April 10, 2026 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:00:28
The Mike Lindell Show - April 10th, 2026
Mike Lindell and his team celebrate a landmark victory in Missouri v. Biden, securing a ten-year consent decree that bars CISA, the Surgeon General's Office, and the CDC from coercing social media platforms to remove speech. This legal triumph follows successful challenges against EPA hydrofluorocarbon regulations and the SEC's "gag rule," reinforcing First Amendment protections while exposing vulnerabilities where foreign governments still pressure American tech firms. The episode also highlights First Lady Melania Trump's push for congressional hearings on Jeffrey Epstein, critiques the Dignidad Act as mass amnesty, and discusses Michael Kingsler's advocacy for loosening peptide restrictions to combat black markets in China and India. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Melania Addresses Epstein Claims00:14:45
You ever see this guy with the pillows on Fox?
My pillow guy, Mike Lindell.
He is the greatest.
The My Pillow guy.
Mike Lindell.
And he's been with us right from the beginning.
Melania Trump speaking out today in a way that we don't typically see, directly addressing claims tying her to Jeffrey Epstein.
The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.
From the White House, she made her position clear, saying, I am not Epstein's victim and rejected any suggestion of a connection.
Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me. have been calculating on social media for years now.
Be cautious about what you believe.
These images and stories are completely false.
She said she never had a relationship with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, was never on his plane, and never visited his island.
My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.
The First Lady also pushed back on claims that Epstein introduced her to President Donald Trump.
Calling that false.
I met my husband by chance at the New York City party in 1998.
But the bigger headline here she's not just denying it, she's now calling on Congress to hold hearings so victims can formally testify and have their accounts entered into the congressional record.
I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.
Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony.
The statement comes as renewed attention around Epstein's network continues to surface again and again.
There is only one solution to end this, according to the First Lady.
Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered. into the congressional record.
Then and only then we will have the truth.
What makes this announcement extraordinary is that it's not typical for a first lady to call on Congress.
While figures like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have done so in the past, moments like this remain uncommon.
Now the focus moves to Capitol Hill, whether lawmakers take that next step.
Reporting from the White House for Lindell TV, I'm Kara Castronova.
Happy Friday, everybody.
That was a great segment done by our very own Kara Castronova and the First Lady responding to all the gossip spreading on social media and setting the record straight.
Now she's calling on Congress to do their part.
And our very own Allison Steinberg, our Capitol Hill correspondent, joins us now.
Thanks for joining us, Allison.
Hi, Heather.
Good to see you.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah.
So tell us do you think we're going to see Congress respond to the First Lady's request?
Request there, or what do you think is going to be the, you know, I guess, what are they going to do in response to the first lady?
Well, I certainly hope so.
I mean, there is a very high demand to get to the truth and the heart of the story concerning Jeffrey Epstein.
I know it's an issue that's near and dear to many Americans' hearts.
It's an issue that the president promised he would look into and fulfill for us.
So we're kind of still waiting.
It's been sort of in limbo for quite a while here.
Lots of mixed messaging from the administration on the truth about the matter.
Uh, obviously, everything from the very bizarre, uh, phase one binders at the White House with the influencers to Dan Bongino and Kash Patel saying, you know, nothing more to see here.
Jeffrey Epstein, uh, did kill himself.
End of story.
Um, so there's been a lot of weirdness surrounding that.
Now, as we know, uh, Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna did join forces in that bipartisan discharge petition to have the full extent of the files released, um, which, To my understanding, still has not been fulfilled.
There are still a number of files that haven't been fully released or unredacted.
They say that's to protect the victims.
But I still think there's a lot more that can be done here.
I don't think Americans are satisfied at this point with the information that we have been given.
And as Melania pointed out there, she wants to have congressional hearings with all of the victims and that this can't be considered done until that happens.
So I think it is the duty of Congress to.
Move on to that.
I actually think that is something that would be supported by both sides.
Interestingly enough, there's not very many things both sides agree on, but I think this is one of them.
And I think ultimately we need to get to the heart of the issue, allow these congressional hearings to happen.
There was one actually scheduled for the near future with Pambani.
She was set to testify before the House Oversight Committee, but that will no longer be happening since she has been removed in her position as Attorney General.
So maybe this is the next step forward.
I think this would be a good.
Action step to put on the agenda.
And hopefully we do see that happen.
I think the American people deserve to know.
And I think the victims, the survivors, would want to do this as well.
Yeah, for sure.
So, what is Congress actually doing now?
I know they took their little Easter hiatus there, although none of them are really walking in faith and practicing good moral values, but they took a break nonetheless.
Are they back in session now?
What can we expect from Congress next week?
Well, they are on their last and final day of their two week long Easter vacation.
Must be nice to get a whole two weeks off for Easter, right?
No one, no one in the private sector gets that luxury.
Uh, but Congress certainly does.
And, uh, you know, I will say they have a lot on their plate when they get back into action here come Monday.
I'm actually sort of in disbelief that anyone could morally or ethically, uh, agree to go away on this two week vacation with the amount of work that is before both the House and the Senate.
If I'm being totally honest, obviously the Senate left in very, Bad standing with this pathetic political theater, I guess you could call where they, you know, pretended to bring the Save America Act to the floor for a debate, which got nowhere.
I did actually just see right before coming on with you, Heather, that Mike Lee is stating they will resume that debate when they are back in session come Monday.
So I guess that's promising.
Hopefully, we can actually get something accomplished this time around.
But as far as the House is concerned, wow, I just.
I don't even know how Mike Johnson's gonna handle it.
We have the FISA Reauthorization Act coming up, which, uh, for those that don't know, there's many concerns around that as far as, you know, spying on the American people is concerned.
