You'd think less than two years after the very public failure of the COVID vaccines, that more people in this country would be skeptical of brand new pharma products. And maybe they are, but they don't seem very skeptical of Ozempic, which is a diabetes drug that apparently, at least in the short term, can help people lose weight. And on one level, you can see whether or not This is a very fat country. That's a huge problem. And a lot of people, a lot of us, wouldn't mind losing 20 pounds by taking a pill. So why shouldn't we? Well, we thought it'd be interesting to hear the other side, the side that you were not hearing on the question of Ozempic from someone who knows a lot about it. Calleigh Means is the founder of TruMed. He once worked for Pharma. He definitely does not now. And he joins us today in studio. Calleigh, thanks so much for coming on.

Pum to be your talker.

So you want to lose 20, and I'm speaking from experience, you want to lose 20 pounds, you I don't really want to stop eating pizza. This seems like a super quick way to get healthier. Why wouldn't you take Ozempic? Why shouldn't I take Ozempic?

There's three big reasons Ozempic is very problematic, and I think really the Rosetta Stone to understanding what's gone wrong in health care, and frankly, pharma industry corruption. The first point I want to make is that if a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank, you don't drug the fish. And in America right now- So they won't notice. In America right now, we've got a very dirty tank. 50% of teens and 80% of adults are overweight. And this has happened in just a generation. We didn't become systematically lazier in the past generation as Americans and frankly suicidal. Something has happened. And the core mistake of Ozempic is that obesity is not an Ozempic deficiency. Obesity is not the root cause of the problem. Obesity is one branch of the tree of underlying metabolic dysfunction that's ravaging our country. As we talked about with over 50% of Americans having prediabetes now, 33% of young adults- Wait, most Americans have prediabetes? Oh, it's by some measures, it's up to 60%- Of the whole country? Of adults and 33% of young adults and teens. You have a diabetes doctor, just a generation ago, wouldn't see one child in their entire careers with diabetes.

Now diabetes, which again is cellular dysfunction, is cellular disruption, totally caused by environmental factors and what we're eating. That's close to becoming upwards of 50% of kids. It's 33% in growing radically. Teens, 25% have fatty liver disease, which is something you only used to see in elderly alcoholics. There's a metabolic health crisis that's caused by decisions. The USDA, which is completely corrupt the guidelines that set nutrition standards, 95% of the guideline committee is paid for by food companies. They say that a two-year-old, that 10% of their diet could be added sugar. We have More money from agriculture subsidies in America today go to cigarettes, go to tobacco than vegetables. 90% of subsidies go to highly processed food. We've propped this industry up. Food stamps, which 15% of Americans depend on for nutrition, 10% of all food stamps funding goes to soda. We're the only country in the world that allows that. It goes to soda? It goes to soda.

Does the US government pay people to drink soda?

The US government direct from the federal treasury, more than $10 billion per year go from federal treasury to soda companies through the food stamp program. The number one item purchased with food stamps in America is addictive diabetes water. We prop that up with food stamps. As we talked about last time, I actually used to work and consult with Coke, and we pay the NAACP and other groups to say it was racist to take that away. We totally rigged the debate. Through a corrupt system, we actually subsidize soda. We do 10 of these things. We use 10 easily identifiable things that are causing us, frankly, to be poisoned. And instead of talking about the root cause, we're saying that a weekly injection that you have to take for your entire life that costs $20,000 per patient when 80% of American adults are overweight or obese, we're saying that is the answer for obesity. We have a dirty tank, and pharma has basically changed our consensus reality to say, when all these things are happening all at once due to environmental factors, our savior, you do the math on $20,000 per patient, 80% of American adults. We're talking, and this is clear on Wall Street, food stocks are going down, pharma stocks are going up because they're doing cartwheels on Wall Street.

This is on track because of government funding, because we stand to put trillions of government funding into this drug to be the most successful drug in American history. Wow.

There's a lot there. But let me just get back to the individual decision to take or not to take this drug. You're overweight, you have prediabetes, and your doctor says what you would say, which is that's a very serious thing to have. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's not bad. It is bad. And this drug can cure it. Why wouldn't you do that?

