Cancer, Cover-Ups & Chemical Immunity: Inside the Monsanto Papers with R. Brent Wisner, Esq

What does unbiased science show about glyphosate? When people are exposed to glyphosate, they develop cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, infertility, lower testosterone. These are chemical companies that are not American. You've got ChemChina. They want to spray certain pesticides in America that they don't even allow in China. I mean, that is biochemical warfare, in my opinion. They've realized they're not going to win the public opinion. So they're just going straight for the gullet. They're going after the government. They've introduced all these laws that create a special immunity for bear and pesticide makers that says you cannot sue. And then what happens to American citizens, American families and farmers? They suffer. They get no money, no compensation, no settlement, no right to sue. They just get poisoned and there's something they can do about it. I do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you. You want to drink some? We have some here. I'd be happy to, actually. Not really, but... Not really? I know it wouldn't hurt me. If you say so, I have some glyphosate. No, no, I'm not stupid. Ah, okay, so you... No, but I know... So it's dangerous, right? No, people try to commit suicide with it and fail fairly regularly. Tell the truth. It's not dangerous to humans. No, it's not. So you're ready to drink one glass of glyphosate? No, I'm not an idiot. Interview me about golden rice. That's what I'm talking about. Okay, then it's finished. Then the interview is finished. That's a good way to solve things. Yeah. Thank you. hiding the truth, twisting science, and tracking anyone who dared to speak out. Today on Culture Apothecary, I'm talking to R. Brent Wisner, the attorney who took down Monsanto in a $2 billion verdict. He is the reason we have the Monsanto papers. He uncovered the shocking documents the world was never supposed to see. And we talk about the upcoming Supreme Court battle that could change everything, as well as what is currently happening with pesticide liability shields on the state level. This is a very risky interview to do. If you appreciate these hard-hitting episodes, please pause and quickly leave a five-star review on Apple or Spotify saying why you believe Culture Apothecary is the most important podcast in the health space. Watch this episode on the Real Alex Clark YouTube channel or Culture Apothecary on Spotify. Please welcome the attorney who took on Bayer, Monsanto, and won Brent Wisner to Culture Apothecary. You are making a name for yourself as a young attorney. you come across this couple who, sweet, merry couple, they love to garden. And this case comes across your desk and you notice they're not the only ones. There's hundreds of thousands of couples who love to do yard work, who are all being diagnosed with a certain illness. What was happening that you noticed and what did all of these people have in common? It wasn't we who figured it out. The International Agency for Research on Cancer had looked at glyphosate and shown through rigorous examination of the studies and everything that it was a probable human carcinogen specifically causing lymphoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And we were obviously hired by a couple to take a look at this. We looked at the monograph and went, oh my God, the science is there. And then I called up some of my attorney friends and said, hey, do you know anything about this? And they said, yeah, we're having a meeting next week in Denver. Let's all get together and talk about this. So we had a conference with about six, seven different law firms ended up being only three. And we decided to do the litigation. That's how it all started. And it started because each law firm was being approached from different people. And we came together and said, we have a problem to solve. And we were law firms all over the country, Virginia, Colorado, California. We just all came together and said, let's figure this out. So you noticed hundreds of thousands of Americans were being diagnosed with cancer. And what they all had in common was that they were in contact with glyphosate or Roundup weed killer. Yes, it's a little bit more sophisticated, right? So for example, they do these things called epidemiological studies where they compare people exposed to glyphosate or Roundup to people who aren't. And they follow them for periods of time to see what their rates of cancer are. And what those studies consistently show is that when human beings are exposed to Roundup in real world settings and gardens and farming or wherever, and they're not protected, they have a much higher risk of developing cancer. And actually, there's a bunch of other side effects as well. I mean, there's diabetes, there's metabolic syndrome, there's endocrine disruption. There's a whole bunch of issues that have been shown in the science, but we focused initially on cancer. And what was this couple's name that loved gardening? The first couple that reached out to us were the McCalls. They were actually, they had an avocado orchard in Central California. and they were actually the Mr. McCall and Terry McCall were the uncles of someone who worked at the firm. Uncle and aunt of someone who worked at my firm. And so she actually brought the case to us on behalf of her family because Mr. McCall had passed away and so had their dog, both from lymphoma. And he'd been spraying Roundup. It's the only thing they used on their property because they thought it was safe. The dog was following him around, sniffing everywhere. You know, he was spraying. And of course, they both got lymphoma and died very quickly. It was actually pretty tragic. But Terry, his wife, wanted us to pursue the case. And because it was such a close, essentially a family friend, right, we had to look into it. And that's when the doors blew wide open and we started seeing thousands and thousands and thousands of people with the same story. What was that like to realize that this wasn't an isolated story, but it was actually a national public health crisis? It's interesting. On a personal note, my father marched with Cesar Chavez and fought for ag workers. So as a young person, Monsanto was not a good name in my house. My father had worked actively against Monsanto. And so I'd always wanted to go after them. I'd always wanted to pursue claims against them because of their really untoward history with, you know, from Agent Orange to DDT to you name it. They have a really long standing history of poisoning Americans. So I always wanted to sue them. When this case came to us, I said, oh, it's a loser. You know, you can't beat Monsanto. they always win. You know, we have no chance in heck to beat them. And but we had to. And so when we realized a bigger issue and we started bringing in our allies, you know, like, you know, Bobby Kennedy became joined the team. That's when we realized that this could have a much bigger impact. I think I mean, I was 34 years old. I was a kid lawyer at the time. And so it was kind of like a, you know, eye opening experience of how big of an impact this could have if we could win. What made you realize that Monsanto might have known about the risks of glyphosate but chose to hide them from the public anyway? Aside from my just general cynicism of belief that Monsanto isn't a good company, we did discovery, right? We got documents. We got emails. We got millions and millions and millions of documents. And we poured through them for tens and tens of thousands of hours. What was the most shocking thing you saw? It was two, really. The first was the origins of glyphosate in the 70s, right? So they actually had to test it in animals to see if it was a carcinogen. And they tested it at this lab called IBT laboratories. Well, when we looked into it, we discovered a couple of things. This guy named Paul Wright, who worked for Monsanto, left Monsanto and joined IBT laboratories. They then conducted the test on glyphosate. All great. Everything's wonderful. He then left IBT and came back to Monsanto three or four years later. A year later, the feds brust in, arrest him and prosecute him for