All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 12, 2024 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:01:46
Jonathan Emord and Rob Verkerk interviewed by Mike Adams on Implications of FDA Censorship
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's interview on Bratian.com.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Bratian.
You know me, of course, as the Health Ranger.
I've been an advocate of health freedom, nutrition, and disease prevention for now over two decades, by the way.
So I kind of have to laugh when a lot of people are all of a sudden discovering movements like, you know, Make America Healthy Again.
When it's people like myself and my guests who have been in essence fighting for these issues for literally decades and making a lot of progress, I should say.
Now it's a national conversation.
How can we have a sustainable society if our people are obese and diseased and suffering from chronic degenerative disease and nutritional deficiencies on top of that?
The answer is we can't.
We've got to get back to the basics of health.
And our guests today are part of an organization that has been spearheading that effort for many, many years.
It's called the Alliance for Natural Health, anh-usa.org.
We've got the founder with us today and chief science officer, Dr.
Rob Verkirk, joining us here, as well as the new lead counsel, Jonathan Emord, the so-called FDA dragon slayer is a nickname that he earned.
Welcome, gentlemen, to the show today.
It's an honor to have you both on.
Fantastic to be with you, Mike.
Great to have you both here.
You're both champions, in my mind, for the things that you are doing.
But let's start with the big news.
So just recently, Jonathan Emord announced as a new, is it lead counsel for A&H? Is that the correct title?
General counsel. General counsel.
So tell us, Jonathan, what does that involve now?
What are you going to be doing with A&H? I would imagine it's going to be even more amazing from what A&H has already been doing, but go ahead.
Well, for years and years now, I think over two decades, I've been external counsel to A&H and specifically working for Rob Verkirk, Dr.
Rob Verkirk. He's brilliant, and I was just taken aback by the opportunity to be a part of the organization going forward, particularly now as he confronts a whole host of regulatory incursions both in the United States and in Europe.
And, you know, his track record in Europe is substantial.
He pushed back against the EU successfully on repeat occasions, preventing the wholesale destruction of what were historic herbal remedies.
And he also, of course, authorized that litigation, I think, some six times where I defeated the Food and Drug Administration on constitutional grounds under the First Amendment.
So he and I have a long track record together.
And he is a great leader, and so it's a privilege for me to serve ANH as its general counsel and fulfill the legal part of the ANH mission.
There are two component parts of the mission.
One is educational and one is lobbying and legal, and I'll be in charge of that litigation effort in the courts.
Well, that's really great news for all of us to hear, those of us who believe in health freedom.
And Rob, if I may call you Rob, this is the first time that I've interviewed you.
You look great.
You look so young and healthy and vibrant.
Seriously, must be something to do with the things that you advocate your organization.
Look, I'm an absolute passionate believer in natural health, as you are, Mike.
I've followed your work from the beginning.
I'm a scientist, so I've come from a background of really trying to understand the intimate connection between human beings and nature.
And one of the sort of shocks that occurs is this sort of blind deference to technology as a solution.
And that's what's created this business with disease, this notion that if we pretty much live our lives, you know, triggering opioid reward pathways, eating junk foods, and eventually we turn up at a doctor and Believe that we can take a pill for an ill.
And that system is now collapsing completely.
Yes, it is. You know, the bottom line is that people aren't being led towards a path of reconnection with nature.
They're still being taken to a path where Technology, despite its many failures, is still assumed to provide a solution.
So we see people now believing that AI or gene editing, CRISPR technology, will deliver a solution.
Well, it's fine. We passionately believe in choice.
That may be the choice of some, but the difficulty now is those of us who want to reconnect with nature to use natural products to maintain our health are being given a harder and harder time.
And it used to be just restriction of products.
Now we see This cabal of big government.
We see supranational organizations coming together, essentially appointing a faceless organization like the WHO in charge.
And that control, that autonomy, that's a fundamental principle of bioethics, is being taken away from us.
And frankly, a lot of people are asleep at the tiller, so we need to wake them up.
It's absolutely Orwellian, and it's horrifying what the WHO is doing, trying to say that anything that they don't is misinformation or disinformation.
You may be aware that my company has filed suit against government agencies as well as big tech on this very issue, a First Amendment issue having to do with health freedom.
But, and I'd like to get your response to this, Rob, first, and then I'll go back to Jonathan Ebert, but there seems to be an attempt by governments and technology corporations to achieve a cultural impact Memory wipe to wipe out all knowledge of herbs and botanicals, natural medicines, essential oils, homeopathy, you name it, so that people forget what has been medicine for as long as humanity has been on this earth.
Look, that's exactly part of it.
The idea is to create an in-group, if you like, where people are forced to have a certain set of beliefs that are completely in line with national authorities.
If you look at YouTube's Medical misinformation policy that was launched on the 15th of August last year basically says they're going to disallow any content that is not in line with either national authorities or the World Health Organization,
despite the fact that WHO has a Traditional medicines division, essentially the people who are at work trying to effectively push different parts of the population into echo chambers so that they all fight with each other are really not happy to see anything that is about health promotion, particularly if it's natural.