Many House Republicans are sounding the alarm on that.
And they're also saying they're not gonna vote for it if it doesn't have the Save America Act attached to it.
As I've reported on, Anna Paulina Luna actually stated this very early on regarding the Save America Act.
She said there's no chance it would pass as a standalone bill, that it would have to be attached to, uh, a must pass piece of legislation, which she sort of pitched the idea of attaching it to the FISA.
Act.
So many, you know, Freedom Caucus members, House Republicans are saying they will not vote for FISA if it does not have the Save America Act attached to it.
They think that's how they're going to get that through.
Then let's not forget, we're also still in a partial government shutdown due to the lapse in funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, the Senate has pitched this idea, this two pronged approach idea, where they would fund the bulk of DHS through the standard appropriations process and then take care of ICE and Border Patrol in a separate reconciliation bill.
That reconciliation bill would not need the support of Democrats, and that's how they think they could end up getting it through to fully fund ICE in its entirety.
But here's the kicker.
House Republicans are saying, absolutely not.
We don't trust the Senate at all to actually give us that reconciliation bill because they want the Senate wants the House to vote on the appropriations bill first, which is, you know, does not include ICE or Border Patrol.
So the House is basically saying, how can we be assured that the Senate is actually going to follow through on their end of the deal and give us this reconciliation bill?
That we're being promised because that's how little faith the House has in the Senate.
And I just think that's so telling and so reflective of how Americans are feeling at this point in time.
As I say time and time again, all good things go to die in the Senate.
And it seems, I think this is very evident, that even something as simple as funding the Department of Homeland Security has been a massive letdown thanks to Republicans and Democrats, yes, but Republicans in the Senate.
It's incredibly disappointing.
So lots of work to get done there.
And then also, you know, the Save America Act, I touched on that, but I don't think that's an issue that's going to die down.
I think Americans are still outraged that it has not passed.
And it's even more infuriating when we're starting to hear Republicans talking about the Dignity Act, which ultimately allows mass amnesty, right?
President Trump campaigned on mass deportations.
We were promised the largest mass deportation effort in America's history.
And now Republicans, instead of actually trying to get something done and get to work on matters that are Critically important, we hear them talking about the Dignity Act, or should I say the Dignidad Act.
It's actually titled that in Spanish to appeal to that base.
But yeah, it would allow for mass amnesty for criminal aliens that entered the country.
So that's pretty much where we're at with Congress right now.
Lots going on and more than I think they can handle, if I'm being totally transparent with you, Heather.
Well, if mass amnesty passes, but the SAVE Act doesn't, we're going to know once and for all that our government is occupied because overwhelmingly across the country, President Trump at rallies in every state that he won, and then some mass deportations was insanely popular.
Not mass amnesty, mass deportations, right?
Correct.
Yes.
The opposite of what we're talking about here.
Um, I really hope mass amnesty does not pass.
I really hope the Save Act does, so we'll have to stay on top of that.
Um, I guess what else do you have for us coming out of the hill here?
Because I know there's a mountain of stuff to get done, but it just feels like our own Congress is working against us and not for us.
Yeah, it does.
And uh, to just dig a little deeper on the Dignidad Act, we'll just call it for what it is.
Uh, I do appreciate I have to give credit where it's due, and Congressman Brandon Gill has been doing a fantastic job debunking many of the claims surrounding the Dignity Act because the author of the bill.
Republican rhino Maria Salazar will tell you that it's not a pathway to citizenship.
It's not mass amnesty.
If you have any criminal convictions, then you will not qualify for this program.
But it is all false.
He has literally gone through and debunked everything line by line.
So kudos to him.
Go check out his X page if you want to see more on that.
But he sums it up really beautifully here.
He points out that Maria Salazar is like pitching this and saying that it's basically Orwellian doublespeak.
He says it's exactly what we expect from the left, not our own party.
The reality is, under the current system, illegal aliens. are being deported.
We are not living under an amnesty regime, and it's dishonest to say we are.
Our only objective right now should be to speed up deportations by equipping ICE and DHS with the funding and resources they need.
The Dignidad Act does the opposite.
It would give legal status to 12 million illegal aliens while hamstringing deportation efforts for the rest.
That is amnesty, and it's everything voters rejected last fall.
So thank you, Representative Brandon Gill, for telling it like it is.
And, you know, he's also, Brandon Gill's amazing on the immigration front.
I mean, he's just like sounding the alarm on.
All fronts regarding immigration, everything from this Dignity Act to birthright citizenship to even the H 1B visas, which he also is talking about and making a great point here.
And ultimately, I think it's like leading us down this road where we need to probably very seriously consider just shutting off immigration for everyone for a very long period of time until we get the issues here at home resolved.
Take a listen to this clip from Brandon Gill.
But you're right.
We've got communities like Frisco that have been totally transformed.
Whether it's Islamic immigration or immigration from anywhere else in Asia, I don't want Muslim prayer calls.
I don't want to hear Muslim calls to prayer in my community.
I do not want the caste system socially in the schools that my kids are going to because we've had so many people come to the United States who are not assimilating into American culture.
I want to live in an America that's actually American.
And if you go to some of these areas, you feel like you're in a foreign country.
And that's a problem.
You know, America is for our people.
We have a distinct heritage, a distinct Culture that's rooted in historical experience in the United States.
And that's something that we as conservatives should seek to actually conserve.
And that means not flooding our country with infinity immigration every single year, whether it's because of illegal immigration or legal immigration under the guise of economic interest or anything else.
America Is For Our People00:09:00
And the reality is with H 1B, and I think I watched some of the clips that came out.