fraud. IBT was a complete scam. I mean, it was people went to jail. What do you mean it was a scam? They made up the data. What? Yeah. There were no tests? They were tests. These rats were literally like there's videos of this, but these rats were literally like drowning in like faulty sprinkler systems. And there was no actual science being done. They just fabricated the data and they submitted it to the federal agencies who then said, oh, it looks like it's safe. And so the entire origins of glyphosate was fraud of a Monsanto employee who literally joined IBT, committed fraud, and then left. And then Monsanto then paid him handsomely and paid for his defense, millions of dollars. And so like that to me was like, wow, this product was born with like literal fraudulent crap. And this is all public record. You can look it up. He went to jail. So that was the first story that just blew my mind. The second one was in the 90s, they were using glyphosate in Colombia for cocaine eradication. So they're trying to fight the drugs by killing the actual plants using glyphosate. But as part of that, they were just literally dropping this stuff on villages, right? And these villagers were being doused with Roundup pretty regularly from the government. So these researchers actually went in and took blood from these people and compared their blood and the, you know, genotoxic damage in their cells pre-exposure and after exposure and documented scientifically that as you spray people with Roundup, you increase the risks of these genotoxic reactions, which can lead to cancer. And it showed it pretty cleanly. The more you spray, the more of this reaction you saw in these people. And this is during a time when Monsanto was telling people it's safe enough to drink, right? This is like, I mean, this is madness. Well, that researcher, they published their results and Monsanto then hired a doctor named Dr. Perry, a pretty eminent researcher in England, to look into it and advise them on what to do. But he looks into it and he says, you guys have a problem. He writes a memo and says, you have a problem. You need to study this for cancer. This is a real concern. And the email responses within Monsanto was, does this guy know who he works for? Does he know what he's doing? We are not going to do these studies. And they basically blackballed him, put him aside, and then hired a different researcher, a guy named Dr. Williams, who then published in 2000 the Williams, Monroe's and Crow article, which was completely ghostwritten by Monsanto. Again, shown in the emails. And that article said what? Why was that article important? Well, that article was a full summary of all the data and it was relied upon by EPA and all regulators to show that glyphosate was safe. And that's what we've been using for the last 20 something years? Until two months ago, it was finally retracted. because the editor of the journal said, this is ghostwritten by Monsanto. This isn't actual science. And they pulled it. It took 25 years, but it finally got pulled. And that was because of the documents we released in the Monsanto litigation. So all of the quote-unquote evidence that we hear people in the agriculture industry say, you know, glyphosate is completely safe, Roundup is safe, it doesn't cause cancer. It's all a lie. Yeah, exactly. And the EPA, right? So you look at the EPA, The guy named Jess Rowland is the person who did the analysis for the EPA. I think that was under Obama. I think it was under the Obama administration. And you'll see this crosses all political spectrums. This is not a political issue. This is a science issue. Sure, yeah. And you see this guy, Jess Rowland, literally emailing Monsanto scientists saying, how do I deal with this study? How do I respond to this? And then internally, Monsanto's talking about how they're going to hire Jess Rowland because he's going to be retiring in six months from the EPA. And he's done such good work for them. I mean, this is all in the documents. This is in the Monsanto papers. It actually led to a DOJ investigation into Jess Rowland. I don't know what happened with that, but it did open one up. And so, yes, the answer is when the EPA comes out or when scientists come out or Bayer comes out and says, it's safe. We've done a million studies. It's all safe. It's a lie because the studies actually show it. Did their internal emails and paperwork show that they knew it was causing cancer and that they were trying to cover it up? Yeah, 100%. We have emails where they literally are saying, yeah, we have this risk showing in this study. Reach out to the author of the article and see if we can get them to change the language so it doesn't sound so bad. So Monsanto has this thing called freedom to operate. It is a budgetary line item and it is a program within the company where they literally attack any scientist or refute any science that in any way, shape or form interferes with their freedom to operate or sell their products without regulatory action. They would attack scientists. You know, someone would publish something. They'd go hire a letter writing campaign to get the journal article retracted. I mean, it was relentless. And they attacked, attacked, attacked every scientist that ever had the nerve to say anything about glyphosate. It's pretty disturbing. When this case went to court, and you've got all of this evidence in court that Monsanto was actively covering up that they knew their products caused cancer. How did they try to defend themselves? I'm just so curious. So the first thing they say, which is consistent with kind of why I'm here, is they say, well, it doesn't cause cancer. The EPA says it doesn't cause cancer, so it must not cause cancer. The EPA is the end-all, be-all, the divine speaker of truth. And they say it doesn't cause cancer, so therefore, they're wrong. These crazy plaintiff's lawyers don't know any better. That was the first argument. The second argument was they'd bring in these really fancy scientists who they pay, you know, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to come in there and say, I got my fancy degree from Harvard and John Hopkins. And I'm telling you, I've looked at it, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't cause cancer. Like, it's pretty safe. I mean, I'd spray this stuff on my own children every day. They'd say stuff like that. It was funny, actually. One of the witnesses from On Sandal, the CEO, actually testified, oh, I spray this stuff on my own house. You know, I think it's perfectly safe. and when we talked to the jurors later, they were all like, we didn't believe that for a second. There's no way a CEO sprang round up in his mansion in Missouri. There's no way. Oh, yeah. So they knew he was full of it, but they took that perspective, right? And then, of course, the final attack is, you don't understand it's too complicated, so just say no. That's the last-ditch defense. So what does unbiased science show about glyphosate? I'm a biased person, So I feel like I shouldn't be the speaker of unbiased science, right? I tell juries the truth. I tell them what I see in the science. I present my own experts. But what I think this data shows, and take this with a grain of salt because I'm being full disclosure, I'm a lawyer. It shows that when people are exposed to glyphosate, you know, over periods of time, they develop cancer, develop diabetes, they develop endocrine disruption, and they develop all sorts of other downstream effects from those diseases. Infertility. Infertility, lower testosterone. We see a direct relationship with like this pandemic we have in our society of all these ailments that scientists just don't understand why. Like, why is testosterone so low? Or why is people, why is diabetes flailing about? Yeah, it's the food, but it's also the glyphosate because it's in literally every piece of food, every bottle of water. It's in all of our blood. It's in everywhere. I have heard your complaints. You're like, Alex, what do you think I am? Made of money? How am I supposed to buy everything you talk about and try it? I get it. I just love introducing you to brands that share our values and are actually making the clean food and beverage industry better So