On behalf of the Codex-accredited, international health-freedom organization the National Health Federation, I flew to Geneva, Switzerland in early July 2026, where I was met by NHF Board member Matt Warnock and local NHF member Amanda Dubaic, who with me – and then, later, Serbian member Nina Matijašević  – comprised our NHF delegation to the 49^th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC49). The meeting was held from July 6th-10th and was populated by several hundred member-state and other delegations.

The first meeting day on Monday was the most contentious, but that was not much by historical standards. Early on in the meeting, my attempt to change some wording in vet-drug applications for Codex science review so that manufacturers would have to submit more supporting data was shot down in flames because the CAC Chairman could not be bothered to slightly alter wording that he considered already baked-in. The wording that was approved said (in part) “5. Additional information (optional), such as an initial assessment of whether the nomination is likely to meet the agreed approach for extrapolation of MRLs of veterinary drugs to one or more species.”[1] I had suggested that the word “optional” be replaced by “where applicable” so as to remove the option for manufacturers to withhold possibly pertinent and important information. No country supported my proposed word change.

The Old “Emergency” Trick

Later in the day, the Commission considered a proposal for new work on a Guideline that had floated up from the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) called “Guidelines on application of food labelling provisions in emergencies.” It would loosen labeling requirements on packaged foods during “emergencies.” Some brainiac somewhere had decided that during an emergency the most important thing to do was not to rush emergency supplies to the scene of the emergency but rather to take the time to design and print new labels with less information on them, apply them to the product, and then send them to the site. I am not making this up.

Since this would also affect infant-formula labeling, the trio of consumer organizations focused on such formulas – the International Lactation Consultants Association (ILCA), the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), and ENCA – jumped on this part of the Guidelines without mercy.

ILCA started first, followed by ENCA and then IBFAN. All three made telling points. ENCA, in particular, argued that “the Guidelines on the Application of Food Labelling Provisions in Emergencies should be strengthened before adoption to ensure that formulas and foods for babies are specifically excluded and that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food including concessional and food aid transactions is included in the text.”

NHF argued against the proposed new work, stating among other things that “medical emergencies are great excuses for ditching consumer protections” and that “if you have time to change a label, then it’s not an emergency!” NHF argued this and more both at the plenary session and at a side event on Thursday when the topic flared up again.

The country of Cape Verde Islands was the only country delegation brave enough to speak up against this nonsensical guideline, followed by the WHO Science Officer who powerfully argued against the guideline as well. The CAC Chairman, obviously disturbed by this opposition, turned to the Canadian chairman of the CCFL, Parthiban Muthukumarasamy, for support and to see if he could put lipstick on this pig.

But what followed out of Muthukumarasamy’s mouth was not a coherent, well-reasoned reply but rather a sloppy word-salad of bureaucratese and buzz words that were complete nonsense and non-responsive. It was so bad that in comparison it makes Kamala Harris look like the most articulate orator since Demosthenes. Seizing on the Codex catch-phrase of “capacity building,” Muthukumarasamy repeatedly threw that phrase out to the delegates as if capacity building was the answer to the many innate problems with the emergency labeling guidelines, including an absence of important label warnings.

Capacity building wasn’t even close to being the answer, but the CAC Chairman readily accepted that so-called explanation without any apparent discernment and then turned to the Cape Verde delegate to ask if she would “reserve her country’s right” to not implement this guideline. That subtle manipulation is the old trick that Codex chair people are trained to pull on naïve delegations. Instead of standing on their opposition to any standard, guideline or other work of Codex, the delegates succumb to the gentle offers of chairmen and -women to “reserve their rights,” which means that the standard or guideline can continue to advance up the 8-step ladder to adoption.

Codex chair people effectively sideline and neutralize any opposition by diverting it into a cul-de-sac “reservation” that will avoid any sustained opposition. Inexperienced delegates routinely fall into this trap, which is what happened this time with Cape Verde.

And need I even add that the U.S. Codex delegation – completely untethered at this meeting from any MAHA connection or even sentiments – backed the Canadian “explanation” and the proposed new work on this labeling guideline for emergencies? I can tell you that, unequivocally, MAHA is dead as a doornail at Codex meetings. It’s still business as usual. Codex is a factory, busily churning out new standards and guidelines regardless of their merits or the harm they might cause, and the United States of America government supports that machine. Trump or no Trump. Kennedy or no Kennedy.

Bacteriophages

Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria. They are ubiquitous in agriculture and pose problems in the dairy industry by interfering with the bacteria used to make cheeses. Now, one country has proposed new work be done on bacteriophages at the Codex level as a means to address the global, antimicrobial-resistance problem.

From the CAC49 Report, paragraph 212, “Chile … informed CAC49 that it was developing a proposal for new work on guidelines for the production of bacteriophages for use in the food chain. Noting that the use of bacteriophages can contribute to strengthening food safety management and support strategies aimed at mitigating antimicrobial resistance, Chile indicated the challenges in establishing regulatory frameworks due to a lack of international references. This initial information was provided with a view to strengthening the development of the new work proposal prior to its formal submission within the Codex framework.”

But Chile is badly misinformed. A lack of “international references” is the least of Chile’s problems when it comes to proposing the introduction of bacteriophages into our food supply. There is a risk that bacteriophages could facilitate the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes or virulence factors between bacteria through horizontal gene transfer.[2]  This process, known as transduction, could potentially transform non-pathogenic bacteria into harmful strains or enhance the pathogenicity of existing pathogens.

Further, bacteriophages face significant challenges in outdoor agricultural settings due to UV radiation, desiccation, and temperature fluctuations, which can rapidly degrade their viability.[3]

More importantly, though, the uncontrolled release of large quantities of specific phages could alter natural bacterial communities and microbial balances in soil or plant surfaces.[4] This, in turn, could lead to the persistence of bacteriophages in the environment with a potential long-term impact on the gut microbiota of animals or humans consuming treated products.[5]

Given scientists’ less-than-sterling role in ecologically guarding the Planet, this proposed new work looks more like a recipe for disaster than any solution to antimicrobial resistance. Besides, if Chile really wants to suppress antimicrobial resistance, then all it would need to do is join with NHF in reducing and then eventually eliminating glyphosate-based herbicides, which are the real driving force behind such global resistance.

Other Issues                                                                                                                   

CAC40 spent a lot of time going through the work of its many committees. Of course, all, or nearly all, standards and guidelines presented to CAC49 for advancement or approval by the committees got just that. There exists a heavy bias at Codex in favor of advancing all standards and guidelines to final adoption. It could be the most worthless standard on Earth – such as the one for Maximum Permitted Levels of vitamins and minerals – and yet it will still get adopted.

One committee, the Codex Committee for Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP), had been ably hosted by Norway for 60 years. At this meeting, though, Norway resigned its committee hosting duties, with both Spain and South Korea offering to take over Norway’s hosting duties. Since there were two contenders, the Chairman called for a vote by ballot, which Spain won. That was good for NHF since it is cheaper and easier to get to Spain than to Korea for that committee’s meetings.

The Commission members also spent a lot of time on the Final Implementation Report for the just completed Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025.[6] This is where they meticulously comb through the previously laid-down plans and goals to see if they had been met. Since the Report is quite lengthy, I would suggest that those interested in its content read it directly at the link in Endnote 6 of my article here.

