2011 findings on HOW THEY HAVE BEEN POISONING OUR FRESH DRINKING WATERS?

Transcription of A Special Interview with Jeff Green By Dr. Mercola Source: www.mercola.com For (spiritual) protection: www.franky1.com DM: Dr. Joseph Mercola JG: Jeff Green

Alternative titles to this article:

POISONING OF THE FRESH WATER IN AMERICA WITH FLUORIDE ET.AL. How dangerous is our drinking water? Plague # 3: Cursed (poisoned fresh water) --How they poisoned (not just polluted) our drinking water? How harmful is the aluminum and chemical fertilizer industry? How evil is this beast US government and her tentacle Philippine government, et. al.? SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE ARTICLE:

How dangerous is our drinking water? It has become the safe hiding (read: the only best disposal) place to throw toxins from industries like aluminum, fertilizer, etc.

INTERVIEW PROPER:
Introduction: DM: Welcome everyone. This is Dr. Mercola. Today, I am here with Jeff Green who is an activist in the movement to eliminate a toxic poison from your water supply and most you know that poison would be fluoride. Welcome Jeff. JG: Thank you. I appreciate being here. DM: Why dont you let us know what your history is with this fluoride opposition movement and how you came to this position and what brought you to your level of activism that you have been involved with now for 15 years or so. JG: My history is I have been a management consultant for health professionals. I had some 400 dentists as clients. I have had a previous history of networking with dentists as far back 1984. They would still use mercury amalgams. So it kind of changed my life as to how I saw that. It happened to be in 1995 that the State Legislature in California circumvented all the local decisions that have been made more than a hundred by the way in California. DM: Local communities in California that have decided to

JG: That had actually rejected fluoridation. DM: And they had it removed from the water supply or in the process? JG: Actually, they never put it in it was one of the most lightly fluoridated areas by large margins and some of them repeatedly the municipalities. So they went to the State Legislature where they took about 20 years in preparation. DM: Who is they?

Legislative Lobby Group

JG: Its interesting it actually had some people from the Scripps newspaper to up the money to begin with to finance a way to be able to eventually change the legislature or direct the legislature. They took some almost 10 years of preparing for all that and then bragged about the fact at how they were able to slam it through the legislature. The state legislature in California actually came up with at that time I thought it was a pretty strong mandate that everybody had to fluoridate. As it turned out it was conditional. It wasnt quite the mandate that we thought it was. DM: Thats a pretty strong effort of resources and time to commit to. JG: Yes. DM: What do you believe was responsible for the orchestration of that effort to essentially mandate fluoridation throughout the entire State of California?

Who were responsible for the fluoridation of the entire state of California?
JG: Well, the whys become a big problem. In fact those are variables because everybody doesnt fit on the same page for a part of that. Obviously the dental community in terms of what we call the trade association The American Dental Association has pushed it all across the entire United States. But the real culprit if you want to call it that is the U.S. public health service has actually done everything possible that they can do to make certain that the health departments of every county and every county in the entire United States is pushing the project basically.

Why the push for fluoridation of water in America? First source of fluoride: Manhattan Bomb Project
If you go back especially if you read some of the books and some of the information that came from the declassified documents that happened from back during the Manhattan Project you see that the primary proper motivation from the very beginning was liability protection. It may still be part of it but it has become such a strong process right now that it doesnt make any difference what evidence was placed in front of it. There is just a big push for it.

Summary: The cause or reason: To protect the men doing the Manhattan Project from any future health liability that its fluoride and uranium waste may cause in the future. Ayl.
DM: So when you mentioned liability protection what were you referring to? JG: During the time that the Manhattan Project, most people dont realize that the magical element that was able to make the bomb basically was uranium hexafluoride. It was actually this special aspect that allowed them to separate the uranium isotopes to make the bomb. At that time, they didnt know how powerful this was going to be and so they went in to high production creating fluoride that was coming out of the top of at that time what they are allowed to be able to come out the top of smoke stacks that wiped out herds of cattle. They wiped out orchards. They wiped out actually etched glass in schools that were literally miles away with no intent of slowing or stopping even if it hurt anybody at all.

Summary: Fluoride needed to extract uranium. Uranium for making bomb.

Who were in charge of the Manhattan Bomb Project?

