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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2025

Mossyrock, WA – The National Health Federation is very concerned about a global agreement that was adopted on Tuesday, May 20,2025. The just-adopted World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement represents a dangerous overreach of unelected global powers into national governance and individual freedoms.

The treaty could effectively give the WHO credence to convince countries to dictate pandemic responses – including lockdowns, vaccine mandates, travel bans, censorship policies, and digital surveillance – across all member states, with no democratic checks and balances.

“This is not about public health. This is about centralized control on a global scale,” said Scott Tips, JD, President and General Counsel for the National Health Federation. “The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a backdoor to a permanent state of emergency, where decisions that impact millions of lives could be made behind closed doors by unaccountable bureaucrats. And rather than reduce pandemics, this agreement will ensure that they occur more frequently and continue since each such pandemic will be an excuse to extend coercive control over the World’s population.”

Key concerns include:

• Erosion of National Sovereignty: The agreement may compel countries to comply with WHO directives, even when they conflict with domestic laws or public interest.
• Digital Surveillance Provisions: Proposals under the treaty include measures for real-time digital monitoring of citizens’ health status, raising major privacy and ethical concerns.
• Suppression of Dissent: The agreement calls for coordinated efforts to combat “misinformation,” which has been used to justify censorship of legitimate scientific debate and alternative viewpoints.

While the WHO maintains that it lacks the authority to implement our concerns, it has demonstrated that numerous countries do comply with its directives.

The National Health Federation is an international organization, a Codex-accredited INGO, and will continue to monitor concerns across the Globe pertaining to medical freedom issues. For more information, visit thenhf.com or contact philip@thenhf.com.

“Many of today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s solutions.” –Thomas Sowell

At the latest week-long meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA55) held here in Seoul, South Korea from March 24-28, 2025, there was a special afternoon event dedicated to “cell-based food production,“ as Codex calls it. Dr. Dean Powell, an Australian with the self-styled Good Food Institute, kicked off the event with his PowerPoint presentation on this newest miracle of science: lab-grown meat. His slide show laid out the details for creating this shiny, new future for food consumers.

Now It’s Franken-meat Being Pushed

Dr. Markus Lipp, the FAO Science Officer, gushed over the innocuously labeled lab-made meat that opponents call “Franken-meat” as he assured the Codex delegates on Tuesday afternoon, March 25th, 2025, that JECFA’s safety review was not going to be a problem but just a formality.[1] In fact, he said, “why not create a whole new food category for it” since “it’s not really a food additive.” “Of course,” he continued, gathering speed as his thoughts ran away with him, “There will be objections to it. Some people will feel threatened by it.”

The WHO Science Officer, Dr. Kim Petersen, was not nearly as effusive about these laboratory creations when he asked, “Will consumers accept these products? We are in the beginning of this, and we need some regulatory bodies to look into this.”

Interestingly enough, Dr. Lipp’s comments about opposition to Frankenstein foods and people being “threatened” by them followed the National Health Federation’s firm statements made the previous day strongly opposing them. The Federation most definitely sees these laboratory creations as a threat to human and animal health, and it was not shy at warning the assembled Codex delegates of its dangers:

“Lab-grown meat, developed through cell culture techniques requiring cellular immortalization, introduces oncogenic risks into the food supply, raising significant safety concerns. Additionally, exosomes secreted by these manipulated cells may carry bioactive molecules—including microRNAs and oncogenic proteins—that could cause unintended physiological effects and harm in consumers.”

However, the National Health Federation (NHF), a Codex-accredited INGO, did agree with Dr. Lipp on one point: These new synthetic foods are not really food additives – they warrant a separate category of their own. Dr. Lipp proposed calling them “production factors,” which seemed as reasonable as any other term suggested. Still, regardless of the label, introducing substances with cancer-causing potential into the food supply is unacceptable, especially from Codex, which claims to prioritize food safety.

Bugs for You and Me, Steak for Them

At Codex, “alternative protein sources” is the new code word for an insect-based food supply slated to replace or augment traditional Western-based diets. The entire infrastructure is being created at Codex for us to eat insects as a protein source instead of animals, at least for the peasants. The elite will eat as they always have.

The NHF once again objected to including insects in Codex’s New Food Forms both because of widespread allergies among humans to insects and the unhealthy presence of parasites in insects.[2] I also questioned why Codex is promoting insect consumption at the same time as it struggles to keep insect infestation out of the food supply, and when Codex could more properly focus on the huge food-waste problem as a solution to feeding the World’s population. As usual, however, there were no satisfactory responses to my objections.

