What happens when genetic records begin at birth

Well, hello, everyone, and welcome to the 10 Penny Files.

I'm your host, Dr. Sherry Ten Penny. Here on the 10 Penny Files, we dive into vital and

often controversial discussions on topics that will challenge what you've been told and

reveal what's been hidden. These compelling conversations will make you think, spark

debate, and hopefully inspire you to action. Join me here each day at 3 p.m. Eastern Time

to hear from authors and documentary filmmakers who have something important to say that have

often been censored or silenced. Today's conversation is with my guest, Child Welfare Activist,

Attorney, and co-founder for Stanford Health Freedom, Leah Wilson. And she is also the author

of an upcoming book, Reclaim Vitality, a Guide to Exit Conventional Medicine, and Live Naturally.

However, she's not here to talk about her book today. We're going to do that in a later date.

I invite her to be on the show because I heard her presentation at the Healing for the Age's

Conference, Dr. Brian Artis's Conference, in October of 2025. And her topic was from margin

to mainstream. It was one of the most jaw-dropping presentations I think I have ever heard.

And I ask her to join me here today on the 10 Penny Files to share this information with you to

expose the next battle of what is before us about our children, about humanity, and it is

absolutely huge. So, Leah, welcome so much to the 10 Penny Files. And thank you for joining us

here today. It's always a pleasure to be with you, Dr. 10 Penny. Thank you for having me.

It's great. It'll be good. So, let's dig right in. We're hearing that the NIH wants to add full

genome sequencing to newborn screening. What is full genome sequencing, and what does it actually

mean in practice? Yeah, so genome sequencing means that you are looking at the DNA of a child.

What genes exist? Where are the genetic markers? How do they differ from the reference genome,

which is a genome that is used to determine if yours is different? And it's just a single genome

that they picked out that they compare everyone else's against. And the reason why this is startling

is simply because the bio-surveillance system that is in the works will be wildly incomplete without

this, but very dangerous with this type of information. Because you and I both know that getting people

to comply with processes, medical processes like this at day one of life, you know, within that 24

to 48 hour mark of a newborn, that is one of the most vulnerable times in a mother's journey,

in a child's life, and taking this type of information and using it for profit. And then

who knows how else for the rest of that child's life is an extremely powerful tool for those that

hold it? Well, with the advent of testings like 23andMe and Ancestry.com, many people will think that

this is a great idea. The more I know about my genes and how my genes might affect me,

is so much better. And people will think this is a really great idea to find out about the genetic

markers in their children from the time they're born. Why is that not true?

That's the problem, is because there's a lie built into that, saying, well, this knowledge is

knowledge that we need for your child to live a long, healthy life. We don't know. We don't know

what these genes ultimately mean for a child, because there's only three, three disorders that

identified where the medical community says that it's 100% penetrant. Penetrant means that

this, the presence of this gene will end up in definitively the presentation of a certain disease

or dysfunction. And that's Tessac's dwarfism and Huntington's disease. Outside of that, if you have

the gene, it is unknown whether or not it will ever lead to complications. And if it does lead

to complications, will it be mild, moderate or severe? So this knowing gives way too much weight

to the unknown. I mean, if you look at the human genome project, which I'm sure you're familiar with,

it wildly underperformed. You know, we expected to get out on the other side of the multiple years

of studying this and billions of dollars poured into the human genome project knowing the presence

of A, B, and C gene always leads to E, F, and G. And that's just not what we saw. We saw that

the presence of genes is somewhere between three and 10% determinative and that the environment

is what is determinative in the expression of genes. So yes, even though knowledge is power,

we all agree on that. But taking one of the biggest lies of all times that you are what your

genes are in acting like this is the knowledge that parents needs is predatory. I mean, it's

praying on a vulnerable time in that mother's life and convincing them that their child needs

highly experimental intervention in order to survive. I mean, you probably remember back to the

future. I think it was back to the future too when Doc Brown warns Marty not to interact with the

future self. He says, don't do it. It's too there's too many problems. It'll cause too many

problems because it is undetermined by us. And it so it's like, why are we ignoring that it's not

our job to go into the future and predict things and change our future today based on a set of unknowns.

And I don't know if that resonates with you, but I would hate to see mothers put an identity

and a ceiling on their children at day one of life because of the presence of a gene.

