All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2014 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:05:51
Edition 143 - Ty Bollinger

A must-hear show with US freedom advocate and health campaigner Ty Bollinger...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for your great feedback, your great emails.
Keep them coming.
Go to w.theunexplained.tv, www.theunexplained.tv, that's my website.
And you can send me feedback about the show, guest suggestions, tell me how you would like me to do it in future, whatever.
Always good to hear from you.
So many people from every corner of the globe, and we are making a breakthrough in America and Canada now, and I'm really pleased about that.
Please keep the faith with the unexplained.
We couldn't do any of it without Adam Cornwell.
Adam is the guy who designed and created the website.
Adam's from Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
So thanks, Adam.
I'm not going to waste time here because I want to get to the guest.
Before we do, though, just to say if you want to make a donation to the show, got to say this.
Please go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv.
You know the form and there's a PayPal link there.
Vital to develop what we're doing here.
Now, the guest this time, a man called Ty Bollinger.
You may well know him in America because he's been on Fox News, CNN.
My friend John B. Wells had him on Coast to Coast AM and I think he's got some very important stuff to say to all of us.
And of all the guests I've had on here recently, this man I think will make you think about the way life is constructed and how you fit into it.
See if I'm right.
Let me know.
So let's cross now to the United States and let's get on Ty Bollinger.
Ty, thank you very much for making time for us.
Thank you, Howard, for having me.
I really appreciate it.
Looking forward to talking with you today.
And I am massively looking forward to this because I first heard you on radio with our mutual friend John B. Wells in the States.
And the program that he does goes out very early on a Sunday morning for me here in the UK.
And I keep a notepad by my bedside, right?
And I ran for the notepad when I heard you.
And I just wrote myself, get this guy on.
Well, hey, I'm glad that you remembered to write me on the notepad because I'm excited to be here today and thrilled that you heard me on John's show.
He's got a great reach, doesn't he?
Doesn't he?
Just absolutely.
Well, we're trying to carry the candle and raise the flag for this stuff over here in the UK.
And I have listeners, a lot of them in the US and Canada, also places like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and of course, where I started with all of this, the United Kingdom.
So this show's been a bit of a trailblazer, and I wanted to get you on it.
I was thrilled that when I sent you an email, you got it and you replied very quickly.
And I think it's taken us about two months to set this up, but it's been well worth the wait.
It has, but yeah, it's been worth the wait.
Yeah, I think probably 1st of November is when you first contacted me.
Yes, you're right.
Yeah, no, I think we've got an archive of emails between us.
There are about 20 there, but there we are.
I read that you're in Texas, whereabouts?
I am.
I live between San Antonio and Austin, Texas, up in what's called the hill country, which in Texas, anything that's over about 20 feet tall is considered to be a hill.
It's pretty flat.
Come here.
I'll show you some proper hills and mountains.
Up in Scotland, they've got some proper ones, not like India and places like that.
But we're doing pretty well here.
Now, Texas is a place famed for free thinking and free thought.
So I reckon you're in the right place.
You know, we do have a lot of free thinkers down here.
And I was actually born in Dallas.
So I'm a Texan at heart.
And I've got four kids and a wife now.
And we all are considering ourselves Texans.
We do love it here.
We do love the mindset of a lot of the people here or free thinkers.
And, you know, they're just a lot of people that want to get out and live their own lives and have the government leave us alone the best of their ability.
I don't ask this of every guest I have on here, but I think it's important that I ask you, how would you describe yourself?
Because I like to come up with a phrase, but I really ran out of words with you, so I'd rather that you did it.
Okay.
Let's see.
Well, let me describe myself.
Most people like to describe themselves in terms of their political leanings.
So in the United States, we've got Democrats and Republicans, basically.
I'm not either of those.
I would consider myself a libertarian.
I think the government should keep their hands out of our business.
And I believe that I would be considered a constitutionalist.
So that the government should actually follow the rule book that they're supposed to follow.
And in my opinion, a lot of the ludicrous events that are occurring here in the United States are because the government's overstepping their bounds and they're dipping their grubby little fingers into areas they're not supposed to dip them.
So I think that would be the best way to describe me would be a constitutionalist libertarian, if that makes sense.
Absolutely makes sense.
And that's why you're on here now.
Problem is, I studied American politics at university a long, long time ago.
And it's very hard to break the monopoly, the stranglehold of the traditional party system there.
You've had independents over the years.
You've had mavericks try to enter politics here, and they usually bomb, don't they?
They do, and they bomb for a variety of reasons.
And one of the main reasons is because they get attacked from both different sides because it is a two-party system here.
So if you have an independent that comes in, and let's say it's an independent that is a lot of, say, Republicans would vote for, well, that independent gets attacked by the Republican Party and says, hey, if you run, then all these Republican voters are going to vote for you, and then the Democrat's going to win.
So you're causing the Democrat to win.
And on the other side of the coin, some independent comes in that's left-leaning and more of a Democratic, then he'll get attacked by the left because he's going to make the right candidate win.
So they really don't stand much of a chance.
We had a guy at university called Mick Laver who wrote a book about the game theory of politics.
And politics boils down to a simple game.
And the kind of calculations that politicians make are exactly the ones that you've just talked about.
Like, you know, we had an election.
We used to stage elections in game theory sessions with Mick.
And we had various candidates.
There was genius, idiot, boar, moron.
Okay.
And because of the various log rolling that happens and because of the process of committees and the way stuff just unfolds, the moron always won because he was safe.
Yes.
He didn't threaten anybody.
That is true.
I recommend if you've never seen Mick Laver's work on game theory in politics, I reckon it was groundbreaking at the time and still is.
It sounds like it to me, yeah.
And then I think one of the reasons that the moron would always win, too, is they're more easily controlled.
They're not free thinkers.
At the head of your book, you say in your book, Monumental Myths of the Medical Mafia and Mainstream Media, you say, you quote, have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, rather expose them.
And that is a lift from Ephesians.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that's really what I wanted to do with this book.
You know, I woke up to the, I guess what I would refer to as almost the real life matrix that we're living in.
I know that David Icke likes to refer to it as the matrix, but I kind of believe we're in a matrix as well.
I woke up to that several years ago, about eight years ago.
I published my first book on cancer entitled Cancer, Step Outside the Box.
And I'd woken up initially to the health matrix that we're in and the fact that we live under what I call the medical mafia here in the United States, where the health of patients is not really preeminent in the minds of hospitals, doctors, the FDA, and so forth, big pharmaceutical companies.
It's really more about the bottom line.
It's more about making money off of patients.
So I'd woken up to that.
But after that, I published that book.
I was contacted by a physician that I had quoted in that book extensively, and he wanted me to watch a video about 9-11.
