The Fluoride Thread

Mercola's new economical water filter removes fluoride
https://waterfilters.mercola.com/flu..._rid=830704378
3/16/20

( I've researched it and could not find a shower filter that removes much in the way of fluoride, if any, and Mercola's doesn't either, but the new counter top and under the counter sink filters look good, and it's not reverse osmosis, so it's less costly.
The only method I could find of removing fluoride from showers is a very costly reverse osmosis unit which would still not provide enough water all at once for a good shower, unless you also installed a huge holding tank.
The shower filters on the webpage are an old model, and do not remove fluoride. I called their ordering number today and pointed out that people may think those models have the new technology, and it should be made clear that they don't, so hopefully they will change the ad.
Lots of good, relevant info in the article about why filtered water is necessary for health at https://waterfilters.mercola.com/flu..._rid=830704378
...most of which I am not copying here, since a lot of it is info that's already been posted on this thread and others.)

"Independently tested, the Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Water Filter selectively allows healthy minerals to pass through while providing broad-range contamination reduction up to 99.9% of chlorine, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, viruses, bacteria and fungi.
The easy-to-use filter removes up to 99.9% of fluoride without the disadvantages of other technologies, including water wastage and the need for a storage tank.
Testing shows the filter’s proprietary fluoride reduction media reduces fluoride better than the two top fluoride-specific media used in other fluoride removal systems."

"Why You Can’t Trust Your Local Utility’s Water Report
Local water testing doesn't measure the unregulated chemicals in your water.
Many people quickly point out... “Our public utility routinely tests our drinking water supplies and its reports don’t show any contaminants.”

That’s a valid point, but here’s why you can’t trust those reports...

Federal and state regulatory agencies give nearly all of our nation’s drinking supplies a passing grade when tested. That’s because these contaminants are at levels declared legal under the Safe Drinking Water Act or state regulations.

And that’s only for contaminants included on the test list!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not added a new contaminant to the list of regulated drinking water pollutants that makes up the Safe Drinking Water Act in more than 20 years.

The presence of unregulated chemicals in drinking water is especially worrisome. That is what forms the basis of public utility water tests.

Pollutants are there. The EWG found more than 160 unregulated contaminants in the tap water supplies it tested across the country. Here are just three of the many unregulated industrial and farming chemicals it found in drinking water at levels above those that may pose a cancer risk:

Chromium-6, an industrial chemical (found in water from all 50 states)
1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent
Nitrates from industrial agriculture
So what can you do?

When you invest in an effective water filtration system that specifically removes fluoride, you drastically reduce your daily intake of not only fluoride and plastic microparticles but more than 267 contaminants, including those we just talked about.

Up Until Now, You Couldn’t Remove Fluoride Without Losing Precious Minerals and Wasting Water
The ideal on-the-go solution is a reusable, safe water bottle refilled with filtered water.
Up until now, you really couldn’t find a water filter that removed substantial amounts of fluoride without resorting to reverse osmosis. Most water filters and their technologies remove 50% or less of fluoride.

Reverse osmosis has been the standard for removing fluoride for years. However, its main drawbacks include wasting a lot of water and removing healthy minerals from the water.

Two other types of fluoride removal systems have their issues as well. Activated Alumina (AAL) can leach aluminum into your drinking water, and Bone Char (BC) technology requires acidic water for it to work correctly and hasn’t shown good filtering capacity.

Some systems claim to remove 95% or more of fluoride, but when you look at independent test results and the results people actually get with use, that’s not always the case. With some systems, performance drops drastically after the first 25 or 30 gallons.

I’ve been working for years to find an effective and affordable solution for removing fluoride. I believe you should be able to turn on your tap and drink plenty of water without worrying about getting a hefty dose of fluoride or other contaminants.

And you deserve the convenience of being able to refill your reusable, safe water container straight from your faucet without having to buy and drink water from risky and environmentally-polluting disposable water bottles.

We’ve finally found an option that surpasses anything else we’ve seen over the years – and can provide you with all this. It’s groundbreaking technology that no one else has, at least not yet.

Introducing... The Breakthrough Technology That Can Remove up to 99.9% of Fluoride, Lead, Microplastics and Countless Other Contaminants
Under-Counter Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Under-Counter Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Water Filter, available in your choice of an Under-Counter or Countertop unit, provides broad-range contamination reduction while retaining beneficial minerals.

This revolutionary system is unlike any prior fluoride-removing filter. A whole new paradigm in water filtration, it marries existing technologies and combines medias for a unique approach to:

Reduce up to 99.9% of 172 contaminants, including arsenic, chromium and other heavy metals, disinfectants, anions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides and herbicides using .5 micron carbon block filtration.
Remove up to 99.9% of fluoride and chlorine while selectively allowing essential minerals, like calcium, magnesium and potassium, to pass through.
Reduce microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, cysts and fungi using .01 micron filtration.
Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Shield and remove larger particulate and sediment to help prolong flow rate and filter life.
Best of all, it’s independently tested to do all this. You don’t just have to take someone’s word for it.

Obtaining fresh filtered drinking water has never been so simple. With our Fluoride Removal Under-Counter Water Filter, all it takes is a turn of the handle to receive a flow of water that’s up to 99.9% clear of fluoride, chlorine and other contaminants for safe drinking, cooking and more.

With the push of a button, our Fluoride Removal Countertop Water Filter delivers the same, clean water directly from your faucet.

Let’s take a closer look at its breakthrough technology...

