All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2025 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
57:30
Jonathan Emord reveals brave plan to END HEALTH CENSORSHIP by the FDA
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The FDA has been in the business of censoring information.
They're imposing a prior restraint on the communication of truthful information.
You have to go to the government.
In the first instance, if you want to tell anybody what a nutrient does, you have to first go to the government and ask for permission.
And that is antithetical to the First Amendment.
Welcome to today's interview here on Brighteon.com.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.
And as you know, I'm a strong advocate of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
And our free speech is under attack from the FDA.
It has been since 1906 with the founding of the agency that disallows truthful health claims to be made by manufacturers and retailers of many different products and services that can help protect and enhance your health.
And today we're joined by an extraordinary guest, Jonathan Emurd, who is his nickname in the past was the FDA Dragon Slayer.
I don't know if he likes that name or not, but he's the lead counsel for the Alliance for Natural Health, USA, which is at ANH-USA.org.
And they have some new legal action that's very exciting that we're going to talk about today.
So welcome, Jonathan Emurd, to the show today.
Well, great to be with you.
It's great to have you back on.
I always miss speaking with you because I'd love the clarity of your elucidation of the issues.
So tell us about this issue.
Let me bring up the press release from ANH, the Alliance for Natural Health.
It says, ANH challenges FDA for blocking government-backed health claims.
What's this all about, Jonathan?
Well, this is crazy.
As you mentioned, you know, all the way back to the turn of the 20th century, the FDA has been in the business of censoring information.
It's probably good to frame this properly.
The founding fathers meant for the federal government to have no power whatsoever over speech and press.
And in particular, even in Blackstonian law, which they partially rejected, there was no basis for a prior restraint on speech.
And the innovation, actually, of the American Constitution was that it ensured that there would be no prior restraint on speech from the federal government.
So the FDA really is a throwback to the Hanoverian kings of England, George III, in that they're imposing a prior restraint on the communication of truthful information.
You have to go to the government in the first instance.
If you want to tell anybody what a nutrient does to their risk of disease, you have to first go to the government and ask for permission.
And that is antithetical to the First Amendment.
So having said that, years pass, the Congress passes legislation that codifies a prior review process.
And then that raises all kinds of problems.
And I win a case called Pearson versus Shalala, which holds that whole regime at FDA unconstitutional and requires the FDA to allow qualified claims to be made rather than suppressing claims outright that were backed by science, but not conclusively true.
Virtually nothing in science, as you know well, Mike, is conclusively true in the sense of being proven beyond any question whatsoever, which is true of almost any statement about anything that you could make in the world.
So following that, after I won this case called Pearson versus Shalala, which ended FDA censorship of dietary supplement-based folic acid claims, among others, that it reduced the incidence of neural tube defect births, spina bifida, and an encephaly by as much as 80%.
800 micrograms of folic acid could reduce the risk by that much.
The FDA started to receive heat session after session in Congress with members introducing legislation trying to change the law to allow more health claims.
And one of those pieces of legislation was this thing called the FDA Modernization Act.
And a provision in that act allowed for authoritative statements made by government, federal government health agencies to enter the market upon notice to FDA without having to go through their pre-approval process.
Well, we filed a whole bunch of notices and FDA waited and waited and waited and didn't respond and finally did respond and said, nope, you can't make a single one of these because they all have to go through our prior significant scientific agreement standard approach.
In other words, they had to go through that pre-approval process that Congress intended the law, the FDA Modernization Act, to exempt claims from if they were made by the government itself.
So wait a minute, let me just restate this.
But what year was the FDA Modernization Act passed?
I'm trying to remember.
I think it was 9099.
I think so.
Wow.
Okay.
It's been a while.
Maybe after that, maybe it's 2000 something, but it's not too far away from 99.
Okay.
And then you're saying if any other U.S. federal government agency, such as the NIH, for example, or the CDC, were to make a substantial health claim, like, for example, saying that vitamin C can cure scurvy or treat scurvy, that then any dietary supplement manufacturer that makes vitamin C could automatically use that same claim by simply referencing the government agency that also made that claim.
Is that a good best friend?
And they would file a notice saying, hey, look, this is the claim that the government agency makes, and we want to make that same claim.
Our product contains the same ingredient at the same dose amount.
Can we just make that claim?
And they would serve the notice to the FDA.
And FDA was supposed to just allow the claim unless it had affirmative proof that the claim would cause injury or harm.
There was a catch-all provision where they could open a rulemaking against the claim.
The claim would still be able to be made, but they could open a rulemaking to stop it.
What FDA did was rewrite the statute basically by interpretation and said, no, we're the only health agency authorized by Congress to evaluate the truthfulness of nutrient disease claims.
And you can't use another government agency's health claim.
You have to come to us and we have to determine whether that agency was correct in its science.
So here you have science agencies that are as substantially backed by qualified scientists as FDA by far.
In fact, even more so many times on specific issues.