And you only need to keep this up for a generation or two and that knowledge will be lost.
Absolutely. Now, Jonathan Imord, it seems to me you've argued many First Amendment cases.
Could you speak to us about the extreme assaults against First Amendment when it comes to health, nutrition, superfoods, and botanicals?
Well, when it comes to this whole movement, even within the FDA, they have a section now on misinformation.
This is just a standard censorship move that is historic.
I mean, it's been this way even in England before the expiry of the Licensing Act for Speech.
This sort of heavy-handed government intrusion where they attempt to nix any statement made regarding science that disagrees with their orthodoxy that they are enforcing is outrageous.
We should regard it as a classic example of a violation of the First Amendment.
Whether it comes through instrumentalities that are private, that are in cahoots with the government, or the government directly, it still constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
If the industry functions, and I mean big tech, functions as an agent for WHO, as Dr.
Burkirk was mentioning, That's state censorship when the United States allows that to happen and permits it through CDC and through FDA, indeed encourages it, even the White House encouraging it.
We saw this written spades during the whole COVID period as they censored any criticism of the COVID vaccine, any attempt to encourage use of alternatives to the vaccine, and any criticism that resulted in anything that called into question administrative positions or even and any criticism that resulted in anything that called into question administrative positions or even the positions of the White House on the questions that So this has to come to an end, and we're going to be using litigation as a vehicle to help bring that about.
We will be strongly asserting litigation positions across the board in defense of First Amendment rights.
If the government proceeds as we anticipate it will with a declaration of a new emergency, a medical emergency, we will be quick to get into the fray and fight for the First Amendment rights of the American people and across Europe as well, Dr.
Dr. Rekirke will be swinging the revolutionary axe against the tree of censorship.
And still, as this happens.
In the United States now, we have a truly historic Supreme Court decision that you're very much aware of that has struck down what's called Chevron deference, which really speaks to the overreach of the, what do you call it, the fiefdoms of regulators creating their own law.
Hasn't this Supreme Court decision effectively created a lot of low-hanging fruit that's just begging for litigation to push back hard against the overzealous overreach of these regulators?
Yes, your point is one that Dr.
Burkirk and I have talked about extensively and we have worked together to come up with a whole agenda for litigating predicated upon the Loefer Bright Enterprises decision that overruled Chevron.
People need to understand that under this doctrine that was overruled called Chevron, any time the agency Was able to argue that there was ambiguity in a statute or silence on a point that was under their purview.
They were given license by the courts to interpret the statute, what it meant, and the courts would defer to that interpretation.
And this, as I know well from over 38 years of litigation, was an enormous obstacle to every single victory that we won of the 13 victories.
That was a major obstacle.
Now what we're looking at is a new environment.
Loper Bright overruled Chevron and made it the province and duty of the courts to say what the law is.
What does that mean? That means the agencies no longer have this carte blanche ability to just willy-nilly define the law to mean whatever they want.
Now they're going to have to prove that they're acting in complete accordance with the statutes that govern them, and the courts will be interpreting the meaning of the statute without any deference.
Whatsoever to the agency beyond listening to the agency as an equal litigant with me.
And so that's what we're going to take full advantage of.
There's another decision, too, called Axon Enterprises that is a great victory for us as well.
In that one, we no longer have to wait for exhaustion of administrative remedies, years and years and years of administrative litigation to get into court on a constitutional challenge.
We can go directly to court during an administrative process against a defendant and pursue constitutional remedies against the agency for its unlawful, unconstitutional practices and procedures.
So it seems to me, one more follow-up question for you, Jonathan, and then we'll go to Rob, but it seems to me that there was nothing, and correct me if I'm wrong, There was nothing in the original congressional creation of the FDA that gave the FDA permission to censor free speech, especially truthful speech.
If somebody is saying, hey, I sell cherry extracts and cherry extracts, here's the published medical literature published by PubMed, U.S. funded research that says cherry extracts can treat and prevent gout, let's say, right?
Is there anything that Congress gave the FDA the power to censor that truthful speech?
Well, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does allow the FDA to approve a drug, which is defined as something that is intended for use in the cure, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease.
And they have looked at statements such as that to characterize the underlying product as a drug.
But by focusing on speech, as they do presently and have since the 1930s, They aim at censoring any statement that might be regarded as competitive with a drug product or drug representation of its utility and efficacy.
They are a major censorship organ that violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is paramount even to the statute, and so to the extent that the statute can rightfully be interpreted as a censorship tool, it too should fall under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is an absolute bar of any power whatsoever in the federal government over speech and press.
There can be no action like there is presently where they require you to go to the government in the first instance before you can make a truthful statement about the effect of a nutrient or a drug or anything.
The FDA exercises that power and it really is a prior restraint that is a classic violation of the First Amendment.
Ultimately, that has to be challenged and we must win that.
And I suspect that this court is more apt to side for us, this Supreme Court majority, on these questions because they have made original construction of the Constitution their hallmark.
And clearly, at the time of the first Congress, James Madison and those who voted for what constituted ultimately the First Amendment to the United States Constitution never intended the federal government to wield any censorship power whatsoever.