DM: This was the people in charge of the Manhattan? JG: Manhattan Project. DM: (indiscernible 5:44) Department of Defense I would assume and military contractors who were (indiscernible 5:49). JG: There were but at that particular time there was one man by the name of Harold Hodge who basically has gotten the title by some people of kind of a mass murderer if you think about it because he basically was willing to go out and he was the one that actually coined the phrase, that its safe and its effective and it cuts across all economic lines. So those same words are the same words that have been used since the 1940s.

Project Manhattan was to make bomb using Uranium which could be extracted using fluoride
DM: Help us understand this. There was this massive effort to produce nuclear weapons at the end JG: Even before they knew how powerful they were, sure. DM: And in that process, a toxic waste product was produced, fluoride. JG: Well their intention was to use it. DM: The waste product is fluoride? JG: The fluoride was part of the uranium hexafluoride. They were producing it as fast as they could so that they could separate the (indiscernible 6:33) DM: So they are combining it with the uranium. They required it as an ingredient. JG: That was the ingredient that actually made the bomb work. DM: So it wasnt a waste product. JG: No. DM: I was confusing that with I guess aluminum manufacturing fluoride being a waste product of that industry.

JG: Part of the protection for the liability was to basically put it everywhere and tell everybody it was great. It basically goes back to the old (indiscernible 6:58) conversation about advertising basically. If you got something bad just repeat it over and over again and thats the greatest thing in the world until somebody believes you and then you just keep on repeating it. The issue about marketing and advertising and eventually putting it in the water was to make it ubiquitous, make it everywhere so that there wasnt any culprit and basically exposure. DM: That makes sense as a strategy to allow it to become pervasive but Im still a little bit confused as to the connection with the military and the interest that were involved to perpetrate that.

But after disposing the Manhattan Project fluoride waste, why did they continue placing fluoride from other sources?
JG: I think the people who first began to fight against the posse of fluoridation focused on the fact that the original product came from the aluminum industry. Its true it did but two years later it didnt anymore. DM: Two years later after what? JG: Actually in the 1940s, two years after they introduced it into the water, all of a sudden the sodium fluoride which is what they were utilizing at that time became very valuable to them. Up until the Manhattan Project nobody really understood just how powerful an element that fluorine is which is the element. They didnt understand how powerful and the tremendous uses that it has. That becomes an important thing I believe even in our discussion with the public because without knowing it, they dont realize that its all around us. You cant be mad at the element because its powerful. DM: It is what it is. JG: On the other hand what happened is that they in essence basically used sodium fluoride to begin. Within two years later, they found a cheaper source for it.

Next source of fluoride: Aluminum Industry

DM: So the process is that there was initially this waste product as a result of the aluminum industry that they needed a way to dispose of properly without costly methods of disposal and they had this mechanism or proposal of putting it in the water supply under the guise of improving dental health. JG: That was the perception to begin with is that this was a waste but they learned within two years that DM: Im just (indiscernible 9:02) initially. Is that correct? And after two years because of the JG: Recognition. DM: Recognition and appreciation of fluoride and its other uses; industrial and militarily JG: That industry and even the aluminum industry. DM: So they stopped using that but then Im still confused as toif they needed this then why would they dispose of it in the water supply? JG: That was the point is that those people who were actually fighting the public policy issue thought that the whole purpose was to get rid of this extraneous byproduct when in fact that wasnt the motivation. It was the liability protection from the beginning. So two years later all of a sudden they found another product that was much more readily accessible. The reason it was so readily accessible is because it truly was a hazardous waste and it truly was something they did not know how to control. That came from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Third source: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry!

Summary: Their real purposes: 1) dispose harzardous waste through the water supply; 2) ? ___ . And their selling point or alibi: to improve the dental health of the people!
Whats important about that aspect of it is that the phosphate fertilizer industry most people think that phosphate is the primary product [----- 10:00 -----] when back in those days, they were interested in the uranium that was found in that phosphate ore. The interest in the uranium was still the interest that they had then and so the then byproduct of the phosphate that eventually went out for our fertilizer for all of our lawns and everything else, it could not be utilized for the fertilizer in the form that it was being taken out of the ground. That it had too much fluoride in it. Most people dont realize that some plants are a lot smarter than we are. They wont take it up through their root system. So because of that, the fertilizer wouldnt be very valuable at all. It wouldnt be drawn up into the root system and help the growth. So what they did basically was that they had to actually pour sulfuric acid over the top of the same ore, this phosphate ore that they are using and it created a gas. This gas was hydrogen fluoride. They would go out and kill everything around it, animals, plants, and people. DM: So they would remove the fluoride from the phosphate allowing them to use the phosphate for agricultural purposes. JG: Yes. In essence what they ended up was a eventually what they had to do was to spray water on it to capture it. Very simple, they called it a scrubber system but they would capture it then which then became the hydrofluorosilicic acid. Hard for a lot of people to say until you get used to it but hydrofluorosilicic acid became now this waste if you want to call it or a byproduct, I mean it depends on what stage that its in.

