A new court action in Murthy v. Missouri places rare limits on government influence over online speech—raising major implications for free expression and access to health information.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A proposed consent decree would restrict certain federal agencies from pressuring major social media platforms to suppress protected speech, creating a narrow but enforceable check if approved by the court.
• The move follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 refusal to rule on the case’s core First Amendment issues, leaving the core First Amendment questions unresolved.
• For health freedom advocates, the case highlights how pushing only “acceptable” narratives can suppress legitimate scientific debate and erode public trust.

A new settlement in the litigation that reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri has placed meaningful—but limited—constraints on the government’s ability to influence online speech, marking a notable development in the fight over censorship during the COVID era. The operative restrictions apply only to the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA; they cover only the plaintiffs, and they are limited to the plaintiffs’ content. They do not apply to social media users’ speech.

A Partial Course Correction

After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the core First Amendment issues in the case—finding the plaintiffs lacked standing—a lower court has now stepped in with a consent decree restricting how federal agencies interact with social media companies.

The order bars key agencies from pressuring platforms to remove or suppress lawful speech under threat of regulatory or legal consequences. While it applies only to the plaintiffs, if approved, it would create a rare enforceable limit on coercive government pressure in this context.

Commenting on the decree, Jonathan Emord, ANH-USA General Counsel, said, “During the pandemic, the White House, CDC, DHS, CISA, Office of the Surgeon General of the United States, HHS, and FTC all coerced and cajoled social media platforms (Meta, Twitter/X, YouTube/Google, etc.) to alter their content moderation policies to censor criticism of government narratives on vaccine safety, lockdown effectiveness, and the origins of the virus. I was among those whose statements were censored, repeatedly. These First Amendment violations are the most sweeping and extensive in American history. They are more substantial than those imposed by the federal government in the Alien and Sedition Acts (1791); the Espionage Act of 1917; the Sedition Act of 1918; and the Alien Registration Act of 1940. 

“Although the product of a consent decree, and therefore carrying less weight than a decision on the merits,” Emord continued, “the Murthy v. Missouri decree reveals that the current Department of Justice recognizes the federal government violated the First Amendment when its agents induced social media platforms to engage in censorship, shadow banning, visibility demotion, and algorithmic suppression in an effort to deny public access to content critical of government.”

Rob Verkerk, Ph.D, ANH-USA executive and scientific director, commented: “Science evolves through challenge, scrutiny, and open exchange—not through algorithmic suppression of views that fall outside the approved narrative. Social media—one of the most important sources of information for most Americans—must remain a forum for legitimate scientific debate, especially when evidence is still emerging.” Verkerk added, “When emerging science is filtered through censorship rather than debate, truth is not protected—it is delayed.”

Why It Matters

At issue is whether the government can sidestep the First Amendment by leaning on private companies to censor certain speech.

During the pandemic, officials defended these efforts as necessary to combat “misinformation.” But many viewpoints initially dismissed as misinformation—such as on the SARS-CoV-2 origins, lockdowns, immunity, and vaccine risks—later became subjects of legitimate scientific and public debate as evidence evolved.

And that’s the whole point: science advances through debate and dialogue, not through the enforcement of orthodoxy and removal of free speech.

Beyond COVID

This isn’t just about pandemic policy. The same dynamics affect broader health debates—from nutrition and supplements to chronic disease prevention—where non-mainstream perspectives are often marginalized.

For ANH-USA, this case reinforces a major concern: control over information is power. If you can control the information people are exposed to (and social media is now for many Americans the most important information provider), you can control how they think. We believe it is precisely this kind of control that helps keep natural medicine on the margins of healthcare: because the law prevents us from learning about the benefits of supplements, we’re conditioned to think that only drugs can treat or prevent disease when this is far from the case.

The Bottom Line

The Murthy decree is a step in the right direction, but the relief is very narrow, it affects a clutch of Bit Tech social media platforms, and it leaves major questions unresolved. Without a definitive ruling on the constitutional issues, the door remains open to future overreach.

If trust in public health is to be rebuilt, it won’t come from tighter control of information—but from allowing open, even uncomfortable, debate.

If you haven’t already, sign our FreeSpeech4Health petition to fight against censorship and shadowbanning.

The post Settlement in Murthy-Linked Censorship Case Marks a Modest Win for Free Speech—and Health Freedom first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The federal government just revealed, once again, where its priorities lie.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The FDA is moving to approve many new drugs based on just one clinical trial, lowering the evidentiary bar for pharmaceuticals in the name of speeding patient access.
• At the same time, federal regulators are pressuring supplement companies to support health claims with expensive randomized controlled trials—sometimes even two—creating a far higher standard for natural products than for drugs.
• Because nutrients and botanicals generally cannot be patented, requiring pharmaceutical-style trials effectively suppresses communication about natural health options and limits consumers’ access to information about their potential benefits.

In a move announced in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA says it will drop its long-standing expectation that new drugs be supported by two clinical trials, shifting instead to a “default” of just one trial for many new medications. FDA leadership says the change will cut red tape and accelerate patient access to new drugs.

For advocates of natural approaches to health and healing, this raises an obvious contradiction: while the FDA relaxes standards for drug—new to nature molecules that come with dangerous side effects—federal agencies are simultaneously tightening the screws on the natural health sector, products with long histories of safe use. It is regulatory capture—and crony capitalism—at its peak.