I was reluctant because he told me that it was a video that's proving that there were factions within the U.S. government that were behind it or that were complicit with it.
And I told him he was crazy.
And, you know, that's what we're taught.
We're trained to call people names when they disagree with the party line, when they disagree with the official story.
I know David Icke quite well, and you've probably spoken to him too.
If you haven't, then I recommend that you ought to, really.
David is a man who was derided in this country.
Check out some of the YouTube videos of his early TV appearances.
But as time has gone by, and we're talking about the better part of three decades here, more and more people are starting to say, hey, maybe there's a grain of truth in what this guy is saying.
He's plugged away at it now for 30 years.
Yes.
And he's been vilified.
He's been downtrodden by people.
But now a lot of people mainstream are starting to say, maybe David Icke has a point.
Maybe there is more to this and maybe there is a big lie out there somewhere.
Yes.
Yes.
He is.
I'm glad for David that the people are coming around because I know he has been vilified.
But hey, you know, if you're not being vilified and if you're not being made fun of, you're probably not really over the target.
So I think that that shows that he is over the target and he has been for, as you said, the better part of three decades.
But, you know, I think that's kind of par for the course.
That's what we can expect.
And, you know, unfortunately, that was the feedback that I gave my doctor friend.
I told him he was nuts.
But like I said, that's what we've been taught.
But, you know, as soon as we watched this video that he sent me, this DVD, my wife and I looked at each other and said, you know what?
He was right.
And that really opened up Pandora's box.
And from there, with the last eight years, we have gone deep inside the rabbit hole.
You know, we're not in Wonderland anymore.
And we are definitely living in what I would refer to as a real-life matrix.
Most of what we see from the mainstream media, most of the stories are concocted.
There are slivers of truth wrapped up in big fat lies in almost every story, every official story that we're told about major events that have happened over the past hundred years.
Well, you refer in the book, I love the phrase, bobble-headed reporters who don't really look and don't really see.
Yeah.
Well, you know, that's kind of what they are.
The real life example of that playing out in real life was back, I guess, in July this last year.
If you remember the report of the crash of Asiana Airlines in San Francisco.
I do.
And the names that came out of people who were on the flight deck, wasn't it, that were ridiculous names and yet they were trotted out as being fact.
Exactly.
And that was my point, that we've got a bunch of reporters that are not really, they're really teleprompter readers.
They're not really reporting.
They're just reading the script that they're given.
And that really exemplified it more than anything that I've seen in the past when you've got a news anchor saying that these names of these pilots were Sum Ting Wong, Wee Too Lo, Bing Bang Oo.
That shows you that there's some kind of mental gyrations that are going on there that they're not really connecting, that these are goofy names that were a joke.
They're just reading off of the card.
And so that leads you to think, what else are they just reading to us that they're not really investigating, that they're not really verifying that these are real facts?
Well, my journalist friends would say, well, that was probably a mistake somewhere down the line, certainly.
And whoever read it on air and whoever stuck it in the teleprompter and who was ever in the gallery on that particular occasion was just not wearing their thinking head on that day.
But that's not the kind of stuff that happens routinely.
You say it does.
Well, something like this, that ridiculous, you're right, probably doesn't happen that often.
And, you know, I don't hold the news anchor at fault here because she's just doing what her job description wants her to do.
That's what they do.
They read the teleprompter.
So it's not that she's inherently bad or that she's even ignorant or stupid or anything like that.
She's just doing what they do.
The news anchors, especially here in the United States, just read off the teleprompter.
And so that's the information she was given.
She read it off.
And then she ended up taking the fall, looking like a real idiot in front of the American people.
But I wouldn't really even blame her.
That's just, that's what news anchors do here is they read off of the teleprompter.
And she was given bad information by somebody that didn't vet it properly.
And then now she looks like a complete moron in front of the American people for doing that.
But it's not really her fault.
It's the system.
People I know would say, well, that's just the human condition.
People make mistakes.
But you are saying that there is an awful lot more to it than that.
And listen, I'm a mainstream journalist.
I've spent a lot of my time in my career.
And radio is all I've done in my life.
It's all I've known.
In the airchair, fronting news, a lot of it writing and fronting news.
And I Came to think, oh, probably 12 or 13 years ago, I started to think I'm not entirely convinced by a lot of the stuff we're told.
And what made me start to think about the nature of news is the number of times we are delivered things as fact, and then they either A, go away completely, you never hear about them again, or B, they're retracted or we later hear the complete opposite.
And yet for that moment when you're delivering them and you're giving them, they're delivered to you as fact, and they turn out subsequently to be complete rubbish.
And that happens an awful lot.
Yeah, it does.
It does.
And, you know, that makes me think of the Oklahoma City bombing.
One of the bombings or one of the events that I discuss in Monumental Myths was back in 1995 when the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed.
And the official story was that Timothy McVeigh drove a fertilizer truck up and he parked it out front of the building and he left and it exploded.
And somehow it caused the laws of physics to be suspended that day because the building then blew out towards the truck instead of away from it.
But, you know, we'll just forget about that.
But later on that day, when the local TV stations there in Oklahoma City were covering it, all three TV stations had live reports and videos of the bomb squad carrying out two to three other bombs from inside the building that were not exploded.
That was the story the first day.
But by the time that the night rolled around and they started, it hit national news and the next day when all the news stories were covering it, we didn't hear about the three bombs anymore.
The official story then kind of morphed into Timothy McVay, lone bomber, fertilizer bomb, no other bombs, no other accomplices.
And so you're right.
You know, the stories change.
And it's, you know, I'm thankful that we have the internet and we have the ability to download videos onto our own computers and save them.
Because otherwise, it would be very easy for them to completely erase some of these anomalies about these official stories.
It would be much, much harder to get to the bottom.
Okay, well, let's just unpick and unpack some of that.
Timothy McVeigh, of course, was the man fingered for that incident.
That terrible incident.
And you're saying there's far more to it than meets the eye.
If that is so, what happened?
Really?
Well, you outlined those initial reports, okay?
And that is in the nature of news gathering.
Sometimes you report stuff and you haven't got the full picture first off and you're live and you just have to tell them what you see.
And then you get a clearer picture later on.
But you're saying it's more sinister than that.
Well, yeah, and you know, and I'm not, honestly, I'm not real sure what happened at Oklahoma City.
And a lot of the events that I cover in Monumental Myths, I'm not really, I don't really try to give people an answer about what happened or tell them exactly the real scenario because honestly, some of the situations, I don't really know.
What I try to do is to bust the official story or the monumental myth and let people know that the official story that we're being told about these events is a lie.
So really the focus more is to bust the myth than to tell exactly what I think happened because what I think happened is really just conjecture on my part.