It segues really well into the second issue, why Ozempic is so problematic. On a societal level, I think anyone that agrees, if you're just looking at this issue, putting everybody, pumping everyone with Ozempic for their lives isn't the first thing you do to solve obesity. But even if it was perfect, even if it was Even if it was perfect. But the problem is when you get to the individual level, this drug, medically, is a absolute disaster. Medically? Medically, it's a disaster. So all you need to know is that Novo Nordics, the company that makes this drug, recently passed LVMH to become the most valuable company in Europe. So this company, Most Valuable Company in Europe, they don't allow this drug for obesity in Europe. Almost all of Novo Nordics' revenue is coming from taking advantage of Americans. This is not That's not the first line of defense for obesity in any European country. It's not approved by the government regulators. They are saying on their stock calls that all of their growth is coming from the US. They're taking advantage of a broken US system in the United States. When you dive into it, even people in the United States who are getting government funding, insurance funding for this drug, don't have to pay for it.

30% of them go off the drug within three months. Even though they're fully being paid for, and we're being told this is a lifetime drug, there's lawsuits coming It was just reported in the past couple of days on gastrointestinal issues and stomach paralysis. The drug itself essentially is stomach paralysis. What is stomach paralysis? The drug, what it does is essentially it sterilizes, it paralyzes your stomach to make you not be able to process food correctly. There's studies now saying that that stomach paralysis, the really messing with your ability to digest food, actually stays after you go off the drug. There's lawsuits now with people with severe gastrointestinal issues after coming off the drugs that's being pronounced and that's coming out of lawsuits. Additionally, because of that, you're consistently seeing patients who go off the drugs gain the weight back. That's almost I think, universally accepted even by NovoNurix. When you go off the drug, you gain the weight back. But again, we're seeing most people that take the drug within the first year come off it because the gastrointestinal issues, the stomach issues are so pronounced. Additionally, the EU, again, where this company is based, just launched a probe into suicidal ideation caused by Ozempic.

You can't even make this up. But the EU is doing a massive probe because there's so many reports of increased depression, increased suicide. Now, I was debating a Harvard doctor about six months ago, and I brought this up because it's obvious. Your serotonin, what produces your contipinant happiness, 95% is made in the gut. Again, Ozempic essentially is gut dysfunction. So when you mess with the serotonin and mess with the gut, a lot of unexpected things happening. And very understandably, and really what's to be expected, is we're actually seeing reports of a mass increase in mental health disorders and even suicidal ideation from Ozempic. You just back up and ask, this miracle drug is too good to be true. It's really coming through.

Wait, so you're saying there could be a downside? It's not perfect?

30% of people. But But I want to say this, and I'm a libertarian. I think people should be able to take Ozempic. I think most drugs should be legal, frankly. The problem is where the rubber really hits the road is there is an all-out assault to convince us that this is the appropriate drug. Again, this is the target market. This is why the stocks are popping and why Wall Street is going crazy. It's the biggest TAM, the biggest target market for any drug in American history. It's 80% of American adults, but it's being fast Act. You wouldn't believe this, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recently said that they recommend this as a first line of defense for teens. The study basing that decision for the American Academy of Pediatrics to say that every obese or overweight teen, which is 50% should take this drug, was a 68-week study. We had a 68-week study for a lifetime recommendation to 50% of teens in America to receive these injections.

I guess nothing would surprise me Coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which seems really like a vector for badness given their performance during COVID. However, you just still have to wonder, how did that happen? That seems reckless. How could a body like that, which has some residual moral authority because of its name, how could they do that?

You are transitioning perfectly into the third point, which is that the reason Ozempic, I think, is such a important story in America today is because it's really, again, it's the That is the stone of understanding corruption. Our institutions, particularly the healthcare industry, has completely let us down. You just step back and think about it. Pharma is the largest spender on TV news ads. It's the largest spender. Novonordic, specifically, is the largest spender on foundational obesity research. It's the largest spender to medical groups like the AAP. It's one of the largest funders of actual civil rights groups. You actually can't even believe this, but Novo Nordics is paying the NAACP to say that not supporting Ozempic is a civil rights issue.

