Original subtitles

Health.

Truth.

Hope.

In a world where billions of people do not have a clue about the forces that

control their health, these people go about their day in a life-and-death

struggle, while minds that are calculating and unsympathetic make

decisions that will affect their very lives.

A new day begins.

There are many questions, but few answers.

But still there's hope.

This is the big secret.

Each year, millions of people die in the United States from chronic diseases.

Yet many of these deaths are preventable.

Sure, we all know that smoking is bad for your health.

As a matter of fact, it's probably no surprise that nearly half a million

people die each year in the United States from smoking-related causes.

That's one in every five deaths in the U.S.

But what if I told you that you might meet an even greater risk of death?

According to the Center for Disease Control, half of all adults in the

United States have a chronic health condition.

These are startling statistics.

Yet people go about their lives unaware of the things that affect their health.

There are those who try to manipulate and influence factors that have a direct

impact on your health.

For these people, corporate profits are more important than your well-being.

Have you ever wondered about the startling rise in chronic diseases over

the past 20 years?

We've all heard people say, you used to not hear about all the diseases we have

today.

Were they here all along and we're just getting better at diagnosing them?

Or are more people developing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart

disease, and stroke?

In this documentary, we will take a look at several important events in history

and note an interesting correlation in the rise of certain diseases.

In some cases, we will provide a little background to make the information as

meaningful.

There is a lot of information and a lot of misinformation on most of what we're

going to cover.

Trust me, we will only scratch the surface on some of these issues.

So why did we create this documentary?

Our goal is to challenge the status quo and to start a conversation about health

care and nutrition in the United States.

You may be surprised by some of the information presented, but I encourage

you to do your own research and to talk to others who do not have a financial

interest in your well-being.

Let's get started.

Man, how do I take a positive spin on the fact that we're being murdered?

I know this is depressing, but it's also very important.

I know, and it is. It's really depressing, but people need to know

this. I grew up, I was never interested in nutrition. I didn't know anything

about it.

McDonald's all the time and microwave meals. And I mean, I had no idea, you

know, I didn't care at all about nutrition and I was in college.

I was probably sitting there drinking a Coke and eating Cheez-Its and I was

taking a cell biology class.

And so we're like learning about the cell and DNA replication.

And I mean, it's just like fascinating.

And the professor, as he's explaining all this stuff, I'm doing all this

research. I had this little like aha moment or whatever.

about nutrition and processed foods.

And I ended up writing my senior thesis paper was on that topic.

And so I was basically theorizing, you know, and I've talked about trans fats.

I talked about partially hydrogenated oils.

I talked about the lack of minerals in the soil, the soil depletion. I mean, I

talked about all these different things. And at the time,

It was my thesis.

It was all theory.

It was all like I was doing this research and kind of coming up with

these ideas and saying that there's a link between processed foods and chronic

disease. And it was just really neat after I graduated seeing all of these

things that I talked about in that paper start coming into the mainstream.

And they're talking about trans fats.

All of this stuff that I had researched, high fructose corn syrup, was all

becoming more widely accepted.

You know, 10 years later, there's people all over the United States and really

all over the world, like you said, all kind of saying the same things.

Even though we've never talked to each other, but we're all just kind of coming

to the same conclusions.

John D.

Rockefeller was born July 8, 1839, in Richford, New York.

His father, William A. Rockefeller, was a doctor who claimed that he could cure

cancers and charged up to $25 per treatment.

He was gone for months at a time and returned to his family with substantial

sums of cash.

In 1865, at the age of 24, Rockefeller bought an existing oil company and

gained complete control of the business.

Rockefeller was convinced that oil would soon be very profitable.

He immediately moved to expand his business by taking over smaller oil

companies, thus forming a cartel with the power to control oil production and

delivery in the United States.

That's a quick lesson on how John D. Rockefeller became the richest man in

the world.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Rockefeller Foundation turned its

attention to the acquisition of pharmaceutical companies.

They started buying them up in order to profit from their patented drugs.

However, in 1912, vitamins were discovered and we began the long process

of understanding their health benefits.

Keep in mind that by today's standards, the practice of modern medicine was in

its infancy.

These pharmaceutical companies had developed and patented drugs to treat a

variety of common ailments.

According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, doctors soon

recognized scurvy,

Now, the pharmaceutical cartels were faced with a dilemma.

How do you promote the sale of extremely profitable patented drugs over natural

remedies like vitamins?

The answer?

You find a way to control doctors and influence what they prescribe.

You might think that this sounds like some sort of a science fiction movie.

But that's exactly what happened in the United States.

Slowly and methodically, medical practices moved to profit-driven system

promoting pharmaceutical drug sales and profitable surgery over curative medical

practices.

Basically, the long-term management of diseases was found to be more profitable

than efforts to cure diseases.

In the early 1900s, there were a number of substandard medical schools in the U

.S. that taught some rather questionable medical practices, such as

electrotherapy. Many of these schools offered limited training and medical

degrees that were really not worth the paper on which they were written.

In 1910, the Carnegie Foundation decided to focus on reforming health care and

commissioned Abraham Flexner to study medical schools in the United States.

You may be surprised to learn that Flexner had no medical training.

Rather, he was one of the country's leading educators.

The Carnegie Foundation gave him a unique perspective from which to study

the health care industry.

During his research, Flexner visited every medical school in the U.S.

The results forever changed medicine in this country.

The Flexner Report, as it was to become known, was published in 1910.

In it, he criticized most of the 155 medical schools in the U.S. and called

for higher standards, more hands-on clinical work, and more research.

That, in and of itself, was a good thing.

And at first glance, you might think that we're better off today because of

his findings.

Well, in many ways we are, but let's dig a little deeper.

The Rockefeller Foundation seized this opportunity to promote their own agenda.

They used their influence to help pass legislation putting the American Medical

Association, a private institution, in charge of overseeing medical training

and practice.

Now, how exactly did they do that?

Well, some things never change.

