The EyeOpener- Health Freedom & Freedom of Speech

BFP Video
Of the many constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the American public that the federal government has sought to destroy in recent decades, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is arguably the most important. If the ability for citizens to express themselves in the political, personal and commercial spheres is infringed, abridged, restricted or regulated by government agencies, this is one of the most obvious hallmarks of tyranny.

The Food and Drug Administration has appointed itself arbiter of what commercial speech is acceptable or unacceptable when it comes to marketing vitamins, supplements, foods, drugs, and other health products. Like every other form of government-imposed authority, however, that position of arbitration has been abused, corrupted, and, ultimately, used as an instrument to shut down competition from companies who threaten the business interests of the lobbyists and industry insiders that themselves populate the FDA.

In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett presents the corruption infested and special interest driven FDA’s tyrannical powers in setting impossible rules on the marketplace, placing prior restrictions on the speech of health product manufacturers, and inserting itself as the umpire in the arena of the marketplace by using consumer safety as the ostensible reason.

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. cdithaca says:

    The FDA, like virtually all federal regulatory bodies, has been completed captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate. It does little more than issue an imprimatur to drugs being released by the large pharma companies. Natural remedies pose a threat to the profits of those companies so they must be hamstrung and quashed, while the poorly tested poisons of the big companies are rushed to market on the fast track. (That’s why your TV is full of ads for lawyers who are filing suit against one or another drug.)

    What I think James misses here is that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech was meant to apply to individual human citizens, not to corporations. I have a problem applying the 1st amendment here becuase the government has the right, if not the duty, to prevent a company from intentionally deceiving the public with misleading or patently untrue advertising, particularly when there is a danger to consumers. It is the misuse of that power to help big companies at the expense of little ones that is the issue here.

    What I would argue is that the same standards should be apply to Mom and Pop’s herbal supplement company that are applied to Pfizer or Merck. That doesn’t happen because Mom and Pop have no lobbyists, and none of their family members are executives with the FDA and they gave little or no money to the Administration’s last campaign. We live in a nation where one’s freedom to speak or assemble or petition for redress of grievances is based on one’s wealth. We may be endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, but if we are merely a human citizen of this nation without wealth, those rights are effectively null and void.

  2. jschoneboom says:

    I’m a little hesitant to comment because I feel like I’ve been on James’s case lately. But I guess I can’t help myself: I agree with cdithaca that casting this as a free speech issue is kind of inappropriate. I know it’s the libertarian wet dream to have zero regulations or as close to it as possible, but if you really want to make the case that people should be able to make bogus health claims and let the buyer beware, then this isn’t the video you need to make. The video you need to make is a video about libertarian philosophy.

    If on the other hand you want to make a cogent criticism of the way the FDA is run, then forget the first amendment and focus on corruption and inconsistent application of policy. Is there an attack on natural products? Then demonstrate it. Make the case!

    In the case of the woman with the Black Salve or whatever it was, that wasn’t quite as simply a case of her relating a personal experience as you make it sound. As the Australian guy specifically mentioned, the woman was selling a DVD about Black Salve called “One Cure for Cancer.” I know nothing about Black Salve and very little about cancer — but that sounds like a bogus claim if ever I’ve heard one.

    You can say I’m proving your point — she makes a clearly bogus claim, and because I’m skeptical, I call her on it and I don’t fall for her schtick. No regulation required. But come on. I’m a skeptical son of a bitch (that’s why I’m on your case lately!). How many credulous and desperate people will fail to be as skeptical and waste hard-earned money on dubious products because the sellers are allowed to make bullshit claims? If you really want to live in a world where that’s simply their own problem and they should live and learn and the hucksters should be able to continue deceiving people, the liars are the ones who should be protected, well, that’s NOT a common or I believe a valid interpretation of the first amendment, which exists mainly to protect unpopular political speech. What it is is libertarian extremism. It’s a coherent, defensible philosophy and an interesting one. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts about it. But as it is you’re just muddying the First Amendment waters with some very poor examples.

    Overall still love your work though James!

  3. A work in progress. I mentioned in an early post an avenue that I am pursuing re: Mom & Pop herbal companies. Further involvement indicated that the maker of a salve to cure skin cancer has some questionable behaviors. That has not prevented me from pursuing research with a Harvard & University of Pennsylvania trained dermatologist and immunologist. So far everything looks promising. If the remedy passes its second biopsy test, then the research will be published in a major peer review journal. I have assurance from Catherine Austin Fitts that she will also publish the link at her site. There is a certain risk to putting this out there, but the principle is valid no matter what the outcome of my personal efforts.
    From a business aspect, a salve of this nature has been in the public domain for a long period of time, and issuing a patent would be difficult. Normally this requires 12 years for FDA testing. Entrepreneurs won’t touch it without FDA guarantees at the manufacturing end. The real benefit to approaching a regular physician is verification of efficacy, establishing protocols for safety, dosage, and frequency. With the Internet this information can help those already using Amazon Deep Tissue Salve, and help those paying a fortune for regular treatment to find a safe alternative.

Speak Your Mind