The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPA LOSES HISTORIC FLUORIDE CASE

Episode Date: October 7, 2024

Attorney, Michael Connett, Esq., joins Del with details on his recent federal court milestone win against fluoridation with a judge ruling that fluoride adds an unreasonable risk of IQ loss in children when exposed to what is presently considered “optimal levels”. Hear what this disruptive decision means for the future of your tap water.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

As though that wasn't, you know, the only large, giant, massive, you know, seismic event happening this week. There's also a huge lawsuit win. I mean, you want to talk about winning, hashtag winning. We won federal court rules that fluoridation chemicals pose an unreasonable risk to help. This is a case, a court case that we have been following for over a year now. And I am honored and pleased to be joined right now by. the lead attorney on this case, Michael Connett.

Michael, what did we win? What just happened? Hi, Del. Great to be here. Thank you. It was a grand slam of a court decision. I could not have asked for a more thorough, more detailed, excellent opinion from the court, 80 pages, very detailed. The court concluded, Dell, that adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water presents an unreasonable risk. of IQ loss in children. I'll repeat an unreasonable risk of IQ loss in children. And this is not at high levels, Dell.

The judge specifically said at the levels that we currently add to drinking water, so-called optimal level of 0.7 ppm, that that presents an unreasonable risk of IQ loss in children. That's what the federal court ruled this week after seven years, seven years of litigation involving extensive expert testimony on both sides, right? The judge heard from the best on both sides of the issue, right? The EPA, the government put up their best experts. We put up our best experts. The judge heard, you know, very strong viewpoints on both sides.

the full amount of evidence and reach this conclusion. So unreasonable risk to our children. And Dale, you were just talking about the food supply here in the United States and about how the chemicals we add here are different and we have than other countries. Well, I would add to that with fluoridation, over half of the people in this world who drink fluoridated white,

live here in the United States. We are the most fluoridated nation on earth. Wow. And it's not just the water. We add fluoride to over 200 million people's water here in the U.S. But that is not just, doesn't just stay in the water. It's contaminating our processed foods. It's contaminating our processed beverages. So I think that when we think about the food supply, right? Yeah. Which is a very rightful and focus, let us also keep in mind the water supply that feeds into the food supply, and fluoride chemicals are something that we really, really need to be getting out of the water

and following the lead of Europe, which for the most part has already done so. What's really unique about this case, I think, to me, Michael, is it fits into the world that I can, the work that we've done, done so often when it comes to chemicals or poisoning, you find it's a lawsuit against, I don't know, Dow Chemical or Monsanto or something like that. This lawsuit is actually against the government agency, the EPA. Why go after, I mean, was there corporations that are responsible for this

chloride in the water? But why the EPA? Why did, why did you bring this case against the EPA? Well, we brought it because there's a federal statute called toxic substances, Control Act, TOSCA, and the EPA administers that act. This act gives the EPA the authority to ban the particular use of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to health. So we went to the EPA and asked the agency to exercise its authority to ban this particular use of fluoride, namely fluoridation chemicals added to drinking water on the grounds that that presents an unreasonable risk to the brain.

And EPA declined our petition, denied the petition. And then we went to court. And the court has now ordered the agency to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to eliminate this risk to the brain from adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water. So that's now the next phase of this Dell is for the EPA to go back and begin,

begin a proceeding where it needs to answer a very complicated question. How do you eliminate the risk posed by adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water? Del, do you have any guesses as to how we can accomplish that? I don't know. I mean, I guess, you know, somewhere on that list should be actually removing it from the water, you know, how, well, and is there any limit to the amount of time they're allowed to take? I mean, if they stretch this case out for seven years, how long are they allowed to sort of deliberate on, you know, how they're going to make rules about this. I mean, I've watched this. I mean, we're all so tired of watching. It's just basically to be what my whole show is about all the way through is just these regulatory agencies

clearly are not working for citizens. At this moment, what we should expect is the EPA has now been forced by the court to recognize that this is damaging the brains of American children, which, which, like, as Robert Kennedy Jr. said in the hearing, if this was happening, if another country is doing this to us, it would be an act of war. If you were purposefully destroying the brains of our kids, our future, then it would be an act of war. How long does the EPA have to actually do something about this? The good question, and there is not a set timeframe. Now, we will be very much following and we have, if they are dragging their feet for two,

long, we do have legal remedies available to compel them to act in a more expedited fashion. But one thing I would say, Dell, is there is nothing stopping local municipalities, local towns and whatnot from acting now, right? Right. We don't need to wait for the EPA to reach, to issue some regulation, although that's certainly going to be monumental when that happens. But really, we should be, and I do expect to see a significant uptick in the number of communities that begin removing this from their water supply. We're already seeing it happen now because when we started this program fluoridation back in the 1940s, you know, affecting the brain, neurotoxicity was not part of the bargain.

this policy was supposed to be about the teeth and the teeth alone. So now that we know that this is a chemical that does affect the brain and doubt during the trial in this case, there was no dispute by EPA's experts, no dispute that fluoride is a neurotoxicant. Wow. Like, no one was disputing that. The only question was, well, what is the level where this affects? effect can be seen. And there was a dispute about that, right? But as to whether fluoride damages the brain, it was, there was no dispute. And so the question that we really should be asking ourselves is,

do we want to be adding a neurotoxicant, something that affects the brain, the developing brain to our drinking water? Is that a wise thing to do? I mean, these are those conversations where It's just shocking we have to have this, you know, conversation. By the way, hopefully somewhere quickly along the road to making some rules, the CDC might decide to take down this moronic page. Look at this. Community Water, Florida Nation, one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. Folks, every one of the CDC needs to be fired.

