In this solo episode of The Radical Health Rebel Podcast, Leigh puts himself in the position of being the UK's Health Tsar.
He explains his plans to optimise the health of nation as The UK's Dictator of Health.
Becoming the UK's Health Tsar [1:15]
Setting up a diverse Health Advisory Board [5:50]
Conflicts of Interest [10:30]
The Mission [12:45]
The Plan to improve The Health of The Nation [13:10]
We we need organic farming standards [14:00]
A SWOT Analysis of the NHS [24:40]
Restructuring the NHS [27:55]
Changing the current Health Paradigm [39:45]
Rewarding the healthy [43:45]
Ending Scientific and Medical corruption [44:55]
Safety regulations for Toxins and Electromagnetic devices [48:35]
Overview of the future [50:50]
Don't forget to leave a Rating for the podcast!
You can find Leigh @:
[00:00] Leigh: We currently have record numbers of people dying from heart disease and cancer. We have record numbers of autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes, autism, teenage suicides, mental health disorders. I could go on. What is clear is that the systems that we have in place are not only ineffective at generating health, but are in fact causing a high level of disease and premature death, despite the huge amount of money being spent on so called health.
[00:34] : Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast with your host, Lee Brandon. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a five-star rating and the warm review. Your opinions are important and your ratings help grow the podcast and help educate people to lead a healthier, more productive, fulfilling and happy life. This video is your thing. Please check out the Radical Health Rebel YouTube channel where you'll find Fun bitesized clips from each episode. And now, here is Lee, the Radical Health Rebel with this week's podcast.
[01:14] Leigh: Welcome. Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast. In this week's solo episode, I'll be entering a parallel universe and speaking as if I'd been given dictatorial powers as the health are of the UK and discussing what I would do to optimize the health of the population. So I would have carte blanche to do whatever I want to do to achieve the goal of optimizing the health of the nation. So it's been clear for many years now that those who are in governmental roles to help improve and maintain the health of the nation have failed tremendously and it could be argued, have prioritized a system that prioritizes the generation of maximum financial profits for its stakeholders at the expense of the people's health. So the purpose of this episode is to generate thoughts and to perhaps start a process of changing the current paradigm that exists around health and the direction that we could move in in the future. I also want to say before I start that my ideas will probably be quite radical for most people. However, radical change is required if we are to reverse the runaway train that we currently have of ill health and disease. We currently have record numbers of people dying from heart disease and cancer. We have record numbers of autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes, autism, teenage suicides, mental health disorders. I could go on, on and and on. What is clear is that the systems that we have in place are not only ineffective at generating health, but are in fact causing a high level of disease and premature death, despite the huge amount of money being spent on so called health. Now, because the ideas that I'm about to share with you are quite radical, I understand that there will be winners and losers with the policies that I'm going to suggest. Some people have a lot of resistance to my ideas. I completely understand that and I'm completely aware that's the situation. But I'm also aware that as humans, we tend to have a natural resistance to change. We like to stay in our comfort zone, even if our comfort zone is illness and incapacity. So what I also appreciate is that with these policies, there will be losers in the short term. But what I would want to have in place are plans to minimize or eliminate any short term loss. So, as an example, when Margaret Thatcher shut down several industries in the 1980s, she left large populations out of work. Now, whether you agreed with her policies or not, what she failed to do was to set up alternative solutions for large numbers of people that she made redundant, who then became a burden on the state and also caused those people a lot of hardship. So I have that very much in my mind as we work through these plans. What I also recognize is that I do not have all the answers, especially the knock-on effects across other sectors that my policies might have. But as I said previously, this episode is all about generating ideas and helping to create a new way of looking at health going forwards. So in this episode, I'll be discussing setting up a diverse health advisory board conflicts of interest. The mission my plans to improve health, why the soil is crucial and why we need organic farming practices to be standard. I perform a SWOT analysis on the National Health Service that we call the NHS. My plans to completely restructure the NHS health education and changing the health paradigm, rewarding the healthy, putting an end to scientific and medical