Fluoridationists Misrepresent Fluoride Lawsuit Ruling

“If we were to use the standard of certainty for regulating environmental chemicals then virtually every regulation we have today to protect the public from toxic chemicals would disappear overnight. You virtually never have certainty as to the dose that causes the harm. Thats the purpose of risk assessment. How do you best navigate the uncertainty to best protect the public.” - FAN Attorney Michael Connett tells Derrick Broze.

Fluoride pushers are misrepresenting one sentence in the #fluoridelawsuit’s 80 page ruling to claim that the Court did not conclude that fluoridated water is harmful, citing this passage:

“It should be noted that this finding does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.”

The quote omits the rest of the sentence, which is “… rather, as required by the Amended TSCA, the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.”

The court recognized that there is rarely complete certainty of harm in risk assessment, and the EPA does not require it. Judge Chen stated clearly in his ruling that:

“The trial evidence in this case establishes that even if there is some uncertainty as to the precise level at which fluoride becomes hazardous (hazard level), under even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe.”

Originally uploaded on Oct 22, 2024