if you have heard me talk before about Taylor Duke wellness products and you like but I don know where to start I don want to waste money on a bunch of products and then I don like something This is your godsend The Starter Pack Bundle is basically a try-before-you-commit pass to her entire lineup. For only $39, you get 13 best-selling products, okay? Clean protein flavors like strawberries and cream, cinnamon roll, cookies and cream. You can figure out what type of smoothie or milkshake you like. Plus, electrolytes. You get to try the Blue Beauty drink, even her organic superfood creamer for your coffee. It's all in convenient single-serve sticks, so there's no giant tub sitting half-used in your pantry. You get to taste everything, figure out what you love, and then you can go all in later. And everything is clean and organic, functional medicine approved, no fillers, no gums, no artificial junk. I love that strawberries and cream protein powder. I put that in my smoothie every morning. I keep an electrolyte packet in my bag for when I'm running around all day. And then, you know, if you're overwhelmed by all the powders and wellness girl math out there, this will make it so easy. So go to TaylorDukesWellness.com. Use code AlexClark for 10% off. Your wellness era just got more affordable. TaylorDukesWellness.com. Code AlexClark for 10% off. Let's talk about arthritis, joint pain, inflammation, whatever you want to call the thing that flares up randomly and ruins your day. People are told, that's just part of getting old. No, Barbara, it isn't. Jevity is built for people who don't accept that answer. They run one of the most comprehensive blood panels on the market. Over 90 biomarkers looking at inflammation, immune response, nutrient deficiencies, hormones, and metabolic markers that actually explain chronic pain and flare-ups. They combine this data with advanced diagnostics, hormone-balancing therapies, and peptides designed to support energy, recovery, and longevity. And everything, the testing, the treatment, the supplements, it's all accessible through their marketplace. Your care plan is continuously refined with semi-annual blood work and an entire care team, and it evolves as your body changes. So it's not a one-and-done thing. It's ongoing, data-driven care. And it's all managed through the Jevity app, where you have direct access to your health history and a dedicated care team you can talk to anytime. It's only $129 a month. You get real answers, real support on your health journey, and 40% off personalized supplements and prescriptions if you need them. Use code ALEX for 20% off your first purchase at GoJevity.com. That's code Alex at GoJavity.com for 20% off. Multiple reports describe Monsanto using private investigators, surveillance, pressure campaigns. Were critics and scientists actually being tracked for speaking out? Absolutely. They actually had a, they have internally these documents where they literally are tracking and following specific scientists and researchers. And they have these hit dossiers that they give to reporters or anyone that will listen. A good example was a guy named Dr. Christopher Portier, who was a former director of the National Toxicology Program. Really great scientist, an expert actually for us in the litigation. But they would literally follow him and reach out to any group that would try to work with him to try to basically lack ball him. It didn't work because everyone kind of saw through it and he's so respected, but they try. And they call it, my favorite was they call it orchestrating an outcry. That was the budgetary line item in their plan. Was your life ever threatened when you were coming after Monsanto? Not that I know of. I mean, I have a funny little story. Tell us. I don't want to accuse Monsanto of threatening my life, but this did happen. Okay. So it was the first trial and the opening statements were in a few days. And I had rented this apartment in San Francisco because I didn't live there or anything. I had rented this apartment. And I come into my apartment and it's like a square, right? So you walk into your kitchen and then you proceed forward to the living room, bedroom, and then bathroom. It's like a little circle, right? And I'm in the kitchen. I'm on my phone texting somebody, texting my partner, actually. And I hear a ding, like a reception of a text message in my bedroom. And I'm like, oh, crap. I think there's someone in here. Oh, my gosh. So I don't know what I was thinking. I grab a knife and I start screaming, I got a knife. I'm coming around. I probably look like a crazy person now, but I'm walking around and I go around and get into my bedroom. There's no one there. And I go into the bathroom. There's no one there. And then I look at the front door and the front door closes. So I was like, oh, God, was someone in here? Like, that's really creepy. So then I go down to the reception because it was a secure building. And I say, can you pull up the footage of my hallway? I want to see who's been come to my door. And they're like, oh, yeah, sure, sure. And they're like, oh, that's so weird. It stopped working an hour and a half ago. You're kidding me. Yeah, I know. What? I just got chills. Listen, maybe it was the wind and the door was open and I'm crazy and it's all in my imagination. But I'm telling you, it scared the crap out of me. And I just assumed my place was bugged from that point forward. Did you move? No, I stayed there. I mean, listen, like the thing about this litigation, which is hilarious, is everything that I was going to do, every argument I was going to make, every piece of science, every piece of evidence. I told Monsanto, this is my plan. I'm coming after you and this is how I'm going to do it. You should settle with me. And they told me, you know, if you think a couple million dollars is a big verdict, that was literally what they said to me when I tried to settle with them. And then, you know, the verdict was $289 million. How far does Monsanto go to protect their image? I wonder about that. I actually think that that's changed since Bayer's taken over. Monsanto has not really been a liked organization amongst most of the population. Now, there are certain segments in the farming and ag communities that do have a lot of respect for Monsanto. But I would say the vast majority of people, if they know Monsanto, they don't have a good image of it. Yeah, so Bayer bought Monsanto. And that's kind of confusing to people because people are like, Bayer? I thought Bayer made pills. Very interesting. Can you talk about that? In 2017, I believe, Bayer, which was a pharmaceutical company, decided to, and they had a small ag group, decided to buy Monsanto for, I think, $69 billion. dollars um and um it was the the brainchild of the ceo ceo at the time and actually it's interesting enough we had started trial the the acquisition went through in the middle of the trial so we were in the middle of trial when the acquisition went through and then a month later we get our verdict um the the first verdict which obviously led to bayern losing i think 35 billion dollars in market capitalization the next day because people went you guys caused this much cancer you're gonna go bankrupt that was the that was the reaction to the markets um but yeah they bought them and they thought oh we're gonna take over this great you know biotech company and and and and have be the owner of all the seeds and the pesticides and control basically all food production in the united states that was bayers goal um i think it's borne out to be probably one of the worst purchases in any modern merger ever. Well, it depends on how you look at it, because Bayer is actively giving us cancer and then they're giving you the pill for the cancer. Is that just cancer? It's diabetes. I mean, right now, right, how much money is being spent on GLPs, right, for diabetes and weight loss and all these other diabetic medications? Where is the diabetes coming from? Right. Look at the studies. They show right now that if you look at the amount of glyphosate in your urine, it is directly correlated with your A1C. It's directly correlated with diabetes. It's that simple. I mean, but instead of getting