corruption, an overhaul of the safety standards around the use of toxins and electromagnetic radiation generating devices and an overview of the future health of the nation. With my policies in place now, as the dictator of health for the UK, the first thing I will do is introduce a democratic process immediately. So I will relinquish my dictatorial powers and seek a range of views and include people I respect to help in the decision making process. I would therefore set up a governmental health advisory board that would, as a team, democratically make the decisions. The world we live in today is heading at an ever-faster pace into a medical dictatorship controlled by billionaire, philanthropy, capitalists and mega rich corporations. That has led to one of the biggest health disasters, if not the biggest health disaster, that we've ever seen over the last two years. One of propaganda, censorship, psychological operations, corruption, coercion, profiteering cronyism and theft from the public purse. So I'm very aware that now I have this huge power as the UK's health are, what I wouldn't want to do is to repeat the mistakes of the past and indeed our current situation. So I would invite top experts from the UK and beyond to form the advisory board to devise the best possible plans to improve the health of the nation. So I would invite the following experts onto the advisory board. So, from the UK, Carl Hennigan, professor of Evidence based Medicine at Oxford University. Senetra Gupta, professor of Theoretical Epidemiology. From Oxford, professor Carol Sakora, specialist in oncology. Michael Levitt, professor in Structural Biology, norman Fenton, mathematician and professor of Risk Management, Dr Claire Craig, diagnostic Pathologist. Dr John Lee, retired Pathologist. Dr. Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist. Dr Tess Lori, who is a director of an evidence based medicine consultancy. Dr Mike Yeaden, former Vice President of Pfizer, GPs. Dr. Rangan Chatterjee and Bob Gill, Dr. Zoe Harcombe, who has a PhD in Public Health Nutrition. Neil Oliver, who's an archaeologist and broadcaster, a really altruistic man, very good at critical thinking and I would say the same about my next invitee onto the board. Russell Brand. Comedian, actor, activist. Helen Browning, CEO of the UK Soil Association and the final UK member that I would invite, someone who only came across very recently on Aubrey Marcus podcast, and that's David Charalambous, who is an expert in systems theory, process mapping, dynamics and communication from overseas. So from the US, I would invite triple board certified doctor Zac Bush from Belgium, Dr. Gert Van Den Bossche, biologist and vaccinologist, actually from the UK, but now resides in the US. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, former gastroenterologist and now filmmaker, from South Africa Nick Hudson, who is a private equity investor and chairman of Pandemics Data and Analysis, also known as PANDA. So I specifically chose some people because I know they have opposing views. In the real world, we have a situation where people are chosen to be on certain committees and boards and they tend to share the same view. Or some of these people tend to be quite open to being financially persuaded to take a certain view, which is normally the view of those preferred by those that are in power. And we saw during the so-called Pandemic that opposing views to the government was simply not heard. So the only viewpoint that was considered was one that was the policy that has already been decided. Open debate was cancelled, including medical doctors losing their license because they chose to save lives rather than allow their patients to die, which actually went against government policies. So the team that I've selected, if they accepted my offer, I believe would make an amazing team. Now, one caveat to taking the position is that they must declare publicly any conflicts of interest. So some conflicts of interest may possibly disqualify them immediately from the advisory board. So the board would democratically vote on whether any members conflicts of interest would make their participation untenable. Another caveat would include that any board member receiving any financial payment that could be seen as benefiting from a decision made by the board for a period of ten years would either need to be returned to the public purse or if undeclared and not returned, would receive a severe custodial sentence, possibly less than ten years, at least ten years, I should say. So again, this might sound over the top and radical, but corruption in this area has caused many lives to be ruined and caused unnecessary large scale increases in all caused mortality. So everyone on the board, including me, has to be squeaky cling. In addition. Anyone found guilty of corruption in the health. Medical or pharmaceutical fields would be subject to the same criteria. Including the banning of people obtaining jobs in the pharmaceutical industry within 20 years of a role that creates rules and laws on pharmaceuticals. And a banning of people becoming part of a decision-making process around pharmaceuticals. Such as regulators. Within 20 years of working for a pharmaceutical company. So the plan would aim to stop the revolving door