Clearly, clearly. Wow. So Rob, with Jonathan Imord officially joining ANH, it seems to me that what ANH USA is doing here in the States is, I would argue, your organization is the single most important organization for protecting access to nutritional supplements, herbs, homeopathy, essential oils, and all these other things that people use to help support and maintain their good health.
Do you agree with that statement, or would you like to add to it?
Well, yeah, look, absolutely.
In terms of track record, in terms of also bringing the science and the law together, I think this is critical.
The... If you like, the playing field that we're working with is not quite what it seems.
Our opponents, if you like, are always trying to second guess what any of us might do with the law.
And that's one of the reasons we need a people's movement.
So if you look at the...
If you like, the emergence of this corporatocracy, the way in which governments work with corporations, they work as one in the knowledge, for example, that if governments try and restrict free speech, they can be challenged under the First Amendment.
But if everyone becomes hooked to, for example, social media platforms, not like yours, but like Facebook, like Instagram, like YouTube...
And that becomes the, if you like, the digital town square in which we share information, then private corporations can do whatever they want to do.
And that is what is so seminal in terms of a number of cases.
One, obviously, that got lost at the final hurdle in the Supreme Court, Mercy v.
Missouri, it's the degree to which the government coerces or bullies or interacts with private social media companies to do the dirty work.
And of course, the flip side of that as well is governments do whatever they can to become, if you like, the advertising agency for new pharma and And, of course, New Pharma is this emerging industry that we see that's moving away from the classic new to nature model of pharmaceuticals that has been collapsing steadily since the patent cliff was hit in about 2010 or so.
And is moving ever more rapidly in the direction of biologics and biosimilars, which is effectively converging on the space that we want to be natural products.
So if you look at what's beginning to happen now in the field of peptides, for example, you'll see that the FDA has last year added 22 peptides to the category two bulk substances list that puts them effectively on the compounding naughty you'll see that the FDA has last year added 22 peptides to the category two bulk substances list But when you break it down, what they're using is really a European model of drug.
a Napoleonic model that says you are guilty unless proven innocent.
Of course, they're saying these peptides have problems with missing data or potential immunogenicity.
And of course, we've just seen in the last few days the fact that A particular peptide that potentially could be a central part of a health revolution, thymocin, that comes from the thymocin gland, is now on the FDA radar.
So slowly but steadily, they are...
Moving into exactly the same space that those of us who have seen the extreme value of natural products.
And the reason that they are so valuable is we've had eons, millions of years to co-evolve around these natural products.
But pharma, new pharma, which is really working very closely with big biotech, And also in terms of communication with big tech, wants to see action in the same space.
So we've really got to be eyes wide open.
We can't just rely on legal solutions.
We need a people's movement, a revolution.
The health professions to really understand what the future is going to look like.
Absolutely. And we also need to be able to develop workarounds to negotiate around this minefield that has been created.
Well, and it's truly extraordinary the number of weapons that governments and regulators are deploying now to try to silence truthful speech about natural products.
And in case you're not aware of our lawsuit, what it uncovers is how the federal government laundered censorship requests through overseas NGOs, some based out of the UK.
And then those NGOs developed censorship target lists and censorship protocols that then go to big tech.
So in this way, the government can claim that, well, we didn't censor big tech, but we funded these overseas NGOs.
They did the censorship.
This is exactly what's going on right now.
And as an example of this, by the way, I've started teaching nutritional Bible sermons.
I've recorded and posted 45 Bible sermons about the foods of the Bible.
Tried to post sermon number one to YouTube.
Bible Nutrition, flagged, removed for medical misinformation.
You can't even teach scripture on YouTube if you mention healing foods.
That's how crazy it has become.
Either one of you want to comment on that?
Look, I'm happy to comment on it.
Look, it's extraordinary.
The bottom line is it immediately conflicts with that medical misinformation policy because they're saying if the NIH hasn't said it and if the WHO hasn't said it, you can't say it.
But there's another part, another layer to this, which is not only the censorship of speech, it's the re-education of young people.
They're fully aware that those of us who've lived a few decades probably have made our mind up on certain issues.
But if you look, you mentioned these international organizations.
If you look what's happening in certain academic circles, it was very well shown during the Nobel Prize Summit in Washington, D.C. in May last year.
They're basically bringing a whole bunch of academic institutions into the mix who are trying to We re-educate young people over how to identify misinformation.
So, in particular, if you look at the Cambridge University Social Decision-Making Lab, run by a gentleman by the name of Dr.
Sander van der Linden, it's quite extraordinary.
They're working together with the World Health Organization.
They've produced games.
They are gamifying the whole idea of Identifying misinformation, anything at all that does not comply with WHO or NIH or agencies like that, is identified as weird and wacky and needs to be run away from.
So they're using actually a vaccination technique.
They believe if you can inoculate them with a little dose of misinformation, they'll be wide awake to it and will just walk the other way.
Well said. Let me give out your website.
anh-usa.org is the website, Alliance for Natural Health.
And I want to encourage everybody watching this to join the organization.
Click the Join button here on the top right.
