← Full Measure After Hours
Full Measure After Hours
After Hours: Congressman Thomas Massie: A Maverick Nicknamed ‘Mr. No’ (From the Archives)
00:37:27
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:05]
A
Hi everybody. Cheryl Atkinson here. Welcome to another edition of Full Measure After Hours. Today, Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, says the quiet part out loud. It's put him at odds not only with Democrats, but also at times with his fellow Republicans and President Trump. Today in this podcast, he's calling out the swamp out of control Washington, D.C. spending, the corrupt political fundraising system, drug ads on TV and a lot more. I love it when sitting members of Congress come on Full Measure and give candid interviews not only about what they think maybe is wrong about the opposing party, but also about what's going on inside their own political parties. I know you're going to find today's interview with Congressman Thomas Massie really fascinating. It's the topic of my cover story on Sunday, May 18, but also in this podcast, the whole interview. Maskie is a fiscal hawk and an MIT educated engineer. His record in Congress, I guess you could say, is sort of a highlight reel of lone dissent. He calls the proposed Republican budget a suicide pact to spend us into oblivion. In 2020, he infuriated both parties by forcing lawmakers back to Washington, D.C. this, this is at the height of COVID for an in person vote by name on a $2.2 trillion Covid relief bill, a bill that he criticized as fiscally reckless. In 2022, he was the only House member to reject a resolution against anti Semitism. He argued that it threatened free speech. And he's continued taking solo stances this year, sometimes putting him at odds with President Trump, who he he has supported for election both times. Here's my interview with Congressman Thomas Massie.
- [02:03]
B
When you talk about you're sort of a lone guy on some issues in really simple terms, for people who don't understand the intricacies of how the budget works and how the stuff gets passed, can you explain how you are sort of standing alone on certain issues and why?
- [02:18]
C
Well, I've stood alone three times so far in three months. I was the only dissenting Republican on making Mike Johnson the speaker. I was the only dissenting Republican on our budget, which is also known as the framework for the reconciliation bill. That's to come later. And I was the lone dissenting Republican on the continuing resolution, which is a cut copy paste of Biden's last 15 months in office, which is going to do the same thing for the first nine months of Trump's administration. I don't change my principles or my voting criteria based on who the president is. And I wish my colleagues wouldn't either. It's almost like this Last continuing resolution, the Freedom Caucus gotten a suicide pact with the president to just keep running up our debt and our deficit, also on the reconciliation package. And so I don't know what's gotten
- [03:19]
B
into them, but there's a reason. So when they explained it, it makes sense to me, as an outsider, when you explain it, it makes sense to me. Their reason for wanting to vote everything together was what?
- [03:32]
C
Well, there are multiple reasons. So they would. In September of last year, the reason to do the continuing resolution was that we didn't want to mess up the election. And then after the election happened, the reason to do a continuing resolution in December is we had won the election. So let's wait until our people are installed in the Senate and in the White House. In fact, let's don't wait until January, let's give them till March. And so now the reason to do a CR is we don't have enough time. We didn't have enough time to think about this. What we've punted for six months for other reasons.
- [04:09]
B
What's the real agenda behind, do you think, wanting to pass the budget framework this way or the budget?
- [04:16]
C
I think the uniparty here is on the same path they were on before President Trump was elected. Now, he's doing a lot of great executive orders and he's trying to steer the ship and he's running into the courts are trying to stop him. His executive orders, like trying to stop him from not giving money to the USAID recipients. But the swamp is creating this problem for him and he's rubber stamping it. Let me give you an example. The continuing resolution I just spoke of, it's one bill that funds all of government. It's a copy of Biden's agenda in the spending and it funded the Department of Education every penny. It did not cut one penny from the Department of Education. And then one week later, President Trump holds a press conference saying he's stopping the Department of Education. He's winding it down. What he's going to discover, and the courts are going to remind him, is that a week before he claims he's stopping the Department of Education, he signed into law a spending package that completely funds the Department of Education. And so the courts are going to say, hold on, we got a problem here. You created a law and now you're trying to do it a week, undo it a week later with an executive order. What we need to do is get Congress on the same page as President Trump's agenda. The mandate that he had in this election and I Spoke to him after the election and I told him I think he has three months, maybe six months at most, to get his agenda done before the swamp and the Senate just completely tie him up. We're three months into that six month window. It does not get easier next year when we get into an election year.
- [06:02]
B
What did he say when you told
- [06:03]
C
him that he agreed? He agreed.