And FDA is saying, no, we're the true expert.
You're not other agency.
You have to come to us.
And so what we've done is we just filed, Alliance for Natural Health just filed the largest health claim petition in the history of the United States, 118 separate nutrient disease risk reduction claims made by other government health agencies that we're asking FDA to approve under the FADAMA provision.
They have until January of 2026, where they should immediately allow all 118 claims, which will diluge the market for the first time with fundamental nutrient disease information from all sorts of nutrients.
And that will help consumers enormously understand the health benefits of specific products and both foods and dietary supplements.
And it should alter eating habits if history repeats itself in ways that would enhance life and reduce the risk of age-related diseases.
Onset and so forth.
I want to bring our audience's attention to the fact I've highlighted that our store, Health Ranger Store, Inc., we have also helped support this effort, as has Cardiomiracle and Living Fuel and Evolution, Nutraceutical, Santa Corps International, etc.
So many of us are helping to support this effort.
We think it's critical.
And I would like, Jonathan, I'd like you to answer two questions here.
The first question is, you're filing a petition with the FDA.
Of course, I know you're a brilliant legal mind.
There must be a reason why you believe this to be the most efficient way to achieve this.
But why aren't you suing the FDA?
Or is that perhaps the next step?
And then secondly, can you give us a couple of examples of these federal government substantiated health claims that would be allowed under this if the FDA backs off?
So the reason why we're filing this is that to have standing to sue in court, we have to show that we went to the agency and petitioned them under the statute to receive the authorization.
But in the petition itself, we are fighting the agency.
So we're telling them your interpretation of the statute is wrong under Loper Bright, the Supreme Court's recent decision.
There's no deference due to your interpretation.
And here is what the actual canons of statutory construction reveal as far as both the plain language of the statute and its intended meaning, and that is that Congress very, very plainly intended an alternative procedure to your significant scientific agreement review process, which would be this notice procedure.
And you're not abiding by it.
We're also telling them, even if you did somehow convince a court that you could use your significant scientific agreement standard, there's my victory in Pearson versus Shalala, which says you'd have to allow the claims anyway with qualifications because you can't very well doubt the validity, truthfulness, and non-misleadingness of claims that your sister agencies are publishing every day to the American people.
And then we say ultimately, you can't, you have egg on your faces, FDA, because you're violating the First Amendment.
So even if you didn't find that it was appropriate as a qualified claim, you'd still have to allow the claim anyway because the First Amendment requires you to do so because you cannot say that the government's own speech, which it is publishing to the American people, cannot be made by private parties that are simply republishing that same information.
And then we tell them that it's not fair to categorize this speech as commercial speech, even though we would surpass the court's standard for commercial speech and they would lose under that standard.
We tell them that it's scientific speech entitled The Full First Amendment Protection because you can't say that the government's own speech is commercial.
You have to admit that it is scientific and therefore it must be allowed.
Wow.
So this is a strong petition that goes after all aspects of their regulation and puts them four square up against the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Now, if they follow the Maha agenda, they will allow all 118 of these claims come January of 2026.
If they don't allow them, then we will sue them.
And I think we have a very strong argument and a very good chance of defeating them in federal court.
Okay, so my question, though, is, you know, it seems like President Trump is cozying up to big pharma.
He just did a deal with Pfizer.
Trump doesn't appear to be especially well informed about this specific focus of natural health or nutrition or whatever.
I think he's generally in favor of health freedom for the American people, but he's doing a lot of business with Big Pharma.
And in my view, the FDA primarily exists to protect the monopolize interests of big pharma and to suppress any kind of competitors that might make disease claims or prevention claims, which could actually deny the windfall of repeat disease customers to the pharmaceutical industry.
Although Trump should realize, in my opinion, that it would help America's economy if the American people were freaking healthier.
So how do you make sense?
I think I haven't had the privilege of asking President Trump directly to state what his position is on this, but I suspect that it is in support of Senator Kennedy's position.
And he's been very strongly supportive of Senator Kennedy.
He's also been very strongly supportive of a transparency agenda at FDA where he wants information that has been locked away from the American people available to them so that the public can understand things that can affect their health.
So Kennedy has very clearly stated that he does not want pharma and big food to maintain their monopoly position at FDA and in fact has changed the seats at the table in order to remove them and is looking to science and to the real people of the American of the United States who are affected by food and drugs and so forth for answers.
As you see, recently he took a very controversial position saying that they would look to see if they could find the source for autism.
And they came up with a potential source being cetaminophen, Tylenol.
And the president rapidly endorsed that, fully so.
And they're allowing full exposure of all the information upon which they relied.
I think in this instance, the president probably, I can't speak for him, but I would guess that he would probably be fully supportive of making the information available to the public.
We will find out soon enough, because in January of 2026, FDA's answer will come to us.
It would be shocking based on their public statements to see a suppression of basic nutrient disease information published by the government itself to the American people being suppressed by this agency under Kennedy and McCary.