Yeah, absolutely. And what you said was so key that even if you have a genetic indication or

genetic inclination to something, it's the epigenetics that determine whether or not that gene

becomes activated, epigenetics, meaning the diet, the environment, the vaccines that you get,

the things that you're all exposed to. We'll say whether or not that gene manifests into something.

And even more key of what you already said was will that be mild, moderate, or severe?

And yet, you know, you're I can just see it now. You know, doctors will walk in the room and go,

your baby has this disease in the future. We've got to do something intercept with this right now.

And then the biggest problem is that the DNA sequencing, the treatment for it is this gene,

editing gene therapy. Talk about that a little bit.

Yeah, and I just want to help, help hit that idea home of epigenetics because if you take

two identical twins, so genetically identical twins and separate them at birth,

the studies have shown that if you follow them through life, some things are the same,

like their hair color, their eye color, their height, but not their health. And their health was

determined by two primary things and that's who raised them and how they lived. And you know,

we all have this inclination that no, it really is true. Genetics are determinative because

obesity runs in my family or diabetes runs in my family or, you know, and so yes, that is true

that who raises you matters and how you live matters, but it's not the presence of the gene by itself.

And depending on your world view, you know, as for me and my family, we see the body is always

doing the right thing at the right time. And that presence of that quote unquote gene mutation

could be a smart adaptation that is working to the benefit of that child. And then to try to go and

leap over that and fix it is you know, so there's just there are different ways to look at this.

And for moms to be funneled into a single way that's missing a big part of the story is

is startling. So you are asking about the gene therapies, is that right? Yeah. So when I think of

gene therapy, you know, you have to acknowledge that none of us are currently strangers to gene

therapy because of mRNA. Because who celebrated the day that the FDA issued the EUA for the

mRNA COVID-vax? It wasn't the vaccine industry that celebrated. It was the gene therapy industry.

They were holding a conference when that announcement was made and from stage, they said,

this is a watershed moment for our industry. You know, this was a turning point that now we had a

global roll out of gene therapy. And what have we seen since then? We have seen an enormous fall

out in heart health, brain health, turbo cancers, fertility issues. And we haven't even been able to

calculate the harm from that public experiment yet. So it's looking at, okay, so we know what gene

therapy is and how powerful it is. And then to apply that technology to a healthy newborn that

does not yet have symptoms is wildly risky. And have you ever heard of Jesse Gelsinger?

Maybe. So he is a young man who was a participant in a safety trial for gene therapy when he was in

his late teens. And the reason why he entered this gene therapy safety trial was because he had a very

mild form of an ammonia processing disorder. So he couldn't process the protein properly,

which made his ammonia build up if he wasn't taking nitrogen scavengers, right? So it was

his Jesse's disorder was being completely managed by diet and nitrogen scavengers. And he lived

a normal life outside of that. And they approached him and said, Jesse, you can save newborns that are

going to be born with the same genetic disorder you have if you come participate in the safety trial.

And it's a gene therapy and the side effects would be flu-like symptoms. But since you've survived

the flu before, we think you'll be just fine. And so Jesse flew from Arizona to Pennsylvania to

participate in this trial. And four days later, he was gone. And his death back in the 90s shocked

the gene therapy community to the point that human trials were paused for 20 years after Jesse's death.

And Jesse's family was not told that the monkeys in the trials of his gene therapy had either

passed away or had to be euthanized. No, they weren't given that sort of information before.

They agreed to the safety trial to save other newborns. And I think the industry had a dramatic

but appropriate response when they were shocked by his death. And fast forward to today with the

rise in technology and AI and screening. And we are now ignoring deaths. I mean, there have been

five six pediatric deaths in 2025 alone. But yet we're pushing gene therapy and cell therapy as

cures. I mean, that's that's how you're hearing it in the news is that we now have gene and

cell therapy to cure these rare genetic diseases. But they aren't mentioning that these quote-unquote

cures are highly experimental and that there's no long term, no long term safety or efficacy data

on these interventions that are being given to our youngest family members.

You know, when they first started talking about the mRNA, the COVID Jabs,

calling them gene therapy, when they first started talking about that, that always disturbed me.

I mean, just the term gene therapy because when you think about therapy,

therapy is generally something that's good for you. It's like physical therapy, speech therapy,

you know, art therapy, you know, all those different things. So that really bothered me.