Red Dye #3

 Red Dye #3 is an organoiodine compound, specifically a derivative of fluorone. It is a red-pink dye used for food coloring, cosmetics, hair coloring, pet products, and many industrial colorings. Also known as erythrosine, INS127 (at Codex), and E127 (in the European Union), it was recently banned by the FDA due to safety concerns per the Delaney Clause in the United States. I had one delegate approach me during a break to ask me for an explanation of why the FDA had banned this food dye.

 At Codex, a request was made to include Red Dye #3 on the Priority List for safety re-evaluation following its recent market withdrawal in the United States. However, CCFA55 accepted the JECFA Secretariat’s word that no new data was available for this substance and that the current safety evaluation conducted in 2018 remained valid.

So, CCFA55 excluded Red Dye #3 from the Priority List until new data becomes available. If or when any new data is available, then this Committee will ask JECFA to reassess the safety risks of Red Dye #3.

Monk Fruit Sweetener

The big surprise at this Codex meeting was to see the aspartame front group, Calorie Control Council (CCC), pushing for the adoption of a standard for the healthy alternative sweetener, monk fruit. I never thought in a million years that the NHF would ever find common ground to agree with the aspartame people on anything, at Codex or anywhere. But, well, here we are – in agreement on creating an international standard for this healthy, natural sweetener.

The NHF Delegation

The NHF delegation at CCFA55 consisted of Sayer Ji, Dr. Tia Kansara, and me as the head of delegation. Both Sayer and Tia were amazingly helpful in providing comprehensive support throughout the meeting, covering real-time reporting, photography and video, research, interviews, and interactions with other Codex delegates. Tia published her own informative report on this meeting.[3]

But the NHF could not have even attended this meeting had it not been for the financial support of one of our NHF members, a true silent heroine, who generously donated enough money to cover the costs of attending several Codex meetings, including this one. When people ask me what they can do to help NHF with Codex – or with any of its projects, for that matter – helping to put us at the forefront of the fight tops the list.

The Takeaway from this Meeting

While anyone can read the CCFA55 Final Report, it is highly sanitized, technical, and largely devoid of crediting which delegation opposed or supported a proposed food standard, which makes the entire process less transparent and much more difficult for any country’s citizens to track and then take to task their country’s Codex delegation if it goes rogue.[4]

I remember riding in an elevator once at the 2018 Vet-Drug-Residue Committee meeting in Chicago with, among others, the New Zealand delegate whom I overheard remarking to a fellow passenger how his Codex office represented consumers too. This remark was made entirely for my benefit since the NHF was the only consumer group in attendance at that particular meeting and I had commented on that fact to the delegates when speaking out at the meeting session. Sadly, this delegate could not have been more mistaken, as both New Zealand and Australia are well known for taking the most anti-consumer, pro-industry stances at every Codex meeting. I think we need to remember who really is looking out for the interests of the consumer at these global meetings, and I can assure you that it’s not the Anglo-Saxon countries.

What is apparent is that the anti-consumer and pro-Big Food viewpoint tends to prevail at these meetings. The insect food standards are advancing, as are the proposed Frankenstein-meat alternative food for humanity – certainly if the blessings of the High Priest of Codex Science are any token of future success. Still, NHF has had a major impact on weightier issues than these in prior meetings, including in this very committee. Patience, persistence, and support from our NHF base will help to carry the day.

[1] JECFA is the acronym for the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Additives and is generally regarded by most Codex delegates as unassailable in its scientific opinions.

[2] NHF had previously objected to the creation of these food categories at the CCNFSDU meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in March 2023, and at a Chinese Codex committee meeting before that.

[3] Dr. Tia Kansara, “Silent Heroes, Sovereign Choices: A Journey to Codex Alimentarius in Seoul,” Kansara substack, March 27, 2025, at https://replenishearth.substack.com/p/silent-heroes-sovereign-choices-a?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-30b33717-326a-47c4-8526-e4656073bc91.

[4]  The CCFA55 Final Report can be read online at fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-711-55%252F%25E2%2598%2585Final%2Breport%252FREP25_FAe.pdf. NHF’s remarks on bug food and Franken-meat are summarized in paragraph 42 of that report, without credit being given to NHF for its opposition.

Founder of Functional Diagnostic Nutrition and Pioneer in Holistic Health

Reed Davis is a prominent figure in the field of holistic health and functional medicine, best known as the founder of Functional Diagnostic Nutrition (FDN). His innovative approach to health and wellness has made significant contributions to the understanding and practice of functional health coaching.