Don’t Get Me Wrong

Don’t get me wrong. The CAC Chairman is smart as a whip, has an impeccable sense of timing, and correctly defers to the Codex Secretary whenever he judges that her experience and knowledge on an issue are greater than his own. He is a humble man and has always treated NHF fairly. But he is single-mindedly focused on getting Codex standards and guidelines adopted.

He is not alone either. I have counted at least eight traps that the Codex Commission and its committees have fallen into, and one of the worst of these is this blind and bull-headed determination to push all standards and guidelines through to adoption no matter how flawed they might be. Most Codex delegates blindly join in with the Chairman in pushing them towards adoption.

Many Codex standards and guidelines are good, but many are not. The latter ignore detrimental synergistic effects on humans, animals, insects, and the environment in general. Most important of all, they reflect the modern-day scientific hubris that thinks it knows more than Mother Nature. It doesn’t, not by a long shot.

There Is No Such Thing as Solutions

Economist Thomas Sowell observed that there are never solutions, there are just tradeoffs. You trade one problem for another. You spray weeds with Roundup, and you get rid of one problem, but now you have another – a poisoned soil that kills insects and eventually you with a degenerative disease.

Codex tries to arrive at solutions without realizing that by doing so, they are creating other problems. Codex must tread more carefully. Speed is its enemy, not its friend.

There Are No Great Men

Over my 26 years at Codex, some have lauded my efforts at Codex, even calling me “great.” But there are no great men. There are only Great Challenges that ordinary men and women, like you and me, are forced by circumstances to meet. We do our best, because that’s all we can do. And we trust that that will be good enough to make a difference.

[1] See CX/CAC 26/49/2 Appendix II.

[2] See, e.g., Ranveer S, Dasriya V, Ahmad M, et al., “Positive and negative aspects of bacteriophages and their immense role in the food chain,” npj Sci Food 8, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-023-00245-8, at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-023-00245-8.

[3] Halawa E, “Challenges of bacteriophages application in controlling bacterial plant diseases and how to overcome them,” J Genet Eng Biotechnology, 2023 Oct 10;21:98, doi: 10.1186/s43141-023-00549-y, at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10564689/.

[4] Roth A, Franz C, Hertwig S, et al., “Limitations and safety aspects related to the use of bacteriophages in food production,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, Volume 50, 2026, fuag002, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuag002, at https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article/doi/10.1093/femsre/fuag002/8431391?login=false.

[5] Ibid.; see also, Trząskowska M, Naammo E, Salmon M, et al., “Risk Profile of Bacteriophages in the Food Chain, Foods 2025, 14(13), 2257, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132257, at https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/13/2257.

[6] Final Implementation Report for the Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025, at fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-701-49%252FWorking%2Bdocuments%252Fcac49_15e.pdf.

By John E. Lewis, Ph.D.

Voluntary Associate Professor, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine

Founder and President, Dr Lewis Nutrition®

Your skeleton is the literal framework of your independence, and the slow loss of bone strength is one of the quiet events that decides whether the later decades of life are lived on your own terms.  Hip and spine fractures are not minor inconveniences.  They mark, for a great many older adults, the beginning of lost mobility, lost autonomy, and in too many cases a shortened life.  For more than thirty years, the standard advice handed to aging men and women has been simple and reassuring, namely that you should take your calcium, add a little vitamin D, and trust that your bones will hold.  Millions of people have followed that advice faithfully, and the supplement industry has earned billions of dollars selling it to them.  I would argue, on the basis of the most rigorous evidence now available, that the advice was largely wrong, and that the money and the faith invested in those supplements could have been directed toward something that actually works.

When the Evidence Caught Up: What the New BMJ Review Reveals

In May of 2026, The BMJ published the largest and most carefully designed review of this question ever assembled.  Massé and colleagues pooled sixty-nine randomized controlled trials comprising 153,902 participants, and they asked a deceptively simple question, which is whether calcium, vitamin D, or the two combined actually prevent the fractures and falls that they are so widely prescribed to prevent.¹  The answer, for the overwhelming majority of older adults living independently in the community, was no.  Calcium alone produced no clinically meaningful reduction in fracture or fall risk.  Vitamin D alone produced no clinically meaningful reduction.  In the case of vitamin D, one of the likely limitations of the research is not acknowledging that vitamin D3 (the superior supplemental form to vitamin D2) should be combined with vitamin K2 to get the synergistic effect of assisting calcium’s assimilation into the bones.  Even the combination of the two, long regarded as the gold-standard regimen, showed only a faint statistical flicker toward fewer fractures; a signal so small that it failed to cross the threshold the researchers had defined in advance as meaningful to an actual human life.¹

What makes this review so difficult to dismiss is the standard it applied.  Most earlier studies reported their results as relative risk ratios, a format that can make a trivial benefit appear impressive, since a fall in fracture incidence from two percent to one and eight-tenths percent becomes a relative reduction of roughly nine percent even though the true absolute benefit is less than two-tenths of a single percentage point.  The 2026 review instead required supplements to demonstrate a meaningful absolute reduction, which is the real-world drop in the number of people who actually break a bone, and on that honest measure the supplements did almost nothing.¹

This conclusion did not arrive in isolation.  It is the latest and largest confirmation of a pattern that careful researchers have been documenting for more than a decade.  Bolland and colleagues, in a 2015 systematic review also published in The BMJ, found that dietary calcium intake bears no consistent relationship to fracture risk, and that the evidence for supplements preventing fractures was weak and inconsistent.²  Even more sobering, the same group had earlier shown, in a 2010 meta-analysis, that calcium supplements taken without vitamin D were associated with a meaningful increase in the risk of myocardial infarction (i.e., the common heart attack).³  In other words, the supplements that were supposed to protect the skeleton not only failed at that task for most people, but in at least one widely used formulation carried a measurable cost to the heart.

I want to be precise here because precision is the entire point.  The 2026 review did not examine people with diagnosed osteoporosis under active medical treatment, nor people with confirmed vitamin D deficiency, nor those with specific medical conditions for which a clinician has sound reason to recommend supplementation.¹  For those individuals, calcium and vitamin D may remain genuinely appropriate, and no one should abandon a physician’s considered plan on the strength of a single article.  The finding that matters for the general population is narrower and more damning, which is that for the tens of millions of ordinary older adults who take these supplements every morning as a kind of insurance policy against the future, the policy does not pay out.

Supplements Versus Plates: Why Bone Responds to Load, Not to Logistics

To understand why the supplements fail, you must first understand what bone actually is.  Bone is not an inert mineral scaffold that simply needs more raw calcium poured into it, in the way that you might top off a fuel tank.  Bone is living, dynamic tissue, constantly being broken down and rebuilt by specialized cells, and the single most powerful signal that instructs those cells to build is mechanical force.  More than a century ago the anatomist Julius Wolff observed that bone adapts its architecture to the loads placed upon it, a principle now known as Wolff’s law.  In our own era, the physiologist Harold Frost refined this insight into what he called the mechanostat (i.e., a tissue-level feedback system in which bone senses the strain it experiences and adjusts its strength accordingly).⁴  The crucial detail, and the one that explains the failure of the supplement strategy, is that bone adds strength only when the strain it experiences exceeds a certain osteogenic threshold (i.e., the level of mechanical strain above which the building of new bone is switched on).  Loads beneath that threshold maintain what already exists, at best.  Only high-magnitude loads, applied at a meaningful rate, activate the machinery of new bone formation.⁴

This is precisely why the well-meaning advice to stay active by walking or jogging, while excellent for the heart and the mind, does so little for the aging skeleton.  First, walking generates strains that are simply too low to cross the osteogenic threshold in the hip and spine of an older adult whose bones adapted long ago to the ordinary demands of upright locomotion.  Second, the repetitive and low-intensity nature of most cardiovascular exercise sends the bone a signal that it has already accommodated, and living tissue does not invest scarce resources in building strength that it is not being asked to provide.  Third, no quantity of calcium circulating in the bloodstream can substitute for the absent mechanical command because calcium is the building material and not the blueprint, and a pile of bricks does not assemble itself into a wall without an architect to issue the instructions.  As I often say, a sugar is not a sugar, and in the very same spirit, a unit of exercise is not a unit of exercise because the kind of load placed upon the skeleton matters far more than the sheer quantity of movement.