Not just fluouride but poisonous metals, etc.!

But in essence, this hydrofluorosilicic acid is not just the fluoride that was removed from that ore but its the arsenic, and the lead, and the cadmium, and the mercury and all of the other contaminants that are a part of that particular ore. So it wasnt added especially for it but it is still contained in it. Whats amazing about this is that very early on there were people who thought well maybe one of the things we can do to remove the motive for all of this is to find some other uses for hydrofluorosilicic acid. Well the truth is there are lots of other uses for hydrofluorosilicic acid but the problem is they couldnt deal with all the arsenic and the lead and the contaminants in it. The process of taking out the arsenic would be the same as taking out the fluoride. You basically have a product that is almost perpetually that kind of a negative product. DM: Toxic.

Toxic and no place to throw or hide but drinking water

JG: Toxic. And so as Im sure the people I have described to you, now you have a product or a hazardous material that you cant put in an ocean, you cant put in a river or lake or stream, you cant bury it and you cant even give it away. [Quoted from above: Most people dont realize that some plants are a lot smarter than we are. They wont take it up through their root system. So because of that, the fertilizer wouldnt be very valuable at all.

It wouldnt be drawn up into the root system and help the growth. So what they did basically was that they had to actually pour sulfuric acid over the top of the same ore, this phosphate ore that they are using and it created a gas. This gas was hydrogen fluoride. They would go out and kill everything around it, animals, plants, and people.] DM: But you can sell it and put it in the commercial water supplies. JG: Only if the EPA basically says only if you call it beneficial and this is why we hear all of these constant claims of how great it is without any treatment. Meaning, it doesnt have to be filtered. It doesnt have to be revised or anything else then it can be taken directly all across the United States and dumped in the water, the very place that they couldnt put it directly. They just put it through (indiscernible 12:48). DM: I was aware that the hydrofluorosilicic acid was a source of fluoride that was being used to fluoridate the water supply but I wasnt aware that it had these associated contaminants with arsenic and lead. Is that still the case today? JG: Its still the case. In fact up until probably somewhere in the mid-90s, 95% of all of the fluoridation chemicals came from central Florida. Seventy percent came from one company by the name of Cargill which is not in the same, it is now replaced by Mosaic but 70% of all fluoridation chemicals came from there.

Source of hydrofluorosilicic acid: central Florida, esp. Cargill Corp

Even though there are now sodium silicofluoride which is in the same bracket as the hydrofluorosilicic acid and the sodium fluoride, all of them were typically coming from that same source. They were just basically revised. What we normally thought of as a lot of it coming from the aluminum industry hasnt been true for a long time.

Summary: The greater source of hydrofluorosilicic acid is Fertilizer Industry

DM: I really appreciate you carefully explaining that because that is certainly not the perception that many of us have about this. Actually, as you stated that the belief was that it was this because that was always the issue is to try to understand the motivation for this process. It was in my review was typically ascribed to removing this toxic waste from the aluminum production but it appears from what youre saying that this is really more of a liability issue even from the very beginning to I guess educate or confuse or deceive the public into believing that this fluoride was beneficial when it was actually quite toxic.

JG: The fact that primarily because I think the perception because the (indiscernible 14:31) Foundation played such a large role in promoting this early on. The (indiscernible 14:36) Foundation being alcohol, aluminum, and connections and so forth that the tendency was to think that that was the issue and so people fought that fairly strongly. But even if you look at the cost of the actual product that could sell without getting rid of the product is nothing compared to the huge cost that we all go through otherwise. It is true that the companies that sell it have an opportunity to get rid of a product that would otherwise cost them money to get rid of. But the real difficulty with this is that when we talk about fluoridation per se, we start talking about the public policy and the assumption is that were talking about the very same thing and were all talking about the same thing when its not at all.