Drugs Get Flexibility—Supplements Get Censorship

In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), working closely with the FDA, sent hundreds of warning letters to supplement and natural product companies explaining that health claims must be backed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the same expensive standard used for pharmaceuticals.

In some cases, regulators have even suggested two RCTs may be required to substantiate health benefits in advertising.

That’s right: Drugs that can cause serious side effects—even death—may soon be approved with a single clinical trial. Natural products with decades or even centuries of safe use are being forced to meet an even higher bar just to discuss their benefits. It is an outrageous double standard.

A “Backdoor Ban” on Natural Health Information

Clinical trials are incredibly expensive, often costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Drug companies can afford them because their products are patent-protected monopolies that can be sold for enormous profits. Nutrients and botanical products are different. They generally can’t be patented, meaning the costs of large-scale trials cannot be recouped.

Regulators know this, which means demanding pharmaceutical-style trials for supplement claims functions as a de facto ban on most health claims about natural products. And when companies can’t communicate the science behind their products, consumers are left in the dark about options that could support their health.

A Pattern of Suppression

The government’s crackdown on truthful health speech is part of a long-standing campaign to steer consumers away from natural options in favor of pharmaceutical drugs:

• Cherry and walnut growers were threatened by the FDA for linking to peer-reviewed studies on their websites.
• Doctors were silenced during COVID for recommending vitamin D and zinc.
• Xlear, a nasal spray company, was dragged into litigation for sharing results of over a dozen studies on its product’s potential benefits—litigation the DOJ finally dropped with prejudice in March 2025.

And the problem goes beyond our borders. US regulators are pushing to “harmonize” with the European Union’s oppressive model, where nearly all botanical claims have been banned and only a few vitamin/mineral claims are allowed. We cannot let that happen here.

The Fight for Scientific Integrity

That’s why the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) has filed a petition challenging the FTC’s censorship regime and demanding a return to a “totality of the evidence” standard—one that considers the full body of scientific research, not just expensive clinical trials.

Science doesn’t begin and end with randomized trials.

Epidemiological studies, mechanistic research, observational data, and centuries of real-world use all contribute to scientific understanding—especially when it comes to nutrients and foods.

Consumers deserve access to all the evidence, not just the evidence that benefits pharmaceutical companies.

Stand with ANH in the fight for free speech and health autonomy by donating to our legal war chest!

The post FDA Lowers the Bar for Drugs—While Raising It for Natural Health first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

As GLP-1 drug prices plunge, a troubling question looms: are we trading short-term weight loss for long-term harm—and a future of lifelong pharmaceutical dependence?

THE TOPLINE

• The Trump Administration’s new TrumpRx deal dramatically lowers the cost of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, expanding access for Medicare patients and millions of Americans—but at the risk of deepening long-term pharmaceutical dependence.
• Emerging research links GLP-1 drugs to a growing list of serious health concerns, including pancreatitis, gastroparesis, muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, and even elevated risks of vision-threatening conditions—all while masking underlying drivers of metabolic dysfunction.
• By focusing on cheaper drugs instead of root-cause solutions like nutrition, movement, sleep, and stress reduction, the US is doubling down on a failing, pharma-first model rather than truly “Making America Healthy Again.”

A Breakthrough—or a Bigger Problem?

The Trump Administration has announced a major deal with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly to dramatically expand access to GLP-1 weight-loss drugs by reducing their prices for Medicare beneficiaries and many Americans paying out of pocket. Under the new TrumpRx public-private partnership, monthly costs for injectables like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro will drop to about $350—and are expected to fall to $250 within two years for those without insurance. A daily pill form, not yet FDA-approved, is projected to start at $150. Medicare patients with severe obesity could see co-pays as low as $50 by mid-2026.

The move is being framed as a breakthrough for American patients. President Trump called the deal “a triumph” that will “save lives and improve the health of millions.”

But from a natural health perspective—and particularly for the MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”) community—this development represents something very different. It’s not Making America Healthy Again. It’s doubling down on the pharmaceutical-first model that helped create our chronic disease epidemic in the first place. Once again, we are treating downstream symptoms rather than upstream causes.

We want to acknowledge something important: weight is deeply tied to mental and emotional well-being. Losing weight can be extremely difficult. The appeal of a medication that seems to melt pounds away is understandable. But the growing list of risks, increasingly downplayed by media and regulators, cannot simply be brushed aside because these drugs are fundamentally changing our culture and reshaping our behavior: dinner etiquette is changing, restaurants are adjusting their menus, and consumer spending is changing in the GLP-1 dominant world. We must acknowledge that these profound changes come with a cost.

A Growing List of Serious Health Risks

New safety concerns continue to emerge. A landmark population study of more than two million patients found that GLP-1 users have double the risk of pancreatitis—a potentially life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas. The same study found higher rates of nausea, arthritis, sleep disturbances, kidney stones, and severe gastrointestinal problems. In just the last month, over 120 people have been hospitalized due to serious reactions.

Pharmacists are now reporting a sharp rise in gastroparesis, or delayed gastric emptying—sometimes permanent. Patients experience relentless nausea, vomiting, bloating, heartburn, and difficulty eating, often leading to malnutrition. This condition was once thought to resolve after stopping the drug; now we know that, for some, the damage persists long-term.