rid of the glyphosate, we just make more drugs and pump it into people and hope that solves the problem. It's kind of a vicious circle. For someone on the outside, this really looks like mafia-style tactics. You're talking about isolating critics, attacking credibility, controlling the narrative. Is this still happening, you think, today under Bayer like it was with Monsanto? Oh, it's worse now. Because what they're doing instead is they've realized they're not going to win the public opinion. They're not going to win the PR battle. And they're not going to win the scientists. So they're just going straight for the gullet. They're going after the government. And so they've introduced all these laws that basically create a special immunity for Bayer and pesticide makers. They're trying to create a special class of corporations in the United States through law that says you cannot sue the specific types of pesticide makers. Like you can sue drug companies. You can sue all these other people. But we're going to treat pesticide makers in a special way and create immunity for them. So that's – they're doing that through state initiatives as well as an attempt to do it in the federal initiative, which has so far the federal one has failed. This is what they did with vaccines in the 80s. That's correct. Right now, you cannot sue a vaccine maker directly. You have to go through the special vaccine court. The crazy thing about the vaccine court, just as an aside, and I can talk about that all day in a separate show if you'd like, but is that if you win in the vaccine court, do you know who pays the damages? Who? Taxpayers. So companies like Merck or other vaccine makers, right, can sell these vaccines. they have guaranteed multi-billion dollars in revenue because they're guaranteed purchases. The government has to buy the vaccines, right? And then if they get sued, the government pays for any liability. It's free money, essentially, for the vaccine companies. There is a way to sue them if you jump through all the hoops. And we've actually successfully done that in a few cases, but it's really, really difficult. But yeah, vaccine, oddly enough, alcohol manufacturers have a special place in our society. you can't sue alcohol makers. Yet we passed a law right after Prohibition that basically says, no, you can't sue them, which is, in retrospect, crazy because alcohol causes cancer and a whole bunch of other obvious problems, but we can't sue them. And they're trying to create that special place for pesticide makers, which is nutty to me because I don't know why we as a society would want to privilege pesticide makers. It's not like pesticide makers are really here for the benefit of humanity. They're here to make farming cheaper, but not better. Based on what we know about their tactics, do you think that I'm on Bayer's radar because I've been speaking out against glyphosate? Yes. I'm sure they have a dossier about you. I'm sure they have a battle plan as part of their PR program. I don't know if things have changed, right? I haven't seen recent stuff since we've made them pay over $16.5 billion in settlements, right? So I don't know where they are today. I do know they're taking this stuff at a regulatory level, and they're obviously, they're having a big fight for the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a big issue. But those issues aside, I don't know if they're still doing the same thing that traditional Monsanto did. I haven't seen the documents, but I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. So here's what's not making sense in my head, and probably for all the listeners. If you've got a company who has paid out over 100,000 people and admitted in settlements that glyphosate causes cancer, essentially, how can you say with a straight face that it doesn't cause cancer? That's the rub. They give billions and billions of dollars to settle cases, but they never admit liability. How much has been spent to settle cases? I mean, the public, I don't know all the numbers because I haven't settled all the cases. I don't represent everybody. But I know publicly it's in excess of $16 billion so far. With many on the line currently. Oh, and there's still hundreds of thousands of cases out there. So wouldn't it be in their interest to make it so in the midst of all of these lawsuits, people have to stop suing them? Yeah, it's really simple. All they have to do is warn. If they just put right there, hey, warning may cause cancer. They're done. But the issue is they're claiming that they don't need to do that because the EPA says it's safe. But the truth of the matter is the EPA is happy to put a warning label on their products. All they have to do is ask, correct? That's correct. Aren't there competing glyphosate companies that have warning labels on their products that the EPA gladly put on there? That is correct. There are other glyphosate makers, much smaller ones, who have said, we don't want to get sued. So they warn and they don't get sued. But Bayer refuses to do so. And they are constantly looking for a silver bullet defense, right? They're saying, oh, if we can get the Supreme Court. Right now there's a case before the Supreme Court, the Dornel case. And the Supreme Court took the case. They're going to rule on it. But whether or not, because the EPA says you don't have to warn, that means you can't sue them. That's the question before the court. And they're going to decide that issue, which is an interesting case because even with a conservative Supreme Court, it's a state's rights issue, right? Traditionally, preemption is like the idea that the EPA is the all-knowing authority. That's a very liberal concept. That's not a conservative concept. That is actually anti-conservative. I'm really interested to see how this court rules on this important issue, and it's going to be briefed and argued in the next couple months. I think this is important to explain to my audience, which is overwhelmingly conservative. We know the left politically is very captured by pharma. Who are politicians on the right primarily captured by? Well, just follow the billionaires. That's what I always tell people. And if you look on the right, you're going to see oil. You're going to see, you know, other industries that are highly, highly conservative. And on the left, you're going to see a lot of biotech companies like pharma who are liberal. And I think that's where you kind of see an interesting divide. So it's ag. It's big ag, big chemical is what has captured a lot of conservative politicians. Absolutely. Particularly in the states where they have big ag industries, right? The red core of America and the center of the country. You see a lot of that influence. I am not conservative, right? I am a liberal. But the thing that I find so fascinating is that this issue about protecting people against pesticides isn't really a political one, right? It's one where the granola-eating liberals and the Maha movement kind of really align because it's not about politics. It's about making sure corrupt organizations like Monsanto and Bayer are held accountable because there are good organizations that deserve to compete properly. There are people who do not deserve to get cancer, and I think we all think that that's just a human issue. It's not a political one. Cool girls aren't using AirPods anymore. Sorry, they're done pretending that blasting radiation into their brains is cute. The real cool girls, us, well, we're using air tube headphones. I use ones from techwellness.com. You know, the ones that keep your brain from getting fried like bacon in a pan. Wireless earbuds emit continuous radio frequency electromagnetic radiation as they search for and then maintain that Bluetooth connection. Even when you're not actively on a call or listening to anything, that radiation is being transmitted millimeters from sensitive brain tissue. It is a constant exposure source. It's not an occasional one. Meanwhile, air tube headphones physically relocate the speaker and wiring away from your head and then deliver sound through hollow tubes of air. No electrical signal, no radio frequency transmission near the brain, just mechanical sound. From a biological