This is a program that has an enormous amount of fraud.
The idea that we would bring in a 7 Eleven worker from India or anywhere across the globe into our country to work at a gas station because we can't find Americans to work behind the counter at a gas station.
I mean, that's asinine.
I mean, it's idiotic.
And we all know it.
So, you know, in my opinion, the H 1B program at this point should just be abolished outright.
We don't need it.
There's too much fraud in it.
You've got all kinds of issues.
Particularly in areas like Frisco, where fake businesses are popping up and they're being used to bring more people in with these H 1B visas.
And then, by the way, you have chain migration, where once people come here, they start bringing their family to an unlimited degree.
This stuff has to end at some point.
And I think that point.
So he does a great job of breaking down the various, uh, forms of immigration or, you know, visa options that are slowly working to destroy the nation as many of these people that shouldn't be here overstay their welcome.
Uh, they come here on these fraudulent visas and, uh, work here in America when, I mean, let's be real.
There's so many job opportunities here, but they are being taken by foreigners that should not be here in the first place.
And so that is just not okay.
We need to get a handle on that and we need to give the jobs to people who need them.
Yeah.
And you can look to any American town that has these H 1B visas working in it.
And I guarantee you, you will find Americans living in that town currently on unemployment, currently on government welfare, currently taking some form of food stamps or medical programs.
This is the problem.
And kudos to Brandon for pointing out that lie.
It is every time you go into a community and you see a foreigner taking an American job, there's an American not working.
And I think this is all by design, right?
Because if you can.
If you can give the H1, it's not just about cheaper labor.
If you can give the H1B visa worker the American job and then you can get the American worker on the system, you can now control the American worker because now you're controlling, you're the hand that feeds them essentially.
You're the government, right?
Giving them their benefits, giving them their unemployment, giving them their food stamps.
And you can try to influence their vote by keeping them on a system designed to make it almost impossible to get off.
As a single mother, that at one point in time, like I was familiar with that system when I first had my daughter.
And it literally, like, it was one of those programs in Massachusetts, which is a sanctuary city and home to a number of H 1B visa workers, right?
If you were on the welfare system in the state of Massachusetts and you were working, I had a friend of mine actually who was working for a surgical doctor, right?
Like, who performed surgery.
She was booking his appointments.
I remember her telling me she got like a $2 raise per hour for her job.
But as a single mom, because she received that $2 an hour raise, it ended up taking away more from her because she lost benefits that she received for childcare and to help with her housing and stuff.
And so she actually lost money by getting rewarded in the private sector.
And so the system, so she went to her doctor and was like, can you like give me less of a raise because it's going to hurt me?
And so this is the problem with the system that it's literally designed to suck you down and keep you on it so that they can control you.
And when you, and so all these H 1B visas that are taking the Americans' jobs are taking Americans' ability to just have a good faith, you know, job that provides for their family because the government wants to be the one that, like, it wants to have control over people.
And so now you have the government controlling the H 1B visa applicants and the Americans that are on the system.
And it's just total government control all the way around.
Yeah, it totally is.
And you have to stop and think is this the ultimate goal for them?
Well, it certainly would seem that way.
But ultimately, the people need to be upset about this because, you know, this is literally destroying the American dream.
I think we really need to get back to a place where we halt these visas and stop these foreigners from coming into the country, taking these jobs that Americans could get.
Yeah, maybe it's not, you know, the ideal dream job, but everyone's got to start somewhere, right?
So give them to Americans.
Give them to people who are just starting out in life, give them to people that want to work and contribute to society, and then you work your way up and you get a better job and a better job and a better job.
And then that's how we build here.
We don't give away all of the opportunities to people that hate our country and will never assimilate and want to do everything they can to destroy it and turn it into the third world crap hole in which they came from.
I mean, it's a very dangerous precedent that we're setting here if we allow this to continue.
To continue, it's got to stop.
So that then brings me to my next point where Congressman Chip Roy has introduced a very critical piece of legislation that I think we really need to start, you know, dissecting and promoting and talking about.
And I surely will be asking about this once Congress resumes.
But this is titled the PAWS Act.
It was introduced in November 2025.
So, shortly after the rollout of the Dignity Act, I would like to add, there are several Republican co sponsors of this.
It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Unfortunately, it hasn't.
Gone anywhere, of course, since then.
So we need some movement on the PAWS Act.
Ultimately, the PAWS Act would impose a very broad moratorium on most immigration admissions.
So it would take care of anything, you know, any visas given out, anyone trying to come in here on these special, you know, job assignments.
I think it would still allow for travel, like just for a holiday or whatnot.
But I mean, it would be very much crackdown on all.
Immigration and any foreigner coming into this country for just about any purpose.
And so I think we need to definitely take a look at that and really get serious about passing that.
Let's take a listen to this clip from Chip Roy, who has more information on the PAWS Act.
Million people in this country who are foreign born.
That's about 16% of the population.
That's higher than at any other point in our history.
So go back to 1920, where we had maybe a similar percentage, it was about 15%.
And we had a whole bunch of people who'd come here who, by the way, We were more interested in assimilating, who were participating in schools that actually taught that America is great, and when we had no social welfare state.
Today, we have millions of people who have come here who don't want to assimilate, who aren't in schools teaching that America is great, and they are on the social welfare state.
We need to pause immigration.
We need to fix our system.
We need to end diversity visas, end chain migration, the kind of people that allow their cousins and uncles and aunts to come in.
We need to stop the abuse of H 1B visas.
We need to end birthright citizenship.
We need to codify what the president has done.
We need to stop having taxpayer funding of illegal alien children in our schools as we do in Texas and everywhere else.