Just like today, they used campaign donations and lobbyists to further their

agenda. In exchange for large campaign contributions, legislators gave the

Rockefellers just what they wanted, the AMA in charge of medicine in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the AMA was also heavily influenced by the Rockefeller

Foundation, which, as you remember, was looking for a way to promote their

patented drugs.

Consequently, The AMA promoted allopathic medicine to the point that it

became the only approved form of medicine taught in the U.S.

Consequently, doctors began prescribing the Rockefeller Foundation's patented

medicines to manage, not cure, illnesses and diseases.

As a result of the Flexner Report and the newfound authority of the AMA,

medical schools were under intense pressure to conform to the wishes of the

Rockefeller Foundation.

As I mentioned a moment ago, in some cases that reform was badly needed.

However, Other forms of medicine quickly became outdated and were labeled

accordingly. The Rockefeller Foundation began awarding large grants to medical

schools that taught allopathic medicine.

Schools that still embraced alternative forms of medicine could not compete

financially and were forced to close.

In the end, half of the medical schools in the U.S. were closed.

Welcome to episode 286 of the Corporate Report podcast, Rockefeller Medicine.

Quote, The crisis in today's healthcare system is deeply rooted in the

interwoven history of modern medicine and corporate capitalism.

The major groups and forces that shaped the medical system sowed the seeds of

the crisis we now face.

The medical profession and other medical interest groups each tried to make

medicine serve their own narrow economic and social interests.

Foundations and other corporate class institutions insisted that medicine

serve the needs of their corporate capitalist society.

The dialectic of their common efforts and their clashes, and the economic and

political forces set in motion by their actions, shaped the system as it grew.

Out of this history emerged a medical system that poorly serves society's

health needs."

And, you know, like you say, the Rockefeller medicine, maybe it has to do

with that. They've really just taken preventative medicine out of there. And

if you think about it, if you practice, it's not in their interest to practice

preventative medicine because they make less money if they do that. So it's that

simple.

You know, if you don't get sick ever, you're not going to the doctor, you're

not giving them any money. And they will notice, you know, in these insurance

companies and stuff, they have actuaries and they have people who really keep

track of the numbers.

And they've probably got it worked down to a science where they will see that if

they start doing preventative medicine, they take a real big hit to their

checkbook. And so there's basically what it is. It comes down to, in modern

medicine, I consider it just a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, where doctors

have, you know, I really think unwittingly, I don't think it's their

fault because they don't really control the money system, but they are

controlled by money. But we have a system that is controlled by money, and

the money controls them.

And the people making the business money decisions are overriding the doctor's

decisions. Emphasis on surgery, emphasis on medications, and really a almost

disdain for the idea of preventative care.

You know, what it all boils down to, quite frankly, is that we are victims of

a Machiavellian medical monopoly. We don't have a free medical marketplace.

We haven't had a free medical marketplace since the early 1900s. And,

you know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Quite frankly, if you're not angry, you're simply not paying attention or

you're not educated with the proper information. And that's really not your

fault because that's the result of a monopoly, right?

Inside of a monopoly, you are spoon-fed what the powers that be want you to

know, which is often very different than the actual truth of the matter.

It's because we have a system of medicine that is fundamentally stupid.

Consider how the system works.

First, we do nothing to prevent disease.

We wait for people to get sick.

Instead of curing their disease, we suppress the symptoms by prescribing

toxic chemicals and doing surgery.

Then, the toxicity of the chemicals makes the patient even sicker, creating

entirely new diseases.

And then finally, to hide the fact that the patient is now sicker than when they

started, we don't call these new problems diseases, we call them side

effects.

If you've been listening to my lectures for the last year, you know that my

passion is our kids.

And experts tell us that our children are going to be the first generation of

Americans that do not live as long as their parents.

This is a catastrophic prediction of biblical proportions.

We're talking about the great flood. We're talking about all of Egypt's

firstborn dying because Pharaoh refused to release the Hebrew slaves.

Can you imagine everybody in this room burying their children?

This tells us how terribly the medical profession has failed us.

Millions of people have been prescribed a class of drugs called statins.

These drugs are supposed to lower cholesterol and thereby prevent heart

attacks.

Well, first of all, do they lower cholesterol?

And the answer is, yeah, they lower cholesterol.

But here's a very important question.

Do they prevent heart attacks?

No, they don't.

Are they safe?

No, they aren't.

So if you're taking a statin, you're taking a drug to prevent heart attacks

that does not prevent heart attacks.

And further, you're taking a drug that is not safe and does you harm.

Now, does that make sense?

I hate statin drugs. I absolutely hate them. And yesterday I gave a long talk

explaining, I mean, there's so much evidence. They cause so many problems,

and they certainly don't, it's not a fair trade-off. You'd never win, in my

opinion, almost under any circumstance, taking a statin drug, given all the

damage it's going to cause, compared to the slight chance that you might avoid a

heart attack.

So many problems. And of course, cholesterol itself is a key one because

cholesterol is so important to all the cells, especially the neurons. The brain

has 25% of the body's cholesterol with only a small percentage of the body's

mass, like 3% or something.

They push, push, push those drugs to these doctors for sales. They want to

get as many people on these particular medications as possible.

An example of that is how they've done with cholesterol.

How used to a healthy cholesterol was one level, and it was, you know, as long

as you were that level, it was perfectly fine. Well, they kept lowering the

standard, lowering the, you know, oh, well, if your cholesterol is that, then,

oh, you need a statin.

35, 36 years of pharmaceutical profiteering that cholesterol is the

antichrist and that statin drugs are a savior when, quite frankly, just the

reverse is true.

Low cholesterol levels are associated with an increased chance of death, an

increased chance of cancer, high percentage of birth defects, peripheral

neuropathy, short temper and aggressive behavior, kidney failure, and dementia.

Let's take a look at this.

Alzheimer's was virtually non-existent until right around 1940, and then it

started to show up, and then after 1980, man, it skyrocketed. It rose from

obscurity to become the sixth, fifth, or fourth leading cause of death, depending

on how you crunch the numbers, currently in 2016, and man, it has

skyrocketed. But then let's look at something very fundamental.