So you're racist if you're against giving kids a diabetes drug?

It's on the NAACP website, and the NAACP is a registered lobbyist for Ozempik saying that you are a racist because there's disproportionate issues with obesity in certain communities, that you're a racist for not supporting government funding for Ozempik. Of course.

And the NAACP takes money from the drugmaker?

They're a registered lobbyist for the drugmaker.

How can the NAACP be a registered lobbyist for anybody?

They have a lobbying organization. They have to declare who their lobbying clients are. As a report in NPR, very recently, they are registered as a lobbyist for Novo Nordisk. On their website, they're saying it is an example of systemic racism to not support federal funding for Ozempic. This is what I saw working for pharma. You just have to ask who people trust. People trust the medical groups, they trust civil rights groups, they trust the media. You have a situation where, additionally, Novo Nordics, and this is reported, has given $30 million in direct bribes to obesity doctors. You would be hard-pressed to find a doctor who treats obesity in this country who has not received some donation, not research grants, but direct consulting grants from Novo Nordics.

Like just sending them cash?

Exactly.

How can doctors take cash from drug makers?

Oh, this is what's done. The drug makers spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year in direct cash payments to doctors.

But you can't get the drug except with a script written by the doctor, any prescription.

Who take direct consulting fees from- How can that be legal? This is what you watch, things about the opioid crisis and how the opioid completes the same playbook. When I was working for pharma, the opioid crisis was in full effect, and there There was a panel in 2012, and the panel was full of outside experts recommending guidance on opioids. The head of that panel was a man named Dr. Philip Pizzo, who was the dean of Stanford Med School at the time. He was a pain specialist. At the moment he was appointed to that panel, Stanford received a grant from Pfizer, who's one of the largest opioid makers, of $3 million for pain research. He appointed 90% of that panel, who are also conflicted to receive direct research and personal consulting fees from opioid makers, and they released the relaxed opioid standards. This is exactly what's happening in obesity. You have Dr. Fatima Stanford, the head of obesity research at Harvard, paid tens of thousands of dollars by Novo Nordics, just started a new- Directly? Directly. Not to mention, of course, millions of dollars of research grants. She's been paid tens of thousands of dollars.

How can Harvard allow that?

There are no conflict of interest rules in medicine. Harvard is supporting her. The NIH, recently, it came out that 8,000 research grants went to university professors who also have a direct conflict of interest with the topic and the drug they're studying.

How can you be a physician, even a teaching physician, and do that? That's so obviously unethical.

It's so obvious. It's so omnipresent that it isn't discussed. I mean, you're saying this like it's obvious. It's manifestly obvious. You hear this, most Americans are outraged. This is like you're swimming in water. You don't realize you're in water. This is how academia is. The food The industry, taking it to food, which is making it sick, spends 11 times more on foundational nutrition research than the NIH. Pharma is the lifeblood of foundational scientific research in this country. Then you get to the NIH, of It's a revolving door between government and industry. The vast majority of NIH grants go to pharma research. The NIH is basically a grant-making organization, and this is just statistical, almost all going to research that has conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical drugs. The problem here is that every institution, all these institutions, fundamentally make more money when we're sick. Ozempic doesn't cure obesity. It manages obesity for life, and that's a problem. Statins don't- I'm sorry, I should have asked the other day.

You made a couple of references to it for life. Is that as advertised?

Oh, no, that's the instruction.

If I sign up for Ozempic tomorrow, the physician will tell me you got to take this forever.

Those are the instructions, yes. They admit that there's unknown metabolic problems if you go off. That's on the box. No, this is a lifetime injection. The key thing here, Tucker, and again, getting the corruption, you're paying off the doctors, you're paying off the medical groups, 50% of TV news funding. I think it's- I've seen it. Yeah. Rfk has talked about this back in the day with Roger Ailes. When 50% of your bills, speaking in the choir here, but 50% of your bills are paid by a certain interest, Why didn't the news media have any curiosity during COVID why people were dying of COVID? Metabolically healthy people weren't dying of COVID. This is where the corruption and really where it all ties together. I'm sorry.

Can you describe that in a little more detail?