Other concerns are coming into focus. Muscle loss has become a major issue: clinicians report that 25–40 percent of the weight lost on GLP-1 drugs can come from loss of lean muscle that is your primary reserve of energy-yielding mitochondria. This kind of rapid, starvation-like weight loss can weaken immunity, reduce bone density, increase frailty, and shorten lifespan—particularly troubling for older adults.

Researchers have also identified an elevated risk of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). A large Canadian cohort study found that GLP-1 users had more than double the rate of this vision-threatening condition compared to diabetics not using these drugs.

These emerging risks add to concerns already listed on the warning labels: gallbladder disease, kidney injury, and a possible (though unproven) risk of thyroid tumors. There are also ongoing questions about mood changes and suicidal ideation.

Meanwhile, appetite suppression leads many users to unintentionally under-consume essential nutrients, including protein, B12, iron, and calcium. Some of the “weight loss” attributed to GLP-1 drugs may simply reflect malnutrition, not improved metabolic function.

The Real Issue: Treating Symptoms, Not Causes

Yet with prices falling and Medicare coverage expanding, millions more Americans are expected to start these medications—and likely remain on them indefinitely. Those who stop them are likely to pile on the weight again, or more, exposing them to additional risks, and potentially increasing any previous mental health struggles. The GLP-1 model is your classic pharmaceutical dependency model, what’s that got to do with MAHA?

At the core of the problem has been the stitch up by Big Pharma and the FDA; classifying obesity as a “chronic disease.” Regulators have effectively placed obesity, alongside type 2 diabetes, inside a pharmaceutical-only regulatory box. Natural approaches—nutrition, lifestyle medicine, intermittent fasting, strength training, stress reduction—cannot make disease claims, even though they can improve insulin sensitivity, inflammation, appetite regulation, and metabolic health at least as effectively as drugs for many people.

The excitement around GLP-1s, combined with aggressive marketing and political support, is overshadowing the truth: these drugs do not fix the underlying drivers of obesity. They don’t even get the body to produce natural GLP-1. “GLP-1 agonists,” the more correct term for this drug category, use a synthetic molecule that binds with the multitude of GLP-1 receptors we have littered through our body, especially in our brains and pancreas, but also in the GI tract, heart, kidney, lung and peripheral nervous system. Unfortunately, there has never been a magic fix for any complex health problems, and whichever way you look at it, GLP-1 drugs cannot undo decades of ultra-processed food, nutrient-poor diets, sedentary lifestyles, chronic stress, toxic exposures, poor sleep, and collapsing social connection.

True metabolic improvement comes from rebuilding the foundations of health: whole foods, protein-rich and fiber-rich meals, daily movement and muscle-building exercise, restorative sleep, meaningful relationships, and an environment that supports vitality. These changes are harder than taking a drug—but they build a metabolic foundation that does not disappear when the prescription ends.

The lower prices negotiated by the Trump Administration will almost certainly lead to an explosion of new GLP-1 users. For some individuals, these medications may offer benefits. But the nation is being steered toward a future of lifelong pharmaceutical dependence instead of genuine health resilience. That is not Making America Healthy Again. It is accelerating the same paradigm that has failed us for decades.

Americans deserve full transparency about the risks, honest conversations about alternatives, and a healthcare system that prioritizes root-cause solutions over symptomatic quick fixes. Without that, we are simply trading one epidemic—obesity—for another: widespread, long-term dependence on drugs whose full risks we still do not understand.

Drug-Free Empowerment

For those who want to learn more about how to regain metabolic health naturally, we advise you to check out a few of the following resources:

• Dr Eric Berg’s YouTube channel
• Dr Mindy Pelz YouTube Channel
• Dr Eric Westman’s YouTube channel
• Dr Boz [Annette Bosworth, MD] YouTube Channel
• Stephen Phinney, MD & Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, “The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living”

Please share this article widely in your networks.

The post GLP-1 Drug Costs Are Dropping—But at What Price to Our Health? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Read the accompanying article here.

The post Action Alert: Precision Fermentation: Beyond the Hype and Real-World Risks first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The federal government is selling us out and endangering our health on wireless radiation. Why? To make life easier for the telecoms industry. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• The FCC’s current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offers a critical opportunity to demand transparency, modern safety standards, and accountability in how wireless technology is deployed.
• The public has no access to key data about what frequencies, power levels, or waveforms are being emitted by small-cell and large-tower installations—making meaningful, independent risk assessment impossible.
• FCC exposure guidelines are decades old and do not reflect modern patterns of continuous, low-level EMF exposure from 5G, AI, and the expanding Internet of Things

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to further restrict the ability of towns and cities to control how 5G infrastructure gets deployed. The basic message is: if you don’t like how we’re building cell towers, small cells, and wireless antennas, then…too bad!

The federal government is again putting its substantial power and resources at the disposal of special interests rather than the public interest. Like the backsliding on PFAS regulations we’ve seen from the Trump Administration’s EPA, it is another concerning example of the contradictions of the current moment. We have RFK Jr. leading the charge on a powerful “Make America Healthy Again” movement that seeks to address the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic—the MAHA Strategy report included research initiatives aimed at the dangers of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation. Yet in its actions, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. We need a strong grassroots response to oppose this blatant cronyism.