And we've got to re center our entire immigration system.
So pause and let's fix it.
I think we need that for the country.
We did it in 1920.
Our country was stronger for that for about four or five decades.
And now for 50 years, we've been blowing the lid open and allowing people to come here, including radical Muslims, radical Islamists who want to undermine Western.
So I think you summed it up pretty well there.
But yeah, I mean, just think about, uh, the four years we all endured under the Biden regime where, I don't know, 20 million illegals came in.
Who knows?
I probably think that number's higher than the stats we are, uh, given.
Uh, so let's just say it is 20 million.
That's like opening up the floodgates and, uh, allowing people in here at this insane rate that has never happened before.
So yeah, we've got to do something pretty unprecedented.
To get this under control and rein it back in.
So, I think this is the only solution at this point.
I would love to get the president's thoughts on it.
I'm sure, you know, this is something he would probably support, though.
Maybe our very own Kara Castronova could ask about that because I think this is the only way forward.
I don't know how we get a handle on this issue and how we continue to try to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in history if we don't stop the influx from coming in and put a temporary halt on it.
As you heard Chip Roy say, that was done once before in the 20s, I believe he said, and it really secured the nation for decades to come.
So, In my opinion, I think this is the only answer at this point in time.
Launching A Health Mission00:02:48
Yeah.
Well, I wish we had more time to keep talking, but our next guest is here.
So I'm going to have to let you go, Allison.
But I did want to say congratulations on getting back into your ex account.
I know it was occupied by a hacker for the last week.
And we were going to do a little segment today, sort of warning people about don't click the links, you know, suspicious links in your DMs and things like that.
But we'll have to have you on next week.
And we'll do a whole little segment just on, you know, internet security and things like that that people can look out for.
So.
Thank you for joining me, Allison, and glad you're back on X. Glad to be back with you all.
Sorry if you guys got a scam message from me.
I hope it didn't ruin your life like it did mine.
But yes, I will be in control of my account moving forward.
And thank you all for sticking with me.
And thanks, Heather, for having me.
Thanks, Allison.
Yes.
So if you received a DM from Allison on X within the last week, do not click on that link.
I promise you it won't end well.
FK Jr., who announced he's launching a podcast.
So we're going to switch gears.
We're going into the Maha segment here of our show.
So let's take a listen to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Take a listen.
For decades now, Americans have been told that we should trust the system, but our children are sicker, chronic disease is exploding, and the answers that we've been given aren't working.
Many of us have come to the conclusion that government actually lies to us.
I'm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., your HHS secretary.
This podcast is about telling the truth.
especially when it's uncomfortable.
I'm going to have fearless conversations with critical thinkers, including independent doctors, respected scientists, and leaders in medical innovation and research.
I'm going to ask the questions and lift the taboos and expose the hypocrisy and the conflicts and the corruption.
We're going to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we're going to name the names of the forces that obstruct the paths to public health.
This isn't going to be about politics.
It's about our families, about our children, and it's about confronting the spiritual malaise.
and embracing the truth.
If we want a healthy nation, we have to confront the lies that have made us spiritually, morally, and physically sick.
The time for half measures is now over.
We're launching a new era of radical transparency in government here at HHS.
I hope you'll join us in our mission to make America healthy again.
Now that sounds interesting.
And joining me now to talk about health and all things wellness is Michael Kingsler of All Family Pharmacy.
How are you?
Good.
So, your reaction to the secretary there announcing his new health podcast, what is your reaction to that?
Safe Peptides And Wellness00:15:24
We're excited for it.
I'd love to advertise on it too, but he's a government official, so we can't.
But it's exciting because he's leading the initiative to make America healthy again.
And that's essentially what we're all trying to do.
Yeah, I know.
And I appreciate the work that you guys have been doing.
And I was actually really excited to have you on today because I wanted to dive into a topic here that you know all too well.
So if we could go ahead and put this headline up there on the screen, it says The wellness world is eager for RFK Jr.'s promised move on peptides.
The article says for the past month, wellness and longevity enthusiasts have eagerly waited for the federal government to loosen restrictions on some of what NPR calls trendy and unapproved peptides.
Therapies, also known as peptides.
So, I wanted to ask you because I know I saw on your website, All Family Pharmacy, you guys have peptides.
I actually know nothing about them, but I've seen sort of the influencer world promoting them.
So, let's just start off by can you explain to us what exactly is a peptide?
Peptides are natural amino acids derived from our body.
Basically, they just signal the body to do the job that it's supposed to do.
Depending upon the peptide, it will depend on the job that it's looking at doing.
You know, the most popular ones is the BPC 157 or the ones that Eli Lilly patented, which is trisepatide, and now the retitrutide coming out in about a year or so.
The growth hormones, peptides of the world, like ipomerellin, tesamorelin, which is used in HIV patients, they just signal the body to do the job.
For instance, in a growth hormone, We're signaling to the body to just do small pulses to create growth hormones while we're sleeping.
What that does is it helps you sleep in a deeper sleep.
And it also helps you with rest, recovery, and metabolism.
Growth hormones are great.
As we get older, we stop producing them as much.
And you just significantly start to decline as the years go on.
And when you're 40, 50, 60 years old, is when you really, truly feel it.
You can't recover as quick anymore.
Your metabolism slows down.
You can't build muscle.
You can't retain muscle.
It's just all the parts and factors of building growth hormones within our body.
So that's what peptides are.
They're natural amino acids.
So, what are the restrictions that are currently on them as far as the government?
How much regulation is there of these peptide treatments?
So, the Biden administration put 19 peptides into Schedule Two.
What that means is that we are not allowed to compound it as a pharmacy.