What is the point of paying attention to cholesterol?

The point is said to be prevention of heart attack and stroke, isn't it?

All right.

Do you know what will cut your risk, my risk, her risk, everybody's risk of

heart attack and stroke by 75 to 80 percent?

And you don't have to swallow a thing?

Do you know what that might be?

It's called donating blood.

There is research on that from the 1990s, late 1990s.

A whole bunch of guys followed for an average of eight years each.

The guys who donated blood once or twice a year had 75% less heart attack and

stroke during that time.

Now, if word ever got out about that, what would happen to the sales of anti

-cholesterol medications?

Because anti-cholesterol medications cannot drop.

the heart attack and stroke risk by 75 to 80%. Cholesterol is not the

antichrist. Cholesterol is so important that our bodies make it. Every wall,

cell wall in the body is made from cholesterol.

Cholesterol makes the cells in our body waterproof. This is very important.

Everybody thinks cholesterol is a fat, but cholesterol really is an alcohol.

But it doesn't really perform like... Most alcohols do. It's a little

different.

Cholesterol is extremely important for your health. All of your sex hormones

are made from cholesterol.

They're made from it.

You don't have enough cholesterol, you don't have enough sex hormone.

So guess what also has been a fallout of fat-free diets and statin drugs?

Not only does your brain dry up and you get Alzheimer's disease, but your sex

hormones dry up. So guess what? Erectile dysfunction?

And women get hot flushes now for five years instead of three months like their

grandparents did. Why?

Because you have a bad gene? No, because you don't have enough cholesterol.

They tell you take this statin drug and go home and exercise every day.

And that's a really bad combination.

In fact, papers have shown that that exercise is of no benefit if you're

taking a statin drug.

But if you aren't taking a statin drug, then the exercise is good for you.

So it basically derails your opportunity to improve yourself through these other

things that are known to be beneficial. They're no longer beneficial because of

the statin.

How many of you have heard of Alzheimer's disease?

It's a physician-caused disease. Mark my words.

Mark my words. In the next two years, maybe even next week, it'll pop up in

the newspaper. There's more than enough information to prove that it's a

physician-caused disease.

Alzheimer's disease is a disease that did not occur even by another name 40

years ago. It only became recognized as a disease in 1979, 25 years ago.

Today it's the number four killer of adults over the age of 65.

If you listen to your doctor and you give up eggs and eat egg beaters, if you

give up butter and eat margarine, if you rip the chicken skin off your chicken

before you eat it, eat tofu instead of red meat, the odds are you're going to

get what?

Alzheimer's disease.

It fascinates me that they've been able to do this incredible sales tactic.

to convince all the doctors and all the patients that, oh, my God, I have to

take this drug.

And when you look, actually, you look at statistical, I'm always looking at

correlations.

Fascinatingly enough, if you look at the correlation over time from hospital

discharge data that are maintained by the U.S. CDC over time of high

cholesterol or high LDL, LDL is going up exactly in step with glyphosate usage on

corn and soy crops.

So I think glyphosate is causing our problem that we have now with too much

cholesterol in our blood.

And it's not going up. If you look at a heart attack, it's completely unrelated.

It's like doing something completely different from what the cholesterol is

doing. So here they say, oh, yeah, high cholesterol correlated, you know, heart

attack. It's not true.

The high cholesterol is not correlated with a heart attack.

But in this country, what's kind of taken over the news media? What's taken

over the pharmacologic media? What's taken over your doctor's office?

We hear it every day, 15 times a day if you watch television.

Stat, stat, stat, cholesterol, cholesterol. Get your cholesterol down.

I mean, the commercials regarding statins and cholesterol are almost as

bad as ones regarding erectile dysfunction.

So the cholesterol-centric idea of reducing heart disease

is really misleading.

I'll show you some data in a few minutes that if you look at your cholesterol

level and you treat it with a statin, 50 to 75% of you still have heart attack.

So we have reached a limit in our ability to reduce cardiovascular disease

based on our present medical treatments.

We are a pharmacologically driven country.

We are not a preventative medicine country.

One in every three deaths in this country is a cardiovascular death.

So it's 2,200 deaths per day just from heart disease and stroke.

And we can reduce that, if we did the right thing, to 70 to 80% less.

And I can say this now with some degree of authority that the methodologies, the

traditional care, the treatments, and even some of the surgeries that we've

been doing for the last 25 to 30 years in cardiovascular disease are

misdirected.

They're obsolete, and they're very limited in their scope.

Alzheimer's disease has long been believed to be irreversible, but that

might finally be about to change, thanks to the work of Dr. Dale Bredesen, whose

patients showed subjective memory improvement within three to six months

of treatment.

Dr. Bredesen believes that Alzheimer's disease is caused by numerous factors.

Okay, so...

This is a very exciting time because we're witnessing the first reversals of

cognitive decline in early Alzheimer's disease and pre-Alzheimer's conditions

like MCI and SCI.

So this is an exciting time where we're able to do things that we weren't able

to do before.

And one of the things that we suggest to people is because when you look at what

actually drives Alzheimer's disease at the molecular level, what you find is

that there are dozens of contributors.

And so we usually tell people, imagine you have a roof with 36 holes in it.

You're not going to just cover one hole. You're going to cover as many as you can

to get the best result.

So if you wanted to go out and give yourself Alzheimer's disease, then you

can actually produce the biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease relatively quickly.

So you would go out and you would do everything wrong. You would eat a lot of

trans fats. You would eat a lot of sugar.

You would not take in a lot of fiber, for example.

You would stay up all night. You would not get much sleep. You would have a

tremendous amount of stress.

You would get a chronic inflammation.

So many ways to do that.

Expose yourself to various organisms or eating sugar, trans fats, these sorts of

things. You wouldn't want to eat vegetables and things that actually were

rich with antioxidants.

So all of those things would help you to drive your own biochemistry toward the

biochemistry that's associated with high risk for Alzheimer's disease.

And on the other hand, if you wanted to prevent that, you basically run that in

reverse.