The stated purpose of the FCC’s NPRM is to “free towers and other wireless infrastructure from regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level” and to “remove regulatory barriers that would unlawfully inhibit the deployment of wireless infrastructure.” In a nutshell, the goal is to short-circuit the ability of local governments to exercise any control over whether and how 5G infrastructure gets installed.

Adding insult to injury, there’s almost no transparency about what’s being emitted from these small-cell and large-tower installations. What part of the electromagnetic spectrum is being used? What’s the amplitude, the waveform? This information is simply not in the public domain.In the NPRM, the FCC boasts about “110% growth in small cells and a 24% growth in total cell sites since 2018.” It’s as if the authors are completely unaware of, or just don’t care about, the substantial scientific literature pointing to the health dangers of this explosion in human exposure to EMF radiation (see our article here and here for more information on these dangers).

We’re told by the very agency that has revolving doors with the telecoms industry that these systems comply with FCC exposure guidelines. These guidelines were drafted decades ago, long before the kinds of exposures created by today’s “Internet of Everything” or tomorrow’s AI- and sensor-driven “Internet of Senses.” Without this information, independent scientists and the public are forced into in an information desert where informed consent or informed avoidance just aren’t an option.

If public policy ever caught up with the science, we’d treat wireless radiation the way we treat environmental chemicals. Imagine a chemical company setting up shop in your town but refusing to say what substances it’s producing or whether they’re safe. That would never fly. Yet with EMF emissions, that is the norm. We are, collectively, EMF illiterate. Most people grasp that certain chemicals can be unsafe—and we’ve built systems of regulation and transparency around that understanding. But with EMFs, industry wants us to remain in the dark.

The FCC must bring its oversight into the 21st century by requiring full disclosure of emission characteristics, revisiting outdated exposure limits, and acknowledging the growing body of science showing biological effects far below current thresholds. Just as we demand transparency around chemicals in our air, food, and water, we must now demand electromagnetic transparency in our communities.

Action Alert!

The post Invisible Emissions, Invisible Accountability first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A suppressed study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children raises serious questions about whether science is being silenced to protect the status quo.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• An unpublished Henry Ford Health System study found vaccinated children were significantly more likely to develop chronic conditions like asthma, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders.
• Researchers admitted they withheld the study from publication out of fear of professional backlash and job loss.
• The case highlights how powerful interests distort science, leaving major gaps in vaccine safety research and silencing open inquiry.

Science is meant to ask hard questions and follow the evidence wherever it leads. But what happens when research is mothballed not for any inherent flaws, but because its results challenge powerful interests, medical systems, or specific public health strategies?

Recently, attorney Aaron Siri testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. His testimony shines a light on an unpublished study from the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan that compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The story of this study—and why it has never been published—tells us something troubling about the state of science in America.

What the Study Found

The Henry Ford study included 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016, of whom 1,957 were completely unvaccinated. Inclusion criteria for the study explicitly excluded children with conditions such as chromosomal abnormalities, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, congenital heart disease, or other brain, neurological, or congenital conditions present at or discovered after birth, to ensure a generally healthy cohort.

Using detailed health records and state immunization data, researchers compared chronic health outcomes such as asthma, autoimmune conditions, and neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Among their findings:

• Vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely overall to develop a chronic health condition compared to unvaccinated children.
• For ADHD, learning disabilities, and tics, all recorded cases occurred in the vaccinated group, with none in the unvaccinated group.
• By age 10, only 43% of vaccinated children were free of chronic conditions, compared to 83% of unvaccinated children.
• Risks for vaccinated kids were sharply elevated for certain conditions, including:
  • Asthma (4.25-fold increased risk)
  • Autoimmune disease (4.79-fold)
  • Neurodevelopmental disorders (5.53-fold)
  • Atopic disease such as allergies and eczema (3.03-fold)

The study provides compelling data on the possible long-term tradeoffs of the childhood vaccine schedule. And yet, it never saw the light of day in the peer-reviewed literature.

Why It Wasn’t Published

Siri told the Senate committee that lead author Lois Lamerato, PhD, admitted she did not want to make doctors “uncomfortable,” while co-author Dr. Marcus Zervos feared he might lose his job if the study were published.

As Siri put it:

“Had this study showed that vaccinated children were healthier, I have no doubt it would have quickly and easily been published. It was not submitted for publication precisely because it found the opposite result.”

This is where the story becomes bigger than a single study.

A System Rigged Against Open Science

At ANH-USA, we are not here to proclaim “case closed” about the safety or efficacy of the childhood vaccine schedule. What we do insist on, however, is that science must be free to ask the hard questions—and to publish the answers, wherever they lead.

Unfortunately, vaccines are one of several subjects that have been declared off-limits for genuine scientific scrutiny. The result is a deep distortion of vaccine-related science.  Researchers who pursue these questions risk their careers. Journals won’t publish the few studies that are conducted. Licensing boards may retaliate against doctors involved in the studies. We saw this a few years ago when Oregon pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, and researcher James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, published a vaccinated/unvaccinated study in a peer-reviewed journal. Five days later, Dr. Thomas’ license was suspended. A month later, the study was retracted.

This is not how science is supposed to work.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) itself has admitted crucial data gaps when it comes to the safety of the vaccine schedule. In a 1994 report, NASEM acknowledged: “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the [vaccine-related] adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee.” Almost a decade later, in a 2013 report, NASEM authors wrote, “Key elements of the [vaccine] schedule … have not been systematically examined in research studies.”