Heavy resistance training supplies exactly the signal that walking cannot.  When you brace a loaded barbell across your shoulders and stand up out of a squat, or drive a heavy weight overhead, you generate the very high-magnitude strain that the mechanostat is waiting to detect, and you generate it in the bones, including the spine and the hip, that fracture most catastrophically in later life.  The most compelling demonstration of this principle is the LIFTMOR trial, conducted by Watson and colleagues in Australia and published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2018.⁵  The investigators recruited postmenopausal women with low bone mass, the very population that conventional wisdom warns away from heavy lifting for fear of fracture, and randomized them either to eight months of brief, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training, or to a gentle home-based program of the sort usually recommended to such patients.  The lifting group performed the deadlift, the back squat, and the overhead press, progressing to five sets of five repetitions at more than eighty-five percent of their maximum capacity.  The results overturned decades of caution.  The women who lifted heavy significantly increased their bone mineral density at both the lumbar spine (i.e., the lower back) and the femoral neck (i.e., the upper region of the thigh bone where the most dangerous hip fractures occur), improved their measures of strength and balance, and, contrary to the fears that had kept this very research from being conducted for so long, did so safely.⁵  The intervention that the establishment had assumed would break these women instead rebuilt them.

The Senior’s Playbook: A Safe and Sensible Path to the Barbell

I recognize that the phrase heavy resistance training can sound alarming to a man or woman in his/her sixties or seventies who has never set foot inside a gym, so allow me to be clear about how this is done responsibly.  First, begin with your physician because anyone with diagnosed osteoporosis, established cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled blood pressure, or significant joint disease should obtain medical clearance before starting and should specifically mention the intention to perform loaded, compound movements.  Second, invest in instruction before you invest in intensity because the single most important feature of the LIFTMOR protocol was that every session was supervised, and that its first month was devoted entirely to learning the movement patterns with light loads before any heavy weight was attempted.⁵  A qualified trainer or physical therapist who genuinely understands progressive resistance training is not a luxury in this context, but rather the difference between a safe program and an avoidable injury.  Third, master the fundamental compound lifts, namely the squat, the deadlift, and the overhead press, because these are the movements that load the spine and the hip directly and recruit the large muscle groups that transmit force into the skeleton.  Fourth, train heavily but briefly, because the osteogenic stimulus does not require punishing marathon sessions, and the LIFTMOR participants trained for only thirty minutes, twice each week, a modest dose that was nonetheless sufficient to reverse bone loss.⁵  Fifth, progress slowly and deliberately, adding weight only as your strength and your confidence grow, and never sacrifice sound form for the sake of a larger number on the bar.

A word on calcium itself is warranted because I am not arguing that the mineral is unimportant.  Also, I work in the dietary supplement industry, and I take especially important supplements every day, so my position in this article should in no way make me an opponent of dietary supplements.  Calcium is essential to the body and so is vitamin D.  My argument is that the supplement is the wrong delivery system for most people.  Obtain your calcium from whole foods, where it arrives accompanied by the full complement of cofactors that the human body evolved to use, from sources such as leafy green vegetables, strawberries, tomatoes, beans, tofu, almonds, sesame seeds, and tahini.  Obtain your vitamin D from sensible sun exposure and, where a blood test reveals a true deficiency, with the targeted guidance of your clinician.  If you live in northern latitudes or areas where it is cloudy and/or cold most of the year, then vitamin D3 (in combination with vitamin K2) should be strongly considered, not just for bone health, but overall health.  Then give your skeleton the one input that no supplement on any shelf can provide, which is the mechanical demand to grow stronger.

The evidence has now spoken with unusual clarity, and it asks us to surrender a comfortable habit in favor of a more demanding truth.  For more than thirty years we assured aging adults that bone strength could be purchased in a bottle, and the most rigorous review ever conducted has confirmed that, for most of them, it cannot.  The good news is far more empowering than the myth it replaces.  Your bones will respond, at nearly any age, to being asked to perform demanding work, and the asking costs nothing more than effort and competent instruction.  If you are an older adult who has been dutifully taking calcium in the sincere belief that it protects you, I would encourage you to redirect that faith toward something that the science genuinely supports.  Learn to lift, learn to lift with correct form, and learn to lift heavily enough that your skeleton is given a reason to rebuild itself.  Your independence in the decades ahead may well depend upon it, and unlike the supplements, this is one prescription that grows stronger every single time you fill it.

Endnotes

1.  Massé O, Mercurio CM, Dupuis S, Al Sahwi M, Arruda A, Dallaire G, Desforges K, Dugré N, Williamson D. Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation to prevent fractures and falls: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2026;393:e088050. doi:10.1136/bmj-2025-088050.

2.  Bolland MJ, Leung W, Tai V, Bastin S, Gamble GD, Grey A, Reid IR. Calcium intake and risk of fracture: systematic review. BMJ. 2015;351:h4580. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4580.

3.  Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Baron JA, Grey A, MacLennan GS, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c3691. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3691.

4.  Frost HM. Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2003;275(2):1081-1101. doi:10.1002/ar.a.10119.

5.  Watson SL, Weeks BK, Weis LJ, Harding AT, Horan SA, Beck BR. High-intensity resistance and impact training improves bone mineral density and physical function in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: the LIFTMOR randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(2):211-220. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3284.

Joshua Lane began his work in the natural health field in 1970 at the Shangri-La Hygienic Institute in Bonita Springs, Florida, under the direction of R.J. Cheatham during the height of the Natural Hygiene movement inspired by Herbert Shelton. That same year, Dr. Shelton published Joshua’s article on Sylvester Graham in The Hygienic Review, marking an early milestone in his lifelong commitment to natural health education.

After earning his undergraduate degree, Joshua joined Ann Wigmore and Viktoras Kulvinskas at the Hippocrates Health Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, where he worked from 1973 to 1975. During that pioneering era of the raw foods movement, Ann and Viktor introduced the benefits of wheatgrass, sprouting, and living foods to an international audience. Joshua also played a role in connecting renowned artist Peter Max with Viktoras, resulting in Max’s artwork appearing on the cover of Viktor’s influential book Survival Into The 21st Century, which went on to sell more than 500,000 copies.

Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Viktoras Kulvinskas remained a major force in the raw foods movement, and Joshua and Viktor continued their friendship and professional collaboration until Viktor’s passing in Costa Rica in December 2025 at the age of 87.

Joshua later owned and operated a series of natural foods stores called Here’s To Your Health in Hallandale and Davie, Florida, as well as Agoura Hills, California. In 2012, he expanded his outreach into broadcasting, launching the Here’s To Your Health radio and television program on the LA Talk Live network alongside co-host Hans Kugler.