Medical historians in the future will look back on us and wonder how such an

advanced society could perpetuate such a colossal blunder.

This blunder persists because conventional medicine misunderstands the

fundamental laws of biology.

Modern industrial medicine treats disease with medication or surgery.

When it comes to emergency interventions, this actually works.

And we have the best medicine in the world, truly the best medicine in the

world when it comes to trauma care and emergency care.

When someone comes into the emergency room with a severed leg, conventional

medicine treats the problem with incredible efficiency.

But when it comes to chronic illness, this approach simply doesn't work.

Conventional doctors have thought that you either have a disease or you don't.

You have diabetes or you don't. There are no gray areas.

We've developed no protocols for measuring and intervening in the disease

process when it's in initial and most easily treatable stages.

Now we live in an age where our democracy has been hacked, money does

call the shots, as the movie points out, and unfortunately everybody knows that's

true.

There is hope for changing that.

There is an opportunity, particularly in the age of social media, to organize in

the same ways that so many did during the generation of America's founders.

to use truth, to use logic, to use a clear expression of what the real public

interest is to overcome the special interests that are trying to stop what's

good for the public interest.

Okay, so this is your prescription medicine case, right?

Yes. And you call this your what?

My traveling pharmacy.

It's your traveling pharmacy.

Tell me about what you have to take every day.

All right.

This row across the top is what I take in the morning.

This, these bottles here are upside down because I take them twice a day.

And these I take at night.

Once a day at night.

once a day, twice a day, morning and night, once a day in the morning.

According to drugwatch.com, Big Pharma has over 1,100 paid lobbyists, which

partly explains the influence they have on Capitol Hill.

From 1998 to 2014, they spent nearly $2.9 billion on lobbying expenses, more

than any other industry.

The report goes on to talk about the practice of hiring former government

workers with valuable connections to gain political clout.

The trade group Pharma has more than 50 current or former staff members who once

served in the political arena.

But the deal is, let's say I'm a doctor and I know this.

Let's say I'm a certified mainstream doctor. Okay, I'm an alternative

medicine doctor, but just pretend that I am.

Let's say I know these great alternative medicine things that can help you, and

yet I have this drug.

The thing is, you have to realize, if I mess up, I am legally responsible

for that because as the licensed doctor, when I give you advice, I tell you

something to do and you do it and it goes wrong.

Then you come and sue me.

And then what I have is this thing called insurance.

And then so I pass responsibility to the insurance.

So the thing is, there is basically it's part of the judicial branch of our

government, the way the courts work, that as a medical professional, if I

give you something that helps you, it's a risk to me.

versus if I give you a drug it may harm you but the thing is since it is the

accepted method of treatment it is easily defensible that this is what's

accepted for this I give you this drug and if you get sick and then you come

after me I just send it to my insurance company and they pay for it because it's

on the list of things that get paid for without even the second thought they

actually have a lot of control and I think that is a big secret because We

don't have an emphasis on that. We have a big emphasis on diagnosis and

treatment with pharmaceuticals, not on prevention.

And it's unfortunately the case that much of our education in America is

biased by, you know, being filtered through a pharmaceutical lens.

We learn about a one gene, one ill, one pill model.

And in this way, doctors are very much only ever taught to manage symptoms

through the use of pharmaceutical products. They aren't taught about the

potential for individualized risks.

Often we have to do our own research to discover how it is that claims to

efficacy are established.

Well, I was on pharmaceuticals that were prescribed to me, and did they offer

some benefit?

Yes.

But, however, they also were side effects, pretty severe side effects.

They were side effects that I couldn't live with, and I was told by my doctors

that I had incurable conditions.

So they looked at 38 positive trials, and of the 38 positive trials, 37 of

them were published.

Of the 37 negative trials, only three of them were published.

22 of them were unpublished, so really in a locked file drawer.

And 11 of them were published as positive data, also often referred to as

data dredging or statistical manipulation for a specific outcome that

is in service to industry interests.

So this is one of the ways that we can be left with the impression that there

is efficacy when in fact, you know, in this case, there were equal numbers of

negative and positive studies and we were only really... exposed to the

positive ones.

To my best understanding, there is an unlimited number of trials that can be

conducted before the two trials are selected. So in many ways, that's like

tossing a coin until you get heads as many times as you want.

And when I started on the natural path, the holistic path to health,

it made a world of difference.

And there is no comparison.

There's absolutely no comparison.

So I think doctors are very well-meaning people, and I think that the tools that

they're offered are extremely limited, and they are in no way able, in a 10

-minute visit, to meet the complexity of the modern patient, right?

So doctors can only tell patients what it is that they've been taught.

I think for a number of years now, we've been a pill-pushing society, where

there's drug companies who have developed pills for just about

everything, just about every condition or disease that we know of.

And I think the public needs to demand that there's other treatments, there's

other modalities that we can use to treat disease.

And the reason for that is because we have pharmaceutical drugs for certain

diseases. So you have a system that's focused on identifying the disease so

that then you can prescribe a medication.

But there's many patients that present with dysfunctions without.

yet having a disease and there's basically not much that you can do

within the traditional healthcare system because you're looking for what

pharmaceutical can I do to suppress these symptoms? Not to understand it,

not to try and figure out how is it intertwined to all the symptoms that a

patient has or the physical exam that you see or the symptoms you see on

physical exam.

It's more of do you or don't you have this disease and can I give you a pill

for it?

President Nixon's new Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Rusty Butts, was

determined to make dramatic changes to the 1930s New Deal farming practices.

This was the point where food production in the United States was changed to a

method of farming the land without giving it any rest, and the heavy use of

synthetic fertilizers.

President Nixon placed Butts in the USDA in 1971.

At the time, Butts served as a board member for several agribusiness firms.

He rejected criticism that these ties might compromise his performance as USDA

chief. Earl Butts envisioned an efficient, centralized food system, one

that could profitably and cheaply feed the world by creating mountains of

subsidized corn and soy.

Butts helped create the low-nutrition, fast-food nation in which we now live.

If you're anything like me, you can remember sitting at the dinner table and

hearing your mother tell you to eat your vegetables.