This Unique System Marries Existing Technologies for a Whole New Paradigm in Fluoride Removal
Our Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Countertop Water Filter system removes contaminants and unwanted substances through three different stages:
https://media.mercola.com/assets/ima...ter-stages.jpg
Cutaway view of the countertop water filter
Sediment Shield
Removes larger particulate and sediment to prolong flow rate and filter life.

0.5 Micron Carbon Block
Reduces up to 99.9% of a wide range of contaminants, including heavy metals such as arsenic and chromium, pesticides and herbicides, pharmaceuticals, fluoride and chlorine.

0.01 Micron Filtration
Reduces most micro-organisms commonly found in municipal water supplies, such as viruses, bacteria and fungi.

Both Under-Counter and Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter units are designed for use on a treated water supply.

The convenient under-sink design of the Under-Counter model with optional wall mount bracket allows you to enjoy filtered water without a bulky filter system taking up valuable space on your counter top.

For the Under-Counter model, use an existing soap dispenser or other 1/2” hole in your sink or countertop to install your faucet. Detailed instructions for installation are provided. Because it is the customer’s responsibility to install the appliance properly, we recommend using a licensed plumber if you lack the appropriate tools for installation.

For those desiring an effective fluoride removal system that doesn’t require installation, our small and compact Countertop model sits alongside your sink, and makes an attractive addition to any countertop. Simply connect to your cold water supply using the included diverter valve and hose.

Please note: The Countertop unit will work with any faucet except ones with a pull-down sprayer. If you have this type of faucet, order our Under-Counter model.

Both models have an easy replacement filter system and feature a battery-powered LED filter life indicator. The indicator reminds you when to replace the filter, saving you the hassle of having to keep track. Replacement filters are available separately."

The Pollution Story - Behind Fluoridation (Part I)
July 9, 2019 | Melissa Gallico | 43:08 Part 1 of 12
"Drawing from historical primary source documents which she links to in the show notes, intelligence analyst Melissa Gallico argues that public water fluoridation is a pollution scandal—the biggest pollution scandal in American history.
https://www.fpollution.com/
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...gMXx37Rf-yh0bp

(Also, petition to sign at the link, to ban fluoridation in the US, from Change.org)

OUR DAILY DOSE
by Jeremy Seifert
Oct 19, 2015

"Hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, water fluoridation is something most of us assume to be safe and effective. But new science has upended this assumption, revealing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The CDC tells us that drinking fluoride decreases tooth decay, at best, by 25%. That is one-half to one cavity per person over a lifetime. Is one less cavity worth risking a child's long-term brain and thyroid health? It's time to rethink this very old practice.

In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (GMO OMG) lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day. This is an eye-opening look at how we have less control over our health than we may have thought.
www.ourdailydose.com "

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2mUUrZJaHPU

Federal trial against EPA on fluoridation postponed due to coronavirus
Fluoride Action Network
Mar 24, 2020
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301028948.html

( The "pandemic" scare is such a good distraction from addressing issues which are long over-due for attention. What timing! :sad: )

"NEW YORK, March 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A legal case challenging the safety of water fluoridation which was set for a two-week trial in April in federal district court in San Francisco has been postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak. The case against the EPA was brought by several environmental groups led by Food & Water Watch and Fluoride Action Network (FAN) under provisions in the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Plaintiffs argue the neurotoxic harm to children presents an unreasonable risk and far outweighs any possible benefit to teeth, reports Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, says of the scientific evidence:

"As of 2020 there have been 72 fluoride-IQ studies, of which 64 found a lower IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure. 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."

"You only have to read four studies to realize that deliberately adding fluoride to drinking water unnecessarily endangers children's brains. Three* of these four studies were funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The first* came in Sept 2017 with a groundbreaking study from Mexico City. This study found a strong association between the amount of fluoride women were exposed to during pregnancy and lowered IQ in their offspring.

The second* came in 2019 when a study published in JAMA Pediatrics essentially replicated the Mexico City finding in Canadian communities.

The third came in 2019 and found a staggering 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to non-fluoridated ones.

The fourth* came in 2020, when it was reported that children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated communities in Canada lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in non-fluoridated communities.

"The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

"While we wait to prove our case in court, I urge everyone, including scientists, doctors, journalists and public health officials to read these four papers and not simply take the word of fluoridation promoters on the evidence. The risk to our children's developing brains is so great it is unconscionable to delay warnings to pregnant women and parents."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network
Related Links
http://fluoridealert.org "

Neurotoxicity Experts Cleared to Testify At Fluoridation Chemicals Trial June 8 in Federal Court
Fluoride Action Network
May 14, 2020
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301059436.html

"NEW YORK, May 14, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The judge in a June 8 federal court trial in San Francisco has cleared the way for three international experts in neurotoxicity to testify on the risks of fluoride in public water supplies, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reports.

In addition, the court ruled that the purported benefits of community water fluoridation cannot be part of the trial, restricting testimony to the toxic risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Paul Connett, Ph.D., executive director of lead plaintiff FAN in the case, hailed the decisions as helping to keep the focus of the trial where it belongs, on recent scientific studies pointing to IQ loss in the offspring of pregnant women exposed to higher levels of fluoride. The plaintiffs seek to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies "to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic effects of fluoride." (See backgrounder, "Fluoridation's Neurotoxicity".)

The rulings came May 8 in a hearing that laid the groundwork for a video trial set to begin June 8 and to run for two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 virus, the trial has been compressed.

Despite the time constraints, Connett expressed confidence that FAN's case for showing fluoride's neurotoxicity will be demonstrated. That will be crucial to the case against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Three experts the EPA sought to exclude from the trial but who will now take part 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.

Relying on the citizen petition provisions of TSCA, the lawsuit challenges a practice endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service 70 years ago and affecting 200 million Americans on public water systems.