Today, Joshua is proud to be part of the National Health Federation community, continuing his decades-long dedication to wellness, nutrition, and natural living.

After months of planning, and after having lost our master-event planner Petra Weiss who suddenly and unexpectedly died of hospital sepsis in early December 2023, NHF was saved by Ernesto Langrock, who picked up Petra’s fallen torch and worked very hard with me to make this one-day, live event on April 27, 2024, in Heilbronn, Germany a great success. Styled as “Recht trifft Medizin” (Law Meets Medicine), this NHF event hosted a great number of fantastic speakers, including Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Tom Lausen, and Dr. Walter Weber, before a predominately German audience of 400 attendees.

Importantly, our intrepid health-freedom advocates from NHF-Sweden – Sara Boo and Michael Zazzio – pitched in to help, flying from Sweden to Heilbronn to be present as both speakers and co-organizers. Sara spoke compellingly about the global vaccination agenda and why countries must exit the United Nations in order to avoid the new WHO treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR), while Michael used his insights and experience to show the processes and influences underpinning globalism.

After brief introductory remarks in German by Ernesto Langrock and me, news anchor and Kontrafunk moderator Robert Meier began the event with a lecture on “Woke Culture,” a cultural movement promoted by the left-green German government, and its impact on gender issues. Subsequently, a member of the Bundestag (German Parliament), Nicole Höchst, spoke eloquently about current figures and developments related to the Corona complex, addressing the social and economic damage caused by the Corona policies.

Tom Lausen – an author, analyst, and popular speaker – provided insights into his work as an expert for the German Federal government, analyzing over 1,000 inquiries from members of parliament on the topic of COVID-19. Tom’s clever use of slides in his Power Point presentation had the audience laughing virtually nonstop – no mean feat when discussing such a serious topic.

Florian Pfaff – a former Bundeswehr officer – spoke about his experiences during his military service and the current distorted media coverage of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine where atrocity events are staged to depict Russia as evil. Overall, Pfaff argued that transparency and accurate media reporting are essential to protect citizens’ rights and avoid State disinformation.

Prof. Dr. Fritz Söllner – an economist and author of several books – discussed the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis, noting in particular that Germany’s GDP fell by 4.9% in 2020 and the unemployment rate rose from 5.0% to 6.4%. His research and publications focus on the economic impacts of migration, war, and public policies during lockdown phases. He analyzes the macroeconomic consequences of such events on the economy.

After a short break, German-Tunisian filmmaker Imad Karim presented his film Dekadenz and initiated an open discussion. The film deals with the COVID-19 lockdown period and its impact on culture, as well as the decline of reporting by public broadcasters.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Hans Pistner – a medical doctor with two doctoral degrees and now active in the political arena – spoke about the everyday life of medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially noting that hospitals were not as overwhelmed as the mainstream media reports had suggested.

The pre-eminent virologist and former professor at the University of Mainz, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is much admired in Germany for his integrity and courage. He joined the event via video livestream to present new scientific findings from his virological and genetic work.

Dr. Walter Weber – an internist from Hamburg and a member of the Doctors for Enlightenment circle – shared his experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and his fight against the mask mandate. More to the point, Dr. Weber bravely faced legal charges for issuing medical certificates exempting patients from wearing masks. He, too, spoke with a dry sense of humor that often had the audience laughing.

The ever-popular Catherine Austin Fitts – a former managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co., former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and former president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. – generously shared her wisdom via video link with the crowded room on the subject of financial freedom and its opposite, financial control. She detailed exactly how the subtle and not-so-subtle use of financial power is being used to control us and direct our decisions, especially those concerning our health. Even though she spoke in English, the audience avidly followed her words.

Except for Ms. Fitts, Mr. Zazzio, and Ms. Boo who delivered their speeches in English, the symposium was conducted in German and was a smash success, according to all who attended. One attendee aptly spoke for many when he said, “I was privileged to attend the Heilbronn event. Thank you so much for your great work.”

The event’s success – albeit fraught with difficulties from the beginning (which only reinforced the fact that we were to proceed with getting this information out) – will lead to others like this in Germany and around the World. NHF is an international federation dedicated to health, health freedom, and education, which leads to activism. If you are interested in hosting an event such as this in your area, let us know at contact-us@thenhf.com.

________________________

To see the video of this event, as well as interviews of the speakers and me, go to: www.thenhf.de.

According to a report from Slay News, unlabeled cloned “beef” and “pork” are already being sold in American supermarkets and restaurants, raising serious transparency and safety concerns. Slay News

Under existing FDA rules, meat from cloned animals and their offspring is considered “safe and nutritious,” while the agency does not require any special labeling. Slay News+2CBS News+2  Unlike the FDA, Health Canada recently paused a plan to greenlight cloned meat without safety reviews or labeling after public backlash. The situation in Canada has amplified public scrutiny.

Critics, such as the National Health Federation (NHF), have long contended that these policies deprive consumers not only of the basic right to know what they’re eating but of healthy food as well. Moreover, the NHF and others raise a range of concerns, from ethical and animal-welfare issues to long-term health risks and lack of genetic stability.

As manufactured “demand” for synthetic or biotechnologically derived foods is pushed upon consumers, they increasingly reject this “fake” food and are calling at least for clearer labeling rules and a reexamination of the FDA’s earlier approval of cloned meat from as far back as 2008, so that informed consumers can avoid this unhealthy food, which is also reportedly found in soup.

It has been reported on X that Campbell’s Soup is using bioengineered meat (printed from a 3D printer) in its soup, as per Campbell’s Soup Vice President Bally in a supposed “rant” that he made at a meeting about the poor quality of the company’s products. Campbell’s Soup denies the poor-quality claim but has not, to NHF’s knowledge, addressed the real issue of whether or not it is indeed using 3D-printed meat in its soups.

The Florida State Attorney General, James Ulthmeier, was concerned enough to announce on X that the State’s Consumer Protection Division is launching an investigation into the quality of Campbell’s products. He said, “Florida law bans lab-grown meat. Our Consumer Protection division is launching an investigation and will demand answers from Campbell’s.”

As NHF President Scott Tips says, “Instead of aiming for healthier and more nutrition-dense foods for consumers, food companies are taking the low road of developing highly processed foods with very low nutritional value that can also actually pose a health risk. We see this at Codex Alimentarius meetings of late, where the INGO front groups representing food manufacturers are pushing for the global adoption of standards that would allow them to sell this lab-grown ‘Franken-meat’ worldwide. And there are not even adequate label warnings that would allow consumers to differentiate between the ultra-processed meat and the traditional. If consumers were informed, then they could exercise their free-market power to drive the fake meat out of the marketplace by refusing to buy it.”

FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy

On behalf of the National Health Federation (NHF) and its members, I began the week of November 9, 2025, with a flight to Rome, Italy, and then a very long day on Monday, November 10th, representing consumer health interests at the week-long 48^th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Surprisingly for a CAC meeting, NHF appears to be the only consumer organization present in person.

The biggest concern for NHF at this meeting was the lengthy laundry list of nasty pesticide Maximum Residue Level (MRL) standards that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) decided to drop in the laps of the CAC delegates to approve for advancement up the 8-step ladder at Step 5/8 on their way to final adoption at Step 8. Unsurprisingly, most of the delegates seemed to think this was a great idea. This includes, by the way, the “untouched by MAHA” American delegate who was instructed to support the MRLs’ advancement.