The Deceit Behind Fluoride

Another aspect of the hydrofluorosilicic acid obviously is that the hydrofluorosilicic acid when its actually in terms of people looking at it, they found out that none of the studies have ever been on the hydrofluorosilicic acid. So anytime they hear someone saying that fluoride is safe and effective, well, are you talking about Prozac? Thats fluoride. And Zoloft? What we call psychotropic drugs (indiscernible 15:41). DM: Cipro. JG: Yeah. All of the things that we call SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) that would relate to the serotonin chemical in our brain. Most people dont realize that if you wouldnt had anesthesia for a general surgery knock on wood that somebody didnt have to do that they would have four molecules of fluorine and two of chlorine and one of bromine. Those are enough to be able to put you in that temporary coma. Rohypnol, the rape drug that basically puts on a certain amount of amnesia for a certain period of time. So there are so many different kinds of products and so many that especially work on enzymes that make a major difference. So when someone uses the word fluoride, I believe we start with a deception from the very beginning. Those of us who work on the issue are just as bad about it because we sometimes talk without people realizing exactly what were speaking about. So when we now learn that the product is actually hydrofluorosilicic acid, there is almost a bragging by the promoters of fluoridation that you dont have to have a study on it because they have studied fluoride over and over again and they have never looked at the actual product itself until just recently.

Truth coming out 2011

DM: So there are some studies that had been published or currently ongoing to actually look at this current source of fluoride that they are using? JG: Yes. In 1998 to 2000 I was able to get a congressional investigation on fluoride. At that particular time the House Committee on Science allowed us to write some questions that would be sent out to various entities. Originally it was to the EPA. So we asked them very specifically because congress has powers that you and I dont have to be able to get that information. We asked them to basically send the scientific data that they had on the silicofluorides. They wrote back, we couldnt find any for what we call continued they call it chronic effects of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid or the silicofluorides. They didnt have any at all. Up until 2010, and now 2011 there has only been two studies that have ever dealt with what we could call the continued use of the hydrofluorosilicic acid. Were talking about toxicological studies where you can actually Im sure youre aware but much of your audience may not know that you have to have a controlled environment and the laboratory animals and so forth. But they were able to finally confirm through these toxicological studies the very thing that they had found through large epidemiological study that there is a higher amount of lead that shows up in blood. In the epidemiological study it was 400,000 children. It showed that there was a tremendous increase. A doubling of not only the average amount but four times as much for Latinos, seven times as much for

blacks, and unfortunately, a doubling of the danger level of lead in childrens blood when hydrofluorosilicic acid was present in the water. The importance of that was that it was also compared to having no fluoride added into the water but also sodium fluoride added into the water. So there was really a difference between the specific product being placed in there. So these toxicological studies that they just performed, they were really clearly done so that they could actually see that when lead was present at the same time that hydrofluorosilicic acid was present that there was this tremendous increase not only in the blood but also in the bone, in the teeth, and a lot of other tissues that are what we call calcium rich.

Point: lead in the blood increased after the hydrofluorosilicic acids were added to our water
DM: Are there any studies that looked at the actual arsenic or some of the other contaminants that were in the silicofluorides? JG: None of the studies have actually shown the combination between the arsenic and the fluoride. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, we actually took a position and supported a lawsuit that was filed in California back in 2002-2005. Because the state law had already mandated fluoridation, we were not able to go after the public policy of fluoridation. The state had deemed that it was safe and effective. The courts really wouldnt allow you to be able to do that. We actually went into court addressing the amount of arsenic that was in the product delivering that into the water when it was added. So even though were talking about what you might think was stepping on it, really reducing it down to lower amounts that youre putting in the water, the amount of arsenic that went along with this hydrofluorosilicic acid was allowed at a level that would be one in every 1500 people having lung or bladder cancer over a lifetime. The amazing part of it is that the arsenic does play a very large role in terms of affecting people. [----- 20:00 -----]

FLORIDE TOXINS FROM SOIL PLUS BEING POURED INTO THE WATER = INCREASE OF LUNG OR BLADDER CANCER
DM: So its in some peoples municipal water supply normally because its a contaminant of some water supplies but I believe thats the case. JG: So does fluoride. Both of them appear in water supplies what you might call naturally. They are there because of soil and erosion and things like that there are some amounts yes. DM: That when you add this silicofluoride into the water as a source of fluoridation then you actually massively increase it to the point where youre causing a significant increase in the rate of certain cancers. JG: A significant increase. Many people will remember that there was a fairly big fight and actually the fight has gone on for 50 years just like it is with fluoridation process as well where they were looking at arsenic levels and trying to bring them down. Most will remember during the Clinton era that those numbers did come down. They went from 50 parts per billion down to 10 parts per billion. Of course now when were looking at money everybody billions and trillions sound different to us but most people its those really tiny amounts when in fact they are significant in the way that they affect us. What happens is with arsenic is that the National Academy of Sciences came out and actually gave details of exactly when and at what concentrations that people are affected by it.