And it bothered me for a long time. So I started looking into that. And I found out and I actually

wrote about this on my sub-stack on dr10penny.substack.com. It was a few months ago now that I put that I

published this article. And it actually started in the the term gene therapy actually started in the

late 1800s when they were they were actually starting to have their first genetic conferences.

And they were actually these genetic conferences that they were having was actually for plants

because they were, you know, it was like that the yellow and blue plant makes a green plant,

you know, and they were looking at when they would breathe these different plants. And they were

talking about genetic modification of these plants because of being able to breed them in a certain

way to end up with a certain outcome. Well, then they started talking about genetic modification

of humans and they started doing things during that time. It was like in the late 1800s, early 1900s

about genetic modification of humans. And it was met by a lot of resistance that people didn't

like that term because what are we going to do? We're going to genetically modify humans. So they

changed the term to gene therapy because that was more widely accepted. And as instead of saying

genetic modification of humans, we will now call it gene therapy because it's softer and it became

more widely accepted. But that's the, and from my research, the original things that I found

about that, and it was just made it even more creepy to think now that this is like in what you

just said that this was like a watershed moment. You know, another thing that I think is a watershed

moment, I remember you talking about at the age conference because we're talking about getting

mothers at the most vulnerable time, is this big project that they're going to do in Florida,

that they're going to test like three. Tell us what, tell us about that because

that just resonated in my head. I was like, oh my gosh.

Yeah. And the whole gene therapy notion is, it's important to recognize that gene therapy

fits squarely within biotech, which is like the future of pharmaceuticals. It is the future of

medicine. And what is biotech? It's putting, it's biology with technology. It's putting technology

in your biology. You know, people want to hear about, they don't, I don't know if you want to

hear about, I shouldn't say it that way. But people are, they're mind blown by transhumanism agendas

and things of this nature. But if you look at the impetus of biotech, it is fixing or overtaking

your human biology with man's technology. And it's, it's a very important thing to appreciate

because that genetic modification will always have systemic and widespread effects. I mean,

it's not, they pretend like they can go in, just like they did with vaccines, Dr. Tenpinny.

You know, they focused on achieving their goal of snuffing out the symptoms of measles

without even acknowledging the unintended effects. So if you look at quote unquote genetic

modification through gene therapy transfusions, are they even looking at or measuring or

acknowledging the offmark effects of those genes that are also changed that were not the intention

of that genetic therapy? Are they reporting on that? Are they looking at which genes are altered

or just simply measuring if the one that they wanted to change was changed? And there are some

distinctions between the gene and cell therapies with, you know, which ones go into the liver to train

genes to change one by one and which ones fix it immediately. And it's really scientific

imagination that things that they're claiming to do with these technologies. I mean, it's literally

their imagination. There's no proof in the pudding yet. And that's what we need people to know is that

if you are participating in the screenings that lead to these types of things, you need to note what

what it is you're participating in, that it's not a cure. It's an experiment.

The other thing is that gene therapy, we have this, again, this imagination that it's like laser

focus that we want to change this gene and we inject this, it's going to go right there like a

magnet. It's just going to go right to that thing, which is just a big lie. It doesn't happen that way.

Right. And do we know if it happens that way, even if that's what they're intending because it

hasn't been measured yet. I mean, there haven't been the long-term surveys and studies done, but

the Florida Sunshine Genetics Act. So how is the industry going to create the population that

is going to utilize all these biotech solutions, all these gene therapy solutions that have

big price tags. I mean, the price tag of Zolgenzma, which is the therapy recommended for a positive

spinal muscular atrophy screen at birth, is $2.1 million for a single shot. One shot, 2.1 million

covered by Medicare, Medicaid, CMS. So you have to think, okay, well, what is going to be the

funnel into the use of these products? And it's the newborn screening. But the newborn screening

alone, it's not enough. So they're looking to transform the newborn screening into

whole genome sequencing. And what that looks like is instead of just taking a few biomarkers

that mostly, most of the things on the genetic screening list or the newborn screening list,

I apologize, are for biomarkers that are maybe metabolic dysfunctions that have early treatments.