- [06:07]
B
When did he get, did he call you after he got mad at you over this vote that we're talking about that you dissented on?
- [06:12]
C
No. I've had three conversations or interactions with the president in the last nine months. One, he called and left condolences for my loss of my wife, which is very kind. I think it's part of the president a lot of people don't see. He didn't need to do that. It didn't gain him anything politically. But he took time out of his day to call me and offer his condolences. And then I talked to him about two weeks before the election about endorsing him, which I ultimately did that same day. And I initiated that phone call and he took my call on the second ring. And then I talked to him two weeks after the election, roughly about Cabinet secretaries. There was discussion and RFK Jr was a big fan of this and the people that are supporting him would hope to see me be AG Secretary, and I would have done it. It's not my life ambition. I think I could do a good job of it. But I spoke to Trump about that as well. So we've had.
- [07:16]
B
So you didn't get picked for that. I didn't know you were even considered.
- [07:20]
C
Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't, I don't know. But three great positive interactions. And then when I finally voted against this cr, although I think it was more about other people than it was about me, the attack that Trump levied on me, I think it was about keeping the Freedom Caucus in line, because everybody already knows by now, particularly President Trump, who attacked me on March 27, 2020 for opposing the CARES act and said I should be thrown out of the party. I was a third rate grandstander. He said all those things. Then this is deja vu. He's called me a grandstander again, but this time he didn't qualify as third rate. So I think I'm moving up in the world. But what people know about me is if you attack me, I'm probably going to dig in. You're not going to move me. I'm not bullied. And so the attack on me, I think was to demonstrate to the other horses that were still in the barn who were thinking about coming out of the barn. Cause I was out of the barn. That you want to stay in the barn.
- [08:23]
B
Remind people what he said about you
- [08:26]
C
in 2020 or this time.
- [08:27]
B
This time.
- [08:28]
C
This time. He said he always votes no. He's not worth it. I don't remember exactly what he said. Do you think, by the way, I have no hard feelings toward the president. Sometimes he's a bull in a china shop, and if a few of my dishes get broken, I'm okay.
- [08:46]
B
Do you think that's more about swampy people around him trying to keep his ear about you?
- [08:52]
C
Oh, I absolutely do. I think people were whispering in his ear, you need to do something. Mr. President, that day or about a day before that attack, I had come out against getting involved in a war with Iran. And I think there are people in and around the administration who were whispering in his ear. You know, you need to whack this guy. He's feeling his oats here and talking about not having a war and not getting involved in the Middle east. And give him a dose of medicine. The tune up doesn't work on me. I think it's performative to influence other members of Congress who might not be able to weather this. I joke that I've got Trump antibodies from a natural infection in 2020. This was my booster.
- [09:44]
B
What is your read so far of Trump coming in and trying to do the things he's trying to do with federal government and the swamp and so on and what's happened? I will bring up the case of the Epstein documents, which I thought we were on the precipice of seeing, but we still haven't seen to this day, I'm not sure where that stands. What are your thoughts about what he's trying to do, the lawsuits and the push back against trying to cut the federal government size and so on?
- [10:10]
C
Well, I think he's on the right track trying to cut the size of the federal government. The problem is he's Congress is on a different track and he's rubber stamping what we're doing over here. So I think his team over there is. I mean, maybe they have some 4D chess strategy that I'm not privy to. He's got some really smart people like Stephen Miller. His IQ is off the charts and he's got the right ideology. But he's got other people over there who may be too cute by half, who are advising him, who are doing him a DISService to say Mr. President, just do all this by executive order. Don't worry about Congress. Just go along to get along with those senators and the moderates in the House and just, just let all that happen and we'll do all this by executive order. There's two dangers of doing it all by executive order. One, we've already seen you get tied up in the courts, just like one district court gets nationwide injunctions. And everybody's going apoplectic over that, saying we should impeach those judges. And the judges probably are outside of their lane. But we have the ultimate trump card. We've got the spending. Those judges can't force us to spend the money if we do this through Congress. So the first peril of doing everything by executive order is he's going to run into roadblocks at the courts and the Supreme Court's going to uphold some of this stuff. That's going to be an argument.
- [11:44]
B
What do you think they're going to uphold
- [11:48]
C
most of it. They're going to.
- [11:50]
B
Against Trump?
- [11:51]
C
Yeah. Like I said, he just fully funded the Department of Education. He signed the law to do that, the cr. And then.