The European Union (EU) delegate, though, spoke out strongly against some 23 of these pesticides, and was joined in its opposition by Egypt, Norway, and Switzerland. The EU’s written comments stated its case more completely than the EU could verbally in the two-minutes of restricted time allotted to all delegates for speaking.

After several countries had spoken, Vice-Chairwoman Dr. Jing Tian, who was chairing this agenda discussion, next called on NHF to take the floor, and I roughly argued as follows:

“Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. The NHF supports and appreciates the positions of the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and Egypt on these pesticide levels. We have set forth our arguments against advancing any of these pesticide-level standards at length in CRD 8, which we hope all of you will read.

“But let me point out here that pesticides are greatly overused. In 1960, 196 million pounds of pesticides were used annually in agriculture. By 2022, that amount had ballooned to 8,157 million pounds of pesticides. This is unsustainable!

“The sad thing is that only 0.3% of pesticides applied actually reach the targeted pest. The rest go into the environment where they persist. Despite all of this, there are some who insist that Codex approve even more pesticides and at a faster pace. This is madness! If anything, Codex must remove from its approved list, at least 1-2 old pesticides for every new one that it adopts. I ask that NHF’s comments here be reflected in the Report.”

Even if your own government representative fails you at Codex, you can count on the NHF to speak out for you and be heard. And because of one donor, who wishes to remain unnamed, NHF is here for you at this Codex meeting, despite my recent, wide-ranging trips from Vienna to Washington to Nevada and to Brussels before this!

Our NHF Articles Editor Katherine Carroll is reviewing a major book on Parkinson’s Disease called The Parkinson’s Plan; A New Path to Prevention and Treatment by Ray Dorsey, M.D., MBA and Michael S. Okun, M.D. It is a highly recommended book and will make you realize how vital it is to stop the insane authorization and ubiquitous use of pesticides, which damage the Dopamine-producing cells that are lost in Parkinson’s disease. These pesticides can be inhaled, contaminate groundwater, and injure us by direct contact. NHF’s work at Codex Commission and committee meetings handling pesticide residues is therefore vital. Most of us have a friend or loved one whom we have watched suffer the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease cruelly robbing them of their life and slowly starving them to death as they can no longer swallow.

With Codex servilely bowing to the incessant demands of the pesticide industry for approval of its latest bug (and people) killers, this existential threat to humanity must be stopped or at least far-better controlled. Our health and our lives depend upon it.

In the event, CAC48 advanced to Step 5/8 all of the pesticide MRL standards, thereby thwarting NHF’s and the European attempts to block these nasty compounds from the environment. However, not all was lost as the Codex Secretariat announced that 355 of the older pesticide-residue standards were to have their adopted status revoked, with no objections from the delegates. Most probably, many of these pesticides had gone off-patent and were far less profitable than the new ones set to become Codex-approved.

Thanks again to all of our NHF members and supporters who helped make this participation in the Codex meeting possible. For those who wish to support our work, give now to make sure your Voice is represented! And if you are not yet a member of NHF, you are missing your chance to change the World.

Monarchy derives from the Greek root word “mono,” meaning one, and “archon,” meaning ruler. This week 249 years ago, the American colonies declared their independence from the British monarchy. They fought a seven-year revolutionary war to win it, and another three-year war in 1812 to keep it. We all continue to fight for our freedoms today – the “No Kings” protests on the one hand, and the anti-COVID-19 protests on the other, are symptoms of that struggle.

Today, there are at least three central ideas that control our health and health freedom. Each is a single idea that restrains our liberty of conscience, choice, and action.

Each idea is a simplifying assumption that society makes for us, and which prevents us from making our own health choices. None of them is supported by any credible science; in fact, all of the credible science goes against them. Yet these assumptions continue, preventing us from making sensible health choices. These assumptions are:

1. Mono-ideology. There is one “right” answer for everyone.

2. Mono-therapy. The right answer is always one single, patentable compound.

3. Monopoly. The government must approve and control what drugs people use.

Mono-ideology

The first of these ideological monarchs is the idea, or rather the logical fallacy, that only one idea can be “right.” While this may be true (to some extent) for scientific laws that govern the universe, it’s usually false where human problems and solutions are concerned. Different people have different needs, so no one rule or solution can possibly hope to serve them all.

Laws of nature are often thought of as universal, but even those are modified by other laws of nature. Matter is solid, until you look at it under an electron microscope. Gravity can bend both space and time. Electrons, protons, and neutrons act like particles in some ways and waves in others. Particles can be entangled at the quantum level in ways that defy easy explanation. The universe isn’t simple, and simple rules are rarely universal. Life is just as complex and interconnected as physics, or more so – flowers depend upon bees, and bees upon flowers, and birds on both. Every form of life fills a niche, and as much as we hate mosquitoes, if we wipe them out, the unintended effects will ripple up the food chain.

We Americans are so entrenched in the competitive idea of winning and losing, that we tend to view any competing or different idea as a threat to our own. We assume that the marketplace of ideas means that one idea must win in the end. But nobody “wins” in a bazaar – they either find what they need, or they go home. There’s no winner, but worse ideas are constantly displaced, and better ideas remain. Even unpopular ideas often find some followers. That’s how liberty and individual choice work.

In medicine, we often assume that there is one right answer for every problem, often described as the “standard of care.” This wrongly assumes that people are all the same, and that this “standard of care” will benefit everyone, from ballet dancers to sumo wrestlers, in the same way. This thinking has created standards of medical education and practice that are enforced by law on everyone, and an official scientific establishment whose assumptions, true or false, must not be questioned. Dissent must be rejected, suppressed as misinformation, or even prosecuted. In religion, this is known as orthodoxy, or in its more extreme forms, dogmatism, fanaticism, zealotry, or bigotry. In any field of human inquiry, the underlying concept is the same: the acceptance of one thought or idea, and the intentional exclusion of all others as a matter of policy or principle.

There is a story that Albert Einstein was asked by an aide if he had prepared the final exam for a physics course he was teaching. Einstein responded that he would use last year’s exam. When the aide objected that those test questions were already known to the students, Einstein assured him it was fine – because all of the answers had changed. This is why “scientific consensus” doesn’t mean much: science isn’t a democracy, and scientists changing the consensus are the only ones who really matter. If we base public policy on scientific consensus, we’ll always be 50 years behind the curve. If we make scientific consensus the law, that consensus will never change – even when it’s clearly wrong.

Mono-therapy

The next ideological monarch is the idea that there is one “best” medicine for every condition or disease. This isn’t just the single “standard of care” idea discussed above – but the additional notion that our one-and-only solution must also be a single chemical compound. Western medicine decided about 1907 that mono-therapy (one treatment) is the only “scientific” approach. This is often described in medical literature as the “magic bullet” or “one disease, one target, one drug” model. This idea grows out of another simplifying assumption: that in a scientific experiment, we must control every variable except the one being studied or tested. Since every human being is different, this isn’t possible, but we generally assume and pretend that it is.

Nature doesn’t use single compounds much. Plants are complex chemical factories that contain a broad variety of chemical compounds that serve a wide variety of needs in the plant. Humans (like other animals) rarely subsist on a single food source and use a wide and varied diet: there is no one “best” food for everyone, or even for any one individual. Individuals need varied diets, and populations even more so. We may talk about “superfoods,” but no one eats only quinoa, alfalfa sprouts, or goji berries.

