Richard Bonugli welcomes Leslie Manookian and Charles Hugh Smith on The Roundtable Insight to discuss health freedom and healthcare.
You can read the conversation between Richard, Charles, and Leslie below.
Intro: Welcome to Financial Repression Authorities Round Table Insight. We’re the best fund managers, economists, and industry leaders to discuss the key investment issues and challenges in the current macroeconomic environment.
Richard: Welcome to FRA Round Table Insight this is Richard Bonugli today we have Leslie Manookian and Charles Hugh Smith. Leslie is president and founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund and a former successful wall street business executive. Her career in finance took her from New York to London with Goldman Sachs.
She later became director of Alliance capital in London, running their European growth portfolio management and research businesses. And Charles is author leading global finance blogger, and America’s philosopher we call him. He’s the author of several books on our economy and society, including A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All, Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change, The Nearly Free University, and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution in Higher Education, Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic. Will You Be Richer or Poorer? And most recently Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States.
His blog www.oftwominds.com/ is one of CNBC’s top alternative finance sites. Welcome, Leslie and Charles.
Charles: Thank you, Richard.
Leslie: Thank you, Richard. Great to be here with both of you guys today.
Richard: Great I thought today would do a focus discussion on health, freedom, and bodily autonomy and how the health care sector is evolving. What it represents. And, Leslie has started an organization dedicated to this. Charles has written extensively on his blog and in his many books about this topic as well. Maybe we can begin, Leslie with your background. Like how did you go from wall street to health freedom?
Leslie: So I was, working, you know, on wall street and had been for many years. And when I was 28, I just started getting sick and having all these problems. And I didn’t know what was going on with me. And it took many years before, my doctor in London told me that he thought I should go and see a homeopath and I thought okay I mean, I was open to healthy lifestyles and holistic treatments, but I’d never- didn’t know anything about homeopathy, but I went and saw a homeopath and it really helped my health at that point. It kind of helped stabilize me for a while. And, it was so positive that it made me think about what I was doing. And so I actually enrolled in homeopathy college on the weekends and started learning about homeopathy and I found it to be just a miraculous medicine. And I mean, I had a certain, like I had a ski accident. I went helicopter skiing in BC, actually in Canada. And, this guy a fellow skier ran into me and I had a bruise on my hip that lasted for a month. It wouldn’t go away and it was like the color and size of an eggplant. And in England, homeopathy is very popular, and so I went and I bought some arnica cream, a homeopathic cream, and I just spread it on like a quarter of the giant- I mean, I’m talking, it was big, right? This big bruise. I spread it on a quarter of that before I went to bed. My, it had not shifted in a month, right? And I thought this is just crazy, but I put this stuff on and when I woke up in the morning, I pulled down my pajamas and the space where I had put the cream was totally normal, white skin color. It had completely gone away. It was a hundred percent normal, just that one-quarter patch. And I was like, Whoa, that can’t be real. And so I did it the next night on another quarter, and then until it was all gone, but I just, it really said to me, okay, there’s something to homeopathy. And so I started seeing this homeopath. It changed my life. I enrolled in homeopathy school and on the very first day during orientation, the person who was leading it said, you know, we’re going to talk about all these different issues over the next three years. One of them is vaccine damage and vaccine injury. And I raised my hand and said, you’ve gotta be nuts. What are you talking about? Vaccines are the greatest invention of mankind. And he said, well, that’s one perspective and we’re going to learn another. But I mean, I fully believed that they could do no wrong that there was nothing but benefit to them and that they were responsible for eradicating the deaths of millions of people and all these diseases.
And what happened was after the class, I went and I read this book and it changed my life because it had footnotes to 900 and I don’t know, 50, 60 references in the medical literature. And it was clearly documenting a broad spectrum of issues that are caused by shots, including seizures and rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions, seizures, neurological complications, and death I was just stunned by that. And, but it piqued my interest enough that I knew that one day I would make a movie on it. And so I made an award-winning documentary on vaccines called The Greater Good, and it was released in April of 2011. But anyway, that learning all of that and starting to be able to address my health problems that have been ongoing for over a decade. Kind of encouraged me to start leaving to really think, Hmm. Maybe I should go out, and start doing something different and doing something that resonates more deeply with me because I felt that- I felt kind of empty, frankly. You know, I saw a lot of things. It just didn’t feel good to me in my position.
And I thought maybe I would go and spend the rest of my life doing something different and actually giving back. And doing something that was fulfilling to me. And so that’s what really was the impetus behind me leaving to go and do something different. And of course, when 2020 rolled around, there was so much opportunity to actually push back and give back. And that’s why I founded Health Freedom Defense Fund to educate people about their rights and then to litigate when their rights are infringed.