But we'll just have to see.
Certainly, there's an internal dynamic at FDA that's still recognized by Kennedy as against their interests in preventing monopolization, monopoly control by drug companies and big food over the agency, and that they're still working to ferret out those effects and individuals.
But I think this is a good litmus test.
And I know well that the chief counsel at FDA Foster is engaged on this, and I know that they're seriously looking at it, and they have told us that they will be issuing a decision come January.
I would certainly hope that they would issue a decision consistent with the Maha agenda, which would ask for this information clearly to be available to the American public.
Well, thank you for that explanation.
And let me add that my argument to President Trump and also Secretary Kennedy would be that we no longer live in a unipolar world with American dominance, such as we enjoyed in the post-World War II era for many decades when no one else could challenge us in the world.
No one could challenge us in engineering and mathematics and science.
And we were just in the lead on everything.
Well, that's no longer the case.
We're in the fight for our lives as a nation.
And yet we are crippled cognitively, longevity-wise, and health-wise.
And our economy is crippled because of the GDP extraction from the sick care treatment costs associated with our overly prescribed, overly medicated, overly processed junk food consuming populations.
This is even affecting the military, as Secretary of War Pete Hagseth recently told the 900 admirals and generals, hey, you're too fat to lead the military.
And he's not wrong about that, right?
So we are crippled as a nation because of the censorship.
This is, in my opinion, because of the censorship of the FDA that has deprived the American people of honest, accurate information about what people can do at very low cost at home without a doctor's permission to choose healthier foods, supplements, homeopathy that can help prevent and in some cases reverse chronic degenerative disease.
This is a fight for the future of our country.
I don't think we can continue to exist as a competitive nation if we're just giving preference to big pharma to keep everybody sick while extracting profits off of people's sickness.
That's my opinion.
What do you say?
I couldn't agree more.
We have a chronic disease epidemic in America that is largely a result of eating habits and drugs being given to people that are really not effective and actually deleterious to their health.
The whole paradigm with dietary supplements nutritional paradigm is one that we've known for at least the last 60 years has a dramatic impact upon people's longevity, health, and the onset when age-related disease happens.
So people who are consuming vitamin D in appropriate quantitative amounts daily for their needs and a whole host of vitamins, calcium, magnesium, potassium, omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid, vitamin E, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
All of these have been shown repeatedly, both in epidemiological evidence and in clinical trials, to provide health benefits that lessen mortality rates and increase longevity and decrease the onset of age-related disease earlier in life.
We have a sick country, pretty sick country, about 75% of adult Americans are on some form of pharma treatment.
And as you point out, well over half are obese.
A good percentage are morbidly obese.
Youth are riddled with metabolic syndrome, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and now ever earlier instances of cancer.
We have this whole pandemic with a vaccine that didn't work and that actually caused significant adverse effects, endocarditis, myocarditis, and numerous other adverse effects, not least of which is death among people who were vaccinated.
And you have this culture of Dependency by a lot of people on processed foods that are both chemical laden with chemicals and also depleted of nutrition, but nutritional value.
So you're absolutely right.
If we are going to be a strong, robust nation that can defend our own interests in the world, we have got to be a healthy country.
And HegSeth is onto it by restoring the United States military.
But the fact is, if the people, if the inputs going into that system are sick to begin with, we're not likely to have much of an effective outcome until we start making the American people much healthier.
And that means that we have got to get back to basics and we have to allow information into the market.
This is an information revolution, this issue.
This issue is dependent upon who controls the switch, allowing access to information.
Is it the American people that we get to receive the information that we want and need in order to make health choices that are sound?
Or is it the federal government that operates as an anti-state and says you shall receive certain information, but not others that we, because of our interests in defense of big pharma or big food, prefer you not to receive?
That old system, what we've just described right there, is the system that has been operating for the last 60 years.
And the American people have been bankrupt at the point of sale online and in grocery stores to understand truly among different food options, which ones carry with them the best effect for specific reduction in diseases of one kind or another.
So if you know, for example, that you are obese and you are prone based on information related to your own health, to cardiovascular disease, maybe you already have atherosclerosis or to diabetes.
Maybe you already have insulin resistance.
Or if you have high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol levels, and also I want to point out, and also not just elevated cholesterol, but homocysteine levels and need to reduce those, you need to be taking certain nutrients.
Those are all directly contributed to by nutritional deficiencies of one kind or another.
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Wouldn't you like to be able to take an obese child to the grocery store and help them not only buy foods that may have low caloric value, but actually will improve the functioning of their system, metabolic system, so that they process nutrients better, so that they can feel satiated more easily, so that they are not as heavily dependent on an addiction to sugar.
All of that depends on information, and it's information that the government right now is blocking from the market.
Yeah, well said.
Now, I don't suffer from insulin resistance, but I do show all the signs of censorship resistance.
And one of the ways that I'm doing that, and I'd love your response to this, is, of course, my company, not only have we sued big tech over censorship, and YouTube has the worst censorship of medical truth.
