Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark - “Psychological Warfare: Pharma & Food Edition.” - with Former Lobbyist Calley Means

Episode Date: May 24, 2024

True crime meets health and wellness in this dystopian interview with former lobbyist and author Calley Means. Shocking secrets and statistics reveal the truth behind Big Pharma, Big Food, and how The FDA rigged the system and wields control over our lives. Alex and Calley discuss an actual healthcare reform plan that neither the left nor right is addressing, how lobbyists use silly food studies for sinister purposes, theories on the push for Ozempic, how organic food and red light therapy qualify as tax right-offs, and what he witnessed working for these corrupt industries in The Swamp. Purchase your copy of Calley Means's #1 New York Times bestselling book "Good Energy." https://calleymeans.com/book/ Trumed | https://www.truemed.com/author/calley... Website | https://calleymeans.com/ Instagram |   / calleymeans   X |   / calleymeans   Get ticket details for Turning Point USA’s Young Women’s Leadership Summit at https://ywls2024.com and use code ALEX for 25% OFF admission! Interested in making a tax deductible donation to support The Spillover? ☕️✨ Visit https://donate.tpusa.com/donate to contribute to guest travel, set needs and more! . Get peace of mind with a medical emergency kit from The Wellness Company. Go to https://twc.health/spillover and use code "Spillover" for 15% OFF. Try MASA's 100% seed oil and pesticide free tortilla chips made with only three natural ingredients— organic corn, grass fed tallow, and sea salt. Use code "RealAlexClark" at https://masachips.com for 20% off your first order! Ditch artificial fragrances for your family by switching to ALEAVIA organic prebiotic body wash and use code: ALEX15 for 15% OFF. https://www.aleavia.com/ Drink Freedom2o™ Speak your Thirst. Protect the First. We hydrate the spirit of freedom loving Americans across the country one bottle at a time. Speak Free. Think Free. Live Free. https://freedom2o.com Elevate your skincare routine with NIMI SKINCARE! Go to https://www.nimiskincare.com/ and use promo code ALEXCLARK to get 10% OFF your order. Support American farms and shop GOOD RANCHERS to try the New King Box and get FREE BACON FOR LIFE with code CLARK. https://www.goodranchers.com/ Looking for like-minded friends? Join the Cuteservative Facebook group:   / 1234544066933796   Listen at 6 PM MST/ 9 PM EST every Thursday by subscribing to ‘The Spillover’ on Apple Podcasts and Spotify ☕️✨ . ​⁠ @RealAlexClark  / realalexclark     / poplitics   https://x.com/yoalexrapz Shop Real Alex Clark Merch! https://tpusamerch.com/collections/real-alex-clark

Who are your favorite countercultural voices right now to follow on social media, listen to on Spotify or watch on TV? Chances are they're speaking at the Young Women's Leadership Summit, June 7th through 9th in San Antonio, Texas. Here from Megan Kelly, House and Habit, Dr. Jolene Brighton, Holistic Hilda from the Weston A. Price Foundation, Riley Gaines, Erica Comazar, Ali Stuckey, Candice Owens, Suzanne Venker, and many, many more names at the largest conference for conservative women in the country. It's June 7th through 9th in San Antonio, Texas, and we're about 90% full at this point.

This is a last call for tickets. This is the two-day event to take a chance, make new friends, and step out of your comfort zone to be encouraged and challenged on topics from daycare, IVF, food, journalism in America, biblical parenting, birth control, and more. Get 25% off with code Alex at YWLS24.com. That's code Alex for 25% off tickets at YW. ULS-2020.com. Find the link in the description.

In recent years, the American public has finally started to have their rose-colored glasses removed when it comes to the food and pharmaceutical industries. We once believe that these were examples of American innovation, people who are on the forefront of ending chronic disease and curing cancer. Now we know it's actually the opposite. These industries are doing everything in their power to create and maintain chronic disease at the highest level. Today's guest was one of those people who initially believed in food and pharma until he worked for a firm that was the lead consultant to the American Beverage Association,

the interest group that represents brands like Coke and Pepsi. He will tell the criminal story of how food and pharma in our country is rigged. This episode ultimately could be classified true crime, exposing the crooks who are getting rich off of our inevitable health demise. You've seen my guest everywhere from Dr. Mark Hyman to Paul Saladino and Tucker Carlson. He has a new book out now that he just wrote with his sister, Dr. Casey Means, called Good Energy, which is about the surprising connection between metabolism and limitless health, exploring how depression, anxiety, infertility, insomnia, heart disease, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, dementia, cancer, and many other health conditions that torture and shorten our lives actually have the same

root cause. He is also the founder of TrueMed, a company that helps you use your HSA dollars towards supplements or health and wellness activities like red light therapy or CrossFit to make these things affordable for everyday Americans. This is my new favorite interview that I've ever done. I think it will be yours too. It's a must watch on the real Alex Clark YouTube channel. Please subscribe to this podcast and leave a five-star review. Share this episode literally everywhere. And if you feel significantly impacted by what you learned today, consider becoming a financial supporter of the show. The spillover is made possible with donations from listeners like you. Make a tax-deductible donation by clicking the link in the show notes. Welcome, former lobbyist

for Big Food and Big Pharma, Callie Means, to the show. Are the people who question American food companies and the pharmaceutical companies conspiracy theorists? I was a defender to these companies. I would always say they're representations of the free market at work and we've got to defend American industry. But it's not a free market when it's a rigged market. The simple economic fact that I saw working for the food companies and working for pharma companies is this. There's nothing more profitable in the child that's sick than a child that is addicted, than a child that is in fear, than a child that's depressed, than a child that's overweight. The fact of the matter is that that's the most profitable incentive in the country. The food and the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from kids being metabolic dysfunctional, are two of the largest industries in the country.

And the fundamental dynamic that we have is what's happening with kids is unprecedented. The most shocking statistic to me in the country, the most shameful statistic is that 50% of kids are overweight or obese. I mean, that is unfathomable. The childhood obesity rate in Japan is 3%. This is uniquely happening in America. and that is predominantly because of food. You know, it's because of the metabolic environment and other factors, but it's really about ultra-processed food. And it's about this industry that has grown so much on the backs of corruption.

This isn't the American people's choice to have their kids overweight, to have 33% of young adults as pre-diabetic, to have 25% pre-diabetes rates. You know, I'm a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I really believe in individual responsibility. But you have statistics like that of basically genocide against kids, there's something systemic happening. We're going against our evolutionary impulses. So, you know, I think when you have that kind of alarming impact and then you turn to the sickness that that food is causing when you look at the rates of SSRIs, the rates of metformin for high blood sugar, stadins for high cholesterol, Adderall for ADHD, now ozimic.

you know, these drugs are being prescribed like candy in high schools. You talk to any parent, and we're getting kids on this treadmill of pharmaceutical interventions, and these are all lifetime drugs. That is creating a dynamic where the healthcare industry is now the, not only the largest industry in the country, but the fastest growing, and it's producing worse outcomes for each dollar we spend on it. So, yeah, you definitely have a situation where I think it's actually irrational and not falling to data to not be very concerned. And frankly, a little bit conspiratorial about what's happening with our nexus and our devil's bargain, as I call it, between the food industry that's demonstrably making us sick and the healthcare

industry that's profiting and not speaking out about why we're getting sick. Let's go to the beginning of your story because your whole journey is one of the juiciest stories I've ever heard. You grew up, born and raised in D.C., go to college, and you knew that you wanted to go back and live and work in D.C. and start your career. So tell us where you went to school, what you studied, and then who you ended up working for in D.C. and why? Yeah, I had a great childhood. But for whatever reason, my sister and I were like, you know, let's get the traditional industries. Let's like get all those stamps along the ladder. So, you know, we worked hard in high school. My sister and I, who's my best friend and really comes into this story eventually.

We went to Stanford. She was a year behind me. She studied biology, you know, went to Stanford med school, medical track. And I was really interested in politics. We grew up in Washington, D.C. I was a good young conservative. I interned at the Bush White House and the Heritage Foundation and just thought my life was going to be working on conservative campaigns. And then inevitably, once those campaigns are over, you work for American industry. You know, you go and are a lobbyist and a public affairs consultants for the big industries. And that's what happened. I worked on some campaigns and then, you know, found myself across the table from the pharma industry and the food industry. These are the two largest spenders in D.C. The healthcare industry spends five times more on lobbying,

public affairs, political donations than any other industry. And what is lobbying for pharma and food? What is that person's job? What I define it now is rigging institutions of trust. It's looking at stakeholders that people trust and getting money to them. So I was surprised as a young staffer in one of these lobbying slash public affairs, they call it. So it's really just like how do we peddle influence?

And we just had lists of institutions that people rely on. So we had a list of professors. And from a lobbyist office in Washington, D.C., as a junior employee, I was steering money to Harvard professors. And I was steering money to Tufts Nutrition School professors. And I learned that the food industry spends 11 times more funding nutrition research at the NIH. And the food industry is the bedrock of nutrition research. And that, you know, 80% of Tufts Nutrition School, one of the preeminent nutrition schools in the country, you know, 80% of their funding comes from food companies. So I also saw that this wasn't out of a desire for unbiased scholarship.

Food industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research to impact their bottom line. And this was quid pro quo. I mean, like, it was absolutely known that we were funding research to say sugar doesn't cause obesity, to say that these artificial colorings, which are allowed in the U.S. but not in other countries are saved, to say that aspartame is saved, to say that, you know, these thousands of toxins and ingredients, that we put in food and supplement food with are safe. It was just going down the list, and it was very well known what's happening with these researchers. We had lists of influential groups, the NAACP and other civil rights groups, took millions of dollars from food and pharmaceutical companies.

What does food have to do with race? Well, it's very simple. And I think this is just like, it's so obvious. I didn't even think this would be interesting, but people thought it was. People sit around the table in D.C. and say, okay, our competitors, our average, are saying kids shouldn't be fed government-funded soda, which they are. $10 billion of food stamp funding a year goes to soda companies. It's the number one item on food stamps, which is a product and a program that lower

income in Americans depend on from nutrition. 10% of all the food stamp program goes to sugary drinks. So there were parents rightfully saying, you know, single moms that are depending on food stamps to their kids saying, you know, this shouldn't be given to our kids that are now pre-diabetic at epidemic rates that, you know, are very addictive. We don't, you know, put food stamps to cigarettes. And around the conference room, we look at that and say, how do we call that person racist? And what the NDACP did after accepting millions of dollars in the food industry is said that it was racist to deny choice to lower income people.

That taking away their soda, this treat that the kids enjoy, you know, in cheap calories. And frankly, something that's their studies they funded say are even questionable, whether it's harmful, that that's racist. Why couldn't it be flipped around and said, no, it's racist to keep giving them this food that is poisoning them? It is very well known by everyone who works for these companies how to rig the debate on both the left and the right. This is rigging it obviously more on the left puppet strings. But the sad, tragic, societally important point is that, of course, the reverse is true. of course what's happening right now to lower income kids is racist.

A lower income man in the United States dies 14 years younger than an upper income man. That's not because of these fake issues that were being shoved down our throats, you know, around, you know, racist cops or something like that. This is about nutrition. It is about metabolic health. It is about ultra-processed food. We are poisoning, particularly lower-income people, which is also then leading to trillions of dollars of downstream health impacts that's bankrupting our country.

We spend more as a government to treat diabetes than the defense budget. So we're subsidizing poison, particularly for lower income folks. And then these companies, these healthcare companies, are literally getting trillions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid that through a rig system is just going straight from the government treasury to the healthcare companies. So we're funding it on the front end. When you add up all the subsidies for ultra-processed food, it's hundreds of billions of dollars a year of subsidies for ultra-processed food that's giving us metabolic dysfunction.

And then the biggest line item in the entire U.S. budget is the health care cost, which 95%, if you add up the health care costs, 95% of our health care spending is really on preventable chronic conditions tied to food. So it's really hard to wrap your head around. So who are some of the companies that were in meetings like this? Coca-Cola, Pepsi, they're under these umbrellas called the, the American beverage association. And then the farmer group is called just pharma. And they bond together. You know, it's really kind of an anti-trust issue,

but they bond together. They're all represented in these rooms to rig the system. Today, it just came out through some brave reporting from my friend Anahad O'Connor at the Washington Post that these same organizations are paying TikTok influence or nutritionists, undisclosed millions of dollars to say that there's no such thing as bad food. The only bad food is moldy food. and you're sexist, fatphobic, and racist to criticize what somebody's eating,

and a doctor is actually sexist for weighing patients. It turned out, it turned out that sexism, racist, they throw it all around. But they have funded secretly, the Washington Post, actually a great report of the Washington Post, whenever you see a TikTok nutritionist talking about these things, you know, kind of saying all to processed food is okay, they're almost certainly paid for it directly by food companies, you know, with talking points from one of these offices in Washington, D.C. So when you say paid, like how much money would one of these companies give a TikTok influencer, if you would guess?

Well, they added it up. It's millions of dollars. I mean, no, like it's like tens of thousands of dollars to top influencers. These people are making a lot of money. You know, you add up all these, you know, when I talk about food and pharma being the biggest spenders, you know, we're talking about billions and millions of dollars that go to these consulting firms, these lobbyists firms, the money's hard to trace, and this is just being poured into civil rights groups. You know, in 2011, during the food stamp debate, the N of LACP got $3 million. You know, we, on the pharmacist side, in 2011, we're trying to pay off professors on the opioid side to say opioids weren't addictive.

That was the big hubbub. They paid over $100 million of research grants and personal consulting payments to doctors around the country who studied pain to say, you know, that opioids weren't addictive. Yeah, I remember all that. There's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars just going down the list. Influencers, civil rights groups, professors, lawmakers themselves. So besides the conversations that you sat in on of Big Food trying to say that taking soda off food stamps is racist, what were some of the other shocking, bizarre meetings that you sat through in your career?