Despite her pleas, most of us weren't listening.

NBC News reports that 87% of us do not eat enough vegetables.

We're only slightly better at eating fruit.

The same report says that only 14% of us eat the recommended amount of fruit each

day.

But what about the fruit and vegetables that we do eat?

A landmark study by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University

of Texas at Austin's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, which was

published in December of 2004 in the Journal of the American College of

Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agricultural Nutritional data from

both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, and found

reliable declines in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron,

vitamin B2, and vitamin C over the past half century.

Davis and his colleagues place the blame on the agricultural practices designed

to improve the size, growth rate, and pest resistance of the plants that we

eat.

Minerals are 66% of your body's nutrient needs. Calcium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium,

minerals, right?

Only thing about minerals is...

Animals cannot make minerals. Plants cannot make minerals. If plants could

make minerals, we could bioengineer lettuce to make gold. We'd all be rich.

The only way that minerals get into the body is if they're in the food that

we're eating. How do they get into the food? They have to be present in the

soil in which the food is grown.

So there's calcium and magnesium and zinc in the soil or not.

Plus, right, 56 other minerals. There are 60 minerals that we need, 60

minerals that we need which are essential to human health.

There's no place in the topsoil that all 60 minerals are present, number one. And

number two, when you apply pesticides or herbicides to the plant, not only do

those chemicals kill the bugs that are trying to eat the plant, they also kill

the bacteria in the soil in which the plant is growing. Why is that a deal?

Because in order for the minerals that are in the soil to get into the plant,

the bacteria have to pre-digest them.

The plants are more deficient.

We're more deficient.

The more deficient we are, the sicker we get, and this is why everybody's getting

sicker. It's because of mineral deficiencies, which have been

accelerated by agribusiness.

These are serious problems, but Mother Nature has a solution.

The human body is a self-repairing system.

It's designed to keep you fully functional and in good health for a long

lifetime, well beyond 100 years.

All you have to do is proper maintenance.

And to do it right, you have to supply the body with all the nutrients it needs

to build a healthy new cell.

and keep it free of toxins that can interfere with this building process.

It's because we're not doing this right that we're aging so rapidly and so

needlessly.

We are being killed and nobody goes to jail. This, according to the United

States Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. When you

spray... the herbicide glyphosate onto genetically modified corn and

genetically modified soy.

And you feed that to human beings. And then you plot on a graph the incidence

of illness relative to the use of genetically modified corn, genetically

modified soy sprayed with glyphosate. What you see is a dramatic increase.

and liver cancer, bile duct cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, thyroid

cancer, death from high blood pressure, and death from stroke.

I remember when Roundup was invented, it was the greatest thing ever because it

killed everything.

And then they figured out how they could make plants that the Roundup didn't

kill, but it killed everything else.

So no more hoeing weeds in the cotton field and no more weeds in your wheat

patch. And this is published and known for years.

Inquiring minds want to know if this stuff is causing cancer and killing us,

why is it allowed to be used?

Follow the money, baby.

It's sort of like a type of environmental pollution, genetically

modified plants and fish, because if they get out into the wild, these non

-natural genes can spread laterally and have unknown effects in both populations

in the wild as well as the person eating it.

On this particular chart, the green line is the trend before the use of

genetically modified corn and soy and before the use of glyphosate.

The red line is glyphosate use, and the blue line is genetically engineered corn

and soy growth, and you can see a direct relationship.

between GMO, corn and soy production, and the use of glyphosate with the

incidence of liver and bile duct cancer.

That's the thing about seed wheat.

You used to save seed for next year or buy just some generic seed at the seed

store for planting.

Well, this GMO stuff, you can't do that. You've got to buy something that they've

patented. I doubt you could even buy just plain generic wheat anymore.

I'd be surprised.

If you have a field, and if you plant something in your field, and it spreads

over to my field, and I don't want it in my field, but just naturally from the

wind, that's an environmental hazard, okay? You just contaminated my field

with your environmental hazard. You should be liable for cleaning up the

damage in my field.

And if you plant a crop, and some of that seed blows into your neighbor's

pasture or field and comes up, Montana's pissed.

thyroid cancer look at the green line here is the trend before glyphosate

before genetically modified corn and soy see a difference ladies and

gentlemen this isn't rocket science this is published research and is evidence

of the unbelievable sweep power and control

that agribusiness has your body does not Health of your body

does not matter to these organizations.

They are criminal in my mind.

Our food has become a slow poison.

Conventional foods are grown with insecticides and herbicides and

fungicides and other agricultural chemicals.

We know that.

But you know what? There's a lot of other chemicals we have to be concerned

about too.

We are now exposed to hundreds of chemicals through our food.

that 60 years ago we were not exposed to. And the reason is they simply did

not exist.

Glyphosate basically gets everywhere. Scientists have found it's in the rain,

it's in the air, it's in the water that flows in streams.

We're now in a situation where, at least in the United States, where we have a

very high density of glyphosate tolerant GM crops being cultivated.

the exposure is virtually universal.

If you were to survey the American population, you will find glyphosate

residues in the urine of just about everybody.

Yeah, glyphosate has been found to be present in many food products in the US,

including popular food products that are fed to children, you know, their

breakfast cereals, etc.

In fact, after spending a week California on a trip a couple of years

ago I had my urine analyzed and I had my glyphosate levels went up to what were

fairly typical of a US citizen.

I wasn't very happy with that as you can imagine and it was worrying because

the levels of glyphosate that were present

in myself and the vast majority of Americans, were suggested a level of

daily intake that the latest work from my laboratory indicate would be damaging

to health.

Glyphosate is the main component of weed killers like Roundup.

It is a very toxic chemical that has already been linked to irreversible

metabolic damage, infertility, obesity, learning disabilities and birth defects.

In 2009, American farmers sprayed 57

million pounds of glyphosate on food crops, mainly on genetically

engineered corn and soy crops.

U.S. farmers are now using so much glyphosate that researchers are finding

it in the rain, in the air, in the streams, in our water supplies.

