Peter Van Caulart Interview - Part 3

Clint Griess 0:00 Okay, so I want to ask a question about fundraising for campaigns. So you've personally invested, that's not a sustainable model for most campaigns to rely on individual, large contributors, or is it? And then what are the alternatives if you don't have someone like you who's willing to spend, you know, such a significant amount of money, like a game changing kind of money like that?

Peter Van Caulart 0:26 Well, I don't want to leave anybody with the illusion that I went to the bank and wrote a check for $250,000 and just applied it against fighting fluoridation. That's not the case. When I talk about $250,000, I'm talking about actual cash expended, plus time expended, lost value for my time, and other intangibles that can be that can be related back to a time cost. And I know that it is cost me in business, because of my stamp on this. Some municipalities that are Florida's have chosen not to avail themselves of my services, because they really don't want the controversy in their municipality, with their particular workers. And so I have experienced a reduction in income as a result of, you know, taking that kind of stance. And that's what I've chosen to absorb. So don't be under Don't be under the illusion that it's somehow some magnanimous gesture of quarter million dollars. It's not.

Clint Griess 1:36 Now I appreciate I wish everyone would do that same calculation for this selves and all other activists, that's a really, really great way to choose, you know, well, coffee to do well.

Peter Van Caulart 1:50 It's easy to do. It's called opportunity cost, opportunity. Yeah, yeah, it's, so your choice has a cost. If you choose to fight fluoridation versus do something else with your time, like work an extra two hours at work, your opportunity cost, there is going to be whatever your labor was worth for those two hours. In the in the area of fundraising, what we've experienced, and we've tried this, we've tried direct appeals to people. We've tried fundraising for a legal challenge. We've tried fundraising around a particular community or cause. And here's what we find. And I think I can summarize most of these, most of these things, fairly succinctly. People who genuinely like your message, and want to support it, will support it with very small amounts of immediate cash. Generally, less than $10 at a time. If a if a hat was passed around at a, at a event where I did some public speaking and inspired some people, I know this from, from personal experience, six 700 people in the room, pass the hat around, you're lucky if you get $1,000 raised after a 45 minute talk. So people generally just don't, you know, pull out 20 or 50, or $100, and say, Yeah, that's a great cause, and they need to support it. And here's my support. Now, that's the best time to get money from people is when you've got them hot and emotionally involved, and you've hit a trigger with them, because they're more readily able to print with money. But these days, a lot of people don't carry cash anymore. They use bank cards. So you're less able to access their cash simply because, well, I don't have any I would give you some, but I've gotta go to the bank machine to get some. So that that small disconnect actually actually prohibits large cash fundraising operations right at the time when people are most likely to give.

Clint Griess 4:13 Well, we have we have tools now to take payments remotely. So yeah, quick swipes are available. But I can

Peter Van Caulart 4:21 well, you know, I'm not going to walk around with my smartphone and a little cube in it and say, well, just give me your card. And we'll just, it takes away from the spontaneity of being able to just haul a $50 bill or a $20 bill out of your wallet and say, well, there you go. There's my contribution. The second thing I found is that people love to give money, but they really want to get something for their money other than the idea that they've contributed to a cause. So a lot of people will say, Well, I'll give you some money, but I really want a tax receipt. And and so there They're looking for this, this side benefit, you know, they're trying to, you know, leverage their money, if you will, so that they can somehow get a tax receipt. And this is where the the larger fundraising schemes really work is if you're going to offer a tax receipt, and you have a dedicated fundraising scheme. What we've experienced that local levels is that individuals who live in a municipality that is not fluoridated, but adjacent to a municipality that fluoridated will say, well, that's really great message. I'm glad we don't have fluoridation in our municipality. But I don't need to, I don't need to help finance you even though I agree with your message. Because I don't live in that community. And, you know, that's very altruistic, I suppose, you know, individuals are, are motivated by self interest. And the self interest is that, well, it's not me over there. It's being affected. It's you over here that's being affected. And I don't see enough of a compelling reason that although I agree with the all of the arguments, I don't see a compelling reason to do more than I've done, which was show up and listen to you.