When one single compound is used to treat a disease, there is generally only one way to increase efficacy: increase the dosage. Statistics tell us that both efficacy and tolerance will vary with individuals. Most individuals will be near the mean (average) value for the group, but some individuals will be more sensitive or resistant than most – and a few will be much more. The dose that causes the desired drug effect (the “effective dose”) in 50% of the population is called the ED50 and is an important safety measure. But since drug manufacturers don’t want their drugs to only work for half the population, the only way to increase efficacy is to use doses well above the ED50 – often 30-50x higher. This treats more patients and sells more drugs, but causes safety, ethical, environmental, and other concerns. Safe and effective are a trade-off, based on dosage – bigger doses are more effective but less safe.

Both Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic (Indian) Medicine discarded monotherapy centuries ago. In those traditions, a single herbal drug is only used if an herbal formula isn’t available. Formulas do more with less medicine, and they work more consistently over the broad range of individuals. If you’re sensitive or resistant to one ingredient, you probably respond more normally to others. Many traditional formulas have been used safely and effectively for centuries.

After 100-plus years, Western medicine is just beginning to embrace multi-therapy. The AIDS cocktail was perhaps the first common example, followed by chemotherapy and other compounds that were just too toxic to be used alone. Today, blood-pressure medications are often prescribed in combinations of smaller doses, producing better results with fewer side effects.

However, our entire drug approval system is built around the assumptions that: (1) drugs are single, patentable, proprietary compounds; (2) they must be approved as both safe and effective for a specific disease or condition; (3) only approved drugs can be used at all; but ironically (4) approved drugs can be prescribed for any condition (off-label use). The net effect is that only patented drugs have a pathway to FDA approval, but approval costs (and monopoly markets, described below) drive drug costs through the roof. Worse yet, unexpected side effects of medications are now the No. 3 killer in modern nations, after only heart disease and cancer.

Monopoly

The third ideological monarch is certainly the most painful. In Adam Smith’s 1776 best-seller The Wealth of Nations, he describes the economic system that Britain used in his day. One of his best innovations was his description of the “invisible hand” that sets market prices by supply and demand. In a free economy, where buyers and sellers both have other options, they will agree to a price that makes both parties better off – or if not, they will walk away to pursue other choices. In such an economy, every transaction is what we would call “win-win” in today’s language. But many things can prevent the parties from having other choices, such as when there is only one seller (monopoly), or where the buyer has no time or ability to “shop around” for other choices. Both are very common in medicine and health care. While restaurants advertise menus and prices on the internet and even display menus in display boxes on the sidewalk, hospitals and insurance companies do everything they can to ensure that their customers have little say over prices and premiums, and even less chance to shop around.

Every government is by its very nature a monopoly – elections have consequences. This is just one of the many reasons why the U.S. Constitution called for a Federal government that was very limited in scope. It had the power to declare and wage war on behalf of the States, and to regulate commerce between the States, but most issues were reserved by the 10^th Amendment to the various States, or more importantly, to the people. All that changed with the New Deal in the 1930s – the Federal government took on a much larger role. But was that a good idea?

Much of Adam Smith’s economic masterpiece The Wealth of Nations was devoted to cataloging the ills of what he called the “wretched spirit of monopoly.” Smith knew the subject well – for many years in Britain the guilds had maintained monopoly power over their various trades, and the British East India Company, founded by Parliament in 1600, had been abusing both the British colonies and population alike for over 175 years by the time Smith published in 1776. He described the role of competition in securing low prices, good service, innovation, and other benefits; and the laziness, greed, and entitlement that occurred where competition was lacking. He pointed out that natural monopolies (think OPEC in the 1970s) tend not to last very long, but they could be maintained forever by force of law. Nearly a century later, the British East India Company was finally dissolved in 1874.

Colonial monopoly still reverberates today. The 2024 Nobel prize for economics was shared by three U.S. economists who showed that the economic success of former European colonies was largely determined by two factors: (1) the rule of law; and (2) an inclusive (or at least non-exploitive) social order that protected the poor as well as the rich. Where these factors existed, colonies prospered after independence, while colonies that lacked them languished. Even within the United States these factors can be seen – the northern (free) States industrialized and prospered, while the southern (slave) States remained agricultural and poor, eventually deciding the outcome of the U.S. Civil War. Thomas Jefferson himself predicted this outcome in his Notes on Virginia, Query 17 (On Religion). He argued that the religious monopoly and intolerance which then existed in Virginia was already being economically out-competed by both New York and Pennsylvania, which had more democratic and tolerant laws than those of the other colonies. Coming from the then-Governor of Virginia, the most populous and wealthy of the 13 colonies at that time, this is a startling admission.

It’s hard to overstate the economic power of monopolies, or the lengths they will go to destroy potential competitors. Examples include the Carnegie (U.S. Steel) monopoly in the late 1800s, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust in the early 1900s. Both used every dirty trick at their disposal to put competitors out of business, buying up their bankrupt assets and markets for nearly nothing. Even today, echoes of that robber-baron mentality echo through Silicon Valley and Wall Street, where anticompetitive behavior is considered normal, and venture capitalist Peter Theil famously argues that “competition is for losers.” Monopoly is power, and power is not often willingly surrendered.

What is less apparent and even more sinister is the often too-cozy relationship between Big Business and the government monopoly. If Big Business controls government, it has no need of monopoly – government is the monopoly. Corporate interests can use government regulation and procurement to accomplish all that a monopoly needs. Want to keep competitors out? Just require government approval for any new product, like we have had for drugs since 1938. Want doctors to be able to charge more? Control the educational system that trains and creates them, and the licensing boards that allow them to practice.

Smith’s “invisible hand” of supply and demand doesn’t care what you call a restriction on supply. You can call it reasonable regulation, consumer protection, or fraud prevention. You can call it a license, a registration, or authorization. You can call it a monopoly, a patent, a copyright, or a permit. If it restricts supply, prices go up, and the current suppliers benefit. As Smith explains, instead of the lowest feasible price, buyers are forced to pay the highest tolerable price – and for health care, that is stiff. As the six-fingered man says in the film The Princess Bride, “If you haven’t got your health, you haven’t got anything.” Or to paraphrase Jesus: “What will a man give in exchange for his [health or life]?” (Matt. 16:26, Mark 8:36.)

Doctors and nurses are bound by medical ethics to basic ethical principles: patient autonomy, doing good and not harm, and justice. Health corporations and their executives clearly are not. Medical debt is the No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy. Americans pay more per capita for health care than any other nation, yet we are among the least healthy nations in the modern World. Medical monopoly is the reason for both the high cost and the poor results.

What’s Next?

Each of these three “monarch” assumptions share a common fate: they will stand there, naked of scientific support, but generally accepted, until we all have the collective courage to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Like Jefferson’s self-evident truths, they only need to be pointed out to be obvious to everyone. Now that we see them, how long will we allow them to control our lives and our health?

Wearable technology, or “wearables,” is one of the latest, hot consumer technologies. Wearable technology is any kind of electronic device designed to be worn on the user’s body, and can take many different forms, including jewelry, accessories, medical devices, and clothing. An Apple Watch, which combines fitness tracking, health monitoring, and smartphone capabilities in a wrist-worn device, is one of the earliest examples of a wearable.