Our food has become a slow poison. And you really don't know what's going to

happen, but the problem is what could potentially happen, the worst thing that

could potentially happen is you could create, you know, something like the

bubonic plague or something that just spreads and kills all the crops or

just... poisons people en masse.

I mean, there's a very dark side that could accidentally happen. It's going to

be a disaster in time. It's just a matter of time. They're basically

destroying the soil bacteria, depleting the minerals in the soil because of the

pesticide, the herbicide in particular.

is something I've really zeroed in on and this concept of engineering a plant

to be resistant to an herbicide that otherwise kills all plants and doing

that by inserting a bacterial gene and first of all that's extremely not

natural but what's worse than that is that now you can just indiscriminately

spray the chemical on the plant and the plant soaks it up and doesn't die and so

it ends up in the food chain.

So I think that is a really serious problem, particularly when it's combined

with the concept that the herbicide is harmless to humans.

So when you believe it's harmless to humans, you're careless with it.

And you end up with a lot of it in the food that you don't look for.

And then people are getting slowly poisoned and they don't know it. We are

dying slowly here while we have given complete, utter, and total control of

the medical marketplace to the MDs and complete, utter, and total control of...

The production of food to international agribusiness conglomerates.

It's time we all collectively snapped out of it and woke up.

What has changed in the last 50, 60 years? The answer is many things have

changed in the last 50, 60 years that could be contributing factors to the

escalation of these chronic diseases.

But the one thing that has changed that affects every single person.

is the way we grow and consume our food.

The officials at the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA were diligently following the

dictates of the top executives at the Monsantos and the DuPonts. The US

government's trying to break down resistance GMOs on the part of foreign

governments. So the phone calls went from Monsanto to Clinton to Blair and

then to the Rauer Institute saying pretty much you have to silence this

guy, you have to shut down this research.

And what happened was that he got fired from his job, he got a gagging order

slapped on him so he was forbidden to talk about his results.

His house was actually burgled so that data was stolen.

Almost routinely, if any scientist has the boldness to publish research that

demonstrates a problem with genetically engineered food, their research is

attacked and they themselves are attacked.

And scientists have been sacked. They've lost their job at research institutes or

university scientists have lost their jobs or...

even speaking out and voicing concerns about GMOs is very dangerous in the size

of a community.

Genetically engineered food products have never been tested for safety.

So the long-term effects are unknown.

The warnings the science has provided demand a thorough investigation into

just how much glyphosate human beings and animals can safely ingest.

At present, no such investigation has taken place, and most regulatory

agencies choose instead to rely on industry studies claiming the

glyphosate is safe.

This needs to change.

The Food and Drug Administration promoted genetically modified foods in

spite of the warnings from its scientists.

In 1980, the U.S. sugar producers were large contributors to the Ronald Reagan

presidential campaign.

After the election, Reagan appointed John Rusling Block as his new

agriculture secretary.

With his new position, Block stopped the import of sugar and limited domestic

sugar production, thus creating an artificial shortage of sugar.

As a result, the sugar growers in the United States made a lot of money

because sugar prices went to an all-time high.

The cost of sugar in the United States was 21 cents a pound as compared to the

world cost of 4 cents a pound.

As a result, the soda manufacturers had a very difficult time making a profit

and switched to the much lower priced high fructose corn syrup.

Corn costs very little in the United States because it is government

subsidized. You know, you go back to 1974, sugar prices were at the highest

they'd ever been at 57 cents a pound. But then by 1978, they were down to 8

cents a pound. And so that volatility really, I think, spurred the FDA on, you

know, to make these restrictions in 1981 and by giving loans to the sugar

producers. The rise in obesity and fatty liver, diabetes

has just...

skyrocketed a brand new study by researchers at Duke University Medical

Center found that frequent consumption of fructose this is a type of sugar

found in soft drinks and sweetened juices raises the risk of non-alcoholic

fatty liver disease it causes inflammation it causes scarring of the

liver significant liver damage is more likely to occur.

So does sugar cause weight gain?

Yes.

Does sugar cause obesity?

A factor. Is sugar the cause of obesity?

Not even remotely close.

And the problem is it's not about obesity. Remember, it's about metabolic

syndrome. And that's where the money goes.

I don't even care about obesity.

What I care about is people getting sick because I'm a doctor.

Here's the problem. But I'm going to show you very quickly that chronic

fructose exposure alone promotes the metabolic syndrome.

But we don't do anything about that.

You would never think about giving your kid a beer, but you don't think twice

about giving your kid a Coke, and they do the same thing.

Then there is the instance of the Dr. Pepper Bottling Company in Dublin,

Texas.

when all soda pop bottling companies in the U.S. moved to high fructose corn

syrup in the 1980s. Dublin refused and continued making their product with

sugar. Interestingly, as a result, the counties served by Dublin have reduced

amounts of fatty liver, obesity, and diabetes as compared to surrounding

counties. But I was doing some research and we are...

Our county, Erath County, which is the county we're in, and then Comanche

County and Hamilton County and some of those other surrounding counties are all

below the state average for obesity, for diabetes.

We have the data that demonstrates that they knew what they were doing. When we

went low-fat in the 1970s, the Sugar Association knew what it was doing.

In fact, there is a now...

paper trail of the communications between the Sugar Association and two

Harvard School of Public Health scientists to specifically exonerate

sugar and finger saturated fat as the culprit for our cardiovascular disease

debacle. We now have the data to show that that was completely untrue, that we

have actually experienced an increase in obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2

diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cancer, and dementia because of our

processed food diet, which we were told was healthy.

And they knew back in the 1970s that that was not the case.

Fluoridation of the drinking water supply is done to get rid of the toxic

waste hexafluorosilicic acid from the smokestack scrubbers of aluminum and

fertilizer factories.

This practice has caused cancer and brain damage for almost 50 years.

The aluminum and fertilizer industries would have to pay a fortune to dispose

of the hexafluorosilicic acid if it were not for the municipal water

fluoridation. Research done by Harvard University showed that municipal water

fluoridation damages the brains of children, causing them to have lower

IQs, sometimes by as much as 10 points.