- [11:58]
B
So you can't rescind money after the fact.
- [12:00]
C
Okay. That's the other great hope, is that we'll be doing rescissions. And there's a process for cutting some of this stuff with 51 votes in the Senate, which is, you know, that's really the narrow aperture is the Senate, because you need 60 votes to get most things done. Rescissions are a blunt instrument. You don't get to reallocate the money for a better purpose, let's say NASA. When you rubber stamp the CR for NASA, you're rubber stamping, like the green New Deal agenda at NASA because they have global climate stuff that we just funded. If you wanted to instead bulk up our missions into deep space or to Mars or things like that, you can't do that with the rescission. You can cut some of the green New Deal stuff, but you can't reallocate that money to things that we should be doing. By the way, the second peril of doing everything by executive order is it all gets undone when you're no longer the executive. It just goes back to what it was.
- [13:03]
B
Or is he right in thinking that the stuff that he would like to bring to Congress to codify in a law won't pass for the reasons you've discussed behind the scenes? A lot of Republicans. Well, they may support him publicly, but not behind the scenes.
- [13:18]
C
That's what's going on, by the way, the executive order, just full bore. Let's do a blitzkrieg of executive orders and just send the liberals into a mad tizzy and they don't know what to focus on because there's so much he's doing. That's the right approach. If the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House, but Republicans controlled the Senate and the House, the right approach here, when you have all three levers of government is, is to press all three levers of government, not to pull two of them back and hold the brakes and the gas at the same time. You're just gonna sit there and spin your wheels. That is the reality. There are Republicans, for instance, that want that USAID money. I mean, there was a surreal moment for me at the State of the Union when Trump talked about cutting all these Doge things that they had discovered. And my colleagues all stood up and cheered and I'm like, you're the ones who funded all of this. Like the Doge. Doge is cutting the things that you all did. And now you're applauding. But your committees, each of the committees are supposed to be subject matter experts. The Foreign Affairs Committee should have known about usaid. The fact of the matter is, they did. And a lot of Republicans like that stuff. I'm not going to name them by name, but they're interventionists and they wanted to keep going. They actually, that's the tool, that's our currency of trying to control everything is this money that we inject into these countries. And they don't want to give that up. So, I mean, that's a real untold story here. And I think we may be on a collision course. Like, I think there's three cars coming together at an intersection and they don't realize they're going to hit. And one of them is Congress with Mike Johnson driving is in one of these cars. Trump, obviously, is one of these cars. Maybe he's the train. And then there's another car, which is Doge. And I don't think Elon Musk is going to suffer these fools once he finds out how foolish they are or duplicitous they are. You don't land rockets backwards. You don't get cars to drive themselves on the interstate by ignoring the fools that you're working with.
- [15:32]
B
What fools are you referring to?
- [15:35]
C
Mike Johnson because. And he's the leader of the fools. I mean, we can just. Anybody following him now is a fool as well, because
- [15:52]
B
suspending primarily, or it's
- [15:55]
C
a suicide pact to spend us into oblivion. The Republican budget, this is separate from the cr. This is the budget that would set up reconciliation, the one that I was the only Republican to vote against. By their rosy numbers. Let me tell you how rosy their numbers are. It assumes interest rates don't go up. It assumes 2.5% growth every year for 10 years in a row. We've never had 10 years in a row of positive growth. If you take all. Oh. It also assumes we don't increase the discretionary spending more than the rate of inflation, which has also never happened. Okay, Take those three assumptions. Take them at face value. They already admit they're going to add $20 trillion to the debt in the next 10 years. Now, if you use practical assumptions and not the rosy assumptions, it's $30 trillion. That's the foolish thing here. So also, I mean, it's the people who stood up at the State of Union and clapped because Trump was giving an ovation to Elon Musk, who was in the gallery. And Elon Musk is at odds with a lot of those Republicans who stood up and clapped. But they're playing along with it right now, and they're going to do sort of, I would call it rope a dope. Maybe to use a Kentucky boxer analogy here, we're just letting. Let Elon wear himself out, come back.
- [17:35]
B
What do you suspect the next six months are going to look like?
- [17:41]
C
I think we may get to that collision course in the next six months. I think the collision might happen where people realized they thought they were on the same team and they're not.
- [17:51]
B
And what will happen then? Just sort of log. What's the word for that? When things just freeze up and nothing happens.