We had probably the biggest event in American history since World War II, where we shut down the country, where we really, I think, showed our weakness just physically and mentally as Americans. American COVID deaths were substantially higher than other countries. Research, it's not argued, has come out saying that COVID was a foodborne illness. Dying of COVID was a foodborne illness. If you were metabolically healthy, if you had stable cholesterol, stable fasting glucose, weren't obese, you didn't die of COVID. Covid disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even among older people, affected people with comorbidities, and we are a lot sicker in America.

The comorbidities were caused by eating bad food, mostly.

Comorbidities are obesity, heart disease, diabetes. Those are the main comorbidities. So if you did not have those, you were essentially not impacted by COVID and had almost zero % chance of dying of COVID. So the media, though, who's heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, didn't have any curiosity about that, didn't have any curiosity. Maybe this is a 9/11 moment that we're not at our best as America. We are a sick, depressed, infertile population. Sperm count is down 50 % in just the past generation. 25% of women now have PCOS, leading cause of infertility. We are having trouble reproducing as a species. These are all connected. There was a moment to talk about this, but instead, the media, the government institutions who are paid by pharma, pushed a pharmaceutical solution with trillions of dollars of air time as the solution to our crisis. This was one of the greatest public policy mistakes in American history. What, after coming off of the worst public Policy failure. I think one of the worst in American history with the COVID response on every level, keeping the bars open and shutting down the schools to pushing an effective pharmaceutical solution instead of root cause solutions.

We're being asked to trust pharma when 80% of the American people, their bodies are rebelling against them with obesity, which are clearly a sign of underlying issues where Ozempic and weekly shots is not the root cause. This just on its face doesn't make sense. And then you trace the corrupt. Again, Ozempic is paying off everyone. They are one of the five largest funders. The company itself, one of the five largest funders of news ads, one of the top research funders of obesity research, largest funders to university on the OBC topic. And the thing I ram home here, Tucker, is you just have to look where the money is. So if you actually look at the analyst reports that are propping up these stocks, their They're assuming an increase in obesity. So you talk about all the Novo Nordic's largest company in Europe. They literally, where the money hits the road, where people are investing billions of dollars, they're assuming increased rates of obesity over the next 10 years in America. Actually, I was talking to a doctor at Harvard. They're underwriting a loan for a new obesity center where they can treat an issue of Ozempic.

Those loans have projections for growth of obesity. They're not projecting that increased Ozempic is going to decrease obesity. The loans that are underpinning these medical centers, if you go to any city in the country, the biggest, most beautiful building is some new pediatric obesity center or cardiology center. The loans assume increased rates of conditions. So fundamentally, we have the largest industry in the country, health care. Imagine the leader saying, How do we reverse obesity? How do we cure obesity? They're not asking that. They're saying, How can we actually say obesity is It's not your fault. Oprah, who's involved with Weight Watchers, just apologized for preaching personal accountability over the past decades. She said, It's not personal accountability. We're supporting Ozempic. This is becoming, obesity is becoming something- Do you think Oprah got paid? She's highly involved with Weight Watchers. Yeah, Weight Watchers has shifted from a personal accountability organization that it's been preaching for decades and is now a prescriber of Ozempic. They've totally changed because Ozempic is a better business model because you never go off of it. America is on trial. Join me, Josh Hammer, as we examine the presidential election through the only lens that truly matters, the legal proceedings of Donald Trump and the Biden crime family Family.

This new Daily Podcast examines breaking news and analyzes the biggest questions facing the country. Can the former President, Donald Trump, get a fair trial?

Can Trump be disqualified from the ballot?

Can Joe Biden pardon his son, Hunter? Can Trump even pardon himself. We cover all the action every morning. Listen to America on Trial, wherever you download your favorite podcast. So maybe one of the reasons this is accepted, people don't see it as totally crazy as I do. I don't take Advil, so all of this seems crazy to me. But the average, say, 65-year-old person in this country is on how many drugs?

About seven. Seven? Yeah.

And not just intermittently, but over the years?

Quant. Quant. 90 plus % of funding per medicine dollars is around chronic lifetime. It's more recurring revenue.

Describe what that looks like, the scale of it.