Richard: Very interesting. And Charles as well, you’ve written extensively on, our healthcare system, and you’ve referred to it as sick care. Can you elaborate from your blog posts and books? What do you mean by that and some examples.
[00:07:00] Charles: Yeah. Thank you, Richard. And Leslie, I’m really moved by your personal account. And I have to say we have a tube of arnica, always on hand and I use it probably once a week for one thing or another and]Leslie: I carry the pills in my bag with me everywhere I go. And I have another bottle in my car just in case because you know, when my son was young, he played all these sports. And whenever they’re kids around their bruises, their bumps, their crashes or whatever.
]Charles: Yeah, to your question, Richard, about sick care, I think, I would define it in a number of ways I use that term because I think the system is set up to make us sick and keep us sick so that, that’s the most profitable setting for the health care complex, which I think was Leslie’s term for the whole industry. And we have to remember that this industry used to be at most, a couple of percent of the entire nation’s GDP, and now it’s pushing 20%. In other words, it’s basically… that’s growing and, is going to overwhelm and bankrupt the entire nation and there’s the financial damage. And then the health damage. To my mind being healthy means you don’t need to take any pharmaceuticals that your lifestyle and your diet and so on is such that you’re healthy even as you age. And yet that is totally been destroyed as a definition of health now you need to have handfuls of pills and this and that and procedures, all of which are ridiculously expensive.
And, and so the system is not set up to encourage health or foster health or persuade us to, pursue health. It’s, all set up to do the most perverse and destructive things to our health as a way of profiteering. And that is evil, frankly, on top of everything else, that is an evil system.
Leslie: Yeah. If I can follow up on that, I had a front-row seat. In the- unfortunately in interviewing corporation corporate leadership to determine which stocks we should buy when I was running the European growth portfolio management and research businesses at Alliance capital. And I had a truly jaw-dropping experience happened, which was actually one of the big reasons why I decided to leave because I just couldn’t believe how, it was incomprehensible what this man said to me, but the CEO of one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world came into our offices and we owned a billion dollars of their stocks, you know a big amount because we were big investors and the stock was getting crushed in the market because their new blockbuster drug, which was coming out was getting-, there were rumors trickling out from the phase three trials saying that the drug was killing people. That a few people on the clinical trial had died. And this was a drug that was supposed to help your heart. And it was causing this condition in the heart that actually led to death in people. And so the CEO, the chief financial officer, the head of R and D and the head of investor relations came into our offices and they said the CEO said, listen okay. So in very, very rare instances, this new drug has… a few people have died from the drug. Okay. In very, very rare instances. And the bad news is that the FDA is going to make us put a black box warning on our packaging. The good news is we still think we’ll be able to generate 7 billion in peak sales. And I was just. Whoa. Whoa. Did, did any, did anybody else, like, did that bother anybody else? Cause I felt like I just got kicked in the gut and whoa. I went to my office after the meeting and I literally paced back and forth and I was like, this is, I mean, I was so- disturbed by it. It was really jarring to me. And then I walked down the hallway to our pharmaceutical analyst office and like flung her door open and I was like, this is wrong! And she looked at me like, yeah, I know lady, what do you want me to do about it? You know? And I was just like, oh my gosh, they’re going to kill people. They know it, their focus is on their wealth and corporate profits, not your health and I’m on the wrong team.
Richard: And until you then started the Health Freedom Defense Fund what is the mandate of that fund?
Leslie: Yeah, well, just to be clear, that was 20 years ago, right? That I left. That happened and I just thought, gosh, I gotta get out of here. And then I got pregnant and I ended up leading to, to be a, what I consider, the best mom I could possibly be to my son.
And then what happened was of course, fast forward to 2020. And, I saw all these measures that were coming out of. And, people need to understand that there has been legislation that’s been put in place since the 1940s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and then really in earnest in the last two decades, facilitating lockdowns, extreme measures, production of medical countermeasures, which are totally liability-free for the manufacturers of them and just extraordinary powers to state health departments. There was something called the model, state emergency health powers act legislation that was introduced in early in 2001 after the Patriot Act was introduced and this accorded extraordinary power. It is accorded extraordinary power to state health departments and governors in the event of an emergency. And the point is that if you are really paying attention for the last 20 years and you were watching the repeal of all of these exemptions to vaccines for children in California, in New York, and elsewhere, and the, just the intrusions into the family unit and also into bodily autonomy telling us what we can and can’t do. I mean, it’s really outrageous. The point is that by the beginning of 2020 when all this stuff happened, I thought I know where this is going.