They call it all medical misinformation.
For example, Jonathan, if we were to post this interview on YouTube, it would be immediately taken down, even though we are speaking the truth here today.
Well, we built an AI engine.
We spent about $2 million and we've given this away to the world.
It's called Enoch, and it's free at brightion.ai.
And I just want to show you an example.
If I ask the question here, I just did this a few minutes ago.
I say, why are mainstream conventional doctors not beneficial to the health of the public in terms of preventing or overcoming chronic degenerative disease?
Well, every other engine out there would say, oh, that's a conspiracy theory.
Doctors are the best.
Conventional doctors that prescribe drugs, they're going to keep you healthy.
Our engine points out, oh, look, conflict of interest, lack of training in preventive medicine, dependence on symptomatic treatment.
It gives description, censorship and ignorance about natural health solutions, misguided research, regulatory capture, on and on.
Okay.
So we have the only AI engine in the world.
And by the way, it's trained on some of your information because of our previous interviews, but it's also trained on millions of pages of science papers, over 10,000 books, including books on complementary and alternative medicine.
It's the best engine in the world by far.
And I'm offering to give this to any state or any government, any nation in the world, completely free of charge, if they wish to use it to empower their people with health and wellness information.
And I should mention that the entire website of ANH, USA, and ANH International is also, all that has been used as training material for this engine.
So we have the answers now, but big tech continues to censor Google censors, YouTube censors, big government continues to censor, and big media continues to censor.
Jonathan, in your view, what is the role of AI in bypassing that censorship?
And how might the institutions out there try to clamp down on AI because it works through decentralization of human knowledge?
So AI, just like every revolution in the press, has involved technology.
So you have Gutenberg's movable print, which resulted in publications in the late 1600s in England that were religious tracts not approved by the crown against the licensing act that the crown had established, compelling all printers to get a license to print specific things approved by the crown.
And so the technology outpaced the ability of the crown to regulate because it resulted in a prolific set of publications, movable type, not only movable type, but printing presses that were actually moved from location to location.
And this deluged the market with information.
And so that resulted really in the rights revolution of the Enlightenment era that gave us our Bill of Rights and gave us our Constitution, gave us the radical Whig movement against the Hanovarian kings, including George III, and gave us the foundational principles upon which the founding fathers expounded in creating the four great principles of the Declaration of Independence and all the principles that underlie the Constitution and the idea that individuals have rights and that they obtain those rights from God, not government.
But the point is that that was one revolution.
Then we had the revolution with the electronic press.
We had the first radio, at first radio.
Radio became prolific.
Before 1928, radio was all over the place and people were receiving all kinds of information and all kinds of entertainment.
And that very much upset Herbert Hoover.
In my book, Freedom Technology and the First Amendment, I explained how Hoover really wanted to regulate radio because he was quite upset that his son was listening to lowbrow jazz music and he thought his son should only listen to what he said was highbrow classical music and that the lowbrow music was corrupting the morals of youth he was he was really referring to his son and he thought his son's morals were being corrupted by listening to jazz uh so he wanted to see regulation to control the content sorry that's just so
Well, funny, I mean, compared to what we get from hip-hop and rock music today, the absolute filth that a lot of it is, but jazz was going to corrupt people's minds?
Yeah, and they thought big band music was also very nasty and corrupting and sexually suggestive and so on.
So what they did with the Radio Act, first of all, Hoover lobbied Congress over and over again to regulate radio, and they never would do it.
They said, why should we do it?
It's a private functioning operation.
He held these private radio conferences with, as Secretary of Commerce, Hoover held these private radio conferences with the industry, whereby they would invite the industry in to negotiate away interference problems.
So they'd have interference problems, and they would go and they would change their operating parameters to accommodate other stations nearby and avoid the problem.
Well, when Hoover didn't get his way with the U.S. Senate to pass legislation to...
federalize the airwaves that is that is a taking of private property he um he decided that they had to do something and his first move was to stop holding these conferences and to authorize the uh grant of any license for radio Radio authority without regard to interference.
That then led to the interference across the country that became the rallying cry then for regulation of radio and led to the creation of the Federal Communications Commission, which Schuber thought he would be running because he had been pushing for it all along.
And he thought he would be in charge of determining what the content was.
But much to his chagrin, the Senate leadership didn't like him.
And so they kicked him to the curb and put in industry leaders to run it.
And then they proceeded with what always happens in these circumstances.
The industry, the leading industry figures, ran the agency, ran the Federal Communications Commission and drove out of existence over 600 private independent stations in order to monopolize their control and create what were then three major networks.
So the point is, that was the effect in response to that.
When it came to the nutrition revolution, Dirk Pearson, Sandy Shaw, my late clients who are brilliant geniuses, really, and wrote Life Extension: a Practical Scientific Approach, which helped pave the way for the nutrition revolution, contacted me when I was at the Cato Institute and they said, Jonathan, the FDA is going nuts with the proliferation of information about nutrition.