But what I can do with these scenarios, specifically, you know, Oklahoma City we're talking about, I think I can prove through the book that the official story is not true.
No, for instance, you've got the multiple bombs, you know, the several different videos of the news station saying that there were multiple bombs.
You've got different commanders in the Air Force that were witnesses to the multiple bombs.
So you got some pretty reputable people that saw the bombs being removed from the buildings.
But maybe they made a mistake.
So there's other things.
The mysterious deaths that surrounded a lot of the eyewitnesses are another thing that, to me, busts the official story.
You've got a police officer that was named Terry Yeeke, and he was one of the men that pulled out several of the injured people out of the building, out of the Murray Federal Building.
And after the official story hit the mainstream, he told all of his friends and family, hey, what they're telling us about what happened that day is a lie.
It's all lies.
This is not what happened.
And then he was found within a couple months.
He was found hogtied and tortured with his wrist slit, and the coroner ruled it a suicide.
Okay, so that's just, that's an anomaly.
I mean, how do you hogtie yourself and slit your own wrist and torture yourself?
That just doesn't make sense to me.
Well, we had a case here in the UK on a similar theme, and I wonder if you got coverage of it over there of a young guy who worked for the Secret Service found dead, zipped into a bag in his bath.
And there are many, many questions asked about that.
And a lot of experts have been saying it is actually impossible for you to zip yourself into a bag like that.
But we never fully got the answer to that.
It's just one of those things.
Well, yeah.
And, you know, that's much the same approach that I'm taking here in the book is, you know, I list Terry Yiki.
There was another doctor named Donald Chumley that had a mysterious death right afterwards.
There was a man named Michael Lee Laudenschlager that was murdered.
And so you've got all these people that died mysteriously that were all saying, hey, the official story is a lie.
They end up dead.
So they're just anomalies that we have that make you question the official story.
So if the news is being manipulated, if the news is being played with, if the version that we are ultimately delivered, like for example, 9-11 was perpetrated by Osama bin Laden, called by President Bush bad man, nice clear story.
But you say that in these cases, someone for some reason is manipulating the facts.
Yeah, yeah, there's no doubt.
And so you want to look at a good general rule is look at who benefits, who benefits from the official story, who benefits from the official lie.
Now, as far as with Oklahoma City, I think one of the main things that that did is that that gave the government, the U.S. government a reason, or at least people perceived a reason to crack down on militia groups within the United States because Timothy McVeigh was apparently or allegedly part of some right-wing extremist militia type groups.
And so you've seen over the years since that happened, a real crackdown in the United States on militia groups, on people, on private firearm ownership and so forth.
So I think what that was was that gave them a pretext to begin cracking down on the Second Amendment in the United States, which is the right to bear arms, which we hold near and dear here, but we're having a lot of attacks on our right to bear arms.
That was one of the first events that gave the government a reason.
And people say, well, hey, we don't don't don't violate our right to bear arms.
And the government then said, look at Oklahoma City.
You've got these militias that are dangerous, that are terrorist militias that want to kill us.
So do you follow the Alex Jones line on this?
I listen to Alex Jones a great deal, and some of it I regard as entertainment, and some of it I think these days, God, I think the man has a point.
You know, he says, false flag operation designed to curb our freedom.
Yeah, I do.
I do.
I know Alex.
He lives about 60 miles north of me, and I do agree with him on that.
I believe that a lot of these are false flags, and the design behind them is to curtail our freedoms here.
That's what 9-11 was, you know, in my opinion.
It was a false flag that was what resulted from 9-11, the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorizations Act, the Homegrown Terrorist Act, all these different acts, these legislations that curb our freedoms, that make us more slaves, that increase the police state here in the United States, that increase military power against the people here, not against foreign invaders, but against our own people.
That all happened as a result of 9-11.
So I believe 9-11 was a false flag.
Another thing that 9-11 did is it gave us a pretext to invade Afghanistan because of the poppy, and it gave us a reason to invade Iraq because of the oil.
There's always underlying economic reasons behind these wars, behind these invasions.
And in my opinion, they're both illegal wars.
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
We should have invaded Afghanistan.
Believe it or not, the Taliban in Afghanistan had cut the poppy trade down to nothing.
They had stopped the poppy trade because according to their religious beliefs, it was immoral.
And so we came back in and opened it right up.
But on any level, Ty, somebody had to try and deal with the stuff that was going on out there.
For example, the treatment of women, denying them education, oppressing them quite appallingly.
I mean, these are things that if we are civilized people, surely we can't just stand by and let them happen.
Well, you know, I guess it depends on what your position is, Howard.
My position is that the USA should not be the world's policeman.
And so I don't believe it's our job, nor do I believe that it's constitutional for us to just go decide that we want to spread our version of democracy or freedom or whatever you want to call it on another independent sovereign nation.
And do you believe that the U.S. should be isolationist, as indeed the U.S. was before World War II?
You know, we don't want to get involved in this.
We don't want to go into another war.
Look what happens in war.
And the U.S. stayed out of it until it absolutely, positively had to get involved.
I do.
That's kind of my position, that we should worry more about our borders instead of sending off our troops to 100-plus countries across the world and basically leaving our own country, the homeland here, the soil here that we live on open because our military is all over scattered across the world, but they're not really here.
I think we should focus more on being more of an isolationist type country.
I think that's the best way to describe it, yes.
And the perspective that we're getting from politicians now is that we should be involved in a lot of different theaters of conflict.
We should engage with some of these people.
I mean, the next one they might have a go at is maybe North Korea, although that is a very knotty problem because you never know what the regime there is going to do next.
You know, we get these demons set up for us, and then we go out and get them, and then we find it blows up in our faces, quite literally in many cases, and we're left looking rather stupid.
And even worse, people die in their hundreds of thousands.
So I do quite understand the point that you're making, but you would concede, wouldn't you, that there are bad people in this world, like Adolf Hitler, who you cannot stand by and allow to do whatever they want to do.
Otherwise, we're not civilized people, are we?
No, I agree.
There's a lot of bad people, and there may be certain circumstances where you would want to intervene.
I don't believe that the reasons that our government has given for intervening over this past 14 years since 9-11 have been legitimate reasons.
I think that Smedley Butler was right.
War is a racket, and there's a lot of money to be made on war.
I was very mad about Iraq, and I covered that on the radio at the time, right the way through from Gulf War I all the way through on various London and national radio stations.
And I kept asking myself the question, although never on air, of course, I'm covering the news and have to tell people what is happening.
But the question in my head all the time was if Saddam Hussein was such a bad man, which he undoubtedly was, why was he our friend for so long?
And why did we support him?
And why did we turn a blind eye?
And why in this world are there people that we do turn a blind eye to?
Because it suits us.