[00:13:01] This is exactly what I’ve been fearing and talking about for almost two decades. And it’s going to be very ugly and it is literally an act of God, the universe, whatever you want to call it brought a very accomplished international commercial litigator into my life in late 2019. And I started telling him about what I knew about how you can’t sue the vaccine manufacturers if you’re injured. How there’s this special court, there’s no due process or discovery. It’s not a proper judge. It’s decided by a special master and all these things and he couldn’t believe it. And so he would go and, you know, fact check me on everything and he kept calling back saying, you’re right. You’re right. And I’m like, I know I’m right. I know. And anyway, I just realized that it was time to do something and he was going to support me in doing so. And he’s like, we should do something. And I said, yes, we should, somebody got to do something and we’re going to, and so he helped me start Health Freedom Defense Fund.And it was basically just because I knew that this, this push towards a new world order, a global government system, and the desecration of the ideals that we hold dear in the west, like bodily autonomy and freedom of speech and things like this were. on the chopping block. And so we started it, I started it in the summer of 2020.
We focus on educating Americans about their rights and freedoms and some of that’s transferable outside the country because I believe that everybody has natural rights by virtue of being born human, but, those are actually codified in law and documented in all of our founding father’s writings and documents.
So in the United States, there’s really strong support for them, but we educate about those rights, and then when necessary and when our health freedoms are infringed, we litigate. And so we have launched over a dozen lawsuits in the last year and a half pushing back against all the measures. And we had a huge win last week, as you guys know, but I’ll get into that. If you want to talk about it later.
Richard: Sure. And Charles, do you see, some of the same trends that, Leslie has spoken in terms of what is happening in the healthcare sector, in the economy?
Charles: Right. And I guess I would just say that we see, there’s a balance in all governments, between coercion and persuasion.
And, obviously, the balance has been lost, and now it’s mostly coercion and there’s very little persuasion and this is considerably different than, as Leslie said, the way that the government was initially designed and up until quite recently. And so, strategist Edward Luttwa k who, who has differentiated between force and power, and his basic premise is that if power comes from persuasion, in other words, like you make a case for something and you win people’s approval through their own decision-making coercion is forcing people to do stuff.
And obviously, that’s totalitarian. So it’s like the erosion that, that Leslie’s described has been, you know, really it’s like the boiled frog, analogy, right. It’s been so slow and sort of under the radar, most people don’t, have the time or knowledge to understand how the erosion process until 2020 and the lockdowns and everything since then. So I commend you, Leslie you’ve taken action that very few individuals have the courage and fortitude to do.
Leslie: Yeah, I think I’ve also been really fortunate. You know, I’ve had all these different experiences in my life. I worked on wall street for 11 or 12 years. I’ve become a homeopath. I made a documentary, a filmmaker, so I know a lot of areas right? And I think it helps to be able to bring those together and have all that experience and also education. And so people have seen that I actually delivered on the projects that I’ve said that I was going to in the past, like making that movie, it was an award-winning documentary on vaccines.
And I think that that really lends itself or that helps me, right. It’s a stamp of approval that I wouldn’t have had if I just did this fresh out of the starting blocks. But I also believe that you just have to put one foot in front of the other and that when you do, if you’re on the right track, I really truly believe that life will unfold appropriately for you.And so a 22-year-old could have done it as well. I just think it’s the time is right. And I was following my heart and I just started. I’m like, okay, I can stall or I can just do it. And that’s what I decided to do.
Richard: And if we look at the last couple of years here in the COVID crisis, what, what is your opinion about the COVID crisis? and why it’s happened? Like what do you see as the drivers?
Leslie: Yeah, I think it’s a confluence of a bunch of factors. One is that technology has gotten to the point now where it can actually be deployed to control the populace in a very totalitarian way. So that’s one thing. It didn’t exist that way 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Secondly, I think that the capture of the agencies, the health agencies, CDC, FDA, and NIH is so comprehensive at this point that together married with the capture of the media. That they can really truly control the narrative.
And so, if you look at FDA, they’ll take $2.65 billion from the pharmaceutical industry directly and user fees this year, which is an extraordinary amount of money. it’s roughly 65% of the drug approver salaries at FDA. If you look at NIH, they, are now allowed to, and they have been for a few decades to retain the intellectual property rights to their, the patent rights to their intellectual property.
They develop off of taxpayers’ backs. And so Fauci is NIAID developed the Madonna shot and they retain half the patent and they can make $150,000 a year on that. And in the last 20 or 30 years, I can’t remember if it’s 20 or 30 years the NIH has received $2 billion in royalties, off of patents that they own. And that’s an extraordinary amount of money and it’s a huge conflict of interest. And then CDC has taken about 300 million in the last year from the pharmaceutical industry and other vested interests. And they have something called the CDC Foundation, which is a public-private partnership. So it’s not really truly a federal health agency because they are literally taking money directly from the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other vested interests.