As plaintiff, FAN is joined by Moms Against Fluoridation and the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. Several individuals representing themselves and/or their children complete the list of plaintiffs."

A Fact Sheet providing further information on the case is at http://fluoridealert.org/tsca-fact-sheet/

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network


Related Links
https://fluoridealert.org

FLUORIDE ON TRIAL STARTING TODAY
From Fluoride Action Network's email update today
6/8/20

"How to Watch The Trial From Home

The trial will take place over the next two weeks, every weekday except Thursdays. We are expecting the proceedings to go for about 4 hours each day.

Due to the Coronavirus, the entire trial will be streamed live on Zoom. This means you can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet. We recommend downloading Zoom for your device prior to Monday morning. You can do that by visiting the Zoom Download Center. If you cannot, or would prefer not to download Zoom, you can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

The trial will start at 8AM (Pacific time) / 11AM (Eastern time) on Monday.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial on Monday:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/...hNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose not to use Zoom:

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**

What FAN Has In Store Next Week

Ideally, you will want to watch this historic trial since we cannot record it and it will include testimony from some of the world's foremost neurotoxicity experts, as well as our legal team cross-examining EPA witnesses. However, for those who cannot join, FAN will be sending out daily bulletins over the next two weeks to recap what you missed and to provide the Zoom link for the next day's hearing.

If for whatever reason you cannot find the link for the day's proceedings in your email inbox, then we will also be posting the link on our Homepage (www.fluoridealert.org), as well as on our Facebook and Twitter pages. Alternatively, you can also find the link on Judge Chen's daily docket page under Food & Water Watch, Inc et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network"

More here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca...al/fact-sheet/
"Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups are suing the EPA in Federal Court.

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 through 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 video stream. 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 subpopulations. 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.

For help in accessing documents related to our case, our case number is Civ. No. 17-CV 02162-EMC. If you use the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) retrieval system online at pacer.gov, the number to type in 17-02162. You need to establish an account and login. There are some modest fees.

THE PLAINTIFFS
Groups: Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation
Individuals: Audrey Adams, a resident of Renton, Washington (individually and on behalf of her son); Kristin Lavelle, a resident of Berkeley, California (individually and on behalf of her son); Brenda Staudenmaier, a resident of Green Bay, Wisconsin (individually and on behalf of her children).

THE DEFENDANTS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ATTORNEYS
For Plaintiffs: Michael Connett and C. Andrew Waters, Waters Kraus & Paul, El Segundo, CA.
For Defendants: U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, D.C.

PRECEDENT-SETTING
This is the first time in its 44-year history that citizens have reached the trial stage of a lawsuit under TSCA. Paul Connett, PhD, executive director of FAN, stated the following:

“This case may be groundbreaking for environmental legal cases and, at least as important, it is groundbreaking for the opposition to fluoridation. Opposition to fluoridation is now at least 70 years old, but for most of that time has been wrongly dismissed as a fringe and unscientific position.

“The rapidly emerging science on developmental
neurotoxicity, especially loss of IQ from early life
exposure to fluoride, is a game-changer.
“It has brought the world’s leading environmental health
experts to not only engage in the science with the help
of millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health
funding, but also to conclude that the risk to children
is too great to consider water fluoridation safe.”

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS
As stated in their initial Petition to the EPA under TSCA, the Plaintiffs want the EPA “to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.” EPA has the authority to regulate drinking water additives.

The Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, and Mothers Against Fluoridation present the court with a number of human, animal and cell studies supporting the assertion that fluoride is neurotoxic. These include “over 50 studies linking fluoride to cognitive deficits in humans,” according to the lawsuit complaint. Since the complaint, 15 more studies have been published, for a total of 65 studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with lower IQ.

The complaint’s Statement of Facts says, “The National Research Council’s 2006 Review and Subsequent Peer-Reviewed Research Demonstrates Fluoride’s Ability to Harm the Brain.” It goes on to cite 50 human studies and 45 animal studies to support the claim. The complaint further states, “Fluoride Poses Neurotoxic Risks at Doses Comparable to the Doses Ingested in Fluoridated Communities in the United States.” The complaint includes extensive evidence to support the claim of neurotoxic risks from fluoridated water.

The complaint further states, “Susceptible Subpopulations Are at Heightened Risk of Fluoride Neurotoxicity.” “Nutritional status, age, genetics, co-exposure to other toxicants, and disease are known to influence an individual’s susceptibility to chronic fluoride toxicity,” according to the complaint. Infants, the elderly, those with poor nutrition, kidney disease sufferers, and African Americans are specifically identified as those with “heightened risk.”

Challenging the EPA’s own standards, the suit goes on to argue that, “The dose that would protect against fluoride neurotoxicity according to EPA’s Guidelines, and standard risk assessment procedures, is incompatible with the doses of fluoride ingested in fluoridated areas.”

The complaint also addresses the claimed dental benefits of fluoridation: “Recent Studies Show that Fluoridation Presents Little Meaningful Benefit to Teeth.” In support, the complaint cites a review of studies by the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected independent organization that critically reviews effectiveness of health treatments. The Cochrane review found a “high risk of bias” amongst the effectiveness studies and limited applicability to modern lifestyles. The review also noted that no Randomized Controlled Trials, the gold standard for health effectiveness evaluations, were found for fluoridation. The Plaintiffs’ complaint further asserts that “modern studies of fluoridation and tooth decay have found that the difference in cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas is small, inconsistent, and often non-existent, particularly in the permanent teeth.”

