What is the real question in the fluoride trial?
Is it allowable fluoride exposure levels, or government interagency complicity?
A California Federal Court trial regarding the safety for neonates and infants of fluoride added to drinking water, at the amounts recommended for dental health, recently concluded. https://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-on-trial/
As of 4.15.2024, we are awaiting a decision.
There is not a dispute that fluoride at certain levels is harmful. What that harmful level is, is the “presenting” contested issue.
I call it “presenting” here, in the sense that it is being treated as if there actually is a legitimate, understandable, scientific disagreement between the researchers in both camps of the quality and interpretation of data.
But what if that disagreement is not scientific in origin, but instead political and policy driven, with the EPA intentionally obfuscating data?
Is the real question at hand: “will a government agency override its own scientists and scientific work product to support policy decisions of a sister agency?”
If the judge rules for the plaintiff, then it will force the EPA to acknowledge as valid the longtime concerns about fluoride that have always been associated with the practice.
Finding risk calls into question to the competency and judgement of the multiple government agencies and NGO’s who have for decades been citing:
“Community Water Fluoridation – One of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century”.
An issue that was not addressed in the trial was the apparent intentional delay in releasing a National Toxicology Program fluoride report under pressure from various stakeholders, described here: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/health-officials-delayed-report-linking-fluoride-to-brain-harm/
Will public health agencies, (CDC, etc.), influence regulatory agencies, (EPA, etc.), to spin science to support Agency policies?
To answer the interagency question Judge Chen has to simply look at his courtroom.
Judge Chen’s court is being required by California Department of Public Health, CADPH, to use face coverings that the California Air Resources Board, CARB, discloses are not capable of reducing wildfire smoke exposure but are somehow magically capable of hindering Covid viral spread.
This is an example of CADPH influencing CARB air quality experts to make an unscientific claim to support CDC & CADPH policy. How is it scientifically possible that a mask that will not work on smoke could work on a virus?
And interestingly, unlike during the first Covid mask debacle, when the virus only attacked people in public when they were walking or standing, but avoided them when seated in a restaurant, the new variant apparently acts the opposite.
Masks are worn at the tables and in the audience, but not when testifying or examining.
(Zoom image captures only, no recording of the proceedings).
I have to commend Judge Chen for being in a very difficult position.
I liken it to the Judge in Miracle on 34th Street, who is tasked to determine if there is a Santa Clause. When the prosecutor demands the court rule on the reality of Santa Clause, the judge’s campaign manager sets him straight. “If you rule there is no Santa Clause you career is over”. Just substitute “fluoride” for Santa and you get the gist.
Scientists employed at the EPA have been critical of water fluoridation for decades.
In fact, at one point the collective bargaining agreement of the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU 280, who represent the EPA scientists required the employer to make non-fluoridated water available in the workplace. (This may still be true, but I have not been following as closely as when I first examined the issue).
EPA’s Dr. William Hirzy gave congressional testimony on June 29, 2000, describing the concerns of the EPA scientist employees, who were not being supported by EPA management. Click image for video link.
This post is toggling between masking and fluoride, here are further mask resources.
I appreciate your patience- I will be back posting more regularly, I have been working on a “behind the scenes” project.
If you find value from my content and presentations or want to support my work please consider a paid subscription, or for a one-time donation you can “buy me a coffee” (or two, or more).