Clint Griess 6:20 Yeah. And we should be thankful when some of those Yeah, for sure.

Peter Van Caulart 6:27 And so the other thing is a, we've tried a long, protracted campaign around a single municipality. And I can tell you that the amount of effort that people have expended to get the money from donations would be better spent of those people simply all wrote checks for $100, and threw them in the pot and had the fundraising campaign over in five minutes. So you'll get, you'll get a volunteer base of maybe five to 10 people, you'll go out and fundraise like crazy, you might have sales of bake sales, you might have direct appeals, you might go door to door. And what happens is that, that effort really doesn't turn over a hell of a lot of money. And the last scenario is, you'll come along, you will have somebody who will say, you know, I'll give you $1,000, if you can get 20 other people to give $1,000. So basically, they're saying, oh, increase your fundraising capacity by 5%, if you can demonstrate to me that there are 20 other people who are of like mind. So they, they, they say that they're going to give you money, but they put a condition on it, that's almost impossible to achieve, or has to be achieved with Herculean effort on your part. And it really, quite frankly, the energy expended isn't worth the 5% that that that other person would give you. So it's it's those kinds of things that we've seen most commonly in, in fundraising, I think, in around the fluoridation issue, because the initial response to the the average person is, well, I thought fluoridation was good for you. I mean, that's their initial response. You can change their mind about that. But you can't change their mind, to the point that they're ready to reach into their wallet and support you. They will support you in, in on tax, they will support you in that in an ideal, but they won't support you financially, unless there is some other motivator. And it's very, very difficult to to find what that other motivator is. Yeah, and I think we've seen that across the board. Just about everybody who's listening on the teleconference today, who has been involved in some fundraising activities experienced one of those scenarios that I've talked about.

Clint Griess 9:16 And what really, let's talk numbers, how much money is decisive. I know, there's different kinds of campaigns, obviously, if it's an election, and there's going to be a lot of potential expenditures for PR advertising it, that sort of stuff. But if it's more of a citizen activist, you know, building a coalition and lobbying your councilman, you're directly. There's not a lot of cost there. So what have you found like, really? How much money does it take to win a campaign if money were decisive?

Peter Van Caulart 9:51 I, huh. That's a good question. I'm probably not the best person to ask about that. The best person I know of in this province that Ask is Robert Fleming because he personally headed up the campaign for the plebiscite, or the referendum on the question in the city of Waterloo in 2010. He, he and I worked together, the better part of three or four years on that. And I can tell you that it was a long, protracted, expensive campaign. And the difference in the vote, you know, the difference between the plus and the minus side of the ledger was, you know, less than a percent. So, it went our way, but the margin was very slim, that it went our way, which is exactly the same margin, that it went the other way, when it was a referendum held earlier in time, in that same community, although there wasn't any, any passion to, you know, involved in, in campaigning for against it that anybody can recollect in the earlier campaigns. So, who knows, it's, I think it's a real, real touchy subject, it's, it's hard to put one's finger on what motivates people to separate themselves from their money. And sometimes you just have to ask yourself, why you do it. And you need to know that you have the supportive of your family or your spouse. In my case, I probably have the single greatest spouse in the world. And I think my friend Robert Fleming would say the same of his spouse. These women have been absolutely stoic in supporting us and allowing us to carry on with the campaigns that we have together. Because they can see the result. And they understand that it's a thing that drives us from a much deeper place than anything else. In our humanity. It's just because it has to be done.