system of corruption, and those laws would also cross international boundaries for anyone involved in working in those sectors, either in the UK or for UK companies abroad. So this also might require extradition treaties from other countries if people go overseas to take up what I would consider disqualified positions. Radical, I know, but we need radical change right now. Now, no doubt there will be loopholes, but I would hope that the level of brain power on the advisory board will be able to cut off as many of those as possible. As bizarre, my mission would be to optimize the health and wellbeing of the population of the UK to increase the level of fun, time, productivity, life fulfilment and happiness. I would pitch my plan on how to achieve this to the health advisory board for discussion and to improve upon my initial ideas. So what is my plan, I hear you ask? Well, I have two different angles on how to approach this, and again, I will put this to the board for their opinions. One approach would be to protect the population from themselves by introducing strict laws that would make it a lot more difficult to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Now, the downside to this would be a real restriction in lifestyle choices or freedom, but one that would in the long run, help to achieve my mission. The second approach, which I tend to lean more towards, would be to allow more responsibility to the individual to make their own choices. But in this scenario, being unhealthy would come with penalties and also financial costs. Now, one area that I feel there is no room for manoeuvre in is in farming techniques and the British soil. One of the greatest harms done to our health and the environment is the use of toxic fertilizers and pesticides, which are often made from petrochemicals. These practices are simply unsustainable. They are slowly eroding the amount of farmable land, as well as using the ever-decreasing amount of fossil fuels. Add to that the harm to the health of the soil animals, especially bees, which are crucial in the fertilization of many plants, but also harms to humans and the environment in general. Some experts predict we have around 60 years left of farmable soils unless we make radical change now, two of the biggest threats to the environment are the current commercial farming practices and fish farms, which are arguably even worse to the environment and human health. So, whilst toxic farming chemicals have been approved as safe, the safety testing has been completely inadequate, with no testing on the effects of consuming multiple pesticide laden foods over time, and no testing performed on what happens to the foods when mixed and heated. The use of genetically modified or GMO seeds in my proposal are also to be made illegal under any circumstances, not only as they are extremely harmful to human health, but also the environment and animals, but also they rely on the use of unnatural paint centered seeds which must be purchased year on year from large multinational corporations, which threatens food security for everyday Brits. We need a gradual move away and eventually total elimination from the use of harmful toxic chemical fertilizers, GMOs and pesticides on our farms, and also the overuse of pharmaceuticals on farm animals. I would suggest a staggered plan over five to ten years to introduce a complete ban on these products on British farms and all farms would need to meet the guidelines set by the British Soil Association. The cost of transitioning to organic farming and organic certification would be payable by the taxpayer rather than the farmers themselves. The transition to organic only farming would require education of farmers to be able to farm organically and biodynamically, including assuring them that their yields will increase and not decrease as they're currently led to believe. Education for farmers could be supplied by current organic farmers and associations like the Soil Association and Farmers Footprint. Organic farming would greatly improve the nutritional content of foods eating in this country, reduce the toxic exposure through the food chain, reduce cost of higher quality food through increased supply as well as bigger yields for farmers. Greater health of the nation would be greatly or would greatly reduce the burden and therefore costs to the NHS, especially in the long term. A levy or tax may need to be added to foods that do not fit the quality criteria as set by the Soil Association. So this would discourage people from buying unhealthy foods and encouraged to buy the healthy foods. So this is quite similar, but not exactly the same as the taxis suggested by doctors, a Aseem Malhotra and Rangan Chatterjee on sugary foods and drinks. The alternative, more stringent option would be to completely ban all foods that do not meet the Soil Association's organic criteria. This, I know, would meet great resistance, but resistance we would probably have to overcome with most medical expenses being spent on chronic degenerative diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, et cetera, which all have large dietary causal relationships. The initial investment required to introduce these concepts would be repaid greatly by the reduction required for expensive medical treatment.