Four drops in a water filling up a football stadium thats how powerful the toxic fluoride group is!
California did a more clear one where they actually didnt use zero because the result of the National Academy of Sciences is that there was no level of arsenic in the water that wasnt harmful to people. California can use zeros but did not use zeros. So the California EPA there did a risk assessment and their risk assessment showed that if youre going to have one in a million Americans are people who are consumers, they were going to be affected by it that the amount for arsenic would be four parts per trillion. So were talking about four drops in almost a football stadium full of water basically. Its that powerful. So when you look at it from four parts per trillion all the way up to the levels that are allowed to be put in the water now, you have a big scope of people who are being affected by it. This addition to whats already found in the water because of the soil has tremendous impact. DM: What level does it increase over and above what you find in (indiscernible 22:06)? JG: Basically, they did through a congressional investigation. We kind of forced the issue where they had to establish what kind of measurements that they were getting in concentrations. Of course there were many communities that were way above because they have way too much arsenic in the first place but they made a determination that the additive, the hydrofluorosilicic acid was the biggest contributor of (indiscernible 22:27) of this extra arsenic that was coming in. Unfortunately, the levels that are allowed meaning they are okay. They are basically checked off and said you can put it in there are as much as one like I say, one in every 1500 to one in every 5000 persons. This is a lifetime of consumption because its not all of it. But as an additional exposure to everything else we get this is terrible. DM: Its an interesting information. To the best of my knowledge, I havent been previously aware that these toxins were in the source of the fluoridation that they were using. JG: To add something that may be of interest because it was something that was actually published in the Florida newspapers. In the hurricane that happened before Katrina, they came across through central Florida, basically now Mosaic but then Cargill had what they called holding ponds different than Erin Brockovich type of holding ponds where you see something very flat. These are 180 foot high radioactive gypsum. They are almost like towers basically that this hydrofluorosilicic acid was kept in. When the hurricane came through it blew all that down. Where did it all go? It went all over central Florida. The first newspaper account was that they had a 30,000 to 40,000 gallon spill. Then it was the 300,000 and 400,000 and then it could go up into the millions until you get to 30 to 40 million. In the newspaper, they had to admit, they did admit Cargill admitted that yes it was a little radioactive but not a lot. Its not going to hurt you. This has always been true that these were always held in this radioactive gypsum kind of things right there. No one has ever really done all of the work to be able to determine the effects of the cadmium. There is a lot of work obviously done on mercury but not so much, no matter how much of the mercury is in there. Because arsenic plays such a larger role that thats the one that almost everybody focuses on. DM: Lead is a big issue too. There was a lot of effort and energy that went previously to remove that from the environment.

Role of Fluoride: Transport toxic arsenic to cells

JG: Its important to realize that there is lead in the product. However, the concern we have is that the way that the free fluoride ion works is that it actually acts as a transport where it transports heavy metals to places that they wouldnt normally be able to go. So some of the early studies had to do with aluminum and showed that if you had 0.5 parts per million aluminum fluoride compared to 50 parts per million

fluoride so youre talking about a hundred times more. That when you put that in basically youre exposing a laboratory animal with that that the lower amount actually transports more of aluminum to the brain. It creates the same kind of lesions that humans usually think of as being Alzheimers and that kind of a thing. The amazing part is that it has a transport. It isnt necessary that it has to be in really high concentrations. That it doesnt take that normal curve that we normally expect that says if you give more, more bad stuff happens.