Clint Griess 12:19 Yeah. Well, that I love how, like, we're just touching on all kinds of topics, I'm so happy to, to get your wisdom, your counsel. And

Peter Van Caulart 12:36 let's go back to the the, the technology of fluoridation. And I have a good example, regarding leaching. In one of the campaigns in Ontario, the city of Thunder Bay, which is at the head end of Lake Superior, it's pretty close to Duluth. It was approached by the Public Health Agency in that city to consider putting fluoridation in is a a new thing for the city obsessively, you know, for the same reasons that we hear over and over again. And the one thing the city had done is the city had just recently built a brand new water treatment facility state of the art high tech. And it was one plant to replace to ageing water treatment facilities, one of which they had had tremendous amount of difficulty with prior to the new plant being built. And the city was very proud of their new water treatment facility and the fact that it didn't have fluoridation and public health latched on to the fact that they the city had put in this new plant, but in public health's view had admitted omitted fluoridation. So the campaign began. And in the early stages of the campaign, the city manager contacted me and said, If you have any information about fluoridation, I need it now. Because we've had this request and there's no way in hell we want to stick this process in as an adjunct to our facility because we've just finished building the facility and it's we don't want to start cutting it up. And I said, Okay, so I responded and gave him the kinds of resources that he needed to talk to his counselors and to assure them that this is not something but push came to shove and the the, the Health Authority had arranged with, believe it or not the Canadian chief dental officer to come in and Speak individually with each counselor in order to assuage counselor on an individual, individual basis. And counselors bristled a bit at that manipulation. And they suggested that perhaps the staff at the city could then to do undertake a study. Now in the city of Thunder Bay. Unlike most water treatment plants in the province, the city of Thunder Bay had a plant chemist and the plant chemist was employed to deal with the special problems of treating that particular source drinking water. And so the plant chemists devised a an experiment, utilizing different concentrations and different kinds of silica fluoride sources to evaluate what was going to happen on the treated water in their piping system. And one of the claims that they were worried about was the leaching lead. So the chemists came up with some test SEC segments of pipe that had a lead content to it. And he devised a test where he put known concentrations of fluoridated water into these pipes and evaluated their lead content for leaching as compared to the standard water that they have and the standard piping that they have. And he found that under certain conditions, pH was one of them. Low alkalinity was another one, that the lead, in fact, did Leach. And it leads at a greater rate than it would have without fluoridation, and report back to the municipality. Those results can be found on the cough website, for anybody who wants to see the results and the graphs for themselves. Overall, that was that was telling to the council that they were going to have to not only put in fluoridation, but they would have to put in a subsequent process to adjust the pH of the water. So what they were being asked to do is to put in one process, that degraded the quality of their source drinking water after it had been treated. And in order to

deal with a different chemical environment of their drinking water, they were going to yet have to add a another chemical process to reestablish the chemical environment from the point of view of corrosion in their lives. And they felt that it just certainly wasn't going to be as clean and simple as well. You just put the fluoride chemical in and you had connected chemical feed pump pump, and bingo, everything is copacetic because now we have fluoridated water. And so on that basis, that gives Council a very good leg to reject the idea of fluoridation in their community. And I won't say it was the only thing that swayed counsel, but it was certainly was was a very strong piece of evidence that counsel needed to say no, no, this is not something we want to want to do in our community.

Clint Griess 18:33 There you go. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question about campaigns again. Again, you have lots of experience in campaigning, and you've witnessed a lot of different campaigns over the years. So I've heard from campaigns that work that they have the ones that are sustained. They have a set of like operating agreements, they're called different things in different groups, but the ones that seem to have lasted, whether it's formal, or mostly formalized it at some point, but sometimes informal, kind of agreements to say if we're going to, we're going to leave certain topics like for example, very common things. We're going to leave other topics related or other any other topics off. out of the out of the conversation, we're going to focus strictly on this one issue drinking water and artificial water fluoridation. And that's too. So I was just wondering, from your experience, if you've if you've found operating agreements that work or if you see that that's that is essential to success. What is your experience with those kind of high level agreements?