[18:41] : Get the radical health rebel at free head on over to our Patreon channel at www.patreon.com/radicalhealthrebel it's the only place where you can watch full length, completely add, and sponsor free episodes of the podcast. Plus, you can join the Radical Health Rebel Patreon community where you can have a say in the podcast, watch exclusive behind the scenes cliffs, as well as early access to the podcast. That's patreon.com/radicalhealthrebel
[19:12] Leigh: are you regularly suffering from painful bloating and wind that can be smelly and embarrassing? Are your bowel movements not as they should be, either constipation or diarrhoea, or possibly alternating between the two? Do you find the pain is bad enough, but the bloating and cramps make you feel awful and are affecting your everyday life? Do you sometimes feel you can't eat properly because of the wind, bloating, and pain? And has your doctor told you that you have IBS but unable to help find you a solution? Do you feel right now that you simply don't know what's causing your symptoms and whatever your doctor has suggested hasn't worked and you feel frustrated that you're still far from having a normal, flat, comfortable tummy? Have you invested a lot of time, energy and money into improving your symptoms and don't wish to waste any more? Do you feel frustrated and depressed and don't feel like you can take part in all the activities you enjoy and sometimes have to cancel attending events because of the way your tummy feels? Do you fear that if you don't get this sorted, you could end up with a much more serious gastrointestinal disease? If so, what would help you right now is to understand the root cause of your digestive condition. Rather than continuing to try to mask the symptoms with over-the-counter or prescribed medications. You need help understanding how factors such as nutrition, gut health, stress and toxicology affect the digestive system and how to optimize these factors. You need someone who can advise, motivate, and support you every step of the way, someone who has walked the path before and taught many others to do the same. What you need is my overcome your digestive issues program. My Overcome Your Digestive Issues program can help you in the following ways I will help you understand the root causes of your digestive problems and teach you how to approach the condition holistically via expert advice on nutrition and lifestyle factors to Overcome Your Digestive Issues program will start by ensuring you are on the right diet for you based on your genetics or metabolic type and one that avoids the foods that are known to exacerbate your condition. We'll go on a journey step by step, learning all the necessary lifestyle changes required to achieve a flat, comfortable, pain free tummy. Each weekly 30 minutes coaching session will include advice, support and guidance specifically tailored to your needs and at a speed that is right for you. Once you're eating right for your metabolic type, you will begin to see changes in how your tummy feels. And we will also uncover all the necessary blocking factors that you may have. And you'll be taught how to reduce, replace or eliminate all the factors that are causing your digestive problems. Ultimately, this program will enable you to achieve a flat, calm and comfortable tummy every day for the rest of your life. For more information about how to improve your gut health and to claim a complimentary no obligation gut health consultation, please go to www. Dot bodycheck co UK that's BodyChek. And fill in the request form at the top of the home page and we'll be in contact to arrange a convenient time. Now, back to the podcast.
[22:40] : You're listening to the Radical Health Rebel podcast.
[22:45] Leigh: An organic only farming nation would also greatly improve the environment. Has organic soils hold onto carbon, whereas chemically farm fields release carbon into the air. We need to encourage Brits to buy from British farmers, and that includes the supermarkets, but also to provide a better infrastructure for organic farmers to sell direct to the consumer, which will also help to reduce the cost of high quality food. We need to be self sufficient with regards to food supply in the UK. We need to improve our nation's food security and become less reliant on imports, which will also improve the environment. The stringent rules in my plan would make importing foods less attractive and less likely to occur. This would also reduce the use of fossil fuels for the transport and the financial cost of the long range transportation. We also need to encourage people to grow their own organic produce as well and for people to become more self-sufficient. So this will also require education programs for this to occur. If we had a fairer taxation system in general, which as the UK's health Tsar, I would try to convince the Chancellor to consider, the poorest in society would have more money to spend. They may therefore be able to buy high quality food and reduce the gap in health between the haves and the have nots. And with an NHS being run at a fraction of the cost, why would there not be a reduction in tax rates? So, looking at the NHS, if I were to do a SWOT analysis of the NHS, it would look something like this. So if we were to look at the strengths of the NHS, what are they really good at? Were they really good at acute medical care? If you have an accident, break your leg, need surgery, they're really great at emergency medical care. They're the biggest employer in the UK, that's obviously a positive. And the final thing I would say they're very good at is generating profits for the huge pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers. What are their