Government Overreach, Medical Privacy, and the Fight for Health Freedom

Government Overreach, Medical Privacy, and the Fight for Health Freedom

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Twila Brase

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 8/5/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Wednesday edition of Stand in the Gap Today. And it’s also our monthly Health Freedom update with Twila Brase. She’s the president and the co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom and a website which I will give again at cchfreedom.org. Now, today’s broadcast, I’ve given this title, Government Overreach, Medical Privacy and the Fight for Health Freedom. As we all know, we live in a culture where federal authority continuously expands and expanding frankly into the most intimate areas of our personal lives, despite, I’m going to say despite the political power in control. From our financial transactions, we know they’re tracked, increasingly, to our family decisions, to travel and speech. And for a long time now, increasingly into this area of personal health. God’s entrusted to each of us with the stewardship over our bodies and our families, yet modern policy and governmental administrative overreach in particular is routinely stripping away individual consent, the thought of privacy, because it’s become more of a though than reality, accountability, and more.

In today’s program, we’re going to identify and critique critical developments from the past several weeks since the last time that Twila and I were together that highlight this ongoing assault by government against individual autonomy and constitutionally recognized health freedom. Now to begin today’s program, we’re going to start with, I’m going to call it this way, institutional accountability, or should I say perhaps the lack thereof? Recently, you may have noted this, former director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, he was called before Congress and he testified before a Senate committee regarding COVID-19 and his responses and all involved in that. In that setting, he invoked the Fifth Amendment over 110 times. 110 times, refusing to answer even basic questions relative to what color was your tie. One of the guys asked him even that. This landmark hearing has sparked intense legal debate regarding presidential pardons, which was involved, constitutional privileges, and a pending congressional vote on holding officials like him in contempt.

Now, joining us today to unpack what this means is Twila Brase. I’ve already introduced her and you all know her very, very well. But with that, Twila, welcome to the program today and it’s great to have you back.

Twila Brase:

Well, it’s always great to be here. Thanks, Sam.

Sam Rohrer:

Twila, let’s get right into it. What does it signal going to this hearing, particularly with Fauci? Let’s start there. What does it signal to the American people when top public health officials like him invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than while giving account for their actions, particularly when a top health official such as Fauci received, in his case, he did receive a total and comprehensive preemptive presidential pardon from Joe Biden in early 2025 for anything that might come up. Now, they may be connected, but lay that out there because this is a big deal when there’s no accountability with the top officials.

Twila Brase:

Okay. So several details here. First, taking the fifth means that you have the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information that might incriminate you. And second, I believe that if you answer even one question, it opens you up to answering every question. So they might’ve asked him the color of his tie in case he would say what it was, and then that would open him up to having to answer every other question. Okay. The next thing is that just days before this hearing, Senator Rand Paul released the diaries, the private diaries of Fauci where he was detailing everything that was happening during COVID. And what you can tell from the diaries is it tells a different story from what he said publicly. And so this is where he gets into some trouble if he, again, says anything publicly. Now, I think there’s an interesting thing.

I came up with an interesting statement from somebody who talked about the fact that he just did what he did because this person says he followed standard public health protocol. If you say we aren’t sure, everyone ignores you. So this is just a comment about how public health protocol works is you can’t be unsure about where the virus came from or whether a mask works or whether a vaccine will even work. You just have to say as though you know. I think the thing with the pardon that’s interesting, so just some questions that I have in mind that I think about is did Biden actually pardon or was it an auto pen pardon? I don’t know if we know that, right? How did he get the pardon? Who thought of it? Did he himself ask for it because he was worried? And then why does it go back to 2014?

And then another question which people are asking is how can you be pardoned if there’s no crime? And then the last one is, does the pardon actually work for civil crimes? Because there is some sense that people could sue him and that the pardon wouldn’t be for civil crimes. But I think ultimately a pardon says there’s something to cover up or there’s something that was done wrong. And now not saying anything is just part of making sure that nobody can figure out exactly what it was and chain it to you and put you in jail.

Sam Rohrer:

In preparation for the program today, I did research on it. And actually they’re going all the way back to Abraham Lincoln. There are about a half a dozen different presidents who did issue preemptive pardons for people on various and sundry things. And so I want to put that out there. Joe Biden was not the first one to do it. Whether or not an auto pen did it, different matter. But nonetheless, go to this point here in the last minute. Regardless of what it is, somebody’s watching that. If there’s no accountability, you cannot prove responsibility or the failure to do it. Bottom line is public trust in people and government has definitely gone downhill since that whole COVID matter. How does the breakdown of public trust, Twila, during that pandemic, how is that reshaping the concept of health freedom over the years?