So you’ve got those things coming together. And then on top of that, you have something that we talked about in our first discussion, and that was this financial backdrop. And I won’t go into it in detail, but Europe, in particular, faces a, an existential crisis at this point in time because the ECB owns, a very large portion, probably verging on 50% of all outstanding European denominated debt.
And, the banks are very fragile. They are not well-capitalized. They were never forced to recapitalize and write off their bad debts after the 08-09 crisis. So they’re still carrying all those bad debts. And the ECB has had negative interest rates or close to zero interest rates for almost eight years, which has destroyed their pension markets. But also painted themselves into a corner because if you own 40 or 50% of the debt and you raise rates, then your balance sheet is going to plummet like a rock if you raise rates. So they can’t do anything to incentivize more people, more investors to come into the bond market to buy their bonds. And they can’t raise rates because it hurts themselves. So they’re really between a rock and a hard place. And so the financial backdrop drop is I think really the why right now because they can’t kick the debt can down the street anymore, and they can’t finance themselves anymore. And in the US we’ve got everybody knows.
I’m sure that we now have over $30 trillion of debt and that’s- we don’t need to really go into detail on that. Basically, Western civilization has been making promises that it can never deliver to its electorate in order to, you know, the politicians have been in order to get elected.
And, what’s going to happen in my view, is that. They will likely default on their debts, but they will placate the populace, make it palatable to them by telling them, well, we’re going to default, but we’re not going to default. We’re going to have a debt holiday and everybody’s, debt’s going to go away.
So we’ll take your assets from you, but we’ll start giving you universal basic income instead, and everything will be fine. Right. And so they’ll do it all under the cover of that. And so that’s really what’s happening in my view. And. It’s happening now because of the urgency of the financial situation, but it’s aided by the capture of the media. The pharmaceutical industry will spend $35 billion globally on advertisements in the media this year. Think about that. That’s the GDP of some countries. So, you know, it’s an extraordinary, like I say, a confluence of factors and then all of also the technology to actually accomplish. The great reset and the transhumanist agenda and all the other things that you know are no secret.
If you pay attention to the world economic forum or to what technocracy.news has to say, it’s very, very clear what’s going on. So it’s terrifying and, I think that the whole COVID crisis has been used, perhaps exaggerated extraordinarily in order to frighten the public into accepting conditions, measures violations of their natural rights, and intrusions into their liberties that they would have never accepted under any other kind of circumstance. And I think this is of course, the explanation for why anybody who’s pushed back has been labeled a conspiracy theorist, is deep platform from Twitter, YouTube, et cetera. I talk about the stuff and poor Richard had his video on YouTube, taken down. That we did because they don’t want to talk about these things. You are not allowed to say, well, actually they have, Luxembourg has five times as much debt as it does GDP. That’s kind of a problem. Right? You can’t say these things, even though it’s a fact.
I am 99% sure that that fact is correct. I could double-check it, but I’m pretty sure Belgium and Luxembourg have extraordinary debt to GDP ratios, you know? And, if it’s not debt, then it’s like, what do they call it? Social commitments, huge number. They’ll never get their way out of that. Right?
Never.
Richard: And very interesting. Charles, you’ve written extensively, a lot of blog posts on the topics.
Charles: Right, right. I think the… I’m just trying to contextualize, you know, our discussion for our listeners. Public health had, as Leslie referenced early on, had some great successes against diseases such as polio. And before that cholera and so on. And, I wonder if, Leslie, you could speak to, the differences in the whole approach to those public health successes, as opposed to what we do now. Because I think that would be that’s what a lot of people think of as you mentioned, we all, remember the successes of the forties and fifties against diseases.
And so, that’s sort of the template, but the template’s been changed, but not all of us are aware of how.
Leslie: So, first of all, I have to tell you that what you’ve been told about polio and the success of the polio shot is not true. They changed the diagnostic criteria. So in the beginning, part of the 20th century, there were almost no polio cases at all at the turn of the century.
