{"id":6365,"date":"2024-02-06T09:31:29","date_gmt":"2024-02-06T16:31:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/?p=6365"},"modified":"2024-02-06T09:31:29","modified_gmt":"2024-02-06T16:31:29","slug":"corrupt-epa-fighting-hard-to-keep-poisoning-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/2024\/02\/06\/corrupt-epa-fighting-hard-to-keep-poisoning-you\/","title":{"rendered":"Corrupt EPA Fighting Hard to Keep Poisoning You"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Putting fluoride in our water and bromide in off the shelf flour suppresses iodine and proper thyroid function, and then as the article will cover you have the neurotoxin effect on the IQ of children being addressed in court. These are purposeful OCGFC tactics to keep the populations of the world controllable as well as getting them in the medical and pharmaceutical wealth transfer scheme. Iodine supplementation is an extremely effective treatment for cancer and to treat many other medical issues, as these poisons are causing iodine deficiency<\/a>. Additional things you can do to help is use fresh milled flour<\/a> which won’t have bromide but also has much more nutrition, and to filter fluoride out of your water<\/a> if your water district is adding it. The previous filter link has links to see how your local water has tested (you can send your own samples too for a fee), a very good water picture filter that removes much more than just fluoride, and information on reverse osmosis filters for sinks or even your whole house. This is an incredibly important case and we have the Fluoride Action Network<\/a> to thank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender\/fluoride-trial-day-3-neurotoxin-studies\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

EPA Seeks to Discredit Testimony of Expert Witness Who Says Studies Prove Fluoride Is a Neurotoxin<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third day of the landmark fluoride trial included tense exchanges between scientists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the agency sought to discredit statements made by a key witness for the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs called one of the EPA\u2019s own experts to testify.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"faucet<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Editor\u2019s note:<\/strong> The Defender is providing daily updates on the landmark trial pitting Fluoride Action Network against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The trial started Feb. 1. To read previous coverage, click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third day of the landmark fluoride trial included tense exchanges between scientists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the agency sought to discredit statements made by a key witness for the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs called one of the EPA\u2019s own experts to testify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Food & Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network<\/a>, Moms Against Fluoridation<\/a> and other advocacy groups and individuals are suing the EPA<\/a> in a bid to force the agency to prohibit water fluoridation in the U.S. due to fluoride\u2019s toxic effects on children\u2019s developing brains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expert witness Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D.<\/a>, returned to the stand for a second day to provide his assessment of several recently published studies finding no significant link between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard, is a leading world expert on environmental toxins. He has worked as an adviser to the EPA setting benchmark toxicity levels for mercury and lead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his first day of testimony<\/a>, Grandjean provided a long history of research on fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity, including his own research linking fluoride exposure to cognitive deficits and key findings from the National Toxicology Program\u2019s (NTP) report linking higher fluoride exposure<\/a> to lowered IQ in children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During cross-examination, attorneys for the EPA challenged Grandjean\u2019s critiques of studies that didn\u2019t find links between fluoride and neurotoxicity in children, sometimes drawing on statements from his deposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The agency attempted to show that some studies linking fluoride to neurotoxicity at low levels have a \u201crisk of bias\u201d and that one study in particular \u2014 the \u201cSpanish study<\/a>,\u201d which did not find a link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ among children in a birth cohort in northern Spain \u2014 was a \u201chigh-quality study\u201d that ought to be taken seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grandjean disagreed and reiterated his analysis of those studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, the plaintiffs called one of the EPA\u2019s expert witnesses, Stanley Barone, Ph.D., a risk assessment scientist from the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention<\/a>, to establish EPA\u2019s methods for risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a> (TSCA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through questioning, Barone explained the EPA\u2019s risk assessment<\/a> method \u2014 the method plaintiffs charge the EPA is failing to apply in the case of fluoride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The day ended partway through his testimony and was scheduled to continue today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019m very happy with how the evidence has come in the first three days with our first three expert witnesses,\u201d plaintiff\u2019s attorney Michael Connett told The Defender<\/a> after the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the witnesses have established that the levels of fluoride exposure experienced by pregnant mothers in some fluoridated areas exceed the levels associated with significant decreases in IQ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, he said, \u201cI think the evidence has demonstrated that there is every reason to expect that some susceptible members of the population will be particularly vulnerable to fluoride\u2019s neurotoxic effects and that any safety standards for fluoride really need to take that into account.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd certainly EPA needs to take that into account given the command of the Toxic Substances Control Act that susceptible populations be protected,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expert witness defends analyses of key studies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grandjean \u2014 known for his work on the neurotoxicity of mercury and lead for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other global health organizations \u2014 walked through issues of author and journal credibility and methods in one case<\/a> and study design and data in another<\/a> that compromised the findings and conclusions of the studies, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett asked Grandjean about the \u201cSpanish study\u201d conducted by Jes\u00fas Ibarluzea, Ph.D.<\/a> It is one of the primary cohort studies the EPA\u2019s case relies on, which found no link between prenatal exposure to low levels of fluoride and lowered IQ among children in coastal Spain, but did find that fluoride exposure increased IQ for boys by an \u201cimplausible\u201d 15 points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe study makes absolutely no sense,\u201d Grandjean told Connett. He added that he wasn\u2019t accusing the authors of fraud, but thought there had been a major error, perhaps in the lab analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ibarluzea himself was originally set to testify on behalf of the EPA, but after being deposed by the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys, he withdrew from further participation in the case. His deposition videos will be used as evidence by the EPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Connett asked Grandjean to walk the court through findings from a new pilot study<\/a> by researchers at Tulane University that found children with chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride in drinking water made more errors on drawing and cognitive tests<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett ended his questioning by referring Grandjean back to the early studies by Kaj Roholm<\/a> that identified a causal relationship between fluoride and skeletal fluorosis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the available evidence, Connett asked, \u201cDo you think impacts on neurodevelopment are more threatening than on skeletal fluorosis?