I recently graduated from Stanford and I was shocked to see Dr. Philip Pizzo, who was the dean of Stanford med school and he was a pain specialist and we steered a three million dollar grants to Stanford and we also helped push him onto the boards of the national pain association and these different you know kind of credible sounding organizations that everyone wants to be a part of he was the chair of the two leading pain organizations and we were able to funnel him hundreds of thousand dollars of consulting payments then we pushed for him to be the chair of an NIH panel to make opioid recommendations. He then had power to appoint 19 other professors. Fifteen of the 19 people on that panel in 2011 were directly paid for by opioid makers that we helped engineer. So you have

an NIH panel. What could be more trustworthy than an NIH report chaired by the dean of Stanford Med School? You just can't get more of a higher credential than that. And who is the NIH, for those who don't know what that means? The National Institute of Health. And what do they decide? So the National Institute of Health is our, you know, preeminent health care advisory committee. It's highly tied with the CDC and the FDA and the other health organizations. There's no more respected scientific voice in the world than the NIH. The NIH, what their research and what they say sets the tone of everything. There's nobody that can disagree with that, right? I talk to politicians all the time now in my work now. Every single one says I get NIH, you know, reports jammed down my throat. I am a

military guy. I can't disagree with that. Who is the president going to disagree with the leading scientific authorities? This is the preeminent scientific authority in the country. It's one of the largest grant-making organizations, you know, in the world to scientific research. They have bureaucrats there, but 80% of their funding is just outside grants. They actually recently did a report in ProPublica. 80% of their grants go to academics with a direct conflict of interest into the scientific issue of their studying, meaning those professionals, actually most likely received payments from a pharmaceutical maker, not just research grants, but there's hundreds of millions of dollars of these consulting payments, which pharmaceuticals

are just able to outright bribe the doctors. There is, shockingly today, zero conflict of interest rules in NIH grants. Is that an exclusively American thing? Absolutely. There's massive conflicts of interest rules, although we do tie research partnerships with all of our allies to adopting a lot of our rules. You can go down the list here, but we have actually pressured all European countries to not say sugar's bad for kids. This is documented during the Bush administration. There was a move in Europe to just say the simple statement that added sugar shouldn't be banned, but it shouldn't be recommended for kids. Shockingly, the USDA guidelines today still say 10% of a two-year-old's diet can be added sugar, not sugar from fruit, added sugar, which is crazy. Okay, so what I'm

having trouble understanding is that you clearly are so against this now. I mean, obviously, and so outspoken in it, it makes a lot of sense to you. But you were on the other side, not so long ago. So something had to have happened that completely shifted your worldview. What was it? Two things. And two really personal things. My sister was kind of my, is my best friend, was my hero. And top of her class, Stanford med school, had a neck surgeon. And she, 12 years into training, was doing her third inflammation surgery of the day. She literally, people were so inflamed, this is happening all the place, sinusitis, their sinis are so inflamed, she has to cut open their face and take out the remnants of the inflammation. And she had an out of,

body experience that she didn't know why that person under her knife was sick. And she started actually researching and talking to patients about their diet and why inflammation was happening and why somebody that she was cutting inflammation out of their face always had diabetes, heart issues, depression, all these other comorbidities. She was never trained to look at the connections. It's just patients underneath her to cut it open. She was reprimanded by the doctors at Stanford and the other hospital she was working at. For asking those questions. You did not go to nutrition school and, and, One attending surgeon said, stop being a... So she was reprimanded, violent, like with violent language, that nutritionists can handle that.

It's put in a little box. And let's just say, because I don't think people realize this, how much nutrition training do doctors get while they're in med school? That's never medical she got zero. Interesting. 90% of doctors today graduate without taking one nutrition class. 90% of her entire medical school course load at Stanford Medical School was pharmacology. When you trace the funding, and this goes back to me sitting in D.C., when you trace the funding of Stanford Med School, Harvard Med School, more than 50% of the entire budget of the school

touches pharma in some way. That's the research grants with the lifeblooded school, direct donations, things like that. So pharma medical schools are propped up by the health care. care industry. And what kind of awakened me is Casey's journey boiled down to a simple thesis and a simple point, which I think is the most important point in the world that you're hitting on in many different directions, which is that the biggest threat America faces is that our largest industry, the healthcare industry, makes more money when people are sicker and loses money when people are healthy. She was reprimanded to talk to that sinusitis patient about a path

of curiosity on what's actually causing her inflammation. And the reason she abruptly left and the reason she had this out of body experience is because she realized that almost every sinusitis searcher she did where people had inflammation, they came back. They were back under her knife a year later. She wasn't curing anything. She was billing Medicare or Medicaid thousands and thousands of dollars to do a band-aid. So what? She dropped out of Stanford? She graduated from Stanford, was at the end of her residency, and left the system with no plan. And at a has become a metabolic health advocate started a company called Levels Health to help people measure their glucose levels, went on that path. I was selling my e-commerce company during COVID, very inspired by her.

And the second instance happened where my mom, who was, our hero, called us and said that she had a pain in her stomach, went into the Stanford Hospital, got a scan and realized she had stage four pancreatic cancer. and she wasn't going to meet her future grandkids and were going to be dead soon. And she was perfectly healthy. We had no idea. We rushed to Stanford Hospital where my sister obviously used to be and the oncologist said

we need to start doing serious interventions. We need to start doing biopsies. You know, we need to be really aggressive here. And it's like, okay, meetings are over. Casey's like, well, hold on. What does this actually mean? She's going to die. She has stayed to her pancreatic cancer.

And she pushed, push, push, push, and the doctor said 30% chance it extends her lifespan three weeks, 30% chance neutral, 30% chance negative. And the procedures would mean she'd have to be in the hospital with COVID pro calls and we'll be able to see her. Oh, because this was during the pandemic. Yeah. So Casey actually had the whereothal and knowing at Stanford, talk about this book, at Stanford, she had her best friend was in oncology. And she sobbed in the hallways with Casey about feeling forced to do interventions that weren't necessary on pancreatic cancer. This is an epidemic case he saw.

Doctors are incentivized. It's just a raw economic fact. I'm not casting any dispersion to doctors. I'm just stating the facts. They are incentivized and paid based on the amount of procedures and surgeries they do. This doctor was pushing a procedure on my mom that would make them a million dollars

even though she was dead and would have kept her away from us. That's how they're compensated. And my sister had the whereothal to push back and the 13 final days of my mom's life for the most impactful days of all of our lives. We were with her at home. And I look back on that and Casey kind of having the werethal to push back and understand

that there's such a bias for interventions. A bias for interventions once the car is crash. My mom was dying. Right. And the reason this is so inspiring to me is because my mom is the prototypical American patient. My mom was on a chronic disease treadmill for 40 years. I was born at 12 pounds. And she got high fives from the doctor when that happened.

only later did she learn that if you're over, much over nine pounds, that's a blaring warning sign of metabolic dysfunction and insulin resistance. She should have been warned that there were actually issues that maybe she needs to account for that could eventually lead to cancer and lead to other things. But no, no, it was okay. High fives. PCOS and all these fertility issues, which are skyrocketing, if a woman has PCOS, which is by some counts 25% of women right now, that is insulin resistance. What doctors are doing is they're pushing them on an IVF treatment. They're pushing a bunch of procedures. They're not literally saying that if you go on a keto diet,

there's studies that say that's one of the most effective, that is the most effective intervention for PCOS. Nobody's hearing that. Additionally, they're not saying that 50% of women who have PCOS have full-fledged diabetes by the time they're 40. So it's a sign that you might be pre-diabetic. It is. Diabetes is an advanced form of insulin resistance.

It is, PCOS is insulin resistance. It is literally pre-diabetes. It is a sign that there's metabolic dysfunction. It's not related to diabetes. It is like it is on the spectrum of diabetes. Because this is exactly what is happening to my audience. Those that have PCOS, fertility issues, they are being sent to IVF clinics. And then they're saying like, oh, well, let's just do this and hope you get pregnant.

I don't know that any of them are being told about ketogenic diet or any of these things are talking about diabetes. PCOS is a huge warning sign that I think should be welcomed, right? It's an early warning sign. Well, this is why I hate birth control. Right. Because all of these warning signs, when there's stuff going on in your fertility, we don't see them on the pill. And so we can't fix it. Well, what they do with PCOS, if you're not trying to get pregnant, is they put you, it's immediate intervention.

They push the pill on you extremely hard. Well, a lot of friends of mine who have ended up doing IVF, they were told to start taking the birth control pill first. That's right. They'll be pushing you very hard to go on the birth control pill. That's the standard of care. So it's criminal about this, you know, and looking at my mom, right? So big insulin resistance issues with my birth. Then she had trouble losing the baby weight.

Oh, that's normal. Then she had high blood sugar. Oh, you know, more than 50% of adults are pre-diabetic, here's some metformin. And you were a big baby, right? And that's a sign. That's a sign. The 12, it is a blaring warning sign.

Again, this isn't good or bad. It's just, we should know this. If you have a baby much over nine pounds, it is a, like, direct sign of metabolic dysfunction to the mother. Really? I've never heard anyone talk about that. Yeah, yeah, you can go down a whole rabbit on that. It's like a blurring.

When we talk about, you know, my sister and I were on this rampage, symptoms are good things. That was almost a gift from my mom, right? That was a opportunity for her to be explained that there's these, you know, that her body isn't processing energy correctly, that her, you know, frankly, her habits, even though she looked perfectly normally, you know, had, you know, good from all appearances outside. But this is the average American patient. 94% the country right now is metabolically dysfunctional. You know, well over 50% of adults are pre-diabetic. As I said, 80% of American adults are overweight or obese. Like, this is normal.

And so you can have metabolic dysfunction without necessarily being outwardly obese. Oh, of course, of course. Yeah, yeah. Obesity, and this is the big problem with the obesity debate. Obesity is one branch of the tree. And obesity is one physical. I actually think it's a good symptom of metabolic dysfunction because you can see it. Right?

You can actually some folks, the excess glucose hides in the liver or hides in other organs and you get fatty liver disease. There's a lot of people with fatty liver disease that aren't actually obese. So depending actually on your body, metabolic dysfunction can actually manifest in many different ways. Did your mom primarily eat processed food? We were in the 90s, right? We were following the guidelines. I would say we were probably better than most, but this was the era of the 80s and the 90s, the food paramed. You know, we were like every other family, you know, eating our high-carb meals.

I mean, when the food paramede came out based on completely corrupt research from Harvard saying sugar didn't cause obesity, Americans listened to their medical authorities. Carbs is a percentage of the American diet in the 10 years after the food pyramid came out went up 20%. You know, and we got away from animal-based fats and stuff like that. Fat was filified, which was just crazy. But skeptics and big food would say to you, what evidence that? is there that it is the ultra-processed food that is causing this problem? How do you know it's not the sedentary lifestyles? There's a crisis of metabolic dysfunction, and we go down the list, and we do,

and they're all, the sedentary lifestyle is extremely important. It's demonstrable that ultra-process food is a huge problem. Let me be very clear why ultra-processed food is a problem. I think you can generally use that brush, but if you want to be really specific, it's got three ingredients that literally didn't exist 100 years ago. We basically didn't have refined sugar. as we do today 100 years ago. It's a very highly processed and a new invention. A kid today is eating 100 times more sugar than they did 100 years ago in liquid form, which was very rare, right? Just a just a complete IV to the bloodstream, you know, disrupting our blood sugar level. So we know about sugar. I mean, that's a huge problem. Then ultra-processed grains, which, you know, you look at any food in a package,

you're seeing some kind of refined wheat. The processing takes the fiber off. So it's basically like a hidden sugar. It's a glucose bomb. And then, you know, you look at it. And then, you look at a food in a package. And then grains, I think more and more research is going to come out of this, but the glyphosate and the chemicals on our grains, in particular America, are disrupting our microbiome and our bodies and our cells in ways I don't think we fully understand. And that's why you always hear about people go to Europe where their grains are much, much more natural. I know, but there's testing that says glyphosate is completely safe for human beings. It's on the verge of being completely banned in Europe. And the, you know, the people that make the glyphosate literally now make the seat,

you know, the Monsanto, they all, they own the medicine. too and there's huge lobbying. I mean, it is a it is a huge, huge problem. I think grains. So that's a core component and the ultra-processed grains are an invention in the past hundred years. And then you've talked a lot about seed oils. Seed oils are a byproduct of oil production of industrial things done by John Rockefeller. And the Rockefellers and literally like a little oil companies lobbied to have these approved for food. And now that the top of the top of the top of the time, top source of American calories. And you, you know, you're shocked, you know, looking at any label, even from whole food, some organic, you know, product, you're seeing canola oil, soybean oil,

and that's a very inflammatory. So as a shorthand, cutting ultra-process food, which is now up to 70% of a kid's diet is a huge problem. These are not only weaponized for us to eat more. And that's an important thing. When you're able to create something in a lab and add all these ingredients we don't understand and do all these science experiments, you're making the food and actually weaponizing the food. And I mean that not hyperbolicly. When cigarette smoking went down in the 1980s, when the government finally said that wasn't a good thing to do,

thousands of scientists went from the cigarette companies, the food companies. Why that jump? Why did that jump make sense? Because they were experts in getting people addicted. And Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds actually bought Kraft and Nabisco. and actually there was a lot of merging in the 80s and 90s. And those are tobacco people? Tobacco people bought the largest food companies

and transferred their expertise and scientists to making food addictive. They rigged the food pyramid. The food pyramid was basically in the early 90s was an advertisement and a promotion of ultra-processed food and getting away vilifying meat, you know, having carbs and processed grains more important than vegetables, right?

So that was a marketing document for ultra-processed food. And then I just can't stress this enough. You have scientists doing these experiments, right, to make the food more palatable. Some people say, well, it's not ultra-processed food. It's how much food we're eating. Yes. Alter-processed food is weaponized for us to eat more.

Yeah, we just need more self-control. If you put rats in a case, you do experiments with rats, and you put their biologically appropriate meal, what they've eaten, you know, and are genetically, you know, evolved to eat, they have satiating signals and they don't get fat and they eat what they eat, right? And that's every animal in the wild. There's not chronic obesity or overeating in the wild with animals eating, you know, the food that they're, you know, biologically made to eat. If you give rats this standard American diet, they compulsively eat it until they literally like explode. They have huge withdrawals. They cannot turn off and they get massively more depressed, massive health issues and to just keep

eating and eating and eating and eating and eating. The food is literally weaponized. I cannot stress this enough. Now, is this a free market or a rigged market? Like, is that just personal choice? I don't think so. Why? Because there's billions of dollars to pay off the regulators. In a free market, should the USDA be following the science, get out of any regulation, But should the USDA be saying that a child eating a diet 91% in ultra-processed food is healthy, which they do today? Is that an appropriate thing to say? Is 19 out of the 20 members of the USDA Nutrition Panel that sets guidelines for childhood nutrition being paid for by food or farmer companies, which is the case? Is that a free market?

So what you're saying is it is rigged in such a perfect way so that the food companies and pharma can easily point the finger to us and say, but it's you making the choice. And what you're saying is we don't even realize that there is a gun being held to our heads. We would go and one day pay off all the regulars, make sure 95% of the USDA panels recommending sugar and oil to process food to kids, making sure Harvard research is coming out

that's totally corrupt saying sugar doesn't cause obesity, and then go pay conservative think tanks to bash anyone who questions that corruption. So you have the conservative, at the conservative end, that, just as the civil rights groups are weaponized in the left, the conservative end is weaponized to call anyone who asked a question about corruption, anti-free market. This is really important.

Yes. I was going to ask you, who is more complicit in this, the political right, the political left, or are they equal? Well, I think the political right, and I think people are waking up to this. And I think you see it in the culture right now where people are starting to ask more questions of corporations. You know, in the 90s kind of, you know, conservative philosophy, it was like corporations could do no wrong. That's changing dramatically.

Now it's the left defense, you know, the Amazon's and the Googles and all that. So I think that's actually a healthy thing where the left, you know, has always distrusted corporations I actually think is healthy. But now it's the right doing that. So I think there's actually on a voter level, like a bipartisan consensus. What I think the right unwittingly falls into based on puppeteering from these industries, is this impulse to criticize anyone asking a question about the corruption. It is not conservative to poison kids. It is not conservative that we are decimating our human capital.