Good questions.
Yeah, exactly.
It's because at that moment in time, it was in our best economic interest to turn a blind eye.
So, you know, really, I think the bottom line is that if you look at the bottom line, if you look at the economics of a decision, you're going to find out that that's what drives the decision as opposed to the morality of it.
Now, in other words, your question before, are there men that are so evil that we should intervene, that are torturing their own people or whatever?
Undoubtedly, there are and there have been.
But even in situations where we would intervene against a bad man who is very evil that's doing bad things to his own people, I would venture to say that the underlying reason for that would not be because we want to help his own people.
I would say that in situations where we've intervened, there's some kind of an underlying economic benefit for us to intervene.
And that's what drives the decision, not the fact that Americans are so superior morally compared to the rest of the world, because we're not.
So you believe there are two imperatives going on here.
Number one is to curb our freedom.
And number two, which is linked to number one, is furthering the aims of a controlling elite and furthering the aims of business, big business.
Yes.
Yeah, exactly.
So for instance, you've got Michael Chertoff, who was head of Homeland Security.
here in the United States in 2007, 2008 time period, and still that they're doing it today, they implemented these full-body x-ray machines at the airports.
I call them the radiation nudie nukers because they can see your whole body nude, and you're getting some pretty significant dose of radiation.
Michael Chertoff, who made the decision to implement these because he was the director of Homeland Security, he was one of the majority stockholders in a company called Rapiscan, which manufactured them.
And, you know, at $250,000 a pop, and you're selling these to every airport in the United States, that company had a windfall profit because of the fact that he decided to implement these.
Now, you tell me, is that a conflict of interest?
The man that makes the decision actually is the majority stockholder in the company that sells the stuff?
But somebody must have said that was okay.
I know in the U.S., because I studied it, and certainly here in the UK, there are scrutiny committees and others who decide if there is a genuine conflict of interest and decide these cases on their merits.
Surely in that case, that decision was made that this was okay.
The man was able to dissociate himself, and I don't know the specifics of that from the decision that he was making or involved in making.
There may have been, Howard, I'm honestly not sure what kind of oversight was given to that.
But, you know, that's just one of many examples.
That's the tip of the iceberg.
I think that I guess my point was that most decisions are made based upon an underlying economic benefit to the person or persons or groups that are making those decisions.
And, you know, Chertov was just one example, but there are many more.
And what about us?
What about the ordinary people, whether we're informed, whether we question, or whether we simply just watch reality television?
We're the ones who suffer in your scenario.
Where are we headed?
Wow, that's a great question.
I want to think that we're headed to a position where the truth is more widely known and accepted by the masses, and we can stand up against this tyranny that's occurring.
You know, I'm not really sure what it looks like over in the UK, but here America's turned into one big giant police state.
And we've got cameras everywhere.
We've got the NSA spying on.
I'm sure you've heard about the NSA scandals and spying on ordinary citizens without warrants.
Oh, I mean, what a scandal.
Is it 200 million text messages per day the NSA has been harvesting?
What the hell is that about?
I know.
It's like, where did our right to privacy go?
And so I think that the way that where I would like to see this end up is just a massive awakening of the people to stand up against the tyranny and say, no more, we're not going to put up with this anymore.
These people that are making, the politicians that are making these decisions to curb our freedoms, we're going to vote you out of office.
We're not going to put up with this anymore.
We're not going to be supporting anybody that's in favor of any of these unconstitutional wiretapping and spying and these invasions of privacy.
Because you see, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers here that said, he that gives up liberty for security deserves neither.
And I would have to agree with that.
I would have to agree with him.
And it may have been Ben Franklin.
I get the two mixed up.
But I would have to agree with that.
And I was actually in New York City last week, and I was riding in a taxi cab.
And the cab driver, we were talking about this very thing.
And I said, what do you think about this NSA spying?
What do you think about cameras everywhere?
And he said, as long as it keeps us safe, I'm in favor of it.
And see, that's the typical response by most Americans still is that as long as this keeps us safe, they're in favor of it.
You know, I've mentioned this to guests before.
I covered the two anniversaries of 9-11 live from Ground Zero, two different radio stations, two different years.
I was put up in hotels very close to Ground Zero.
And I got to know many of the people who were very closely connected with all of that.
And I heard some heart-rending stories.
And I met some people who had been enormously and amazingly brave.
But at the end of both weeks, I went out on the streets of New York to ask people how they felt about their personal safety in New York in that particular year.
And the message that I got from intelligent people heading for their offices on Wall Street or wherever on both occasions was, I'm absolutely safe.
I have faith in our government.
I feel safe.
And that was from everyone.
Whatever social stratum the person came from, I still have, they call them Vox pops here, you know, recordings of people on the street.
I still have those recordings.
In fact, on one of my unexplained shows, we went back to one of my shows for a London radio station, played the whole thing out, and you can hear the people there.
There is, I won't say childlike because I have no right to say that, but there is a very innocent faith that people in America seem to have.
I agree.
I agree.
It's really bizarre, the faith that we place in the government.
The people that have repeatedly let us down and lied to us over and over, but we still place faith in them.
What is that?
The definition of insanity, according to Einstein, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
Well, I've thought about this a lot, Ty, and I think you have to give people a break to an extent, because if you accept the proposition that you're putting forward, then you're staring into the abyss.
It's much easier and much safer to say, I'm safe, and what's on the television tonight?
I agree.
No, I agree completely.
You know, if you, once you, I like the way that you put it there, Howard, staring into the abyss.
Once you stare into the abyss and you realize that we've been lied to from the day we were born about many different issues, your complete paradigm is shattered.
And it causes people to do many different things.
When my wife and I woke up, we embraced the truth and we wanted to know more, even though it made us feel uncomfortable.
It made us sick at our stomach.
It made us feel like we had been betrayed by the people that we trusted.
But we wanted to get to the bottom of it.
We wanted the truth.
But I know a lot of people, they stare into that abyss and they realize that this is the most uncomfortable position that they've ever been.
And so they decide to go back into the Matrix.
It's like that scene In the Matrix, remember the scene in the Matrix where you've got the one guy that is talking to one of the men in black, and he says, Hey, I want to be popular, I want to be a movie star.
He's one of the ones that betrays them and he says, I know this isn't a steak, but hey, it tastes like a steak to me.
It's that's good enough for me.
I know it's not real, but it's good enough for me.
And I think that's where a lot of people are.
I don't know.
Look, I get really confused, and a lot of this stuff gives me an enormous headache.
I look at the current generation of politicians, and maybe this is just because I'm getting older.
You know, we have a saying in London that if the policemen start to look younger, it's because you're getting older.
So maybe I'm just looking at it with an older person's eye now, maybe.