I think, again, we're so desensitized to this. We don't understand how crazy is how much of a failure it's been. I'll give you an example of my mom. My mom was 71 for a checkup and was told by the doctor she was healthy. She was actually, at the time, on seven lifetime medications. She was on, maybe a decade before, had high cholesterol, was prescribed a statin. The message from the doctor was, No problem. The majority, almost, of people your age are on a statin. No problem. That's a right of passage. Then she had high fasting glucose. Again, that's basically prediabetes, which majority people have. Metformin, one of the most prescribed drugs in the country, high blood pressure. She has these comorbidities that are almost seen as rights of passage. It's a right of passage for a man over 40 to be on a statin. The majority are. These were all normal things. As we treated everything in silos, that's a lie. Heart disease, diabetes, in many ways, depression, Alzheimer's, they're branches of the same tree. We've actually lied saying those are different conditions, seeing four different doctors for four different treatments that don't even talk to each other.

We're managing the symptoms instead of seeing those symptoms as a gift and realizing that we have a root cause metabolic crisis. That's why the more statins we prescribe, the more heart disease goes up. The more metformin we prescribe, the more diabetes goes up. The more SSRIs we prescribe, which are now 25% of women-The higher the suicide rate goes. We're seeing skyrocket. We're siloing everything. There's so many questions.

So 25% of women are on SSRIs?

We have a societal dynamic where 25% of women in the United States are on a education, and I'm not just flatly anti-drug, but this is a societal dynamic, Tucker. We have 25% of women taking something that fundamentally numbs you out from reality. We don't even blink an eye at that. And depression, mental health disorders, anxiety, suicide. Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for young adults.

Ssris are- After drug abuse.

Yeah, which I think could be related. Ssris, you talk to any high school or now and look in the air, it's the first line of defense. I mean, it is prescribed like candy when it- To children? Oh, yes.

Ssris.

Ssri prescription rates are skyrocketing among teens. You talk to any high school counselor, anyone in any high school, this is the first line of defense when a child- I would never talk to a high school counselor on any circumstance. Yeah, well, that's very smart. But yeah, they're skyrocketing among kids, and there's actually a black box warning on SSRI's label actually saying that it increases suicidal ideation among children, and they're widely prescribed to children. Not to mention the fact that 20% of high school seniors are on essentially methametamines, Adderall, which if you read the book Blitzed, actually traces the history. Adderall was developed by Nazi Germany as a tool for Nazi soldiers, to be more aggressive, and now is prescribed widely, along with SSRIs, to kids.

One thing I'm trying to keep track of everything you're saying, all of which is checkable, I assume, on the Internet. Statin drugs are prescribed to the majority of American men over 40?

The last rate, I think 2019, the last study I said was 45%, and I think there's reports that now post-COVID, it's close to 50%.

What's the downside of statin drugs?

There's wild research coming out. I mean, the highest level, just even if the drugs don't have no side effects, heart disease isn't a statin deficiency. What statin is, to me, at the most important level, represent that we have moral hazard. Fundamentally, when you're prescribed that statin, you're told by the doctor that you're doing something. When you're prescribed the Ozempic, the doctor, Fatima Stanford on 60 Minutes, who's a paid-off doctor from Ozempic, said, Throw willpower out the window. This is a brain disease. Food isn't the problem. It's a medical issue. Take Ozempic. Do not worry about what you're eating.

This is exactly what Purdue Pharma said about pain 20 years ago.

You have these messages. You have the statins. You're doing something. You now can eat what you want to eat. You You wouldn't even believe this, but until 2018, and Dr. Robert Lustig, who's a hero of mine, has pointed this out, an endocrinologist at UCSF, the American Diabetes Association said that as long as you take your medications, you do not need to change your diet as a diabetic. You literally have guidance from the American Heart Association, from the American Diabetes Association, now from the obesity industrial complex, saying that if you take these drugs, you're good. But that's a lie, because there's never been a drug in American history for a chronic condition that has lowered the rate of that chronic condition.

What's the cost of all that? Just diabetes.