Despite these clear and persistent data gaps, the government seems dead set against looking for any answers. Before he was made Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others urged HHS to produce placebo-controlled studies evaluating childhood vaccine safety. It never happened. In a 2017 letter to RFK Jr., then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins wrote: “We cannot condone studies that withhold vaccines from significant numbers of children, placing large segments of our population at risk for infectious diseases-some of which can be life-threatening.”

It is a telling position, given that the absence of clinical trials is used as the basis for denying Americans access to various forms of natural medicine, like homeopathy, compounded medicines, and truthful health claims about supplements. We’re told by the FDA that clinical trials are the gold standard of evidence, but then move the goalposts for vaccines—pharmaceutical interventions that are routinely given to millions of children every year.

Why This Matters

Issues like autism, asthma, autoimmune disease, and other chronic conditions are multi-factorial—influenced by genes, environment, nutrition, exposures, and medical interventions. If we silence entire lines of inquiry for political or ideological reasons, we lose the ability to see the full picture.

Good science is not about confirming what makes us comfortable. It is about asking the right questions, designing rigorous studies, and publishing the results—whether they confirm or challenge the prevailing narrative.

If science is allowed only when it serves the medico-industrial complex, then what we have is not science at all.

At ANH-USA, we will continue to fight for a system where science is not muzzled, where researchers can publish their findings without fear of losing their careers, and where citizens are trusted with the truth so they can make informed choices.

Because good science—like good law—cannot exist in the dark.

Please share this article widely in your networks.

The post When Vaccine Science Is Silenced first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Unpacking the global rise in C-Sections.

This article was adapted from the work of our colleagues at ANH International. Read the original here.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• C-section rates are rising globally—far beyond medical necessity—driven not just by clinical factors but also by cultural shifts, physician convenience, and most significantly, financial incentives that make surgical births more profitable for hospitals and doctors.
• The overuse of C-sections poses serious risks: for mothers, higher chances of infection, hemorrhage, long-term complications, and even increased mortality; for babies, breathing issues, altered gut microbiomes, and long-term risks like asthma, obesity, and immune disorders.
• Reversing this trend requires systemic change—ending profit-driven incentives, reducing unnecessary inductions, supporting midwifery and VBAC, and ensuring women receive honest, informed counseling that prioritizes safety and dignity over convenience or revenue.

Once reserved as a last resort in life-threatening cases, cesarean sections (C-sections) have evolved into one of the most routinely performed medical procedures in the world. In 1985, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised that no region should have a C-section rate above 10–15%, noting that rates beyond this range lacked medical justification. Fast forward to today, we are seeing staggering increases, with C-sections now accounting for over 32% of births in the US. You’d think that medical advancements of the last few decades would reduce, not increase, the need for surgical births. It’s important to be aware of some of the factors driving this increase in C-section births, particularly the economic incentives for hospitals and doctors.

The Paradox of Progress

While C-sections are absolutely appropriate in some situations and help save lives, their overuse carries serious risks. For mothers, these include infection, hemorrhage, blood clots, longer recovery time, and complications in future pregnancies. For babies, potential issues range from breathing problems and altered gut microbiomes to increased risks of asthma, obesity, and even neurological impairments. Yet many women are encouraged to undergo the procedure without proper informed consent.

This rising trend raises urgent questions: are there cultural shifts or medical factors responsible for the increase in C-sections? Why are so many healthy pregnancies being treated as high risk? Why are women being induced prematurely or steered toward surgery without clear medical necessity? And more alarmingly, what role does financial incentive play in this pattern?

Follow The Money: Financial Incentives Behind the Scalpel

Over the last few decades, C-section rates in the US have increased substantially. In 1996, 20.7% of births were C-sections; in 2023, the figure was 32.4%—representing a 156% increase. So, what changed?

Beyond clinical convenience and cultural factors, which we’ll discuss below, the economics of childbirth reveal a troubling incentive structure that may be silently driving the C-section epidemic.

Numerous studies (here and here) have shown that cesarean births are significantly more profitable for both doctors and hospitals. On average, physicians in the US earn about 30% more for performing a C-section than for a vaginal birth. For hospitals, the difference is even more stark: reimbursement rates from insurance providers and public health programs for C-sections are estimated to be around 50% higher. These elevated costs reflect longer hospital stays, surgical and anesthesia fees, and post-operative care—all of which translate into higher revenue. This financial equation makes surgical birth not only a medical decision but also an attractive business proposition.

Recent data paints an even more unsettling picture. A 2025 US study noted a post-pandemic decline in birth rates, particularly for vaginal deliveries, while C-section rates remained largely unchanged. It also found that C-sections generated over 61% more revenue per birth than vaginal deliveries, suggesting that as hospitals face fewer births, they may be offsetting revenue losses by increasing the proportion of births conducted by C-section.

While these findings are striking, they reveal a sobering reality—childbirth, once centered on care and safety, is increasingly being shaped by profit, reducing a profound human experience to a revenue stream.

Medical Necessity or Manufactured Demand?