And you walk into a kid's classroom and rates of SSRIs and metformin and statin prescriptions have doubled in the last 10 years. And the most kids are fat. And it's not conservative that 33% of young adults are pre-diabetic. And let me just say this, and this is actually just, I couldn't even wrap my head around. If you're diabetic by, I think it's 30, you're going to die 15 years younger, on average. 15 years. It is like a massive issue. Like diabetes is like a scourge.

And most people are on some level of diabetes. Diabetes is just an arbitrary marker of blood sugar dysregulation. But let's not forget, you know, the majority of people are. pre-diabetic, 94% are metabolic dysfunctional. So we're all on some level. You also don't necessarily die of diabetes, but when you have blood sugar dysregulation of any kind, you're much more likely to have comorbidities. So, you know, my mom, 30 years before her cancer diagnosis, oh, high blood sugar, pre-diabetes, it's a pre-dise. She literally, her doctor said, it's a pre-disease, not to worry. Most people have it. Here's your drug. If she was instructed

like the tens of millions, probably 100 million Americans who are getting that, that meeting with their doctor, if she was instructed why that's a problem, why blood sugar dysregulation, which is literally herself not working correctly and processing energy correctly, which is totally reversible, if she was actually set on a path of exploration, how she would not be able, most likely to meet her grandchildren and live, you know, longer unless she addressed that root cause, she would have done it. But we're given a pill, which kind of tweaks one biomarker and doesn't do anything to address the underlying physiology of what's happening in the body. But this is the game where conservatives are coming up against this wall.

They're struggling so bad because it is so important to us, this idea of personal freedom, personal choice. I do whatever I want. I don't want the government interfering telling me what to do. So we're up against this, like, when should the government step in and say something is wrong? Something should be illegal or should be heavily banned or heavily restricted. And when should they not? I can only speak to what, like, let's just look at the facts. Our kids are being poisoned.

It is a genocidal issue. I believe it's the most important issue in the country. We are destroying our human capital to an unprecedented degree. That's on the food and kind of metabolic health side. And it's very, very easy to fix that. What is that doing? Who has done that? That is being done because the largest and most powerful industry of the country

has rigged our system to profit from those dynamics. So we have a situation where we are actually, and these numbers might, you know, people's eyes gloss over when we talk about healthcare costs, but it is true. It is growing at an increasing rate. It's going to be 40% of GDP in 15 years. And it's going to bankrupt our country and destroy our human capital. If the U.S. experiment fails, it is not going to be because of the wrong marginal tax rate. It's not going to be because of the wrong military spending rate. It's not going to be because of these fake issues we're talking about the news.

it is going to be because we let ourselves get fatter, sick, or more depressed and more infertile at an increasing rate while banking to pay our country and doing nothing. That is why the American experiment is going to fail. And, you know, conservatives need to wake up to that. I know this can be maybe a slippery slope, but it is wrong to let the system be absolutely rigged to profit from Americans being sick and then say it's anti-free market to ask a question about or fix that. I think we need to as conservatives and liberals. This is a bipartisan issue. There needs to be action that starts destroying market cap of these systems that have rigged

our country. Is that actually possible or is that like an idea, like an I wish? It can be done tomorrow. It can be done tomorrow. The executive order to allow pharma ads on TV was a stroke of a pen. And today, 60% of mainstream news funding comes from pharma. Why is that important? right because the news had zero curiosity about why we were actually dying of COVID.

COVID was a foodborne illness. COVID was a metabolic condition. If you had normal biomarkers, if you were not obese, if you had normal cholesterol, if you had normal blood sugar, you had an almost zero percent chance of dying of COVID. The stats keep coming out. It is shocking. COVID just simply preyed on people that had, you know, comorbidity that's associated with diabetes and obesity. So that was not talked about, right? the entire microphone of the media and the government, which is essentially subsidiaries of

pharma, was about a pharmaceutical solution. It was not about there's this blaring wake-up call that our immune systems as Americans are weak, that we are actually dying at substantially higher rates to COVID versus other countries. It wasn't marginal. It was like multiples more higher death rates in the U.S. This preyed on weak, metabolic, dysfunctional immune systems. There was no curiosity about that. You listen to your podcast, Joe Rogan, and the most popular podcast in America, they're talking about childhood health. They're talking about metabolic health. They're talking about the fact that kids are getting so sick. They're talking about, like, food. Like, like, this is actually where the American people are gravitating to. You know, RFK is really resonating. President Trump is

talking about this issue of why kids are getting so sick. This is the, I believe, one of the most salient, if not the most salient issue in the country. The mainstream media doesn't cover it. The reason pharmaceutical, and I saw this, we didn't see paying for news ads working for the pharma industry as a way to influence consumers. We didn't think consumers are going to watch those goofy ads and then run and buy the drugs. They're already going to use the drugs. It was to buy the news itself. It was to, when you pay the bills of somebody, you're influencing directly and indirectly what they say. This is so important. I just want to hammer. What Callie is saying is that the reason the pharma companies are spending so much ad dollars on the news isn't so that we see the commercials and buy it,

it's so that they can control the information we're being told. Right, right. This is why independent media is such a threat. And I don't want to overstate it, but I think this is true. Like I see what's happening now is like Ben Franklin, you know, printing pamphlets about the American Revolution. Like we have a like rare historic shift in information sources in the United States. it has been through most of modern American history, a top-down, very corporate-owned system of information, of mass communication.

And that is totally changing by independent media where people can question pharmaceutical companies, where people can, you know, ask questions about things you're not supposed to ask questions about. Well, this is where I get so frustrated with conservatives, and even with my parents. They're, like, so fatigued that I won't shut up about pharma and food. But they're, like, traditional conservatives grew up in a very, conservative home and it's really, really hard for me to get them to understand how

I would say demonic these industries are. They understand how corrupt our media is. They understand mainstream media, fake news, all these things. They understand big tech is compromised. But it's for some reason, some of these older conservative generations, it's really hard to get them to wrap their mind around the corruption in food and pharma. Why? Why can't they, why can they make the connection in all these other industries but not food and pharma well you got to keep giving them books by mark hyman we got to keep talking to them and i think a lot of people are being radicalized i think it's happening and i think that's why independent me is so important i mean i hear from people you probably do every day who might listen to you one of your

podcasts or others i do think we're chipping away it's hard i mean it was a big process for me i you know in the midst of working for these companies and paying off the nbacepbriacep and opioid helping opioid makers and doing all this i i didn't realize what i was doing was wrong right i really i really thought I was doing the right thing. I thought I was helping these great American industries. You know, it's not evil, you know, it's conspiring behind closed doors. It's like, oh, people are suffering from pain. We need to get them their drugs. You know, now it's like, you know, people are obese. We need to jam every 12-year-old with those impik, which is what they're trying to do. I mean, they're saying it in like good, like, like not that they're bad people. You know,

we're taking away choice from lower income children of color. We need to work with the NWACP to protect choice. It's like they're able to justify these things because we, I think, want to believe that our industries aren't letting us down. I think what we have when it comes to food and pharma, I think it helps to actually view it through an addiction lens and a denial lens. Like, it is such a massive issue. And it's like one of the most defining issue in most people's lives and many of our parents that they are sick. They're not at their best. They're battling a lot of metabolic conditions. They're probably overweight. They are addicted to ultra-processed and unhealthy food. And when you have that type of addiction crisis, and it is, I mean, you look at the

brain scans of somebody eating these ingredients. It's indistinguishable from looking at a scan of somebody on meth. All the elements of an addiction crisis are evident in our food crisis. You know, it hurts your life, you know, people are in denial. It hurts, you know, know, you know it's bad, but you keep doing it. I mean, you literally, there's like a list of eight parameters that it's every one. I just think it's fascinating how you say dementia, cancer, type two diabetes, none of it is just bad luck. These aren't just bad luck, accidental things that happen. No, we almost, and we're in complete denial about this. And our good friend, Grace, I think talked about this with you too with cancer, but, you know, a warrior, a high schooler

who's talking about these issues. But we can liken cigarettes to lung cancer. And, you know, of course, we know you can get lung cancer without smoking, but it's a high risk factor. When my mom had pancreatic cancer and I looked at the pre-diabetes and diabetes connection to pancreatic cancer, it was as pronounced as smoking as to lung cancer, having pre-diabetes or diabetes. That's the case with many forms of cancer.

Breast cancer, particularly, it's highly related to metabolic dysfunction and reversible metabolic biomarkers. Dimensioned Alzheimer's is now called type 3 diabetes. If you don't have pre-diabetes or diabetes, you have a very low chance of having Alzheimer's. And now the most robust and effective way to both prevent and even reverse Alzheimer's is metabolic habits, as keto diet is getting a strict exercise regimen. There's actually amazing results now. There's a book called The End of Alzheimer's of Reversing Dimension Alzheimer's. So just as we, drop the early

onset diabetes because now 33% of young adults have prediabetes and it's exploding among young people. We don't call it, you know, early onset diabetes anymore. Dementia rates are going way down. Now much younger and younger people, we're going to drop the early onset Alzheimer's, you know,

eventually, which is I think over, under 65. It's becoming so prominent. Everything's coming down and they're not, these aren't random things. Nine out of the ten killers of Americans are branches from the same tree. They're preventable metabolic issues. So I think the average American, if I had to guess, when they think of we're going to one day get an Alzheimer's cure, we're going to get a cure for cancer. What they picture, and what I have pictured before I was away to all of this, is like there's a little lab and they're concocting something and it's going to be like a vaccine that we take or it's going to be a pill and this is going to be the cure.

What you're saying is that we kind of, in a way, do have a cure. It just happens before you get the diagnosis, essentially. Like, does pharma know that we have a cure and they're gatekeeping all of this? Absolutely. They're aggressively denoccurating any root cause intervention. The medicalization of chronic disease has been the deadliest and most expensive mistake in modern American history. There has never been a chronic disease treatment that's lowered rates. if the chronic disease it's trying to treat.

Let's break this down. Like, I think that's really important to understand. Name a chronic condition and the drug for it stands heart disease. The more stands we've prescribed, the more heart disease goes up. Mepformin and diabetes. The more Mepformin we prescribed, the more diabetes goes up. SSRI's antidepressants, the most prescribed class of drugs in America. 25% of women are on some kind of antidepressant.

Obviously, suicide and depression is skyrocketing. you can actually just go down the list. Cancer rates, cancer rates this year at the highest rates ever. We've slightly modulated the death rate. It's still not great at all. And cancer rates are exploding among younger people. The New York Times previously said, nobody knows why. We know why.

Every single chronic disease treatment, right, this is the game. They're lifetime managements. You get people on a lifetime drug and they manage the condition. They are explicitly, you know, by design, not curate. There's never been in modern America post-World War II history a pill that's cured the underlying causes of chronic condition. The big problem is that we've taken the trust engendered by the medical system on acute issues. And the medical system is a miracle if you have something that's going to kill you right away, if you have an acute or contagious issue. Every parent listening should much prefer their child having HIV than having diabetes.

Like we cure HIV. You don't die earlier. If your kid has diabetes, they're going to die 15 years earlier, and they're going to have a sufferer in life. We're really, really good at curing acute and infectious diseases. If you have a broken arm, now if you have HIV, if you have an infection, you know, you go down the list of these things that would have killed you pretty quickly. We're great at that.

But today, over 90% of health care spending is on chronic. In 1960, it was almost 0%. the first chronic disease treatment, the first pill that people realized you could take longer than a couple weeks was the birth control pill. It was a defining moment in American history. And there's great books on this. But pharmaceutical makers actually saw that somebody could take a pill for years and like what other diseases we can invent. They actually created all these new classifications of anxiety. And the big blockbuster after the birth control of was Valium. And by the 19, 1960s and 1970s and 1970s, 70s, 30% of women were on Valium. It was called Valium Nation, like Mom's Helper, and very sexist advertisements, and a generation of women were on this is a very addictive high side effect pill.

And then it went to SSRIs. So it exploded from the birth control pill to where now medicine is chronic disease management and it's been a complete and under disaster. I think it's a spiritual crisis because we're basically poisoning ourselves. You go to a playground. You know, I was just there with, you know, at one with my two-year-old. And every kid is drinking soda, eating ultra-processed food, you know, literally poisoning themselves. And I do think we have this like idea in the air that there's going to be some miracle cure.

We just need to stop poisoning ourselves. I also think it's extremely arrogant, right? This idea that many people believe, and we've kind of been bred to believe, that there's going to be just some magic pill, you know, for doing complete and utter preventable. damage to our bodies as Americans. This is a national security problem. Only 20% of 21-year-olds are eligible to join the military for physical fitness. We've got a food crisis. We've got a sedentary behavior crisis. We've got a chronic stress crisis. I mean, obviously, with weapons of mass destruction for chronic stress in every kid's pocket, the phones. We've got these number of very identifiable issues, and we are not going to outhack these.

We're just not. Like, in 100 or 200 years, do you think we're going to look back on a day and feel like we figured everything out about the interconnectedness of our bodies? So when we are donating all this money to like cancer research programs and stuff, I mean, where is that money actually going? And is that worth our donations? No, it's not. It's the definition of insanity. You're funding a system that's fundamentally not working. We spend $300 billion on cancer care a year.

year. They hand out processed food at those walks. Yeah. No, no, no. Wachs and the Susan G. Coleman for the curer and all that. When my mom got cancer, as I said, everyone rates into action. And, you know, with Medicare ready to fund a million dollars of interventions from taxpayers, where were these people? Where were all these cancer activists in the 40 years before? We have a slow motion car wrecks happening. My sister at Stanford Hospital, you know, on rounds, you know, when she was in medical school, she talked about, you know, seeing these, you know, VIPs who had cancer, you know, these billionaire types. And they were calling their family after the diagnosis, oh, it's okay. You know, you always hear it's, oh, I've got the best medical team.

You know, having the best medical team after you get cancer is like having the best mechanic after you crash the car. Like, where are people before the car crash? Like, like the damage is done. I can tell you the standard of care and the type of, you know, medieval procedures they're going to do to you are the same at every hospital. And they're handing out those organizations like for women with breast cancer, for example, chemo patients, they put together these gift baskets with all these, you know, nasty like Bath and Body Works products that are filled with carcinogens, you know, filled with ingredients

that we know cause breast cancer, cause cancer for women and we're giving them to, the whole thing doesn't make any sense. All you need to know is that. 40 times more money is spent to address cancer once people have it, then prevent it. And cancer is a preventable disease. It'd be like forest fires. It's like we need to prevent the fires. We don't, you know, we don't spend 40 times more once the fires happen. We'd spend, like, it's much more effective to not have the fires to spend on prevention. Cancer is almost an entirely preventable condition. Like, the rates have skyrocketed. These great,

Groups are part of the system that makes money on interventions of people that are sick and loses money on people that aren't. I mean, these charities are extremely corrupt. And I get very angry, to be honest. I was at the World Series in Arizona last year, and everyone on their seat had a sign saying stand up for cancer, stand up to cancer. And the signs were funded by pharmaceutical companies. And everyone had to do this photo op where everyone stood up to Canada. It's like we don't need to stand up to cancer. We don't need to fight a war with cancer.