Peter Van Caulart 19:42 Well, I can't say that I can recall anybody formalizing and saying, We're going to leave some topics off the table or enter the discussion. But I have found from from my own experience that you The places where a clear strategy of what they wanted to achieve was in place, have done better than places where there was no strategy. And often, where there is no strategy, what will happen is a bunch of citizens will line up successively to dispute, each one trying to tell the council their view of what fluoridation is or isn't. And we'll try and and introduce as many facts as possible in the shortest period of time, not realizing that, after seven or eight of these individuals have disputed, they've all said the same thing. And that's really a wicked waste of the opportunity, because in our municipal act, once an issue is brought before Council, and it's been thoroughly debated, etc, and discussed and voted on, there is a time requirement constraint that says, you know, it can't be brought back, unless there is a significant reason for doing so. And certain period of time has to pass in order to reignite the issue. So you may lose, you may lose the issue, and not have the ability to bring it back to the Council for a period of, you know, several years. And that's just a loss of an opportunity. The things we have found with campaigns that have really worked is often you'll need a cohesive group of 234 people who are willing to steer everything. And one of the things they must do is control the loose cannons, the people who think that, you know, they can go in and tell the council how it is because they hold sway in the community, or they're the best person for the job, or they've got the loudest voice or, you know, they coach, the local hockey team, and therefore they're the leader. And we get this. We have seen this in some communities that where you have people who want to run for the finish line to be first across the finish line to be able to say, well, therefore, you know, I did it, rather than we crossed the line together, and we did it. Those those campaigns fail miserably. And nothing's achieved. The best single campaign that I can use, as an example that I know of in recent history, is a campaign of three women who classify themselves as just housewives, who took this issue to heart in the city of Windsor. And in their particular instance, they methodically worked out where they were going to get their support from the various unions from the various associations. And they went to the municipalities that were adjacent to the municipality that was doing the fluoridation. And they spoke to those councils, first, at regular council meetings. And what they found was the adjacent communities were receiving fluoridated drinking water from a single treatment plant. And the adjacent communities were asked not to receive for the drinking water from their their one supplier to vote on this. And they were successful in going around to these adjacent communities and giving them all to agree that they didn't want fluoridation. But those communities had no way of shutting off the water supply from the water plant of the larger community that was providing it to them. So the last straw, if you will, was to go before the large community and say, okay, all of these other communities have voted. They don't want it was there a a consensus, there's a consensus there. We want you to reconsider it, and we need you to stop it. And they were seeking, you know, an absolute stoppage of the fluoridation system. For a community that had been Florida in for a very long time, I think the better part of 30 years.

And what they got was a compromise. The council agreed to stop the fluoridation for five years. And at five years, they were going to look at whether you know, the dental health in the community was worse or better. They were going to look to see what the impacts were. They were going to look to see the counselor was going to then reevaluate the whole of fluoridation system. Well, that was a better win, then trying to go for the, you know, the absolute cessation of fluoridation. So this community has had the, the fluoridation system off now for two years, I believe. And they're going to reassess this in three years as to whether or not they're going to put it back on. Now, the camps are aligning again, I can, I can assure you that, you know, those who wanted it on or to stay on are going to present whatever case they have for reinstating fluoridation, but these women have diligently worked in the background to keep tabs on what's going on. And, you know, of course, what they're finding is, there is no difference. When the fluoridation is turned off. They're finding, you know, things consistent with what every other community where where fluoridation has been turned off, has experienced that, you know, life goes on. And people don't see the the doom and gloom that is always prophesized by public health officials, you know, if you should shut fluoridation systems off, and so it's going to be very hard going forward for any municipal council to say, Well, geez, we think we should put it back on again. And the feeling is that, you know, in the province, this province, historically, if you shut it off, there has not been any case that I know where it's been reinstated. So the likelihood of it being reinstated is probably extremely low.

