How the Trump-RFK Jr. coalition could realign US politics against Big Pharma and Big Food

If the unlikely coalition of Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlives the 2024 presidential election, it could reorder our political categories and leave to our children and grandchildren a quite different future.

When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed Donald Trump on Aug. 23, the corporate press and conventional Washington, D.C., analysts mostly missed the real story: It was the moment that a disparate, diverse, and potentially disruptive throng of average Americans became a coalition.

Although RFK, Jr. is famous – or infamous, depending on your view – for his criticisms of vaccines, that wasn’t the theme of his lengthy speech. He spoke instead about an unholy alliance – a cartel – of industries, corporate media, government regulatory agencies, and even nonprofit “charities” that is making us fat and sick. This problem doesn’t fit the simple taxonomy of “public” and “private” or “left” and “right” that served us well during the Cold War.

Kennedy has been a voice in the wilderness warning about this cartel for years. Most Americans first became aware of it during the 2020 pandemic. Here’s the basic story: COVID-19 itself was likely the product of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. That’s bad enough. But Communist China didn’t act alone. This work was funded, at least in part, by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health and laundered through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

Once the virus was out, the absurd and counterproductive lockdowns and hygiene theater were pushed by global entities such as the World Health Organization. Domestically, Francis Collins, then-head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci, then-head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, worked to undermine independent experts who criticized the federal bureaucrats’ favored policies.

Collins and Fauci even orchestrated the publication of a deceptive article in Nature that claimed the virus had a natural origin. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal entities, including the Biden White House, pressured social media platforms to censor even the best-credentialed dissenters.

Attentive Americans soon learned that public health, as a field, focuses on nudging whole populations, rather than seeking the health of individual patients.

Certain pharmaceutical companies – which pay royalties to many NIH staff, including Collins and Fauci – enjoyed a suspiciously fast and less than rigorous approval process for their mRNA “vaccines.” Vaccine mandates then created a massive artificial market for the drugs. And drug companies’ immunity from legal liability allowed them to enjoy the financial benefits of these policies without facing the downside risks from any long-term harm to those who took the vaccines.

Then, during the lockdowns, the growing awareness of the “gender-industrial complex” – media, medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and others who push ghoulish “gender-affirming” interventions on people distressed about their sexed bodies – further reinforced the lack of credibility of private and public health authorities.

An American epidemic of chronic diseases

In his speech, Kennedy devoted many paragraphs to the “chronic disease epidemic” – including ever higher rates, even among children, of Type II diabetes and obesity, and of Alzheimer’s, which some now refer to as “Type III diabetes.” He spoke of “the insidious corruption at the FDA and the NIH, the HHS and the USDA that has caused the epidemic,” referring to the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, along with the NIH.

But he didn’t stop there. He spoke of “an explosion of neurological illnesses that I never saw as a kid,” including:

ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, Tourette’s Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, Asperger’s, autism. In the year 2000, the Autism rate was one in 1500. Now, autism rates in kids are one in 36, according to CDC; nationally, nobody’s talking about this.

He also spoke of the massive spikes in the use of antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs. Of course, first ladies and surgeons general have launched “healthy lifestyle” campaigns, but these always parrot the conventional wisdom of the cartel. In contrast, Kennedy blamed the cartel itself, not a gluttonous public, for the chronic disease crisis. It was this cartel that gave us the war on healthy dietary fats and the ridiculous food pyramid – heavy on unhealthy ultrarefined carbohydrates and light on fat – which helped make Americans far fatter and sicker than we were before.

His speech hit a nerve, especially among parents who recognize this problem but lack a credible and effective way to fight it. They may engage in private acts of defiance – refusing the COVID-19 or Hepatitis B vaccines for their young children, or disregarding USDA warnings about the consumption of animal fat. So far, however, neither political party has taken up this topic. The Left has tended to give the administrative state the benefit of the doubt. The Right has tended to do the same for corporations.

Trump has promised that Kennedy will have a leading role in fighting America’s health crisis. That will mean taking on the cartel. But the devil is in the details. A sustained effort to “make America healthy again,” or MAHA – to complement MAGA – must be free of government interests on the one hand and industry funding and lobbyists on the other.

Maybe that’s impossible, but Kennedy as MAHA czar could mean a serious exploration of the role the cartel has played in the following:

Restricting medical freedom
The origin of the COVID-19 virus
The effects of the pandemic lockdowns
The lack of safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines
The rise in childhood and adult obesity
The rise in childhood and adult Type II diabetes
The rise in Alzheimer’s
The rise in allergies, food sensitivities, and asthma
Rising rates of depression and anxiety disorders
Rising rates of neurological disorders such as autism
The explosion of cases of childhood gender dysphoria
The collusion between the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and HHS officials such as transgender activist and Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine
The political agenda of transnational public health bureaucracies such as the World Health Organization
The medicalization of the treatment for gender dysphoria with “gender-affirming care” (rather than taking a mental health approach)
The capitulation of NIH, CDC, FDA, and HHS to gender ideology over sound science
The lack of value and safety of the ever-growing childhood vaccine schedule
The medical focus on symptoms rather than underlying causes and cures of diseases
The artificial restriction of medical and therapeutic credentialing of professionals to control supply and competition
The decline in average testosterone in males
The rise in infertility
The rise in opioid addiction and overdose deaths
Unethical research sponsored by the NIH
The incompetence of the USDA in dispensing nutrition advice
The effect of agricultural subsidies on our health
Environmentalist dogmas masquerading as health and nutrition advice

If Trump appoints Kennedy as the MAHA czar, it would be akin to his COVID-19 Operation Warp Speed during his first administration but without the industry taint.