The advance in wearable technology has been rapid. And these devices are transmitting their information to data banks that house increasingly personal information, from how many steps you take per day to how many trips you take to the bathroom per night. Yet many public leaders are promoting wearables.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke recently before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health during a hearing on his Department’s 2026 budget request, where he said, “We think that wearables are a key to the MAHA agenda, Making America Healthy Again … my vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”

These statements mirror those more recently made at a White House event to which Apple, Google, Amazon, Samsung, OpenAI, Epic, Oracle, and others sent representatives to meet with Secretary Kennedy and President Trump. At this event, Secretary Kennedy said, “For decades, bureaucrats and entrenched interests buried health data and blocked patients from taking control of their health,” Kennedy was quoted as saying in a statement. That ends today. We’re tearing down digital walls, returning power to patients, and rebuilding a health system that serves the people. This is how we begin to Make America Healthy Again.”

For his part, Mark Zuckerberg has invested $3.5 billion in Ray-Ban and developed a line of smart glasses that can record and live stream video. Meta AI Ray-Bans streams music, podcasts, allow users to ask questions, translate text, make calls, send texts, answer questions, or set reminders simply by saying “Hey Meta.” It is easy to imagine how such technology could quickly become indispensable for entire populations.

The Light Side

It is true that there are benefits to be had from wearables, especially as more seniors “age in place” alone. If the user suffers a heart attack, stroke, or other medical emergency, then the wearable could signal that event to the nearest first responder and help would be promptly on the way with the entire medical history of the wearer available. In having that information, fewer medical mistakes might be made. Lives could be saved.

Or, the wearable could be something as mundane as a continuous glucose monitor, which is a small patch that can monitor blood-sugar levels around-the-clock. As Health Secretary Kennedy recently told congressional lawmakers, this could be a way for Americans to “take control over their own health.”

So, Secretary Kennedy supports wearables, as does President Trump. Even President Trump’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, Casey Means, is an obvious wearables supporter since she owns levels.com, a wearable tech company. Maybe they are right, but my instincts and experience tell me that there will be a high cost for all of this convenience on many fronts.

The Dark Side

In The New Abnormal – The Rise of the Biomedical Security State, a book written by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, M.D. and published in 2022, the author has appended an intriguing 23-page Epilogue called “Seattle, 2030,” depicting the everyday life of an American middle-aged male in that year and place. His life is immersed in high-tech tracking devices and wearables. It is a life of convenience and ease; but also, as it turns out, a life that becomes a nightmare.

And that is what I see happening in the near future as the population increasingly adopts wearables and they become every bit as indispensable to them as smartphones are today. We will have convenience, yes, but really at the cost of our souls.

The danger is not only that wearers will be constantly exposed to harmful radiation from these devices, let alone to the “forever chemicals” like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in watchbands, but also that wearables function as tracking tools recording your health data, location, and other personal information you may want to keep private. Together, corporations and governments are building an all-encompassing surveillance system that links people directly to the “Internet of Things and Bodies,” expanding constant monitoring into every aspect of daily life.

It will increasingly be used to profile individuals, such as determining their level of insurance risk. Your data will inevitably be leaked and made available not only on the black market but also through consensual transfers of data. It can be used by prospective employers to screen out “undesirable” employees. More innocuously, it can also be used to bombard you with annoying advertisements.

The list of dangerous negatives far outweigh the positive, potential uses of wearables by the vast majority of the population. Just consider what happened with 23andMe, where a major data breach in 2023 exposed the personal records of almost 7 million people. It served as a canary-in-the-coalmine, early-warning example for anyone with critical thinking skills.

NHF attorney Thomas Renz has cautioned that, “the wearables are all about data. How much of our personal data do we want to give to AI? It sounds like sci-fi but the openly stated goal of the tech companies is to create a digital clone of you so they can “test” whatever custom drug they think you need. I personally do not want a digital clone, nor do I trust the results of any tests done on a digital clone. Thankfully, they cannot clone you if they don’t have your data, but wearables frequently share important data that could be used towards that end with everyone through their EULA’s [End User License Agreement].”

But, as commentator Jon Rappoport aptly put it, “whatever happened to MAHA promoting sunlight, sleep, nutrition, exercise, heat/cold, herbs, magnesium, earthing, breathwork, laughter, connection, fasting, music, dancing, singing, creating, loving?” To which I add, “how can immersing ourselves in wearable tech truly bring happiness when it risks turning us into nothing more than data-harvesting subjects for the powerful elite?”

Associated Press Report: “The Trump administration announced it is launching a new program that will allow Americans to share personal health data and medical records across health systems and apps run by private tech companies, promising that will make it easier to access health records and monitor wellness.” “More than 60 companies, including major tech companies like Google, Amazon and Apple as well as health care giants like UnitedHealth Group and CVS Health, have agreed to share patient data in the system. The initiative will focus on diabetes and weight management, conversational artificial intelligence that helps patients, and digital tools such as QR codes and apps that register patients for check-ins or track medications.”

Bananas Might Be Blocking Your Smoothie’s Benefits

Researchers at the University of California, Davis have found that adding bananas to smoothies significantly reduces the body’s absorption of flavanols as well as heart- and brain-healthy compounds found in foods like berries, grapes, and cocoa. Bananas are rich in the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO), which, in a controlled study, lowered flavanol absorption by 84% compared to capsules or berry-based smoothies. The researchers recommend pairing flavanol-rich fruits with low-PPO ingredients like pineapple or oranges in order to maximize health benefits. This study highlights the importance of ingredient combinations in food preparation.

 Ottaviani J, Ensunsa J, Fong R, et al., “Impact of polyphenol oxidase on the bioavailability of flavan-3-ols in fruit smoothies: a controlled, single blinded, cross-over study,” Food & Function, August 24, 2023, DOI: 10.1039/D3FO01599H.

Old Antibiotic Offers New Hope for Lyme Disease

A new study highlights piperacillin, an older, FDA-approved antibiotic, as a promising low-dose treatment for Lyme disease, outperforming doxycycline in mouse models by up to 100-fold and sparing the gut microbiome. Researchers also discovered that persistent symptoms in patients may stem from peptidoglycan fragments (bacterial cell wall remnants that linger post-treatment and trigger chronic immune responses), potentially explaining post-treatment Lyme disease (PTLD). While piperacillin is not yet approved for Lyme and is currently only available intravenously, it may one day serve as a preventive dose immediately after a tick bite. Holistic approaches like herbal antimicrobials (Japanese Knotweed, garlic, neem etc.), detoxification, co-infection screening, and lifestyle support remain central to managing long-term recovery and preventing PTLD.

Gabby M, Bandara A, Outrata L, et al.,”A high-resolution screen identifies a preexisting beta-lactam that specifically treats Lyme disease in mice,” Sci. Transl. Med. 17:795, April 23, 2025, at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40267215/.

Earwax Test for Early Cancer Detection?

Researchers have developed a non‑invasive “cerumenogram” assay to analyze volatile organic metabolites in earwax, effectively distinguishing among cancer, precancerous conditions, benign tumors, and remission cases. In a study with 751 volunteers (531 with various cancers, 203 controls, and individuals with metaplasia, dysplasia, or benign masses), the assay achieved a high degree of accuracy (90.4% sensitivity and 88% specificity). Notably, it detected hypermetabolic precancerous inflammation and dysplasia but correctly classified metaplasia and benign tumors as low risk, highlighting its potential to guide early intervention and reduce unnecessary procedures. Case studies further showed the cerumenogram’s ability to identify asymptomatic inflammation and cancer recurrence, with results matching PET/CT imaging. This test offers a cost-effective, non-invasive complement for diagnosis, monitoring remission, and detecting early oncologic risk.