Well, with diabetes, this is the root cause. Again, it's a misnomer to see this as an isolated condition. Almost 100% of people with Alzheimer's have prediabetes or diabetes. Diabetes is one of the- Seriously? Alzheimer's is now called type 3 diabetes. The most highest indicator you can have for dementia or Alzheimer's is some blood sugar dysregulation. If you have normal fasting glucose levels, your chance of having any type of dementia is very, very low. Dementia is highly tied. Again, I don't even like using the word diabetes. Diabetes is cellular dysregulation caused by our environment or food. Again, the majority of people in this country have some form of that happening inside their bodies because of our environment, and this is unprecedented. Diabetes is really the root cause. But if you just take diabetes, this is one of the biggest line items in the US budget. If you add up all the line items we were spending on health care, just to manage diabetes, it's more than the defense budget.

Wait, the US government spends more managing diabetes than it does on defense?

If you want to stack rank what would bring down the American Republic, it's not marginal rates of military spending. It's not what the marginal tax rate is. Our biggest line item in our budget, the biggest part of our economy is health care, and it's also the fastest-growing industry. Health care is the largest and the fastest-growing industry in the United States. The bulk of that spending is coming from government, and as it grows, it produces worse results. It is not slowing down. It's going to be 40% of the budget in about 15 years, and it's only growing. There's nothing stopping this trend. And as that's happening, we're becoming an infertile, depressed, sicker population at an almost exponential rate. We're going to cease to exist as a country because we let that happen. And you look at the budget and you look what's really going to destroy the budget in our country. Defense is a small part of it. It is health care costs. It is metabolic dysfunction.

Is diabetes the biggest?

Diabetes and prediabetes is the root of almost everything. You have very few people with heart disease, with many forms of cancer, with dementia, with all these. This is the lie that's being told. When my sister graduated Stanford Medical School, she had to choose between 42 specialties. She was ahead of next surgeon, then the fellowship was going to be even the smaller part of the body, one millimeter of the... That's what doctors devote their lives to, like literally- Yes. That's a lie. When she was cutting out sinus inflammation, she looked at a patient's report. They had 60 pages. They had prediabetes, they had depression, they had heart issues. She didn't speak to those doctors. She was never trained how the inflammation that she's cutting someone's face open and taking out, not once at Stanford Med School, was she trained or even brought up why that person has inflammation in the first place. That surgery, Medicaid will pay $20,000 for that, along with all the other comorbidities the patient has. We're training doctors, medical schools, pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, doctors, nurses, insurance companies. They make money when people are sicker for longer periods of time. The way to do that is to silo conditions.

That's why Ozempic is so important, because obesity is not a siloed condition. Obesity is a visible example that we are losing our way as Americans, and treating that in a silo is just medically not going to work, and it's happening because of corruption.

But it is, and I should just say I agree with everything. But even if I disagreed, it doesn't matter. I would say Ozempic is a response to an actual problem. You conceded that. If Ozempic isn't the answer, what is?

If you were an alien that came down to Earth and saw what's happening in America, and I want to make this clear, It's happening specifically in America. Our obesity rate, diabetes rate, heart disease rate, it's multiples more than some European countries, in Japan, countries like that. There's something unique happening with the environment in America. If you came down an alien that was smart, that had a veil of ignorance and looked around, and you saw 80% of Americans consuming such toxic things in their environment that their bodies are literally cellular It's the visible result of cellular dysregulation. Obesity is literally the cells crying out for help and showing that they're dysregulated, which represents stuff happening invisibly in the body, such as all the chronic conditions we've talked about. If you look at that happening, highly related to mental health disorders, highly related infertility, all connected, you would never say, Let's keep everyone sick and give them marginal drugs. You would just never do that. We have been completely gaslighted by pharma. Elon, who I think is the most important American in the country, But has recently said, These drugs are good. I think it's a little bit unlike him because we're not analyzing the problem and assessing what the root cause solution is.