And if you click that, you can join the organization.
You can help support this organization.
You can also choose to donate if you wish and help financially support.
But most importantly, Spread the mission.
Spread the word. They have a whole news section.
And they're going to be doing a lot of incredible work with Jonathan Emord.
So there's going to be a lot to talk about, I think, in the next couple of years.
Here we go. Look at some of the activities that A&H has already achieved and much more coming.
So, Jonathan Emord, tell us, if you would, please, How can ANH, with your legal expertise, how can ANH, to the extent of what you can say today, how can ANH push back against this and achieve these victories, which I would consider to be victories for humanity?
Humanity deserves the right to access natural medicine just as much as humanity deserves the right to access water and air.
It's the same in my book, but how will this happen, Jonathan?
So we already have 13 victories against the FDA, and these are largely in areas where they are either restricting access to information or are arbitrarily creating barriers to market entry that prevent competition to pharma.
That, as you heard from Dr.
Verkirk, is going to expand in spades as they take over the whole treatment of what constitutes misinformation, and they use proxies illegitimately to do the dirty work for them.
And this is not something that is brand new.
It's new in its scope and extent.
But in the litigation that I've had over the years, I've seen this very corruption within the government where you can no longer take it for granted that the laws of legal ethics will be followed by those in the administrative state.
Indeed, frequently there are corrupt corporate influences that are overt that prevent products from entering the market globally.
But we're going to be attacking on all sorts of grounds across the board to roll back this expansion of power and work against it.
So, for example, we now have a situation with homeopathy in the United States.
In which the FDA revoked a compliance policy guideline that was the basis for allowing homeopathy and have insisted that homeopathic products comply with the drug approval process, which was clearly not the intent of those who drafted the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and recognized homeopathy as a viable and independent from drugs, that is, new drugs.
Category, yet that has happened.
There has been some unsuccessful litigation brought against FDA But we are going to attack on a new basis that we'll tell you about at the time that the pleading is filed that will enable us to argue anew that this action is a violation of the plain and intended meaning of the act as well as an action that is strongly suppressive of the free speech rights of those people who have been engaged in this profession for hundreds of years.
So that's one example, but we have numerous instances now where we can take action.
You know, to give you another one quickly, under the Food Drug FDA Modernization Act, there was a provision inserted to rebel against FDA censorship of authoritative statements of government health agencies.
There are thousands of nutrient disease relationships That are recognized by agencies other than FDA and have been published in peer reviewed literature and as official pronouncements of these agencies.
FDA censors that even though the act, even though Congress said open the door to it, allow it into the marketplace.
Well, we're going to knock this barrier down because they're violating the act and Loper Bright invites us to go back to the original meaning of the statute.
We're going to knock this thing down and when we do, we will see the marketplace filled with scientific information that will enable consumers to understand the intrinsic I'd like to add,
well, I want to ask another question of both of you about the economic and the financial implications of what I would call FDA tyranny against freedom of speech.
Right now, the United States, the national debt is over $35 trillion.
Unfunded liabilities are $220 trillion.
Money printing is going insane.
The kids are diseased.
They're largely obese.
They're suffering from very early symptoms of Chronic degenerative cardiovascular disease, blood sugar metabolism disorders, neurological disorders.
And then the answers we hear from our government, which is heavily influenced by pharma, is, oh, inject them with GLP-1 drugs.
Inject the children with more drugs.
Don't worry about what they're eating.
Just inject them with more drugs, more medications, more psychiatric drugs.
My question to both of you, gentlemen, is, financially, Can America even survive financially if we keep spending trillions of dollars on medicating and injecting people when they're not getting well?
What are your thoughts on that?
Jonathan, you want to take it first, and then we'll go back to Rob.
Well, on the science side of that, I'm going to leave it to Dr.
Verkirk. But I must say that the economic impact...
We have 110,000 people dying from FDA approved drugs every year.
We have numerous unsafe drugs in the market.
At the same time, we have information that is indispensable to saving people's lives that the FDA The FDA is blocking from the marketplace until I sue them and succeed or we get it through some way.
Also, we have all of these products that have great promise that the drug approval process prevents from getting into the market, and these are innovations in medicine.
Unless you have $2.8 billion in your pocket, you're not able to get through the drug approval process.
As a result, medical devices, drugs that people are inventing and discovering, That can hold great promise, including nutraceuticals, are not able to reach people as treatment modalities.
What does this mean? This means that the cost of all things we consume is higher because we don't have competitive entry.
In addition, the cost of drugs in particular is higher.
Also, the access to information necessary to be healthy and to improve your health is so severely restricted that we don't see any meaningful change in longevity in the United States.
And we see the progression of age-related disease.
And now we see all the vaccine-related injuries and likely age-related disease onsets, early onsets, as a result of the vaccine.
So the paradigm shift has been in favor of government policies And corporate merger, corporatism, at the expense and both economic and physical expense of the American people.
And this is true around the world.
So anyway, Dr. Verkirk can speak to the science aspects of this.
Please do, Rob. Please. I mean, very briefly, on the economic side, there isn't a clear relationship, you know, except at the lowest levels between the amount of money you spend on health care and outcomes, either if you look at lifespan or healthspan.