weaknesses? Well, the current system is unsustainably expensive. It relies heavily on petrochemical based pharmaceuticals. It's very poor at treating degenerative disease successfully. It generally only treats symptomology, which leads to relapses side effects and further disease caused by the treatment. The patient plays a passive role in the health, so the patient expects the doctor to fix them with no behaviour change. It's a fragmented system of specialization and there's a lack of cross communication across specializations, leading to poor outcomes. The treatments are mainly reactive and not preventative. Overall, it's generally poor health outcomes. Patients become reliant or addicted to pharmaceuticals. Medical decisions are often based on profit generation and not health outcomes. Policies and education of staff are largely controlled or influenced by the profit generating pharmaceutical industry. It often relies on scientific opinion from professionals with financial conflicts of interest. Now, the opportunities that we have with the NHS is to make health outcomes a priority, to make it more efficient, to focus on what it's good at and to transfer over what it's not so good at to other providers, to make it affordable again. And we could potentially do that with Renationalisation. And we could reduce the burden on the NHS by increasing overall health. The threats, if the system stays the same, is that it will no longer exist and it will continue to decrease health outcomes for the people. Under my regime, as the health is, one of the threats would be that people would lose jobs because the requirement would become less for the NHS, or it could be they just need retraining. Another threat is under my regime, it would require an initial financial investment to change. And another potential threat is that the population would grow because people would be more healthy, they would stay alive for longer, and that in itself could potentially cause problems. Now, following the shutdown of the UK economy in 2020, the NHS simply cannot be financed by the taxpayer in its current form and still provide an effective service for all. It's simply not efficient nor productive or geared to generating positive health outcomes. The NHS in its current form very simply is no longer fit for purpose, and I'll explain why. We have currently two aspects to our health sector. So there's almost two entirely separate health sectors in the UK. The way they work are very different and focus on different aspects and have clear strengths and weaknesses. So we have the medical establishment mainly financed by the taxpayer, the NHS, and partly financed via the insurance industry, which we call private health care. But secondly, we also have an alternative, or what's known as complementary or holistic health, that is almost entirely privately funded by the individual. So I've already discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the medical establishment. But what about the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative, complementary holistic health? While their strengths include treating chronic degenerative disease successfully, it can be preventative and not just reactive. It's an integrated system of looking at the whole-body mind complex. It finds the cause of each individual's health challenges leading to better health outcomes. It encourages empowerment and participation of the individual in their own health. It reduces the requirement of pharmaceuticals and surgery. It reduces the burden on the NHS. You generally don't get any side effects leading to other health challenges, so health challenges and illnesses are less likely to reoccur. You generally get positive health outcomes and it's relatively inexpensive compared to the medical establishment. But it does have weaknesses. It's not very good at acute or emergency medical care. If you break your leg, going to a chiropractor or nutritionist isn't going to help. Another weakness is that it's not paid for by taxation. Therefore it's often too expensive for the poorest in society. It's harder to scale individualized care to a large population. And when you consider that most illnesses and most deaths are caused by chronic degenerative diseases like heart disease, cancer, dementia, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, etc, it's clear that we are using the wrong tool to deal with the problem. The medical establishment, as it is currently structured, is rarely able to successfully treat chronic degenerative disease. Therefore, our medical costs are skyrocketing, which is also worsened by the mismanagement of resources in the NHS. So for an average NHS patient, the solution offered to them in most instances for most ailments, is pharmaceutical. Now, whilst pharmaceuticals are crucial in emergency situations, they are often prescribed when there are cheaper, more effective, safer options for chronic degenerative diseases that will result in better health outcomes. This over reliance on pharmaceuticals leads to the patient suffering from side effects, which leads to other pharmaceuticals being prescribed, which leads to further side effects. And now the patient is on the pharmaceutical merry-go-round, moving further and further away from health and more and more dependent on the medical system. With an ever-increasing number of pharmaceuticals to take each day, in most cases, the current system decreases patient's health, increases the financial burden on the NHS and does not encourage the patient to play an active role in their own health. All the while, the system is generating huge incomes for pharmaceutical giants at the taxpayer's expense. When you consider the recent so-called pandemic, it was clear from the data early