Twila Brase:

Well, it’s certainly reshaping what anybody thinks about any word that comes out of the mouth of a public health official. And I think that this is one of the silver linings of COVID, that the American people realize that we’ve got bureaucrats in an agency who want to control you and will use lies to do so. I think the thing to realize here is that the US Constitution and state constitutions, they do not have an exception for emergencies. And way back in the 1918 Spanish flu, people just went to jail or they paid a fine for refusing to wear a mask. And so this is the reality. What happened during COVID is totally unconstitutional. And people have to figure out what to do with truth and trust and rights. And they need to use COVID as the prime example to

Sam Rohrer:

Go by. All right Twila, that’s excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, I just put it out that this is not our discussion today, but that entire matter of COVID was and it did further itself under a declaration of emergency by then President Trump. Congress has given any president the ability to declare an emergency. And when that happens, you effectively suspend the Constitution and bad things happen. All right, that all is wrapped up in this whole matter. That’s not going to be our focus, but stay with us. We’re going to continue on the matter of erosion of medical privacy next.

Well, if you’re just joining us, welcome aboard. Today is our monthly focus on health freedom specifically. My guest is Twila Brase. She is the president and the co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. They have a website at cchfreedom.org. And this is a focus that we do monthly because of the significance and the impact on, frankly, every one of us, because our health freedom, our ability to make those choices for ourselves, for our family, our children, that kind of thing, it’s fundamental. And so that’s why we keep coming back here. So we’ll move on to it. So if you’re just joining us in our first segment, we examined just briefly government accountability and the breakdown of public trust, particularly as coming out of the entire COVID matter. And we started by focusing on the fact that Tony Fauci was before the Senate asking him question after question.

And he’s take the fifth so he didn’t have to answer any of those questions. And that brings up the question of accountability. Do health officials that can make decisions that impact the entire country, what if they do things that are completely violative of our freedom? Anyways, it’s on that sense. Now in this segment, I want to shift a different direction into, and it’s an equally alarming trend. And that’s the, I’ll say the quiet erosion of our personal medical information and the rise of biometric surveillance within the healthcare system. And on that, Twila and I have commented on multiple programs, but the fact of the matter is every American expects, we all expect that particularly our medical visits, the times we sit down and we talk to our doctor or have to go to the hospital or for something of that type, that personal health diagnosis conversation.

We expect the ability to keep it confidential. Just imagine if it was not. Well, that’s the whole point because things are changing. In previous programs we’ve talked about here, Twila and I have about recent actions by federal agencies demonstrating a very clear concerted and intentional, not accidental, but intentional effort to bypass traditional consent protections. For instance, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is currently pressuring major hospital systems to transmit sensitive emergency room records, including names, addresses, and diagnosis directly to a private contractor intentionally bypassing required patient consent. At the same time, biometric platforms previously restricted, but I would say perfected at airport security lines are rapidly being thrown onto and integrated into hospital record keeping systems across the nation. And when federal agencies redefine regulatory penalties to force private health systems into mass data collection enablers, which they become, and biometric tracking becomes standard in local clinics, guaranteed individual liberty is increasingly assaulted.

And with that, Twila, let’s move right into that because you’ve been following this. And I want to ask you more questions here. First of all, in what ways are federal agencies increasingly circumventing patient consent to harvest emergency room data? And what are the long-term implications of embedding biometric tracking into private medical records?

Twila Brase:

Well, so there’s just a lot going on in this area. And so because of HIPAA and the fact that HIPAA does not protect anyone’s medical record from access, we can see all the different ways that the federal government is getting access or asking for access. Even the FAA, the federal, what’s it called? Airport Federal Aviation Administration have decided that they have a public health reason to get access to medical records. So HIPAA allows government agencies to get access for a variety of reasons. And so now what you have is the Consumer Product Safety Commission ask, not asking, really, demanding that a set of hospitals, I think it’s about a hundred hospitals, provide them with this information in almost real time from the emergency room, the names, the diagnoses, et cetera, of these individuals. And they say that that will help them to provide more up to date safety announcements and alerts to the public.