But if you expand that into the whole genome sequencing to look at genetic things that can,

quote, unquote, be fixed, you're looking at adding like 700 markers to a newborn screen to see

what all is wrong with your healthy newborn. And when we saw this start to roll out, it really

sparked my attention when the funding, all these grants started being reallocated away from

gene therapy and directly to newborn screening. So it's like, oh, so there is a connection here.

There's a partnership here between these gene therapies and the newborn screening. And then we

started seeing this pilot program that was being pushed by NIH to put whole genome sequencing

in the newborn screening program to fix all the rare genetic conditions.

So Florida is the first state to pass the Sunshine Genetics Act to fund whole genome sequencing

in newborn screening. So if you're in the state of Florida, they're doing this through what

Florida State University, I believe that's the university that's heading it up. And they're

going to roll it out through what hospital systems across the state. You might be offered

whole genome sequencing for your newborn screen in Florida, even today or tomorrow. And the question

how are they maintaining informed consent of what this means for that mother and that child?

And what are the conversations that are happening before birth or after a positive screen?

Because this the implications are great in rolling this out in the state of Florida shows that

there is a will and a way to make this the norm for pediatric care. The NIH is rolling it out

in two hospital systems per state as we speak. So that's the NIH fund that was issued in October

was to take two hospital systems across the 50 states within each state to put whole genome

sequencing as an option with newborn screening. If I remember right and correct me if I'm wrong,

that they were going to test 300,000 babies, but it wasn't really to find what they found in their

DNA. It was how readily would mothers agree to this testing? Did I remember that correctly from

your presentation? Yes, I did use that number in Florida that there was that their goal was to

to get 300,000 mothers to consent to this whole genome sequencing as a part of their newborn

screening. You know, the newborn screening if the listeners aren't familiar is the little heel prick

at 24 hours old, which I have a funny story, not funny story, but an interesting story about that

24 hour mark too, because so they're going to do the heel prick not before 24 hours, but between

24 and 48 to get the drops of blood and send it into the public health lab to see if your child has

any of these metabolic disorders that can be helped earlier in life. So now they want and that's

mandatory. That's mandatory. You have to know your right to opt out of it if you don't want to

participate in it, but this whole genome sequencing supposedly is going to be opt-in, but it's with

the newborn screening program. And so saying we're going to have 300,000 mothers participate in

what we're watching for is why the moms do or do not trust this. They want to measure the mothers

trust in the whole genome sequencing and in this program so that they can build the program

responsive to the mom's willingness to participate. So instead of looking at how does a family benefit,

what are the risks? How many people end up having a positive screen and needing a treatment and

did the treatment help? Like you think that those would be the things that are being measured in a

pilot program, not the trust of a mother. It reminds me of the vaccine hesitancy research that was

funded by our federal government for years. 100% I was just thinking that as you were saying it,

you know, because they would do all these vaccine hesitancy and then they would try to figure out

what was the best language? What was the best manipulation? Was it a carrot or a stick approach,

you know, to the mothers to get them to comply with the vaccine stuff? And then the other thing that

is so frightening about that, not only are they trying to figure out ways to best manipulate mothers

into the system, but where does that DNA go? Who houses it? What kind of what happens? Who controls it?

Who owns that DNA once it is now in a federal database? Well, that's one of the biggest

reason Stanford Health Freedom opposes putting whole genome sequencing and newborn screening

is because currently the newborn screen data goes to your state public health lab, right?

And the public health labs operate under a patchwork of laws depending on your state. But the genomic

data, what they're supporting and funding is the creation of a central national database so that

now a newborn's genome would be stored at the federal level with every other American baby,

which in the intent, even in the law that's a, you know, on Congress's desk right now,

so the bill that's on their desk, it says that they will track long-term health outcomes and

compliance and that part of the funds will go to following up with mothers on the compliance

of the positive, positive screens. And so if that information is being held in a central database,

what can it eventually be connected to? I mean, we're all concerned about digital ID.

I don't know my genome right now. So certainly Google and the federal government don't know it,

but if we start this type of screen and we centralize it in a database, then

the federalized genomic surveillance system would start at day one of life. And even bigger,

let's say our government never weaponizes the data. Let's say our government's completely

trustworthy and they defend the database and they keep it secure. It could be a target for US

enemies. I mean, what is more vulnerable and sensitive and personal than your genome in the

surveillance and security risks that would come along with that? I mean, can you imagine one of our

enemies getting a hold of that and saying, look, we have the greatest positive screens for this

disease or this vulnerability in the state of Michigan. So we could target Michigan with this or

target Iowa with that. And to have that sort of information that is centralized is completely

ripe for abuse, not only by our own government and whatever they might be able to use it for,

but by our foreign enemies. And China is leading the way in this global genomics race.