They are now trying to shut the door and stop it.
They're trying to protect the drug industry from competition.
So they want to prevent any nutrient disease information, even if true, from reaching the public.
Can you help us?
And that was the origins of the Pearson versus Shalala case.
But the point was, that was then again, there was this innovation.
There was all this scientific discovery never before had coming up, coming to the fore, showing over and over again, antioxidant vitamins could reduce the risk of cancer.
Various substances like chromium, picolinate could reduce the type 2 diabetes insulin resistance, all manner of things.
Omega-3 fatty acids could reduce the risk of heart disease and on and on and on and on.
And the government was saying, oh my goodness, no longer are dietary supplements behaving themselves like foods, which are only supposed to not tell us anything about what they do, but just say they're an addition to the diet.
Now they're acting like drugs.
They're telling us they have therapeutic effects.
We can't allow that.
Let's get in there and go crack some heads.
So you got David Kessler running around the country calling Jonathan Wright a person who's importing unsafe drugs when all he was doing was getting very, very safe injectable B vitamins from Germany.
And then they labeled that an unapproved new drug.
And they went after him and on and on.
All these supplement companies got cracked in the head.
You had Mel Gibson's ad, remember?
Yeah.
I'm selling vitamin C, I'm going to go to jail.
And then the whole movement to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.
That was again another instance where there was mass dissemination in an underground market, essentially.
So what you're doing is the next phase of the revolution.
You're a leader and leading in information transmission through AI, through ENIC, to everyone around the world.
And that is vastly outpacing the regulators.
I also saw this with the digital revolution in medical devices.
So what you had was, you know, all of a sudden your phone, iPhones are ubiquitous suddenly.
And suddenly, geniuses in programming figure out, wow, I can change your phone.
I can put a program in your phone that will enable you to have your blood pressure and your heart rate automatically communicated to your physician electronically so that you don't have to always go in to have your blood pressure and vital signs checked by a doctor.
He can see it and it can alert you if there's any irregularity, if there's any fibrillation or anything like that.
Well, the FDA went nuts, but they were late to the party because by the time they realized it was going on, there were already over 500 different medical apps operating on people's phones all over the world and in the United States.
Well, how are they going to stop it?
Yeah, and you're so right.
This is the next wave.
And let me bring in a really important point in all of this.
So the AI industry has gone very strongly in favor of open source models.
And through a website called Hugging Face that distributes literally tens of millions of open source models.
And Alibaba from China releases open source models like Quen out of France.
You've got Meestrel that releases open source models in the U.S. You've got Meta, et cetera.
These open source models, these are the models that we train on.
We alter those models with our information to create customized new models that have basically been re-educated, retrained into natural health.
And then we distribute those for free.
The government is so late to the game, but California is starting to panic.
Just days ago, Jonathan, I'm sure you're aware of this, California enacted the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, the TFAIA.
Now, this requires AI systems to publish a general safety framework.
Now, of course, you know the word safety.
That's going to mean, oh, you can't promote nutrition.
And then finally, on my screen, I'm just showing kind of the highlights of this, but check this out.
Annual review.
The California Department of Technology is required to annually review and recommend updates to the definitions of frontier models, et cetera.
So that's exactly what you were saying, where, you know, the king wanted to have control over the press.
You had to get permission.
You had to get a license to be able to print.
California is trying to do the exact same thing, but they're too late.
How do you think that this conflict between decentralized knowledge, where people can download models and run them locally on their own laptops, on their own phones and mobile devices without even using the cloud, without using central servers, impossible to censor, impossible to censor.
How is the government going to respond to this to try to enact censorship?
Well, the only way they can achieve the censorship is if they gain control over the platforms that communicate information and create barriers either through intimidation or through legislation.
What they've done, as you see with Carr, for example, the FCC chair, recently with the whole flap with the, what's his name, Jimmy Kimmel?
Kimmel.
You have an example of what occurred actually with John F. Kennedy's head of the FCC, Newton Minnow, a long while ago, which was in order to control content, he engaged in informal regulation, you might say, which is nothing more than threats.
And so Newton Minnow said famously that he could regulate by raised eyebrow, or that's what they characterized.
So he's the regulator.
I'm the FCC chairman, and I simply raise my eyebrow in your direction, and you know what that means.
And you stop doing what you're doing because I don't like it.
Well, of course, that's gross censorship.
And that's what Carr did, gross censorship.
We don't have to like what Kimmel said.
I don't like what he said.
But in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't that bad.
I mean, it was unfortunate, and it was really a slight to Charlie Kirk.
And I have great admiration for Charlie Kirk, and I don't like people who slight Charlie Kirk one bit.
But the fact of the matter is, free speech frequently involves statements that we don't like.
And the First Amendment is designed to protect particularly the minority view, the dissenting view, because one day or another, we're going to all be in the minority view situation.
