the Harvard Dental School after one of his studies concluded that fluoride was a neurotoxin. When DOJ lawyer Debra Carfora asked Grandjean about a statement he signed downplaying the significance of the results, Grandjean stated that the Harvard press department put the statement together and added his name to it. The statement said the researchers still agreed with the CDC position that water fluoridation is safe. Dr. Grandjean did not elaborate upon who threatened him or how often such threats may happen in his field. He also stated that the “fluoride lobby” infiltrated a World Health Organization committee seeking to exclude any mention of harmful effects of fluoride.

On the specific harmful effects of fluoride, Dr. Grandjean stated in his deposition that, the weight of epidemiological evidence leaves no reasonable doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious human health risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure.” Dr. Grandjean has also stated that efforts to control human fluoride exposure need to focus on pregnant women and small children.

During his testimony Granjean took particular issue with statements made by the EPA’s expert Dr. Cheng. “What she has written should not be relied upon… This is not science, this is simply a misleading report.” Grandjean elaborated, stating, “I’m embarrassed that the EPA would recruit Dr. Chang, who has already tried to kill some of my work on polyfluorinated chemicals, that they would recruit her to write this report full of biases. I get a little upset about it… I’m sorry to see what has happened to a colleague that works for a product defense firm.”

This issue of the EPA’s experts working for Exponent was a theme of several of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. At least two of the EPA’s witnesses – Ellen Chang, ScD and Joyce Tsuji, PhD – are employed by Exponent Inc, a firm accused of paying the U.S. government to defend dangerous chemicals. Plaintiff’s witness Dr. Lamphear also called out the scientists working for Exponent as industry friendly “rent-a-white-coats.”

The apparent conflicts of interest were the topic of conversation again on Friday when FAN attorney Michael Connett cross examined the government’s witness Dr. Joyce Tsuji, a board-certified toxicologist and a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, who specializes in risk assessment of chemical exposures. Connett asked Dr. Tsuji if she has been funded by mining and smelting companies which “release arsenic into the air.” Connett also asked Tsuji if the majority of her projects have been funded by industry. Tsuji agreed that most of her work has come from industry funded sources.

The afternoon ended with plans for Dr. Tsuji to be cross examined by the plaintiff’s attorneys. Court will resume on Monday June 15, at 8:30 am pacific.

Historic Court Case — The Fluoride Cover Up Will Soon Be Exposed

 Derrick Broze,
June 8th, 2020

A historic trial weighing the risks of water fluoridation is set to begin in San Francisco on Monday June 8.

For the last four years, attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network have been fighting a legal battle against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over whether water fluoridation violates the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A recent ruling by the judge in the case has now set the stage for a federal trial which will include three international experts in neurotoxicity testifying on the dangers of water fluoridation.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is set to argue that water fluoridation violates the TSCA provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.

The FAN began their legal battle in November 2016 when they joined with five organizations and five individuals to present a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA. The Citizens’ Petition calls on the EPA to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water based on the growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a neurotoxin at doses currently used in communities around the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case include: FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and the Organic Consumers Association.

The plaintiffs’ have presented studies to the court detailing the evidence of neurotoxic harm as part of their Proposed Findings of Fact. Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, points to a number of recent studies detailing the affect of fluoridation on IQ levels.

As of 2020 there have been 72 fluoride-IQ studies, of which 64 found a lower IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure,” Connett stated. “Many of the earlier studies were in places with elevated natural fluoride levels. There is now very strong evidence that fluoride damages both the fetal and infant brain at the levels used in artificially fluoridated areas.”

While the court will allow FAN to present evidence related to the harms caused by water fluoridation, the court has stated that the EPA cannot present information related to the purported benefits of fluoridation. The move was seen as a victory for FAN and opponents of fluoridation. The EPA also attempted to exclude three experts from speaking at the trial. However, the court over ruled the agency and will allow the expert testimony. Experts include Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard and the University of Southern Denmark, Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Washington, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.

The trial is set to begin on June 8th via Zoom. I will be reporting on the trial for The Last American Vagabond. Stay tuned for daily video reports and articles.This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar.

Case participants may also receive an email invitation from the court with different information which should be followed.

All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar:

https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US
+1 301 715 8592 US
+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/ac4JkPfcjoFor important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

What is Fluoride?

The substances added to municipal water supplies known by the name “fluoride” are actually a combination of unpurified byproducts of phosphate mining. In the United States thousands of tons of fluorosilicic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants and then used for water fluoridation. During this process the fluoride ion is created.

This process of taking waste from the phosphate industry and putting it into drinking water has long been criticized for its effects on human health and the environment. It is well known that water fluoridation has led to dental fluorosis for millions of children. This discoloring of the teeth was called “cosmetically objectionable” by the Centers for Disease Control.

Beyond the cosmetic effect there have been several studies indicating overwhelming health issues related to fluoride, especially for children. Another study found a connection between exposure to water fluoridated at relatively low concentrations and a reduced IQ among children.

As recent as September 2017 the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published the study “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico,” examining the results of prenatal exposure to fluoride and the potential health concerns. The researchers called the study “one of the first and largest longitudinal epidemiological studies to exist that either address the association of early life exposure to fluoride to childhood intelligence or study the association of fluoride and cognition using individual biomarker of fluoride exposure.” The study was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

The researchers found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower scores on tests for cognitive function at age four, and between ages six and twelve. The researchers acknowledge that their results are “somewhat consistent” with past ecological studies which indicate children living in areas of high fluoride exposure have lower IQ scores than those in low-exposure areas.