CDC, OSHA, and other government agencies classify fluoride as a very dangerous

toxic substance.

Fluoride is a carcinogen, and the fluoride from aluminum and fertilizer

plants also has mercury and other dangerous toxins in it.

Dr. Dean Burke of the National Cancer Institute said fluoridation is a form of

public mass murder.

And he also said, in point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death

and causes it faster than any other chemical.

So the honest answer is that the ADA is probably the biggest political machine

in the U.S., spends the most money on lobbying, is able to hoodwink most of

the...

organizations and the health organizations in the U.S., including the

CDC, the FDA, and the EPA, into allowing water fluoridation.

And the aluminum industry basically hasn't had to do anything because the

ADA has stepped in and kind of carried it as its baby, as its football.

The thing is, in chemistry, when you have waste, it's easy just to pour

things down your sink.

That doesn't cost anything, but you have to pay a lot more money to dispose of it

as a hazardous chemical.

So, you know, a lot of people try to take shortcuts by just dumping their

waste right into the water supply.

And so that's basically what they're getting away with as far as putting that

into the water.

And then it's even better if then they can convince municipalities that, hey,

this is a good thing. You need fluoride in your water.

So fluoride specifically competes with iodine on the physiologic level. So

iodine is necessary for the production of thyroid hormone, and this is why,

theoretically, it can be an endocrine disruptor.

So fluoride in the water is another prime example, like high fructose corn

syrup, right? How the establishment has purposefully hijacked people's health

and well-being, right? Fluoride has been proven scientifically for a long time.

to be a neurotoxin. It's a freaking neurotoxin.

Well, here are five of the studies in the CHOI review.

This is their table, or part of it.

And these were all statistically significant.

You can see all the drops of IQ there.

And those are the levels of fluoride in the high fluoride.

Once you've got these studies showing lowering of IQ at these concentrations,

there is no margin of safety to protect all our kids from having their mental

development impaired by drinking fluoridated water.

And that's particularly true of bottle-fed infants at the very beginning

when their brains are developing.

But basically, IQ follows a normal distribution curve, the bell-shaped

curve. The bell, the heart of the bell is the average.

Most people have an average if you're looking at height, weight.

But look at the two tails of this bell-shaped curve.

And the green, the area under the curve, That's the number of kids above

an IQ of about 130.

Those kids are very bright or geniuses. Now, at this end of the curve, the

magenta, that area under the curve is the fraction of the population which is

mentally handicapped.

Now, if you were to shift downwards by five IQ points, the average would drop

from 100 to 95.

But look what this shift.

does to the two tails it halves the number of geniuses in your society and

it doubles the number of mentally handicapped and i don't think i need to

say much to convince you that this would have huge social ramifications and

economic ramifications and i think as we know that fluoride incorporates into the

body and we're only excreting about half of it it can certainly go to other

organs in the body besides the kidney

because it's gonna get circulated in the blood.

Fluoride is a neurotoxin with damaging effects to our brain when it is

ingested. It is incredibly crucial that we differentiate between topical

fluoride and systemic fluoride, which would be ingesting it in the form of our

water. So when we look at the case of babies, for instance, and formula, it is

recommended that you do not use fluoridated water in baby formulas.

now what are the chances that every single person every parent on the planet

knows that they need to have a fluoride filter for their water that they use to

make formula for their babies it makes people more dependent it makes people

weaker there's actually plenty of studies that have shown because it's a

neurotoxin it lowers people's uh will it lowers people's uh you know, like

questioning that lowers people's like thinking and creativity and all the

stuff that sort of, you know, like raises them up, you know, it keeps them,

it keeps you down. It keeps you down. It's a freaking neurotoxin.

And here's the thing is that it's sort of like this rabbit hole or, you know,

this, this crumbling effect, because once you start to realize that there's

actually way better solutions for health than what the doctors tell you.

And then it's almost like, oh my God, like the whole world sort of turns

upside down.

I think what's important from a clinical perspective is that the ketogenic diet

is used for drug-resistant or drug-refractory epilepsy.

So when drugs fail to control seizures, we know that producing this state of

ketosis, which could be achieved through fasting, but that's...

fairly self-limiting. You can only fast for a certain amount of time.

Whereas the ketogenic diet can produce sustained levels of ketosis

independent of fasting.

And when one has achieved sustained ketosis, that has been a highly

effective tool for the metabolic management of epilepsy.

And now we're realizing that it's not only epilepsy.

And the observation that we made in our lab is that nutritional ketosis is a

highly effective tool for the management of aggressive metastatic cancer.

And it does that by suppressing the hormone insulin and

reducing blood glucose and elevating ketones. And those three things are very

powerful regulators of cancer growth and metabolism.

is an out of control epidemic and almost half the population is now projected to

get some form of cancer in their lifetime and it's getting worse every

year after accidents cancer is now the leading cause of death for children

and nearly half of all deaths from eight categories of cancer including bone

cancer cancer the cervix thyroid cancer all occur in people under 34

years of age.

Meanwhile, studies show that modern medicine's treatment of cancer doesn't

work, and that the death rate from cancer today is no better than it was in

1950.

In short, no progress has been made despite hundreds of

billions of dollars spent on cancer research.

Unfortunately,

The cancer industry goes to great lengths to obscure these truths and is

generally successful in doing so.

Virtually no one needs to suffer from cancer. The knowledge we already have is

sufficient to both prevent and reverse cancer.

All we need to do is put this knowledge to work.

So it's been known for years that cancer cells have accelerated rates of sugar

metabolism. They require levels of sugar to sustain their growth and

proliferation that are 200 times higher than normal tissues.

So the ketogenic diet restricts sugar and glucose availability to

cancer cells.

When a human being is nutritionally deficient, you'll go to Olive Garden,

you'll chow down 3,000 calories in a heartbeat, and then you go home and

three hours later you're hungry again.

