Fluoride Trial Activism Conspiracy Derrick Broze Domestic Policy Environment Government Health Propaganda Science Top News

#FluorideLawsuit: Censored Review on Fluoride’s Toxicity Will Soon Be Made Public

Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the U.S. government have agreed to the release of a censored report on the toxicity of fluoride, the latest development in the ongoing Fluoride lawsuit.

After numerous delays, and intervention by Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine, the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s review of Fluoride’s toxicity will soon be released to the public. The move is the latest development in the nearly decade-long legal battle between the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), parent agency for the National Toxicology Program, have agreed to the release of the long-delayed NTP review on fluoride’s toxicity. The release of the documents will play a major role in the next phase of the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.

The decision to release the documents was made at a February 3rd meeting between counsel for the Fluoride Action Network and the NIEHS following a subpoena requesting comments from the agency, the NTP’s responses, and additional documents relevant to the decision not published in the NTP’s completed fluoride monograph in May 2022.

The NIEHS agreed to publicly post the NTP monograph to the NTP website, as well as comments provided by a little known bureaucracy known as the Board of Scientific Counselors, and the NTP’s subsequent responses. In addition to the NTP monograph they will also publish a related meta-analysis that has been a subject of debate in recent hearings.

In a hearing on January 10th, Michael Connett, representing the Fluoride Action Network and other plaintiffs, expressed interest in obtaining comments from officials within the Department of Health and Human Services. In a declaration to the court, Dr. Richard Woychik, Director of the NIEHS, claimed it is these comments from unknown officials at the HHS which lead to the monograph being put on hold.

The EPA told Judge Edward Chen these comments should be privileged and not allowed as evidence in court or made public. Ultimately, Judge Chen ordered the two parties to meet and come to an agreement about which documents would be made public.

The NIEHS agreed to post the documents on or before March 15th, before the next scheduled court hearing on April 11th.

Judge Chen has previously said he is likely to set a new trial date at the April hearing. The release of the NTP monograph, a related meta-analysis and interagency comments are likely to play a major role in the second trial phase of the nearly decade-long legal battle.

The Fluoride Emails Reveal Corruption of Science

The discussion around the comments related to the NTP’s unreleased monograph stem from revelations contained within internal CDC emails which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by Connett. The emails indicate the NTP report was not made public due to interference from Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and National Institute of Health Director Lawrence A. Tabak. One email from the CDC dated June 3, 2022, specifically stated, “ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

Connett 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.”

As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.

In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”

However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.

Meanwhile, another study on the toxicity of fluoride has been published by scientists from Toronto’s York University in the journal Science of the Total Environment. The study, Fluoride Exposure And Hypothyroidism In A Canadian Pregnancy Cohort, linked fluoride exposure with an increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women.

“The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” stated Christine Till, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and one of the study’s authors.

Derrick Broze
Derrick Broze
Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.

8 Replies to “#FluorideLawsuit: Censored Review on Fluoride’s Toxicity Will Soon Be Made Public

  1. So they met to ‘pick and choose ‘ which documents to release to the public? That doesn’t sound good. I wonder if we’ll know what they refused to release?

  2. Derrick, thank you so much for all your hard work on bringing the fluoride debate to the forefront of discussion. As an ex-dental hygienist who is against fluoridation and 5G, btw, due to health concerns, your work on both subjects has been stellar!

  3. Enjoyed your interview with Del. I am planning to write a substack on this subject. May I ask, why do you and/or the lawyers believe that fluoride is toxic in humans. I see and read all of the evidence but what is the mechanism. How is sub ppm concentrations of fluoride in blood and other body fluids resulting in toxicity. I would appreciate your thoughts/information on this.

      1. Thank you but this research highlights an association. The authors are also unsure of a mechanism of toxicity.

  4. I do not believe Organic Consumers Association is a Plaintiff in this case. There are a few citizens and their children, but not Organic Consumers Association. OCA was one of our original petitioners on our TSCA petition to EPA back in 2016 but I do not believe they are involved in our lawsuit in 2023.

  5. If they take the fluorisilic acid aka “fluoride” out of the water, they’ll probably add it to the cocktails of chemtrails they’re dumping on us daily.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *