(0:00 - 0:14) The debate over fluoride in our water has been raging for years now. On the one hand, we have the dental industry telling us it prevents cavities. On the other, data which shows that fluoride is a toxin that causes brain damage. (0:15 - 0:40) Years ago, if a medical college disciplined a doctor, we could be fairly sure that was a doctor we shouldn't trust. But since the start of the COVID narrative, we've seen one ethical doctor after another targeted by the colleges for telling us the truth. So much so that today, at least for myself, if a doctor has been attacked by their college, it's a sign they can be trusted. (0:41 - 1:06) Dr. Bob Dickson is one such doctor. The founder of Safe Water Calgary, Bob knows more about the detrimental effects of fluoride than any expert I've ever spoken with. 38% of municipalities in Canada are currently fluoridating their water, while data shows a catastrophic effect on our long-term health, and especially on our children. (1:07 - 1:39) Then, just two weeks ago, a bombshell report revealed that in the US, the CDC was pressuring municipalities to keep fluoride in their water. Why? The answer, as always, is who benefits. And in this case, the answer to that question will not only shock you, but convince you that not only does fluoridated water have almost no effect on preventing cavities, but it was never put into our water for that reason in the first place. (1:47 - 1:52) Dr. Bob, welcome back to the show. Nice to be here, Will. It's been a very long time. (1:52 - 2:00) You were actually one of my early interviews when I started becoming a journalist way back in 2020, 2021. And, yeah, it's been a long time. A lot's happened since then. (2:00 - 2:14) A lot has happened since then. And you and I were talking before the interview about how, before I became a journalist, a freedom fighter, and started questioning everything I'd been taught, I thought fluoridated water was actually a good thing. You know, it's good for your teeth. (2:15 - 2:20) Even you, back in the 90s, you're a doctor, of course. You thought, sure. And then you started doing your research. (2:20 - 2:37) So let's start with that, Bob. Why shouldn't we have fluoride in our water? Well, as you mentioned, in 1998, I voted for water fluoridation as a busy family doctor, didn't have time to look at the literature and everything that came across my desk. And Alberta Health Services made it sound pretty good. (2:38 - 2:50) Calgary Health Region, they had some glitzy pamphlets and brochures and had the radio waves and the TV ads and sounded like a good thing. Helped the poor, you know, save cavities in the poorest. So I voted for water fluoridation in 98. (2:50 - 2:59) And then friends came to me, activist friends, and said, you really should look at the literature. Took that as a challenge, and I did. And my goodness, what I found. (2:59 - 3:17) And so I enlisted Dr. James Beck, who is one of my mentors at the medical school at University of Calgary, PhD MD, double PhD MD. And he looked at the literature. And he said to me a couple of weeks later, he said, Bob, there's so much science here that we'll win this in a few months. (3:17 - 3:27) And I said, OK, Jim, let's do it. 12 years later, yes, 12 years ago, we finally got it out in 2011. Fluoridation was ended in Calgary in 2011 without a vote. (3:27 - 3:47) And I have to add there, we should not be voting in a plebiscite whether to medicate your neighbor, your friends, whatever. But unfortunately, it's coming back here in Calgary. It is, unfortunately, because of the, shall we say, insidious efforts of the pro-fluoridationists behind the scenes, in front of the scenes, on the press. (3:47 - 4:04) We can't get in the press at all. The last six years, we've not been allowed any press on the anti-fluoridation side. We have many experts in Canada and the United States that could speak to this, but we're not allowed from the highest pay grades in the press to have anything anti-fluoridation printed. (4:04 - 4:22) So that means all the new science is out, all the literature, all the data, we cannot get out in the press. And so how do you get that out? Well, mainstream media, Mr. Facebook still blocks me. Just this last week, again, censored, blocked, shoved down so low that nobody sees any of our information. (4:23 - 4:40) So what's wrong with fluoride, you asked? How long do we have? Well, we have, we have as much time as it takes, Bob, because people need to know. And I, you know, I don't, I know a tenth maybe of what you know. And what I know is enough for me to think, are we insane to be putting this in our water? Yeah. (4:41 - 5:01) So you know way more than most people. So fluoride, yeah, we can start from the top of the head, the pineal gland, it calcifies the pineal gland, which is basically the seat of the soul and our decision-making and our well-being spiritually, that's calcified by fluoridation, by fluoride. Kids' brains, that's the biggest part. (5:01 - 5:14) And over the last 10 years, there's been a plethora of good studies that come out, have come out on damage to kids' brains. The main cohort in Canada is called the MIREC cohort. And that's not really important to remember. (5:14 - 5:29) It's just that that came out of Health Canada. It's been going on 20 years now, where they study right from prenatal and then they follow the kids all the way through. So the MIREC cohort, that stands for Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Contaminants. (5:29 - 5:49) So in 2015 or thereabouts, researchers started looking and going, huh, I wonder if we could look at fluoride with this. And they looked at it and they went, oh, my goodness, there's urine fluoridating measurements all the way through. And so they started teasing that apart and came up with some excellent studies, probably a dozen now. (5:49 - 6:14) That's Dr. Christine Till and her colleagues, Dr. Ashlyn Malin, Dr. Rivka Green out of York University in Toronto, and primarily Dr. Bruce Lanphear, too, out of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Bruce Lanphear is probably the top scientist doctor in Canada. His research led to us getting the lead out of our system over the last 20, 30 years. (6:14 - 6:38) His was the seminal research that the NIH, the HHS, the CDC all used in the States to and the EPA to take lead levels virtually out of our environment, out of our water, out of our systems. And but of course, those people just like you are being silenced. Yeah, him not so much because he's walked that nice middle ground where I'm a scientist. (6:39 - 6:42) I don't, I'm not pro-fluoride. I'm not anti-fluoride. Here's the science. (6:42 - 6:50) You make the decision. And of course, he is anti-fluoride because all his research shows brain-damaged kids and he doesn't want to damage kids' brains. Right. (6:51 - 7:09) And when we talk about that brain damage, because we need to put a number on that, that as far as the studies that I know are showing that children who are drinking fluoridated water will have on average an IQ seven points lower than the kids who do not. Plus they have higher instances of autism. Yes, you're correct. (7:10 - 7:46) And the number of seven is hard to pin down because some studies show no decrease in brain function or IQ at all, but that's very few of them. So if you look at the National Toxicology Program in the United States, that's a group of very brilliant scientists and doctors out of that umbrella of organizations under the HHS, Health and Human Services that Robert Kennedy has just taken over. And if you look at their studies, they came out with 74, after going through thousands of studies, animal and human studies, they came up with 74 studies that were quite good. (7:46 - 8:04) And 66 of those 74 studies showed brain damage in kids. And out of those 64, 18 of the top, like most highly rated studies, the best quality studies showed brain damage. 18 of the 19 studies showed brain damage in kids. (8:04 - 8:34) And that's anywhere from, a couple of them might have been just one or two points, but the average was probably around three, four, five, and some were as high as 10 to 15 points when infants are bottle fed fluoridated formula, formula that's made from fluoridated water. So when their mother had fluoridation and fluoride during pregnancy, harm is done there. And then when they're bottle fed with fluoridated water, that's when you're getting up in the numbers of seven, maybe even 10 or 15 IQ points loss. (8:35 - 8:58) Even one IQ point loss, which is proven in the lead studies as well, is huge in a societal and a population level. And that can cost society billions of dollars and lost productivity and all that. But if you're getting into three, four, five IQ points, five IQ points will shift that bell curve of IQ, which the median IQ would be 100. (8:58 - 9:13) So there's 50% on each side. And out on the very wings or tips of that bell curve are the developmentally handicapped folks that need our help and are going to be quite costly for society. And the geniuses on the other side. (9:14 - 9:38) A drop of four or five IQ points will shift that bell curve down to 50% more people on the handicapped development, the handicapped side and 50% less geniuses who we need to solve our real problems. Yes. And that, that is huge, Bob, because here's something that people often don't understand or maybe haven't thought about is that technological progress, societal progress is not driven by the masses. (9:38 - 9:47) It's driven by those creative geniuses on the top end of the bell curve. And so if we lose 50% of those people, we'll be just, it's catastrophic. Yeah. (9:48 - 10:03) What that's going to cost us societally, technologically and finding future solutions to problems. But, and here's another thing that we, I think we have to bring up. And just to prove that I was listening the last time we did an interview years ago, because I still remember this, you made this very good point. (10:03 - 10:11) Okay, sure. There's going to be people who will argue that the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water is extremely low, but you made the very good point. Okay. (10:11 - 10:20) So, but when you fluoride the water, you can only control the concentration. You can't control the dosage because you don't know how much water people are going to drink. Yeah. (10:20 - 10:34) That, that argument is spurious in several ways. Yeah. For one thing for sure that the pro-fluoridationists never, ever talked to us about, will never answer to us or to in the press is that you cannot control dose of anything that's in the water. (10:35 - 10:48) That's why there's not aspirin or Tylenol or Prozac or Lipitor or anything else in the water, because you can't control the dose. That's why 97% of Europe does not fluoridate. They just looked at it and went, what do you mean we're going to put it in the water? You can't control the dose there. (10:48 - 11:03) Why would you ever medicate anybody with something you cannot control the dose? You sit there and drink 10 glasses of water and I drink one, you're getting 10 times the dose. Who's monitoring or controlling that? I mean, that in itself should just end this whole water fluoridation thing. It should. (11:03 - 11:13) And you know, you just mentioned a huge percentage of Europe doesn't fluoridate. Yeah. I think the number here in Canada, and I'm sure you probably have at the top of your head, something like 70% of municipalities in Canada are fluoridating the water. (11:13 - 11:14) That's Ontario. Okay. That's Ontario. (11:14 - 11:20) Okay. So if you go right across Canada, it's 38%, that's the number. About 42% in Alberta. (11:20 - 11:32) And if we start fluoridating in a month or two, as they're planning to do, that'll swing Alberta's number over 50%. But BC right next door to us, 98%, over 98% of BC does not fluoridate. Wow. (11:32 - 11:47) Their teeth in Vancouver, for instance, are way better than the kids' teeth in Toronto that's been fluoridating since 1967. So if you go across Canada, we're about in the mid-range of fluoridated here in Alberta. BC doesn't fluoridate. (11:47 - 11:56) Ontario, 71% fluoridation. So they're the highest fluoridated and the most populous province in Canada. But right next door to them is Quebec. (11:57 - 12:14) Can you hazard a guess what Quebec might fluoridate at? I actually have no idea. 99.75% not fluoridated in Quebec, not fluoridated. Their teeth are just as good, thank you very much, as those in 71% fluoridated Ontario. (12:14 - 12:24) Yeah. And let's talk about those studies because the rationale that we've been given for putting the fluoride in the water is it's going to protect our teeth. It's going to cost us money in dental care, but that's not what the data shows. (12:24 - 12:34) Did you see my eye roll there? Yeah. They put out all kinds of figures on the pro-fluoridation side. It's going to save $34 for every dollar we spend on fluoridation. (12:34 - 12:45) It's going to save $96, $38, $37, $105, whatever. They throw numbers out all over the map. Well, it might save a little bit. (12:46 - 12:58) Over the years, they've said, and we've given them 20% reduction in cavities. Well, that sounds pretty good, except most kids only have two, three, four cavities. So if you have a 20% reduction in that, it's very minuscule. (12:58 - 13:19) However, the latest studies, which have come out just this last year are the Lotus study out of England, which has 6.4 million participants over 10 years, efficacy of less than 4%. Less than 4%. So less than 4% is not 20%. (13:19 - 13:32) Less than 4% is less than one quarter of a cavity, one quarter of a cavity, not a tooth, one quarter of a cavity, a lifetime. While we're causing pineal gland calcification, autism and lowered IQ. Yeah, right. (13:33 - 13:43) Yeah. Autism triples autism in good studies, again, out of that MIREC Canadian cohort. So that MIREC Canadian cohort is in Canadian cities that either fluoridate or don't fluoridate. (13:44 - 13:57) So it's at our level, 0.7 parts per million. It's not the four parts per million that EPA is still heel dragging about as their danger level. It's not 1.5 parts per million, like the WHO says. (13:58 - 14:08) It's we're fluoridated at 0.7 and there's dangers and damage there too. Right. So let's unfortunately talk about something that's become an epidemic in this country. (14:09 - 14:19) What happens to ethical doctors that tell people the truth? My goodness. Of course, you're on their hit list. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta went after you. (14:20 - 14:24) Yeah. What happened? Twice actually. Let's just go with the first one. (14:24 - 15:02) It was actually the shortest one. So three years ago, they tackled me for my Dr. Bob's protocols on health and wellness and boosting the immune system. So that's really dire, awful, controversial things like walking an hour every day, like exercising three or four times a week at half an hour, like getting seven hours of good quality sleep, eating an organic diet, taking high doses, not little piddly doses, but high doses of vitamin D3 by drops because they're better absorbed, taking vitamin K2 with vitamin D3 because it's so synergistic and they work so well together for so many things. (15:03 - 15:08) Well, you crack you. How could you? Yes, really. And zinc and magnesium, my goodness. (15:08 - 15:20) And oil of oregano, my God, world's best natural antibiotic. How could I ever prescribe that to patients? Hydrogen peroxide, et cetera. Of course, none of that stuff makes money for big pharma, does it? No. (15:20 - 15:36) Vitamin C is another one, especially liposomal C. So the college, I was actually set up by an EHS, shall we say agent, a young lady that came in and set me up for that. And not the first time I've heard that kind of story, Bob. And the next day. (15:36 - 15:44) They do that, the folks, they do this. They do. They will send in sort of undercover agents to entrap doctors so that they can have something to go after you with. (15:44 - 15:55) And you're not the first doctor I've spoken to who's had that happen. Yeah. This young lady came in with a problem that was totally unrelated to fluoride and vitamins or supplements or anything. (15:56 - 16:07) And I treated her properly, tested her properly. And then I said at the end, are you interested in keeping healthy and taking some supplements? And she goes, oh, yeah, totally. So I brought out my list. (16:07 - 16:19) I went through the whole list with her. And the next morning, there was a very long complaint into the College of Physicians and Surgeons about how I was inappropriately using these supplements. Right. (16:19 - 16:24) And that they weren't proven in science. Yes. So that battle went on for about two years. (16:24 - 16:28) I finally won that one. Yeah. Not proven in science is code for not profitable for big pharma. (16:29 - 16:35) That's another way of interpreting it. Yes, that's, yes. And maybe you're not comfortable saying that on camera, but I am, because I'm not a doctor. (16:35 - 16:40) They can't come after me. Well, I'm not a doctor any longer because I retired two months ago. Right. (16:41 - 16:59) But anyway, so I won that case in August of last year. And the college actually sent me an eight-page letter that was very congratulatory and affirming that conventional and non-conventional and alternative and complementary medicines and treatments that I was recommending were actually just fine. And they were proven in science. (17:00 - 17:12) It was very out of character, actually, for the college of physicians and surgeons. I suspect what you had is a left hand and a right hand there on it. Well, yeah, the right hand was busy with my six-year case against fluoridation. (17:13 - 17:41) And that started with the, let's just say the lawyer and historian from the University of Calgary Medical School, who, along with three of her friends, put a major complaint against me at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That was 2019, so six years ago. And it was immediately dispensed by the senior complaints advisor doctor as being ungrounded and unfounded and not having substance. (17:41 - 17:58) Well, they attacked me and they sent in two major letters defaming me, just denigratory letters, very, very caustic. And so the college said, well, I guess we better accept that appeal and look into this further. And we don't have time for the whole story. (17:58 - 18:13) It played out over six years. But the complaints review committee in the college, we sent them two great letters from my lawyers at Bennett Jones in downtown Calgary. And those were about 75 pages each, documents that had all the science in them. (18:13 - 18:28) We thought, well, OK, it's finished now. No, no, we have to investigate Dr. Dickson further. So they got a couple of experts testifying, an epidemiologist from Edmonton, a family doctor from Edmonton, neither of who were up to speed on the science of fluoridation and wrote very poor letters. (18:28 - 18:50) Probably cost thousands of dollars. And then our letter, our major expert is Dr. Bruce Lanphear, the fellow that got all the lead out around the world. And that letter, unfortunately, didn't get into the college until after the complaints review committee had made their decision that I had to go to a tribunal hearing the end of January of this year. (18:51 - 19:04) So four major charges there. And so we struck a deal with them. And so during that tribunal, they dropped three of the charges and I only pled guilty to one. (19:04 - 19:25) So the three charges were on my practicing outside of the scope of my medical training, which is total hogwash because I know more about fluoridation after studying it for 26 years than virtually any family doctor, any epidemiologist, and certainly any dentist in the country knows. I have never spoken to anyone who knows the subject as well as you do. Thank you. (19:25 - 19:37) And so that charge was dropped. So they dropped the charges on freedom of speech and public participation. So on the science, they knew they couldn't fight us on the science neither. (19:37 - 19:54) So they dropped those three charges. And the only thing I pled guilty to was professional misconduct. And that was for calling out public health officials, dental officials, medical authors of health, calling them out when they were telling, well, lies might be a little strong. (19:54 - 20:06) That's why they're sanctioning me. Let's say mistruths. When they were telling mistruths to the public and I had the facts and the proof that they were telling mistruths and I said that to the public, that's professional misconduct. (20:07 - 20:51) So now we have to talk about why are they trying so hard to silence the ethical voices that are telling people the truth about fluoride in our water? And that leads to why I invited you in for this interview today, because recently there's a bit of a bombshell dropped in the U.S. in Washburn, North Dakota, when their city council were debating whether or not they were going to remove the fluoride from their water, which, by the way, they did vote four to one to do. But in the process of that, if I'm assuming that the public consultations and all the debates that went on, they discovered that CDC funds were being used to pressure certain people to keep the fluoride in the water. Which means somebody's making money from this. (20:51 - 20:58) So let's talk about who's making the money. Okay. Well, that brings up a really good point. (20:58 - 21:05) And everybody that's watching this should read that article. Hopefully you have that posted or can send it. Folks, we'll put a link beneath this interview to that article. (21:05 - 21:08) Because that is scandalous. Yes. What's happening there. (21:08 - 21:25) So that's Dr. Johnny Johnson, who's the head of the American Fluoridation Society, which is a group of older retired dentists and a small group. And they are all over North America, not just the United States. They're up in Canada too, all across Canada. (21:25 - 21:45) Every time a community starts talking about fluoridation one way or another, they're there pestering, pushing, cajoling, doing whatever they can, sometimes offering money to rebuild their fluoridation facilities or put a new fluoridation facility in or help them with their grants or whatever. So there's a lot of money involved there. Hundreds of millions of dollars. (21:45 - 21:58) This isn't small change out of the CDC. And that money is not supposed to be used for fluoridation promotion, but they're using it illegally, basically. So, yeah, that's a major thing. (21:58 - 22:05) That article was so good. And it showed how nasty the pro-fluoridationists can be. Yes. (22:05 - 22:23) They do all sorts of underhanded things. And that includes things like, in the old days, we used to debate them online, like in the comment section, after an article would come up for work on, there'd be a commentary section and there'd be big debates that go on. Now they cut them off either immediately or within a day or two in the press. (22:23 - 22:30) But the commentary sections will go back and forth. What they would do is they get the editors to go in and delete our comments. Yes. (22:30 - 22:36) And then they taunt us by saying, well, you're not commenting. Obviously you have no science. There's no comments here. (22:36 - 22:44) Dr. Dickson and others, you're not commenting on this. They'd had them deleted. That's just so typical of the way they work. (22:44 - 22:57) Right. Now, before the interview, we were talking about the reason, the real reason why there's fluoride in our water. And I think of all the things that you can reveal today, that is going to be the most startling for people. (22:58 - 23:18) Wow. The real reason, you mean the money? Well, what they would have to do with the fluoride if they weren't going to ingest it. So this all started way back in the turn of the century when they found that natural calcium fluoride in the water at high, high levels was staining teeth brown, but they had less cavities. (23:19 - 23:39) So they tried to find a sweet spot there where less brown staining, fewer cavities. But the