I think we've frankly been, we've changed our We've changed our perception of what reality is based on pharma, thinking that these marginal tools. And we've lost our way. The drug for every condition in a siloed state hasn't worked. We're all getting sicker. We've totally lost our way. Peter Tia pointed out that if you control for infectious diseases and acute things that would kill you right away, life expectancy really hasn't grown in the past 100 years. Almost 100% of life expectancy increase, which we all herald, is acute There's a few issues, things that would have killed you right away, childhood mortality. If you actually chronic-Poleo appendicit. Yeah, all that stuff. We actually have really lost our way. If there's one moment to, as a country, say, Can we change course a little bit. It's this, because this is the biggest issue. This is 80% of Americans. It is going to just do the math. In America, when drugs are prescribed widely, costs don't go down. You're not allowed to lower drug prices if they're prescribed widely. The moment Ozempic is approved, which is an all-out battle to do for government funding, there's an incentive for every obesity doctor in the country to prescribe this to 80% of American adults and 50% of US teens.

The government then can't tell the doctor what to prescribe. So you've got a $20,000 cost. This is $20,000. That price is not coming down. Do the math. We have much more than 50 million obese people. 50 million is well over a trillion dollars a year. This is why the stocks are going up. So the battle here, and this is my point to Elon and a lot of people, I want you to understand the battle is what are we going to do societally about the metabolic health crisis? And what should we do?

You're in charge. I know you said you're a libertarian, but let's just imagine you were a fascist and you could do whatever you wanted. What would you do?

I think the President can do numerous things tomorrow that will... I think one of the biggest lies that are being told is this can't be turned around quickly. We did not have a metabolic health crisis a generation ago, and we can turn this on very quick. I don't think the American people are mass suicidal, frankly, which is what we're acting. We have an addiction crisis. I can give you a couple right now. The President tomorrow can tell the FDA that the US can no longer be the only country in the world that allows pharma ads on TV news, which isn't to influence to consumers, it's to influence the news. Pharma buys off the news, and the FDA can issue an order tomorrow saying that that's no longer the case, that we can't have pharma spending on TV news. That is an executive decision It can be issued tomorrow, and it would totally undercut the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to control our information. Food stamps, the AG bill- You think that pharma...

I'm sorry, you're throwing... For my aging pizza adult brain, it's hard to keep up. But your You're saying that pharma buys TV spots not to convince people to ask for specific drugs from their physicians, but to subvert the news business?

This is an open secret working for pharma. I never even thought of that. This is an open secret. The silly ads you see between the news breaks, the points of that is not... It's largely to impact the customer, but pharma has already got that. They've already bought off the doctors. They're good on that. No, this is an open secret. The news ad spending from pharma is a public-relation lobbying tactic, essentially, to buy off the news. The news is a refer... They're not investigating pharma. Oh, I've noticed. The news has become basically a referee that you were a terrible anti-science Luddite for asking why the shots that we require our kids to get that fundamentally to, by their own advertising, changed the immune system of that child for life, why it's gone from 20 to 70. To even ask that question, the news referees that and calls you anti-science, when the two largest vaccine makers in the country are literally criminal enterprises. Glaxosmithkline and Merck, in the past five years, has settled two of the largest criminal penalties in American corporate history for bribing doctors and creating misleading research, who are the two largest vaccine makers.

You literally have the media playing referee that you can't even ask a question. If you have a vaccine injury, and many people have, including some I know very well, even a profound vaccine injury, you're not allowed to complain about it. No, no, no. You're You're anti-science in the media.

Even if it can be shown as if this is a vaccine in three.

The media plays referee because they're funded. So in all levels, right? On all levels.

It's very dark, Calleigh means.

Well, I think it's hopefully empowering. I think this is why we have an opportunity here, Tucker. Ozempic, this is not some new... It's this funny thing. It's vain. I can lose weight. The reason the stocks are going up is because this is going to be a lot of government money. This is going to be the highest-funded from the US taxpayer in history. We've got a society, when are we going to say, Let's go another direction? Why are we trusting pharma now when they've been completely acting to garner no trust? We have to be basic here and incentivize better eating, better farming. You know, think about public policy with the $4 trillion we just done on health care. How can Americans be more active? These are basic things, but these can be done. And just two more quick ones. I mean, there There's 20 of these. But you just have to go to the incentives. You were surprised that the majority of university researchers and NIH grants go to conflicted researchers? Yeah, I was shocked. Tomorrow, the President could say, We're not going to touch NIH funding, but we're not going to issue grants anymore to people with conflicts of interest.