Of course, that appointment could come to nothing – except that there is already a coalition forming of millions of parents across, and even orthogonal to, the political spectrum, who – as Kennedy has put it – love their children more than they hate each other. It would take both the political will in Washington and a popular constituency of average Americans to fight the biomedical security state and the cartel that fuels it.

We’re getting a glimpse of this motley resistance in the unlikely unity ticket of Trump and Kennedy and the many strange bedfellows supporting them. If this coalition outlives the 2024 presidential election, it could reorder our political categories and leave to our children and grandchildren a quite different future.

Related Topics:#LifeSiteNews feature JayRichards RFKJrBigFood RFKJrBigPharma TrumpRFKJr

Up Next

Imagine being 18 and leaving your family and friends for war

Don't Miss

Here’s how the feds blew your money this week

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Energy / 3 hours ago

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

armed forces / 4 hours ago

Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate

Alberta

Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta

Published on November 20, 2024

Government of Alberta

Nurse practitioners expand primary care access

The Alberta government’s Nurse Practitioner Primary Care program is showing early signs of success, with 33 nurse practitioners already practising independently in communities across the province.

Alberta’s government is committed to strengthening Alberta’s primary health care system, recognizing that innovative approaches are essential to improving access. To further this commitment, the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program was launched in April, allowing nurse practitioners to practise comprehensive patient care autonomously, either by operating their own practices or working independently within existing primary care settings.

Since being announced, the program has garnered a promising response. A total of 67 applications have been submitted, with 56 approved. Of those, 33 nurse practitioners are now practising autonomously in communities throughout Alberta, including in rural locations such as Beaverlodge, Coaldale, Cold Lake, Consort, Morley, Picture Butte, Three Hills, Two Hills, Vegreville and Vermilion.

“I am thrilled about the interest in this program, as nurse practitioners are a key part of the solution to provide Albertans with greater access to the primary health care services they need.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

To participate in the program, nurse practitioners are required to commit to providing a set number of hours of medically necessary primary care services, maintain a panel size of at least 900 patients, offer after-hours access on weekends, evenings or holidays, and accept walk-in appointments until a panel size reaches 900 patients.

With 33 nurse practitioners practising independently, about 30,000 more Albertans will have access to the primary health care they need. Once the remaining 23 approved applicants begin practising, primary health care access will expand to almost 21,000 more Albertans.

“Enabling nurse practitioners to practise independently is great news for rural Alberta. This is one more way our government is ensuring communities will have access to the care they need, closer to home.”

Martin Long, parliamentary secretary for rural health

“Nurse practitioners are highly skilled health care professionals and an invaluable part of our health care system. The Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program is the right step to ensuring all Albertans can receive care where and when they need it.”

Chelsae Petrovic, parliamentary secretary for health workforce engagement

“The NPAA wishes to thank the Alberta government for recognizing the vital role NPs play in the health care system. Nurse practitioners have long advocated to operate their own practices and are ready to meet the growing health care needs of Albertans. This initiative will ensure that more people receive the timely and comprehensive care they deserve.”

Jennifer Mador, president, Nurse Practitioner Association of Alberta

The Nurse Practitioner Primary Care program not only expands access to primary care services across the province but also enables nurse practitioners to practise to their full scope, providing another vital access point for Albertans to receive timely, high-quality care when and where they need it most.

Quick facts

Through the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program, nurse practitioners receive about 80 per cent of the compensation that fee-for-service family physicians earn for providing comprehensive primary care.
- Compensation for nurse practitioners is determined based on panel size (the number of patients under their care) and the number of patient care hours provided.
Nurse practitioners have completed graduate studies and are regulated by the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta.
For the second consecutive year, a record number of registrants renewed their permits with the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta (CRNA) to continue practising nursing in Alberta.
- There were more than 44,798 registrants and a 15 per cent increase in nurse practitioners.
Data from the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program show:
- Nine applicants plan to work on First Nations reserves or Metis Settlements.
- Parts of the province where nurse practitioners are practising: Calgary (12), Edmonton (five), central (six), north (three) and south (seven).
Participating nurse practitioners who practise in eligible communities for the Rural, Remote and Northern Program will be provided funding as an incentive to practise in rural or remote areas.
Participating nurse practitioners are also eligible for the Panel Management Support Program, which helps offset costs for physicians and nurse practitioners to provide comprehensive care as their patient panels grow.