on that the healthier one was, the better their outcomes and therefore less likely to be a burden on the NHS. Healthier people in almost all cases have stronger immune systems. Now, as world leaders keep telling us, more pandemics are coming, it's likely that a new approach is going to be needed to prevent them from causing an overburdening of hospitals and preventing premature deaths. A new approach that's focused on natural prevention via improving the health of everyone. A new approach would also leave more resources to improve what the NHS are already good at good at. So, as I said earlier, acute and emergency care creating a level of service is good or better than anywhere else in the world. So the NHS should be restructured to focus on its strengths and reduce capacity where it will be needed less and less as the health of the nation improves via a shift of focus to proactive health measures. The NHS should be slowly renationalised as each private contract ends. This will reduce the waste of money given to shareholders of the contractors and reinvested into the NHS services. Unnecessary managerial layers should be reduced to decrease costs and improve the efficiency of service and overall productivity. Senior management should be incentivised on health outcomes and operational efficiencies. The NHS would consist of two branches. The first one I would call proactive health. Some people call it Preventative Medicine and the goal would be improving individuals health through lifestyle behaviour. This would be mainly an education for all approach, plus it would also include clinicians to see patients or clients, including retrained NHS staff. You would also still have what I'd call medical services. We currently call it the NHS. I would call it medical services to take care of acute care, emergency care, paediatrics, maternity, geriatric care and any other essential medical services. Proactive Health would be funded by the taxpayer. Each person would receive an allowance to spend each year on Proactive Health and this would be a great investment of taxpayer’s money to reduce the burden on medical care. Medical care would also be funded by the taxpayer, except adults below pension age who have failed over a long period of time despite all the education on Proactive Health, including any needed psychological intervention to adopt a healthier lifestyle when needed. Now, this would be a controversial policy, but one we simply can't afford to avoid. What we can't have is too many passengers who are not contributing to the mission. Those with mental illness would still be entitled to taxpayer funded medical care. Only those believed to be mentally capable would be required to contribute towards their medical care. If they have chosen not to take responsibility for their lifestyle choices, they will of course be free to pay for private medical care. Emergency care such as ambulance services, accident and emergency would all be free for all. There would be cross referrals between Proactive Health and medical services who work together as a team, each focusing on their own strengths. Some staff would retrain over time from medical services to Proactive Health. Some staff would be required purely to communicate between the different areas of speciality to ensure the continuity of treatment and avoidance of negative pharmaceutical cross reactions. Some staff will still be required for emergency care for chronic cases such as cancer and cardiac surgery. With the policy in place, the need for such surgeries in the NHS will decline over time.
[37:12] : The Radical Health Rebel is also available on YouTube. Find bite sized clips from our episodes on the Radical Health Rebel YouTube channel.
[37:24] Leigh: Just a brief interruption to this podcast to talk about adult acne. Now, did you know that 40% to 54% of men and women older than 25 years will have some degree of facial acne? And that clinical facial acne. Persists into middle age in 12% of women and 3% of men. I know only too well the devastating effects that actually can have on your confidence and your self-esteem and how it can easily destroy your social life, your career and your relationships. I know this only too well because I suffered from severe cystic acne from age 13 to 31 over an 18-year period. I visited my doctor on many occasions and his only suggestions were acne creams, harsh cleansers and antibiotics that weren't working and were actually making my skin worse. After 18 years of struggle and thousands of pounds invested in treatments that didn't work. Through my professional education. I began to learn that what my doctor had told me was untrue and that diet was directly related to acne. Plus other factors such as food sensitivities. Toxicity. Hormones. And balancing the body's microbiome putting what I had learned into practice. I managed to rib myself of acne over 20 years ago and have been helping others to do the same for well over a decade by teaching people what foods cause acne. What food sensitivities each individual has. How to optimize their detox pathways. How to reduce environmental stresses and toxins. And how to balance hormones. Especially those related to the mTOR pathway. A major causal factor with acne. I've been able to help many other adults overcome their acne nightmare too. So if you would like more information on how to overcome your adult acne, please go to www.skinwebinar.com. That's www.skinwebinar.com, where you can also request an Acne breakthrough. Call with me to see if you are suitable for my Eliminate Adult Acne Coaching program, where you can once and for all learn how to overcome your adult acne. Now back to the podcast.
[39:38] : You're listening to the Radical Health Rebel podcast.