Several other clinical and non-clinical factors contribute to the rise in C-sections. A commonly cited clinical reason is medical necessity. Physicians often opt for C-sections when the mother has medical conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, older maternal age, or multiple pregnancies. Other times, it’s as a result of modifiable indications such as slow or difficult labor, evidence of neonatal distress or unclear heart rate, size or position of the baby, or if the birth is a first-time delivery.

Yet a 2016 study by Consumer Reports confirmed that up to half of all C-sections performed for low-risk births could have been avoided. Several studies (here and here) have linked this trend to non-clinical factors like increased C-section requests from pregnant women. With the normalization of C-section as a birthing option, more pregnant women are choosing surgical births over vaginal births even without any medical issues. The most common reason for this choice is the fear of vaginal delivery and the associated labor pain. Other expressed motivations include the preservation of the pelvic floor, the belief that C-sections are safer for mother and baby, previous traumatic birth experiences, and social, popular, and mainstream media influence.

Beyond maternal requests, surveys and interviews have also identified physicians’ attitudes to C-sections as a major contributor to the rise. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many doctors now practice what is known as ‘defensive medicine’; a situation where they choose C-section, particularly in women with a history of prior C-section, to shield themselves from potential malpractice lawsuits. As Dr. Fernando Barros aptly stated, “Physicians feel that, if they give a cesarean, they cannot be accused of not providing the best care.”

Similarly, doctors now routinely schedule healthy pregnancies for C-section for the sake of convenience. Unlike C-section, a vaginal delivery typically takes hours of labor, which sometimes requires the doctor’s physical presence and may necessitate cancelling other appointments, office hours, lunch, sleep, and personal plans. C-sections circumvent all these, allowing the doctor to birth the baby within a much shorter time via a surgery scheduled at his convenience. As one obstetrician noted in a National Public Radio interview in the US, “You’re going to pay me more, you’re not going to sue me, and I’ll be done in an hour.”

An often-overlooked precursor to C-section delivery is induction of birth, which is increasingly being normalized. Claims that induction leads to fewer C-sections rely on the results of just one study – the widely criticized ARRIVE Trial. A recent study found women, in a real-world setting, whose labors were induced at 37 weeks and women having subsequent births, were more likely to experience a C-section due their baby going into distress, than those who went into labor naturally.

There’s a lack of information about the risks of induction and women report feeling pressured/coerced into having an induction and that their views and wishes are swept aside.

Behind The Curtain: The Hidden Toll of Surgical Birth

If the risks of C-sections were limited to a single incision and clean surgical removal of the baby, the rising rates might not cause such concern. But a growing body of research tells a different story. Studies (here and here) show that C-sections—particularly elective ones—can significantly increase maternal mortality and morbidity. Compared to vaginal delivery, the risk of life-threatening complications such as severe hemorrhage, uterine rupture, cardiac arrest, sepsis, and hysterectomy is up to five times higher. These risks compound with each subsequent surgery, making repeat C-sections particularly dangerous. One study even found that the likelihood of maternal death after a C-section could be as much as 60% higher, and in certain high-risk cases, up to 700% more. These are not just numbers—they reflect real lives disrupted, families fractured, and recoveries that often stretch far beyond the hospital stay.

But the risks aren’t confined to mothers. For babies, surgical birth comes with its own hidden costs. Research (here, here and here) increasingly points to the C-section’s disruptive impact on gut development and immune system regulation. Babies born this way miss out on essential exposure to beneficial bacteria collected through their journey through the birth canal. Such bacteria play a critical role in shaping early immunity. This disruption—known as gut microbiome imbalance—has been linked to increased rates of asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders e.g. Crohn’s and celiac diseases, and even long-term metabolic conditions like obesity. Similarly, a study by Hugo Lagercrantz found that babies born via C-section are more likely to suffer from respiratory distress. Unlike vaginal births, where contractions help squeeze fluid out of the baby’s lungs, surgical births bypass this natural process, leaving newborns vulnerable to breathing difficulties. These effects are often downplayed in clinical settings, but they shape a child’s health trajectory from their very first breath.

Charting a better course: restoring trust in natural birth

The rise in C-sections while benefiting hospitals and doctors financially, put women and babies at unnecessary risk. Surgical births without medical need can increase complications, delay recovery, and disrupt early child development.

To change course, the culture of childbirth has to undergo change and embrace evidence-based solutions that respect a fundamental, natural process that has ensured the survival of the human race thus far. A culture that includes the reintegration of midwifery, respect for individual choice and informed consent, reduction of unnecessary inductions, supporting vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC), and ensuring women receive honest, thorough counselling. Most urgently, policy makers must reverse the financial incentives driving this trend. By paying providers equally or more for vaginal deliveries, the economic bias fueling the C-section epidemic is removed.

Birth should never be guided by convenience or profit. It should honor the health, dignity, and informed choice of every woman and give every child the best start in life. It’s time to put care, not commerce, back at the center of childbirth.

Share this article with your network—because education sparks empowerment, and informed choice is a right, not a privilege.

The post Birth On the Clock: The Hidden Costs of the Cesarean Surge first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

This weekend, May 9-10, Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., will become a powerful gathering place for those demanding truth, transparency, and accountability in science and healthcare policy. The Healing Science Policy Institute is launching with a two-day public event—right across from the White House—and ANH-USA is proud to be part of it.

