EPA loses Federal Fluoride Trial!

Judge Chen has made a very, very brave ruling.

From Fluoride Action Network:

“WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Fluoridation Chemicals Pose An “Unreasonable Risk” To Health

September 25, 2024 | Fluoride Action Network

History has been made. After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case. A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an “unreasonable risk” to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor.

Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling:

“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

In this moment we want to recognize attorney Michael Connett for pursuing this case and leading the effort every step of the way. He’s a true superhero to all of us here at FAN. Many other amazing team members were also involved in making this a reality and deserve great appreciation and thanks, including our co-plaintiffs and all of you who donated and spread the word about our case. Take a moment to celebrate this momentous occasion, wherever you are. After 7 years, we all deserve it.

Please stay tuned as we will provide further comprehensive details on the ruling.

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network”

Great Job!

Personal Commentary:

When my son was born, an RN friend, who knew I had a well for my water supply, asked me if I would be using fluoride tablets since I wasn’t on city water.

I answered, “I don’t know, I will have to check.”

That started a deep dive into what I discovered to be an, “EME”, -Entrenched Medical Error- that is adding fluoride to the public water supply.

By the time I was done, and reported back that, “No, no fluoride tablets for my son, and I am going to be avoiding fluoride now whenever possible”.

My RN friend told me, “I wish I had never asked”.

Not too long after that exchange, I saw this interview with Christopher Bryson, the author of “The Fluoride Deception”, on Democracy Now, which verified my decision.

Interview starts at 47:00 minutes.

Quote from this interview, “Anti-fluoridation is a media slur.” 51:20

“JUAN GONZALEZ: The common understanding that many of us have in this country is that there’s been sort of a persistent, anti-fluoridation move independent this country, but it has been considered like the fringes of American society. Could you talk a little bit about how the development of the atomic bomb would involve in the whole fluoride campaign?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, that’s — it’s a media smear, Juan, as the grassroots citizen movement against water fluoridation of that fact came into being almost immediately ....”

Look for the backpedaling from all of the pro-fluoride types, who will try to characterize this all as “new information, we didn’t know”.

Wrong, the dangers of fluoride were known long before the water policy was implemented and has required intentional ignorance to be maintained for the decades since.

Another “conspiracy theory” proven to be “conspiracy fact”.

Fluoride Deception Documentary, click image below.

Amazon link to the book

Duplicate of previous fluoride post below:

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.

INVESTIGATION: CDC Upset Their Own Expert Advisers Not Recommending Masks, Demands They Recommend Masks

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).

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/karlkanthak