***
Landmark Fluoride Lawsuit Restarts in January: Here are Four Reasons You Should Care – by Derrick Broze – the freethoughtproject.com
After eight years in legal limbo, the second phase of the fluoride lawsuit will begin in January. Will we see the end of water fluoridation in the United States?
(TLAV) On Monday, December 4, Judge Edward Chen called for the second phase of the long-delayed fluoride lawsuit to resume in person in San Francisco on January 31, 2024. The proceedings will be the latest hearings in an eight-year legal battle between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The battle began following the EPA’s 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff’s petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The FAN is attempting to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be regulated or banned under the TSCA.
What’s at stake is nothing less than the future of water fluoridation in the US. Heralded as one of the CDC’s top achievements of the 20th century, the practice of adding fluoride to the water supply has long been deemed a common sense activity carried out by every modern city. To even question the safety of such a practice is to be derided as a conspiracy quack and rejected by polite society.
Nevertheless, concerns about the health dangers associated with ingesting byproducts of phosphate mining have existed since water fluoridation began in the 1940s. The FAN and its co-plaintiffs are simply the latest in a long line of scientists and activists who have opposed the practice of water fluoridation on several counts, including health dangers, bodily autonomy, and financial waste.
The first phase of the fluoride lawsuit took place in June 2020 when the world was locked down during the COVID-19 crisis. TLAV exclusively reported on the daily proceedings of the lawsuit. By August 2020, Judge Chen had delayed a ruling until new studies from the US government were released. However, the public release of those studies was delayed several times. Judge Chen would eventually rule that the trial could resume in January and that the proceedings would take place in person for the first time because of the end of COVID-19 restrictions,
Despite the potentially history-making implications of this lawsuit, there has been little to no mainstream coverage of the hearings. In fact, there has been very little reporting outside of TLAV. This is unfortunate because there have been several huge revelations in recent years. Hopefully, with this second phase of the trial, we will see a renewed interest in the actual science behind water fluoridation. As someone who has been reporting on and fighting against water fluoridation since 2010, I see numerous reasons to end the practice and no reason to continue it.
Please do what you can to educate your friends and family about the upcoming second phase of the fluoride lawsuit. In the meantime, here are four reasons you should care about this ongoing legal conflict:
1. Harvard Scientist Says He Was Threatened over Fluoride Science
In the first days of the lawsuit, we heard from the plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Phillip Grandjean, a Danish environmental epidemiologist known for his work on the neurotoxicity of mercury. Granjean helped the EPA establish safe regulatory levels for mercury in the diet.
During his testimony, Dr. Grandjean stated he had been threatened or coerced by a colleague at the Harvard Dental School after one of his studies concluded that fluoride was a neurotoxin. On cross-examination, Department of Justice lawyer Debra Carfora asked Grandjean about a statement he signed downplaying the significance of the results. Grandjean stated that the Harvard press department put the statement together and added his name to it. The statement said the researchers still agreed with the CDC’s position that water fluoridation is safe. Dr. Grandjean did not elaborate upon who threatened him or how often such threats may happen in his field. He also stated that the “fluoride lobby” infiltrated a World Health Organization committee seeking to exclude any mention of the harmful effects of fluoride.
On the specific harmful effects of fluoride, Dr. Grandjean stated in his deposition that “the weight of epidemiological evidence leaves no reasonable doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious human health risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure.” Dr. Grandjean has also stated that efforts to control human fluoride exposure need to focus on pregnant women and small children.
During his testimony, Granjean took particular issue with statements made by the EPA’s expert, Dr. Ellen Chang. “What she has written should not be relied upon… This is not science, this is simply a misleading report.” Grandjean continued, stating, “I’m embarrassed that the EPA would recruit Dr. Chang, who has already tried to kill some of my work on polyfluorinated chemicals, that they would recruit her to write this report full of biases. I get a little upset about it… I’m sorry to see what has happened to a colleague that works for a product defense firm.”
2. The #FluorideEmails Show Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine Blocked Release of Fluoride Review
Emails between the US National Toxicology Program and the CDC contain the claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine prevented the release of a long-delayed review on the toxicity of fluoride. Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network released the emails as part of open records requests.
The emails specifically reveal the claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph. An email dated June 3rd, 2022, shows Nicole Johnson, Associate Director for Policy, Partnerships, and Strategic Communication in CDC’s Oral Health Division contacting Jennifer Greaser, a senior public health policy analyst in CDC’s Washington office. Johnson states: “The latest we heard (yesterday) is that ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”
Michael Connett, an attorney with FAN, outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen. “These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”
***
Coventry Carol, Original Version of 1591
***
Dispatches from the Asylum 
Truly astounding it takes this long to do anything when this has been a huge controversy for so many decades and has been banned in most countries (including China!) for many years. Just goes to show how desperately they need us to be poisoned daily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes! Poisoned daily!
LikeLike