But I look at the current generation of politicians.
We have Mr. Cameron in the UK and the various other party leaders and Mr. Obama in the United States.
And I just don't think they have the gravitas of previous generations.
But like I say, I've got to put that through the prism of my age and the fact that I have experienced different generations.
And, you know, I'm not 103, but I do remember the 80s.
You and me both, Howard.
And I'd have to agree with you.
I don't believe that the current leaders have the same gravitas.
I like that word that you use.
I don't believe they have the same gravitas that previous leaders have.
And I'm not saying that the previous leaders were good leaders necessarily or even moral leaders, but they had a quality, some kind of a leader type charismatic quality that you did seem to lend trust to.
And the leaders today, I don't trust them as far as I could throw them.
And I may be a big guy, but I can't throw them that far.
I just felt that there was more in the past.
There was more latitude to debate issues and look behind the truth.
These days, we seem to get a whole lot of consensus going on.
And that goes in your country and in my country.
Why are people agreeing?
Why are they coalescing constantly on the center ground?
That's a good question.
I don't know.
I think that, you know, I think one of the reasons is that because of the internet, because of the iPhones and the iPads and all these little handheld devices, we are all in, okay, so in the Matrix, they had a little plug in the back of their head where they plugged in.
Now, with these handheld devices and everything is electronic, everything is going towards virtual reality.
We're not just plugged in at the back of the skull.
Man, our arms are attached.
Our hands are attached.
Our whole body is plugged into the matrix.
So it's much easier to manipulate us.
It's much more easily to manipulate and sway public opinion because now, exponentially every day, more and more people are plugging in voluntarily into this matrix.
And the information that we're getting from this matrix is largely controlled.
But there is a reverse argument to put here.
Look, David Cameron tried to sell us on airstrikes on Syria at the back end of last year.
And for the very first time, and largely because of pressure on Facebook and Twitter and social media in this country, the British public didn't want it.
The British public let a lot of politicians in marginal constituencies who would be up for election in a couple of years know that they didn't want to get involved in yet another bloodbath potentially somewhere.
British people told their MPs, we don't want this.
Those people started getting scared and MPs in parliament did not back it.
And then the same thing happened over there with Obama.
He got cold feet about it too.
And that was the digital democracy aspect of this that you can't deny, can you?
No, I agree, Howard.
As a matter of fact, I think it is a double-edged sword.
There's a lot of good that has come from it.
And, you know, several things over the past few years, several initiatives and several directions that the federal government was heading have been stopped in the tracks because of the Matrix, because of the internet and the fact that there's such a rapid flow of information.
So I would agree with that.
So is this something to do with, are you saying that the elite allow us to win one occasionally, just so it looks like we are free?
Well, I don't know if they're allowing it or if it's the fact that they, you know, it is a double-edged sword and there's so much good that has come out from the internet and from this rapid exchange of information that they can't really, they've lost control over it.
And I think that's really what's happened.
I don't think they're intentionally allowing us to win one so we think we're getting somewhere.
I think that there's certain things that, you know, those that are the elitists, they can't control everything.
They're not God.
They're not infallible.
And so sometimes they'll make a mistake in their game plan.
And I think it's largely because of the internet that we are able to take back some of this ground.
So I'm definitely not opposed to it.
I just think that, you know, maybe the best way to put it is for those that are predisposed to be in the Matrix, the Internet allows them to remain there comfortably.
But for those that are looking to get out of the Matrix and to wake people up about the Matrix, the Internet also allows them to do that.
I wonder, I sometimes sit here and ponder as I'm about to connect to a guest digitally here.
And I can produce my own show my own way.
I am my own producer.
I am my own publisher.
And I love that.
Having worked for big media for many, many years, I also enjoy the feeling of freedom that this gives me.
If there was some great big plot to keep us all down, would they allow us to communicate like this?
If you think about it, when I was a kid, when I was 20, if you wanted to disseminate something, then you probably had to produce a newsletter and post it to people or duplicate cassettes and send them out.
You could not do what we're doing now.
Correct.
I agree.
I agree.
So is there a big plot to keep us down?
I think there is.
But the internet, as I mentioned, double-edged sword.
There's good and bad.
And I think that those that are trying to control us believe that at this point, even despite the fact that the internet has been the reason that a lot of their ideas and their plans have been foiled, I think they still believe that their purposes are being largely accomplished in a greater way because of the internet.
And I believe that when they do that analysis, that SWOT analysis, and they see that the Internet has become more of a liability to them than a help, I Believe that's when the internet will be cracked down upon and regulated, and much like China has a controlled internet.
And they talk about that consistently here in the U.S. about controlling the internet.
They don't call it that.
It's for our protection.
It's to stop cyber attacks and so forth.
But the bottom line is, I think that when it becomes more of a liability than a help to those that want to control us, I believe that we will see a controlled internet in the future.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I'm wrong about all this, but I think that's maybe where we're heading.
And that is a tremendous concern.
I worry about some digital media.
We have digital radio here in the UK, and yes, it has its advantages.
But as I keep trying to point out to people, when I was growing up, we had AM radio, and it travels hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles.
In Liverpool, I used to stay up into the middle of the night and hear WABC radio from New York coming across the Atlantic, completely free.
These days, we're being moved towards digital radio that is based on cells in our hometowns and cities, and you can't hear anything from outside your own locality.
Part of me thinks, I wonder if that's like what they did in South Africa.
You have radios from that era in South Africa, the apartheid era.
And I used to own one, and it only had FM on it, because FM did not reach beyond the borders, and you couldn't hear anything from beyond the border unless you lived on the border.
AM radio and shortwave radio allowed you to listen to stuff from outside, and we don't want you hearing any of that.
Exactly.
So I worry about some of the digital technology and the internet.
I love, I was first on the internet and using the internet as an adjunct to news in 1997 when I was working on the biggest radio station in London doing morning drive news.
And I had an assistant there called Jenny, and she'd been studying and had learned all about computers and the internet.
This was 96, actually.
And she said, we've just started.
It was all beginning.
And she said, we've got this thing and you've got to learn all about it.
And she taught me how to use it.
And I will always be grateful because I realized in London, and I think maybe I was the first, this could help you with news.
And I can remember when Gianni Versace was killed, that's a long time ago.
I actually listened to coverage of that.
There was an unfolding drama at the end of it before an arrest was made.
And I listened to that on a radio station from Florida.
And that wouldn't have been possible.
And I suddenly realized the power.
And this was in the 90s that this thing would give us.
So it is a tremendous tool.
The problem with it is it is controlled.
There are portals and people have control over the portals.
And you look at China the way that they can block out stuff they don't like.
I have a sore and worried feeling that that, if we are not very careful about our freedom, might happen to us.