We need to prevent cancer. This idea, this war has been a disaster. It's been a very costly and ineffective war against cancer. We don't need any more wars. Yeah. We need public policy to, and this is where we get into the conservative, liberal. I mean, people can make up their own decision. But these personal care products are an absolute disaster.

They're known hormone-disrupting chemicals that aren't allowed in any other countries. Is it conservative for us to have, have hormone-disrupted chemicals in our kids' products that aren't allowed in any other country that we know cause, you know, are leading to kids in the United States hitting puberty two years earlier than they did a generation ago? Like, is that conservative? A few months ago that said, like, kids, like, why are little girls hitting puberty earlier than ever? We have no idea. And I'm like, what are you talking about? We don't have an idea. Like, it's the food and it's the products. I used to, you know, maybe years ago we're hearing this

conversation. Oh my gosh, where do I start it so much? And, you know, the industries do thrive. You know, Michelle Obama was actually right early on to talk about food. What is the truth about what happened with Michelle Obama in that campaign? Which now I'm taking us in another direction, but I wanted to ask you that today. Oh, it's the playbook. Because I know there's something that was going on because it started off targeting the ultra-processed food companies, it seemed. But then there was a huge pivot where all of a sudden she's like, oh, we're not, we're not active enough. The kids aren't moving enough. And I knew, and then she was partnering with Subway. and I knew there was some shady stuff going on, because she had it right at first.

100% when people remember she was all about the food and she had the farm. I actually at the time, you know, thought it was kind of dumb. But like she was right on. She was right on to have kids figuring out, you know, organic gardening and healthy food. And it was cut off in a year. This is reported. Walmart and other large food companies craft, which is a company owned by their secretary of state's family. John Kerry.

Oh, yeah. There was huge pressure, and they met with her, and they said, we got to shift to exercise. Now, the sedentary lifestyle in America, the fact that we take kids

who are born to play and be out in the sun and be adventurous and then sit them in schools designed by John D. Rockefeller to create workers, not thinkers,

sit them down at a desk for eight hours, and, you know, we have a very sedentary life in America based on bad incentives. That's a problem. Like movement is a huge issue. We talk about it a lot

in the book. But it's also worthless if you're eating the food. Yeah, it's a ploy that we used a lot with the food companies to shift to confuse the issue, right? To say, oh, it's exercise. It's not food. So the food companies got to her and she made it all about movement, which is, which is total, total BS. And my company now, we're working to incentivize exercise, incentivize food with, with tax-free money. And we've actually come under fire from exercise lobbyists. What? There's lobbyists for exercise. lobbyists for exercise who are paid for by food companies. Oh my gosh.

So the lobby. What the heck is not correct? There's literally lobbyists for exercise that are, the industry trade group for the exercise association is funded by the food industry. So it's a lot to unpack. It's like you have to laugh because otherwise you cry. Recently my friend had to take his soon-to-be three-year-old son to the emergency room because he was vomiting for several hours.

And after throwing up all the contents in his stomach, there was just bile coming up. So kind of scary. Well, really scary. And I told them next time, use one of the eight medications in the wellness company's emergency medical kit. The emergency medical kit from the wellness company is created so that ahead of time, you have access to several medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pack, and antibiotics. So no matter where you are, you have what you need to treat 30 common diseases, including severe vomiting, diarrhea, sudden lice outbreaks, co-co.

this could potentially save you thousands, not to mention long wait times at the ER. This kit is great to take with you on trips, keep it home for bad days, or send with a grad as a gift. The Wellness Company's chief medical board is made up of none other than Dr. Peter McCola, Dr. Drew Pinsky, and other truth-telling doctors who are rooted in their commitment to create a parallel health system and empower you to take control of your health. Go to TWC.com.com slash spillover and use code spillover for 15. percent off your medical emergency kit with eight life-saving medications. That's TWC.com. slash spillover and use code spillover for 15% off your medical emergency kit with eight life-saving medications or click the link in the show notes. Is the takeaway from this episode that

you should never eat a snack again? Heck no, but the takeaway should be that most snacks you should probably avoid. And I know it can be daunting standing in the grocery store aisle, reading through ingredients with screaming children. I've done the work for you and I found a snack that is safe, nutritious and arguably most importantly, freaking delicious. That's masa tortilla chips, grass-fed beef tallow, organic corn, sea salt, and that's it. I have tried every single seed oil-free chip on the market at this point, I'm pretty sure, and a lot of good ones, but masa chips just hold the bar so high. There's just not a better tasting seed oil-free chip on the market. Really? No artificial additives I think it's the beef tallow that makes it so much better.

Massa chips are real, delicious food that come in five different flavors. Lime, blue tortilla, Cabanero, original, which is my favorite, and churro if you want a dessert version. Organic corn, grass-fed beef tallow, small amounts of regenerative sugar in this churro one, Royal Saigon cinnamon, which is basically the George Clooney of cinemas, and Redmond sea salt. The mass of choro chips and raw ice cream? Hello! The best seed oil-free chips that are Alex Clark approved are Massa-chips. Order some today at Massa-chips.com.

And if you use my code, Real Alex Clark, you will get 20% off your first order. Get seed-o-free beef tallow, Massa-Chips in five unique nourishing flavors at Massa-chips.com with code Real Alex Clark for 20% off your first order. Find the link in the show notes. You said before that healthcare is the one space where conservatives and liberals have no ideology. What does that mean? I mean, Obamacare famously was created by the Heritage Foundation and was Romney Care. I mean, that's true, right?

Wait, what? Obamacare, this was, this was reported a lot of time. Obamacare was a public policy created by the Heritage Foundation. Which is conservative. Yeah, which is the leading conservative think tank. It was created by the Heritage Foundation as the preeminent conservative healthcare policy. And then it was Romney Care in Massachusetts. So Governor Romney at the time passed Romney care.

which was heralded as a conservative victory, and Obamacare was an insinuble from it. That was a huge hit on Romney in the presidential campaign. They had no response for. See, and I don't remember that because I voted in that election, but I was also in high school and was like, I know who I'm going to vote for, but, like, I wasn't paying attention then like I would now.

And then you had a historic moment in 2017, if you remember, when Trump unexpectedly won, and then, you know, the GOP had, you know, more power than they thought they would have. They were kind of all just planning for that not to happen. And then it was like, wow, we can actually repeal and replace Obamacare. And then if you remember, there was no bill. Yeah.

There was no bill. Why? There's no ideology and no ideas whatsoever on either side for health care. We have both sides to this day debating around the idea of access. There's literally, that's what the debate is. is. It's how do we produce more access to the system that's producing devastation to the American people, this system that's giving us the 80% overweight or obese, up to 66% pre-diabetes rate. This system that is creating a dynamic where rates of everything are going up, rates of heart

disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune conditions, autism, literally everything. Everything's going up all at once. That's our system. And there's no debate about changing the incentives of that system. It's all a debate on who's better at producing more access to that system. It is completely incorrect, this statement that we hear on the left and the right that we have the best system and we just need to tweak it around the margins. This is not a marginal issue. I, that pains me as an American to say, that pains me. But it is an order of magnitude different that people in Japan live seven years longer. I was going to say, is there any country that you like the way that they do health care or is nobody getting it exactly right? Because I know one thing is conservatives are not

going to go for some, you know, and I wouldn't either. There's some socialist, you know, health care system. I don't want that either. So it's like what is the right path? I don't like to give your credit on much at all. But I think the fact that France spends half as much on health care as we do and double the amount on food is probably getting in the right direction. Okay. What other countries are doing, and I wouldn't copy a lot of their policies, but they spend substantially lower in health. health care and higher on food. So we've got to get that right. We've got to steer that $4.6 trillion dollars that's corrupt money. That money is going to a system that's profiting from people being sick. Any health care and you know, RFK is talking about this. I'm talking to anyone who will

listen. I think this is becoming one of the most important issues in the country. And I think it's starting to be understood. But we've got to get this incentive right. Any health care policy that doesn't attack the incentive that the industry profits from kids being sick is a worthless policy. We need to change those incentives. Where the rubber hits the road, in my opinion, is extremely simple. It's what is the standard of care? Like, what are we doing with this 90% of issues that are causing 90% of cost, metabolic health, chronic disease crisis, what are we doing? Right now we have a corrupt situation where you're not allowed to prescribe dietary interventions or lifestyle interventions to somebody with autoimmune conditions.

If you have Crohn's disease or other autoimmune conditions that are exploding right now among many listeners, I'm sure. And me, I have Hashimoto's I just found out. The standard of care is to have you on drugs and injections for the rest of your life. These are now labeled. It's a gold mine. Autoimmune conditions exploding is a gold mine for the medical system. You know, my friends are, some of them have to go and get injections every couple weeks for the rest of their lives.

I have met so many people who've told me time and time again that their autoimmune diagnosis is actually one of the best moments of their life because they rejected the existing system, empowered themselves, got control of their diet, got some functional medicine, blood testing, understood what's going on inside their body and feel better than they ever have. That opportunity is available to everybody, but we don't put people on that path. In Europe, when you are suffering from obesity or diabetes, the government pays for a keto diet as the first intervention. They actually subsidize exercise.

They're not actually paying for OZempic. Well, and that's the thing with my audience, too, is that for those that this is all really new to them, they're hearing me talk about things like holistic dentist and functional medicine doctors and go get your hormones tested and do all this. But none of it is covered by insurance. And they're like, why, why? Why isn't this covered by insurance? So this gets into what's conservative, what's liberal.

It is not conservative right now that we spend. double the per capita on healthcare. You can put up the graph. It's like a graph of like how much per capital we spend and life expectancy. And like countries are like here, most countries, and we're like here. Like we're like lower life expectancy much higher costs. And that's not conservative. What I ask, what I think health care policy has to ask is like, okay, we spend $4.5ish trillion dollars now on health care. Just blue sky. What is the best intervention to create a thriving American populace incentivize the right things, reduce chronic disease, increase life expectancy. It would never be in a million years what you have right now, which is what we're all poisoning

ourselves and then drugging ourselves. Like that would never happen. But don't the insurance companies want to save money? No, that's a huge misconception. Oh, tell me. Obamacare actually, there was this big populist uproar around insurance companies having two high profit margins. So what the insurance companies actually very cleverly did is they said, okay, great, we will cap our profit margins at 15%. So insurance companies, by law, have to pay out 85% of their premiums. They have to pay that out.

But in order for that to happen, Obamacare allows them to raise premiums in order to get that 15%. So think about that incentive. They get 15% no matter what. So if you can only take 15%, you want a higher pie. So it's not ambiguous.

Insurance companies are directly incentivized all out for us to be sick and for healthcare costs to go up, which means there's more interventions. They are directly incentivized for that, which is why premiums have been absolutely exploding. They take 15%, they want a larger pie. That's not a conspiracy. That's not an opinion that like any insurance company,

if you push them, would agree with that. What does your family do? Do you have health insurance or do you just go completely out of the system or what? I am a huge proponent of HSAs. I think that health doesn't happen in the doctor's office. Everyone should have some kind of catastrophic care where they don't go bankrupt if there's like a car crash or something terrible. I really think HSAs are a really good public policy where you get tax-free money to choose

where you want to spend that. And what my company TrueMed's doing is if you get a note from your doctor actually saying how, okay, you have prediabetes, a keto diet, and exercise and certain supplementation, might be effective to actually reverse the root cause. If you have a doctor's note, you can actually use your HSA dollars on potentially food, supplementation, exercise, sauna, coal plungers, things like that. What? My fundamental premise is that the American people don't want to be sick.

Like, I don't think the American people have become lazier in the past generation where all these issues have exploded. Like, I really do think it's an incentive problem. We're incentivized to eat really toxic food, and we haven't even talked much about all the subsidies. Oh, we're getting into that. All the things that push the food on people. I warned my audience before this begin. I said, this is going to be my longest interview ever, but it's going to be one of the best interviews I've ever done.

So they're seated. They're sat. So we incentivize that, and then we incentivize health care only to manage sickness. So I think that, like, we have this cynicism that's been kind of engendered. among the medical system about the American people. When my sister started at Stanford med school, first day, it was like, the American people want to eat their big Macs,

their big gulps, they want to be suicidal and sick. You know, it's just this complete cynicism. It's a right off of the American patient. Very convenient because there's all these incentives that are making people addicted and sick and driving up interventions and dollars. I think all we have to do, I don't think we have to do top-down mandates on anything.

But like HSAs. Okay, but how do you know if you have an HSA? It's very complicated. You would know from your about 20% of or so of families have one. And then when you add up HSAs and FSAs, which are two tax-free accounts, about 80% of people have one of those. Okay. I won't get into all the nitty-gritty complications, which is part of the whole system to confuse people. But most likely somebody listening, if they have health insurance through an employer or something like that, will be able to opt in

to contribute about $8,000 per family into these accounts. I really like that unless you have something like a pregnancy or something like an already a chronic condition which you're really just going to have to know you're going to pay a lot. Like maybe just, unfortunately, just go for the plan, whether the lowest out of pocket. If you don't have anything like recurring costs, you should be using whatever you can from an incentive structure on insurance to stay healthy. So I've always ignored my HSA before I got into this. A lot of people just don't even contribute.

I don't know if you ever done this, but like you see just when you're choosing your benefits, you can contribute tax-free money. But I would just urge everyone, you can max that out. And if you or your children have, which is 60% of the country, have a chronic condition or are at risk for even, which is the vast majority of the American people, you can get a doctor's note for exercise, for healthy food, for supplements. and use tax-free money. I mean, that's your income tax rate. So my company has a telehealth process to do that. We literally, like, there's all these sites that prescribe drugs online. We took the lawyers and took the process.

We're like, we're going to describe broccoli. We're going to prescribe omega-3s. We're going to prescribe exercise. We've driven $100 million in the last four months of tax-free money to exercise. And the IRS actually recently said, too many people are expensing exercise. This isn't right. basically that people need to stick to drugs and they're completely wrong about that. But it was just kind of good to see that the IRS, this is happening so quickly and people

are realizing and waking up so quickly and trying to use their health insurance dollars for root cause items that it's even woken up the IRS. So this is, I think, what we need to do. Like fundamentally, I actually think these things are not hard to change. Like if healthcare, if we looked at that $4.5 trillion and actually just asked, What do we need to incentivize as the standard of care to reverse this scourge of metabolic and chronic conditions? If a diabetic person on Medicaid, you know, lower income person, was paid to exercise instead of being put on lifelang drugs that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, things would change. Like, like incentives matter.

Okay. So explain like we're five how Congress is trapped by big food in big pharma so that they're unable to fight against them. A couple issues. The American beverage association and the pharma lobbying groups are able to focus on really specific issues. So they're able to chip away at the micro again and again and again. Like I think if you add up like the energy those industries have and energy moms have around the country about like attacking chronic conditions, I think there's like a lot of energy around this issue on mom's sides and they want this issue changed.