And we have to have all of our rights protected if we're going to enjoy a robust, wide open debate format environment in America, which is our hallmark and determines actually what it means to be free.
So when we have government regulating by raised eyebrow, and that's basically what the Carr did, and that's what California is trying to do desperately.
And that's what also we're going to see out of FDA probably, certainly past this administration, we're going to see a throwback to that, where they try to intimidate people out of the market.
But your point is the winning one, which is that the tide of history shows that technology outpaces government, that technology finds ways to strip government of censorship, and that people, so long as they have their druthers and sensibilities about them, will want information that the government wants to keep from them, and they will eventually get it.
Now, sometimes information is of such moment to the government that it falls right square within its constitutional authority.
Like, for example, the commander-in-chief telling his military commanders to have B-2 bombers fly from the United States to Iran on a mission to destroy their nuclear power capability.
That nuclear weapons capability, that's an act of war, effectively.
And it is also protected such that in Near versus Minnesota, for example, those kinds of troop movements where people could be placed in peril if the information were publicized can be suppressed by government, but only for the time of the emergency.
In the case of food and drugs and dietary supplements and information about our health, there's no such justification that you could possibly conceive of that would justify denying you access to health information that could enhance your health.
And yet it's the subject of censorship every single day under the current regime of regulation at FDA.
Well, Jonathan, I think you're going to appreciate this.
And I'll just go ahead and publicly say it now.
We made many strategic decisions about the launch of our AI engine.
It's almost censorship bait for the government.
I can't wait for them to come after us because it is launched through our nonprofit Consumer Wellness Center.
There is no commercial relationship with the users whatsoever.
And the engine is given away free of charge.
And with under an MIT license.
So anybody can also recompile and reuse our engine and rebuild it themselves.
And so we have made these decisions in order to make ourselves absolutely censorship resistant.
I mean, they would have to go to incredible lengths to try to shut down our engine.
Maybe they will at some point, but it's going to be extremely difficult given that we have no commercial relationship with our own users.
Although there may be a day, Jonathan, where I call you for assistance on this.
Who knows?
We'll see.
Well, I hope that you don't suffer from the government, but I do think that you're well positioned to win because it's a classic definition of the press.
I mean, what you're doing is nothing more, nothing less than what has been historically protected under the First Amendment.
Clearly.
If you can't protect what you're doing, then really there is no press.
There is no freedom of the press in the United States.
It's an interesting thing.
Technology, years and years and years ago, when I was at the Cato Institute, I wrote a paper that was ultimately not published simply because I think we slipped through the cracks.
But I predicted this whole revolution in technology.
I don't want to sound like Al Gore and say that I invented the internet.
But what I did do was interview quite a few of the leaders in the industry.
And I decided that at the same time that George Gilder decided that there was a microcosm in his book, Microcosm, taking place, I also concluded separately that there was this convergence of voice, data, telecommunications,
radio, TV, and even holography that was coming about, depending upon the amount of power that could be generated from a microchip, you would end up being able to generate full-blown holographic imaging, for example, of a human body.
Imagine that.
So in this paper, this is now 40.
This is 30 years ago that I wrote this.
I said that you would reach the point once you're past the Tetra bit, you would be able to generate holographic imaging based on the physiological parameters of your body.
So for example, let's say that you suffered a brain tumor, unfortunately, or someone did who you loved, and they had to go in for surgery and they were told under conventional assessments that it was inoperable.
But let's say that they could generate a perfect holographic image based on all the information inputs about your body that would replicate your body so that a operation could be performed from any number of scenarios with a head-mounted display,
a doctor using holographic imaging to perform the operation and dictate basically precisely how to enter the brain with least injury and reach the tumor and destroy it.
Under conventional techniques, it's very sloppy, but under a modeling scenario, sorry, there goes all my legal work.
Under a modeling scenario, we would be able to find out from numerous approaches which one caused the least injury and then thereby have an approach that might be better than a determination that there was no way to do it.
So that's just one example of how AI can be applied.
Now, AI is now being used in medicine.
We haven't reached the point of this thorough holographic type of approach, which is predicted in my paper, but I think that that's imminent.
And what we'll eventually see is not only more robotics being used in these types of scenarios, but also doctors essentially sitting in the role of people as managers being able to sit back and say, okay, well, what if we did this?
We went in this way.
What if we use this drug to do this?
And be able to determine how best to perform very complex medical procedures that presently are ones that very few physicians would dare attempt because of the high risk of killing a patient.
Yes.
Yes.
A lot of innovations coming.
I just, I'm aiming to keep them free, you know, health freedom-wise, to make sure that people have choices and don't get funneled into a system of harm.
And by the way, kind of related to that, you know, the recent announcement and finding by Trump and RFK Jr. about, you know, Tylenol, you and I both know that the number one way to protect your liver from Tylenol damage is to use glycerisin, which comes from licorice root.
And, you know, it's a common Chinese medicine herb.
The glycerizin molecule is hepatoprotective.