And I don't want that.
And by the sounds of you, neither do you.
No, I agree with you, Howard.
As a matter of fact, back, I guess maybe four or five years ago, after I published Cancer Step Outside the Box, one of my subscribers to my newsletter was over there in UK and emailed me and said, you know what, I cannot access your website anymore.
And then I got several emails over the course of the next few days from people that were in UK that they could no longer get on my website.
And it turns out that they had blocked the portal or whatever that it went through so that people in the UK could not get to my website, which is who did that, do you think?
You know, I'm not sure who would be in charge of the portals that are allowed over there in UK.
I'm not really sure the way that the structure goes over there as far as what internet content is allowed.
But nobody in the UK could access my website.
And it wasn't because it was down, because people all over the world were able to get to it, but just the UK was not able to get to it.
So I don't know what happened.
And that lasted for a period of about a year and a half.
And then they opened it back up.
And now you can go to cancertruth.net in the UK and you can get on the website, but you couldn't for a long while.
Well, look, there are laws in this country.
If you go anywhere near there, if you talk about cures for cancer and that sort of stuff on radio here, we have very, very, very firm controls.
Maybe that was part of it.
I don't know.
It may have been.
Before we talk about your health work, and we have to bear in mind that, you know, we are regulated to that extent in this country, but I want to talk to you about Fukushima.
Because I've been very worried from, I covered it again on a London radio station and a national radio station as it was happening.
And I started to worry very, very much.
Japan, very controlled society, their people are not being told the truth about this.
And I have this horrible, awful feeling that the outfall and fallout from Fukushima has yet really to hit us properly.
You know, I do too.
I'm with you, Howard.
I think the Fukushima is potentially one of the most devastating events that's occurred in the last 50 years in the world.
And right now, the West Coast of the United States is being pelted with radiation.
We're seeing articles here every day that they're measuring radiation there on the West Coast, all the way from California up to Washington State.
And they are anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times greater than they're supposed to be, than the radiation levels are supposed to be.
So, you know, we had the meltdown.
One of the problems is that all of the reactors, except for reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4, they were brought into a cold shutdown.
But 1, 2, 3, and 4 were not.
So we've still got the issue with Reactor 4.
And for those people that aren't familiar with that, I mean, we are talking about a potential extinction level event if reactor 4 melts down.
Because we've got a radioactive cloud that is coming over here to the United States.
But it's not just the United States that's at risk.
I mean, it is circling the globe, especially the northern hemisphere.
You know, over the past six months, we've had here in the United States, we found radiation levels of cesium in the bluefish tuna, in the sharks.
We've had whole groups of whales and sharks and dolphins washing up on the shore dead.
And so it's looking like what's going on is that these sea life, most of them have a much shorter lifespan than humans, are ingesting this radiation or being pelted with this radiation because it's in the water, it's in the air, and they're dying.
And if you're in the northern hemisphere, if you're in Europe and you think, I don't have to worry about that, what I would urge you to do is to go and look at a map and take a look at the far Right of the projection of the earth, the flat projection of the earth, you will see the furthest extremities of Russia before it becomes Alaska.
And just go down and right a bit, and you will see Japan.
It's not that far if you do a big sweep and go counterclockwise to us.
It's only round the corner.
And these things, they travel slowly.
But if you think about Chernobyl, Chernobyl pushed up radiation levels for a long period.
In fact, it is still affecting our atmosphere.
So I think we have cause, and I'm not a scientist, I'm not a physicist, so let me put that caveat in right here, but we have cause to be very worried about Fukushima, and this thing has certainly not gone away.
No, no, you're right, Howard.
As a matter of fact, there was a recent study in the German magazine or the German periodical called the Marine Research Institute, and they indicated that by the year 2018, the entire Pacific Ocean will be contaminated with radiation.
And so one of the big problems, and that's only, what, four years away?
So the problem is that you can't smell radiation.
You can't see nuclear radiation.
And the effects of it, like the cancers and other problems, don't occur immediately, that occurs over time.
So that's the real problem with this.
We're not going to see people dying off immediately, but the long-term health effects of this radiation, this radiation plume and the radiation in the water that will circle the northern hemisphere within the next few years, that's a very, very big concern for me.
And what worries me tremendously, and I do get very concerned about this, is the mainstream media, of which I have in my lifetime been part, of course, seems to be more concerned about a lot of plastic ducks floating around the oceans for 30 years or whatever it is, and don't actually seem to have a handle on what this is all about and how stuff from Fukushima is headed our way.
They're much more interested in these cute little ducks, tens of thousands of them that were lost from some freighter decades ago, still floating around in the ocean.
They would rather bring you pictures of that than explain this.
I'm with you.
I'm with you.
As a matter of fact, just case in point, I was just watching a video with my wife, and it was a news interview on one of the major stations here in the United States.
I think it was Fox News.
And they had a lady on that was talking about the NSA spying scandal.
And this was an extremely important interview.
Well, they cut the interview, breaking news, and the breaking news was that Justin Bieber had been arrested for drunk driving.
And so that's just typical here.
Yeah.
Well, look, it is also the case here.
I was remarking now, this show is not going out for a little while after we've recorded it.
In other words, it's going to be going out in a couple of weeks from now, but it is still going to be very relevant.
But as we record, Justin Bieber was arrested and the mainstream media in the UK and the US were all over this like a rash for 24 hours.
Truthfully, all right, I'm interested in passing about Justin Bieber because I like to know what's going on in the world.
And I have an interest in entertainment.
I'm not a Dullard.
I'm interested.
But I don't want to know too much about this.
I don't want to see a photograph of him.
I don't want to see the Lamborghini that he was driving.
What else is happening?
Exactly.
Exactly.
And that's the case that's going on with Fukushima.
We have so much distraction that the mainstream media is not covering it.
Look, just to put it in perspective, Howard, the Fukushima reactors use dirty fuel, which is a combination of plutonium and uranium.
It's called MOX fuel.
And with MOX fuel, one fuel rod has the potential to kill 2.9 billion people with a B. There are over 1,500 fuel rods in Reactor 4 alone.
So if we do the math, I like math, that means that Reactor 4, if it melts down and collapses, that the fuel rods there have the potential to kill 4.3 trillion people.
This is something that we've never seen before in our lifetime, this kind of devastation.
That's why we should be concerned about Fukushima.
But the problem is if you look for information on how the authorities have been and are now dealing with this, you have to search really, really hard to find it.
Yes, and you also will find a lot of articles that say, quit worrying about it.
It's no big deal.
We're exposed to radiation every day.
Quit worrying about Fukushima.
Well, yeah, but look, you know, we know that I'm not a scientist, you know, and you're not a physicist, but my only thought about that is, yeah, right.