And, of course, the U.S., when you look at global data, is already an outlier, spending vast amounts per capita.
The idea that you can spend more and suddenly deliver good outcomes is fantastic.
Frankly, a pipe dream.
In many ways, what we suffer from is a problem of cultural, behavioral, psychological addiction to this notion that we can turn up at a GP, at a family physician, or go to a pharmacy and find a solution.
There is a huge job that needs to be done to re-educate people, that as we see the increasing burden from age-related diseases collapsing the mainstream health system, people have to, you know, take the reins themselves, put themselves in the driving seat.
And frankly, they can't go to We're good to learn about standard conventional healthcare providers and learn about that.
And that's why the whole so-called alternative health movement or anti-aging movement, you know, traditional medicines movement, all these movements are absolutely vital.
Also another reason why they're going after freedom of speech so that it becomes ever harder to educate in relation to products at least.
So the future does lie in the hands of people learning more how to drive this incredibly sophisticated multi-dimensional machine that we call the human body.
People don't know how to use it, how to work with it, how to consume the right foods.
And while we look at The problems with, say, government restriction, we have also a very uneven playing field in terms of how they are treating others in the business.
They want to fast track mRNA vaccines on the back of a so-called success that many of us would deem a failure of COVID-19 vaccines.
They want to essentially put CRISPR-edited foods into our mouths and particularly our children's mouths without doing any safety evaluation on the basis that these contain molecules and We're good to go.
As a vehicle to push veganism so that they can be an increased market for fake meats and fake dairy products.
So there is a huge educational job required to get people to get over their addiction to the system that simply isn't delivering health for anyone.
Well, you're exactly right about that, Rob.
And let me have a follow-up question for you on that because I am hearing and witnessing through family members and friends and so on who are interacting with the medical system, conventional medical system in America.
And the system is absolutely cratering.
The staff are increasingly incompetent.
They cannot function.
They've lost the ability.
I'm hearing so many stories of this.
Even the doctors are complaining that the insurance companies are just in the way.
The system is broken.
The government mandates will criminalize doctors for making common sense recommendations.
Like I said, the staffers barely know what's going on.
The scheduling software doesn't work.
There are hacks all the time.
Medical records are being stolen left and right.
I am hearing more and more from people in your comments, please, that They're done.
Barring some kind of major life-threatening emergency where they have to go to the ER, which I understand that, but barring that, they're done with doctors.
They are seeking out deliberately ways to avoid having to go through that nightmare.
Yeah, look, that absolutely is happening.
And of course, that's one of the reasons that self-care, Dr.
Google, call it what you like, are massively under attack.
It's why CISA has been set up in the US as an agency specifically to deal ostensibly with cybersecurity, but actually it's going to be dealing with so-called mis, dis and mal information.
The irony here is that it's deemed that We, the public, and health professionals as well as climate change deniers and those who...
There are three areas they're going after consistently.
One is in the area of health, one is in climate change, and the third is in electoral problems and politics.
Those are the areas that they want to control.
And so it's deemed that we are the people who are putting out misinformation.
The irony, when you look at it, It's the other way around more often than not.
The misinformation that's being put out, for example, around semaglutides, I think we may see, because it delivers short-term benefit, The sheer cost and the economics as well as the side effects is beginning emerging data that's even been published in JAMA to suggest that suicide ideation may increase for people who are on long-term semiglutide,
skinny jabs like a Zempik, for example.
So we need to see people kind of waking up to the problems around their family members.
We need to see also a much better If you like, collaboration on our side, cohesion within the health movement so that people can be managed by, if you like, a joined-up health system that sees the body from a holistic point of view,
that we're operating this health ecosystem in which Not just the food that we eat and the medicines that we take, but also the social interactions that we have.
Our psychological, mental, and spiritual health is managed in ways that keep us healthy at all levels.
And that system, if you like, they are deliberately trying to break it down.
They're using social media as a mechanism to push people into specific echo chambers so that People in even the same family are actually, if they do identical searches on their iPhones or on their computers, they will get different results coming up.
Depending on how echo chambers and shadow bands have been organized.
And what that does is create social conflict so that people are fighting amongst each other.
And of course, divide and conquer is one of the oldest techniques in the book to assert control and power over populations.
You have a really high-level view of this.
I'm so glad to hear you say what you just said, because this is a big picture.
I call this a war on humanity.
And there are sectors of that war.
There's a war on the family. There's a war on reason.
There's a war on health.
There's a war on atmospheric chemistry.
A war on CO2 is a war on photosynthesis.
And a war on photosynthesis is a war on food crops.
It just goes on and on.
So I'm glad you have that high-level view.
Along those lines, let me ask Jonathan.
Outcomes. Here's what's amazing to me.
The people that I know who eat holistic foods, who use superfoods, nutritional supplements, the botanicals, and who avoid prescription drugs, these are the healthiest people I know.
They have great cognition, they have healthy skin, they have healthy bodies.
But the people who are on medications and who abide by the recommendations of the FDA and the WHO, they are the sickest people, and frankly, since 2020, a lot of them are dead at this point.