The lawsuit complaint concludes: “Fluoridation Is Unnecessary as There Are Safer, More Effective Alternatives, Including Topical Fluoride Products.” Citing a number of sources, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the complaint argues that “the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic,” that quotation coming from a 2006 report of the National Research Council (page 16).

In bringing the lawsuit, FAN and co-plaintiffs justify the legal action by asserting that the EPA “dismissed studies relied upon by Plaintiffs on demonstrably false grounds” and “failed to consider the research on fluoride neurotoxicity through the framework of its Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment.”

PROGRESS OF THE CASE
A timeline of the case can be found here.

Several rulings in the case have gone in favor of the petitioners, allowing the case to proceed to trial:

Key dates and rulings so far:

Dec. 21, 2017
Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor, denying the EPA’s motion to dismiss the case. In denying the motion, the court noted, “The purpose of citizen petitions is to ensure the EPA does not overlook unreasonable risks to health or the environment.” The ruling is found here.

Feb. 7, 2018
Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor, denying the EPAs motion to limit review to the administrative record, thus allowing use of important new scientific studies published since the case was initiated. The ruling is found here.

Sept. 25, 2019
Court denies extension of time for discovery, which the plaintiffs opposed. The ruling is found here.

Dec. 30, 2019
Court denies both the plaintiffs’ and EPA’s motions for summary judgment, found here.

May 8, 2020
Court allows plaintiff’s expert witnesses Drs. Hu, Grandjean, and Lanphear, to participate in trial, rejecting challenge by EPA lawyers. Court says benefits of fluoridation are not to be part of trial, denying effort by EPA to include that topic.

June 8 – 19, 2020
A two-week trial by Zoom webinar. Further details on the public’s access to the webinar will be announced prior to the trial. The trial had been originally scheduled to start in August 2019. It was then moved to April 2020 and further postponed to June 8 as a result of the coronavirus.

WITNESSES
Lead attorney Michael Connett has stated:

“We have been fortunate to be able to work with some of the world’s leading experts on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, and these experts will be testifying at trial.”

See Connett’s video update on the case.

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses (partial list)
Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD
Dr. Grandjean is adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. A Danish scientist, he works in environmental medicine and is the head of the Environmental Medicine Research Unit at the University of Southern Denmark. He has led groundbreaking investigations of neurotoxic chemicals, including mercury and fluoride. He is considered a leading expert in the field, having won numerous awards. (Curriculum vitae and Wikipedia)

Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD
Dr. Hu is a physician-scientist, board-certified in Internal Medicine and Preventive (Occupational) Medicine, who most recently served as Professor of Environmental Health, Epidemiology, Global Health and Medicine and the Founding Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto (2012-2018) and is now at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Hu was the senior investigator on an NIH-funded (National Institutes of Health-funded) study examining the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on IQ and other neurodevelopmental harm. (See Bio)

Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Dr. Lanphear is a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. Dr. Lanphear’s groundbreaking research on the neurotoxic effects of low-level lead exposure has shaped regulatory policy in the U.S., and he is now conducting similar (NIH-funded) research on the impacts of low-level fluoride exposure on IQ. Among his interests are early childhood health and environmental neurotoxins. (See Bio)

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD
Dr. Thiessen is a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis who served on the National Research Council panel that prepared the landmark 2006 review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” Dr. Thiessen has authored health assessments on fluoride, and other toxic substances, for the EPA and other federal agencies. (See Bio)

Defendants’ Expert Witnesses (partial list)
Ellen Chang, ScD
Joyce Tsuji, PhD
Both of the above experts are employed by Exponent, Inc., a consulting firm known for servicing large corporations."

MORE AT THE LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca...al/fact-sheet/

Day Two Of The Trial & A Recap Of Day One
6/9/20
Fluoride Action Network
From FAN's email update today:

"Day two of the TSCA fluoridation trial in federal court will start again at 8AM (Pacific) / 11AM (Eastern). You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom: https://zoom.us/download?eType=Email...c-f8ed8c91c5e0 ). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/...hNNEFtaklFQT09

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**

A Recap Of Day One & What To Expect On Day Two

FAN's Director, Paul Connett, PhD has written a great summary of what happened yesterday in court. Click here to read it: http://fluoridealert.org/content/the...c-f8ed8c91c5e0

Our Friends at Fluoride Free New Zealand have also created a nice document with information about two of the witnesses FAN has called to testify: https://mailchi.mp/fluoridefree.org....c-f8ed8c91c5e0

A number of media outlets have covered the trial. Click here to view the coverage thus far: https://fluoridealert.org/news/?coun...c-f8ed8c91c5e0
Today, we expect to hear the end of testimony from Howard Hu (principle investigator for the Bashash 2017 and 2018 studies https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.128...c-f8ed8c91c5e0 ... who will likely be followed by Philippe Grandjean (testifying from Denmark), and if there is time, Bruce Lanphear (a co-author of the Green et al., 2019 study and the Till et al., 2020 study : http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...c-f8ed8c91c5e0).

To help get the full value in watching this trial, here are the declaratory statements and resumes prepared by each of today's expert witnesses: Bruce Lanphear's Statement http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...c-f8ed8c91c5e0 and Philipe Grandjean's Statement:http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...c-f8ed8c91c5e0
These statements are now in the record and it's on these statements that their testimony will be presented by our lawyers Michael Connett and Andy Waters, and cross-examined by the EPA's lawyers."

http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/

DAY THREE OF THE TRIAL & A RECAP OF DAY TWO
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | June 10, 2020
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_6-10-20/

"Day three of the TSCA trial in federal court will start thirty minutes later than the past two days, at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern). 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.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/...hNNEFtaklFQT09

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**

A Recap Of Day Two & What To Expect On Day Three

Wow, day two of the trial was both entertaining and thrilling, as our second expert witness, Danish scientist and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, took the stand. According to many who watched, he left no doubt that fluoridation poses a threat to the brains of children, and he completely dismantled the EPA’s arguments, paid experts, and lines of questioning. It was a sight to behold, and once the court makes a recording available we will share it with enthusiasm.

FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD has written a comprehensive summary of Tuesday’s hearing (day two). http://fluoridealert.org/content/the...7-8c2a94d3d2a4
Media coverage has increased substantially, with major outlets now reporting on the trial thanks to our media team’s extensive outreach and education campaign. Two articles we’d like to highlight are those by the San Francisco Chronicle and journalist Dan Ross of Fair Warning, whose article was picked up by additional outlets, including the Oregonian.

Click here to view all of the media coverage thus far: https://fluoridealert.org/news/?coun...7-8c2a94d3d2a4
There has also been a great deal of social media activity around the trial. You can see some of it by searching for the hashtag #Fluoridetrial on Twitter, though we urge supporters using this medium to instead use #FluorideLawsuit as we have over the past year.

Today, we expect to hear the just the end of testimony from Howard Hu, MD, MPH, Sc.D., who testified on day one. We also expect to hear from renowned clinical scientist and professor Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH (a co-author of the Green et al., 2019 study and the Till et al., 2020 study). Here is his declaratory statement and resume: Bruce Lanphear’s Statement:" http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...7-8c2a94d3d2a4

A Recap Of Day Three
From FAN's email update today 6/12/20

"Day three of the trial was another exciting one, as FAN attorney Michael Connett continued to call our expert witnesses to the stand to reveal the truth about fluoridation’s neurotoxicity. The day started with the completion of testimony from Dr. Howard Hu, which was followed by testimony from renowned clinical scientist and professor, Dr. Bruce Lanphear. Some of the day’s most exciting moments came with Lanphear’s testimony as he explained that there was no safe level of fluoride exposure in regards to neurotoxicity, and that the effects seen in recent studies are “equal to what we saw with lead in children.”

After Lanphear, the court watched the deposition video of the CDC’s Oral Health Division Director, Casey Hannan. He confirmed that his agency agreed with the National Research Council’s 2006 findings that fluorides “interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means,” among many other stunning admissions, yet did nothing to act upon or study these findings.

Next was fact witness Dr. Kris Thayer, Director of the US EPA’s Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division. She confirmed the vulnerability of the developing brain to environmental toxins, as well as fluoride’s known neurotoxicity “at some level.”

The last witness on day three was veteran risk assessment scientist, Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, who was a member of the 2006 NRC committee that reviewed fluoride, and authored around a third of the report. https://fluoridealert.org/researcher...0-17ad6dcf6c18 The highlights of her powerful testimony included confirming that the EPA was ignoring the neurotoxic risk from fluoridation because doing so would require them to effectively ban the practice. She also compared the amount of evidence of neurotoxicity from fluoride to other toxins the EPA currently did regulate as neurotoxic, saying “the amount of evidence for fluoride is considerably larger.” You can read Dr. Thiessen’s full declaration and resume by clicking here: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...0-17ad6dcf6c18

Click here for a detailed and comprehensive summary of day three’s testimony by FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD. http://fluoridealert.org/content/the...0-17ad6dcf6c18
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, there are the three summaries thus far.

Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial.https://fluoridealert.org/news/?coun...0-17ad6dcf6c18 "

Recap of Day Four Fluoride on Trial
6/15/20
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...5-e8835d85b9f3
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE)

"Day four of the trial started out with the EPA’s cross-examination of FAN’s last expert witness, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen. This included a second failed attempt to have Dr. Thiessen’s testimony thrown out due to claims that she didn’t consider the potential benefits of fluoride in reducing dental decay. Not only did she consider these factors, but concluded decisively that the health risks of fluoride outweighed any claimed benefits. Thiessen was also attacked for her past efforts to educate the public about the evidence of harm from fluoridation, in lieu of the EPA not doing their job and warning citizens.

Her testimony was followed by another round of cross-examination of fact witness Dr. Kris Thayer of the EPA’s Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division. EPA attorney’s spent much of this time having Dr. Thayer explain what she considered to be the most methodologically superior systematic review process, and how such a review hasn’t been conducted on fluoride. This led to one of the most revealing moments of the day, when FAN attorney, Michael Connett, elicited a response from Thayer that was devastating to the EPA's case. He asked if the EPA had ever actually completed a risk assessment on any of the chemicals they have regulated using the methods Thayer suggested for fluoride. Thayer answered that they had not, showing that such high hurdles only seem to exist for fluoride.

The EPA then called their first expert witness, Joyce Tsuji, PhD from corporate consulting firm Exponent. This is the same scientists-for-hire firm the tobacco industry used to deny lung cancer risk. https://business-ethics.com/2016/12/...c-a6f814bc35aa The day ended right as FAN’s attorney started his cross-examination; where we will start again on Monday morning.
For those who want to use the reminder of this weekend to catch up on the trial, here is a brief summary from FAN’s Research Director, Chris Neurath:

We believe we are doing extremely well. For me, the biggest irony is that EPA chose the “experts for hire” from Exponent who in the majority of their work, are helping their industry clients avoid liability and regulation from the EPA. A major reason we brought this lawsuit was because the EPA is glacially slow at developing regulations to protect human health from toxic chemicals. The TSCA statutes’ Section 21 provision allows citizen’s groups to bring scientific evidence before an impartial court and jump start the regulatory process for chemicals that EPA has avoided for years, if not decades.