But they're not in the offices every single day for every single bill, every single minutia just chipping away. This corruption has happened over 40 years of just every single minutia thing. It's added up to where the game members of Congress are playing in is so kind of distorted through these decades of lobbying. Lobbying is all about specifics. So one thing I'm trying to do is we're actually starting an interest group to combat these. but my company supporting great health and wellness companies like Athletic Greens, Daily Harvest, CrossFit, on down the list. And we're actually combining all of our forces and going to go lobby Congress and going to have

many health and wellness companies actually carry the message. So wait, you're talking about TrueMed, your company? Yeah. So we're actually starting an associated nonprofit with the leaders of a lot of those companies. I just mentioned many others. Like fundamentally we need to be incentivizing CrossFit. We need to be incentivizing athletic greens, momentous omega-3s, you know, these companies across the spectrum that true meds helping to unlock HSA spending for, the HSA is just one part of it.

Like literally on Medicare, on Medicaid, if we unlocked a path of curiosity for anyone facing obesity, anyone facing diabetes, and actually unlocked, you know, supplementation, exploring their diet, exercise, incentivize those things. That would transform the country. That is actually, to some degree, happening much more in other countries. And we have demonstrably different outcomes. So through being involved with the public policy debate, been meeting with a lot of members of Congress in both sides, presidential candidates on both sides. There's real hunger for both education on this issue because I'll tell you, you're talking to people on the right.

I mean, they want to take on pharmaceutical corruption. Their voters are very concerned about this. More than ever before historically? More than ever before. And do you think that's just because of what happened during COVID? I think COVID radicalized people that this industry doesn't have people's best interests at heart. Yeah, I do too. I think COVID and this moment we're in, I think childhood health is like there's something tipping point.

I think it's, it is, I think, enraging what's happening to kids. I think we've really seen that in the past two years. That's just my read on it. It's just like you go into a kid's classroom. You look at the ADD, autism, obesity, diabetes. I think anyone that's seeing teens right now is pretty concerned. And I just think this image that kids are truly being poisoned and then drugged is like really unsettling. Do members of Congress get threatened by food and pharma?

They say the same thing again and again. There's a double levels of it. fact that lobbyists are in the office just kind of like tamering does matter because they're understaffed and, you know, have a million things to do. So the fact that the lobbyists from Farmer are just there matters. So that's where we're trying to start kind of a countervailing lobbying group. Why does Congress listen to lobbyists? They know that they're getting paychecks to say what they're saying. The corruption, the most pronounced form, is that people are busy and understaffed and just the lobbyists are doing the work. They're making the bills.

So they're coming in with the bills and things pre-written. And importantly, and this is flagged by all the members of Congress, the bills then have the NIH study. They have the research from Harvard. And they say, lightly threatened that you're going to be going against NIH recommendations and Harvard research. Literally the NIH, you might have seen this, you know, a joint study with them in Tufts Nutrition School said that Lucky Charms are healthier than beef. That's funny. But actually, it's not because. It's not just like this headline that's ridiculous.

That study is used in Congress. The second that study hits the presses, you know, it said honeynut sugars were healthier than eggs. That's Tim Ferrance Nutrition Guidelines. So that can go into a bill and say that schools don't need to have eggs. They can have cereal, you know? And the biggest funder of childhood calories is federally funded school lunches. So there's bills on that.

So all of these things that sound ridiculous. I've talked to one member who's on a health committee. He's a former military guy. He's like, I just don't know this stuff. Like, I just, they have the studies. They've made the bills. Everything's kind of like the game is already set. The inertia is really hard.

So there's that. There's grassroots support that they rally, which we're trying to do with, with our companies. But they, pharma is very effective at, for instance, when there's a bill that threatens them, they have a bunch of old people call the office. that's all through money, but they have, you know, a bunch of old people, oh, stop taking away my drugs. You know, that's very powerful.

The calls the office. And then there is ranked just corruption and threatening where if a member goes against one of these industries, they are threatened with a bunch of mailers and ads and primary challenges. And that is directly threatened by the lobbyists. So how do we fight against that? Yeah. So what members tell me again and again is that the thing that could beat money is grassroots support on targeted issues.

So you look at some of the most powerful issues in the United States, like guns and abortion. Those aren't really like money issues. Those are the fact that people vote on those issues. Because they're emotional. Yeah. And they're very targeted. Like they're binary litmus test that people will really vote on, that people will go to meetings on and stream at the member of Congress that people will call into the office. So we need to create this poison of kids, the chronic health issue.

We need to make it an issue where people and moms are calling. There's an emotional reaction. There's an emotional reaction. And there's messaging that people are all singing in the same kind of, it's very dispersed right now. It's hard to pin down, right? It's a really kind of wide-ranging issue that our industries have become so corrupted, you know, that we're really becoming, in one respect, infertile as a species because of these dynamics. You know, we're losing our ability to reproduce. Sperm counts 90% all the, all the chronic disease rates.

It's hard to kind of pin down. Everyone, I think, understands it's a problem. It's manifesting, I think, in, you know, the political debate today, what you see with RFK, things like that. But what you have to do is channel that into a little bit more of a coordinated effort. There needs to be people calling on specific bills, things like that. But the thing is, is this, like, never covered. Yeah.

I never hear any health stuff being talked about. I remember, here's something interesting. I remember being in school and I remember wall-to-wall coverage on Fox News about. about NYC saying they were going to create some soda attacks. And the conservative right was all up in arms. Like this is such an anti-freedom issue, exactly what you were talking about earlier. First of all, I just want to say that I feel like I've been one of the only people outspoken

on the right, like making this a pivotal part of my brand is speaking out against food recently. But then what's really cool is all of a sudden in the last few months, I've been seeing Fox covering this and they've had you on. And so I was going to ask you what's going on with this switch. How come I feel like historically right-wing media was like, this is ridiculous, let us eat her hamburgers, let us have our soda. And now all of a sudden they're asking people like you. Sean Spicer's asking me to go on a show, like talk about food and pharma. Why?

It's the visceral reaction of what's happening, kids. I talk to a producer at Fox who does, you know, they do a lot of research on what segments are resonating, what issues are resonating. They're saying this idea of crony capitalism and corruption among food and pharma companies, this devil's bargain between a food company making a sick and a pharmacist and profiting. you know, post-COVID, this is one of the most fissural and resonant issues among their viewers. And I will just say, you know, it's everyone, but I think, you know, particularly people, moms and just people that are seeing kind of what's happening to our poor children. It's just like, so this issue is really firing up. And I think it's a very positive sign that's firing up people on all sides, but particularly the right. I mean, this is a new development.

You wouldn't have expected this. You know, people on the right are becoming, you know, things you just associate with hippies. they're going to the farmer's markets. I know. And I think that's really good because I really do think actually this is a broad-based bipartisan issue. I don't support taxes, honestly. My message is stop subsidizing. Before we even talk about it, I don't want to ban sugar.

I'm a libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. But I don't think it's libertarian conservative to recommend drugs to kids. I don't think it's very conservative to fund Coke with food stamps and push on kids, right? I think I enjoy a glass of wine sometimes. I don't think that should be federally subsidized. I don't think it's necessarily good, right? It's just like it should be there, but we should pay for it and it shouldn't be recommended.

It shouldn't be subsidized. We don't have recommendation of, you know, cigarette intake for kids. We say it's bad and people can buy it and there's, you know, we can debate age restriction and stuff. So I say stop subsidizing and stop recommending. And then I don't. think there's anything, you know, not libertarian about examining the incentives of where that $4.5 trillion go. I would also just say, just the standard of care. Like, we have this reverence for the science. We, you know, like I said, we changed our behavior with the food paramed. We changed

our behavior when the surgeon general said, don't smoke. We, we acted when Dr. Fauci said to get the vaccine. I mean, we actually, for better or worse, listen to medical leaders and we have to hold them accountable. It is, I think, vital in our system for have them to say the truth and then public policy leaders can do whatever they want. I know that if the scientists can actually talk about how 90% of our, you know, issues right now are completely preventable. And I mean preventable in like the next year. This is not a long-term solve. If you, if you had a rally. like we did, you know, for a pharmaceutical solution during COVID for people to improve the metabolic health, this can happen really, really quickly.

If you're coming to the Young Women's Leadership Summit, our big women's conference coming up, you will be able to test out Olivia's organic prebiotic handvush in the restrooms, which I'm really excited about. I had this idea. I told Olivia they loved it. They're like, yes, we're going to send some so your audience can try it. One of many cute little fun surprises in store, if you're going to the biggest conference for conservative women in the country. June 7th through 9th in San Antonio, Texas. So Alevia is just so beyond a non-toxic hand soap or body wash. Their body care feeds the skin's microbiome, allowing it to heal quicker, which is why extremely sensitive skin types do so well using Olivia. I actually just today got a message from

a cute servant named Alexa who said, I have mild eczema and am constantly itchy because I lived in a mold-infested apartment several years ago. I swear by Olivia. I love the cranberry scent and I cannot wait to try more. It doesn't irritate my skin. It makes me feel so hydrated and it has done wonders for my skin with no purging period. So she's even used it on her face and was able to ditch Sarah Vee. This is the feedback that I constantly get about Olivia's organic, prebiotic, non-toxic hand soap and body wash. Try for yourself by going to Alevia.com and using code Alex 15 for 15% off. That's Alevia.com with code Alex 15 for 15% off or find the link in the description. While we're diving deep into food and corrupt beverage brands, how about a water bottle company that's not only about keeping you hydrated, they're about embracing a lifestyle of liberty and responsibility?

Oh, a conservative water company. Yeah, picture this. You're standing in front of the water aisle, scanning the shelves for the perfect bottle. But beyond just quenching your thirst, what if your choice of water could make a statement? What if it could symbolize your commitment to values like freedom, individuality, and self-reliance? Freedom 2O water isn't just about what's inside the bottle. It's about the message that it sends with every sip. Like this one that says this water hasn't been indicted yet.

With labels like, the red cap is no cap, wink, wink, nudge, just think about it. Or this water isn't free, but your speech is. It's not just refreshing. It's rebellious. It's also unapologetic, something that I love doing with the food and drink companies that I support. It's a reminder that even the most ordinary acts like staying hydrated can be infused with meaning and purpose. Why should we care about the source and sustainability of our water or the message on the label? Because every choice that we make, no matter how small, shapes the world around us.

By choosing to drink Freedom 2 and serving it to your friends, your family, and even hand it out at the softball game, you're not just choosing a brand. You're choosing to stand up for what you believe in. You are choosing to support companies that share your values and prioritize your freedom. So let's keep the conversation going. Share your thoughts in the comments if you're watching on YouTube or take a picture of yourself with your favorite Freedom 2O bottle because they all have these funny little phrases. Tag me on your Instagram story. I'll repost it. Let's show the world that every gulp is more than just hydration. It's a declaration of independence. Keep sipping. Stay leaning. Stay hydrated.

And always be free. Try Freedom to O water at freedom2.com. Freedom number two letter o.com. What institutions and organizations would people be surprised to find out are also being controlled by food and pharma outside of food and pharma? Well, one, we haven't talked about it, is the FDA itself, which is 75% funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which you can't even get your head around. How is that allowed? I can tell you from being in D.C., bureaucracies are like omibas that are just designed to grow. Like, when you have a bureaucracy, it wants to grow. And when you are funded by pharma and grow by that industry growing, you know, that's just all the incentives you have to know.

So taxpayer money doesn't go to the FDA administration. And importantly, FDA bureaucrats don't approve drugs. They create these blue ribbon panels like the one I mentioned on opioids. You know, the obesity panel, you know, that's now saying that 50% of 12-year-old should be stabbed with those Zempik for the rest of their lives. that was a blue ribbon panel of obesity experts, which almost 100% were paid for by obesity drug makers. You're saying brands like OZMPIC, Wagovi,

they were paying the people who were deciding what? The approval of the drugs themselves. I don't understand how that's legal. The FDA creates outside expert panels to create guidelines on drugs. You'd had it for SSRIs. They're not always staffed by bureaucrats. they create the panels. Who's on the panels? You have experts from Harvard, Dr. Fatima Cody

Stanford, who also went on 60 Minutes recently and said that based on her opinion as a leading obesity doctor at Harvard, obesity was a genetic condition not tied to food or lifestyle. You have her appointed now by President Biden to USDA and FDA panels to oversee nutrition and obesity. These people that have the highest credentials of society that we can bestow at these top institutions go to those panels. And there is zero. conflict of interest rules for people that sit on FDA, USDA, all these government panels to receive not only research funding, which of course they receive from the pharmaceutical companies that are the lifeboat of research funding, but also direct bribes. If you go on CMS website, you just

Google conflicts of interest or payments to doctors. There's a government website. They have to report this. Nova Nordics made 420,000 individual payments last year to obesity doctors. It is almost impossible to find an obesity doctor in this country who's not received a direct payment from the maker of OZembek. Who is in charge of saying we're not allowed to do these conflict of interest things anymore? It could be an executive order. By the president. Yeah, this is something conservatives need to crop with a conversation we need to have. I think this can happen very quickly and it comes from executive action.

I think Congress has lost on this issue. I support an executive order declaring a state of emergency for childhood chronic disease. Under the Constitution, you know, the federal papers on down wrote about this. The president absolutely has the authority for public health emergencies. The extraordinary power the president took during COVID was not a congressional action. That was an executive order declaring a state of emergency for a public health issue. The public health disaster that we're seeing with childhood health is a much more existential threat and more important threat to the country than COVID. Hospitals were never full of COVID patients. They're full of heart disease patients, diabetes patients,

fatty liver disease patients, cancer patients. They're full of patients with metabolic disease, and they're increasingly children. The president is absolutely within their authority to declare a state of emergency on that. And then I think that the president should take action that actually disrupt some of this corruption that's happened and might disrupt market caps. If you do an executive order tomorrow, which you can do to cut pharmaceuticals ability to fund news, New stocks would tank. They'd absolutely tank. If you do an executive order tomorrow

that you're not touching research funding, but you are making it that NIH grants cannot go to corrupt and conflicted doctors, which 95% of Americans would support that. It's like, how do we not already do that? You destroy the academic research infrastructure. You literally have the deans of Harvard

and Stanford saying that there's a war on academics and they would lose their minds. Right now, OZMPIC, in terms, Germany versus the U.S., it's 15 times more expensive in the United States. Drugs are, like, order of magnitude, more expensive and we're funding all the R&D. I don't know if that's liberal or conservative, but it's complete BS. And it's through a rig system where we're not able to negotiate any drugs prices. So we are paying, our taxpayers are paying 10 times to 15 times more for drugs than they are in Europe.

There should be an executive order tomorrow that these drug companies, which we're funding, with our tax money cannot charge a lower price to Europe. Okay, so for the person who's listening to this, that's still like, they aren't quite convinced. Okay, they're saying, like, here's the deal. I understand what you're saying, not good, people being fat and sick, but like, who cares? That's their prerogative. If they want to make the choices to be fat and sick and die early, then they make the choices to be fat and sick or die early. That doesn't affect me.