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYes, I do,\u201d Grandjean responded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA tries to build its case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA attorneys spent much of the day building their case, which hinges on the idea that fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity is uncertain at low concentration levels based on the available evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They used Grandjean\u2019s testimony to cast doubt on the NTP\u2019s findings and to suggest that Grandjean may be biased in his assessment of the Spanish study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the first day of Grandjean\u2019s testimony, Connett had him review the outcomes of the high-quality studies, the vast majority of which found evidence of fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity at different levels, including low levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA referred to a table from the NTP monograph<\/a> showing the high-risk-of-bias versus low-risk-of-bias studies and argued that the studies used by the NTP showed a high risk of bias or were not statistically significant according to one method of analyzing that data \u2014 an assertion plaintiffs attorney countered in his re-directed questioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout the day, Grandjean appeared annoyed by the line of questioning, particularly by the EPA\u2019s attempts to find discrepancies in his statements by comparing them to statements made in his deposition, in response to questions he said were posed somewhat differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA also pushed Grandjean to discuss the Danish cohort study, called the Odense study<\/a>, where Grandjean and his colleagues did not find a statistically significant impact of fluoride exposure on IQ at low levels of exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grandjean explained that the Danish study, pooled with other studies, offered important insight into fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity, as he outlined the first day of testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the EPA tried to get Grandjean to affirm the validity of the Spanish study by acknowledging that its authors were credible researchers \u2014 which Grandjean acknowledged, by acknowledging it was a high-quality study with low risk of bias, as evaluated by the NTP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then attorneys for the EPA suggested that because the NTP report contained a study that Grandjean didn\u2019t find credible, he ought to find the NTP report itself questionable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Judge Edward Chen posed a key final question to the witness: \u201cIs it common to find contrary studies after studies have shown toxicity from a chemical<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grandjean said this same phenomenon happened with lead, where some studies indicated lead had no toxic effect on children. He also said those studies were often funded by industry<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drs. Howard Hu<\/a> and Bruce Lanphear<\/a> also spoke to this question in their testimonies on days one<\/a> and two<\/a> of the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the hearing, Connett summed up what the three witnesses argued: \u201cThe absence of a detectable effect doesn\u2019t mean there\u2019s no harm. Testimony thus far has shown that populations can differ significantly and different factors can influence how neurotoxicity manifests.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett said variations in the association between fluoride and IQ in different populations would be expected, including null effects in some studies and findings of associations and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo what may appear initially contradictory may in fact not be contradictory,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe EPA really wants to see the low-dose studies finding significant effects. And if we don\u2019t have low-dose studies finding significant effects, then they want to dismiss it entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe problem with that is when you\u2019re studying lower exposures in a population, it\u2019s much harder to detect an effect because you have lower exposure contrasts, which thereby reduce the power of the study to find the effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like using a lower powered magnifying glass \u2014 you\u2019re not going to see as much as you will if you use a higher powered magnifying glass. When you\u2019re studying populations that have more distinct exposure contrasts, you\u2019re better able to tease out the effect of fluoride, which is one of the strengths of high-dose studies or higher-dose studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo EPA on one hand wants to eliminate from its consideration all high-dose studies and then say there\u2019s no risk based on low-dose studies, not finding the effect. And effectively what that means is EPA is discarding the higher powered magnifying glass in exchange for a lower powered magnifying glass, and then using that lesser sensitivity to claim there\u2019s no effect.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is EPA following its own methodology for evaluating risk?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the last 30 minutes of Friday\u2019s testimony, Connett called Barone to establish the EPA\u2019s methods for risk evaluation under the TSCA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barone, an EPA developmental toxicologist, was heavily involved in the TSCA\u2019s first 10 risk evaluations. Before the trial, the plaintiffs asked him to establish the risk evaluation process for the record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their case rests in part on the allegation that the EPA is failing to follow its own risk-evaluation procedures in the case of fluoride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett questioned Barone on key elements of the hazard assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, he asked Barone to confirm that to determine whether a chemical is a hazard \u2014 one step in the risk assessment process \u2014 there is no need to prove causation. To establish a chemical is a hazard, the EPA requires proof of association, not causation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barone agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, Connett asked Barone whether the EPA had ever made a different hazard evaluation for high-dose versus low-dose exposure in all of the risk evaluations it had done to date under TSCA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barone said he was confused by the question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen interjected to pose the question himself. \u201cIn the hazard evaluation, is it a binary decision?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barone said it was. In other words, a chemical poses a hazard or it doesn\u2019t. The EPA doesn\u2019t differentiate between high and low doses in determining whether something is a hazard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barone also confirmed that once something has been confirmed as a hazard, medium- and high-quality studies are then used to identify a hazard level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are points Connett also laid out in his opening remarks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Putting fluoride in our water and bromide in off the shelf flour suppresses iodine and proper thyroid function, and then as the article will cover you have the neurotoxin effect on the IQ of children being addressed in court. These are purposeful OCGFC tactics to keep the populations of the world controllable as well as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health","category-world"],"blocksy_meta":[],"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Jason","author_link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/author\/jturning\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6365"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6366,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6365\/revisions\/6366"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}