standpoint, that is a completely different exposure profile. And yes, your nervous system does prefer it, as do I. TechWellness has been doing this for 25 years It not some Etsy gimmick okay These are safer tech air tube headphones that are tested grounded and engineered It a fortress for your brain while still sounding amazing So it's time to ditch the AirPods. Grab EMF-free air tube headphones. Use code Alex for 15% off at techwellness.com. That's code Alex for 15% off at techwellness.com. I had this moment recently where I was thinking about the endocrine system. You know, it's basically the system that sends chemical messages through your body telling everything what to do. You, it's time to go to sleep. You, make that eye booger. You, grow that toenail. Hormones affect energy, stress, fertility, sleep, all of it. And so it hit me. So many everyday products can confuse that system, right? Endocrine disruptors hide in sprays and detergents that we use every day, and they affect everyone in the house, not just adults. That realization is what pushed me to try Branch Basics. And I am so genuinely obsessed. Their premium starter kit uses one powerful concentrate that replaces dozens of cleaners. You can use this one product from Branch Basics to clean your entire house, your car, your produce, surfaces, laundry, makeup brushes, literally everything. And it works so shockingly well for something that is totally fragrance-free and made from plant and mineral-based ingredients. What I love most is knowing that my home is actually clean and safe. Branch Basics has completely replaced my old products because I don't have to choose between effectiveness and health anymore. It's safer for hormones, safer for kids and pets. And honestly, the peace of mind makes it so much more worth it to me. If you're ready to spring into healthier cleaning, here's your sign. Make this year the year you say goodbye to toxic products. If you listen to my show, you can get 15% off the premium starter kit with code Alex15 at BranchBasics.com. Again, that's 15% off at BranchBasics.com. You can buy Branch Basics at Target, but if you go to BranchBasics.com and use Alex15, you're going to get that discount. Make 2026 your cleanest, healthiest year yet with Branch Basics. was there evidence that monsanto worked directly with the epa on glyphosate yeah 100 what did that entail and what year was this so this is back in the 90s really the most egregious stuff would have been probably in the mid aughts when um when when the epa was doing its most recent evaluation specifically on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and you'll see in the emails that the epa was essentially captured, right? It's like what they were doing was what Monsanto needed them to do. And so there wasn't really any independent, rigorous evaluation of the science. I think there's also a bit of momentum, right? Because this is an organization, the EPA, that approved glyphosate in the 70s, right? And if they were wrong from day one, I mean, there's millions of people who are dead because of that decision. That's a huge pill to swallow for any organization. So I think the EPA is highly captured. It has been for a while. I think things are changing, actually, under the current administration. I think that a lot of the captured bureaucrats are being pushed out, which I think is good. I hope they're replaced with competent people who actually do regulation. We'll see about that second step. The first step's happening. I don't know about the second one. So when it comes to chemicals and specifically what a federal agency like the EPA does, is it a good thing or a bad thing if they are bragging to the american people that they are doing a lot of deregulating i think it's a mixed bag i mean it's the truth i mean i mean the the good liberal in my heart says regulation is good but the cynical pragmatist in my heart says good regulation is good bad regulation is really bad right and so when you have organizations like historically, the EPA, the FDA, servicing corporations instead of actually regulating products, that's really dangerous because the EPA, the FDA no longer becomes a regulator. They actually become an obstruction to justice. And that's a problem. Well, and when it comes to chemicals in the environment, me personally, and obviously as a conservative, I don't want regulation. But in this issue, I'm very nervous about opening the floodgates for just more chemicals. More regulation, less regulation. It's a tension. Sure. But I also think you have to ask yourself, what about the right to sue? Because that's fundamentally what's at stake right now, right? These laws being pushed by Bayer, the preemption decision up before the U.S. Supreme Court, these aren't about regulation. These are about the right of individual human beings to bring lawsuits against corporations that hurt them, knowingly hurt them. And that's a fundamental right that I think actually draws upon a deep conservative root. The idea that we have a right to take action to protect ourselves and shouldn't be stopped by government in doing so. I find it just patently ironic that Bayer and Monsanto are trying to get its conservative groups within Congress to do something that empowers more regulation, that gives EPA the authority of absolute truth, which runs counter to everything that I think the conservative movement believes in. And I think there's a little bit of that going on because a lot of it isn't being talked about. And I think once conservatives hear this and go, oh my gosh, why is my congressman trying to create a special place for corporations? Why are they trying to empower the EPA? This goes against everything that I believe in. I think there's a really strong case for Maha and certain liberals to get together and say, no, we're not going to allow this. We need to do something to allow the right to sue, to allow the right to protect our families. I think that's a right that everyone can get behind. This is the most important episode of the year. In the first Trump admin, there was an investigative group who wanted to go into the White House and find out what the White House thought about glyphosate. What did their report uncover? It was lobbyists and a group within Monsanto hired a special agency to sort of survey the White House during the first Trump administration to see how do they feel about glyphosate? How are they going to respond to our efforts with the EPA? Are they going to be pro, against, or whatever? And supposedly, and this is, you know, take this with a grain of salt, it was very friendly. They, you know, it was the traditional Republican conservative idea. We're pro-business, so of course we like businesses. And actually, when the first issue of preemption was raised during the first Trump administration, they took the position that it should be preempted, that the EPA is the ultimate arbiter of risk for pesticides. And that happened during the first Trump administration. And actually during the Biden administration, your conservative listeners aren't going to like to hear this, but the Biden administration changed course. That was different than Obama. Obama was also pro-preemption, So I'm very mad at him for that. But the Biden administration did, for what it's worth, take change course on that issue. And now the Trump administration has gone back again to the original position saying that it should be preempted. Now, the tension there is pretty interesting because you have, on one hand, the pro-business lobby within the conservative movement, but you also have the Maha movement. And there's no way Trump gets into the White House without that. President Trump knows the importance of Maha. He loves Maha. And this is the thing. I think he's changed his mind on a lot of things since the first Trump administration about people he had around him, just about beliefs in general. I mean, look at everything he's learning about food. He just the other day it was reported that, you know, he asked his aides to come and he said, bring in the poison. He wanted to look at his snacks. He picked a few things out and said, all right, get the poison out of here. I mean, so, you know, he's making baby steps at least. Do I