Reason for activism to protect people from contaminated water

DM: Most of us as individuals are pretty busy. Weve got active lives and families and businesses that were involved with that keep us occupied. Im sure youre no different. What motivated you 15-16 years ago to become interested in this because you obviously have developed quite a bit of expertise over and above what (indiscernible 25:40) JG: There were several things I think that pushed me. One of them and I guess the primary one is that this is me. This is my life and this is my world. I believe that Ive got a responsibility for the way it turns out. The fact that the dental industry was being duped and being utilized to sell it to everybody. I actually went back to a large number of my clients back at that time and asked them how much fluoride was in Coca Cola. Their reaction wasnt it is or it isnt in Coca Cola or how much. It was whos got a hold of you? Who has done something to you? Because the dental industry as a whole has been taught that the philanthropic thing to do once youve gotten out of school if you dont want to take care of everyone of these people yourself is to find some public policy that will help assist you with lower income people. There is almost a bar that used to go across between anybody that would actually discuss that openly. I guess I felt a value system that I felt like I had to work with there. The other part of it is that there is tremendous difficulty in my mind that when we start having even majorities of people who can tell the minority what to eat and drink for the rest of their life I dont believe that thats right. DM: It certainly wouldnt seem to be the case. JG: I actually put on effective advocacy clinics in which part of it comes because of what we ran into and the other part is because as being a management consultant, we look at different ways to be able to deal with things. What I found when people call us up is that you find that there is a consistency with those people who take advocacy positions. Most of it from the very beginning they think that our anger at the (indiscernible 27:15). Unfortunately, that somewhat shapes what we do afterwards and sometimes thats not to our best advantage.

Motives of the US Government

DM: Can you highlight the reasons or at least your belief as to why a federal agency like the United States Public Health Service whose main charter is to protect the public health actually got things confused and turned around and actually is actively endorsing policies that is causing serious damage to the public health? JG: If you actually go to Chris Brysons book that it took him almost 10 years to finally come to. That Cliff Honaker played a larger role in providing some of the investigative services where they went to the declassified documents. I think it corrected a lot of us who thought maybe that it was coming from the aluminum industry or other things like that. I just think that basically that most people dont realize just how powerful an urge if you want to call it that or motivation that the government has to be able to control things the way that they want to control them.

Next danger: To vaccinate us with hydrofluorosiicic acid containing lead, cadmium, mercury, etc.!
There was at one point people who worked in the field and new a lot about hydrofluorosilicic acid and their thought as well at those particular times people expected to have bombs happen and that wasnt this good idea to basically put a lot of the stuff out there and start basically putting up almost like a vaccination but at least a beginning stage of it so we got to be better prepared for it. I dont have any proof that that was part of it. I usually try to stay away from the wise. It almost always means you have to accuse somebody of something and I dont know that they all fit into that. I do know that as a general dentist its because they do not have the information and never looked at it. So we found ways to pierce through that instead of fight with people all the time. Now I think that becomes important. DM: You have been motivated obviously to make a difference in this specific area. Can you describe your process as to what youve done to make a difference and to help people eliminate this from their water supply? JG: First of all I have to say that I went through some of those same stages that I believe that most people do is that the anger and injustice is the part that motivates you and that almost a first process that almost all of us go through. It could be about vaccinations. It could be about mercury amalgams. It could be about a number of things. Is that we go out and do our own research maybe very minimally to begin with but eventually youll find out that most people will take an anti position in anything become very knowledgeable, not that they are always correct but they learn a lot more than the person who is usually promoting it basically. But in the process of doing that, the tendency is to do what I call one of the worst things we can do is we take on the burden proof. That we actually believe because if we could just say it better and then thats one of our difficulties. [----- 30:00 -----] We think if we could just say it better, give it to somebody a little bit cleaner that somehow that would be enough to justify there are someone else making a shift on their mind. So we bring paper after paper. Were killing off a lot of trees trying to get other people to be able to understand what we understand with the assumption that if they knew what we knew that the common sense would say that they wouldnt even perceive this at all. Its an uncomfortable comeuppance to finally realize that that isnt what shapes our world at this particular point.

INFORMING PEOPLE IS NOT ENOUGH

DM: If I cant slightly interrupt you here. I actually went through the same process myself. It took 10 to 12 years before I realize that you just cant continue to educate people. You actually have to do something active to address this injustice otherwise it doesnt work. People know its not going to make a difference. You have to motivate them to take a very specific action. JG: Right. The motivation we always think is being right. So when someone calls me, I normally fairly rapidly tell them that there are certain things that I already know about. One of them is that basically that they believe that people are responsible for their own health. I usually ask them if they also believe in informed consent. And then the third thing is whether or not that they believe that a majority should be able to tell the minority even if it were a vote.