And then they started using lead arsenic as a pesticide, which is a potent neurotoxin and other lead and arsenic-based pesticides. And you saw a commensurate uptake in what they called polio, during the period when they were using. Very very toxic pesticides. And you actually could, you can see video footage and photographs of them rolling down the streets. I’m talking about DDT and other chemicals. DDT is good for me. That’s what they said. And they drove these vehicles down the streets with this spray coming out the back and the children would play in it in the hot summers. They would spray in the spring. And then you would have a, in the late spring and early summer. And then you would have these summer outbreaks. That were largely in more agricultural kinds of neighborhoods. And at the same time that they launched the polio shot, they actually changed the diagnostic criteria for a doctor to diagnose you as having polio. This is from memory. So I hope it’s exact, I believe that before they introduced the shot, you had to have no tests.
The doctor would just say that you have. Poliomyelitis, which is inflammation of a certain membrane in the nervous system. And, after they introduced the shots, they required two tests before the shots. They bulked together aseptic, meningitis, Coxsackie virus, and polio all into one group. And after they introduced the shots, they had these two tests and they separated out the other two and that mechanistically, so just mathematically made the cases plummet, but they did something else which was really, really quite, insidious. And that is that they said that. Before the shots were introduced. If you had paralysis for 48 hours, then you qualified as a case, but afterwards they extended it to, I believe it was 60 days. So you can imagine what that would do to the number of cases. And then they quietly started phasing out these pesticides and they attributed the success to the jabs, but I don’t believe that that’s really what was the reason for the success and the fact that there was almost none for 20, 30 years up until the 1940s when they started using these pesticides speaks to something environmental, there was literally almost no polio in 1900, and I can show you the data going back. So that’s one thing, it’s really important to understand.
And I know that that is- that challenges everything that we’ve been told, but check the facts. I promise you what I’m telling you is true. You can go and get, the data from the civil war through the 1970s, I think, or 1980s. And, it’s, I’m trying to think if I have it posted on my greater good movie website, I don’t know, but I’m happy to supply it to anybody who wants to see it, or I can send it to you so you guys can see the data yourselves. So that’s one thing. Measles is another really interesting thing in the first two decades of the 20th century, there were on average between 10 and 20,000 deaths in America, every single year from measles. Okay. By 19, the years, 1958 to 1963. maybe it was 62 to 19. Maybe it was 59 to five years preceding the introduction of the shot. And I think the shot, the measles shot was introduced in 1963. So it was 58 to 62 on average, guess how many deaths there were every single year, the five years on average preceding the introduction of the measles shot.
Just take a guess
Charles: 10,000.
Leslie: 430.
Charles: Oh gosh! Wow!
Leslie: And so what happened? Well, there was an amazing study, a review of the- all of the health data going back for more than a century published in the journal of pediatrics in June of 2000, I believe it’s called. An analysis or summary of the vital statistics of America of the United States.
[00:29:38] And what they concluded was that 90% of the reduction in infectious disease mortality in the 20th century had nothing to do with vaccinations or antibiotics. It happened as a result of the improvement in sanitation getting the sewage out of the streets, the animals out of the streets, and clean drinking water to people. It was all about public health measures. I think they said it was 89%. So roughly 90%. But we’re told that it was all because of modern medicine and that’s not the case. It’s because when the industrial revolution happened, people moved into. In the cities, there was no drinking water. There was no sanitation, there were animals, and there was open sewage. We didn’t have refrigeration, all of these things. And so people lived in fedded, you know, like literally despicable conditions and you can see images from the late 18 hundreds and early 19 hundreds, where there were effectively shantytowns on backing onto open sewage. That’s going to breed disease. So, that’s one thing I hope you don’t mind. I kind of went off on a tangent, but it’s really important to understand that we have not been told the truth about the impact that modern medicine has had on our health is much more about improvements in public health than it is about medicine. So I don’t understand why Bill Gates and his cronies don’t go and, dig Wells all over the world because that would change things dramatically overnight, right? If you just provided people with clean drinking water and, or if you provided them with some kind of a sanitation system, so this is really the big root problem that we’re facing. So that’s really important to understand and then with respect to the second half of the question when there’s been any kind of a health mandate, and there really only has ever been one once, and that was with smallpox and that’s another issue that’s been wildly, vastly distorted. Okay. Smallpox they claimed that it was because of the shots, but that’s not the case. It’s because of, it was because of isolation in Leicester, England, they never introduced the jabs. There were huge riots and protests because people were getting sick and damaged by the shots and Leicester decided it would do something different.And so it quarantine individuals who came down with smallpox, and they had a way, way lower death rate, multiples, like almost no problems. They had no complications and they isolated and stopped the disease. So that’s what really saved us. And they were doing that all over the world. It was quarantined in isolation, but it was only of people who were sick, not of healthy people.