Congress inserted this process into TSCA to protect human health when EPA’s process is too slow. All of our experts on the human studies have equated the current harm from water fluoridation to that from childhood lead exposure. That will come as a startling statement to viewers of the trial. The conclusion that fluoridation is as bad as childhood lead poisoning from the time when leaded gasoline was still allowed comes from the worlds leading experts in this field, Professors Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu, and Bruce Lanphear.

All three have described the high quality scientific studies, which have brought them to this conclusion. All three have said that delay in regulating fluoridation risks millions of children suffering IQ loss and potentially increased risk of ADHD.

So, it is ironic that EPA will rely on the Exponent firm experts to try to argue there is insufficient evidence to take action yet. That argument comes straight from the cigarette companies and lead industries play book. We expect them to try to muddy the waters and sow doubt. As Professor Grandjean stated in testimony, he is "embarrassed for the EPA" to have chosen these people to defend their inaction in protecting children from neurotoxic harm of fluoride.

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. Some by very large margins. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...c-a6f814bc35aa

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

Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial.https://fluoridealert.org/news/?coun...c-a6f814bc35aa "

Fluoride on Trial Day --Week 2 Day Five
FAN's email update from this am
6/15/20

"Day five of the trial will start this morning (Monday) at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern). It will begin with the cross-examination of the EPA's first expert witness on the animal studies, Dr. Joyce Tsuji https://www.exponent.com/professiona...4-967e202bf3e0 of Exponent https://business-ethics.com/2016/12/...4-967e202bf3e0. After Dr. Tsuji, we suspect we'll hear from her colleague at Exponent, Ellen Chang, Sc.D., https://www.exponent.com/professiona...4-967e202bf3e0 who is expected to attack the human studies and do her best to create as much doubt as possible in exchange for a hefty payday from the EPA.

I also want to draw your attention to a new 30-minute video interview on the trial with FAN's Director, Paul Connett, PhD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYsx...4-967e202bf3e0 If you're looking for a relatively quick but comprehensive way to catch up with what has been going on, this is for you.

How to Follow Today's Proceedings

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/...hNNEFtaklFQT09

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** "

Media Blackout: The Federal Court Case To End Water Fluoridation!
16,623 views•Jun 14, 2020
Spiro Skouras with FAN's Dr. Paul Connett
80.2K subscribers

"As we are inundated with headlines about violent riots and looting being passed off as mostly peaceful protests, or how the dreaded virus continues to spread in communities around the world. There is another story taking place which directly effects hundreds of millions of people globally that is being blacked out by the mainstream corporate media.

Unlike the aforementioned crisis' which are being sited as the justification for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset. This public health crisis actually has a rather simple solution. To end water fluoridation by no longer adding the toxic substance to the nations water supply.

You would think this would be a straightforward process considering the mountains of studies which conclude fluoride is a harmful neurotoxin attributed to lower IQ's and ADHD. Unfortunately government regulatory agencies have been not only defending this practice for generations, they champion the forced medication as a great achievement in medical history.

Right now, in perhaps one of the most important trials of our time. The Fluoride Action Network is taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head on in an unprecedented court case that could lead to the end of water fluoridation in the US and possibly worldwide as other nations would likely follow suit.

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network to discuss the current court case against EPA and water fluoridation as the first week of the trial has come to an end and the second, possibly final week is about to begin.

Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org

Link & Times To Watch The Trial Live
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-...

Spiro’s Interview with Dr. Paul Connett & his Son, Attorney Michael Connett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQAjW... "

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GYsxI22XI-c

Fluoride on Trail--Recap of Day 5
6/16/20
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE AT: )
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...7-6ed9658c1f62

"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.)
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...9f120ea0a1.jpg
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...5c4213379f.jpg

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:
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...ba12157ce4.jpg
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. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...c-e041eb88e65c

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. http://fluoridealert.org/content/new...c-e041eb88e65c

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. "

Fluoride on Trial--the Finale--with closing arguments
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...7-6ed9658c1f62
6/17/20
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE)

"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/...hNNEFtaklFQT09
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** "

Fluoride on Trial --Recap Day 7 An Historic Moment
From FAN's email update today
6/18/20:

"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. "

http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/

Del Bigtree on High Wire talks with Jeffrey Jaxen about the fluoride trial
6/22/20
https://www.facebook.com/HighWireTal...5MDE5MzcxMTY2/

*********************************************
And
Dr. Paul Connett's closing statement: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...a-bfd62fd9a600

Twitter is censoring a new article by Joseph Mercola, MD on the #FluorideLawsuit and the most recent NIH funded research on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...12&oe=5F29094F

Link to Dr. Mercola's article: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=910815420

(Many hyperlinks to studies, etc. in the article not embedded here)
The End of Fluoridation Is in Sight
Analysis by Stuart Cooper, Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network
July 07, 2020

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have recently been published, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to the fetus and infants in particular
After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court, and fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks
The judge has urged the parties to discuss the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, after which the judge will present his final ruling
While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours
New educational and advocacy tools are available so you can take action to end fluoridation in your community or state, to immediately protect the most vulnerable
Water fluoridation is one of the biggest public health failures of the 20th century. Despite solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.

Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have spent millions of dollars on promotion and public relations to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.

But fluoridation is also one of the most widely rejected health interventions on Earth, with 95% of the world's population consuming water from systems that are not fluoridated.

For the past decade, the trend has moved in the direction of communities ending the practice, not starting it. And now, due to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network and its supporters like you, the practice could be on the brink of extinction.