- [17:58]
C
Yeah, yeah. Like a traffic jam or a log jam. Yeah. I don't know what's going to happen. Like Trump. It's up to Trump. So people have asked me, are you going to do what you did last year with Marjorie Taylor Greene and try and vacate Speaker Johnson? No. Speaker Johnson is the speaker as long as Trump wants him. And the day Trump doesn't want him, he's gone. So Speaker Johnson's entire strategy is to suck up to Trump, says he's carry his water. That's his most endearing attribute. And we had an election. I would like to see Trump's agenda accomplished. The problem is Mike Johnson in carrying Trump's water. He's got a leaky bucket. He's prone to tripping. He's not even very good at this. And I think eventually the constraints that are on Mike Johnson from being in that job and being part of the swamp and raising the money to keep the majority and promising the corporations things, those are going to become irreconcilable with Trump's agenda.
- [19:00]
B
Interesting. Can you talk a little bit about, because we've spoken about health things you live on a farm and I think you're aware and cognizant of some of the things that Kennedy has talked about, maybe more so than some other members. What are your thoughts so far and what's going on with that, what you hope to see?
- [19:19]
C
Well, that's a bright spot for me and I know there's some people second guessing a few of the things that he's doing right now, but I'm not that's somebody I would give time and space to get the job done. He, of all the cabinet picks, he is the most serious threat to the uniparty here, to the swamp. And I hope like heck that he succeeds and I count him as a friend. Jim Jordan was very smart to invite Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. To our Judiciary Committee and allow them to testify when they were Democrats. And I had a great time interacting with, with Bobby Kendi there and we got to know each other some. And so I've still, I mean, this may be hard to believe, but even with Trump throwing punches at me, I'm still talking to people who are in the administration because we're, some of us are on the same team.
- [20:20]
B
Interesting. What are some of your other priorities and things that you're aiming for looking at right now?
- [20:26]
C
Well, the Maha thing. Right. Like a lot of these things that I've been proselytizing for are sort of ripening. One of these is Maha. I've always been for raw milk and making sure that people and farmers can interact locally and have their own markets and get the barriers out of the way so that people can have healthy food, local food, natural food, nutritious food grown by people they live around. And there's accountability. So I, I mean, the best ball on January 20th in Washington, D.C. was the Maha ball. And I was there because those are my people and they're ascending, I think, in the dialogue. So and there's a collision course there, too. I mean, on the other side of Maha, juxtaposed to that, you have Farm Bureau and you have basically the establishment that tries to they are the foxes watching the hen house, the hens being the farmers and the foxes being Farm Bureau that purports to be representing the farmers in Washington, D.C. but for decades they've Been working against them and closing down opportunities by promoting more regulation, not less, and more subsidies instead of free markets.
- [21:47]
B
Kennedy has said that he would like to stop advertising of pharmaceuticals on television. What are the odds Congress would ever vote to stop pharma ads on TV and in media?
- [22:02]
C
So the, you know, first of all, let's talk about the reason I think he's proposed that. It's maybe one of the reasons that I've heard, not from him directly, but in the circles, is that because pharma pays so much to the media outlets. They, the media outlets would never run a show that would be critical or an investigation that would be critical of pharmaceutical companies. So it's not that they, they're putting a bad message out. I mean, they run their ads and then they give you 10 reasons their drug's going to kill you. You know, in the end, very fast forward, and it's like, well, why would I ever take that if I knew all that?
- [22:46]
B
I.
- [22:46]
C
The thing I. So I don't know. Like, I think there are other things we could go after. The question is, should you be able to advertise a product that has immunity, for instance, from liability? If it's. And by the way, if it's that great, why does it need immunity from liability? There's so many. Then another question I have is, can we just first stop CDC and NIH and FDA from promoting pharmaceuticals? Like your tax dollars are being used to run ads, and it's not the pharmaceutical. They don't even need to buy ads for these vaccines. Right. The. The government, Congress, in one of our appropriations bills, gave the agencies $1 billion to promote vaccines, and they went out and just saturated TV and TV shows and kiosks at Walmart. And pharmaceuticals companies almost don't need to run ads anymore if they're trying to promote their drugs. They've already got a network of doctors who've been programmed to do it. They've got PBMs that get kickbacks. So the money that they spend on ads might be more about making sure that the people who are supposed to be keeping an eye on them are friendly to them.
- [24:08]
B
There is definitely an element of that. It goes deep. That's a very simplistic and true way that relationship works. But it's even deeper how the pharmaceutical industry's relationships with the media keeps us from doing certain things and reporting certain things.