Related information

Addictions

BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

By Liam Hunt

Canada’s safer supply programs are “selling people down the river,” says a leading medical expert in British Columbia. Dr. Julian Somers, director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University, says that despite the thin evidence in support of these experimental programs, the BC government has aggressively expanded them—and retaliated against dissenting researchers.

Somers also, controversially, raises questions about doctors and former health officials who appear to have gravitated toward businesses involved in these programs. He notes that these connections warrant closer scrutiny to ensure public policies remain free from undue industry influence.

Safer supply programs claim to reduce overdoses and deaths by distributing free addictive drugs—typically 8-milligram tablets of hydromorphone, an opioid as potent as heroin—to dissuade addicts from accessing riskier street substances. Yet, a growing number of doctors say these programs are deeply misguided—and widely defrauded.

Ultimately, Somers argues, safer supply is exacerbating the country’s addiction crisis.

Somers opposed safer supply at its inception and openly criticized its nationwide expansion in 2020. He believes these programs perpetuate drug use and societal disconnection and fail to encourage users to make the mental and social changes needed to beat addiction. Worse yet, the safer supply movement seems rife with double standards that devalue the lives of poorer drug users. While working professionals are provided generous supports that prioritize recovery, disadvantaged Canadians are given “ineffective yet profitable” interventions, such as safer supply, that “convey no expectation that stopping substance use or overcoming addiction is a desirable or important goal.”

To better understand addiction, Somers created the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database (IMED) in 2004, which, for the first time in BC’s history, connected disparate information—i.e. hospitalizations, incarceration rates—about vulnerable populations.

Throughout its existence, health experts used IMED’s data to create dozens of research projects and papers. It allowed Somers to conduct a multi-million-dollar randomized control trial (the “Vancouver at Home” study) that showed that scattering vulnerable people into regular apartments throughout the city, rather than warehousing them in a few buildings, leads to better outcomes at no additional cost.

In early 2021, Somers presented recommendations drawn from his analysis of the IMED to several leading officials in the B.C. government. He says that these officials gave a frosty reception to his ideas, which prioritized employment, rehabilitation, and social integration over easy access to drugs. Shortly afterwards, the government ordered him to immediately and permanently delete the IMED’s ministerial data.

Somers describes the order as a “devastating act of retaliation” and says that losing access to the IMED effectively ended his career as a researcher. “My lab can no longer do the research we were doing,” he noted, adding that public funding now goes exclusively toward projects sympathetic to safer supply. The B.C. government has since denied that its order was politically motivated.

In early 2022, the government of Alberta commissioned a team of researchers, led by Somers, to investigate the evidence base behind safer supply. They found that there was no empirical proof that the experiment works, and that harm reduction researchers often advocated for safer supply within their studies even if their data did not support such recommendations.

Somers says that, after these findings were published, his team was subjected to a smear campaign that was partially organized by the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU), a powerful pro-safer supply research organization with close ties to the B.C. government. The BCCSU has been instrumental in the expansion of safer supply and has produced studies and protocols in support of it, sometimes at the behest of the provincial government.

Somers is also concerned about the connections between some of safer supply’s key proponents and for-profit drug companies.

He notes that the BCCSU’s founding executive director, Dr. Evan Wood, became Chief Medical Officer at Numinus Wellness, a publicly traded psychedelic company, in 2020. Similarly, Dr. Perry Kendall, who also served as a BCCSU executive director, went on to found Fair Price Pharma, a now-defunct for-profit company that specializes in providing pharmaceutical heroin to high-risk drug users, the following year.

While these connections are not necessarily unethical, they do raise important questions about whether there is enough industry regulation to minimize potential conflicts of interest, whether they be real or perceived.

The BCCSU was also recently criticized in an editorial by Canadian Affairs, which noted that the organization had received funding from companies such as Shoppers Drug Mart and Tilray (a cannabis company). The editorial argued that influential addiction research organizations should not receive drug industry funding and reported that Alberta founded its own counterpart to the BCCSU in August, known as the Canadian Centre of Recovery Excellence, which is legally prohibited from accepting such sponsorships.

Already, private interests are betting on the likely expansion of safer supply programs. For instance, Safe Supply Streaming Co., a publicly traded venture capital firm, has advertised to potential investors that B.C.’s safer supply system could create a multi-billion-dollar annual market.

Somers believes that Canada needs more transparency regarding how for-profit companies may be directly or indirectly influencing policy makers: “We need to know exactly, to the dollar, how much of [harm reduction researchers’] operating budget is flowing from industry sources.”

Editor’s note: This story is published in syndication with Break The Needle and Western Standard.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

Dr. Julian M. Somers is director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University. He was Director of the UBC Psychology Clinic, and past president of the BC Psychological Association. Liam Hunt is a contributing author to the Centre For Responsible Drug Policy in partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.