The Evidence of Harm Is Too Great To Be Ignored
All tissues are important, but the most important organ to protect during fetal and infant development is the brain. Damage occurring to this organ during these early stages of life is permanent and cannot be undone later in life.

The evidence of neurotoxic harm from water fluoridation has been mounting at an unprecedented rate in recent years, and has quickly become the most urgent reason to end the practice as soon as possible. A cavity can easily be filled, but damage to a child's brain is permanent.

A large body of government-funded research now indicates that fluoride is neurotoxic and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the field have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.

This includes over 200 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain, 65 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, three human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and seven Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.

Over the past year, we've also seen unprecedented new science from Canada and the USA showing fluoride harms the developing brain from exposures due primarily to artificial water fluoridation at the "optimal level." Several of these high-quality studies were funded by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (formerly the National Institutes of Health).

Strongest Studies Published Over the Past Year
Seven studies published in 2019 and 2020 are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities with what the ADA considers the "optimal level" of fluoride in drinking water. These include:

Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's journal on Pediatrics. It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.
Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International. It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.
Till 2020 — published in Environment International. It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health. It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019 and Bashash et al, 2017.
Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health. It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride's effect on the pineal gland.
Malin 2019 — published in Environment International. It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The CDC funded this study.
The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only "one or two studies" finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, also concluded that:

"… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development."

It should come as no surprise then, that a draft systematic review published in 2020 by the National Toxicology Program of human studies of fluoride's neurotoxicity concluded that fluoride was a "presumed" neurotoxin based on the large number, quality and consistency of brain studies.

The review identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019), or the study showing that women in the U.S. had levels of fluoride in urine high enough to cause damage to the brain of the fetus (Uyghurturk 2020).

While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was recently echoed in a letter published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study, which said:

"Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation-a practice that reaches over 400 million worldwide-is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.

When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.

Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …

The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit."

FAN Leads the Fight Against Neurotoxins
Since 2000, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been committed to reducing exposure to fluoride, and even with all of the science firmly on our side, we couldn't wait for legislators and public health officials to cast aside their entrenched dogma in favor of fluoridation and catch up on the science. Instead, we initiated the legal process to end the practice that today affects more than 200 million Americans.

A little-known provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gave us our opportunity. It offers citizens a way to circumvent the corruption and force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit or limit the use of toxic substances.

Watchdog groups no longer have to convince the EPA of unreasonable risk; they can now have an objective judge decide based on an independent review of the evidence.

We are also laying the foundation for future TSCA challenges by citizens and environmental groups. For example, because of Judge Edward Chen's ruling to deny the EPA's motion to dismiss our case, TSCA law will now be interpreted to allow the EPA to be petitioned to regulate single uses of substances, rather all uses, which was the EPA's position. This change will make it easier for activists to force the EPA to review the risks of specific chemicals used commercially.

While it has been four years since this effort began in November of 2016 — when the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of nonprofits and individual citizens, presented a petition to the EPA to end the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public's drinking water — it has actually taken 20 years of effort by FAN to bring us to this point.

It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride's toxicity).

It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese neurotoxicity studies and much more. And, after much delay due to government shut downs and Covid-19, our day in court finally arrived.

Trial of the Century
The trial began with an opening statement from the attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Connett. He made the succinct but powerful case that fluoride presents a hazard (threat to the brain); that this hazard is a risk at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities; and that it is an unreasonable risk.

The EPA, represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice, argued that establishing fluoride as a neurotoxic hazard requires a systematic review, which they claimed FAN's experts didn't perform.

They also argued that the evidence showing harm from fluoride at the levels found in communities that practice fluoridation wasn't strong enough to yield action from the EPA. Both of these claims would be disproven by FAN's experts and attorney during the trial.

This was followed by three days of testimony from FAN's expert witnesses, all independent and leading scientists whose world-class expertise includes fluoride, neurotoxicity and risk assessments, and whose expertise the EPA has relied on in the past on other toxicants like lead and mercury. The witnesses included (click on links to see their declarations and resumes):

Philippe Grandjean, MD, Ph.D.
Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD
Bruce Lanphear, M.D., MPH
Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D.
Their testimony was followed by the EPA's witnesses, two of which were experts-for-hire from the corporate consulting firm Exponent, and one was a risk assessment expert from the EPA.

It was revealed that the EPA paid Exponent approximately $350,000 for their testimony, which was focused primarily on claiming that there was insufficient evidence of harm — something they're known for doing in every trial, no matter who they're representing or how strong the science is.

One of their witnesses, Dr. Ellen Chang, has a long history of defending and producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters, including for DOW Chemical's Agent Orange, Monsanto's glyphosate, 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.

Several paragraphs here couldn't possibly do the in-depth proceedings of the trial justice, or highlight all of the shocking and incredible statements that were made. I would urge you to read our detailed summaries for each of the trial days.

I would also urge you to visit our TSCA trial overview page, where you can find the basic facts, a timeline of all actions and rulings, links to all of the submissions made by FAN, links to all of the media coverage, and links to the studies we relied upon to make our case. You can also visit our Twitter page, where we provided live tweet coverage of days 3 through 7.

The Judge's Reaction
After seven days of trial and closing statements from both parties, the judge held off on making a final ruling, but he did make it fairly obvious that he was convinced that FAN fluoride was a neurotoxin and likely posed an unreasonable risk. He said that the EPA had failed to properly assess that risk, and illegitimately turned down FAN's 2016 petition for TSCA action.

The judge urged the parties to spend the next few weeks discussing the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, and leave his final ruling until that is complete. Both parties expressed doubt that such an arrangement would be fruitful, but ultimately agreed to move forward with it and update the court on their progress in the beginning of August.