ANH-USA General Counsel Jonathan Emord, JD—a fierce constitutional advocate and one of the nation’s leading critics of the FDA—will be speaking Saturday afternoon. His talk will highlight the deeply entrenched problems at the FDA, how we can reform healthcare, and most importantly, how we can reclaim our rights under the Constitution.

We need your voice. We need you there!

Over the past several years, we’ve witnessed alarming levels of censorship, marginalization of dissenting scientific voices, and public health policies driven by narrow narratives rather than open inquiry. The Healing Science Policy launch represents a turning point.

As an early signatory to the institute’s founding principles, ANH founder Rob Verkerk, PhD joined fellow scientists in calling out the suppression of valid scientific perspectives. This event will echo that call, with doctors, scientists, citizen leaders, and advocates who have risked their careers to stand up for integrity in medicine and the scientific process.

Event Details

What: Healing Science Policy Institute Public Launch
When: Friday & Saturday, May 9–10, 2025 (All Day)
Where: Lafayette Park (across from the White House)
Details & Schedule: healingsciencepolicy.org

Whether you’re a parent, a healthcare practitioner, a scientist, or simply someone who believes in medical freedom and the importance of honest science, this is your moment to show up.

Bring your friends and help us send a message to policymakers and the public: we will not be silenced.

Let’s demand better—for ourselves, our communities, and the future of healthcare.

The post Join ANH-USA in D.C. This Weekend to Reclaim Scientific Integrity and Medical Freedom first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

For years the FCC has enabled the telecoms industry to treat us like guinea pigs—it’s time to push back. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

• The FCC has been prioritizing telecom profits over public health by failing to update outdated safety standards for wireless radiation, despite growing scientific evidence linking RF exposure to serious health issues like cancer and neurological disorders.
• The agency relies heavily on industry-funded research and self-reported data, with outdated testing protocols that don’t account for children’s vulnerability, while resisting calls for independent testing and transparency.
• Federal actions and proposed legislation have undermined local governments’ ability to regulate 5G infrastructure. We must call for accountability, updated safety guidelines, and a moratorium on 5G expansion until independent research verifies its safety.

Imagine tucking your child into bed at night, unaware that just outside your home, a newly installed 5G tower is exposing your family to levels of wireless radiation that scientists warn could have serious health consequences. Or consider the headache that won’t go away after hours on your smartphone—could it be linked to years of exposure to electromagnetic radiation? While you do your best to protect your loved ones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is working behind closed doors to make it easier for telecom giants to expand their networks with minimal oversight, all while ignoring growing evidence of health risks. Now, the FCC is asking for public input on regulatory reform—but will it finally prioritize public health over corporate profits, or will it continue to allow the wireless industry to dictate the rules?

For years, independent scientists and public health advocates have raised concerns about the potential health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones and wireless networks. A growing body of research suggests a link between radiofrequency (RF) radiation and serious health issues, including cancer, neurological disorders, and endocrine system disruption. Yet, instead of addressing these concerns, the FCC has consistently favored the interests of the wireless industry, limiting local governments’ ability to regulate 5G infrastructure and failing to update outdated safety standards.

We asked our General Counsel, Jonathan Emord, J.D., who worked within the FCC during his early years as an attorney, what he thought of the FCC latest push for regulatory reform. This is his response:

“For decades the FCC has turned a blind eye to EMF exposure issues to avoid tackling a very real problem that could result in decisions that might in any way impair the growth of cell towers, microwave relay stations and other systems indispensable to commerce. It’s time FCC adopted the transparency President Trump has advocated. It’s time for the agency to share the data it and EPA have on risks, engage in meaningful discussions about solutions, and incentivize industry to reduce or eliminate these risks.”

The FCC’s Failure to Protect Public Health

The FCC’s regulatory framework for 5G rollout and wireless radiation exposure is fundamentally flawed. The agency’s safety guidelines for cell phone radiation, for example, are based on outdated Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits, established in 1991, which only consider thermal effects—ignoring the extensive research demonstrating non-thermal biological impacts. Even more troubling, the FCC does not conduct independent safety testing; instead, as is too often the case in government, it relies on industry-funded research and self-reported compliance data from telecom companies.

Investigations have revealed that actual radiation exposure levels from consumer devices often exceed reported SAR values. Reporting in 2019 from the Chicago Tribune found that the iPhone emitted RF radiation levels more than double the legal limit. Furthermore, SAR testing protocols are based on outdated anatomical models that fail to account for the increased vulnerability of children, whose developing brains and thinner skulls absorb more radiation than adults.

The Assault on Local Control

Many communities have attempted to push back against the unregulated expansion of 5G infrastructure, citing health and environmental concerns about which we provided a brief overview in recent coverage.

However, the FCC has systematically undermined local authority, favoring industry interests through sweeping federal preemptions. Several bills in Congress further strip municipalities of their right to regulate 5G deployment:

These legislative efforts represent a blatant giveaway to the telecom industry, prioritizing corporate profits over public safety.

Make Your Voice Count: Demand Accountability and Reform

The FCC has become a classic example of regulatory capture, where industry exerts undue influence over the agency meant to regulate it. A 2015 Harvard report exposed the FCC’s revolving door with the telecom industry, detailing how former FCC officials frequently take lucrative jobs in the private sector while industry insiders are appointed to key regulatory positions. This level of corruption has resulted in decades of inaction on the health risks associated with wireless radiation.