Well said, Howard.
Yeah, right.
That's the way we would put it over here in the U.S. team.
But, you know, look, I've been trained to be impartial about stuff, but there are things about this world that worry me, and I'm glad that there are people who are blowing whistles here.
We have some time left here, and I want to do justice to your work about health.
There are various things that you said about cancer and other conditions that we are tormented by in the Western world and around this earth.
And I just want to read a couple of quotes from your book, if I may.
Sure.
One of them is, most of what you've been taught about health and medicine is not factually true.
It's based on a genuine mythology grounded in corporate interests, drug companies that want to sell you a dozen prescription medications, processed food companies that want to sell you their high-profit factory productions, and medical institutions that want you to remain a long-term repeat customer for life.
Your body wants to be healthy and is genetically programmed to do so.
You are systematically and intentionally poisoned through foods, medicines, and propaganda.
You must realize this in order to free yourself from it.
Two paragraphs from your book.
Stand that up for me.
Well, you know, when you look at chronic sickness, specifically here in the U.S., we're looking at genetically modified organisms, which we're told are safe, despite the fact that the only long-term study that's ever been done on them that was released in 2012 shows that they actually cause cancer and they cause sterility.
But we're told that they're safe.
We've got pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in selling us drugs that are publicly traded companies.
And so, Howard, in the U.S. and the U.K. as well, you have a company that's publicly traded.
Their number one priority is not to keep people healthy.
Their number one priority is to increase shareholder profits.
So we have money, again, driving these decisions That are keeping us sick because money is driving the decisions.
The companies that are selling these drugs, they want a repeat customer because that's a good business model.
Look, if you look at what's going on in the health world, from a business perspective, it's a great business model because it's driving repeat customers.
Take, for instance, my grandmother.
Before she died, she was 91 or 92 when she died.
So she lived a long life.
Before she died, she was on about 15 prescription drugs.
Now, those 15 prescription drugs, Howard, only two were for the initial problems that she had.
The other 13 drugs were drugs that were treating the symptoms that were caused by the original two drugs.
See, it's a beautiful business model for the big pharmaceutical companies because they have repeat customers and they're actually creating new symptoms that they can treat with their drugs.
Well, they will have done very well out of that.
But of course, and again, I'm not medically trained, so I don't know, but my supposition about that is that the doctors will have tried one drug and if that doesn't work, they have to try something else.
And none of this is that much of an exact science.
There's no conspiracy there.
It's just not an exact science.
No, I agree.
And I don't believe that most of the people that are involved in the medical industry are even aware of what I think is the underbelly of the beast.
I think they're just doing what they're told.
They're doing what protocol demands.
They're doing what they've been taught in medical school.
They're not trying to hurt people or kill people.
They're using the information that they have.
Unfortunately, the information that they have is not really good information for treating sickness because look for instance with treating cancer.
We treat cancer with chemotherapy in the United States.
Now, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
But cancer is not a deficiency of chemotherapy drugs.
So it's really absurd to think that you can control cancer long term with chemotherapy because that's not the problem with cancer.
You didn't get cancer because you were deficient in chemo.
But it's the best we have, isn't it?
We have to do something.
If you get that diagnosis, most people, unless it's a very serious situation, then there's nothing much that you can do.
And I was talking to somebody only yesterday whose husband opted for eight weeks of quality time or whatever it was rather than six months of hell prolonged by drugs.
So this is the best we have right now.
It's the best that the medical industry has right now.
It's the best that current allopathic medicine has to offer.
It's not the best treatments.
I mean, I go into detail in my cancer book on the best treatments, and they're all natural.
They're all plant-based.
They're all enzyme-based, and they're all non-toxic to normal cells.
They're selectively toxic to cancer cells so that you don't get the side effects.
There's a lot better treatments than chemo, but yes, the chemo is the best that the medical profession has, that they're allowed to offer in the United States.
Well, you know, we have to add the disclaimer there that we would never encourage anybody, would we, not to go to the doctor.
If you have a problem, then you must get the medical opinion.
Yeah, I don't recommend that.
And that's just, that's number one, that's common sense.
Number two, that's the law.
Yeah, no, you go to your doctor.
My goal is just to empower people with knowledge so they can ask good questions from their doctor and they can choose the best decision or the best treatment that they want to treat their cancer.
I never encourage people to ignore what their doctor says.
And I don't encourage people, I don't recommend any treatments either because I'm not a doctor.
So I can't recommend treatments.
All I can do is present research and let people make up their own mind.
And we have to say, to be fair, that you have a giant disclaimer at the head of your book saying exactly that.
I mean, there are conditions that we're working on treating.
Look, I actually had to stop working for about a year because I got a virus that left me with tinnitus ringing in the ears, which I still have.
Medicine can't do anything about that.
I got so down about this because I would go to hospitals, you know, the National Health Service here, and they would say, well, look, you've just got to live with it, really, which I have learned progressively to do.
But there is nothing that can be done.
But if you go on the internet, which is supposed to be our great friend, you will find an awful lot of stuff that is, you know, let's not name any names here, but highly damn dubious, claiming that, oh, look, here we have our natural herbal remedy for tinnitus, which doesn't and won't work.
Yeah, and you know what, that's the problem.
And that was one of the reasons that I published Cancer Step Outside the Box back in 2006.
Because there's so much misinformation, what I tried to do was to gather the best natural treatments that were out there, throw away the stuff that is ridiculous.
I mean, one of the, I was contacted a few years ago by a cancer patient that said that his doctor had told him to eat three Doritos potato chips each day to treat cancer.
Okay.
I'm not making it up.
That's what he really told him.
So, you know, did it work?
You know, I don't think he ever contacted me again.
I just told him, don't listen to your doctor because that's stupid.
I think there's a lot of room for thinking outside the box.
And I can tell a personal story that illustrates it very well.
It made me think.
I got a bug 20 years ago.
I was quite new to radio.
And I had a good job then.
I was reading the news nationally, writing the news nationally here on commercial radio.
And everybody knew me.
And I loved it.
Absolutely damn loved it.
And I got this bug and I was working overnight shifts a lot of the time.
So you get sick and you stay sick for a long time because your immune system is not quite what it ought to be.
And I had a sore throat for about nine months and I was really worried and I was trying to cover it up and trying to find ways to make my voice work properly through it all.
I was very, very worried.
And I was given by the medics every antibiotic and pill and remedy and potion that you can imagine.
At the end of it all, I had a cupboard that was full, two shelves of it, full of the preparations that I'd been given.
And none of it worked until I went.
And, you know, I would say to you, if you're listening to this, you have to find your own way, though, and please go to the doctor.
But I went to a medical herbalist who gave me a herbal potion based on licorice and some other stuff.