So we've spent years fighting China's harmful agendas and protecting ourselves from China's

harmful agendas. And now we're signing up to participate in China's own genomics race.

Oh, this is so deep and we've got more to go and more to cover, but for right now,

I think everybody needs to take a deep breath. And we're going to take a short break.

So hold that thought, Leo. We're going to hear from our sponsors for America Out Loud.News.

America Loud talk radio plays the 10 penny files on iHeartRadio Network daily at 3 p.m. Eastern.

You can also listen from the America Loud.News media player anywhere in the world. And if you've missed

any of these great conversations that we've been having, since we've started the 10 penny files,

you can also find them on Spotify, Pandora, Apple, TuneIn, iHeart Virtual Studio,

and on many other platforms, including the dr10pony.com. My platform, and you just click on this

substack on the podcast tab, and it will open right up for you. So that is another place, and we

also play them every, we also post them every day on our substack. Because there are so many

great books, so many documentaries, and so little time to read and watch. We are hoping that

this show will bring you highlights of conversations and ideas that you're not familiar with,

and we'll bring you new, new understanding to books that you probably wouldn't just pull off

the shelf as you walked in the door. So we're going to hear right now from our sponsors that

keep the 10 penny files online and keep iHeart, keep the America Out Loud.News online.

Sit tight. We have more conversation that's coming about this horrible new genomic testing

with our good friend, Leah Wilson, who's the co-founder of Stanford Health Freedom. We will be

right back. There are an awful lot of people that are affiliates for Mike Lindell, because we all

really appreciate what he does for this country. We appreciate the hard work that he does, and we

appreciate his products. He has more than 200 products in his store, everything from pillowcases

and comforters to doggie beds. So my pillow is a great place to shop for just about anything

that you want, and if you use our affiliate code DRT that helps us, that can benefit us, that helps

Mike Lindell, and you'll get a great product for anybody that you're shopping for. Zero Light

is a detox spray. We work specifically with a company called Touchstone Essentials. They are an

incredible company. We've been working with them now for several years, and Zero Light is a mineral

that goes through your body like a one-way basket. It will clean out heavy metals such as arsenic

and mercury, aluminum, cadmium, and it hooks on to those metals from a one-way perspective.

So once it's bound, it goes out through your urine or your stools, and doesn't get

re-deposited in other places. Go to dr10penny.com forward slash detox to get your first bottle of

zelite spray for $50 off. We'll get ready, my fellow Americans. July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

AmericaOut Loud.News in partnership with Clear and the Wellness Company invites you to

Nashville, Tennessee for a red, white, and blue celebration you'll never forget. We're

saluted 250 years of America and 10 incredible years of America Out Loud news. Stand in strong

for truth justice and the nation we all love. Three days of high impact speakers,

powerhouse voices delivering dynamic, unforgettable insights that will fire up your Patriot Spirit.

And on July 4th, embrace yourself because you'll experience America's most explosive

fireworks show lighting up downtown Nashville and pure patriotic glory. You can reserve your

spot with early bird pricing right now at americaout Loud.News forward slash Nashville.

It's America Out Loud news 2510 and Nashville even.

I'm Dr. Kelly Victory with the Wellness Company and I know this personally. I exercised

a to healthy diet and had no symptoms when a routine mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis.

It revealed a hard truth. Even healthy people can get cancer and much of modern medicine is

reactive, not preventative. So I began asking a different question. What can we do daily to support

the body before something goes wrong? That question led me to formulate shield. Shield is a two-part

nutraceutical system designed to support immune balance, antioxidant defense, and cellular health.

A chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels containing medicinal mushrooms, turmeric, green tea extract,

olive leaf, burberine, and black seed oil. Prevention is power. Visit twc.health slash out loud

and use code out loud for an exclusive discount. We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands,

brushing our teeth and washing our nose. Well, wait, we wash our nose. Yes, the number one place

where bacteria, viruses, and pollen enter the body is through the nose. So the average person

breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and irritants

to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear.