Background and Early Career

Reed Davis’s journey in the health and wellness field is rooted in his passion for holistic approaches to health. Early education includes completion of a post-baccalaureate Environmental Law program at the University of San Diego, with honors, as well as multiple fitness and wellness certification programs including board-certification as a Holistic Health Practitioner (HHP) and a Certified Nutritional Therapist (CNT). Davis was recently awarded a Doctor of Functional Nutrition by the American Natural Wellness Practitioners Board.

These credentials are only part of the foundation of his expertise in functional health. Davis’s early career was marked by his role as the Health Director at a Wellness Center in Southern California. During this time, he worked with over 10,000 clients, gaining invaluable experience and insights into the challenges faced by individuals seeking to improve their health. This extensive hands-on experience would later inform his development of the FDN methodology.

Founding of Functional Diagnostic Nutrition (FDN)

Reed Davis founded Functional Diagnostic Nutrition over 15 years ago, driven by his observations of patients caught in a “cycle of trial and error” with ineffective treatments.

The inception of FDN was a result of Davis’s extensive work in alternative medicine, where he conducted thousands of laboratory tests on numerous clients. This research helped him identify “healing opportunities” that were often overlooked by conventional medical practices.

The development of FDN was a response to the limitations Davis observed in traditional medical approaches. He noticed that many patients were not achieving desired health outcomes through conventional treatments, which led him to develop a more holistic and comprehensive methodology.

The FDN Methodology

The core of FDN is encapsulated in the H.I.D.D.E.N. formula, which stands for hormones, immune, digestion, detoxification, energy production, and nervous system balance.

This formula is used to assess the underlying conditions that contribute to health issues, focusing on addressing upstream factors that cause downstream symptoms. FDN emphasizes a holistic, evidence-based approach designed to investigate and resolve the underlying causes of chronic health problems that are not associated with a specific disease. This methodology aims to improve overall health and eliminate symptoms, often without the presence of a true disease process.

Growth and Global Impact

Since its founding, FDN has experienced significant growth and recognition in the health and wellness community. The Functional Diagnostic Nutrition Certification Course, developed by Reed Davis, has trained over 4,000 practitioners in more than 50 countries.

This global reach demonstrates the widespread acceptance and adoption of the FDN approach in health coaching and functional health communities.

Educational Content and Publications

Reed Davis is actively involved in creating educational content and participating in interviews related to Functional Diagnostic Nutrition and holistic health. Besides publications in Wellness Worldclass and Biohackers Magazine, his contributions to the field include:

1. Interviews: Davis has been featured in interviews discussing his journey and the development of FDN. For example, he was interviewed by Adam Torres on Mission Matters Fitness, where he shared insights about his experience in practicing and developing FDN.

2. Upcoming Book: Reed Davis is working on a book with Mission Matters, which is likely to further expand on his methodologies and insights in functional health.

3. Educational Programs: The FDN Certification Course and the D.R.E.S.S. for Health Success® program are key educational offerings developed by Davis. These programs aim to empower individuals and practitioners with comprehensive knowledge of functional health approaches.

Industry Recognition and Testimonials

Functional Diagnostic Nutrition, under Reed Davis’s leadership, has garnered significant recognition in the health and wellness sector:

1. FDN is described as “the most respected stand-alone health coaching methodology” and is noted as a perfect complement to evidence-based or functional medicine.

2. The global impact of FDN, with graduates in 50 countries, showcases the widespread acceptance and recognition of Davis’s program on an international scale.

3. Davis is acknowledged for his insights into how functional medicine addresses the true sources of illness, establishing his credibility in the field of holistic health and functional medicine.

Recent Activities and Future Outlook

While specific recent activities are quite numerous, Reed Davis continues to be active in the field of functional health. His ongoing involvement includes:

1. Conducting seminars and workshops for health professionals.

2. Providing consulting services to healthcare practices.

3. Contributing to industry publications and thought leadership initiatives.

4. Potentially engaging with new technologies and innovations in functional health and wellness.

Conclusion

Reed Davis stands as a pioneering figure in the field of functional health and nutrition. Through his founding and development of Functional Diagnostic Nutrition, he has made significant contributions to the understanding and practice of holistic health approaches. His work continues to influence and educate practitioners worldwide, shaping the future of functional medicine and health coaching. As the field of holistic health continues to evolve, Reed Davis’ methodologies and insights remain at the forefront of innovative approaches to wellness and preventive health care.