think that he is perfect on every all of these, you know, health issues? No, of course not. But I do think that he's learning. I think he's expressing a willingness to learn. He has Bobby Kennedy around him who has fought his entire career on the environmental toxin chemical issues. There is a massive Supreme Court case coming up this summer. It's Monsanto versus Durnell. What is at stake? It's the issue of whether or not you can sue Monsanto for failing to warn. The idea, it's called preemptions, federal preemption. And the idea is if the EPA doesn't require a warning, then no state can require a warning. That's the argument put forward by Monsanto, that the EPA sets the floor and the ceiling of what is permissible to be said about a pesticide. So, for example, if the EPA doesn't say anything about warning about cancer, then pesticide manufacturers are not allowed to warn about cancer. That's the argument. There's a split here, okay? multiple courts of appeal out of the 11th circuit, which is in the Southern Florida area, and the 9th circuit, which is out of California, have agreed that it's not preempted. So there's actually very strong case law supporting that it's not a valid argument. There's one decision out of the 3rd circuit out of Philadelphia that actually found that it was preempted under certain circumstances. And so with that framework, the Supreme Court is taking the issue and they're going to make a ruling about whether or not that's the case. If they rule in Monsanto's favor, It's the silver bullet. Every lawsuit against Monsanto ends related to glyphosate. And then what happens to American citizens, American families, and farmers? They suffer. They get nothing. They get no money, no compensation, no settlement, no right to sue. They just get poisoned and there's nothing they can do about it. What is the deal with Clarence Thomas in this case in particular? Fascinating issue there. Justice Thomas, former general counsel to Monsanto, before he joined the bench. So he has a history with the organization, but he is also repeatedly written that he is fundamentally against preemption in multiple cases. It's a state's rights issue. And he has written very scathing dissent saying it's unconstitutional, taking a very extreme position. And so we're going to see where where he falls on this. Right. This is a justice who, if he's loyal to his roots, his beliefs in and how the government should operate of the Constitution, he should rule actually in our favor. But if he if he is pro corporate and goes with the Monsanto used to be his employer, then he'd have to really undo everything that he stood behind. So I'm really curious to see how Justice Thomas falls on this issue. Essentially, the issue is the Supreme Court needs to understand that all of the science, and I'm saying science in quotes, that was proving in quotes that glyphosate didn't cause cancer was completely fraudulent. That's a really important part of this case. That's correct. So if we're loud about that, like this case is on faulty science, this product causes cancer, we have to be able to warn people, we know that this is the case, is that helpful or is it just like yelling into the void? Okay, there's two answers to that. Sure. The first answer is the Supreme Court is politically isolated. They don't make political decisions. They just rule on the law. They have their beliefs and their systems. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. I will say, though, that the confidence in the United States Supreme Court today is lower than it's ever been in history. Are you saying that from a liberal perspective or just in general? Because I feel like my audience probably likes the Supreme Court right now. No, I think that's true. But I think historically, what I mean by respect, I mean, I don't mean we like the decisions, right? Like or that's going to split along party lines or ideologies all day. What I mean is the respect and deference to the institution. You know, when the Supreme Court said Bush won Florida, right? The next day, Gore said, I concede. The Supreme Court made the decision, right? They are that much deference to them by politicians and the public. They have high, high, unlike Congress and different White Houses at different times, their approval ratings are sky high. Right now, they're lower than they have been historically by a lot. And I think that's a function of, frankly, overturning the abortion rulings that probably were legally suspect to begin with, but they did overturn them. And I think that has led a lot of people to think, well, this is just a political thing. It's not a law thing. Now, I actually do think it's a law thing. I don't think that's a fair criticism of the high court, but I do think that there's a perception. If people, conservatives and liberals, show not just the Supreme Court, but the politicians that this is not something that we should do. We should not treat Bayer specially in our world. Monsanto does not deserve a special place in the world. And it's not just Bayer, right? It's all pesticide manufacturers. This is all pesticide manufacturers. And I think this should also interest conservatives and your local conservative legislators is that these are chemical companies that are not American. So you've got ChemChina, for example. They want to spray certain pesticides in America that they don't even allow in China. So they want to bring chemicals that they won't even use on their own citizens to America to poison us. I mean, that is like biochemical warfare, in my opinion. Yeah, basically. And literally there are surfactants, right? These are the soaps and stuff used to make glyphosate get into the cell to kill the plant that are just banned in Europe. Banned in other countries, banned in South America. And yet they're used specifically here in the U.S., right? Because we let them do it and it's cheaper. I mean, that's the simplicity of it. And it makes no sense that whether it's a foreign company or even a, I mean, Bayer's not American. Bayer's a German company now, right? We're talking about foreign actors who are allowed to make money off of poisoning us. And it blows my mind that we would want left or right to allow that just as a as an American that should not be allowed. I think that's absolutely the right position. In some of these states that are trying to pass these chemical liability shields or or failure to warn laws. Is that what it's called? Liability shield labeling shields. Yeah. Some of them also apply to common household products you wouldn't be able to sue for if they cause cancer that you're around and your kids around all the time. like ant traps and different things used even inside the home, correct? That's correct. Well, because it's an insecticide. So therefore it's covered by the federal laws that govern fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, etc. So any of those chemicals, I mean, yeah, the ant traps, you name it, rat poison, any of those things, right? Those are all theoretically covered by these shield laws where, for example, if a child could get into one of those traps and eat it and get sick and die, you could not sue. I want to go on a mission and I want to make dandelions great again. I want Americans to stop being afraid of dandelions in their yard. The other issue is that we are just hiring these chemical companies to spray our yards with all of these cancer-causing chemicals and then our kids are playing out there and they're running around barefoot and they're out there all day in the summer and nobody is thinking about this because their yard looks great. Their yard looks great. We're doing so much with Maha talking about the corruption in the pharma industry and the food industry. And we are just totally ignoring the environmental pesticide issue. That is also we're it's we're soaking we're absorbing it through our skin and our feet when we're walking on this grass and breathing it in our air. Can you talk about that lawn care services at all? The good news is, for what it's worth, is they've taken glyphosate out of home Roundup. It's no longer using the product because they got sued too much. They said, this isn't worth it. It's a business decision. They stopped