Clint Griess 26:57 Great. Great. So when he's talking about loose cannons, I understood there's that one kind of loose cannon that wants to rush do it. As very outspoken. Now, I'm gonna ask you specifically about the some people who seem to think it's important to say that fluoridation mass fluoridation of people was first experimented on in Nazi Germany, and how that, you know, the Nazis card, I have to just ask you,

Peter Van Caulart 27:40 yeah, that is one of those that is one of those inflammatory things that, you know, once it gets traction, everybody, everybody thinks, oh, this is a good thing to mention, especially for newbies at the front end. I forget the name of the effect. But there's a name of there is an effect well known in media and public relations circles, that if the word Nancy or Nancy ism gets mentioned, there's an immediate connotation in the receivers mind. And it usually is, it goes against the person who's mentioned it, regardless of what their message is. In other words, there's a backfire effect by using the word or term nets here, or Nazism. So that's the first thing that most people need to consider. And the second thing is the the report, the single report that can be found of anything associated with this was uncorroborated, and it was second hand at best, really low quality information. I'm not going to go into the details. I have done the research and I've looked for the corroborating evidence, and it found whatsoever. And that's the consensus of most of us who have any, any leadership in this issue? Is that any references to Nazism, and you know, gulags, and that sort of stuff, is pure hyperbole, absolute rubbish, and should be completely discounted. And this is this is where early campaigners can shoot themselves in the foot. They'll they'll rush they'll do a quick Google search on the internet, they'll see a reference to that. They'll think it's fact they don't go back and corroborate and they, they spit this out in a council and the council, you know, is willing to Lesson they've given you the time to listen and this is what they hear and they go really tease out Are you sure? And the minute it instills doubt in your receiver if you've lost whatever other argument or whatever other valid point that you're going to bring to that council. So this is why cough cough, created the cough cough that Canadians opposed to fluoridation created a website with fully referenced corroborated scientific data, rock solid. And it should be the only kind of data that anybody who is not a firsthand expert, who is not a PhD, who is not a fluoride researcher, be presenting to their council and councillors, because a non researcher, lay person speaking to the council has no credibility whatsoever with that council, because they don't, they didn't create any of this information. But the council needs to know where the original source came from. They need to know that for their assurance that they're not just relying on somebody's word, because it will say so. And so when people rush out and do these things, we have expended a huge amount of time recovering from those kinds of statements where they occur. I wish there was a way to I wish there was a way for a Google function that said, Okay, now corroborate this against other databases. You know, what I call Google corroborate ag app. And, you know, if you can get some corroboration, then you corroborate that. And it's do it in two or three iterations, and you get the same thing corroborating the same thing. Generally, you conclude conclude it's probably junk. And that's what most people don't do. They're not discerning, they just glom on to something that first comes up and they run with it.

Clint Griess 31:57 Okay. Let me understand. So summarize. You, on a pragmatic level is just not mentioned. Because it backfires. And that's just not something you can afford. Second, there's no actual corroboration of these tales. They are but myth. And so really, I want to take a little broader because really, this this part, this has traction as a myth. Because people have to answer for themselves the question why. And when they look at the collective effect of mass fluoridation? You know, there's the individual impacts that are so clear. But what then do we get when you spread it across the community? What do you see? You know, and so that allows so there's certain symptoms that people see, in societies that drink fluoridated water every day for years and years and years that there is an effect on the pituitary, there is effect on the pineal gland that has an observable collective impact, like dumbing us down, like making us docile, like these kinds of generalized dampers on our overall spirit, our willingness to perhaps question authority. So that's really the mythos here,

Peter Van Caulart 33:29 and it was sure mesh nicely with a conspiracy theory. It was sure mesh nice mesh nicely with, you know, individuals who are dissatisfied with other programs of government, and they're looking for ammunition to bolster their position. But those are delicious. What is what's really important is, most people tend to jump to conclusions about anything that they they learn that is different to what they believed was true. So as a practical step for fleshing out whether something is true or not, ask yourself what do you think the probability is that fluoridation was foisted on the world? Not because of some malicious secret society intend to do whatever, but more likely, because of total incompetence, and poor scientific method? At the time?

Clint Griess 34:38 Yeah.

Peter Van Caulart 34:40 So long before you assume malevolence, you better assume incompetence. And I think that's, I think that's the case before nation.

Clint Griess 34:53 Okay, okay. I understand that point of view very much. So imagine with me just the same thing. All of California, for example, or all of Canada, or all of the United States, being free of fluoridation for a period of time, where people thyroid, they're not being depressed and people's pineal glands are not being calcified. And people's babies brains are not being toxic poisons in their infancy, you know, wouldn't we expect to see a different society on the other side?