aluminum industry, the fertilizer industry all produce tons and tons of hydrofluoric acid. It's a waste product that cannot be put by a strict law into the air, into the ground, into the water. (23:39 - 24:00) And because of its toxicity, because of its high toxicity. And so they scrub that out and they have to dispose of it in highly expensive waste disposal plants like our Swan Hills plant up north. Well, if they can find out a way to sanctify it, to whitewash it would be a good word. (24:01 - 24:03) Market it. Market it. Yeah. (24:03 - 24:22) And that's what they did. They hired Edward Bernays, who is the grand nephew of Sigmund Freud, who wrote the book Propaganda in 1929. For anybody that's not read the book Propaganda might be interested in doing that because he was hired by, Edward Bernays was hired by the cigarette companies to whitewash smoking, particularly in pregnant women. (24:22 - 24:41) The doctor would be sitting there with his white coat and his stethoscope on smoking a camel and you pregnant woman should be drinking or should be smoking the cigarette because it makes your pregnancy much better. You're much more relaxed and calm and your pregnancy is much safer and healthier. So that was Edward Bernays' program that basically whitewashed cigarette smoking for decades. (24:42 - 24:53) And he did such a good job that the fluoride industry hired him to whitewash fluoride. And so he did that in the late 40s and early 50s. And by the 50s, it was all across North America. (24:53 - 25:11) Safe and effective for children. They get better teeth and there's no harms, no problems there. And after that program, Edward Bernays said convincing doctors and dentists that fluoride was safe and effective for kids was the easiest program he ever did in his entire career. (25:12 - 25:21) So now instead of having to spend tens of millions of dollars every year to safely dispose of it, they're putting it in our drinking water. What a win. Eh? What a win. (25:21 - 25:26) And they're making money doing it. Oh, they're making a lot of money doing it. It's about a quarter billion dollars a year. (25:26 - 25:52) The last I saw for mosaic fertilizer industry down in Florida, that's where we get a lot of our hydrofluorosilicic acid from the waste product that goes into our water. But the main thing is, is that the big companies like Johnson & Johnson and Colgate and those companies that produce not only fluoridated toothpaste, but all the other fluoride products that dentists use or that we used to on the shelf. So that would be like foams and gels and rinses and all those sorts of products as well. (25:52 - 26:01) That's over $20 billion a year in profits to those companies. That's huge. So with that, they fund the majority of the dental research out of the States. (26:01 - 26:14) They fund the American Dental Association, the American Pediatric Association, the National Institute of Health Research in the States. So they're basically buying science with those billions. It's exactly the same story as big pharma and doctors. (26:15 - 26:28) Yeah. They send the doctors to medical school and fortunately you went through medical school, I think before this was really all that prevalent. But these days, from what I understand, it's basically just an indoctrination program for teaching people how to deal drugs for big pharma. (26:29 - 26:39) And now they've done the same thing with the dentists because the people who make the money off of this fluoride are funding the dental associations. Oh yeah. No conflict of interest there. (26:39 - 26:44) No, no, not at all. So fortunately I went back to medical school. This is my 13th career. (26:44 - 26:52) I went back when I was 33 years old. And so I was a little too old and a little too, shall we say, worldly to be indoctrinated as you mentioned. That's a great word, indoctrinated. (26:53 - 27:05) So I was able to stand up and fight a little bit against these bigs. All right. So we've talked about all the bad stuff, but I always like to end interviews by giving people good news or at least some helpful suggestions. (27:06 - 27:16) And another thing I think you can probably provide is the link to your health protocol. But I've missed one step, folks. One little thing that Dr. Bob mentioned earlier. (27:17 - 27:35) Once people understand just how bad of an idea it is to be putting fluoride in our water, it's not a very big step from that to start looking at your toothpaste that's got fluoride and going, maybe I don't want to put this in my mouth. So what should people be using? I mean, obviously we have to clean our teeth. I mean, you've got great teeth. (27:35 - 27:54) You've obviously looked after them well. What should people be doing if they want to avoid the fluoride? That's a little more complex question. If you're in a fluoridated area, which Calgary will