MEDIA BLACKOUT! Fluoride Action Network Sues EPA to End Fluoridation

Fluoride Action Network (FAN) Sues EPA to End Fluoridation

The above link provides some background information

                                                                                   Image Credit

A 37-minute summary of the court case by FAN Director Dr. Paul Connett: 

Media Blackout: The Federal Court Case to End Water Fluoridation

This is one of THE most important cases of the century, and the media blacks it out? 

Have you heard about this? It’s historic!

Again, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are distorting the truth to protect and keep the toxic fluoride in the public water supplies. None of these organizations are concerned with protecting public health. Look how these groups misled the world with the COVID-19 narrative.

The FDA Is Corrupt To The Core

NIH did much of the research for FDA to provide them the fake data used to support EPA’s public water fluoridation. These are the same types of lies NIH peddled to America concerning COVID-19. 

Case Number: Civ. No. 17-CV-02162-EMC  

June 18, 2020 – Recap of Day 7 of the TSCA Trial: An Historic Moment by FAN

The landmark federal trial pitching FAN and others against the US EPA over water fluoridation came to a dramatic turning point on Thursday, June 17, 2020. 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 (NIH) 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 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 National Research Council (NRC) reportrecommended 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.  

A noteworthy quote by Sir Austin Bradford Hill: 

The following information is provided by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) as background for the lawsuit brought by FAN and others under provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

THE TRIAL
A two-week trial is set to begin on June 8 to June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. (The trial will not be held on the Thursday of either week.) Due to the coronavirus, the trial will be broadcast live via Zoom webinar. Details for accessing the trial will be made available closer to the day on the FAN homepage.

THE LAW
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible sub-populations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

THE CASE
On Nov. 22, 2016, FAN, along with five other organizations and five individuals, presented a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA. The Petition requested the EPA to exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research showed that fluoride was neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.

THE COURT
The case landed in Federal Court after the EPA denied the Citizen Petition cited above as TSCA allows Plaintiffs to file suit. The Court denied EPA’s Motion to dismiss the case on December 21, 2017 – see the Court Order here.

• Information about the court is found here.
• Information on getting court documents is found here.

Click here for the TSCA Fact Sheet

Click here for the TSCA Trial Press Kit

Click here for the Daily Comments on the TSCA Trial by Paul Connett

Click here for Lawsuit Documents

The Background

The following information is provided by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) as background for the lawsuit brought by FAN and others under provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

PLAINTIFFS: On November 22, 2016, a coalition of non-profit groups (Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, and others including individuals) submitted a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA, requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water in order “to protect the public and susceptible sub-populations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride.”

DEFENDANTS: On February 27, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency denied the petition “primarily because EPA concluded that the petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.

THE LAWSUIT: After EPA denied the Petition, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of EPA’s determination with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. On December 17, 2017, the court issued an Order denying EPA’s Motion to Dismiss. The court noted,

 “The purpose of citizen petitions is to ensure the EPA does not overlook unreasonable risks to health or the environment. ” It cited a 1990 case, Env. Def. Fund v. Reilly, “Citizen participation is broadly permitted [under the TSCA] to ensure that bureaucratic lethargy does not prevent the appropriate administration of this vital authority.”

Here’s an earlier article from Bloomberg Law entitled, EPA’s Chemical Regulation Authority at Stake With Fluoride Case.

Snippet: 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California could decide “the future of chemical risk management, at the end of the day,” said Erik C. Baptist, partner at Wiley Rein in Washington and former deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s chemical safety office.

Advocates could similarly challenge EPA’s stance on other chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, depending on the outcome of the case, said Eve Gartner, managing attorney in Earthjustice’s toxic exposure and health program.

In closing, there is a LOT at stake. If the judge rules in favor of Fluoride Action Network, then we can look forward to water fluoridation CEASING across America. 

This is great news!

Again, this is an historic court case! 

Stay tuned!

As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com.  The Search box is a handy tool.  

For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
[email protected]

Disclaimer:

Legal Advice is Not Provided

The material in our emails/alerts and on our websites is only intended to provide general information and comment to the public. We make an effort to ensure that the information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites is accurate and timely, but we can’t and don’t guarantee that. Nor do we guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information contained on websites to which our websites or emails provide links.

Information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites should not be taken as legal advice. Legal matters can be complicated. For assistance with a specific legal problem or question, please contact a knowledgeable lawyer for assistance.