So, there's no facility that is a regulated pharmacy that can make any of those compounds of peptides, restricting access.
What that did is that created the black market, China to jump in, India to jump in, and to start selling online.
Unapproved drugs because they don't want to approve them.
Nobody wants to put it through trials.
The reason why is because putting it through an FDA trial is about three to four years and it costs a minimum of $100 million.
Who's going to put something in trials that they can't patent, right?
It makes no financial sense for these companies, for drug manufacturers.
So they're never going to put that into trials because of that.
These are naturally derived from the body.
You cannot patent them.
So it's just an unfortunate thing that we're going to have to battle on our level.
If RFK Jr. is successful in his push, To getting it released from Schedule 2 and pushed down to Schedule 1, that leads it to a medical provider, a pharmacist as well.
And what that allows us to do is allow us to guide the patient in a safe and effective manner.
We already know peptides work.
We already know that they're safe.
The FDA has no long term data because they choose not to go that route.
They choose not to spend the money on this stuff.
But there are pharmacies like us that are out there that will spend the money on this, will do the research, who will read between the fine print.
They'll take care of the patient.
They'll make sure they're doing it in a safe and effective manner.
And that when we're compounding it, we're buying it from a reliable source.
We're testing the powders for purity levels, for heavy metals, to make sure that it meets USP, which is United States Pharmacopoeia standards, as we do with all medicine.
So there is a safe way to do it.
And if they leave it up to us, the pharmacy and the doctors, to prescribe it and compound it in a right manner, you're going to get rid of the black market.
And then the Americans can then be safe taking these peptides.
Interesting.
So, are there, I know you say they're safe, but like when I was like Googling stuff, you know, we should never really Google anything, but there's like a lot of like the fear mongering around the peptides and like all these warnings and stuff like that.
From your perspective, are there any legitimate warnings, you know, for peptides or things like that or people like that people should be aware of?
I know you mentioned like China is obviously involved.
You guys obviously provide your own product, which we highly recommend.
But just like what are the general warnings, if any, surrounding peptides?
The general warnings are usually cancer related or thyroid related in certain aspects, most of them being cancer.
And the reason for that is a lot of the peptides are mitochondrial functions.
What we're doing is we're revitalizing the cell, we're repairing the inner walls, we're repairing the insulin sensitivity or the insulin resistance within the cell, basically, revitalizing it and bringing that cell back to life.
And what that does is it provides anti aging benefits, it provides energy.
But what can happen if it's put into the wrong hands of a cell is it could do that to a cancer cell.
And that's what we don't want to do.
There is not enough data to support it.
This is just hypothesized by the physicians that we work with.
So they're very careful when it comes to patients with cancer because you don't want to turn on the wrong cell.
And so those are the tiptoes that we go around with some of this stuff.
But when it comes to BPC 157 and TB 500, BPC 157 has anti inflammatory.
Properties.
It basically tells your body to bring brand new blood to the area.
It increases blood flow.
And when your blood flow starts to get increased, it brings oxygen and nutrients to the hard parts of the area, which are traditionally tendons, right?
Most people suffer from arthritis, tendonitis, bursitis.
These are peptides essentially that people are taking and they're seeing positive benefits in the anti inflammatory space, in the rest and recovery space, and the tissue healing space.
So We're seeing great data on our level.
The FDA is not going to look at all family pharmacy and just use that data to say, hey, these are going to work.
They need to do their own research.
They need a drug manufacturer to step in and spend the hundreds of millions of dollars to do all this research for them.
However, on our level, we know it works, we know it's safe, and then we can prove the effectiveness of it.
And then we're going to give you the proper guidance through a medical practitioner or a physician.
So, is it similar to like, is the peptides like basically just being attacked similar to like the ivermectin, where it's like it's this cheap, effective, naturally occurring stuff that works.
Therefore, we're going to put all these regulations and red tape around it and push, you know, the dirty pharmaceuticals and chemo and all this other stuff that doesn't work.
Is it just basically another one of those types of situations?
It's very similar.
It is going to take money from big pharma's hand out of their pockets.
That's the unfortunate part for them.
That's good for us.
That's good for the American people.
It's a cheaper and more effective way.
A lot of people out there that deal with pain are on some serious drugs.
And if they can introduce this to the market in a safe and effective manner, and it provides them the pain relief that they deserve without having to take oxycodone, hydrocodone, any of these Percocets, Vicodins, anything along those lines, I mean, you're talking huge change within the pharmaceutical industry, right?
And then when it comes to post surgery, That's another thing.
We've linked up with some physicians that are looking into the research aspect of it in post surgery.
Whereas something we call the Glow Kit, which you would think is more of a skin, hair, nails type of product, it's actually showing that it's speeding up the recovery after surgery.
There's copper in it, which is GHKCU, TB500, which is banned in the World Doping Agency because they proved that it actually had athletes recover faster.
Which gave them a competitive edge.
So they actually went outright and banned it.
They banned it in horse racing because people were injecting their horses with it because they were recovering faster after their races, giving them a competitive edge.
So these are peptides that have been used throughout the last decade or two, and they're used throughout the entire world.
It's just we have a very strict system here in the United States.
So we have to deal with it the hardest.
So, which was the one that was banned that was giving the athletes like the upper.
TB500.
Is that something that you guys have on your website?
It's not on our website.
We work with an affiliate company.
So we found a manufacturer.
It's an iOS 9 facility, which is the top tier of the sterile facilities that make injectable drugs.
They're located in Texas and there's a distribution center in Miami.
We work directly with them.
Their website is aminosupport.com.
They have all of the peptides listed there.
And we actually got them to do a coupon code with you guys.