What do you say about health outcomes?
I mean, isn't it obvious that botanical medicine, supplement medicine, nutraceuticals work better than the system that we're fed?
Well, you know, we see from the end of World War II forward the development of an industry that actually thrives off of the existence of disease.
So we have a whole host of drugs that treat symptomology, but none are cures.
None are actually capable of eliminating the underlying disease.
This also creates its own disease byproduct, which then again invites more drugs.
So, for example, we don't treat rheumatoid arthritis with glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, which rebuilds cartilage.
Instead, we treat it with NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that simply treat pain.
So in the end, the person goes from some cartilage to no cartilage and then bone-on-bone ebernation.
What do they get? Then they got to go in and have knee replacements or hip replacements and so forth.
Plus all the intestinal bleeding from the NSAIDs, right?
Right, right. So this is an industry that profits off of the existence and proliferation of disease.
People have to understand that.
We have these Wall Street firms that create disease.
For example, like SAD, seasonal allergy disorder was created, or metabolic syndrome.
You just mix a bunch of symptoms together and call it a new thing.
Then you can create new drugs for it.
The classic paradigm for this is in the psych drugs.
I mean, we've got all these We have a society that has become sick.
We have to leave it, and we have to find alternatives to it, and that's where the problem lies for Big Pharma.
They want to snuff out all communication and all options that go outside of this paradigm.
They control the government.
They control Medicare.
They determine through the departments of health and the licensing authorities for doctors and for healthcare practitioners in the state what the medically reasonable and necessary treatment is.
And that is defined almost exclusively as a therapy that involves drug therapy That is approved by Big Pharma and that is indicative of their agenda for treating disease.
And this has got to come to an end.
We have got to get back to a patient-centric model In which physicians are aiming to treat and cure disease and use the best approaches for the particular patient, recognizing that this one-size-fits-all paradigm,
where you give one drug for a whole category of people and those people have different histories, medical histories, different biological characteristics, and yet you're treating them with one pill, one dose, one approach, dogmatically, whether it works or not.
You know, we need health freedom zones in America.
I've advocated for this for years.
You know how in Texas, for example, which is very much a pro-Second Amendment state, the state passed a law that said that suppressors, firearms suppressors, can be manufactured within the state of Texas if they're kept within the state.
And of course, there's a lawsuit with the feds over that.
But I would love to advocate states like Texas or other states saying, well, we're going to declare this state to be a health freedom zone or even call it a health freedom sanctuary state.
You know, whatever you want to call it.
And we're going to say that the federal laws against freedom of speech and against freedom of medical practice, they are null and void within this state.
And let's see that showdown.
I'd like to see that happen.
Rob? Mike, I've got to say, I'm speaking to you from Texas right now.
Oh, you are? I did not know that.
Yeah, I'm absolutely up for that.
Coming back to the question you made about people who are taking botanicals and natural products being healthier, the system has been set up.
We call it the missing healthy system.
The business for the disease is so well developed that most of the statistics that governments are working with that are then fed through the mass media machine are based on disease, not on health.
So actually, those of us who bypass the health system because we don't need to go in and have regular blood tests and have our markers checked, we never develop disease, we're completely absent from their databases.
That's right. So they never see us at all.
So we are, you know, if you look at the concept of the blue zones, the five areas in the world where you get centenarians living with little or no chronic disease, all of them incidentally without technology, they're all sort of natural-based systems.
We actually have blue zoners all over the world, people living like that, but they don't appear on statistics.
So the evidence-based medicine system that is I've been distorted from the original ideas that David Sackett and others developed in the early 1990s.
He published a paper in 1996 in the British Medical Journal already saying it has been distorted.
You've taken clinical experience out of the picture.
The RCT model now is viewed as the gold standard and particularly meta-analyses of it.
So once they control the funding, once they control RCTs that essentially are not a good model for looking at multifactorial systems of people taking multiple things in natural ways in their homes, they're really just looking once they control RCTs that essentially are not a good model for looking at multifactorial systems Well stated.
Yeah, so RCTs have become this standard simply because statistically they give you good internal validation.
However, they give you no bearing on what happens in the real world, and that needs to be understood.
Well, and let me show you this. I mean, here's my daily smoothie, right?
So this is avocados, bananas, turmeric.
I have sprouted broccoli seeds in here.
Yeah, that's it. Numerous, numerous other things that I include in here.
But I drink turmeric every day.
Every single day. And I've been doing it for, I don't know, 15 years.
But I'm disrupting the medical system.
I'm disrupting the cartels.
They can't make money off of me.
Because I'm never going to show up at a cancer center.
I'm never going to show up at a diabetes clinic.
It's not going to happen because cause and effect.
I believe in cause and effect.
If we don't believe in cause and effect, then we don't believe in the laws of chemistry and the table of elements and the laws of physics and the flow of time.
If we believe in cause and effect, then we know that disease is not actually spontaneous.
Disease has causes.
And we can... We can interdict that with good nutrition, nutraceuticals, superfoods, healthy lifestyles, good rest, good sleep, good social interaction, clean water, freedom from toxins.
And we're never taught this information.
It's absolutely infuriating that the world we live in is just, how do we profit off of people suffering and disease?
I mean, Jonathan, it's crazy that we live in this environment.
It can't go on much longer.
I don't know what else to say.
I get a little excited about this topic.
For truth to come to the fore, for people to comprehend what is true, requires a wide-open, robust marketplace of ideas.
This is not a new thought.
This is something that goes back at least to Aeropagitica in the 16th century when John Milton recognized this syllogism, basically the idea that somehow...
If you allow free speech, if you allow individuals the opportunity to debate that through that contest of ideas there would come elements of truth that would be perceived and that would advance mankind.
What we have from this state-centric approach where the government is to control everything and define what constitutes accurate information and what constitutes misinformation which they will suppress Is the very old age censorship that held back the progress of mankind as clearly as it did before the expiry of the Licensing Act in England.
Here we have it all over again.
And so what we see are more sophisticated technological means to deny American people access to information and products, but it's the same old heavy-handed centralized government approach that is at issue.
And this approach is strongly fed by our enemies, by the Communist Chinese, by those who believe that That individuals do not have a right to discern for themselves what is in their own best interest.
That's not what the First Amendment or our Constitution stands for.
That's antithetical to the idea of individual rights.
We have an absolute right to access, receive, and communicate information in a wide-open marketplace of ideas, and we can trust, as the First Amendment does, an individual discernment to choose what's in your own best interest without having a bureaucratic nanny tell you what you have to do based on information.
Amen. Amen.
And this is the issue of decentralization, right?
And also, you know how in crypto they talk about self-custody, like you should control your wallet.
Well, what about your health self-custody?
You should control your health decisions.
You should have absolute control over what you want to do, what kind of interventions you believe are justified in your situation, because no one else can know your body better than you know it And so, Rob, one of the reasons I love your organization, again, let me show the website, Alliance for Natural Health, anh-usa.org.
I want to encourage everybody, click join.
Join the organization here, and I'm showing you some of the recent articles.
But you teach people self-custody over their own health.
That is critical for human freedom.
Totally. One of the things that they've been doing, and COVID acted as an extraordinary catalyst for it, is to completely disempower the relationship that people have had with their physician.
This is a relationship that goes back thousands and thousands of years.
And in a matter of five years, they've got now the average doctor looking over their shoulder, wondering, If the medical board will allow them to keep their license, what the FDA and others are saying.
And of course, there's another layer now.
These supranational organizations like the WHO, who are also intimately connected with the World Economic Forum and others, to create a destiny that increasingly takes power away from the individual.
And again, if we look at, for a minute, the medical boards, We're good to go.
Where you do what you want to do, that you look at your own needs, that you make your own choices.
The second one is beneficence, where the health practitioner, the medical doctor, does good.
The third, primum non necessari, maleficence, do no harm.
And the fourth, justice.
But those four principles in the space of the last five years have been shattered.
So we need to be able to put them back on the table.
We need medical doctors and other health professionals to be re-inspired that these principles that you'll find deep in the literature of the ancient Greek, they go back into the traditional systems in India of Ayurveda, even into China, into traditional Chinese medicine, have now completely been compromised.
And if we don't bring them back, and if people don't That is so true.
Just extremely well stated, both of you.
I want to thank you so much for bringing this to us today and give you an opportunity for final thoughts.
Jonathan, and also this has been a vocabulary lesson today.
We've heard maleficence, I think you just said, and then we heard syllogism from Jonathan earlier and so on.
These are not words that people hear a lot, so you're welcome to throw some more at us.
You can pop quiz our audience today, but Jonathan, what are your final thoughts?
Well, I think we've talked a lot about depressing things today.
I'm really rather optimistic because I have seen what we can do in court.
I know that Dr. Verkirk has succeeded in the European Union and in the United States in knocking down these barriers.
I've had a good opportunity in the U.S. to be a legal advocate for ANH in the past.
I know what we can do.
And I know that people can trust in us to fight vociferously, there's another word to look up, in defense of our rights.
And that's what we have to do.
ANH is uniquely situated to do that.
I might mention this also.
I'm heartened by RFK Jr.'s association with Donald Trump.
And the reason why I say that is that if Donald Trump becomes elected president and RFK Jr.
has a pivotal central role in these areas, we know from working with the organization Children's Health Defense, which he established, That he is a proven advocate against the insanity that has become the mass inoculation of everyone from a newborn all the way through to adulthood and this whole movement for healthier foods,
for turning back the clock And getting us back to nature and what we had depended upon so successfully to build strong human beings all the way up until we started to make sort of frankenfoods.
So there's a real hope here and a promise of a better day.
We just have to play our cards right.
I would urge people to strongly support ANH. If you can donate, please do.
It'll make a huge difference.
This money will be used to pursue these ends.
And likewise, I sure hope that RFK Jr.
has a role to play in the new administration.
I'm so glad you mentioned that.
I meant to ask you about RFK Jr.