- [24:21]
C
So as the most libertarian member of Congress, I have an obligation to give the libertarian viewpoint on this. You should be able to advertise anything on tv. Like, if you're a pure libertarian. You should be able to advertise heroin. Okay? And you shouldn't. You would need an fda. You wouldn't need a cdc. But here's the problem. We're not in a pure libertarian framework because these drug companies have been granted immunity. And once they get approval or certification from the FDA for their drugs, then if something bad goes wrong, well, they've got the imprimatur of the government. Well, the government said it was okay, so it becomes harder to prove that it was their fault. And when it is found out to be their fault, well then you blame the government because oh, the FDA should have found out about this. So we're not in a libertarian framework. If we were, I would have no problem with them running the ads.
- [25:17]
B
So pharmaceutical interests, apparently through their influence with members and Republican members of Congress were able to get Dr. Dave Weldon kicked out of consideration to head up the fda. My, am I mixing cdc. Sorry, cdc. And the reasons given had to do with things he said that were perfectly true and accurate, but were mis portrayed by many in the media who don't know better. You know, clearly haven't done their research. What do you make of that? And in general of the health agencies which we've talked about are apparently in dire need of reform. Is are we on the way to getting things better resolved?
- [25:55]
C
Well, I can speak to the influence of those companies on Congress and congressmen. There are lots of ways they influence, but not in ways that you think necessarily. The maximum PAC donation you can give to a drug company could give to a member of Congress is $5,000. And that would that ostensibly that's from the employees of the drug company, not from the drug company itself, but they get the employees to donate into a pool and then the lobbyists get to dispense that money that comes from the employees of that company. The bigger way they have influence. I witnessed myself on the floor of the House one day when Paul Ryan was speaker. He was like so on cloud nine that I think he forgot he was talking to me and he had just landed like six figures. Maybe it was $150,000 or $200,000 donation from Eli Lilly to his super PAC. And he was talking about this on the floor of the House. That's where the real. It's not like congressmen aren't driving Ferraris up here because some drug company bought them one, right? And the most they can get is five grand from any one drug company. It's deeper than that. It's like the drug companies, you know, Most rank and file congressmen are. The drug companies don't care who's sitting in that seat. They care who the speaker is. And the speaker decides which bills come to the floor. And so they focus all their money, for instance, on the Speaker's pack. And because they know he's going to be the gatekeeper.
- [27:29]
B
So how does that money not. I'm sorry, I should know this. How does that money not get limited to 5000? How can they spend that to their benefit? That's not limited to the 5,000
- [27:39]
C
because we always increase the contribution limits to the party, but we only allow the contribution limits to candidates to grow by the rate of inflation.
- [27:50]
B
But then the party, let's say the pharmaceutical industry, gives a big chunk of money to the party. The party leader can dole out chunks of that money to whoever he wants to.
- [28:00]
C
Yeah, whether it's through the nrcc. By the way, the DCCC does this too. The Democrats have the exact same framework. There's two ways the party can help members, at least two ways. One is the Speaker's super PAC can come in and help that member in a tough race. Usually it's a general election and. Or the party, the NRCC can come in and they could spend $5 million. Either of those two entities could spend $5 million helping somebody get elected. Again, it doesn't matter what that person's name is, what their district they represent. Once they get here, they're kind of owned by the speaker who made the. Or, you know, the people at the NRCC who are basically driven by the Speaker. They're kind of owned. Their voting card doesn't belong to their district. It belongs to people who gave them all the money. And I'm not talking about $5,000. Look, you probably go find where some drug companies giving me $5,000, I'm talking. But you will not find where the NRCC or the Speaker's super pac has spent $5 million to get me elected.
- [29:09]
B
Have they offered you money?
- [29:13]
C
No, but I have had lobbyists offer to help me raise the money that would be necessary to get me on more influenceable or more elite committees like a Ways and Means Committee, which is the Tax Committee, which everybody's interested in. Because even if you can't do earmarks, you can do tax marks. And it's basically the same thing. So I had actually a medical device manufacturer lobbyist for them. When I first got to Congress, before people kind of figured out what I was and before I figured out what they were offered to raise whatever money it would take to get me on the Ways and Means committee.
- [30:02]
B
Wait, you're describing a relationship where you have to raise money for yourself or for the party to get. To get a good position on a committee.
- [30:10]
C
To get a good committee. This is why I'll never be on what's called an A committee. Those committees are like Financial Services, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. Energy and Commerce, by the way, regulates the pharmaceutical companies.
