There were several questions by reporters and others last week, related to the timing and circumstances by which Mr. Scott Smith first decided to reach out to Flintwaterstudy. The first we heard of this, was a telephone conversation that Dr. Edwards had with Miguel Del Toral of EPA, as memorialized in an email on June 8^th.

Dr. Edwards email to Miguel Del Toral EPA  June 8^th, 2018

“…On Scott <Smith>, he would have to make a public statement before I spoke with him, but if he did make an appropriate statement, or if he wanted to jointly work up something mutually agreeable in writing for release on Flintwaterstudy– I would work with him.”

That conversation was followed by an email from EPA’s Mark Durno to Dr. Edwards on June 14^th.

 Mark Durno EPA email to Dr. Edwards on June 14^th, 2018

 “Just following up on the discussion that you had with Miguel.  Scott is interested in having a private discussion with you about how his data is being misrepresented by the less-than-scrupulous activists in Flint.  He acknowledges and supports the Agencies and supporting experts position on the progress of the Flint distribution system.  Would you be willing to discuss this with him?  If so – how would you like to connect.”

Flintwaterstudy then began to work with Mr. Smith by phone and email, to give him a platform to correct false scientific statements, along with “lessons learned” from Water Defense’s disastrous work in Flint from 2016-2017. In all subsequent radio interviews, print articles on MLive and Huffington Post and other media–  Mr. Smith has stood by his retraction of flawed science as published on Flintwaterstudy. In a phone call this morning (7-28-2018), Mr. Smith again affirmed that he was sorry about his flawed scientific statements from 2016-2017, and that he still stood by his public retraction and apology. While we will continue to support Mr. Smith’s efforts to apologize and correct scientific errors—we have no other relationship with Mr. Smith. Any representation made to the contrary, by those who long supported Mr. Smith, or who have represented him—is simply false.