doing it. It's still sprayed like crazy in agriculture, right? But I think from when it comes to like you know it really easy to say you know I want to be thoughtful about the medications I give my family the vaccines I use the foods I feed my family right It doesn just stop there You have to think okay what about my yard What about the HOA that's spraying all these wonderful sidewalks to make sure that they're clean of weeds? What are they spraying? One of the biggest problems with the glyphosate litigation has been finding a control group, right? Whenever you want to study the health effects, you got to find people exposed, people who are unexposed. Well, there's no one who's unexposed. everybody is exposed. So you have to find higher exposed to lower exposed. We literally have to go to another planet and find aliens. Or find some lost tribe in some like island somewhere in the Pacific that hasn't seen humans, other humans, civilization. You know what I mean? But like, that's not, that has its own problems. So I guess my point is, is it starts in the home and it starts not just with paying lip service, right? To, oh, I want to buy organic or whatever. It's actually looking beyond those labels to see, okay, what is really going on here? Why does my kid have autism? Did I feed them baby food contaminated with heavy metals? Did they get poison from some medication I gave them? Is there something else going on here? Could it be Tylenol? I mean, there's lots of issues here that people need to look at and it shouldn't be a political one. If someone you love is pregnant, you know how they got that way, don't you? Ah! We can't have that in ad. Oh, yes, we can. Welcome to the big leagues, Batman. Okay, maybe you're listening right now and you're like thinking about what does go on my body during this pregnant season? What goes in my body? You know, ingredients suddenly matter so much more. But you do know how you got there, right? Okay. Pregnancy is often when people start questioning everything. Skin care, makeup, fragrance, all of it. That is where my friends at Adele Natural Cosmetics come in with a beautiful option. Their products are clean, nourishing, and thoughtfully made without harsh chemicals that you wouldn't want near your body during pregnancy or any other time. So many women switch to gentler beauty products during pregnancy, but you've got to do this for all of the days. Adele makes it easy without sacrificing quality or performance. Their moisturizing foundation is a favorite of mine because it is lightweight, it's hydrating, it leaves a natural glow. I mean, look at me, look at me, look at me. It's perfect when your skin is changing during those couple months. and their lip conditioner with hyaluronic acid is another must, especially when lips get dry and sensitive. And the glow highlighter will give that soft, healthy sheen that makes tired days look way more awake. Everything is handcrafted in small batches in Central Texas using ethically sourced ingredients and supporting sustainable local farmers, which just feels good to support. If you or someone you love is being extra mindful about what they're using during pregnancy, but you should also do it all the time, Adele is such a thoughtful switch. Use code Alex for 25% off your first order at adelnaturalcosmetics.com. Great baby shower gift, by the way. That is 25% off your first purchase with code Alex at adelnaturalcosmetics.com. She pregnant. Mmm, I'm pregnant. Wait, preg, preg-a-not. Preg-a-not. Preg-a-not. My baby mama is preg-a-not. Ooh, you know what I'm not about? I'm not about all these gym memberships trying to capitalize on everybody's health and wellness journey. Ooh, you know, it's the new year, You want to get fit? Come to our gym. Ladies, don't worry. There might be a guy with a ding dong just right next to you as you're changing, but just look away. Uh, no. I'm not trying to become a CrossFit vegan influencer overnight, and I'm definitely not trying to go to these gyms that don't actually put my safety first. I just want my foundational health not to suck. Is that too much to ask for? You know who's never let me down? Utsy Naturals. They're a family-owned supplement company with a 100-acre herb farm in Wisconsin. Real deal sourcing. Not some Instagram influencer throwing powders in a jar. Their stuff is made in the U.S. It's packaged in glass bottles. This is like the most elite supplements ever. They are free of fillers, trends, junk you don't need. This is back to the basics, health done right, stewardship style. Personally, I like to start with the essentials. You've got a high-quality B-complex there at Etsy for energy and stress support. Every woman needs that. A solid multivitamin to cover the nutritional basis. And their U-mune. This is like an amazing immune little supplement because germs are everywhere and nobody wants to be that person getting sick. Skip the chaos. Skip the gimmicks. Get health basics you can actually trust. I know a lot of people are having questions about supplements. Oh, who should I trust? I don't know. I use Utsi. Go to utzi.com, U-T-Z-Y.com slash Alex. Use code Alex. That's utzi.com, U-T-Z-Y.com slash Alex. Code Alex. Chemical lobbyists argue that chemical liability shields protect farmers from frivolous lawsuits. Is this true or does legal immunity actually harm farmers? No one is suing farmers. No one is suing a farmer. We're suing the chemical companies. The only immunity that's granted from this is to the chemical companies, not the farmers. The problem with farming in America is that we don't value it enough as a society, right? We don't pay farmers enough. We don't pay enough for food. And so they're forced to do everything in their power with limited manpower, with people who don't want the jobs, right, to produce food at very low costs. As a society, that needs to change. Farmers need to get paid more. They need to be given a prominent place in our society. People should grow up saying, I want to be a farmer. That should be a dream. We need to build that breadbasket in America again. And that's, again, not political. That's just reality. We do that. Then farmers won't need to use chemicals. They can use machines. They can use time and labor to offset the decreased productivity. And that's totally doable. It's been shown in studies that it can be done. It just requires a little bit of time and energy. These chemical liability shields on the state level that they're trying to get past are it covers like 57,000 chemicals. chemicals? Every chemical that's governed by FIFRA. Yes. Okay. The states that are vulnerable to this are Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma. That's correct. Missouri. That's correct. And Kansas. Did I get them all? Yes. And two have already passed. Yeah. Georgia, North Dakota. Sorry, but your ship has sailed. And I think the most pressing one right now is in Kansas where it has passed. I believe it's passed the House and it's now before the Senate in the state legislator, and they're trying really hard to push it through on a rocket docket. I mean, what Bayer's strategy with these S.H.I.E.L.D. laws is get them passed before anyone knows what the heck's happening, right? And so the Maha and the people who are opposing these statutes don't even have a time to respond or mobilize that they're passed and made into law before everyone has a chance to stop them. And once that happens, it's done, right? You are poisoned in North Dakota or in the state of Georgia, which is a gigantic state. If you're poisoned by a pesticide there, you have no right of action. You're very close friends with Bobby Kennedy. That's correct. Is it interesting to you that with all of the chemical liability shield stuff going on, someone like Zippy, the CEO of Farm Bureau, like four days after we're all raising a ruckus online about these issues, is asking Bobby Kennedy for a meeting ASAP. And then very, very fast to post photos of him and Bobby. Like, look, I had lunch with Bobby. We're very supportive of Maha here. I mean, I don't know. What do you make of that? I think that Maha movement has a lot of power and it scares a lot of people because you guys can really make a lot of change right now in America in a