But your medical doctor has a cure for that. They cut your stomach out.

gastric bypass surgery or they'll wrap a belt around your stomach and strangle it

make it smaller lap band surgery oh that's a good idea or they'll give you

antidepressants remember pharmaceutical centrist surgical centrist therapeutics

the intention of which are not to cure anything our experience is when human

beings are nutritionally satisfied

You only eat as much food as you need and then you walk away.

So, cribbing in human beings due to nutritional deficiency

is, in my opinion, the leading cause of obesity.

Because you're eating too many calories, because you are nutritionally deficient.

And this is the secret to weight loss that not even Oprah knows.

Interestingly enough, this same behavior.

This drive to fulfill an internal need, we believe, is also the leading cause of

the abuse of alcohol, street drugs, tobacco.

People don't go to these things because they have innate self-destructive

tendencies. I'm sure some people do.

But most people are driven to those things because they're trying to fulfill

a need.

They have to do it. They're trying to fulfill a need. What's the need? They

don't know.

I do.

It's nutritional deficiencies, period.

There

have

even been certain cases where religious faith has cured disease.

when standard medical practice could not.

Hi, I'm Pastor Bob Barker of Crossroads Community Church here in Uptown Dallas.

Several years ago, back in 1995,

I, because I'm a public speaker, went to a plastic surgeon because I had a little

something on my forehead that needed to be taken off. It bothered me. It didn't

bother anyone else.

While I was there, I told the doctor, I said, can you take this little thing off

on the side here? He said, yes, not a problem.

Then I showed him a place on my knee, and it was the way he said it. He said,

that's coming off.

When the biopsy report came back, this one was okay, this one was okay, but the

one on my knee was not.

He said, you know, I'm not going to pull any punches with you because we really

don't have time.

He said, I've already made an appointment for you at Texas Oncology at

Presbyterian Hospital.

And I waited and waited and waited, and finally the doctor came in.

And she was a short little girl, right out of med school, very, very prominent

in oncology.

And she said, you know, I don't give you very long to live.

Well, I told her, I said, you know what? I have four daughters. I want to see

graduate from high school. I want to see them walk down the aisle. I want to be

the one walking down the aisle. I want to see my grandchildren.

And she said, well, let's see.

She gave me between six and nine months.

A year later, when I walked in for my first oncology visit.

She was walking, pacing back up in front of the door. She saw me sitting on the

exam table, and she kept looking at her report, kept going back and forth. They

had already run all the tests, and she was shocked. She said, you know, I

didn't expect to see you here.

I said, remember I told you that I would see you? I said, first off, someone

that's 5'2", dripping wet, maybe 103 pounds, is not going to tell me I have

to die.

And I sat in there. She walked back and forth. She had my chart. She walked in.

She said, you know, I didn't think I'd see you. I said, I could tell.

I could tell.

You were really disappointed because you said that I was going to die. I'm back.

I'm back.

I was thankful.

I was thankful every year when they did the blood work and they did the scans

that there was nothing. When they took the baseline, Shauna, there had been no

change.

She said, what's wrong?

She said, I was messing up her whole thing.

I said, I wasn't doing it. I said, but I know somebody that was.

And she kept saying, well, I know about that PMA. I said, this can't be positive

mental attitude because I cannot positively change my body chemistry.

with my mind.

But I know somebody who can.

And I was thankful.

I was thankful.

Blue zones are places on the earth where people have been statistically proven to

live longer.

One of the components to all those blue zones is they have faith.

So what are the big secrets in medicine? Well, I think one big secret is that

most of the chronic diseases that people suffer from are completely preventable.

But the secret is that you have to focus on prevention and have a more functional

approach and not just focus on the disease.

But yet, most of these chronic diseases are totally preventable if patients are

educated and they are

able to change their lifestyle, their nutrition, the thoughts that they think,

the way that stress affects their body. They actually have a lot of control. And

I think that is a big secret because we don't have an emphasis on that. We have

a big emphasis on diagnosis and treatment with pharmaceuticals, not on

prevention.

So this is the thing, ladies and gentlemen, from our point of view, all

chronic illnesses are curable.

neurological illnesses are amongst the hardest to get on the other side of.

But we've all seen patients with multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's

disease, Parkinson's disease recover.

They're the exceptions, not the rule.

But we've seen it happen, so therefore we know that it can happen. But my point

is, even for the stuff that's really difficult to get on the other side of,

you have to give your body a fighting chance. You have to give your body the

stuff that it needs.

to attempt to fix itself.

This is just smart medicine.

You know, we learned how to have public sanitation and more regular food,

and that increased the quality of our life and increased our lifespan, doubled

our lifespans. Well, this is the next iteration of that same thought.

Just like if you had a friend who had a problem or two friends who had an

argument, you would listen to both sides of the story.

And unfortunately, what we're doing with our health is largely we're just

listening to one side of the story.

We're just hearing one perspective on how we could treat that issue.

And the truth is, is that there's always two sides of the story. There's always

two perspectives.

So this tip is about recognizing that you have the power, you have the

intelligence, you have everything that you need to be able to go and make a

decision for yourself.

model is what's right for you and is what you want to do, then that is

fantastic. I'm in no way discouraging you from doing that, but you do need to

feel empowered to make a decision for yourself and to not just accept

something because an authority figure told you to really think about that

issue. Think about your body and your life and make a decision that you feel

good about.

One other question. You don't have to answer it, but like last year, a lot of

people died, like Nick Gonzalez, and there's all sorts of speculation. It

seems too highly improbable. If you don't want to answer it, you don't have

to. I appreciate it. I'm not going.

Not sure I want to answer that So

regarding the recent deaths of many of these integrative positions I'm

not a conspiracy theorist but it sure looks suspicious that There's been so

many deaths and they've all been sort of so under such weird suspicious

whatever you want to call it, circumstances, and that so many of them

are doctors who are practicing a more holistic type of medicine. That does

really concern me.

to change the world we got the power to change the world and we do it every

day every

day

we

paved the way

to change the world to change the world we got the power to change

the world everybody make a way we're educators filmmakers

and scientists too and we do this every day

ambassadors queens and yes presidents too making progress

every day

Men can't live with