[00:32:20] So how have things changed? Well, never before in the history of the world, has humanity locked down every person. Okay, never before, has everybody been told that they have to wear a mask. Never. And in fact, they tried to do it in the Spanish flu and they found that it had no impact. The Washington post has even reported this. On top of that, there’s never been any kind of like blanket sweeping contact tracing, forced interventions, like these jabs they did mandate the smallpox vaccination in, a town in Massachusetts. And there was a lawsuit about it called Jacobson versus Massachusetts that went to the Supreme court, but it allowed for a fine to be paid of $5.So no one was forcibly jabbed against their will. That’s never happened before and we’ve never also had all the silencing of anyone who exposes that the data doesn’t show what health authorities are telling us or say that, treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine work when they do there’s clear data showing this. We’ve never had that we’ve never had, health authorities change the definition of a pandemic from just from being something where there’s excess deaths and morbidity on a pervasive level to just excess cases. And that’s what they did. We’ve never had them change the definition of vaccination to something that just suppresses symptoms from something that actually protects against transmission and infection.
It’s everything that we’re experiencing is a radical departure from anything that has ever happened before on the planet. And it’s really challenging to be aware of what the data is and to live under this disinformation while we’re being accused of spreading disinformation because it’s the governments who are putting out the disinformation.
Charles: Yeah. That’s a marvelous answer. Thank you so much. I think it really- you summarized it very precisely. What’s different this time and I think that’s really what we need to focus on. Or if we had a thumbnail sketch of our conversation, that’s what I would put in. What’s different about the whole approach to public health this time around and in terms of the silencing it’s remarkable and disturbing, I’m sure to all three of us and, hundreds of millions of other people that science and we put that now in quotes, sadly, has veered away from what science actually is, which is experimentation testing of, thesis and, having that experiment repeated by someone without any interest. Theoretically uninterested to make sure that data is validated and then acting on whatever the results of that process were. And now it’s been so heavily politicized. That it’s- that I find that really disturbing and frightening. And, I actually have plowed through a stage three, phase three trial studies, and there’s so much manipulation of statistics, that the average person and I’m not, I don’t claim to be a statistician, but I do have a bit basic math understanding. And so we’re told that this stuff is safe, but, and it’s effective. And then you dig into the day. And you realize it’s like statistical noise almost is what the so-called benefit is. And so then you go, well, why is this getting approved? When, you know, 67 people benefited and, and randomness would be 65 people.
Leslie: Exactly. Charles. Exactly. And, I would add to that, that it’s not just the agencies, the health agencies that have been captured, but so if the journals, the Lancet, one of the most prestigious journals in the world takes about 40 or 50% of its revenues comes from something called reprints from the pharmaceutical industry. So the pharmaceutical industry will get a study published and the JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association and other esteemed journals. Takes- so I can’t remember one of them takes 40% and one of them takes over 50%. And I don’t remember which one of it is which one takes, which, but those two journals, just as an example, receive 40 to 50% of their revenues from the pharmaceutical industry for reprints.
So the pharmaceutical industry will get a study on one of their drugs published in that journal. And then the pharmaceutical company will say to the Lancet, Hey, will you pull out just our study and print it in a glossy manner with the Lancet cover on it and package it and then send it out. Tens of thousands of doctors all over the world for us. Right? So the journal makes buckets of money off of it. And the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical company gets its study published in the journal like, look how fantastic our drug is. We now have the kind of approval, right? It’s that rubber stamp, the stamp of approval. And it’s sent to thousands of doctors all over the world. Now any thinking person can see that that’s a problem. That’s a conflict of interest right? So if Pfizer is paying you millions and millions of dollars for reprints, are you going to be more likely to publish a study on Pfizer’s drug? Much more likely.
And are you going to scrutinize appropriately? Diligently as you might, for someone who didn’t pay you millions of dollars for reprints, probably not. And so there’s, there’s that aspect of it. And then on top of that, the pharmaceutical industry gives buckets of money to the major universities, all the big universities, their research is funded through three sources, essentially one $40 billion budget at NIH that Dr. Fauci oversees. 40 billion. Think about that. Two the pharmaceutical industry and the billions that they fund. And then three, the private foundations, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So these universities that we, used to think of as bastions of intellectual freedom and scientific research are very much captured as well. And that’s really problematic because, this buzzword that’s been around for the last 20 years of evidence-based medicine, but even the editor of the New England journal of medicine, the editor of the Lancet, and one of the most esteemed in fact, possibly the most published scientist on the planet, a guy named John Ioannidis from Stanford.
They all say that somewhere between 50 and 90% of scientific publications- what’s published in the journals can’t be trusted that it’s at best, it’s a flip of a coin and at worst it’s 90% and it’s possibly out and out fraud. So it’s really – we face a truly troubling situation in that it’s very challenging for the average layperson to understand what’s going on and then discern what’s true and what’s not true. So you really have to rely on the independent media to do this for you because the mainstream is bought. And they’re not going to tell you the truth.