And what’s interesting is how they are trying to force this to happen because they’re essentially threatening hospitals. And hospitals don’t want to do this. So the hospitals are pushing back on this mandate from this little tiny agency. But they’re being told that they will be charged with information blocking penalties through a federal law if they do not provide the information. Well, this is kind of a ridiculous claim. And one would assume that the attorneys or the hospitals would know how ridiculous this is because information blocking is all about you being able to get your medical records from your practitioners and your facilities that you go to. This is about making sure patients have their own data. Information blocking is not about giving the government data that the government wants on you. So one assumes that that will not actually happen. But the fact of the matter is they’ve asked this and it was secret until somebody told a reporter and a reporter came calling to them and then they made it public.

Sam Rohrer:

Interesting. Okay. Well, let me just move into some application on this. We’ve talked again at length in other programs. This whole thing that you’re talking about is going forward, the biometric piece, government entities requiring collection and submitting and that kind of thing. I think on another program, we had talked briefly about there’s this platform, biometric identity platform called CLEAR, that is moving from airport security gates straight into the medical record systems. And here’s the question I want to ask. What risk does this integration, that combining this, all of this that we’re talking about with data, force collection, receipt, all that kind of thing, what does this pose to individual liberty and to medical autonomy when the collection of such data is stored in we know data centers? It’s linked in being analyzed by AI, analyzed by companies such as Palantir, who I just did a recent search on.

They have a contract with basically every agency, the federal government. And all that’s been done on this last administration. This is to me, a very troubling thing. What are the risks to individual health liberty that all this poses? Well,

Twila Brase:

I feel like it’s important for your listeners to just understand that when they’re at the airport and they see CLEAR and CLEAR will let you use an iScan or a fingerprint in order to bypass the longer security lines. And you have to pay a certain fee in order to be able to do this. But there’s an entity called Retrieve Medical Holdings that said it’s going to embed CLEAR this whole biometric identity that’s being collected through the airport and airport security. It’s going to embed that into its medical passport. So it’s going to be within the patient records across the hospitals and clinics. So suddenly you did not give your fingerprints and you did not give your eye scan to your hospital or your clinic. But now they’re in contract with like Mount Sinai to do this. And so suddenly this biometric information, your body parts are going to be part of your medical record and you’re not going to have anything to say about it.

And so what we’re really talking about here is a digital net. And because you don’t have any control and HIPAA took away your control, but everybody thinks HIPAA protects them. So everybody’s not worried. But they should be worried because everything’s been digitized. HIPAA says all the data can be shared. So nobody is asking for the patient’s consent. And what’s being built is a digital net across the United States. And of course using the healthcare system, because everybody has to go to the healthcare system. The only other thing that would be maybe more like that is like the grocery stores. Something that everybody has to do, has to use is the perfect way to gather all this information and build the net. And so you have to think about, well, what if we have a beneficent administration now? I don’t think we totally have one, but let’s just say we did.

But then what if we had a non-beneficent, more and more communists? They call themselves democratic socialists, are getting put into elections. They’re actually winning primaries. They’re actually getting elected like the mayor of New York. What if it’s those people that have all this digital net access to their fingertips? And now they know everything about you. They know the genetic information that’s been put in your medical record. They have your fingerprints. They have your Iris scanned. They know your profile. They know when you’ve come in for embarrassing things. The whole thing. And they are capturing it through the medical system where everybody has to go in order to get the care that they need. And it should not happen. HIPAA really has to be rescinded. It has to be turned over. The regulation should be removed. And all of this should go back to the American people to decide who can have their data and for what purposes and specifically give consent.

Sam Rohrer:

So ladies and gentlemen, okay, we’re at this break. We could go much deeper into that subject matter. And I know there are probably multiple questions that have come to your mind by saying, wow, that data center down the street, is that all tied into that? Yes. When you go into the doctor’s office, all the things we’ve talked about, information collected, is that a concern? Yes, because HIPAA does not protect it. Uh-oh. Again, all of these things we’re in a different day and we need simply to be aware. Now we come back, another area that’s been moving and not a good direction. I’m going to call this genetic sovereignty and parental rights and aspects relative to DNA, baby DNA, which we’ve talked about.