That is clear. XLEAR. Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol,

an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean,

not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose. Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion,

opens your airway, and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong.

Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's x-al-e-a-r.com. Protect yourself from

the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family today.

I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sproutbook. I want to share something that's powerful. You can

grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop. Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary

seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer.

Just seeds, water, for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient-dense packed greens

anywhere. City apartments, dorm rooms, off-the-grid cabins. In a time when food prices are rising,

Sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind. Join the self-reliance revolution.

Go to thesproutingcompany.com. Slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.

During COVID, we got educated on the power of natural virus protection and immune boosting,

using vitamins A, C, D, zinc, and quercetin. The problem? Getting them at the right dosage from

truly natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Enter the daily V-stack.

Using breakthrough cellular absorption technology, we put those vitamins together and supercharged

them with a complete multi-mineral complex. The daily V-stack is basically an oral IV of six

products all in one at an affordable price. Go to chemicalfreebody.com, forward slash out loud today,

get the daily V-stack, protect yourself, boost your immune system, and save 20% on your

first order. Are you looking for a healthy snacks? But you've had enough of all the sweet,

sugary energy bars? Good news. There's new bars to try. That savory crunchy and packed with

goodness. Bear bars are based just on six simple natural ingredients, a certified organic

veggie nut and seed bar. That's low temp dried, never baked or fried. Bear bars are plant-based,

gluten-free, and loaded with nutrients and protein. Head over to bearbar.com slash out loud and get

the exclusive discount just for America out loud listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R dot com forward slash

out loud. Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness company's contagion emergency kit,

designed by Dr. Peter McCullough, get life-saving medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,

plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use. Order now by going to TWC.gov forward slash

out loud and use code out loud for $65 off your first order plus free shipping.

We'll welcome back everyone. Today we're talking with Leo Wilson, the co-founder of Stanford Health

Freedom, about her discovery of NIH's Fighting Plan to add full genomic sequencing to newborn

screening. Let me tell you a little bit more about Leo Wilson. She's the executive director and

co-founder for Stanford Health Freedom. She's an attorney, child-wilfer advocate,

an expert on medical mandates and parental rights. Stanford Health Freedom is a premier political

activist organization and is currently suing the CDC in a historic case, which we will get to in

just a few more minutes. She lives in Indiana with her husband, Dr. Nick Wilson, a natural health

physician, radio host, and USA Olympic wellness advisor. So, Leo, why is this ship in newborn

screening such a really going to put the whole thing is about long-term medical control.

I'm very, very concerned about who owns this DNA and how it can be monetized and how it can

never be fully anonymous. And I'm also concerned, I know this is a two-part question, so I'm concerned

about that anonymity, but you mentioned at the first part of the show about that they're going

to be following the sequencing, you know, following what happens. I'm wondering what happens if your

newborn comes up with an adverse finding of this big screening that they do and they recommend a

$2.1 million gene therapy. What happens if parents say no thank you? I don't want to do that.

So, who owns it? How do they monetize it? What happens if they refuse the therapy?

So, I mean, the newborn DNA has been a hot commodity for decades. I mean, newborn screening

is 60 years old. I think that was as of this year. And that DNA has been stored at the state level,

and there's been questions for a very long time about who is bought and sold to and who is allowed

to do, quote-unquote, public health research on this. But what we're going to see with this shift,

with the whole genome sequencing, is for this data to cross state lines from the outset,

for it to be all 50 states in one single database, which some, I'm sure a lot of your audiences

concerned about the real ID and the rise of digital ID, how would this affect the completion

of that profile and how that profile on that person can be used if we have a central database

that can be connected to something like a digital ID or a real ID. And we don't know who ultimately

will get their hands on that data. I mean, the ownership of health data is so nebulous. People

oftentimes think that HIPAA is protecting us and is making sure that our data is safe if it's

health data. And sadly, it's quite the opposite. I mean, the P and HIPAA stands for portability.

And we've shown people, our lawmakers and our advocates, these graphs that were

published post-COVID about what happens to public health data. Newborn screening is right in

the middle of that. You know, this robust amount of public health data that goes out to research

institutions and public health labs and to the DMVs and child protective in the schools and

all these different agencies and institutions that don't even have anything to do with the

government. I mean, they're simply justifying the cell of this data for public health research

to the benefit of the public. So having DNA in a central database, it cannot be de-identified.

