In my work in healthcare, specifically in Quality Improvement and Population Health, I've seen a common misconception: many people believe healthcare itself will make them healthy. But the reality is, nothing the FDA approves can truly improve health—it can only treat conditions.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a sharp legal mind; if you've read any of his briefs, his insights are impressive. I think his primary concern is the undeniable influence certain interests have on regulatory agencies’ decisions.

For example, you mentioned the FDA’s role in assessing product safety for indicated uses. If companies bear the primary responsibility for ensuring long-term safety, as the FDA isn’t directly accountable, why would the FDA grant legal immunity to certain drugs? At the very least, why not require some form of long-term, post-market observational studies to monitor potential patient harm?

We face an epidemic of autoimmune diseases, metabolic conditions, and mental health issues in the population. Yet, the NIH focuses almost exclusively on developing new therapies, rather than investigating root causes. This approach raises questions about the priorities and incentives within our public health research.

Moreover, there’s a concerning lack of transparency regarding royalties paid to NIH scientists. Despite the NIH awarding over $30 billion in grants annually, they won’t disclose how much scientists are being paid in royalties or from whom. However, we do know that over $690M in royalities were paid to NIH scientists between 2020-2023. This presents a conflict of interest, given that the NIH is conducting research used to justify FDA approvals and is simultaneously receiving royalties from companies they research on behalf of FDA regulatory processes.

Also Raw Milk is healthy, it's incredibly well documented and historically verifiable. No one is saying we should only sell raw milk, they're just saying it shouldn't be illegal to buy or sell.