The EyeOpener- The Struggle for Health Freedom

BFP Video"Freedom" is a word that has been so abused in the modern era that it is difficult to remember that it is not just a campaign slogan or a nebulous item that causes Al Qaeda boogeymen to hate us. It is an ideal for which men have fought and died, an ideal that for the vast majority of human existence was almost literally unthinkable.

The principle of health freedom is really the underlying principle of freedom generally: that I own my body, and that no presumed governmental authority wearing whatever hat or badge can force me into ceding that ownership to them. Whether that be the freedom to drink raw milk or the freedom from being shot up with Big Pharma's latest untested vaccine, it's a freedom that touches each and every person on the planet's life in the most personal way possible. And for that reason, the fight for health freedom is the key battleground in the war for individual liberty.

In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett presents the assault on the most basic form of freedom--the freedom to do what we like with our own bodies, and the attendant freedom from outside coercion by others in the name of "safety."

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here


*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. The struggle for health freedom is very appropriate for this time, but I found it atypical of the normal BFP agenda. Glad it is being addressed. I have noticed with Obama care an anomaly in different demographics. Some claim that those without insurance pay more that those that have insurance. My own case in Florida and that of relatives in Oregon presents the opposite case. Where health insurance compensates the physician, the charge is double what it is for those without insurance.
    The deeper underlying problem is lack of peer review science among those seeking to break from the influence of Big Pharma. I have found a partially successful counter to this, but first consider that the present biochemical model precludes other alternative therapies based upon physics. While this is being addressed at Harvard in cross curriculum, it is a long way from mainstream. I visited my dermatologist with a salve that reliable sources assured me worked for a fraction of the cost of MOHS or regular visits to the doc. The dermatologist was also an immunologist by training and when he saw an early squamous cell carcinoma revert to pre-cancer, he began to become seriously interested. He found that current research on the salve had favored misuse of the salve, and studies related to an adaptive imune response. There is another kind of immune response that is far older in humans called innate immune response. I was able to convince the doc to study it from this perspective. Think about this, if we stop playing underground resistance, and carefully convince docs of our insights, then allow peer review science to move forward, Big Pharma can’t stop all of us.

  2. jschoneboom says:

    Interesting, well-researched, and provocative as always. I do wish sometimes that you/James would address some of the obvious counter arguments, so we know that you’ve at least considered them before rejecting them. I’m thinking of some of the legitimate functions of the FDA in protecting public health, or, put another way, your freedom to do whatever you want to your own body (and mine to do whatever I want to mine) is one thing, but how about corporations’ freedom to do what they want to OUR bodies? What about public health implications of, say, me refusing to take a vaccine because it infringes on my freedom, and as a result a hundred other people get sick from my highly contagious disease? What about their rights? I realize you only have 15 minutes for these things, but I think your presentations would be much more effective if they at least briefly addressed some of these obvious counter-considerations. I’m not saying you’re wrong — I just like a thorough, balanced critique.

Speak Your Mind