That only affects them. So why do I care about this? It is not the choice of an obese six-year-old. It's not personal responsibility. I would say, look at what's happening to kids. it's yeah it's very sad like i'm just thinking about my two-year-old like like they're walking into a buzzsaw right now and i think it's a total perversion of conservative philosophies to say that it's personal responsibility that 50% of young adults are overweight or obese like like and then it's

obviously going to children like there's a true evil systemic thing happening it is a moral stain in our country and I don't think you have a personal responsibility situation with almost genocidal rates of chronic disease among children. And I don't think parents are trying to kill their kids. I think if you're going to make the personal responsibility argument, I think you've got to talk about six-year-olds. But how does also, in a nation being the majority of adults being obese, how does that affect other areas of American life in a negative way? Well, we're destroying our human capital. I mean, like I said, if you're diabetic, you know, you're almost certainly more depressed. You're going to have many other comorbidities. You're going to die earlier.

You're going to live a much more suboptimal life. So we have the American people just not at their best. It's an absolute devastating dynamic for American competitiveness in our economy, and it bleeds into everything else. Like, like, you know, particularly the brain. I mean, 20% of our energy, is produced, you know, in our brain and, you know, diabetes and obesity and heart disease, these are all metabolic issues, which means our energy literally isn't being produced correctly. You know, we talk about this a lot in the book, but that's what I'm most scared about. I mean, we truly have cognitively a real problem in America, you know, the visible sign is the obesity, but it's a lot of really bad things are happening in our brain, which we see

with all the mental health statistics, which I think are just the tip of the iceberg, but now, you know, 40% of high school seniors qualifying as a mental health disorders. They're obsessed in our schools talking about mental health, mental health training, and the stigma, all the stuff. But like nobody is acknowledging that so much of our mental health situation that we have going on stems from whatever's going on in your gut, which is obviously being fueled by the food. But it's like this big elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about the food. And also there's a national security risk factor to the obesity epidemic in the United States.

Talk about that. Department of Defense is looking at lowering the standards for join the military because there's so few people of military age that are eligible to join right now because of our metabolic health crisis. So they're looking at lowering the standards. It's a massive human capital economic threat. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who wrote a blur for our book and is a hero. He said that the chronic disease crisis is, I think he actually said it's the most. important national security threat Americans face. And he led the military.

Yeah, I'm thinking about the future when I'm older and who's going to be fighting for me on the front lines. Are they going to be, you know, riddled with brain fog and too fat and sick to move quickly and think quickly? I mean, look around. I mean, I think it is kind of this spiritual problem right now that, and I think it's loops with a lot of the other cultural issues you talk about. We're losing our identity as men, as women, as, you know, we're becoming a fat,

infertile, gender ambiguous country. Was there ever a time in American history where food and pharma were not corrupt, where they truly did have our best interest at heart? Of course. When was that? Pre-World War II. And then what happened after World War II? Pharma was credited largely with winning World War II because of antibiotics. It was a huge, huge deal.

Science was at its most respected place for good reason. The health care industry was extremely small. We had so much optimism. And in late 1950s, we had no chronic disease pills. The birth control pill unleashed Pandora's box by showing that there's a drug that you could give people for many months, many years. And that led to literally the Sackler family that their descendants did the opioid crisis in the 1960s, invented pharmaceutical advertising, funded journals to create new classes of diseases. had their lawyers literally write Nixon's drug classification system where root cause interventions, which psychedelics,

which there was very promising research on, were banned, and then the U.S. banned throughout the world, and then the U.S. pushed benzos, SSRIs, pharmaceutical treatments on the rest of the world. Literally the industry wrote the war on drug legislation to benefit the pharmaceutical industry. They wrote the research. The war on drugs in the 80s?

So that was all created by Nixon, the scheduling of drugs. And Nixon in the 70s created the drug scheduling, which greatly benefited the pharmaceutical industry. And basically, I mean, it's a whole other topic. But I think psychedelics actually, when it comes to mental health, that was buried and now is coming back. I think that's actually a huge deal. because I think a lot of this gets to mental health

and I think it's a huge blaring warning sign how much SSRIs are prescribed. But literally like Benzos and SSRI R makers when those were becoming very pop in the 70s wrote the scheduling under Nixon that basically classified and it's kind of an interesting situation where we're kind of following the man

of what drugs are okay, what drugs aren't. You have people like lecturing about illicit drugs who were on five pharmaceuticals including, you know, stimulants and, you know, very addictive substances. Like 15% of high school, there was right now, are on Adderall. Like, that's one molecule away from meth. So you actually go down the rabbit hole there. You look at the most harmful drugs in the country, the most deadly drugs.

They're most of them are legal, you know, opioids and methamphetamines and things like that. So I think even the way we think about drugs and even the spectrum of like what we think is an acceptable drug or not, It's actually, that's created by pretty corrupt systems. Well, there's something else, too, that was interesting that happened, I think, in the 60s, which is that the Sugar Research Foundation paid off Harvard. What did they pay them off to say? And how did that affect the future of American health ever since? Yeah.

So post-World War II, you just had this situation where there was a concerted effort to take the trust engendered and push more pharmaceutical treatments. And the Sugar Research Council was coordinated by. the Sackler family in the 1960s to produce research saying sugar doesn't cause obesity. They didn't even try to hide it back then. And they funded the nutrition school at Harvard, the president of the nutrition school. They were the largest funder. And they produced research in the 70s and 80s that led the food paramed that basically said, literally, the government guidelines in the 1990s were based on this idea that sugar didn't cause obesity.

like that symbol from Harvard. There's blood on that Harvard study. I think it's really that simple and I think it's a dynamic where I think this invisible hand of incentives, I don't think anyone like on a micro level, maybe somewhere,

but like I think everyone had plausible deniability of what they were doing. But you had post-World War II with the dawn of chronic disease treatments, this incentive, embedded into the system of needing more and more sick people. And you had this acceptance of just completely no line between the healthcare industry with that incentive funding the research. It was just rampant in the 1960s, 1970, 1980s, where they didn't even try to hide it. They called it

the Sugar Research Council. They know, you know, it's just blatant connection between the industries. Now they try to hide it a little bit more. And it's just step by step. that's built the largest industry in the country. And now I fear that it's the most employed industry in the country's health care. And I talk to a lot of people in the industry and they understand what's, they understand what I think that the system is completely broken. But it's really hard to unwind this industry that, you know, most of the houses driving through in the neighborhood that industry is paying for those mortgages. I think it is existential for the long term competitive American unwind it. But if we're kind of doing what we're talking about of unwinding the incentives of this industry,

it would be a devastating short-term impact to the economy because unfortunately so much the economy is actually predicated on more kids being sick. One of the things that I love most about you is listening to you discuss Ozempic and your thoughts on this huge craze of prescribing these weight loss drugs to people. What are you predicting we're going to see 20 years from now in this generation who has been taking Ozempic and Wagovi for long. long-term weight loss purposes. Well, I think the drug is going to be called because it's disastrous side effects that through a lot of the dynamics we're talking about are being completely underheld and frankly covered up. If the drug continues on its course of being prescribed as the standard of care for being obese or overweight, which is 80% of the American adults and 50% of teens, I think we're going to see disastrous long-term effects. First, most importantly, what we're doing is we're training people with this drug that obesity isn't tied to the root. cause of our environment and our food. We're going to have to learn this lesson eventually.

We're not going to outhack our evolution and biological functioning. We're not just going to keep outrunning the poisoning of ourselves. So if you're telling a kid, and let's be really clear, this is being pushed by the American Academy Pediatrics to 50% of 12-year-olds. 50% of 12-year-olds are overweight or obese. And weren't they testing it on kids as young as six? Like last fall? So now it's the recommendation is if your child is a little overweight at 12, don't. wait. Don't wait. Put that jab in right now and it's a lifetime drug. And they're trying to push it on 60 years old and I think that'll happen soon. So you as a parent, if your child's a little bit of overweight, you're going to be told soon by your pediatrician that it's anti-science not to jab

that child weekly for the rest of their life with this poison. So it's lit and it is a poison. They derive it from, I think, frog venom. That's a huge issue because what you're doing is you're training that generation of kids that they can hack it. And this is the problem, I think, and why chronic disease treatments have really failed. You know, the American Diabetes Association, until 2018, when they were ashamed to reverse this, had no dietary guidance for diabetics if they took their drugs. They literally said you can eat as much sugar as you want. There was no sugar guidelines.

They said as long as you take your drugs, you don't have to worry about what you're eating. You can drink Cokes all day. They recommended Coke, the American Diabetes Association. When I was working for Coke, I paid them. So, so. My dad's a type 2 diabetic and he has cancer right now and there's all the stuff going on, which I could talk to you about off air. My audience knows.

But like, when he's been in the, when he was in the hospital for his brain tumor surgery recently, The nurses kept bringing him soda. And I was like, why are you bringing him this? He's literally in here for cancer. And they were like, well, you know, he's a diabetic. This is good for him. It's crazy. To this day, the American Diabetes Association says a large, does not recommend a low-carb diet to kids who are diabetic.

It is wild. But this is a really important issue because it's just so simple. If that kid is dealing with obesity, is pre-diabetic, is depressed, has a lot of, inevitable cardiology issues, they're not going to just hack their way out of it to a better life. You know, the reason chronic disease treatments, every single one is correlated with higher comorbidities is because you're not solving the root cause. If you're popping the statin, pop in the metformin, now injecting the ozimic, but still feeding your body poison and being sedentary, you're not going to get healthier. And my data for that is literally every chronic disease treatment

in history. Like, they've never reduced comorbidities if you don't change the underlying habits. So that's the most important thing. The next thing I'd say is, I was recently debating a doctor on Mark Hyman's podcast, and she said, and anybody you push,

who's a proponent of a Zempic will say this, you have to aggressively work out and you have to change your diet if you go on OZPIC or it's disastrous. Literally Novo-Nordex even says this now because the muscle mass issue is such a problem. They actually guide four to five bouts of strenuous weight training per week. Wait, what?

You're recommended to do four to five intense weight lifting trainings per week or else you'll have dangerous loss of muscle mass. We're actually not supposed to be working out like that. Number one is women. But also, they're saying this because what? Because Ozempic is like eating into your muscle? You're losing weight from demonstrably muscle mass. you're doing it in a normal way, it's like 20% loss of muscle mass.

Here it's like 40% of the weight loss is coming from muscle mass. Ozympic is indistinguishable what's happening your body from anorexia. It's injectable. I'm not trying to be flippant here, but it really is for all intensive purposes, injectable anorexia. You're basically doing a crash diet. That's what, that's what it is. You're actually jamming these artificial hormones in your body that make your brain think

you're full. So what about the doctors? Like the doctor you were debating, I mean, she was, she's very pro-ozozimic with, with different rules. Like, well, my patients are going to, I'm going to talk to them about diet. I'm talking to them about, you know, working out and doing all of this. And we're also doing extremely low doses. And she's like, and I also like it as a tool for a very short amount of time to just get some of that hard, hard to lose weight off so that they're motivated to then do the rest of the work. So let's talk to anyone listening.

I'm sure a lot of folks who want to lose some weight who are thinking about these drugs or are hearing about it. again, I'm a libertarian. I think a Zympic should be legal, but I want to be really clear on a couple of things. If you are trying to do a crash diet and lose weight quickly for a short period of time, I think the drug has some very serious side effects, but it absolutely works for that. Like what side effects? I'm very concerned about the investigations into suicidal ideation and depression. I mean, as we know, a lot of the serotonin. But I thought they walked that back. has not fully walked it back, and there's actually some really concerning things coming out. The FDA has actually just launched an investigation. And I'll tell you, when the EU launched a full-scale

investigation and the FDA is still looking into it, you know, those are our own subsidiaries of pharma, particularly the FDA, and I think that's very concerning. I also just think we need to use common sense here. This drug makes you want to do less of the things that you enjoy. We hear about this. I mean, I'm just using common sense, but it makes you not want to eat. It makes you not want to gamble. It makes you not want to have sex. It makes you not want to do all these things that, you know, some of them are not, maybe aren't great to do a lot, but like things that bring joy. Obviously, this drug is working on our serotonin dopamine functions in ways we don't fully understand, which is actually what happened with Finfin, which led to the biggest settlement in

pharmaceutical history. I think it's obvious that this has issues on the brain and dynamics around our serotonin dopamine that we don't fully understand. So I'd be really concerned about that. The black box warning on thyroid cancer is serious. In the podcast with Dr. Hyman, the doctor said was just on rats, actually they did a big study on diabetics who took these drugs for, you know, over the past 10 years, and I think it was a 9x higher rate of thyroid cancer. More than 50% of people that have insurance funding for it, you know, that don't have even a cost issue go off the drug in a year because of the pronounced side effects on nausea and vomiting. If a drug is causing the majority of people to vomit, to have severe nausea, that means there's some interconnectedness things going on that are

just not good that we don't fully understand. That combined with the rush on this. Now, this was a drug that was used for a long time for very severe diabetics with severe side effects. Okay, I was going to ask that. Like, how come nobody was like up in arms about it for diabetics? Because we're talking about severe diabetics who are 400 pounds who are like their like legs are being. amputated. This is very, this was used on very sick people who were, you know, I think the side effect profile. I don't have a comment on a severely diabetic person who's 400 pounds. I'm talking about the median American. The median American who's listening right now who's dealing with, you know, being overweight, that's why I'm concerned about. And my message to that person is really

be honest about what you're trying to do here. If you're trying to do a crash diet, that's fine. There is no evidence that this jump starts. Okay, but what about the people that are in the 300, 400 pound range for the weight loss purpose, then would they be the exception of maybe use this temporarily or no? I am very concerned about the 80% median Americans, honestly. If you are morbidly, classified morbidly obese or extremely diabetic, you know, diabetes is the top sorts of blindness, it's the top source of amputations. There's a lot of Americans dealing with severe.

I'm not going to talk to that 10%. Like, like, I'm not a reflexedly anti-drug. If you are on that level, I'll say this. This is not the drug that's going to solve the root cause of the issue. You can transform your life and anyone still can and dramatically, you know, reduce both what you're suffering for and all other comorbidities by going on a path of exploration of your metabolic health. And we all know people will have. But let's talk about like the median person, the person who is obese, you know, not, not extreme, the person who's on the verge of diabetes or slightly diabetic, the person who's, you know, trying to lose a little extra weight. There is very little evidence that this drug is the long-term solution.

Again, most people who go, who take it go off because it's such pronounced side effects. Injecting this substance in your body for the rest of your life, you know, there's just no evidence. evidence that that works. But what about the functional medicine doctors that are like, I like a little low dose for autoimmune, I like a little low dose for fertility? There's arguments that GLP1 is basically like a supplement, and it's basically like a miracle cure for a number of other items. I mean, at Truman, we support this supplement from pendulum, a probiotic that helps you

produce more GLP1. I mean, if you're trying to produce more GLP1, your body is a producer of that substance. there's actually a lot of ways to do that with supplementation and food. I think there's evidence that it's the miracle cure for everything in low doses. There's not a lot of evidence on there. There's actually not even a way to do this microdosing that's really even that legal or fully accessible. You know, again, like, if biohackers want to test that out, there's not a lot of evidence on it. I'm supportive of that.

You know, but but I think it's all a bit of a ruse. It's all a bit of a wink, wink, like working for the opioid companies. I used to say, oh, you used to say this. Low doses are better. You know, people stay on the low doses. Nobody stays in the low doses. You build a tolerance. Right.