Truly, in all of them basically you come back with the same thing. I have to tell them, I just have to let you know that were not necessarily in the majority and that the message is that you and I might be attracted to are not the messages that are necessary for us to communicate to someone else who doesnt believe that strongly about those things. So that we have to actually shift. An awful lot of what I call anti positioning becomes really important and I think thats the part that I would display to you thats happened for us or from me across this time as becoming more successful. One of them is that I have to deal with using our effective advocacy clinics. We talk about how anti positioning actually shoots ourselves in the foot. The first thing being is that when were anti something, the first thing were doing is telling everybody were out of power. Because if youre in power, you dont have to be anti anything. You just do what you want to do. Second thing is every anti message has the promoters message there with an x across it. So if anything you are reminding everybody and youre actually taking the channel that has been created by the promoter and fighting really not only on their terms but in most cases, you are already seeding authority. So that if anything even though I know you have learned a lot about this, that anything you could put up that basically say that fluoride was negative or something else, (indiscernible 32:35) to be able in most venues to basically show that youre wrong and Im right. Not because I am right but because it only takes that within certain venues. But the big one is basically taking in the burden proof. We want to carry it around and say that were right. When in fact were doing is were allowing the authority to say thank you very much but thats not what everybody else feels. So the one major shift that I believe that we found that has worked much more effectively is understanding that you have to be as representative of the people who are for fluoridation as those people who are opposed to fluoridation. One of the difficulties is that when we talk about fluoridation and in most cases when we talk about fluoride, were talking in general terms about whats being placed on the water. In fact, what ends up happening is that there is no harm. The public policy doesnt harm us. So even in the court, you cant really go after the public policy. The courts have all determined all across the United States that this is a legitimate government interest. I dont believe it is but I would never win that in the court because the courts have already said the government should be able to do these kinds of things. Our difficulty is were going after windmills that basically are not evenly accurate place to work on it. One of them is here is an example. Lets imagine that you had a situation in a community where a promoter of fluoridation, it may be a dentist or it could be somebody from the Health Department made this long opinion piece that had 15 things in it that those of us who actually understand the issue would say were probably not correct. That there were misrepresentations or there were omissions of some kind. At the early stages of your dealing with the issue, the tendency is to go back there and try to show everybody how each one of those is inaccurate. I dont doubt the motivation and also the fact most of the time the people who are responding are accurate when they are doing it. But the audience cant hear that. They cant see it. They are not prepared to be able to deal with that kind of in fighting one because they cant tell who is right or wrong. DM: And the audience being the vast majority of the general population. JG: Sure the general population. I have to separate that in white because I think you have a unique situation where people come to you because they want to hear what you have to say. Its not just your conclusion, they expect that youre going to give them explanation and you can provide things. DM: There is certainly need for that but in the broader perspective of actually making a difference and change in the culture, thats an approach thats going to be successful in your experience. JG: Right, in my experience. Not only in my experience but more importantly there is no venue for that because what youre dealing with is okay, we dont think it should be in the water, well it is. Were already stuck with the fact that you have to start making some you have to educate some people about that aspect of it.

Avoid the approach of anti-positioning

But as long as we continue to fight in anti-positioning what I believe occurs is that the general audience remains and retains their same opinion that they had to begin with. As an example, if we were to go on a radio program which my best friend and partner in this well be on the same radio program, you know, highly knowledgeable about the science and so forth. Hes a dentist that can say things very, very clearly. If we had a host that would be basically asking questions, most people would have presumed that the kind of question Im going to suggest to you right here is a really good one. Dr. Kennedy or Jeff Green, they would ramp us up and talk about all the things that weve done and then the big question kind of comes out, now that the people who are going to be receiving this substance in the water, what kind of adverse health effects would you expect them to see? That is really an appropriate question and its a good one however, if at the moment if somebody starts answering that and numbering off, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da thats what I call pandering to our own side and to the people who already understand the information because one, the tendency is for us to speak a little bit fast because we dont usually have enough time to get all our information out. But more importantly the more clearly he says it the less likely that the audience will understand all the words that he has put together the way he has put them together. So they have to go back inside what I call, you know, their filing cabinet inside or something else they pull out. That they have to go back in the filing cabinet and determine is what this person saying accurate and related to my experiences and what I have learned? So when we talk about things, again, like vaccinations or this or even mercury amalgams or the other kind of things like that, they are stored information that would be natural. I mean, this is not a negative thing to me. Its natural for that audience to be able to start looking and seeing how does this compare. If we go too fast, they cant even hear half of what were saying because were coming to conclusions that they cant get to. In the long run that same individual who is putting information out very effectively in terms of if we just look at it from that viewpoint but in the long run, this is probably 80% of the market or around 80% of the audience, and they have no opportunity to get where that person is. So one of them is because we start with the word fluoride where they already allow people to keep the assumption that fluoride is this special ingredient that we add to the water and we add to toothpaste. And thats what it is without any understanding of all the other uses and all of the other exposures that we have from it. Not knowing that, you know, we talk about solar panels. Whats on the back of that solar panel? Its fluoride.