It's Lindell20.
I know Lindell 20 works for our website.
It's 20% off your entire order.
We've also asked them to put it on the peptide website.
If anybody is interested in looking at any of these peptides and testing them out, I highly suggest them.
Lindell 20 would save 20% off the entire order as it works on our website for any of our biohacking, ivermectin, mabendazole, or maintenance medications.
So, do all peptides have to be taken through injection or are there oral pills and things like that?
Or I don't really know how it works, but.
I'm just curious.
There's a few that are oral.
They're not very successful when it is oral.
It is a very delicate molecule.
Your stomach is almost like an acid pit, it destroys anything that goes inside of it.
That's the job, the purpose of it.
Most people that take BPC 157 by capsule is because they're trying to heal something in their stomach.
They have some sort of gastro issue.
Traditionally speaking, though, most peptides that are taken successfully are taken through an injectable.
We're not going to suggest the oral route.
Some of them can be taken orally.
You lose about 66 to 70% of the drug if it's taken in a trochee route.
If it's taken by a capsule, it's more likely than not most of it is destroyed in the stomach.
So if you are going to go the oral route, we do suggest trochees.
If not, if you're scared of needles, you know, there are so many videos online showing you how to do injections.
We have pharmacists that do it as well.
Our pharmacists are very familiar with the injection routes.
Doctors as well.
We have nurse practitioners who do this learning sessions all the time.
We give out pamphlets to teach people really how to do safe injections in their own body.
I wonder if eventually, like maybe it'll get to a point where, you know, how you can do like skin patches for stuff where it's absorbed into the skin to sort of avoid the stomach.
Maybe I'm just thinking out loud here, but.
Yeah, it's the skin is very hard to penetrate and get into the bloodstream.
That's why most products that are topical don't have side effects outside of rashes, irritation at the skin.
It's because it's not absorbed in the bloodstream.
But we are actually allowed to compound copper in a gel or a foam.
So, we are working right now with our partners in making a hair foam, which we would make here at All Family Pharmacy, as well as a facial gel and a skin gel that has GHKCU, which is copper.
That is your body's ability to create elastin and collagen, as well as the healing properties for skin, skin tightening, and then BPC 157.
And I believe we use NAD in certain ones too.
NAD just revitalizes cells.
So, if you put it in a hair follicle, we're trying to revitalize the cells within that follicle.
And then allow the BPC to provide the blood flow to the follicle.
And then the GHKCU, which works on the actual root of the hair follicle and strengthening it and making it more dense.
So it provides a thicker, more full hair, as we would say.
So that is something we do provide here at the pharmacy.
Well, I mean, it sounds like your industry is really booming here.
Let's go and put some of the products you guys have on the screen that are currently on your website.
And maybe we could just scroll.
And if you can see that on your screen, if we can, yeah, if we go over to the bio, if we hit order at the top there, there's the biohacking.
And let's go there.
I kind of want you to maybe explain each one as we scroll down.
So the first one that comes up, if we scroll a little bit here, and then maybe you could tell us who would be a good fit for them.
So the first one there on the left.
Glutathione, 200 milligram per ml injection.
So, glutathione is liver support.
Our liver produces glutathione to basically attack toxins, making them bile or water soluble, allowing your body to just sweat it out, get rid of these toxins.
So, that actually is support for your liver.
Some people use it for hangovers.
A lot of people, if you've seen the influencers online, they like doing glutathione prior to going in a sauna.
So, we increase the glutathione count, allow it to take out the toxins, make them water soluble.
Then you go in the sauna and you sweat everything out.
It's a great, great anti aging tool as well.
And then NAD, one of our favorites.
I know Mike Lindell loves this one.
NAD is the battery that charges your cells, it just gives you cellular energy on levels that you haven't felt in 15, 20 years.
Because as we get older, our NAD levels drop.
They're coming out with a lot of pretty interesting research stating that as our NAD levels drop, Those neurological disorders start coming into play, such as Alzheimer's, dementia.
So, keeping your NAD levels at the max throughout the consistency of your life has proven to help subside some of those neurological degeneration disorders.
Louisiana EPA Lawsuit Details00:11:26
And then we have all of our trochies and the methylene blue.
Methylene blue, another favorite within the conservative groups.
This provides cognitive support, mental clarity, and kicks out brain fog.
I love this one, especially when I'm doing interviews and talking to people, because it helps keep on focus, helps me keep on within my lane to talk about what medication we're talking about without forgetting all of the simple, small things.
So it kicks out that brain fog as we get older, we get a lot more foggier.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time today to go over some of this stuff.
And I definitely want to have you back on next week so we can go a little deeper into maybe some of the other things that you offer.
But thank you so much, Michael, for joining us as always.
Awesome.
Thanks for having me.
Well, that was quite the informative segment here.
Peptides are just, you know, apparently very useful for a number of different reasons.
So maybe we'll have to have him on back.
I'm still not super familiar with them, but I'm definitely interested.
And learning more about them because I have a number of friends that have taken them and they swear by them.
So if you're interested, go to All Family Pharmacy, make sure you sign up, talk to their people, and they can get you guided into the right direction.
But we're wrapping up our show here for today.
But I have for you guys one last pre recorded interview from our time at CPAC about a week ago.
I had a chance to sit down with Mark Chenoweth, who was the, he founded an organization really to, A crackdown on censorship online.
So, I had a great interview with him that I want you all to take a listen to.
Here it is.
All right.
So, we are here at CPAC.
I'm Heather Mullins, and joining me now is Mark Chenoweth.
Correct.
And you are the president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
So, tell us just a little bit about that organization.
Yeah.