Peter Van Caulart 35:33 I think the question is simplistic. And so I'll give you this simplistic answer. And the answer would be yes, absolutely. If we know that, a known endocrine disruptor has been removed from our daily intake through water consumption, and that the food products that are made with water that has fluoride in it as a result of fluoridation are now put on, you know, are available on the market. I absolutely agree that the overall general health of the exposed will be for the better and not for the worse.

Clint Griess 36:18 Great, great. So then I also have visions for the future of water itself. I'd love to hear your your ideas of the future of water treatments, you know, seems the technology that's in place today is nothing new. It's been around for decades and decades and decades. And yet, so many other areas of society have advanced technology through a whole variety of technology. And there's something new under the sun that we're can deliver safe, clean water to every single household, in new with new technologies, new approaches anything at all, for the future. If you had a blue sky, the best water, you can imagine if we had unlimited money, and everyone was focused on having the absolute best water supply to the you know, every city and every home in America and around the world. What would that water be like?

Peter Van Caulart 37:13 Well, that water wouldn't be too unlike what we see right now. What we have, what we have learned in the last 50 years, is we have created machines that have been pushing back the limits of zero. So in the 1950s, we were happy if we could get a contaminant level down to one or two decimal places. And now we're talking about removing contaminant levels down to four or five decimal places. So the ideal of reaching zero something in the water. Although it's it is the most desirable. The the number comes with a cost to achieve. And that cost has to be balanced against Is there a health effect? If the contaminant in the water is kept at a substantially low enough level? Then Then if we can do that, and we can do that at relatively low cost, we all win. So we're always balancing in the water treatment world, we're always balancing the contaminant levels, versus the health effects the noan health effects of real science and the costs associated with producing the drinking water. So

Clint Griess 38:37 okay, that's pretty conventional thinking. I'm just looking for something unusual, something visionary, something revolutionary, perhaps I mean, what about ultraviolet light for sanitation versus chlorine or I there's so many things, let me not know.

Peter Van Caulart 38:50 Let me talk about those. What, what we've learned and put this into context in decades. In the in the 1970s disinfection byproducts were the things that were discovered in water suddenly, the panacea that chlorine was suddenly became suspect because Korean came along with disinfection byproducts, those disinfection byproducts were shown to trigger certain kinds of diseases, chronic diseases and individuals who had been consuming water at the levels at which they were being chlorinated. In the 1970s. We change the technology in the water business where we, for instance, no longer hit the source water with massive amounts of chlorine. And we did we change that because we found out that we could hit the treated water with a much smaller amount of corn regime and get a better effect and reduce the amount of byproducts that were created. So just by taking the technology of the 1920s 30s and 40s, and moving that technology to a different position in the treatment train, we were able to improve the water quality that people enjoyed as a result of that small change. And we have been tweaking the water treatment process all along, we now employ not just chemically assisted filtration in many water treatment plants. But we also have added tertiary processes of compound disinfection, which is the use of more than one kind or style of disinfectant, because certain disinfectants have better action at removing certain biological threats in the water. And by using these compound disinfection technologies, ozone is a good example, ultraviolet light is a good example along with chlorine, we have been able to further reduce the amount of pouring into the smallest amounts going out into the system rather than the large amounts. That once went out into the system where people complain that the water tasted like Clorox or jab X. And those kinds of incremental changes have been incorporated into water treatment technology throughout the world. Now they have come along at a time when we've had substantial advances in technology, better advances in sensors, better computer control over chemical addition, and concentration regulation. So in the past, in some plants, and some, some facilities, you may have seen wide swings between, you know, chemical being added. And then oh, I think that are we we've tested, and we've seen that it's too much and we need to cut back. And we now have very tight computer controls of chemical addition that keep the levels of the chemicals very steady and proportionate to the need in the drinking water. The other thing that has happened is we've got much better, much better research, what we're finding is that more and more people have discovered that water is a worthwhile subject for study. And as water use, and water supplies dwindle, and water requirements go up more time and energy is going to be expended at providing water at