The FCC’s call for regulatory reform must not be another rubber-stamping of industry-friendly policies. Instead, the agency must be held accountable for its failure to protect public health. We urge the FCC to:

1. Reevaluate RF exposure standards to incorporate the latest scientific research on non-thermal biological effects.
2. Require independent safety testing of wireless devices and infrastructure, rather than relying on industry-funded studies.
3. Restore local control over 5G deployment, allowing communities to regulate wireless infrastructure based on health and environmental concerns.
4. Implement a moratorium on 5G expansion until thorough, independent research confirms its safety.

Americans deserve regulatory agencies that prioritize their health and safety over corporate profits. The FCC must be pressured to reform its wireless radiation policies to reflect the mounting scientific evidence of harm.

Action Alert! Sign our petition calling for these reforms, which ANH will submit through the FCC’s system. Please send your message immediately.

The post The FCC Must Prioritize Public Health Over Telecom Profits first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The battle for free speech in healthcare has taken a troubling turn, with government agencies using taxpayer dollars to fund efforts that shape public discourse and suppress dissenting voices.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• USAID has provided over $472 million to Internews, a nonprofit that claims to fight misinformation but actively influences public discourse and restricts certain viewpoints.
• Federal agencies, including the NSF and CDC, fund AI-driven content moderation and “prebunking” strategies to suppress dissenting opinions on health, politics, and climate change.
• These censorship efforts limit public access to alternative health information and create a system where only government-approved narratives are promoted.

One of the latest revelations in the war for free speech concerns USAID’s funding of Internews, a nonprofit organization that, under the guise of “combating misinformation,” is actively influencing what information the public can access about health and other critical issues.

Internews and the Government’s Role in Censorship

Internews has reportedly received over $472 million from USAID, despite evidence suggesting that it supports censorship and narrative control rather than journalistic independence. At the forefront of this effort is Internews’ CEO, Jeanne Bourgault, who has openly advocated for mechanisms to steer public perception. She spoke at the World Economic Forum about how to address “disinformation,” and she emphasized the need to push advertising dollars toward content deemed as “good news,” a strategy eerily reminiscent of Orwellian thought control.

Bourgault’s statements are particularly alarming given her track record in government-funded initiatives that blur the line between journalism and propaganda. She praised the initial “beautifully unified” COVID messaging that resulted in high vaccine enthusiasm but lamented the rise of vaccine hesitancy when “mixed information” surfaced. This perspective reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism’s role—reporting balanced facts from a spectrum of sources rather than curating messages from limited sources to achieve predetermined policy goals.

If the press exists to promote unity around specific narratives rather than foster informed debate, it ceases to be free press at all. That this effort is being bankrolled by taxpayers should concern every American who values the First Amendment.

A Broader Pattern of Government-Funded Suppression

Internews is just one piece of much larger, government-driven, globe-spanning censorship efforts. From fact-checking initiatives to AI-driven content moderation, federal agencies have in recent years funneled millions into projects designed to manage online discourse.

On February 14, in a speech at a global security conference in Munich, Germany, Vice President JD Vance pointed to chilling examples from Europe of censorship gone amok:

I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be “hateful content.” Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of ‘combating misogyny’ on the internet…I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people.

Then there are the efforts of our own government. We’ve reported previously how the National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded artificial intelligence programs aimed at curbing what it deems as misinformation. A report from the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government highlighted how these AI tools are being developed to monitor, shadowban, and suppress views that contradict official narratives on health, politics, and climate change.

Government agencies also pursue strategies like “prebunking,” a process meant to condition the public against certain viewpoints before they even encounter them. A paper from several CDC scientists in The Lancet Public Health recommends regulatory and legal interventions to penalize medical professionals who disseminate so-called misinformation. This isn’t public health—it’s thought control.

Why Free Speech in Health Matters

ANH has long fought against censorship that limits access to natural health information. Government-aligned efforts to suppress discussion on vitamins, minerals, and non-pharmaceutical treatments mirror the suppression of alternative COVID perspectives. The issue goes way beyond one type of medical intervention—vaccines—that get a disproportionate amount of attention. It’s about whether people have the right to explore all available health options without interference from a government-backed censorship apparatus. That’s why our soon-to-be-issued petition against the FDA that aims to open up the market to hundreds of health claims made by the government’s own health agencies is so crucial.

The battle for health freedom is fundamentally a battle for free speech. The same institutions that claimed to follow “the science” during COVID now openly endorse regulating speech under the banner of misinformation control. But truth cannot be dictated—it must be debated, explored, and scrutinized.

Time to Take a Stand

The revelations about Internews and USAID funding are just the tip of the iceberg. The government’s multi-pronged approach to controlling information spans AI-driven censorship, financial pressure on media outlets, and legal threats against dissenting professionals. If we allow this system to persist, the erosion of free speech will continue until only state-approved narratives remain. We will be monitoring the new Administration’s efforts in this regard very carefully given its declared interest in restoring free speech while committing to AI.

It’s time to demand accountability. Taxpayer dollars should not fund programs that silence legitimate debate. Public health decisions must be made transparently, with access to all perspectives—not just those sanctioned by government agencies and their corporate partners.

Please share this article widely within your networks!

The post Taxpayer Dollars Fuel War on Free Speech: The Case of Internews and Government-Funded Censorship first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.