Richard: Yeah, exactly. Leslie, can you tell us about your big win in defeating the Biden administration’s mask mandate?
Leslie: Sure. So for your listeners who don’t know our viewers who don’t know, Health Freedom, Defense Fund sued the Biden administration in July of 2021. And the law is unbelievably slow. It takes a long time, but finally on April 18th of this year. So just last week on Monday, last week, we received the judge’s decision that she found in our favor and she struck down CDC travel mass mandate, which required Americans who were traveling on airplanes and buses. Any public transportation that took federal funds from the Cares Act to mask passengers. So even if you were just like a small little bus in an area, but if you took funds from the cares act then you had to require masking of your passengers and in any airport, any bus terminal, anything like that, train stations masking, it was just everywhere. And it was struck down. It was vacated as illegal that the CDC lacked the statutory authority under the public health service act to actually implement the mandate that they did not follow the proper procedure of notifying the public and taking public comment and justifying the mandate and that it was arbitrary and capricious in that they didn’t- they just had certain cutoffs, like, under-twos don’t have to wear them when there was no scientific justification for that. So that was a huge win. And, we feel it was a huge win for American Liberty, right. Basic American Liberty. And people have been celebrating, we’ve received photos and videos of flight attendants, dancing in the aisles and singing take off your masks and people ripping them off and celebrating. And I think it’s really given Americans who felt that they were- who felt hopeless, a level of hope. That’s what I’m hearing and they just feel inspired. So it’s been fantastic for us, you know, really, really exciting. And I’m just super pleased and my, gratitude and thanks go to our legal team- who led it was a man named Brant Hadaway and he, just did a fantastic job on the complaint. And I think the way that it was constructed and articulated and his understanding of the law was just brilliant and comprehensive and the judge saw it our way. So we are just delighted. Sorry, I’m running on that, but I’m so excited about it. I’ve literally all I’ve done for the last 10 days is media essentially. Cause there’ve been so many people wanting to know and hear what’s going on and celebrate it because I think people feel empowered by it. And I think people have been feeling hopeless and despairing that, will ever get back to any kind of semblance of normality. And it’s depressing.
Charles: Yeah, absolutely. No, it’s exciting to hear your side of it. And I guess what I was thinking when I was listening to you was, there’s a social contract, you know, and a lot of what we focus on or the media tells us to focus on is technology, oh, whizzbang technology. But actually, I think social innovation and the social movements are where I think the rubber hits the road. And so what I’m hopeful about is that people have to come to a social, a new social contract where this political kind of control is no longer acceptable. And I don’t know how long it’ll take us to get there, but I wonder if you sort of sensed the same thing that there’s a social pushback.
That’s not just temporary related to COVID or the lockdown per se but in general. And that’s what I’m kind of hoping for is a general sense that, that this is no longer acceptable, you know this level of coercion and, of insider trading and, conflicts of interest, you know, the whole, the whole spectrum that you’ve described. And I don’t think it will change. Until we do get that sort of social rewriting of the social contract or where this kind of, level of intrusion and totalitarian coercion is no longer acceptable to the populace. I don’t know what you think of that maybe that’s just a pipe dream. I don’t know.
Leslie: Oh, no, I totally agree with you Charles 100%. Listen, this is a great win and I hope it inspires millions in this country and around the world to act. Right, to stand up for their rights for their natural rights. But we’re not going to win every case. There’s no doubt about that. And there’s plenty of corruption in the judicial system. Right. And what is really going to change things is enough people standing up and saying, no, we have to remember that the people who are pulling the strings and forcing these, these measures on us, they are the few, we are the many, but we have to re-engage right. Americans and I think a lot of Westerners have taken their eye off the ball for many, many decades. And haven’t been demanding accountability from their public servants. They have not been paying attention to all of that legislation that I talked about. That’s been put in place over recent decades, which has undermined the rule of law, essentially it’s undermined, our basic understanding of what it means to live in the west and to be a free citizen. And people have to re-engage they have to educate themselves. They have to drink a big, big bottle of courage and they have to stand up because that is, was really going to shift things. I think the real question is how long does that take and will people rise because they are frustrated enough at what’s happened, have enough people woken up to what’s really going on.
And I think that more people are paying attention now than they ever have in the last 50, 60 years. That’s very clear to me the question is, is it enough yet to stand up? And I think that’s really a big question. I just read before I came on today. That, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom has signed a contract with the world health organization to create a digital vaccine passport connected to a QR code for every person on the planet. Now, people – I’m hoping that people are going to be like, enh enh. No.