levels that are sustainable levels that are healthful, and levels that are economical for all peoples in the world, not just for the haves and to the exclusion of the have nots for everyone. And we're realizing that if we don't do this with water, and and we're not consistent with our application of this, we will have squabbles breakout, we will have war breakout in areas where you know, people who don't have access to water will fight in order to get access to water simply because it's so essential to human growth and development. So the the water treatment industry has been moving ahead and leaps and bounds. Unfortunately for the average person, their contact with the water treatment industry is what comes out of the tap. And to them doesn't look any different, doesn't taste any different. You know, it doesn't feel any different. It's just water. It's taken for granted. It's one of those things that everybody on the planet who gets water piped to them takes for granted, you only start understanding it when you have to go out and get it on a daily basis. Or you have to understand that you have a finite amount, and that you just can't squander it at the rates that we've been squandering in North America are the highest in the world. You look at pleased people in Australia, they only have water available 667 weeks of the year through natural sources and rainfall. And they have to hang on to that water and make it last through the remainder of the year. So they have a very different outlook on how they deal with water. Same with Japan, an extremely high concentration of people in a place that has very little naturally flowing water so they have to be very diligent in how it's used. And meet it out amongst the population.

Clint Griess 45:04 Okay, great. Well, Peter, I'm gonna just thank you for your time. And I have got so many notes here. I'm just so glad I met you. You're a huge resource, I thought initially, you're going to be hitting the gold mind with hitting the jackpot with your expertise in water treatment, but I've just gotten so much more. So much more.

Peter Van Caulart 45:38 Thank you, I am outspoken on the on the issue. There is lots and lots of material that I've produced all over the place. And I'm fairly consistent in my in my message about things I've written are things I've had published or things that you know, people have taken video etc. Unfortunately, some of the best video of me debating and disputing in, in public councils is right now being has not been put up on the internet. And that's because we believe that we have everything for a successful legal challenge, and we don't want to give anything away that may in you know, impact that legal challenge. So we're being very strategic, but that

Clint Griess 46:35 yeah, I appreciate that. I do. It's really wise.

Peter Van Caulart 46:41 Yeah. It would be lovely if we could get the funding for that legal challenge. Okay, so Andre, that's where we're, that's where we're sitting right now. We've we've done all the homework, we've got it, we know that we've got to beat and it's we're not beating it on science, we're not beating on, you know, the ethical issues we we've got to be legally. However, a legal challenge in this country is expensive, like it is in any country and minimum is, you know, several $100,000 to get things rolling and, and maybe even more to keep going depending on the the pushback. And we're fighting a public purse. So the public purse is, you know, it's never ending at that point. And it's pretty hard to go up against the Goliath when you only have the one rock, you got to make that one rock camp. Wow.

So if everybody wants to fund their, you know, funnel layer funding to us, we can get it done. And as Paul Connett says, If Ontario goes down, there goes Canada, because Ontario represents better part of 20% of the the fluoridation of the remainder of the country. So that would make get off Ontario went down that would make Canada less than 10%, fluoridated. And you could wipe that one off off the map very quickly. And with Canada down, it's not very easy for Australia to continue to hold their position, nor New Zealand, nor England, all of which are, you know, places of marginal fluoridation at best anyway. And and hopefully Ireland would follow suit. And what have you got left? United States and Malaysia? United States and Singapore.

Clint Griess 48:54 So that's about it. Right. Well, I understand Brazil's forwarded to. Yeah. And I just got an I just got an email from someone from Israel, just while you've been talking. And I'm curious to see what he's got going on.

Peter Van Caulart 49:08 Well, I don't think they've reinstated it in Israel. So

Clint Griess 49:13 I'm wondering what he's writing about. So thank you very much, Peter. I thank you for your service in general for all the years and I thank you for your time, I hope to talk to you again.

Transcribed by