Barbosa J, de Oliveira C, Soares M, et al., “Cerumenogram as an assay for the metabolic diagnosis of precancer, cancer, and cancer remission,” Sci Rep 15, 13929, April 22, 2025, at  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97440-2.

Calendula officinalis: A Potent Medicinal Herb

Researchers reviewed studies from the past five years on Calendula officinalis (pot marigold), noting its rich composition of flavonoids, triterpenoids, saponins, and carotenoids. Because of these components, the herb offers a broad spectrum of therapeutic benefits, including anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antioxidant, hepatoprotective, wound-healing, antidiabetic, and anti-helminthic effects. The researchers detailed its traditional and clinical applications for burns, skin, mouth, cancer and gastrointestinal conditions, and explored the underlying molecular mechanisms, aiming to bridge gaps between traditional use and scientific validation and to guide future research for its safe and effective medicinal use.

Shahane K, Kshirsagar M, Tambe S, et al., “An Updated Review on the Multifaceted Therapeutic Potential of Calendula officinalis,” L. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 16(4):611, April 18, 2023, at doi: 10.3390/ph16040611. PMID: 37111369; PMCID: PMC10142266.

Get Outdoors in the Daytime and Turn Lights Off at Night

            It has been shown that nighttime light increases death risk by 46%, while daytime light reduces death risk by 39%. In fact, exposure to brighter nights and darker days causes circadian disruption, which accompanies the poor health outcomes that increase mortality risk.

Whether personal day and night light exposure predicts mortality risk is not known. This study captured some 13 million hours of data from light sensors worn by approximately 89,000 individuals who were over 40 years of age. Those with brighter nights and darker days had higher risk of premature mortality, after accounting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Avoiding night light and seeking daylight appear to promote optimal health and longevity.

Windred D, Burns A, Lane J, et al., “Brighter nights and darker days predict higher mortality risk: A prospective analysis of personal light exposure in >88,000 individuals,” PNAS, Oct. 15, 2024, at www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2405924121. See also Nicolas Hulscher, “Brighter Nights and Darker Days Increase Risk of Death by Up to 46%,” Focal Points, July 19, 2025, at https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/brighter-nights-and-darker-days-increase?img=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F49e6e3d5-ee39-425d-b463-b21859751435_1932x1678.png&open=false.

Both the National Health Federation and I are grateful for the interview on Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) by Politico, a mainstream media outlet. (See https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/14/its-a-maha-nation-now-00508287)

In that interview, I mentioned how most “health freedom” reforms were occurring not in Washington, D.C. but rather in the 50 States, because of the change in “culture.” This change in culture is a change in the zeitgeist (spirit of the times), which most experts believe must happen before politicians will change their votes.

I believe this cultural shift is reflected in a recent poll paid for by our friends at the Patient First Coalition. It (https://x.com/patientfirst47/status/1902004391604879796?s=46) found support for:

• clear labeling for what we eat or drink, or with which we are treated
• informed consent (via an end to mandates),
• honest science (that is, studies that actually have inert placebo control groups, unlike, for example, that placebo-free Danish study discounting any connection between autism and the vaccine adjuvant aluminum), and
• making corporations accountable for their harms (to which liability shields for pesticides, vaccines, or wireless injury run counter).

Despite being the World’s oldest health-freedom organization, and the main one during COVID-19 whose bicameral congressional letters were covered by Daily Caller and Epoch Times, our work on informed consent (or at the global Codex food standardization committees) hasn’t gotten much of any mainstream coverage until now. Maybe that’s a sign too of a social movement (or is it just an aberration)?

With COVID-19 corruption having quelled the vaccine-mandate edifice, keep in mind what NHF is hoping for in the next MAHA report is, among other things, stronger language on the newest front for Health Freedom, for which we have become the main lobbying organization: Telecom’s wireless mesh that already has left a third of the country harmed by its constantly emitted radiation.

Charles Frohman moderates the Patient First Conference panel on MAHA with whistleblowing lawyer Tom Renz, frontline heroine Simone Gold, NHF president Scott Tips & activist-farmer Howard Vlieger. (left)

During COVID-19, while many people were focused on protecting their lives and freedoms, industry took advantage of the distraction – channeling donations to Congress to pass laws that weaken informed consent and allow the rollout of smart meters and cell towers right outside our homes, workplaces, children’s schools, and community parks.

They’ve even got their propagandists in the media spewing talking points about the superiority of wireless over wired, as with this hit piece against Broadband: https://revolver.news/2025/08/trump-blows-up-dems-42-5b-broadband-boondoggle-that-fed-big-cable-despite-aocs-best-efforts/

Needless to say, NHF has submitted this letter to the editor as a rebuttal:

“Dear Revolver Editor, As the World’s oldest health-freedom organization, the National Health Federation strongly opposes threats to human health – including Telecom’s exploitation of the “broadband digital divide,” which the above article praised by encouraging dangerous substitutes for the wired Internet connections promised in the BEAD infrastructure law. The article fomented the industry talking point that fiber or cable broadband for rural homeowners is no more affordable or reliable than wireless alternatives. Under “tech neutrality,” the Verizons and T-Mobiles of the World want to claim families will garner just as fast, affordable, and reliable Internet with wireless as with wireline.

Industry admittedly is right when they are quoted in the article about getting rid of the DEI provisions, but NTIA (the agency that shares Telecom oversight with FCC) is using that as smokescreen to give handouts to Elon Musk and shortchange rural Americans. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per location connected with fiber is a ridiculous exaggeration – perhaps industry is cherry picking one or two outliers, which are not representative of the average rural connection costs for wired internet.

The article failed to include the facts: that any short-term savings to taxpayers via wireless disappear after the initial deployment, according to the Benton group (top industry analysts in Telecom and an organization not reputed to favor fiber). Wireless antennas and satellites only have a five-year lifespan. Paying for rural Americans’ satellite subscription fees is not a “generational investment” in broadband infrastructure, as promised under the BEAD program. It’s a Band aid that ends as soon as BEAD stops paying the monthly satellite subscription.

Wireless – even from Elon’s Starlink – never will upload or download at speeds as fast as fiber nor without the frustrating latency of wireless. Even the satellite industry’s chief lobbyist admits that fiber is like a Maserati, compared to slower satellite.

Regardless of slow, expensive and unreliable wireless, the article conveniently excluded the fact that in the Irregulators case, the DC Appeals Court in 2020 greenlighted State officials to audit what happened to the surcharge imposed and paid over the past several decades on every American’s landline bill in exchange for a promised wired connection that never happened. We will not let this scandal worth hundreds of billions of dollars be forgotten!

Finally, the article’s cavalier acceptance of Telecom lies for expensive, slow, and unreliable Internet ignored the elephant in the room – the danger of its emitted radiation. One-third of Americans already are sensitive to this exposure, up to 5% seriously so. RFK, Jr’s MAHA investigation of the cause of the real epidemic – chronic disease – includes electromagnetic radiation. The article’s acceptance of industry claims with zero research will only slow down connections, bankrupt taxpayers, frustrate consumers, and even endanger them. We’ve already paid for a wired connection that’s safer, faster, more affordable, and more reliable. Please no more industry infomercials.” Finally, credit must be given to HHS Secretary Kennedy for inviting organizations and experts to submit recommendations before the release of the next Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report. You can read the National Health Federation’s submission here: https://thenhf.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MAHA-letter-to-rfk-jr.pdf.