This is a tried and true argument people give who are kind of trying. All the drug companies have to do is basically just like get it in some way. And once it's in, people build up a tolerance and do it. Are the obesity doctors getting payouts from? Ozumpic? Yeah, Osiric is a dream for them because what it's doing is it's making it a lifetime issue. So the brilliance for them of Ozzympic, why this is so important is because you can't go off of it. Everyone agrees with that. You know, the kickstarting thing is complete BS. That's like saying becoming briefly anorexic or going on a calorie crash diet. We all know the crash diets

don't work. This is an injectable crash diet. If you jam a pin into your leg for six months, lose a bunch of weight while still not changing your habits, you don't go off of that and then immediately start exercising all the time and eating healthy. That just defies logic. It's obviously untrue. So this is a crash diet. If you go off of it, the weight comes back. That's been proven time and time again. What the obesity medicine field, this new field is doing, is they're saying it's a civil rights issue. They're saying it's a- Not this again. No, no, so you can't make this up.

The NACP is a registered lobbyist for OZMPIC. So we have, literally, on their website, it says it's a social justice issue, obesity, and we need universal access to obesity treatments. Oh, my gosh. This Danish company is one of the 10 largest contributors to U.S. politicians. I don't even know how that's legal. This is the largest company in Europe. They just passed LVMH, the fact.

The most valuable company in Europe. They're like a very large part of Denmark's GDP. They surpassed LVMH. And they're sitting in Denmark perched, you know, over looking at a healthy country where people are biking and people are eating healthy. They're laughing at us. They are not subsidizing this in Denmark. OZIPA cost $50 in Denmark.

It is not the standard of care for obesity, right? We talked about the keto diet and they incentivize movement. And they don't have a diabetes crisis. there. They have completely rigged the American system and figured out how to rig it. They charge 15 times more in the U.S. for it. And they're aggressively working the levers of influence that we talked about. It's all about the Medicare, Medicaid funding. They are on the verge of getting this approved for taxpayer funding. And the second that happens, the government can't regulate what a doctor does. So the second you have it

approved, any doctor can write a script for it. So what's the incentive of an obesity doctor? The incentive of obesity doctor is to get this in as many arms as possible because then you're a lifetime patient. So you not only have a patient that needs to inevitably come for the side effects to manage, they need to come

for prescriptions for the rest of their life. But I don't think people even fully understand this, but you've got a patient that's not learning metabolically healthy habits. This is what I'd say to people listening. If your kid is being pushing be very, very skeptical. Be very, very skeptical.

That should be a wake-up call that your kid needs to get, like, learn habits that we have to learn as Americans. This is a spiritual problem. Like, this is a core issue. Like, if we are becoming, like, so poison to our food system and environment that we need to, like, jam ourselves with a toxin for the rest of our lives, that should be a wake-up call. You do not need to put your kid in that drug right away.

And it should be, you should fire that doctor and find a, functional medicine doctor. If it's an adult listening, just be realistic. If you're trying to lose 20 pounds quickly, okay, fine. I mean, you should look into the side effects. If you actually think this is the long-term solve or obesity or metabolic health, that is a lie. Okay, so you brought up that 60 Minutes episode a little while back. When that came out, I must have been sent 300 messages about that.

Alex, did you watch that? Ozzympic special in 60 Minutes, like maybe it's not that bad. That really grabbed a hold of people. What is the truth about the making of that episode? It brings a lot of what we've talked about together. So before and after that segment, there was a pharmaceutical ad. Novo Nordics, the Maker Ozzypic itself is an ad spender for 60 minutes. So 60 Minutes is an entity that is funded by pharma.

Just watch 60 Minutes this week. all pharma ads and it's like sponsored by fizer you know it's it's the whole thing so that's number one so the news program itself those journalists are paid for by pharma number one number two the doctor on that segment dr fatima cody stanford who's at harvard was paid uh the last year we have records for which is two years ago 80 000 dollars in bribes by nova norex that's just on a government website and then she's a leader of the harvard obesity clinic and i talked to actually one of her colleagues off the record. And her colleague said, everyone in the obesity clinic at Harvard, you know, if we could snap

our fingers and cure child obesity, we'd do it. But we would all be fired, the economic reality, if more people don't get obese. And this is an absolute goal mine because it creates a lifetime patients. They just built a new obesity clinic. And so 60 Minutes accepts the money because that's what's keeping their lights on, basically. So they'll do the episode. 60 minutes to access the money. They're at Harvard that just built the new obesity.

clinic that needs more people that needs this drug approved to get more sick patients. The doctors are highly incentivized and paid by Novo-Nortics. Then that 60 Minutes episodes promoted by the American Diabetes Association, which is really corrupt because they actually create the standard of care of how pediatricians really have to practice medicine, but also are 90% funded by pharma, including Novo-Nortics. So this group we trust for our kids' health is in promoting that. And then amplifiers and influencers like the NWACP are promoting that to their communities saying that look at this 60 minutes, the most, you know, respected journalistic program in America, unquestioned. And that's promoted to all the alliances there.

So it's, and then it's jammed down politicians throat. You have, I think, 250 members of Congress are supporting an act to make these drugs covered by Medicare Medicare. I mean, the second that happens, this is why it's the most valuable company in Europe. It's that simple expectation that U.S. taxpayers, $1,800 per month per patient. And the target market is 80% of adults. Okay, so I think about big tobacco. And I think about how they, I mean, maybe they still are one. I don't know how it is now.

But, I mean, definitely a few decades ago, one of the most powerful, rich industries in America. But yet somehow we were able to take them down. We made cigarettes socially unacceptable. Everybody's in agreement that it causes cancer, that we need to be making all these public service announcements about cigarettes. So I guess, is there strategies that we can be replicating that we learned from how we took down big tobacco? How were we able to do that? If they were kind of, I look at them as in the same type of position as like pharma and food are in now. Is that No. So like how were we able to do that and why can't we replicate that? We can't. And and I think as conservative we need to think about this, right? I think there were

probably people on the right saying completely assault on free markets to put any, you know, put any guidelines on tobacco companies. I can't stress this enough. I'm not advocating attacks. I'm not even advocating package things. I think we can change us very, very quickly. This start has to be told. Tomorrow, the president demanding an investigation into scientific leadership for why they are recommending this. They're literally recommending this. Parents and Americans do follow the medical guidelines. And we need a complete audit of the science. We need a complete audit of getting the conflicts of interest out of that. We just cannot continue existing when 95% of the guidelines are, 95% of the experts creating the nutrition guidelines are paying. for. So this is something I really do support with RFK and Trump's actually talked about this a bit too and I

I support that. You know, day one, get to the bottom of what's going on and just get to the science. That's the foundation. We need, we need in the halls of Congress, the head of the NIH, the head of medical schools are leading authorities to say we are committing genocide against our country, which is true. And it's, you know, because of some of these ingredients, we need to look into glyphosate. We need to look into that. That's not policy. That is just a scientific reality. That will change culture almost immediately because I can tell you, and you go to the kids' birthday parties and everyone's eating sugar and it's just kind of crazy and daycare. They're following government guidelines. Did we make some kind of rule that anytime like a cigarette commercial aired, we had to air a commercial that was against tobacco or something? Was that? Well, we eventually took the ads off. And I think it's perfectly appropriate. We're one of two countries that allow pharmaceutical ads. That would, we need to do that. Who's the other? New Zealand, which is like not even.

as much as us. So we are like stand alone. So that would like reduce their ability to buy off the news. That could be an executive order tomorrow. TV news stocks would be go down. That'd be fine. I think we need to cut pharma's incentives with the drug prices. I think Trump has actually talked about this. Biden's talked about this. Actually, Biden's pushing it. It's not getting a lot of pushback. The drug price thing is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous that it's 15 times more expensive in the United States, drugs than in the United States, and that would really cut away at some of the incentives. We need to do, we can go down the list, but get, get, uh, the soda machines are right now in 80% of schools and 80% of pediatric wards. Like, we should not have soda machines there and

have these things normalized. We should not be funding soda on food stamps. That is a no-brainer. 90% of agriculture subsidies. We spend more on agriculture subsidies than the rest of the world combined. Ninety-five percent go to ultra-processed food. Shopping for graduation gifts can be tricky. My rule of thumb is to go the practical route with something that can improve this next chapter of their life, but also make it nice and something that they're actually going to want. I love the idea of gifting skincare.

If there's one thing that you need to invest in your late teens and early 20s in, it is your skin. A luxury skincare routine will instill confidence on campus or instill confidence as you enter your dream career. If the packaging is high-end, beautiful, something that you're all. going to want to display in your bathroom, even better. Nimi Skin Care is a perfect graduation gift for those reasons. And if your graduate survive college without becoming a liberal, they're going to love that Nimi Skin Care is a conservative-owned skincare company who believes in faith, freedom,

femininity, and family. And they'll never donate your money to causes and candidates who hate you. Choosing NimiSkinemi Skincare is an investment in not only your face, but your country too. Get your grad or yourself a simple three-step skincare routine at Nemeyskinkare.com with code Alex Clark for 10% off. If you don't know the person's skin type that you're gifting for, a digital gift card to Nimi is also another great option you'll find on their site. Go to NimiSkinkare.com. Use code Alex Clark for 10% off. Find the link in the show notes. I feel like it's a pretty universal problem. What in the world are we getting our dads or father figures or husbands for Father's Day? Literally what? You ask? They say, I don't want anything. Well, here's an idea that I think that they wouldn't think to ask for that I know that they will love the new King box from Good Ranchers.

This new box is available for a one-time purchase only and contains the most amazing stakes that they have to offer. It is a true experience. Packed with two thick-cut bone-in ribbyes, my favorite, four center-cut filet mignon's, probably his favorite, and two thick-cut bone-in New York strips. It's a feast fit for a king. The King box is the perfect gift this Father's Day. So that's pretty much already right there, a match made in heaven. But maybe you're still on the fence. You're like, I don't know, you know.

Dad's do love steak. But the one thing that they might love even more is bacon. And for the first time ever in Good Ranchers history, Good Ranchers is offering free bacon for life with any new subscription. Yes, you heard that right. Free bacon for life. Life with any new Good Rancher subscription box for a limited. time. As long as your subscription lasts, so will the free bacon offer. Celebrate Dad

differently this year with a gift he's going to remember and savor. He will not believe that not only did you gift him all these steaks, but you got him free bacon for life. But the best part is he doesn't need to know that the bacon is free. Just tell him, I got hookups, dad. He's going to be so impressed. Go to good ranchers.com. Use code Clark on any subscription meatbox to get free bacon for life. This is 100% USA born, raised, and packaged grass-fed steak from small farmers and ranchers across the Midwest. Use code Clark at good ranchers.com and get to add the new king box. Link in the description, Good Ranchers, American Meat delivered. Walk me through government subsidies that farmers are getting to essentially create ultra-process food.

We have more agriculture subsidies than any other country, and there is more money that subsidizes cigarettes than fruits and vegetables. Whenever I talk about this and how we need to stop, you know, incentivizing them to, like, have soybean crops and all these different things, I'm told by ag families, well, this is going to destroy, first of all, people will starve. Second of all, you know, this is going to destroy so many farmer families. Like, this is how we make a living.

We can't just stop doing that. You know, like, so I get this pushback. So what's the, like, the right approach on how to deal with this issue? Just to set the facts, when I say cigarettes and vegetables, fruits and vegetables are considered a specialty crop, they get 0.3% of subsidies, and tobacco gets 2%. So I just find that interesting.

The vast majority of these subsidies go to corn, soy, wheat, which are the components of ultra-processed food. You might hear that from some farmers. I'm talking to a lot of farmers, and they are not very happy with the status quo. Why? What do they not happy about? What the incentives do is with good intention

from post-World War II, we pushed ultra-war. processed food and industrial farming because we felt like we had to feed the world. And ultra-processed food is shelf-stable. That's the processing of the fiber from the grains, the fiber rots. So it's not nutritious, but it's able to be shipped around. So it actually started with good intentions where we actually were able to create these, like, you know, brilliant innovations in self-stable food and ship them all over the world. Just like we took the trust from the post-World War II pharmaceutical, you know, and pushed chronic disease, we took this kind of interesting innovations and shelf

stability and realize that's much more profitable. Processing food is much more profitable. Having huge monocrop systems where we're able to, you know, have long lines of the same crop, even though that's not how food is meant to be raised and it requires a ton of glybosate, a ton of pesticides, because when food is raised, you know, there's biodiversity, you actually don't need as much pesticides. But the post-war to kind of push on these like long rows of the same crop. It's just much more profitable. So the industry is really led into that and led into the fact that ultra-processed food, it's just better business. You can make it addictive.

You can brand it better. So they've ridden that into a situation. We're now at 70% of our diet. That's led all these subsidies that they lobby for to really go towards those components. And, you know, industrial farming, the people that make these and really benefit from these subsidies, you know, aren't those small farmers. They're crowding those farmers are out. Farmers have to play the game of whatever incentives they have right now,

and it's really slanting towards this toxic food. How can we change it to be to incentivize farmers to go a more organic or regenerative route? So we need to change our food system to a more regenerative route. But they say that that's not, number one, it's too costly, like we would never be able to do it, and people would starve. I have no doubt they say that because I would say that if I'm a lobbyist for the food company. So I think you have to start at the highest level. Like, let's start.

Is our food system an existential threat to the country? Like, I think it is. So let's get out of the ideology. Is this real? Do people believe what we're saying? Like, is actually a root of a lot of our problems in this country, our toxic food system? Is there something, like, really wrong where you go to Europe and eat a bunch of pasta and lose weight, where actually there's, you know, hormones change. Like, literally, like, there's all these stories about women going.

going to Europe and their, this was a little team eye, but their breast shrink. Like, like, there's, there's, uh, uh, people hit puberty later there. Like there's, there's, there's something in our, uh, yeah, yeah, we're demonstrably, US children are hitting puberty younger than European children. There's, there's obviously hormone disrupting, uh, chemicals and problems with our food system. It's causing a human capital and national security and economic catastrophe. If that's true, and it's been done by, you know, trillions of dollars of rigged incentives, you know, we rallied very quickly in this country when there's a crisis. It's like, you know, we have to unwind that. So regenerative farming,

which is where there's more biodiversity, there's some great documentaries on this, Kiss the Ground, and the biggest little farm I'd strongly recommend for families to watch. The TLDR is it's actually a higher crop output in regenerative. The problem is it requires more labor. I mean, I'm actually super optimistic. I think this is one of the good cases for AI and robotics where maybe, because because it's not like lined up. Everything's not lined up where you can just, you know, mechanically pull the same thing out of the ground. It's more diverse, but it does produce more so you can solve for the labor. Again, this gets into public policy solutions where, well, the other system is poisoning us. It is true that it's depleting our soil and a tomato raised in the U.S. today is in many key nutrients 70% less dense than it was 50 years ago. Our soil, which is, which is, is literally what's giving the food its life is getting eroded by the fact that we don't have a natural environment or foods being raised with the monocropping. We have to pummel it with pesticides. So our food tastes like crap in this country and it's substantially less nutrient

dense. Like that is a result of corruption. It's a result of losing our way and we have to unwind it. So we strongly encourage people to watch Kiss the Ground. And I think it has to to be a part of public policy thinking about re-steering these incentives. And then it's better for farmers. It's higher output. It's monocropping and the industrial farming system helps the big guys, which no farmers happy with. I actually think rethinking and putting food and regenerative farming and more natural practices and soil more in our health policy is a much more pro-farmor thing. What, you know, what my passion is and what I think it all gets down to is you've got that $4.5 trillion a year to play with. It's like if you used a portion of that and thought about smart ways to improve our food system and shift to regenerative, you would dramatically help the budget.