In our previous segment, we looked at how federal agencies and private contractors and other agencies of government, it’s broad based, how they are individually and collectively expanding data collection. Specifically, we’re looking at healthcare today and health freedom. So that’s now moved into and impacting hospitals nationwide and doctor’s offices. We’ve talked about that. Now here in this segment, we’re going to address a fundamental boundary. I’m going to put that way of family integrity. And that is an area of genetic sovereignty. Put it in terms of what it is, genetic sovereignty and parental rights. Specifically here as it regards and connects to baby or newborn DNA. Now again, we’ve talked about some of this before, but this is a continuing assault. Now, biblically, we know God has designated parents, not the state, as the primary guardian of our children. Yet, state health departments across the country are routinely collecting and storing newborn baby or blood samples from newborn babies.

And they do that sometimes even in the initial routine screenings or just doing it. And while parents lawfully, legally retain the right to refuse the long-term storage and research usage of their baby’s genetic material, state systems are often creating administrative hurdles that bury or split these consent options, this legal aspect that gives parents the right to say yes or no to such things. And to make it so difficult that parents can’t do anything about it or they just flat out blatantly violate them by claiming some higher governmental purpose. Now my research, and then Twila, you can speak about this because this is up there where you live, places like Minnesota. Opting out requires navigating complex multi-step procedures long after the state already possesses the child’s DNA. So you may want to comment some more on that, but protecting the genetic privacy of our children requires vigilance and clear understanding of parental rights before entering the delivery room.

And Twila, you talked about that before, but let’s get right into it. So just in case somebody’s listening and doesn’t understand the danger of government stealing DNA data from babies, lay that out first of all. Why is that so important? Why is getting baby DNA so important? And why is that such an area of importance that parents need to protect that information?

Twila Brase:

Well, first of all, it’s important to acknowledge that every citizen is, every newborn is a newborn citizen, which means that they have the rights of every citizen in this country. And for a while as they grow up, the parents are protecting and claiming those rights on behalf of the baby. Okay. So one of the things to realize that in our country, they cannot take the DNA of adults without being charged with a crime unless the adult has been charged with the crime because it’s just illegal for the government to take our DNA and store it. And yet at birth, there are several states, there used to be more until we figured this out in 2003 and started an entire campaign against it. States still though retain the DNA of newborns for certain amounts of time. And some of them indefinitely or for 23 years or for 25 or for 27 or for 40 years.

Or indefinitely. In Michigan, they just basically say we’re keeping it forever. But you couldn’t do that to adults. But these little babies, they’re citizens and they grow up to be adults whose DNA is held by the government. So it’s just wrong on its face for the government to do this. And your listeners might wonder, well, how did the government get it? Well, newborn screening is considered the nation’s largest population-wide genetic testing program.

It’s funded by the federal government and states began passing laws to implement newborn screening. And so it’s a government program and the blood is taken from the heel within the first 48 hours, put on a special paper and shipped to the state public health laboratories. And from there, the laboratories at the state government does this genetic testing, which starts as metabolic testing, but it shows your genetic conditions if you have any. It’s not actual DNA testing. But they are moving in that direction to sequence babies, to pull out every last piece of their DNA and put it in a record at birth, taking away the genetic privacy rights of not only the newborn, but the newborn who becomes an adult who never was asked if they wanted to be sequenced and have their entire DNA made visible and in a record that perhaps the government has access to, as well as the entire healthcare system and its digital infrastructure that’s sharing it everywhere under HIPAA.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. Now in past programs when we’ve been together, I’ve asked the question, I’m going to expand upon what I just asked you here, is why would government want it? Why is that so important? And with the fact that information collected like this, finding its way into common databases, be they data centers or any of the things that have preexisted them because of a HIPAA allowing the information to flow, how could that data, the DNA, be used to harm that baby entering into adulthood, perhaps whatever? But what makes that DNA information so valuable, therefore makes it so important that parents protect it?

Twila Brase:

So newborn screening started with just one condition, PKU, in like 1965. And then they didn’t find enough babies with this critical condition. So it wasn’t worth the money. So they added on sickle cell screening and then they added on a few more things. And then they came up with a special thing called whatever. It’s a certain process that can take one drop of blood and then it can pull out any number of conditions through one drop of blood. And so as this whole thing advanced, the public health folks were like, wow, we have a treasure here. This is the blood and the DNA of every newborn born in the United States every year. So it’s about four million children a year. And they call it a national treasure. And so for them, it gives them, well, it builds an entire bureaucracy around holding all of this, but also sharing it.