So, NCLA is a public interest law firm.
We've been around about eight and a half years, and we were founded by Philip Hamburger, who is a law professor up at Columbia Law School.
School in New York City with the idea that there wasn't a single organization out there dedicated to fighting the administrative state.
So that's what we do all day, every day.
We don't have any other missions.
It's just to be good lawyers for the Constitution.
We like to say the Constitution needs good lawyers.
And we try to make sure that, regardless of who's in the White House, those agencies that are below the president aren't misbehaving and violating people's civil liberties.
Well, that sounds amazing.
We definitely need more of that in today's society.
But I want to talk about the big one that you just won, right?
And that was a big censorship lawsuit.
So start from the beginning and explain to us how did you get involved with that?
How did it start?
And walk us through the case.
Sure.
Well, so if we go back to the very beginning, we had an attorney with us at the time named Janine Yunus.
And Janine started a lawsuit on behalf of three of our clients.
One of them was named Mark Changese in Ohio because we found out that our clients were being deplatformed or were being shadow banned or.
throttle.
There are all these terms that are just ways of saying censorship, essentially.
Anytime they were putting messages up about COVID-19 or other things that were against what the Biden administration was saying, they found that their number of followers was suddenly shrinking and all these strange things were happening.
So we filed the lawsuit there.
The Attorney General of Missouri saw that lawsuit and I guess they were getting ready to file something similar.
So they took a look at our lawsuit, incorporated a lot of that for the kind of the COVID-19 section of their lawsuit.
They teamed up with Louisiana.
And they filed the Missouri v. Biden social media censorship lawsuit.
Then, and they filed that in the Western District of Louisiana.
It wasn't super clear that the states were going to have standing to sue.
How did you make the connection that it was the government doing the censorship with the social media companies?
So, great question.
We had to get discovery at the preliminary stage to find that out.
And we were fortunate that Judge Dowdy, Judge Terry Dowdy in the Western District of Louisiana, allowed us the discovery because there were some public statements where.
SISA, the agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, had publicly said that they were taking down some things that were causing vaccine hesitancy and whatnot.
And we said, well, wait a minute, the government can't do that.
And so we had enough to sort of convince the judge that there was something there that we needed to explore a little bit, and we were able to explore that.
And then we came in to represent Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kohldorf, Aaron Cariotti, and Jill Hines, who lives in the West. District of Louisiana.
She's an activist there.
And because the state AG's offices couldn't represent individuals, and we thought it was important to have individuals in the lawsuit to really help us get all the information out that we were able to get out.
And so, like I say, we thought that we had enough evidence to show that the government was doing what we were saying it was doing.
We won a preliminary injunction in the Western District of Louisiana.
Then we won at the Fifth Circuit.
They narrowed it a little bit.
And then we got it.
To the Supreme Court, and unfortunately, six justices decided that we hadn't quite shown enough to connect the damage our clients suffered with the censorship that the government had done.
So they said we didn't have standing.
Justice Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas disagreed with that.
They thought that we had done enough.
But we got sent back down to the district court, and it was frustrating because we thought we had done enough, but we had to go back and essentially not start over, but do more discovery.
Try to establish even better the connections that were there.
And so once the Trump administration came in, you may remember day one of the Trump administration, he put out an executive order, 14149, saying, social media censorship, we're done with that.
That's not happening under my watch.
And so the judge wanted us to say, well, if they're not doing it anymore, then do you still have a case and let's brief that?
And so we were able.
To engage in over a year of negotiations with the administration on what the consent decree would look like.
How would they agree to not repeat this behavior going forward?
Because even though President Trump was saying we're not doing this, some of those bad actors were still in the government.
Yeah, in the government.
So we wanted to constrain them.
So, what was the.
Like terms of the consent decree that prevents it.
Yeah, so it runs against CISA and the Surgeon General's Office, because they were one of the big offenders here, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC.
They were another one of the bad actors here who were engaging in censorship.
What it says is for 10 years, that's the term of the consent decree, so it goes beyond the end of the Trump administration.
So even if President Trump's executive order gets overturned by a future Democrat president, During that time period, the consent decree will still apply to the next administration.
And it says that they cannot, and it runs against Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube, and Instagram, that the government cannot coerce them at all.
It cannot punish them for refusing to take anything down.
They can't ask for anything to be taken down under the terms of the consent decree.
What they can do still is they can flag something that they believe is false.
They can flag something that they believe is inconsistent with the government's view of something, but they can't threaten any penalties if the platforms don't take down the speech.
So that's the, it's not everything we wanted, but it's.
No, that's good.
A question that just sort of popped in my mind is like, so social media, like there's this consent degree preventing the U.S. government from asking them to remove stuff and doing that sort of stuff.
Is there any sort of protection since a lot of social media companies are like multi country, right?
Where they're X, for example.
Are there rules in place to prevent foreign governments from requiring American social media companies from doing the same thing?
There aren't.
And that's a great question.
It's a real problem, especially with Europe.
There's no First Amendment in Europe.
And so they do try to, and they've done it with President Trump, they've tried to get things to be taken down off the internet domestically in America in order to satisfy European law.
And we've said no.
I mean, the First Amendment prohibits them from doing that domestically.
But it doesn't help.
Internationally.
Okay, fair enough.
So, what are some of the, and congratulations on the win though, that's huge.
Thank you.
Tell us a couple of these other cases that you're working on.
Sure.
So, we have three cases pending at the Supreme Court right now, and it doesn't mean the court's going to hear all of them.
Although, the last time we had three cert petitions pending at the Supreme Court, all three cases were granted.
So, knock on wood, it could happen.
But the ones we have right now, we have one against the EPA.