A study published in the journal General Dentistry warns that infants are at risk of dental fluorosis due to overexposure from fluoride in commercially available infant foods. The researchers analyzed 360 different samples of 20 different foods ranging from fruits and vegetables, chicken, turkey, beef, and vegetarian dinners. Chicken products had the highest concentrations of fluoride, followed by turkey. The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports that the fluoride levels were due to pesticides, fertilizers, soil, groundwater, and/or fluoridated water. The high levels found in the chicken and turkey can be attributed to “fluoride-saturated bone dust” involved in the process of mechanically separating the meat.

Another study published in Environmental Health found a potential connection between fluoride exposure and the prevalence of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. The researchers studied data on ADHD among children age four to seventeen collected in 2003, 2007 and 2011 as part of the National Survey of Children’s Health, as well as state water fluoridation data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collected between 1992 and 2008 . It is the first study to analyze the relationship between exposure to fluoridated water and ADHD prevalence.

The team discovered that children living in areas with a majority of the population receiving fluoridated water from public water systems “tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. ” The researchers concluded that:

this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.

In addition to these studies related to fluoride and children, dozens of other studies have indicated a variety of health problems. A recent study published in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry indicates that fluoride ions found in fluoridated water and toothpaste may lead to an increase in Urinary Stone Disease (USD). The study was conducted by chemists from Russia and Australia, led by Pavel Nesterenko at the University of Tasmania. The team studied 20 urinary stones from patients at a Russian hospital and discovered fluoride ions in 80% of the stones. This could be due to high levels of fluoride in patients’ urine, possibly from drinking water containing fluorides and ingesting fluoride toothpaste.

A study published in the BMJ’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health confirmed fluoride’s negative effect on the thyroid gland and a possible connection to depression, weight gain, and other negative health effects. Researchers with the University of Kent in England examined thyroid activity for those in areas with fluoridated water and those without. The team examined 95 percent of the English population in 2012 and 2013 and found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30% more likely in areas with high fluoride concentration. An underactive thyroid can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.

Fluoride

SOURCE: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/06/historic-court-case-the-fluoride-cover-up-will-soon-be-exposed.html

239 People Sickened in Utah Fluoride Overfeed; Investigation Continuing

Originally published @ DESERET NEWS
by Amy Joi O’Donoghue, April 20th, 2019

A state-required report documenting the health impacts of an accidental release of fluoride concentrate in Sandy said there were 239 cases of human exposure in which people experienced gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting and headaches.

That number is substantially higher than early reports of the Feb. 5 incident, which sent undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid from a malfunctioning pump into part of the city’s drinking water system, affecting 1,500 households, schools and businesses.

The concentrate in its undiluted form is classified as a hazardous, poisonous material that, while it contains fluoride, also contains arsenic, lead, copper, manganese, iron and aluminum. It is a byproduct from phosphate mining operations.” We have taken several steps to ensure that this kind of event can never happen again. “Evelyn Everton, Sandy’s deputy mayor

Fluoride was detected at 40 times the federal limit after the release, and two weeks of free blood testing for lead showed one person with elevated levels, according to Salt Lake County health officials.

The release happened as a result of a power surge during a snowstorm.

Evelyn Everton, Sandy’s deputy mayor, said the concentrate was stored in a well house, with some of the substance hooked up to a pump injector that had not been in use since 2016.

Everton said city officials believe a contractor may have left the pump on and the surge triggered it to release the concentrate that entered the system. By the next day people started reporting foul-tasting water and physical symptoms.

The city flushed its system and advised impacted residents to do the same. So far, Everton said the city has reimbursed affected households $2,600 for the water use.

At the request of the city, Parsons Behle & Latimer is doing an independent investigation on the city’s operational and regulatory response to the event, which prompted the Utah Division of Drinking Water to issue a trio of violations in an administrative order.

That document, on file with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, includes violations for exceeding the fluoride level and not meeting public notification requirements. The city can appeal.

In the aftermath of the event, the city’s director of public utilities, Tom Ward, was placed on administrative leave. Everton says he remains on leave pending the outcome of the independent investigation.

The city, she added, addressed the issues with the well houses.

“We have taken several steps to ensure that this kind of event can never happen again,” she said, including unplugging all fluoride pumps not in use from a power source and closing the valves on discharge lines when the wells are not operational.

The city has 11 fluoride injectors.

In the initial aftermath of the release, city officials thought the area of contamination was confined to 50 homes and did door to door announcements to warn people. However, the area expanded twice as more people continued to report symptoms well after the release.

Utah Poison Control records contained in the state summary show it handled 316 cases possibly linked to the fluoride overfeed, with 163 of those cases followed to a known outcome.

Salt Lake County health records in that same report say 16 households reported symptoms impacting 40 people. The city of Sandy itself reported 11 known cases.

Officials say many of the entities’ records could include duplicate cases.

Marie Owens, director of the Utah Division of Drinking Water, said her staff’s analysis puts the number at 239 potential human exposure cases.

The city has been reimbursing residents for any medical claims associated with the incident, Everton said.