- [30:24]
B
They haven't done much in the last 15, 20 years compared to what they were doing in the early 2000s.
- [30:30]
C
Yeah. And it's. And it's because to get on one of these committees, it's kind of like a beauty pageant. There's. There's several different competitions you have to compete in. You have to compete in fundraising. And you can't go back home to your district and, you know, in Covington, Kentucky, and, And go in somebody's living room and say, I. I need. I need you all to get out your checkbooks and your. And write me a check so that I can get on a committee. Like, that doesn't sell. That does sell to lobbyists up here. They're like, I'll get out my checkbook and I'll give you money to help you get on this committee.
- [31:07]
B
Then when you're on the important committee, you will do the lobbyist bidding or whatever they prefer. Yeah, theoretically.
- [31:13]
C
Yeah. If you, if you find that somebody is on a committee that oversees the pharmaceutical companies, you're going to see that's who the pharmaceutical companies donate to, and then that person. These seats aren't for sale on committees. They're for rent. If you could buy one, I'd probably just maybe try to raise all the money and buy me a seat somewhere. They're for rent Every year you have a quota that you have to meet, and if you don't meet that, you know, you run afoul and may lose your seat on that committee. But you're told before you get on the committee, don't even ask for one of these A committees unless you're ready to do the hard work across the street. Across the street means you can't call up and ask for money. Here in this building we're in right now, you have to walk across the street to the NRCC and make those phone calls. So they'll tell you, unless you're ready to do the hard work across the street, don't ask for one of these committees.
- [32:09]
B
Do you do that? Do you go over to the phone banks? Because have you been over there? I hear they have, like a board up that tells how much, who's raised how much, and what they're supposed to raise.
- [32:19]
C
And it's the wall of shame. So there's a board that shows what your quota is based on your committee assignment. So if you're on a lesser committee, you may only have to raise $300,000 every election cycle. But if you're on one of these bigger committees, it's more like a million dollars or half a million dollars you need to raise and give to the party to stay in their good graces. If you look on the wall of Shame, I'm at zero. Like, I don't know what I owe anymore. But I throw their they send you a bill. It's like you, you're delinquent. You know, it looks like a phone bill. You're two months delinquent. Now, if you're willing, if you're willing to pay us something now, we'll give you credit for the stuff that you owed. It's almost like collection agency bargaining for on your debt.
- [33:01]
B
Do you try to give them a little something?
- [33:05]
C
So I did the first quarter I was here, it seemed like such a good deal. They were like, if you just give us $6,000, we've got some unobligated money from companies that we'll do a double match with and we'll turn yours into $24,000 and we'll, we'll and you get all the credit.
- [33:31]
A
More on Congressman Massie and his stances in Congress on Full Measure Sunday, May 18 to find out how to watch, go to Cheryl Atkinson.com and and click the Full Measure tab for a list of stations and times. You can always watch, if it's more convenient, online instead of on TV at FullMeasure News. And then we post the segments thereafter at our FullMeasure YouTube channel.
- [33:56]
B
I encourage you to check it out
- [33:57]
A
and find other segments you've missed this season and maybe over the years, original reporting that in some instances hasn't been told anywhere else. I hope you enjoyed today's podcast and that you will consider sharing it with your friends, subscribing to it and leaving us a terrific review. If you like this kind of independent reporting, also check out my other podcast, the Cheryl Atkinson Podcast. My national bestseller, Follow the Science hit number one on a subcategory at Amazon. Again. Read some of the five star reviews and you can find out why this would be valuable not just to you as an addition to your own library, but also to people that you care about and are concerned about their health and what's gone so wrong with our health system. The anecdotes and inside information that I have in this book along with the documentation, nothing like that's ever been published before. I know you'll learn a lot and also gain new hope that you can regain control of your health and your family's health. Armed by the knowledge that's in the book and also some advice toward the end of the book in terms of where you can turn to for information that you can trust. In this weird post Covid environment when so much of the media is controlled by narratives, many of which are not true, how can you figure out who to trust and where to go? I've got advice like that and follow the science. Also, support independent journalism causes by visiting the Cheryl Atkinson store. Just go to cherylakkison.com and click the store tab. There are great gift ideas for independent thinkers like you, some fun items coming up for summer, and slogans on products including things like I need to find some new conspiracy theories. All my old ones came true. And do your own research, make up your own mind, think for yourself.