We Expect the EPA Could Continue to Delay
We don't expect the overzealous proponents of the fluoridation, including the EPA, CDC and ADA, to roll over without using every avenue possible to save their credibility by protecting fluoridation. They've already proven time and again, they have deep pockets and no shame.

Proponents don't seem to realize that continued promotion will cause an ever-increasing loss of the public's trust in the agencies that are meant to protect them. Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science — and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact — will further erode the public's trust in public health programs.

While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours.
Right now, the only thing being protected is a failed policy and the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.

Before the trial the EPA had already intimated that they could appeal a ruling in our favor, and that even if we win the appeal the rulemaking process to end fluoridation's neurotoxic harm could take up to three years. This would mean tens of thousands more children permanently harmed by fluoridation.

This is why, regardless of the ultimate verdict, FAN will continue to need your support. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your support, contributions and sharing of our cause and legal case have played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue.

Please consider investing in an end to fluoridation by making a tax-deductible donation to our work.

Also, please consider signing-up to receive FAN's email bulletins and following us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. We will keep you informed about the latest fluoride research and news, plus give you opportunities help influence fluoride policy in your area and throughout the world.

New Tools and Resources to Educate Leaders About Neurotoxicity
While FAN is taking the lead in court at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours. To make the task easier, we have created a number of new educational materials.

First, is our handout on neurotoxicity. We have both a color version along with a black and white version for cheaper bulk printing, as well as a list of the references for this handout that you can combine to make a nice double-sided handout if you so choose. You can also check out our other handouts here.

Second, FAN's Research Director, Chris Neurath, filmed a Zoom webinar in which he presented detailed evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.

He described the rapidly accumulating peer-reviewed science showing that fluoride lowers the IQ of children and increases their risk of neurobehavioral problems like ADHD. He put those studies into perspective in ways we can all understand.

This video a powerful tool for campaigners and parents looking to learn the science and to share it with decision-makers. Neurath's presentation is about 50 minutes and includes a 30-minute question and answer session that took place at the end. Click here to access the PowerPoint slides used in this presentation.

Help educate your state-level decision makers about the neurotoxic harm caused by water fluoridation. Use our simple automated email system to send Neurath's presentation to your state legislators and urge them to introduce a bill next session to end the practice throughout your state: Educate Your Legislators NOW.

FAN has also produced a new video series entitled, "Four Game-Changing Studies," explaining the science behind fluoridation's neurotoxicity in four short videos featuring Paul Connett, Ph.D. The shorter format makes the content easier to share on social media and easier for local authorities to digest incrementally.

Game-Changing Study #1 — Bashash 2017
Game-Changing Study #2 — Green 2019
Game-Changing Study #3 — Riddell 2019
Game-Changing Study #4 — Till 2020

This week from July 6 to 12, Mercola.com highlights Fluoride Awareness Week by raising public awareness on fluoride – its sources, toxicity and impact to your overall health and well-being.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HijFxUoMzbs

While fluoride is added to water supplies throughout the U.S., an abundance of research now shows it’s doing more harm than good. Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can potentially lead to serious health problems, affecting many areas of the body – including your bones, brain, thyroid, pineal gland and even blood sugar levels. Fortunately, we have organizations like the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who are helping to fight the end of water fluoridation worldwide.

HELP END THE PRACTICE OF FLUORIDATION
There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.TOGETHER, LET'S HELP FAN GET THE FUNDING THEY DESERVE
In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation. "

Fluoride lawsuit update w/ Dr. Connett & Dr. Mercola
Fluoride Awareness- Interview with Paul Connett
773 views•Jul 13, 2020
Mercola
364K subscribers

"• Over the past 20 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of hundreds of communities across North America, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. This week, we’re helping FAN raise funds to continue their efforts to eliminate water fluoridation worldwide
• I will match all donations, dollar for dollar up to $25,000, given to this important cause during our annual Fluoride Awareness Week
• In 2017, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water. They presented their case before the judge June 8, 2020
• A landmark U.S. government-funded study published in 2017 found a strong relationship between pregnant women’s exposure to fluoride and the subsequent IQ of their offspring. The higher the fluoride levels of the urine of the women (a measure of their total exposure to fluoride regardless of source), the lower the IQ of the children
• A 2019 study found a nearly 300% increase in ADHD prevalence in adolescents in Canadian communities with fluoridated water supplies, compared to those living in nonfluoridated communities "

Fluoride Action Network:
https://fluoridealert.org/

Read the full article here:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...h-Paul-Connett

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J5ZPZw47gxY

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/sp...ZYQXkifQ%3D%3D


https://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/d...ain_health.jpg


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising...

- - - - -

edit:

A long time back, when watching a video about Codex Alimentarius (I think) I heard that 'soon' all spices and herbs would be irradiated on entry into the country (UK).

I'm far from scholarly enough to know what that could really mean, but I don't like the sound of it, as regards the actual effectiveness of using normally available spices and herbs from the shops.

Health food stores normally provide organically grown spices that have not been irradiated, at least in the US.
And we have Frontier Herbs here as well, a mail order company that provides the same, and probably other companies as well.
Seek and ye shall find!

Quote:

---

Posted by norman

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/sp...ZYQXkifQ%3D%3D


https://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/d...ain_health.jpg


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising...

- - - - -

edit:

A long time back, when watching a video about Codex Alimentarius (I think) I heard that 'soon' all spices and herbs would be irradiated on entry into the country (UK).

I'm far from scholarly enough to know what that could really mean, but I don't like the sound of it, as regards the actual effectiveness of using normally available spices and herbs from the shops.

---