So, our client is a small business in Georgia that manufactures.
Something called hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and these are refrigerants.
It's basically, you might think of freon or something like that.
This is not freon, but it's a substance that would be used instead of that in your refrigerator or in an air conditioning unit to cool things down.
And the Congress passed a law in 2020 deciding that there were environmental problems with these chemicals.
They wanted to reduce their use by 85%, which is pretty significant, and they put the EPA in charge.
Of issuing the permits to people as to who would still be able to manufacture how much going forward because there was supposed to be a trend down from 2020 to 2035, and by I think it was 2035 or 2036, they'd be down to that 85% or 15% of the previous level.
But what the Congress didn't do was give EPA instructions on how to do that.
And so it gave instructions about 2% of the market, some things having to do with national defense and so forth.
But the other 98% it basically left wide open.
And so you might imagine the Biden EPA came in and they said, hey, we should do some racial set asides for new entrants to the market.
They even gave some of the allowances to Chinese pirates who had stolen American IP.
They gave some to importers so that the people who our clients used to import the products.
Now we're able to leverage them to have to pay more for it that even though the importer didn't ever use it before.
And so, what we're trying to get the EPA to do, or what we're trying to get the Supreme Court to do, is tell Congress you can't pass a law that doesn't give instructions.
The Article I of the Constitution says all legislative power is with Congress.
Challenging The Gag Rule00:05:49
And under something called the non delegation doctrine, which I know is lawyers speak, but what that says is if you're going to give Something to an agency to enforce, you have to give details how to do it.
And they didn't do it.
And so we're asking the court to set aside that law until such time as Congress gives EPA adequate instructions.
All right.
We'll have to stay on top of that one.
Yeah, there's a.
What is this one?
This is another First Amendment one.
Yeah, let's talk about that one.
Yeah, so.
Powell, what is it?
Powell?
Yeah, it's Powell v. SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
So we represent nine individuals and two media entities, including the Cape Gazette out of Delaware and Reason.
And we're going after something called the gag rule.
For over 50 years, the SEC has required folks who settle with the agency, settle these enforcement actions with the agency, to be gagged for life.
And 98% of people who the SEC comes after wind up settling.
And so they all have this gag rule, and the SEC won't negotiate it.
It's a mandatory term that they put in these settlements.
And so our clients have either Most of them are under a gag right now as a condition of settlement.
Because I know we hear the term gag rule and legal stuff all the time.
How is that legal?
How is there any legal basis for a gag rule in any case?
So that means a judge will put a gag rule in place because they don't want the jury to hear information during, like, they don't want people trying their case in the public.
So if you have a jury impaneled in a case, the judge might tell the parties, your gag.
Until the verdict is over.
But doesn't that sort of like eliminate the reasonable doubt?
Like, aren't, you know, like in a court of law, aren't you supposed to convince someone, the jury, that people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which means like you expose them to everything and then in light of all the possible doubt, they still believe that person is guilty?
To me, it's always felt like gag rules are trying to like create an environment where the reasonable doubt is not allowed in.
So you're allowed to bring it into court.
So, if it's evidence that the judge just wants to control all of that evidence that comes in, make sure that it's not hearsay, make sure that it meets all the rules of evidence.
But the difference between those gag rules and what we're talking about here, those are very temporary, they're very specific to one case, and just like I say, time limited.
This is for the rest of your life.
You can't even say something that's true.
So if there was something in the original complaint against you that wasn't true, you can't dispute it.
Yeah, that's crazy.
Even though you're under the gag rule.
So we think it's a big First Amendment violation.
We hope the court will take it.
We've got a lot of amicus support that's starting to pour in, encouraging the court to take the case.
And I'll just give one example.
We have a client who was the CFO of Xerox.
Barry Romerle.
And I believe he reached his settlement in 2001 or 2002.
So it's been almost a quarter century now that he's been gagged.
One of his co defendants went to his grave, never able to tell his side of the story publicly.
And I think that moved Barry to say, wait a minute, I don't want to be in the same position.
I want to fight for this.
So we've been fighting for Barry since 2018.
And we're excited to finally try to get this petition up to the Supreme Court and get them to weigh in on whether.
Agencies can do this.
By the way, the Department of Justice doesn't do this.
They don't gag you.
There's only two agencies that gag you the SEC and the CFTC, the Commodities Future Trading Commission.
They have a gag rule too because they just copy everything the SEC does, I think.
But no other agency does that.
And it's a terrible regime and not something that the court should allow.
Yeah, well, I mean, I can only imagine how hard it is to actually get litigation in front of the Supreme Court, but you've got multiple, so it's just a testament to the work that you're doing.
We've had three victories so far.
We overturned the bump stock.
Ban at the Supreme Court.
That's a good one.
I mean, I'm a big 2A person.
We're up in New Hampshire where like Sig Sauer and Ruger have factories and like big pro gun area.
And I love President Trump, but man, with that bump stock ban, I'm like, what are you doing?
I think he got some bad advice.
That's my, you know, bad advice, bad advice.
That's what I like to say.
And then we overturned the Chevron deference as well.
That's probably our most famous victory.
So it used to be the case for 40 years that judges had to defer to the legal opinions of the executive branch on things.
And we were able to get that.
Flipped over and restored judicial independence.
Well, thank you so much, Mark.
Tell people where they can go to learn more about your organization and follow all the litigation that you're putting out.
Absolutely.
So the website is nclalegal.org.
You can learn more about the social media censorship consent decree.
We've got the consent decree up on the website if you want to read that.
You can learn more about these cases that are pending at the Supreme Court or about any of the other 30 some cases that we have going against the federal government right now.