Uploaded November 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
During the Fluoride Lawsuit, EPA tried to use a single study from the Basque region of Spain that found a huge increase in IQ as a centerpiece of its argument that there was too much uncertainty to conclude fluoridated water was neurotoxic. Extensive testimony was obtained from both sides about this study, including almost two hours of deposition from the lead author of the Basque study, Jesus Ibarluzea. Tellingly, despite originally intended by EPA to be a star witness, Ibarluzea withdrew from the case before the trial, which may have further reduced the credibility of his study in the court’s eyes.
The court ruling addressed the Ibarluzea study in depth and agreed it had many of the problems that had been pointed out during trial testimony. The court’s ruling said:
“The reliability of Ibarluzea (2021) is questionable in several respects: ..." [followed by 2 pages of detailed reasons why the court considered the Ibarluzea study of questionable reliability; Court ruling, pp. 27-29]
"… as also explained previously, particular characteristics of these studies finding null outcomes render them less probative here.... Ibarluzea (2021) found an unrealistic 15-point IQ benefit, included unexplained and implausible results regarding creatinine adjustments, and failed to control for seafood" [Court ruling, p. 39]
This video is available to help those wishing to understand why the court agreed that the Ibarluzea study deserved little weight.
During the Fluoride Lawsuit, EPA tried to use a single study from the Basque region of Spain that found a huge increase in IQ as a centerpiece of its argument that there was too much uncertainty to conclude fluoridated water was neurotoxic. Extensive testimony was obtained from both sides about this study, including almost two hours of deposition from the lead author of the Basque study, Jesus Ibarluzea. Tellingly, despite originally intended by EPA to be a star witness, Ibarluzea withdrew from the case before the trial, which may have further reduced the credibility of his study in the court’s eyes.
The court ruling addressed the Ibarluzea study in depth and agreed it had many of the problems that had been pointed out during trial testimony. The court’s ruling said:
“The reliability of Ibarluzea (2021) is questionable in several respects: ..." [followed by 2 pages of detailed reasons why the court considered the Ibarluzea study of questionable reliability; Court ruling, pp. 27-29]
"… as also explained previously, particular characteristics of these studies finding null outcomes render them less probative here.... Ibarluzea (2021) found an unrealistic 15-point IQ benefit, included unexplained and implausible results regarding creatinine adjustments, and failed to control for seafood" [Court ruling, p. 39]
This video is available to help those wishing to understand why the court agreed that the Ibarluzea study deserved little weight.