[39:42] Leigh: So we need to change the paradigm of health from believing that health is purely down to luck or genes, or down to medical professionals or politicians, to one of personal responsibility. In my 26-year career, I've seen time and time again the amazing ability the human body has to heal itself, often from dire circumstances, but only when the person is empowered to take responsibility for their actions and equipped with the right knowledge to do so. This includes adopting healthy lifestyle habits, things like healthy eating, but also simple psychological aspects like goal setting and setting core values, how to breathe correctly, getting movement in the body each day, getting out in nature, getting to bed on time, taking rest, taking time out when you need it, not watching too much TV, especially at night, drinking clean water and less alcohol, etc. For. But this can only be achieved through proper education. Now, an education series could be drawn up by a group of health experts from different areas and provided to the British people at a relatively tiny cost to the treasury and made available to the public at no cost. There are some great online programs that already exist that could be used for this purpose, such as Czech Institute Holistic Lifestyle Coaching Level one that would fit perfect in this scenario. So education and coaching in behaviour change would probably also be crucial. So imagine what could have been achieved had the government used the hundreds of millions of pounds it spent on COVID advertising, on educating the public on what the known risk factors of COVID were and what people could do to reduce those risk factors via healthy lifestyle habits. The new policies would also require a shift in mentality amongst general practitioners, from prescription fillers to practitioners who can guide and refer patients to the right professionals for long term help that uncovers the cause of the patient's health challenge, and a professional who can guide and support each person to take an active role in their own health. GPS currently did not have the time nor the training to do this work themselves. General practitioners and other medical professionals should be incentivised financially, not by how many injections they can put into people's arms or how many prescriptions they can write, but by the health outcomes of their patients. We have to move away from patients who play a passive role in their health to clients who play an active role in their health. This is the only sustainable, effective option. Prescription pharmaceutical should only be given as an absolute last resort, where patients cannot take responsibility for their actions for acute medical conditions, or when their life is in immediate danger. We must also move away from medical decisions being based on financial profits of large corporations and towards health outcomes of the people. These policies would need to be introduced using a five-to-ten-year plan to allow people with enough time on the new information and to overcome any natural resistance to change that the policies would face, as well as online resources. Experts could do weekly TV and radio shows and podcasts. You might call it health propaganda if you like. Maybe the government's nudge unit could be put to good use here. Ultimately, we need a system that rewards those willing to take responsibility for their health, which will benefit everyone. We need to encourage those who do not wish to take responsibility for their own health and help those who may be struggling financially or mentally to take responsibility for themselves. Discounts for health-related activities could be given, such as gym membership, spa, etcetera. A modern day eat out to help out if you like, except it improves health rather than harms health. This will reduce the burden on medical services, reduce NHS costs, improve the environment and the health of the nation. The poorest in society will have more money with reduced taxes due to the less money required for the NHS, and higher quality foods which will be at a lower price. Those who choose not to take personal responsibility and are choosing to be a burden on society could potentially have to contribute to their medical care based on means testing. Next, I really want to talk about ending scientific and medical corruption. So I'd bring in laws with stiff custodial sentences and large financial penalties which should, once in place, help to prevent the following so we want to prevent medical and pharmaceutical lobbying of politicians. Pharmaceutical companies controlling the outcomes of medical trials. Pharmaceutical companies influencing medical education pharmaceutical companies funding medical conferences. Pharmaceutical companies financing pharmaceutical regulators. The revolving door system of executives moving between pharmaceutical companies and their regulators. Former or current politicians being able to receive money from pharmaceutical companies after introducing policies that benefited the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies or government agencies incentivizing medical doctors to prescribe pharmaceuticals. Medical scientists making misleading claims about the outcomes of studies, especially when they have a conflict of interest. The mandating of or coercion into taking any medical intervention in addition to what already exists in international law and the Nuremberg Code. Regulators allowing pharmaceuticals to be launched to the market without proper independent short, medium and long-term safety studies. Pharmaceutical companies, their executives and regulators should also be liable for any damages their products may cause, which will improve the attention to safety of the products and prevent Russian products to