So researchers come to get access to these blood spots, to do different kind of research projects. And the parents don’t have any idea that this is going on. And so it’s like an industry. March of Dimes wants to have. What likes this program really came up against us when we tried to get parents to have control over this program because they have initiatives in March of Dimes that this really works for them. It’s helpful for them. They can say that they’re funding this project or that project or who knows what else they want it for, but they’re totally in support of the taking of that and the government holding the DNA and making use of it. But this is really all about the parents and the children. And so nobody knows that this is a state government program that the state is doing. The state is holding it.

The state is sharing it and doing what they want with it. And yet they couldn’t do that with an adult, but all these babies become adults. And in Indiana, after a press release that we did on it, a reporter in Indiana went to figure out what was happening in Indiana and found 666 banker boxes filled with the newborn screening cards of about 23 million people in Indiana. And so they changed the law a bit, but they kept all of those 66 banker boxes and said that they would allow researchers to have access to those. But in the future, they would actually have to get permission from the parents for any future baby’s born.

Sam Rohrer:

See, that’s very interesting. And ladies and gentlemen, I just did some quick research here thinking in terms of, okay, if baby DNA is put in the hands of government and there’s not something specifically preventing third party access to it, which there is not, and I’m actually looking at a number of things here right now, what kind of negative things could occur? Well, here’s some. One right now, there is no federal law that prevents this from happening. But when that information is known, a person’s desire to get life insurance or disability insurance or long-term care insurance may be prohibited because the company now says, “You’re not a good risk.” Hiring and firing aspects, wellness programs, access to that, that’s a problem. Medical and diagnostic harms. I’m looking down through the list. There are many things where if it’s known, if a DNA thing is somebody says, “Well, that’s a problem.” Well, it may be the basis to deny healthcare in a government system that’s increasingly like it is.

We’re not going to spend any money on you because you don’t meet our criteria. Actually, it’s showing up in law enforcement and forensic applications. Because now if you have somebody’s DNA, they’re actually to the point of actually predicting who you may become. You may become a bad person. So we’re going to allow this information to prohibit things along the way for you. I just laid out a few. Do a quick search. You’ll find the things that I just shared. That’s why the obtaining of DNA is so valuable for those who would like to be in control and so dangerous for those of us to give up that which is a role marker of who we are. Leave it back in just a moment.

Well, as we move now into our final segment, just one more time, I wanted to give you the website for my special guest today, returning guest. We’ve actually done these monthly programs for a number of years now. But Twila Brase, she leads the Citizens Council for Health Freedom and their website is cchfreedom.org, CCH Citizens Council HealthFreedom, cchfreedom.org, and a lot of information that you can find there. Twila, as we enter into this final segment, it’s interesting that the one minute information spot that you produced, we just heard in the break for those who were listening. And it actually ties right in with where I kind of want to go and an aspect of this final segment because today we’ve covered, well, we talked a little bit about federal oversight, mass data collection. We talked about the importance of protecting parental rights over the matter of genetic privacy, DNA.

And we’ve done more on that. I mean, beyond that, but I want to conclude with today’s focus by looking at the broader picture of federal healthcare spending, agency restructuring and all of that because that’s a bigger issue as well. But you commented on some multi-billion dollar things that were just happening, Dr. Oz, and you can talk about that a little bit more. But there was great hope, Twila, you had hope, I had hope, that in a second Trump administration, that smaller government, less intrusive government policies, and greater individual freedom would result. The logical hope. Yet in reality, nearly everything that we’ve talked about today are frankly more of the same from my perspective that we’ve witnessed for decades under what I would describe as the uni party, because I personally think that we have a uni party in DC that routinely shifts from one party to another.

But at the end of the day, well, individual freedom continues to shrink. The federal debt continues to grow and the political blame and rhetoric just changes every four years from blaming one party to another or from one president to another. Now, here’s my question. How would you evaluate where we honestly are today in regard to health freedom and where our health freedom is headed? That trend line. Speak to that and put into it anything else that you think needs to be mentioned here before we close the program that we haven’t yet touched upon.

