Can you talk about the other dangers of fluoride, what you've seen in your studies, and all the research you've done?

Yeah.

First, the bones.

You know, we know that most of the fluoride that is ingested, you know, that it stays in the body, goes into the bones.

Fluoride is a bone-seeking, um, element.

And so the fluoride...

Your bones accumulate fluoride as you age, and we have a large number of animal studies and human clinical trials which show that f- when fluoride accumulates in your bones, it makes the bones weaker, more fragile, and more prone to fracture.

What are you currently doing?

Can you talk about the other dangers of fluoride, what you've seen in your studies, and all the research you've done?

Yeah.

First, the bones.

You know, we know that most of the fluoride that is ingested, you know, that it stays in the body, goes into the bones.

Fluoride is a bone-seeking, um, element.

And so the fluoride...

Your bones accumulate fluoride as you age, and we have a large number of animal studies and human clinical trials which show that f- when fluoride accumulates in your bones, it makes the bones weaker, more fragile, and more prone to fracture.

What are you currently doing?

So, Paul

Fain, Yeah, and I would say, I guess if you live in Florida.

Okay, Florida is making incredible progress on this issue and Um, like there's a farm bill that is, looks like it's just about to pass.

And if it passes, it will ban fluoridation in Florida.

And so I think for those of you out there in Florida, actually, if in Florida, you're probably pretty good right now.

Other States, for those of you who are concerned, I think that there's, you know, between the court decision.

And the NTP's report, the National Toxicology Program's report, which was published, by the way, and this is one thing I did mention, Michael, the National Toxicology Program's report was finally published in August of last year.

Do you find that the idea that fluoride is dangerous is gaining traction in mainstream public circles?

So make sure it's not stressing yourself out.

Yeah, I was actually just, I was going to say that point right there in that once there is a point at which dressing about it becomes a stressor.

I mean, all these chemicals we're talking about are stressors on your body, right? You want to reduce the amount of stressors that we are exposed to.

Stress is a stressor, right? So there's finding that balance.

For me, I look for the things that I can control without going like, you know, and as Zen said, you got to do you.

So everyone has that different sweet spot.

For me, avoiding fluoride from my water is easy.

Thank you very much.

in the U.S. is 0.7.

So about four to five times higher than what the safety level would be if we use this safety factor of 10.

So Dr. Barone's testimony highlighted the risk involved with water fluoridation as it pertains to the brain.

And that was a very significant admission.

Now, I want to talk about the key dispute at trial.

And that is, what is the hazard level? What is that level where fluoride goes from safe to neurotoxic? And this kind of goes back to some of the questions we were talking about at the beginning where I was asking the CDC and EPA and others, what level do you consider safe? And they didn't know because they hadn't studied it.

The systematic review that NTP did, and I think the Vernier also is sort of pointing in that direction.

Okay.

and making false statements about what actually is a health effect and what isn't a health effect.

So as Dr. Carton explained, the union tried to work it out internally with the administration, but they weren't getting any response.

And so they felt they had no choice but to join this suit.

It was the Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, which filed the suit.

Unfortunately, the court did not allow the union to join the case, but they tried to.

So I want to fast forward a bit and talk again about a report that I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, which is the National Research Council report from 2016.

This report, which took three years to complete, the NRC looked at the adequacy of EPA's safety standard and concluded, not surprisingly, but concluded that this standard is too high, it's unsafe, and it needs to be lowered.

Predominantly, that's where the benefits are, yes.

So I think that's really hopefully a takeaway that people come out of this with.

One thing I'll add is a concept that was addressed in my court case against the EPA at length.

And it's something that the EPA is very cognizant of when doing risk assessment.

And that is this notion of intraspecies variability.

which is another way of saying that humans respond very differently to one and the same dose of a chemical.

Some people are resistant to even high levels of a chemical exposure.

Some people are vulnerable to low levels of exposure.

So that's really, that has to be the end game.

Looking forward to what you have to say.

Great.

So let me go ahead.

I'll get my PowerPoint on here.

And can you see this okay?

Yes.

Okay, so as you were just mentioning, I have been involved in a court case against the EPA, which is the subject of my discussion today.

yes