It's rumored that he may be placed, again, if Trump wins and if that win is properly defended by the attorneys, that RFK Jr.
may be placed at head of HHS. I can't think of a more historic appointment in the history of the FDA or the history of the HHS. I've even told people that RFK Jr.
as head of HHS is a more compelling reason to vote for Trump than voting for Trump himself.
It's like... This is so amazing.
As you're pointing out, Mike, very well, it would be a revolution.
We have only seen people who are basically defenders of the status quo in that position ever since it was created.
If we had an HHS secretary who truly advocated for us and fought against Big Pharma and fought against the whole big food industry and its attempts to really turn foods into just a chemical that is synthetic, this would be great for the health of American people.
It would ensure that there is a new standard in the world that goes against this idea that every answer to every problem lies in a pill or that every answer to every problem lies in forgetting about your own nature and what foods actually do to your body.
Well said. Rob, your final thoughts of our conversation today?
Yes, look, I may have been a little bit doom and gloom, but part of that is really understanding the nature of the problems that we face.
If we don't see that we have a huge problem developing around us, we will not have enough people moving towards solutions.
And the really exciting thing is that There are so many people and organizations coming together that are completely solution-based.
And one of the things we're doing in the ANH, using the alliance part of who we are, is really building alliances around the world for people who are solution-based.
So I'll just introduce, Jonathan's already mentioned them, but we've brought up a few new terms.
I've got two words, donate now.
Putting fuel in the machine is going to be the main limitation to what we can do.
There is a huge amount of multiple levels that both allows freedom to exist, autonomy to develop, as well as finding ways of curbing this Transition that we're seeing in big tech, big pharma, towards trying to just use human beings as guinea pigs for their latest money-making technologies that are really full of a whole lot of known as well as unpredictable harms.
So we need to deal with it from both sides.
Absolutely. Now, let me just ask you a couple technical questions for those who wish to donate.
So first of all, donations to A&H USA are tax deductible according to normal IRS accounting rules in the United States, correct?
Donations to A&H Foundation.
So we have both a 501c3, which are tax-free donations, but for our lobbying litigation funds, that's our 501c4, which is actually A&H USA. So we tend to provide both links.
As you'll have heard from our discussion, a huge amount of the work to create the kind of revolution that we're looking at does involve re-education, and that's really what the 501c3 is about.
Feel free to donate to either part, but for litigation and lobbying, it needs to be specifically in the 501c4 part.
And for our viewers who are in Western Europe or other countries, what's the best way they can donate and support you?
They can donate through anhinternational.org.
That has got no dashes in it, anhinternational.org.
We're doing a huge amount there, both legally.
Belgium, for example, is trying to bring in a law that's going to effectively create a We're good to go.
That's exactly what they've done.
They're killing homeopathy that developed in Germany 200 years ago by imposing a standard that is impossible for homeopathic products to be able to negotiate.
All right, well, we face a very uncertain future.
Both of you have your work cut out for you, but with the support of our audience and your other members, I believe we can be victorious.
And I also believe, by the way, that the failure of the pharmaceutical, toxic food, toxic agricultural system, that failure is going to become simply more and more apparent with each passing day.
When you have Tucker Carlson having guests on that talk about this, when you have RFK Jr.
talking about this, when you have...
The Trump team sort of merging with natural health, you know, Maha, make America healthy again, for me, that's a dream come true.
It's like, for the first time, this is a national conversation, and it had better be.
We don't have a future unless we have a healthy population.
That's my view. But thank you both.
100% with you there, Mike.
Thank you so much for talking with us today.
Thank you so much. I'm honored.
And Jonathan, thank you so much for all that you do.
And we really look forward to your upcoming announcements.
We'd be happy to share the news here on brighttown.com.
Thanks so much, Mike. All right.
Have a wonderful day, both of you.
God bless you both. Take care.
And for our audience, again, the website is anh-usa.org.
Be sure to click join there.
Join and support this organization.
I will be supporting this organization as well, in addition to the editorial coverage here.
My organizations will be making donations to A&H because this is a critical fight for our time.
And our court case may also achieve various victories that can affect freedom of speech for other providers of nutritional supplements, superfoods, even homeopathic remedies and other natural remedies that are relevant to all of this.
Thank you all for watching today.
I'm Mike Adams of brighteon.com.
And God bless you all. Be healthy.
Keep drinking your smoothies.
You're going to need to stay healthy for what's coming, because it's going to get interesting, that's for sure.
But thank you for watching, and take care, everybody.
Your own government has the power to activate a kill switch on all telecommunications, instantly shutting down all private phone calls and texts.
An EMP weapon or solar flare can achieve the same result.
Rolling blackouts or permanent power outages will also take out the power supply to cell tower antennas, rendering mobile devices all but useless.
During these emergencies, how do you stay in touch with the important people in your life anywhere on the planet?
The answer is the Bivy Stick at sat123.com.
The Bivy Stick is a two-way satellite text messaging device that uses a satellite constellation, not cell towers, to send and receive text messages.
It works anywhere on planet Earth, including in war zones or blackout areas, in unpredictable times.
The Bivy Stick helps you stay connected when it matters most.
▲
Export Selection