market. Pharmaceutical companies escaping liability of harm by their products. Pharmaceutical companies using older vaccines as placebos in trials when testing against new vaccines rather than using inner placebos such as saline. The banning of safe and effective pharmaceuticals to allow more profitable new products to be sold and media organizations, including social media and journalists presenting one side of a story on health matters and censoring and silencing expert opinions and official data and research that they do not agree with. Another option would be to make it illegal for the same company to make money from a pharmaceutical products that they performed the research on. Now, how would that work, you ask? Again, just another idea here. So the government could set up a research centre and any pharmaceutical company would send their products to be tested to the government research agency and they would test the product under strict and proper regulations. If the product gets approval, the agency would not charge the pharmaceutical company for the research but would take a percentage of the profits until the costs had been recouped by the government. If the product did not pass the efficacy or safety tests, the pharmaceutical company would have to immediately pay the entire costs of the research. This would prevent pharmaceutical companies putting products forward that are unlikely to be efficacious and safe. Of course, the same anticorruption policies on laws would have to be in place to prevent any corruption between the pharmaceutical companies and the research agency as I outlined. I would also suggest tighter regulations on the use of toxins and electromagnetic radiation exposures. So tighter regulations would be required to reduce the huge toxic exposure on the population to reduce likelihood of ill health. So cigarettes and e-cigarettes, I would suggest, would need to face the same organic criteria as food and drink. Toxic metals, especially mercury and nickel used in dental surgeries would be banned. Toiletries, sunscreens, cosmetics and makeup, household cleaning products, paints and air fresheners to have much tighter regulations on the chemicals and quantities allowed to be used. So chemicals like sodium, lauryl-sulphate, parabens, phthalates, etc. And each of these products must include a minimum amount of organic ingredients. Corporations to be encouraged to reduce their toxic chemicals in their products and more stringent regulations to be introduced again over a ten-year period. You got to change them tomorrow. They got time to prepare, change their business models, et cetera. The safety regulations for telecoms and electrical equipment such as mobile phone transmitters and receivers, mobile phones, tablets, laptop computers, Wi-fi, routers, et cetera. To be updated and overhauled based on the latest independent safety data on these products. New technology must be stringently assessed by independent bodies, without conflicts of interest and safety assured before being rolled out on a large scale. The public should also be educated on the harms of electromagnetic radiation and how to protect themselves, and budgets created for councils to install electromagnetic radiation protection devices on a large-scale microwave ovens to be banned due to their detrimental health effects, including their carcinogenicity. It would also be prudent if these regulations would be introduced after the farming and food regulations are introduced in a staggered implementation strategy so as to make the change more manageable and finally, the future. So, with these policies in place, the UK could be the envy of the world. It would take some effort to overcome the initial inevitable resistance from some people who wish to continue living a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle. But it will be possible via clear education of the mission and the rewards for healthy behaviour and costs for unhealthy behaviour. We simply cannot afford to continue in our current health trajectory. No one is benefiting from the current system, apart from the pharmaceutical giants and the corrupt officials who receive their financial handouts for allowing their products onto the market. Just imagine what life would be like here in the UK with a huge reduction in heart disease, cancer, dementia, diabetes and obesity. Just imagine how much more active and happy people would be if they could unlock the key to their health and no longer have to rely on someone outside of them for their health. Just imagine how much more disposable income we would all have to enjoy without the burden of the enormous tax bill we all have to pay for the NHS, whether we use it or not. Those who really need medical care could receive the best possible and achieve the best health outcomes. But of course, this is not the world we live in. We live in a corrupt world of a financial slavery system run by a few who are attempting to remove our privacy and freedoms including bodily autonomy, even down to how we breathe and what we can and can't eat. I hope my ideas have given you something to think about and to consider what kind of world we could live in if we all got together and said no to those in charge and created a world where we can take responsibility for ourselves, make our own choices, and be free, happy and healthy. That's all for me this week. I'll see you the same time, same place next week.
[53:07] : Thanks for tuning in to the Radical Health Rebel podcast with Leigh Brandon. You can find Leigh at bodycheck.co.uk. That's bodychek.co.uk. Please hit the like button and share on your social media and with someone you feel will benefit from watching this episode. So together we can help them lead a healthier, more productive, fulfilling, and happy life.