Anyone that allows that on the website beyond tomorrow that's in charge of the CDC immediate firing. Like, you're done. It's over. You have absolutely no concern for the American public. So, I mean, this is going to be a very disruptive ruling in the end. I know you're going to see this through the end, but at some point, how many states are fluoridating their water right now in the United States of America? There's fluoridation programs in every single state. There's 18 states that mandate fluoridation.

So every community that has like more than five or 10,000 hookups to a community water supply has to, by state law, Now, thankfully, most states it is and remains a local decision. So if you are concerned about this, you should find out what the law is in your state and then find out, because there is, the great thing here is people have an ability to affect change at the local level. Speak to your city council, village council, and, you know, see what can be done because people can, and we've seen it hundreds and hundreds of times. communities do stop this practice. They do stop adding fluoride to water. It can be done. Great.

Well, I would recommend to everyone out there, reach out to your local government, bring this case forward to them, go visit your representatives and say, get this stuff out of our water. We, in whatever state, here in Texas, I would say, we want to have children that are fully capable

of having, you know, cognizance in the absolute greatest brains and ability to think there is, why would we be putting a product in our water that is reducing, you know, their mental capacity? And, Dale, could I add something, something that was admitted to in this case that I think is highly significant? Because one thing that everyone in both sides recognized in this case is that the most vulnerable period of time in terms of fluoride's ability to affect the brain is in the early life stages when the child. in the womb and the early months of infancy. That's when the brain is going to be most vulnerable

to the effects of fluoride. And it is that time of life, Del, where the CDC, in this case, under oath, admitted that there is no benefit from swallowing fluoride and having fluoride exposure when you are in the womb and the first six months of life.

So the period of life, which has the greatest vulnerability for harm to the brain, is a period of life where there is absolutely no benefit at all. So if you think about it from a risk-benefit point of view, why are we adding this to water when you have a risk but no benefit for the pregnant mom, the baby. And that's something that policymakers really need to grapple with. You know, you know, everyone should be able to drink the water supply. Pregnant mom should be able to drink the water.

And if you're feeding a baby formula and you have to use tap water, you should be able to do so without a concern that you might be affecting their brain. It's literally what are we? 70, 80 percent water. Forget what the number in our bodies. Everything in life is driven by water. you're poisoning really the essence of life. I think Stanley Kubrick was probably ahead of his time back in the 1960s. And Dr. Strangelove, what he addressed is very issue? Just take a look at this. It's a great just to reflect on this isn't the first time this has talked about.

Man, Dick, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water or rainwater and only pure grain alcohol? Well, it did occur to me, Jack? Yes. Have you ever heard of a thing called flurring? Fluridation of water? Yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes.

Well, do you know what it is? No. Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face? I mean, you know, just watch it. I'm not saying it's a communist plot,

but it sure feels like it sometimes, right? I mean, why would we do this to our own people? Michael Conant, first of all, you're a hero, the fact that you have, you know, run this all the way through. Any thoughts, recommendations for what people can do beyond just reaching out to their official, you know, their government representatives? I mean, how do we make this a fast track issue? How do we put some fire behind what you've just achieved here? First, if I have to comment on that clip, classic piece of cinema, super funny. And also the bane of my existence is someone working on the fluoride issue.

Everyone does it to you? Yeah. You know, so it makes things challenging. Yeah. But, you know, I think that, you know, one thing I would say is, you know, what informed consent action network is doing, supporting this work, critical work on fluoride. Yeah. Is, you know, we really appreciate your support because it does make litigation like this possible.

And so that's, we just want to say that, Dell. You know, we certainly appreciate that. And but I really think at this point, you know, I think a lot of, I think getting this court's decision, this 80-page ruling into the hands of your local decision makers, I think that's really important next step here. And the National Toxicology Program's, you know, exquisite report from August of this year, the NTP, the federal expert agency on toxic substances, you know, concluded in August of this year

that fluoride does lower IQ at certain levels of exposure. So I think, you know, these two things, the court's ruling and the NTP report should really bring about a rethink on this whole policy of fluoridation. And, you know, certainly, you know, we're gonna be holding EPA's feet to the fire, making sure that they move in an expedited way to enact a regulation.

But while they're working on that, I think it's really important that we work locally and give this information to the decision makers so that we can remove it from town water and city water as much as we can. I do think, Dell, I do think we're going to see a significant increase in the number of communities putting this policy in the dustbin. Fantastic. I heard a rumor that you've become a partner over at Aaron, Siri, and Glimstad. Is that true? It is true. And it's been amazing working, you know, with the team of attorneys that we have and a team of just all around amazing people. So I'm thrilled to say, yes, I am now a partner at Siri and Glimstad working with Aaron and Elizabeth and the others. So yes, I'm very proud and honored to be part of the team. Well, that means we're going to get to work with you a lot more as that's, you know, the attorney body that we use for all the work that I can.

So proud of you, you know, just keep up the great work. And we will continue to track this story. And I'm sure we'll be bringing you on for other cases that we're bringing in the future, both in fluoride, food, water, all of it. We're going after all of it, Michael. It's time to have this country, have the healthiest kids in the world, not the sickest ones. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Dahl. I appreciate it. All right, take care.