way that very few movements can. And I think getting on the wrong side of that is dangerous for people and they want to be seen to be doing the right thing. I think it's really interesting, you know, when you look at Bobby's confirmation hearing, Right. And you look at some of the senators questions that came to him from the senators that are supposed to be on my side. Right. Senator Warren, for example, she literally used my law firm, my name as a punching bag against Bobby to somehow make it seem like he was going to be biased because, God forbid, he had sued a drug company once before. How dare he ever consider doing that in the future again if he's no longer the secretary? It was such a betrayal to me because, just so you know, the trial lawyers typically support Senator Warren. We give her money, right? We usually have her back. We are the ones who are fighting to get dangerous products off, which she has spent her entire career doing. And yet when it came to Bobby, she decided to throw us under the bus. And I think that politicization is a mistake. I think what Maha is trying to do and what Bobby is trying to do with Trump, much as I didn't vote for the guy, I do support his nomination and installment of Bobby. I think they have a chance to do some real good. Some of these chemical liability shields on the state level also have a section preventing people not only from suing the chemical companies, but from speaking out negatively about big food or big chemical, correct? I've seen some language that would create a basically a chilling effect on speaking poorly of these types of things. Those provisions will never be upheld constitutionally. Right. There's a First Amendment right to speak. I don't think anyone actually thinks it could be enforced effectively. I think really what could be enforced is you just can't sue them. You can't bring a lawsuit. And if you want to get a company to do the right thing, you got to make them pay. When I got the $2 billion verdict against Monsanto, right, what I told the jury was, you have to come back with a number so that 10 years from now, they're going to be in a boardroom and they're going to have the next pesticide with the next issue. And they're all going to decide, should we do the right thing or should we just make money? They're going to be trying to decide the right decision. And some young kid's going to raise his hand and say, what about the Pilead case? What about the McCall case? What about those lawsuits? maybe we should do the right thing here because it costs us so much to do the wrong one. How do you make these companies change? You make them pay. That's the only language they speak. And taking away the right to make them pay, which is what's at stake with these immunity laws, with this important decision before the U.S. Supreme Court, is the make or break of, do we want to be run by corporations or do we want to have the rights as individuals to protect our families? That's what's at stake. Why is fighting big ag and big chem going to be one of the hardest battles for Maha? I think there's two big issues. The first issue is there's a traditional pro-business movement in the conservative movement. And I think the way I respond to that is, well, hold on a second. We're not saying to be anti-business. We're anti-corrupt businesses. Because for every corrupt Monsanto, there is a really good company over here trying to make it, who's getting suffocated because they're playing by the rules, they're doing the right thing. And so I actually think from a very traditional free market world, fair application of the rules is actually benefit for the free market. The second big issue for Maha when it comes to dealing with taking on big ag is you have these entrenched politicians in large ag communities that are going to have a hard time aligning themselves with the Maha movement, that they want to support the mass food industrial complex, essentially. And I think those individuals are going to be really key from a legislative perspective. And I think they're really in a tough spot, right? Because they have their actual voters, the Maha people who want to have change, but then they have the money coming from their donors saying, don't you dare touch our cash crop, literally. And I think that tension is something that's playing out right now. I think Moms Across America is a amazing nonpartisan resource and group to get involved with if you want information on different legislation or just wanna help protest or go to rallies or do anything. I know a lot of people ask, how can I get involved? What can I do? I'm a mom. Moms Across America, that's a really good resource. What books just on the Monsanto drama are your favorite? Because there's so many good ones. I'm partial to the Monsanto papers. It was written by Carrie Gillum. I like that book quite a bit. I feature heavily in it. So it's not a self-promotion, but I think it tells a really good story of what we did. I mean, people don't realize the Monsanto papers are these collection of documents that were released to the public. And people don't realize I did that. I was the guy who sent them to the world and posted them on the internet. And I almost got annihilated by a judge. I survived it, thankfully. It was okay. But it's had huge repercussions, both scientifically, regulatory-wise, and politically, that I think it's really a good book. Like how Taylor Swift freed herself from the music industry. You did that. I will not compare myself to Tayslay. Big chem. also just so you know full disclosure they're making a movie really who's gonna play you who do you want to play you do you know who it is i know who it is and it hasn't been announced it hasn't been announced oh can i know when we're done recording okay do you are you happy with the pick yes okay oh this is so fun okay when's that movie coming out um i just got greenlit i think it's gonna start production this summer oh my gosh fun so if this comes out in like what two years Oh, probably. I think the plan is to get it out before December this year. Really? Yeah, they'll want to get it out before the Oscars because it's kind of one of those kind of flicks. Okay, well, we should have watching parties, you know, all across the audience. We should get together and have some watching parties. Okay, Brent, if you could offer one remedy to heal a sick culture, it could be physically, emotionally, or spiritually, what would it be? From what I'm seeing in the world, I think people have to ask questions. I think they have to ask, is this product what it says it is? Just because it says it's safe or says it's been tested or FDA approved, I think we have to question all of that. I think we should rely on our instincts as parents and members of the community to what we think is right. And I don't think we should be ashamed of it. I think people should stand up for what they think is right about their health, and they shouldn't be afraid to stand up against it when it matters. Because at the end of the day, we're all human. And we're all trying to survive as this planet, you know, rolls around the sun and plummets into infinity. And we need to do our best to make the best of it. Brent, thank you for coming on Culture Apothecary. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. Talking about chemicals isn't as sexy as discussing all the exciting food stuff. But arguably, it may be even more important. Even if we are choosing real whole food for our family, if it is sprayed with cancer-causing chemicals that can't wash off, That sort of defeats the purpose, right? I hope you feel ignited and inspired to become the Erin Barakovich of your town and will join me in the fight against pesticides. Let's let our elected officials know how we feel on this issue. Leave us a five star of you to celebrate the important work done by my team. New episodes come out every Monday and Thursday at 6 p.m. Pacific, 9 p.m. Eastern, anywhere you get your podcasts. This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be taken as medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional regarding any questions or decisions related to your health or medical care. I'm Alex Clark, and this is Culture Apothecary.