It's highly effective.
And I just found it shocking that in all the conversations about acetaminophen toxicity, nobody, nobody in government, nobody in media, nobody but me, as far as I can tell, even mentioned licorice root.
You want to know why that is?
Here's the reason why.
So there's been quite a bit of research, and it's been available to the manufacturers of Tylenol from decades ago, I believe, at least within the last decade, has certainly been available, that has shown them that what you're talking about is true, that there are substances like glyceriacin that can actually have liver protective effect.
So you would ask yourself logically, well, why then don't they combine Tylenol with those things?
So you would take it in one fell swoop.
Well, here's the reason why.
They never want to admit liver toxicity.
They never admit that the drug is toxic to your liver.
If they were to do that, reconfigure it and get FDA drug approval for it, they would have to explain why it was being added, and FDA would have to agree.
So FDA and the drug company would have to do a Volt phase.
They'd have to reverse their position on the safety of Tylenol.
Now, of course, that's starting right now.
So FDA is doing that with Kennedy's announcement that this may be the source of autism.
They may want to take a look at that.
But the fact is, it's such a horrendous tragedy that to avoid the risk of products liability litigation and liability associated with liver toxicity from Tylenol, they've just taken this denial approach and they haven't upgraded or modified the drug to include these nutritional elements that actually have a liver protective effect.
Now, they would just say, this is how they respond to it.
They say, well, there's just not definitive scientific evidence that establishes this protective effect across consumption levels.
And that is always the out.
As we said before at the start of the program, conclusive scientific evidence is almost impossible to obtain.
So whenever the government wants to avoid responsibility or wants to shift blame or wants to protect the drug industry, they're frequently imposing an unbelievable impossible standard of conclusiveness as the reason why.
And they did this, by the way.
I petitioned them years ago on the statins.
I said that they should recognize, I forget the quantitative amount, that coenzyme Q10 should be available to reduce the risk of reduction in, I think was.
Mitochondrial energy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It was ADP.
Yeah, it was the coenzyme Q10, that the malevolate pathway was being blocked by statins to stop cholesterol, but it was also preventing the introduction into the bloodstream of coenzyme Q10 causing muscle weakness and myopathy.
And so I said to the agency that they should include, petitioned on behalf of Julian Whitaker, the agency, to include a warning statement or information in the labeling for the product that would recommend that consumers ingest, I can't remember what it was, 250 milligrams or so of coenzyme Q10 daily while taking statins to reduce the risk of myopathy, muscle weakness, including heart failure.
And the agency said no.
Why did it say no?
First of all, the statin drug maker does not want to admit that his product is causing myopathy.
Right.
But secondarily, and FDA will protect them from that.
But secondarily, they use this conclusive evidence point.
They said that while there's suggestive information out there suggesting that coenzyme Q10 can lower the incidence of myopathy, it's not conclusive.
So therefore, we're not going to allow that information to reach the American public.
But of course, the FDA approves drugs based on the flimsiest evidence that is far from conclusive.
Correct.
On the other side, or even anecdotal.
So let's say they want to take a nutritional product off the market.
So when they went after Ephedrin years ago, Ephedra, they went after Ephedra based on ephedrin alkaloids.
What they said was that ephedrin alkaloids are toxic.
And what they failed to prove, however, was that they were toxic at every dose level.
So I represented a company called Nutraceutical Corporation that had a 10 milligram ephedrine alkaloid containing dietary supplement, which there was no evidence whatsoever that 10 milligrams daily of ephedra caused any reaction one way or the other.
And so they were saying that it would be adverse.
And they said, no, no, at some dose level, it causes injury.
Therefore, we can ban it at any dose level.
That's directly contrary to the plain language of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but that's what they did.
And that's how they took Ephedra off the market.
They took it off the market completely based on the idea that at some dose level, it causes heart arrhythmias and so on.
And they did that at great harm to the American people because I want to point out that in ancient traditional Chinese medicine, there's a formulation called the, I think it's the minor blue-green dragon formula, as it's known in TCM, that actually uses Mahuang, which is ephedra.
And it's highly effective at ending pandemics, as has been demonstrated throughout the history of China itself.
And so they took that out of reach of the American consumers long before COVID so that that wasn't available to people.
I mean, it's hard to not assign a malicious intent to the FDA on this.
Well, there is a malicious intent, but it's driven by a desire to protect profitability.
It's driven by a desire to protect the drug industry from competition.
It's who's in charge.
The FDA is, you know, we've had a revolving door of employment at FDA forever.
And so people who work in the Center for Drug Evaluation Research know if they're in leadership positions and they play their hands right cards right, they will end up with a situation where they can leave the FDA and work for Big Pharma or go to academia and have a chair funded by Big Pharma or on and on and on and on.
And many former FDA commissioners have benefited one way or another as a result of that sort of thing.
So it's an unwritten rule at FDA that if you play your cards right, you're going to get out and you're going to get complimented back by those people who do it.