Twila Brase:

So if you want to think about a graph of where healthcare is going, there’s this tiny, thin line that is going toward freedom. It’s going towards cash-based everything. It’s going toward affordability. It’s going toward healthcare sharing and crowd health and reference-based pricing and all of these things that will bring the prices down. But the very large line continues to go towards socialism and socialized medicine and more government control. But we can be happy that that little line is there and that little line has gotten a little thicker over time. And I think as the rationing just increases, particularly in Medicare and particularly in Medicare advantage or disadvantage as I called it in that spot, I think there will be a greater call for a solution. I just talked to an insurance agent who said that he has people crying in his office because they can’t afford the deductible.

And I said, no. What they really can’t afford is they can’t afford the premium because if the premium were for a real health insurance policy, it would be very affordable. It would be only for catastrophic and insurable events. It would be very affordable and they would have money for whatever that deductible would be. But now they’re paying the whole deductible away in these huge premium costs so that they have no money to actually pay for care when they need it. So there is a change coming and our 3C solution of cash, catastrophic coverage and charity is where we want to take the entire nation. We want the vision of the nation to move away from the devastation of today to the bright future of reality of tomorrow that can happen when we get all the third party payment out and we have real health insurance and all the prices come down to the cash level and charity isn’t even needed as much because all the prices are down.

That’s where we need to go. That’s totally possible. It’s totally simple. All the payers don’t want. Trump administration probably doesn’t even acknowledge it, even though we have talked about it in letters to the Trump administration. And I will say that even though other people had hope with the Trump administration, as soon as he chose Oz, and I sent Trump a letter and said, “Don’t choose Oz,” as soon as he chose Oz, I knew that Oz, who wants Medicare Advantage for All at an affordable 20% payroll tax, that’s what he wrote in a letter in June 2020, I knew that we would head more towards socialism than we would head towards freedom, but that doesn’t mean that freedom cannot happen. And a good thing that the Trump administration just did is they took away most of the granting ability from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

This is an agency that does research and does quality metrics to move healthcare towards the socialized system that they want it to go for. And really the Trump administration just announced on July 15th that they were cutting more than half of the grant funds that were coming out of that agency. And that is a really good move. So there are some really good things that are happening. The trajectory is one way, but as I said, that little tiny trajectory is getting thicker. More doctors are leaving and going into private practice. More patients are choosing cash. So it’s an interesting time in healthcare, but we have to move it towards freedom and not let it be moved towards socialism like these Democrat socialists who want a single payer socialized system for all, which will just mean anyone who’s old, anyone who’s too young, anyone who’s too sick, there are going to be no care for you.

That’s where they’re going.

Sam Rohrer:

Yep. And again, underscoring what you’re saying is that even in the midst of the current administration, one part is a move towards the right direction, but another move like Dr. Oz and other things, their surveillance and everything else moves us in the exact opposite direction. It just makes it more important than ever that individuals, those who are listening to the program today and everything that you’re doing, Twila, telling people you’ve got to think it out for yourself. Don’t have much time left, but again, just give the benefit. Although it should be obvious, why working out and talking to your physicians so forth about paying cash as an example, why that is so effective?

Twila Brase:

If you want freedom, you have to move towards cash. You have to move towards first party payment where you’re in charge, you have all the dollars, and you’re just getting a catastrophic coverage policy there for the rare time that something would really happen to you. And so it’s so important to tell them, and they want to be free, just like you want to be free. And there is freedom out there. And the more that they hear about it, the more that you tell them the stories of what’s possible. Tell them about the surgery center of Oklahoma who their surgeries are like 90% cheaper than the hospital up the street. Tell them the benefits of cash and tell them that you just want them to move because you want freedom. And make sure that you tell them you don’t want ambient listening in the exam room.

You do not want the entire conversation recorded. We have a new ambient listening door hanger that you can hang outside the door or hand to the doctor when they come in with their recording device and say, “No, no, no. No, you don’t get to put my entire conversation

Into an AI system and into a data system. Every word that I say, no, this is a private conversation between you and me, doctor.” Tell them that. It gives them the power to say no to the corporation who’s telling them, “Yes, you have to record the whole conversation.” Give them the power to do the right thing. When you stand up, they will stand up with

Sam Rohrer:

You. And they’re Twila Brase, we’re at the end of the program. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, go to her website, cchfreedom.org, because all the things she just talked about, you can find there in more information, practical, effective, logical. They make good sense. Go ahead and do that. Well, thanks for being with us today. And Lord willing, I’ll be back here tomorrow. David knew as we look at something constitutional and related to American history tomorrow.