But some people actually like the stuff. I mean, some people, but I am a hundred percent with you. The true answer is in the power I’ve been saying this for a while now that globalism is the problem localism is the solution. And I think that what has to happen is people have to come back together and they have to rebuild their communities based on local food systems based on local banking and financial system, possibly a local currency, based on local responsibility and leadership accountability to the local area, local schools. I mean, I think we need to pretty radically restructure our systems so that we are actually leading ourselves and not some nameless person in Washington, DC, and even more importantly, not some unelected unaccountable bureaucrat in some federal health agency. That is the true problem. Right? Most people don’t understand that the federal health agencies and all federal agencies sit under the. Executive branch. Most people probably know that we have a separation of powers in the United States, between the executive, the legislative and the judicial, the executive, the president, and all the agencies. The legislative is the Congress, the lawmaking body. And then the judicial is the system of courts. Right? So most people don’t understand that that’s the way it works. And then what’s happened is you’ve had this explosion in all of these agencies. There was no DHS department of Homeland security 20 years ago. There was no TSA. All these things that have kind of this just monolithic administrative state that is essentially taken over our country. And I don’t think any of us want the president to be able to just issue an executive order, whether you’re on the left or the right or wherever you are, who wants the president to be able to act like a king or a queen I don’t. And what’s happening is these federal agencies are essentially acting that. They have to follow certain rules and procedures, but they still have too much power. And I think the best thing that could possibly happen is for us to get back to a more localized rule rather than, localized governance, rather than this, this behemoth, administrative state that is intruding on every aspect of our lives.
Charles: Yeah. You’ve just described the main thesis of all my books and you did better than I did. I’ve written thousands of words and you did a much better summary right there. That’s exactly it. And that’s really, I think what Richard and you have talked about and Richard and I talk about every month is exactly that relocalizing governance capital. And control of your, of your own life and your contribution to your community.
Richard: Yeah. And we always look to end on a positive note with positive suggestions as you have just been talking, any final thoughts, Charles, and how can our listeners learn about your work?
Charles: Yeah, please visit my website oftwominds.com. There’s a free chapter of all my books and I’m huge archives just punch in sick care. And you’ll find hundreds of blog posts that I’ve written, many with statistics. Okay. And that’s what I really liked hearing Leslie point out, just look at the statistics that have been gathered and then make your own mind up.
Richard: Great. And Leslie, your final thoughts and how can I listen and learn about your work?
Leslie: Sure. So let me just say that really is the answer. Is working, together and, and taking responsibility. I hope people go out and run for their school boards, run for city council, mayor, whatever it might be get involved because that is the answer to riding this ship.
And with respect to our work, we have this mass mandate lawsuit. That, now the DOJ has said that it maybe will appeal. It’s interesting to see what’s going to happen and how they’re behaving because there’s been a lot of flip-flopping by Fauci about the pandemic phase is over. No, we’re still in the pandemic, this and that.
It’s like, what are they saying? It’s very confusing. But, we have many other lawsuits. We filed over a dozen in the last year and we’ve got many other lawsuits challenging. In COVID injection mandates at the federal level, state level, and local level in a variety of places. And then we’ve got some other big lawsuits in the works.
The mandate challenges are actually working their way through the courts. And we’re in discovery in our case against the Los Angeles Unified School District. So that’s very exciting because we’ll get to take a little peek behind the curtain.
What you can do too, is you can go to our website, which is healthfreedomdefense.org, and you can subscribe to our newsletter. We don’t send out a ton. Every week to two weeks, but it’s not like a daily thing. And you can become a member of our group for a one-time fee of $10, and you can you could donate there and you can find all of the updates on our lawsuits and lots of resources on how to protect yourself and how to exercise your rights under our resources tab there lots of things and lots of information you could find from our website.So please join us.
Richard: Awesome. And thank you so much, Leslie and Charles. Thank you.
Charles: Thank you, Richard. And it’s so nice to engage you Leslie and to learn about your work.
Leslie: Charles it’s been great to meet another like-minded soul. I really appreciate it and applaud you for all of your work as well. Thank you.
Speaker: The FRA round table insight show is for informational and educational purposes only, and should not be considered as a solicitation or offer to purchase or sell any securities.
The investments, investment strategies, and investment philosophy’s discussed or presented on the show, each involved their own unique risk factors, which are not discussed on the show. Any discussions among the panel participants or responses to listener inquiries are based on the personal opinions of the panel participants and do not take into consideration the listener’s suitability objectives or risk tolerance, please be advised that you invest or speculate at your own risk.