This also happens in Congress, too.
It was Congressman Tazen who carried the ball for George Bush, who also benefited from Big Pharma on Medicare Part B, where at the time, the drug industry could set any price it wanted to on drugs purchased under Medicare Part D from the drug industry and the government would have to pay it.
There could be no negotiation.
That changed in the last several years, but that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.
And it could have enabled the drug industry to bankrupt the entire United States because any amount of money that they demanded for a drug would have to be paid because they wouldn't allow any negotiation under that statute.
That was insane.
Okay, Jonathan, we're almost out of time.
How can people support the Alliance for Natural Health where you are a lead counsel?
So please do go to ANHUSA.org on the web and donate.
Donate to the organization.
We are without question the most active organization when it comes to fighting the government on censorship and a whole host of grounds.
The basic philosophy of ANH is that we ought to be looking at safe, natural alternatives and far less intrusive interventions than the drug industry is offering.
And we ought to rely on those things and empower individuals to make choices for themselves with full information access and with access to healthy foods and healthy water and healthy air and good protection for access to information.
And so just in the last three months of my involvement with ANH litigating, we've litigated more as a result of that organization than anybody else in the entire space.
And that's because we're serious about it.
And that's because we don't really care what the government thinks of us and we're not interested in working for the government.
Well, that's why we support you.
We support Alliance for Natural Health.
We completely agree with what you're doing.
In fact, I think it's critical for the future of this nation.
I agree.
There are precious few people.
There's you.
There are some of my clients who've been unbelievable advocates of health freedom over the years, very brave.
And then there's the litigation side and ANH.
And I just, Rob Verkirk's a hoot.
He's brilliant scientists, but he also is a person like me who's, you know, to his core dedicated to individual liberty, dedicated to ensuring that we remain free and capable of exercising freedom of choice over everything we do so that we can protect our children,
so that we can make choices that will result in greater longevity, less disease, and the future, the bright future for our families and for ourselves that we really think should be our birthright now in the 21st century.
Given all the information, there's no reason why Americans should not be living longer and healthier.
Instead, we're now something like 70th in the world as far as longevity is concerned, and we're way behind when it comes to onset of disease.
We have a much higher early onset of disease than any other nation, and yet we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world.
Yeah, it's extraordinary.
So folks, go to ANH-USA.org.
And before I let you go, Jonathan, just I want to give you something to ponder that I'm sure will be a little bug in your head for a number of days.
But think about the fact that AI engines, when they are released, that that is not publishing because the engine says nothing until the user prompts it.
Every engine knows every word and every herb and every language.
And the user's prompt determines the order in which the engine responds with those words and concepts.
So the user is the publisher, not the company that distributes the AI engine.
This is going to be a very interesting First Amendment argument when the government tries to stomp on this.
Yeah, the information revolution changed the universe from a minority of publishers to making every single individual a publisher.
That's right.
And it changed the nature of information dissemination and receipt so fundamentally that anyone can gain access to any amount of information, no matter how complex, and it can be explained to them in a manner that will be readily understandable.
So it is liberating in an enormous, enormous, powerful way.
And the government is the biggest party that is screaming that it's threatening us.
And when it comes to the American public, I mean, I haven't seen anybody die yet from AI, and I haven't seen anybody tell me that they really hate accessing AI for information.
It's quite the opposite.
Certainly any technology can be used for ill purposes, and we have criminal laws to prevent that from happening, stop you from being defrauded or abused.
But when the government sits in the role of controlling access to information, that's when you have lost your freedom fundamentally.
And more so now when we're dependent upon AI, because now the impact is even more profound if the government does do it.
Well, imagine the value of having the entirety of human knowledge at your fingertips for free, uncensored.
That's what exists now with our AI engine.
I mean, it's really amazing.
It is amazing.
And it's never before been, and it will define who we are.
And it's going to change us the level of the standard of living in people, their ability to use their time in ways that would advance whatever area of industry and improvement they're engaged in by enormous amounts past the typical lifespan of a person in the 20th century.
It will now be possible in a matter of months, if not years, to achieve huge gains that would have taken a lifetime in the 20th century.
That's right.
So it's incredible.
All right.
Well said.
And thank you so much, sir.
It's always an honor to have you on.
Thank you for your work.
And we are proudly supporting your efforts and ANH as well.
So keep us posted.
We'll have you back on when you've got some announcements.
Thank you so much.
All right, folks, that was Jonathan Emore, just an extraordinary hero for America, and also a very accomplished author, historian, and intellectual when it comes to especially freedom of speech and the Constitution.
So thank you for watching today.
I'm Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, of course, Brighteon.com, NaturalNews.com, and HealthRangerStore.com.
Take care, everybody.
Stock up on the long-term storable Ranger Bucket Set.
536 servings of clean organic superfoods for your survival pantry.
Certified organic and lab tested for purity.
Order now at HealthRangerStore.com.
▲
Export Selection