Very useful but why is fluoride most dangerous?

Industry prizes what we call fluoride compounds. Whats amazing is there is so much education out there thats never explained to the general public. But its primarily one because its the most aggressive seeker of another electron. Its the most negative electromagnetically negatively charged element in the entire world. It basically is the most interactive of all the elements. I call it a bully. It will give up whatever its with to be with something else. Its kind of promiscuous that way that it will give up everything else. So its prized by industry because it actually disrupts molecular bonds. So its made to crack all kinds of things basically to refine heavy metals. We wouldnt have gasoline the way that we have it if we didnt have fluoride being used for it although they may be using some other things now. Its been the primary reason why we have petroleum gasoline the way we have it.

Exposure to fluoride far greater than realized

If you look at the industry also wants it because it creates tighter molecular bonds. So Scotchgard, Stain Master, Gore-Tex, the ski gear, Teflon. These are all fluoride type compounds as well because they actually make it a tighter molecular bond that is more impervious to penetration. Most people dont realize though that thats these wax papers that have been wrapped around these fast foods, on pizza boxes and on things that are put on the shelf to retain higher shelf life. So we have exposures that are just way beyond. By the time you get to the enzyme activity and knowing what it can do to disrupt enzyme activity, the effects are just so widespread that its just amazing. So we talked earlier about some of those products but its also used to potentiate products as well. So you find it in all kinds of things. I mean, its in antihistamines. Its in things that people are using for asthma the DM: Inhalers. JG: Yeah, those things as well as you see it all across the board that its being utilized and most people dont see that its being fluoride. What we found is that to the general public as long as youre just talking about your conclusion and trying to tell something its bad until you can actually broaden so they can see the nature of fluoride then in the long run basically it just becomes a he said, she said and in the long run you dont have much value with it. [----- 40:00 -----] When I sit and I am able to talk to people slowly as opposed to trying to say this rapidly as we can, that people dont need to know how fluoride. Once they learn the nature of fluoride they would never want to put it in their water.

Alternative Strategy rather than being anti

DM: So what are you suggesting as the alternative strategy rather than being anti which I agree with because even as a physician or someone seeking to improve themselves from personal development perspective. It has been known for a long time that you really want to avoid these anti or no messages like you wouldnt give yourself an affirmation of I want to stop doing this. You would reframe it as a positive perspective. JG: Right. Something you are going to do. DM: Right. That seems to be far more effective consistently and most of the disciplines realizing and understand this. people who dont understand that arent able to successfully achieve their personal development goals typically. What strategy would you recommend to apply this concept to this position rather than taking an anti for it position? JG: Were talking about two things. One is how do we educate the public. I shouldnt say it that way. I should say, first of all, we always have to determine what our audience is. There are certain audiences that you could talk about science because they are scientists and you would have been given the opportunity. Im not saying that those kind of issues shouldnt be displayed, that they shouldnt be discussed but for the general part, the general public, unless you can actually start talking about the nature of fluoride and broaden the base of their understanding so it isnt just a single purpose agent that is being placed in the water. That what ends up happening is that they havent broaden it enough to be able to understand how all these other things could happen. So as an example, fluoride is used in the ceramics business to make them more porous. Well it does exactly the same thing to our bones. But once they

have learned all the other uses for it, it becomes very easy to see how it does the same thing to our own calcium rich tissues. DM: So there is still an educational intervention but it needs to be in a different direction to broaden the appreciation of what this material is and then once they have that appreciation they can begin to become more acceptable and comfortable with JG: With the same information. But whats interesting is they do it by themselves at that point because once you have broaden it you can almost think of this as being a file and they have got a very narrow file thats already full of things that _ basically said that fluoride is good. It reduced tooth decay and most of that is all subjective or whatever they got from the media. Were trying to force in a whole bunch of other information and thats never very open. Whereas if you start opening that up and broadening the file and the base so that they can see about these other things; one, theyll find it all around them and they can come to some of those conclusions. That by itself doesnt change everything but it does change the description and the topic in terms of how were discussing things. Almost all of what you would call (indiscernible ) initiatives or even action that take place in city councils are all based on the public policy of fluoridation. So they have a troop of people who come in who oppose water fluoridation