And I was okay within about three weeks.
Yeah, the licorice is great stuff.
Very, very good herbal medicine.
So you're right.
That's my story.
You find the doctor, the treatment that works for you.
And not the same treatment works for everybody.
So the best thing we can say to people, and we'll do another show about your health work.
We need to is that you have to be an informed consumer.
If you go into the doctor and you expect them to have the cure for everything and write you out a prescription that's going to make you right, increasingly, you ain't going to get that.
Exactly.
I like it.
That's the way we say it down here in Texas, Howard.
You ain't going to get that.
I like it.
You know, there is this.
I had a health screen about a month or so ago, and they flagged up my cholesterol, which has always been fine.
But this time, no, it isn't.
So I've got to work on that.
But you talk about cholesterol in the book.
Yeah, I do.
I do talk about cholesterol.
And, you know, cholesterol is demonized as being this bad, you know, public enemy number one, where we have too much cholesterol and it's causing heart disease and heart attacks and so forth.
Problem is that cholesterol really is so important to overall health.
It plays a huge role in the immune system.
It is essential for proper brain functioning.
It's an essential component of cell membranes and helps them to maintain their integrity and fluidity.
A huge function is a major constituent in the myelin sheath, which acts as an insulation to the neurons in your body.
It's very, very important to overall health to have proper levels of cholesterol.
Now, so when we take these statin drugs that lower cholesterol cause a whole cascading list of problems, when really, when you look at heart disease, what happens is that cholesterol is the, he's like the fireman coming to put out the fire in the body.
So the real problem that causes heart disease is lesions that are created by sugar and insulin.
And the cholesterol comes in and patches those lesions in your body.
And that's what causes these buildup in the arteries.
The lesions in the arteries caused by sugar and insulin, cholesterol is the patchy guy.
He comes in to patch up these lesions so you can maintain integrity in your arteries.
So it's the sugar we need to deal with.
And there's been a lot of talk in the media very recently about this, that sugar is an addictive drug, and we ought to be dealing with sugar just like we dealed with smoking.
Yes, yes.
Sugar is as addictive as crack cocaine.
It is.
And so, and this is recent research at Harvard that I'm talking about, not something that's made up on the internet.
Harvard showed this research, and I think it was 2011, that the primary cause of atherosclerosis, which is the hardening of the arteries that leads to heart disease, is lesions and plaque in the arteries caused by sugar, which causes insulin to be released.
And the insulin causes the lesions in the endothelium of the arteries that then become clogged with cholesterol.
But cholesterol is, he gets the blame, but the real culprit is sugar, which causes the insulin release.
So if you avoid sugar and simple carbohydrates, then cholesterol shouldn't be as big of an issue.
And the problem here, it seems to me, and again, am I becoming an angry old man?
I hope not.
But the problem is a lot of the processed food that is put on our supermarket shelves, and I lead a busy life, always have.
I don't have time to buy nice fresh ingredients and cook for myself.
I've had to live on processed food and even pre-prepared salads and stuff like that for most of my life.
God knows what that's going to mean for me.
But increasingly, it seems to me that our supermarkets, and I'd like to believe that this is not true, our supermarkets are looking to the bottom line.
So they're trying to cheapen things.
And so we're getting more sugar, more preservatives, more chemicals, more crap in our food.
I agree.
And one of the reasons it's happening here, and they're looking, look, again, the bottom line, the money, the economics are driving the decisions.
The grocery stores are not trying to kill you.
They're carrying foods that they can make a good profit on.
And people will pay for prepackaged foods.
And they're very cheap because here in the United States, especially the soybeans and the corn, which are all genetically modified, they've got large subsidies from the U.S. government so that they can produce them cheaply.
They're cheap ingredients.
And the grocery stores can make a big profit on these in-high-demand foods that are very convenient for people.
They can stick them in the microwave and heat them up.
And so it's really about the bottom line.
It's about the profits that can be made.
It's not about our health.
But as consumers and increasingly perhaps informed consumers, people are starting to worry about this.
What can we do?
You know, the main thing that I recommend people do is to stay away from buying processed foods, which is hard to do if you're used to it.
But once you get out of the habit, it's relatively easy.
We don't buy processed foods in my house.
I've got four children.
We make our own stuff.
We don't buy processed things because the processed foods are the ones that contain the dangerous ingredients.
They're the ones that have the ingredients that are genetically modified that are hidden.
You may have aspartame, which is a neurotoxin, an excitotoxin.
You may have high fructose corn syrup that's called by another name that's in there that's genetically modified that causes all kinds of problems with obesity and diabetes.
You may have MSG, monosodium glutamate, which can be called by a myriad of different names that's in there.
That's an excitotoxin that kills your brain cells.
But as consumers, there are tens and tens and hundreds of millions of us around the world.
If we said we don't want this garbage in our food, they'd have to give us what we want.
Yes, they would.
And that's the power in the masses.
And that's why I do what I do, to wake up people to these truths.
And if people will stand up and say, you know what, we're not going to buy any of this packaged crap anymore.
We want you to use better, cleaner ingredients, the companies would respond and they would give us those ingredients in the prepackaged foods.
And you could actually buy something that was good for you.
Well, we need to get doing that.
And, you know, I can't sit on the fence about this because I think it is possibly the single most important issue that faces us in the future where we have people getting obese.
You know, I've put weight on.
A lot of people have put weight on recently.
It's just, it goes with the territory of our busy, stressed modern lives.
But I'd like to think that one day we might be able to put some pressure on these people to make some changes because they have ultimately to listen to us because we pay their wages.
Yes, we do.
Yes, we do.
Boy, I don't think I've ever been so impassioned on a show, Ty, but that was why I wanted to have you on this show now because this is important stuff.
It is.
It is, Howard.
And I really appreciate you having me on.
This has been great.
I've really enjoyed talking to you.
We'll have to do another show in the future on health.
Well, I want to.
And look, I hope that I've now made a contact in you, Ty, because I've thoroughly enjoyed this.
I Knew I would, and I just think it's important.
We must address a lot of these issues.
I don't want to preach because that's not what I do.
I don't preach, but I do worry.
Well, you have made a friend in you in heaping helpings of gratitude from Texas.
Thank you so much, Howard.
Heaping helpings.
I haven't heard that phrase since the Beverly Hill Billies.
Thank you so much.
Ty Bollinger here on The Unexplained.
My name is Howard Hughes.
Thank you very much to Adam Cornwell, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
If you want to email me or make a donation to the show, go to www.theunexplained.tv.
However, you're hearing this show, www.theunexplained.tv.
There you can make a donation if you'd like to or send me some feedback.
Until next, we meet on The Unexplained.
Please stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I'm in London.
Please take care.
▲
Export Selection