You know, as conservatives, you have to ask, what's the most efficient way to keep us healthy? Like, what could we do that's better than that $4.5 trillion we spend? if we put food and assess that people are getting sick and poisoned from food and actually solving the food system would actually address the root cause of that issue. What about the food deserts? I always hear about this. It's total propaganda. Food deserts are a huge problem, but using them as any type of argument for ultra-processed food is ridiculous. Food deserts exist because of food stamps. If food stamps didn't pay for soda and ultra-processed food, 75% of food stamps go to ultra-processed food, There wouldn't be food. If you changed, if you took soda off of food stamps, if you said you couldn't buy seed oils and other toxic greens on food stamps, and like most European countries, you know,

had it that you weren't able to buy poison on food stamps, that would change overnight. Like a capitalism is amazing. The food deserts are just a complete incentive based on corrupt food stamp policies. So when you're talking to somebody and they have never met you before, and they're like, so what do you do for a living? And in order to not, I don't know, freak them out or like scare them off, I mean, what is your elevator pitch the most simple thing you could say to convince a skeptic on the corruption in food and pharma?

It is an unemotional statement of economic fact that the largest industry in the country is incentivized for a child to be sick or more depressed, more infertile, and fatter. And just unpack that. I think it's demonstrably true. And if you can accept that, it's a big issue. It's a big issue when our most powerful and largest industry has those incentives. And I think that's the biggest problem in the world. I know my audience especially, like they're so into all the health and wellness stuff. They feel overwhelmed by the cost, but they're like, man, I'd love to do cold plunging. I'd love to do red light therapy and all this kind of stuff. And we sort of briefly touched on it. But you are really working to help people to be able to afford those things with your company, TrueMed. So the thing is, what is TrueMed and how does it work?

It is so simple. We need to steer healthcare dollars and incentivize items that keep us healthy. That's the simple fact. And you can do that with HSAFSA. So you can go to trumet.com and you see hundreds of great companies that we vet and partner with. Red light therapy, athletic greens, momentous, daily harvest, on down the list. We are a payment app. So we're just like PayPal or a firm.

So you can actually go to those companies and we can direct you from our site. But you'll see TrueMed now in the checkouts for a lot of those companies. As you're buying a health and wellness product, you'll probably see us more. more and more. Because TrueMed links to your HSA? Yeah. Yeah, most people have a card in their pocket. So we actually, our payment rails can actually establish the compliance that this item can help prevent a condition because you need a doctor's note, which we provide saying it can prevent a reverse. But just like a firm or PayPal, there's a couple of questions. We ask a couple of health questions confidentially. We assess whether the item can help. And then we can run the payment with

your HSA FSA cards. You can just pull out of your pocket, use it. If you don't have it, you can use your regular credit card and we can help you with reimbursement. And if we approve you, we guarantee the reimbursement. So eight sleep we just launched with Peloton. Oh, and you do stuff with that company, higher dose. Higher dose, amazing. Oh my gosh, obsessed with higher dose. Higher dose, if you're listening, please sponsor my podcast. I love higher dose products. We're proudly, you know, hear from people all the time who, you know, these items are expensive. It's expensive to be healthy. I think it's like a unfortunate necessity of modern society that, you know, we didn't use to exercise because we used to move a lot. We didn't, we just always had natural food, you know, evolutionarily. We, you know, cold exposure. We used to be outside all the time and it used to be varying temperatures. Sleep issues, you know, our circadian rhythm was a lot better because the sun went down, you know, artificial light is a new invention. Like we've got, I wouldn't trade these things, but what higher dose provides with the, EMF maps and the red light and coal plunging and supplementation.

I mean, these I think are important and vital things for modern society. It's basically, you know, putting back in what we're losing. And they're expensive. And yeah, time after time we hear that people are able to now afford it and add these things into their lives. And that's what we should be doing with medical dollars. You co-founded TrueMed with the kettle and fire bone broth guy, which I think is really cool. Yes, yes. Yeah, I was I was amped up, you know, with my sister, my mom, and then met Justin who had, you know, some family members had health issues, basically invented the bone broth category with cattle and fire, perfect keto, a leading keto brand. And he had a real hard time doing the right thing at those companies. You know, he used, you know, regenerative bones, organic, slowly roasted them to make it taste better and healthier. But that cost more. And it's like it's wrong, I think. It's criminal.

that these companies that hire dose, the kettle on fire, you know, Peloton, CrossFit, it's expensive. It's hard. I work with a lot of CrossFit gym owners. It's like hard to run a gym. It's like to me, a gym owner or the higher dose folks or people making bone broth, they're at the front lines of health more respectfully than a doctor. They are actually like trying to like put the right things in our system. But like the system screws them like puts a hand behind their back. You know, it's much more expensive to do the right thing. So, you know, with TrueMed, we're able, and with HSA, you're able to qualify, you know, save whatever your tax rate is, 30, 40, 50%, 50% whatever it is, whatever it is. That just changes and that leads more people to buy those products. And to us, it's the start.

I mean, this is, you know, $150 billion. This is HSA, FSA, I think is actually a material thing. But what we're doing with this group we're forming is we're using these success stories. We get thousands of letters from people that went off, you know, far. pharmaceutical products that, you know, help their depression by working out more and, you know, doing cold plunge. And we're taking those stories and bringing them to Congress. And I do think that's powerful. The grassroots kind of storytelling, you know, the bringing the voices of the health and wellness industry together, you know, our goal is to have more and more public policy. I keep

going to a Zempic, that $1,800 number, you know, that $1,800 taxpayer money per month. What if that could actually, you could assess this obesity crisis and the diabetes crisis and actually be like, well, what could we actually do to help ourselves? Like, you know, I used to think this would sound kind of fluffy and hippie, but like it truly is like we should just assess what's happening and ask what the best medical intervention. If it's a drug, it should be a drug. But I just want it to be a stable playing field. Most of the time, I think it's getting better sleep, incentivizing exercise, you know, getting a cold plunge. I mean, these are. really important good things that we should be incentivizing.

Okay, so on an activism level, on a law-changing level, what can we do? Who do we call? Where do we march? I am so fired up. Like, I want to see, like, a march for life equivalent, but it's like fighting against big food. We all show up in Washington. We all march together every year. Like, who are the trusted organizations to get involved with on an activism level if somebody is as passionate about this issue like I am? I think the big problem with the movement right now is that there's not targeted or organized activism and that's why we're starting a new group. And as I said, like the CEOs of Sweet Green's, CrossFit, Daily Harvest, Athletic Greens, Momentus, all of these companies that kind of we love

that I think are at the forefront of health and wellness. They're joining this coalition that we're starting. Get the Sweet Green Guy to open up in Scottsdale. This is a prime market for him. I told him that. He's the man. And they're amazing. But like they're there. They're, as a side, they're incredible. And I will relay that message. We talk a lot and they're like, they're true warriors in this fight. I mean, making that, you know,

trying to make that accessible, healthy food. I mean, that's where the rubber hits the road. So you're trying to galvanize all of these companies that are doing it right? Okay. And then what would that look like ideally if you were to create it? Yeah. So a couple things.

They have mailing lists of millions and millions of people, each of those companies. And they are changing people's lives. And what Pharma does is they bring old people to called members of Congress and bring stories. And that actually matters. It actually matters that the staff, the staff of these members of Congress who care about this issue are like, we need more stories.

We need more people to call us. We need more people to be telling us that sweet green action, going off meds and doing Sweet Green and CrossFit change people's lives. But you know what else? Like I think about nonprofits like turning point. Like what we do is we have, you know, an arm of our organization who has kids tabling on college campuses spreading conservative ideas and teaching college kids about that. What if we had that same type of nonprofit who was starting chapters with kids on college campuses and we were doing all this kind of stuff?

You know what I mean? We actually have some interrelated folks that are advising us on the best grassroots strategies. We need to do that. We've actually, Grace is involved who was on your show, a high schooler advocate. She interned for our company for Tumad. She's amazing. But yeah, it's taking those tactics. What if we were in the high schools and the colleges?

and then we got the kids to buy into this, and then they were just like, I'm not eating this food in the cafeteria. And then the schools would be forced. If the kids all refuse to eat the food, I mean, wouldn't they kind of be forced to start serving other things or no? 100%.

We need to do media savvy, impactful grassroots advocacy. It's starting with just joining the voices of these companies, getting stories, having these leaders cross-section, just as the pharmacos go to Congress, having these cross-collaboration

of leading health and wellness companies going to lobby. we're drafting executive orders. I'm going to tell Charlie, you need to listen to my episode. Everybody, listen, everybody listening, you need to link this episode and everybody needs to flood Charlie's DMs. I know we work together, but look,

what he's saying, there's power numbers. Everybody flood Charlie's DMs and be like, we need an arm of turning point dedicated to fighting big food. This is my next thing. If biggov sucks and that's our initiative, I want to see us, I want to see us be doing more about this. Well, what Charlie and you guys are doing is,

it's really an inspiration to us. I mean, who would have thought you look at the statistics now on youth and how their opinions are changing. Nobody thought that was possible. A key point I have is this is actually much quicker. Change can happen so quickly. Yeah. Yeah. This is not hard. The American people do not want to be sick. They don't want to be fat. They don't want to be depressed. They actually really want to change the incentives. And I think it's actually a really hopeful message. Like, just stop subsidizing and pushing poison on kids and start incentivizing the right solutions for the fact that, you know, the American people having genocidal levels of metabolic

dysfunction, like, just just stop doing the wrong things. There's a lot of people waking up. And yeah, that's what we are going to do. By Twitter, Cali Means, and there's an email list on there where there'll be announcements on this later this summer. But we've got to use the tools that turning points used. We've got to use the tools our enemies are using, quite frankly, at food and pharma and galvanize the voices together. I mean, that that's just, that is what we're getting begged for to do by members of Congress. And I will just say, you know, for better or worse, we're in an anti-establishment year right now. I mean, 2024, I think, is going to be one of the most mourn years of our lifetime.

We've got the leading candidates right now, you know, who are really, I think, calling out these institutions, particularly health care, more, you know, louder than I've ever seen in our lifetime. And we also need a lot of young conservatives that listen to this show who are interested in running for office one day. and things like that. We need more of us making this a part of our campaign platforms. I will just say, you know, I mean, it's a tried and true political theme, but what's happening to kids

is I think one of the most salient political issues in America. And I think, I don't know if it's left or right, but I think it's just we need a new paradigm. I mean, we have, I think we have a unit party in many ways and we just really have corruption. I mean, I think at the end of the day, this conversation, a lot of it's about corruption.

I mean, we have greedy boomers who are making a lot of money from the American people being sick. And I think the invisible hand of the incentives has led to these bad things. And we need to stop corruption. I really don't like even the left, right paradigm. I just think we shouldn't be able to, companies should be able to buy off regulators and scientists and lawmakers so blatantly to profit from our kids being sick. Your new book is out. Good Energy. You co-wrote with your sister. And her name is Dr. Casey means, which is so cute, Casey and Callie. I just, I love that. So what is good energy about? Who should read it? Yeah. So Good Energy, we're the co-authors. It's in my sister's voice and her story of being inside the medical system, working in the NIH, going to Stanford, med school, you know, surgical residency and really waking up. And it's a lot of what we've been talking about. The real thesis of the book is that the biggest lie in medicine is that diseases are siloed,

that she had to choose between one of 42 medical specialties at the end of med school, that you choose one part of the body, you know, in her case, the part of the face, a couple inches, that she would devote the rest of her life to. And again, she was reprimanded when she asked about the connection between inflammation and diabetes, inflammation and heart issues, inflammation and depression. It's all, of course, related. our siloed system is very profitable, but it's an absolutely disaster. Again, I just can't stress those.

My mom was on six medications when she died. And, you know, her cardiologist prescribing this dad did not talk to her hormone doctor prescribing the metformin who didn't talk to her, you know, person prescribing the ACE inhibitor for, it's just like there's no connection. There's no connecting the dots. And that's by design. We have to get to a metabolic view of health. can address, you know, this, the root cause of what's ailing us and actually take on all the

issues. I mean, if we were able, you know, as a medical standard to, you know, cut ultra-processed food, get more in a keto diet to people dealing with, you know, diabetes, heart disease, you know, we could wipe out these chronic conditions at the root. Another key thesis of the book, and I think through Casey's Genius, it's one of the best most actual plans ever put to paper, is that The root of feeling better today is also the same thing that's going to prevent disease tomorrow. That these little things, these things that are so normalized like PCOS, like depression, like anxiety, like fatigue, these things that are just like normal parts of our lives, actually getting the root of those will plummet your chances of getting a life-threatening chronic disease later. It's the same thing with my mom. It's just like if these little things, these little biomarkers, we need to see those symptoms as gifts.

we need to really like lean into those things and see this opportunity we you know the book is a book of optimism there can be a bottoms up revolution it's happening i mean it's happening i know with your listeners where we can thrive um and i you know just surprisingly that's also the way we we take out life-threatening chronic conditions so it's a systemic overview a lot of what we've talked about and then a really great actionable plan um so we put our hard souls into this and helping her write this book has really propelled me on my journey. And we're both just devoting our lives to changing the incentives of health care. Yeah.

We've got to just follow the money and incentivize the right things. I don't, I'm not interested in lecturing the American people on nutrition. I'm not interested in command and control guidelines. But if we just have the incentives that allow the American people to like make decisions and like be healthy and invest, we will be in a better. place. Because we're not actually able to make informed choices. It's so rigged. So that's where the problem lies. 100%. Is we need to even the playing field. Where can people follow you on Instagram? Callie Means on Instagram and Twitter. Thank you so much. This is my new favorite interview that I've

ever done. Buy good energy. Also go on TrueMed, their website. Check out what they have there. And talk to your workplace about an HSA, right? That's right. Looking into that. Thank you so much. All links are going to be in the show notes. Thanks for coming on. Thank you. It will be really hard to beat this interview. This is now the standard.

My hope is that this episode for the people who say, well, I'm tired of health and wellness, now understand the gravity of the situation that we are in and feel just as galvanized as I do to speak out about it. Please leave a five-star review, sharing your thoughts on this episode. Make sure that you're actually subscribed. A lot of people listen.

But not everybody is actually clicking that subscribe button. or follow the show button on Spotify or Apple. That way the shows automatically download for you to listen, and that also helps me explain accurately to potential advertisers and potential guests how many people are listening to the show. Every week I talk to a different expert with a remedy to help heal a sick culture, whether that's spiritually, physically, or emotionally.

I'll see you next Thursday night at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific. All the links mentioned today are in the description. I'm Alex Clark, and this is the spillover. You mean it. Bye.