likely, unfortunately, be soon, and which I think you pointed out, 37% of Canada is? Yeah, 38% around there. (27:55 - 28:28) So if you live in a fluoridated area, you should be, first of all, pestering your counsellors to turn off the fluoride tap. That's one of the easiest things to do to make your health and your kid's health better and safer is if you have fluoridation, all you have to do is turn off the tap, as that person in Washburn said, the water expert in Washburn, North Dakota said in that interview in an article, how long will it take? They asked him, how long will it take to get the fluoride out of our water system? He says, give me five minutes after the meeting. You can basically turn off the tap or switch the lever down. (28:29 - 28:47) So that's one of the biggest things you can do to make your kid's health safer is turn off fluoride in your community. If you don't have it, put the science out to the counsellors and tell them you don't want to be harming kids' brains. You don't want to be harming women's thyroids, all of our bones, all of our skeletal system, our gut, our microbiome, our kidneys. (28:48 - 29:14) We don't want to be harming all those things to save one quarter of a cavity a lifetime. So again, back to that science, that Lotus Steady 4%, the Cochrane Collaboration, which some folks might not have heard of, but the Cochrane Collaboration is the most esteemed organization in the world to evaluate medical information, data, and science. And in 2015, they came out with a study, a major study on fluoride, saying virtually no effect, especially in adults. (29:14 - 29:36) And then they just came out with a new one in October of 2024, the Cochrane Collaborative Report. And in that one, they said less than 3% efficacy or efficiency, less than 3%. So again, less than one quarter of a cavity a lifetime, right? So yeah, no efficacy. (29:36 - 29:46) So what you do, the CDC in the States, Center for Disease Control, has even admitted that it's topical. It's not ingested. If there's any effect to fluoride, it's topical. (29:46 - 29:51) So brush your teeth with fluoride, fluoridated toothpaste. It's everywhere. It's cheap. (29:51 - 30:05) If we can use that for the poor folks too, if we want to give them fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes and educate them around diet, that's the biggest thing. But where are we going with that? We're talking about what people should be doing to care for their teeth. Right. (30:05 - 30:10) They're wanting to avoid the fluoride. So hydroxyapatite is the best thing out there. That's what our teeth are. (30:10 - 30:19) That's what the infrastructure of our teeth and our bones are. It's hydroxyapatite. Fluoride comes in and displaces that hydroxyapatite and it's slightly stronger. (30:19 - 30:28) So people say, yeah, well it's more impervious to dental decay then. Well, slightly stronger isn't always good. If you make a steel rod too strong, it'll snap. (30:28 - 30:43) If you make it with some pliancy in it, it'll bend a little bit. It'll give a little bit and it won't break. Teeth that are fluoridated and that hydroxyapatite is replaced with fluorapatite, they get stronger but more brittle. (30:43 - 31:01) So if you look at states like Kentucky in the U.S., Kentucky is the most edentulous or loss of teeth state in the United States and it's the most fluoridated state. 99% fluoridated. Hawaii, on the other hand, is the least fluoridated state and they have the least teeth loss there. (31:02 - 31:12) And you can just, you can go through all the states. You know, more fluoridation, lots of teeth loss, less fluoridation, more teeth. Just correlates all the way through. (31:13 - 31:17) Okay. Bob, thank you so much. Thank you, Will. (31:18 - 31:25) And as I always say, fluoridation, don't swallow it. Very good advice. If I could put in one more thing. (31:26 - 31:40) Please do. We have on our safewatercalgary.com website, a really good new petition which explains everything about fluoridation. And if people can go in and sign that petition, we have over, it's almost 9,000 signatures now. (31:40 - 32:07) And we're going to take that to city council as well and hopefully just bend them a little bit and say to put a pause on fluoridation. We also have an action button on that petition and it gives you all the addresses and letters of people to write with, right from our city mayor and councillors through to our Alberta government because we're working with Alberta government too. And that includes the premier, minister of the environment, minister of justice as well, and the minister of health. (32:08 - 32:18) So we have all the addresses for people to write and we have form letters if you want to use those or you can just write your own little letter saying, I don't want these toxins in our water. Do something about it, please.