That would sound like a reasonable policy to 95% of the American people. I think that's unimpeachable, bipartisan policy. It will cause a connipption. The The media, the next day, with their talking points, would say it's your anti-science- Cutting NIH funding. Exactly. You could do that. You could change AG subsidies, which are just tens of billions of dollars to process food. You could put restrictions on university conflicts of interest, which are essentially R&D labs or pharma. I think a key one, Tucker, and you go back to the American Academy of Pediatrics, this isn't just some industry group. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, these medical groups, have statutory authority to create the standard care for how we practice medicine in the United States. They are funded, majority by pharma. So the groups that are literally have statutory power to create the standard care for diabetes, you just step back, why aren't doctors Why are doctors in giving their patients prescriptions for food interventions if they have prediabetes? Why aren't they giving them and prescribing them and allowing them to use their medically tax-advantaged dollars to exercise? If you If you actually follow the science, that would be the correct medical intervention to reverse that.

But we're so gaslighted by this. It's just not even batting an eye that it's just pill, pill, pill. Americans follow incentives. What we're trying to do, Trumet, is a doctor actually can write a note for exercise and food, and that actually can open up medical tax advantage dollars and other insurance dollars. Doctors could do that, but the second you get someone off the chronic disease treadmill, that's not a profitable patient. There's nothing more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry than, frankly, a sick kid. You imagine a kid with prediabetes, inevitably they're obese, inevitably they have hypertension, inevitably they have heart issues. They're going to be, like my mom much earlier, on just a ton of drugs being told on each of those drugs that you're not curing anything. These are these are conditions you need to manage for life. So we're getting people. There's a war to get kids on that bandwagon. We need to have the moral clarity, frankly, and communicate this It's like RFK is communicating it. There's something really resonating, and at the core of his message is that we've really lost our way. This is a big issue. This is corruption. It's corruption at the end of the day, which is destroying our kids, profiting on us being sicker and addicted and depressed, quite frankly.

This is a big issue we need to unwind. Frankly, President Trump has made some strong statements about this. I'd say watching the GOP debate, it's like watching a bizarre world. I mean, the world is burning in a lot of ways. We have a corruption problem, and it sounds like they're at some cocktail party in 1988, GOP Cocktail Party. It's not about the marginal tax rate. It's not about the Medicare Part D, page 300. Our biggest industries, our biggest industry, the healthcare industry is profiting from us being sick. It's just that simple. We need to unwind that or we're going to destroy our human capital and destroy our budget.

If people have come to the end of this conversation and want to learn more, I never do this, but I think it's worth it with you for sure. How can they learn more about your views on this? How can they learn more about these issues? What would you recommend?

Well, as we talked about, this is my life's passion with my sister, who was a doctor who left the system. I'll announce it right now. I've helped her write a book that's just put on Amazon today called Good Energy: Unwinding and Unpacking these Issues Using Her Experience in Medicine. We put our heart and soul into that book to really unwind these issues, which we think are the most important issues in the country. Then my company is trumed. Com, and we help write food prescriptions. I mean, it's Our company, but I want to say that I think it's the most important issue in the world. What we need to do is doctors need to follow the science. Doctors need to, when somebody has a metabolic condition, explain to them and incentivize them to practice better eating, to exercise. People listen to doctors. When we were told the food paramed to eat carbs, we ate carbs. When we were told to take vaccines, we took vaccines. When we were told to stop smoking, smoking rates plummeted. We need every doctor and every medical leader, and frankly, I hope leaders like Elon who care about human capital and our potential, to say, We need to unwind this, and we need to get back to root causes in America and talk about food, talk about exercise, talk about sleep.

You can transform your life. These policies would transform things. You can change your biomarkers in three months if you go on a functional medicine type program and really have curiosity about what you're eating, your behavior. What if we had that message from a medical leader? We're working on that with TruMet. I'm on Twitter, which I have mixed feelings about, but talking about this on my Twitter, Calleigh Means.

Calleigh Means. Thank you for that.Thank.

You.that.

Was intense.