It's personal information. Like, how do you take the identity out of a person's DNA?

Well, you know, Twyla Braze is a regular on this show and she's been a regular on my podcast

for the last couple of years. And she's, you know, the lead campaigner against the real ID that

we need to do just because that is the next, the final step before the central bank digital currency

and then programmable currency. And now we're going to wrap it into our genetics. And she was,

when I first met her years ago, she was really talking then about the problems with the newborn

screening and the heel stick and who owns that little drop of blood once it goes in there. So like

you said, this has been going on for a really long time. I'm wondering how the results of these

tests could, could, could affect a child in later life like education, employment, medical care.

I mean, if you're, if they say, well, they're going to end up with this really deadly disease later

and we don't have money in the system to care for Huntington's Korea or whatever it turns out to be,

maybe it would just be good right now if we just euthanize your baby. Is that even like going to be

on the on the record on the plate for options for parents? I mean, the imagination can only tell us how

all this could be weaponized or abused. And that's why I think it's important for us to understand

that the benefit, you know, what you said at the beginning of the show is, well, Leah, don't you

want to know? Shouldn't we just at least know? And it's like the benefit of that knowing with the

tools that we have is so low in the risk of harvesting that data and having that data stored

at a central level is so high, not just the data being out there, but the solutions they're

going to give you, which is begs the question of, will declining gene editing your healthy newborn

be looked at the same as declining chemotherapy for a pediatric patient or a child with a cancer

diagnosis? We get calls at same for health freedom all the time about medical kidnapping because the

mother didn't trust the medical intervention that was recommended to her in response to a horrible

diagnosis or a medical event. And so she wanted to go explore other routes and that, you know,

the medical system takes that very seriously that they see the medical approach and the medical

fix as the only option and anything outside of it as negligence. So we're multiplying opportunities

for that type of disagreement between the industry and the parent by doing whole genome sequencing

of a healthy newborn. You know, we're not talking about a languishing newborn that we're trying to

get to the bottom of something or they're failing to thrive. We're talking about a healthy newborn

that the mother should simply nurse and hold and nurture and take home and plan on things going,

well, that's who we're talking about. And then giving a grave diagnosis and saying, well, now the

solution is to edit their genes, what will happen when mom opts out? What will the hubris be of the

medical industry of the scientific community to say that there is no other option?

Wow, this is just so evil. I mean, when I first heard you talking about this at the age of

this conference, I was just jaw dropped and I knew that we needed to get this information out to

a much broader level. When you are, let's say that they, they, a mother opts in because she

is naive to the long term potential consequences of what this could be and she's like, well, yeah,

I'd like to know my baby's genetics. Once it's in that database, is there any way of getting it out

or is it in there forever? Well, that's a good question. And those are answers we don't yet have

because this is just now being funded. So the database is being funded by Congress right now,

the bill is on their desk. And if this goes into that federal database, once that information is

there, and we don't know exactly who I will have access to it, a lot of times these contracts

are written in ways that say that the information can be utilized for public health purposes. You

know, that's kind of a catch all bucket to say that we can study the population in order to

improve the health outcomes of the population. And that's where it gets really sticky is because

once that information leaves you and you can sent for it to leave you and for it to be used for

quote unquote public health purposes, it's, we can't track it down everywhere that it is. You know,

it's not you're incapable of knowing who all has access to information and for what purposes.

So taking it back could be could be a logistical capability. I mean, you could say, okay, I want this

removed. I want the file. I want to opt out because there are bills that say we have to have

the ability to take our data back. You know, states are passing those types of laws even for health

data. But what does that actually mean? Taking it back out of a single database because you can't

make information disappear once it's out there, especially when we know that this is extremely

valuable information for the development of new new medical products for the research on our

population to see what our greatest vulnerabilities are. It's the type of information that is extremely

rich and extremely valuable, but also very personal. So I would just challenge moms to when you're

presented with this option that any option for any type of screening, not just hold you know,

I'm sequencing that you read through the consent to see where the information will go and how it

can be used because when there's broad language in there, such as for public health purposes or for

the further ends of care, you've really lost control in any say of that data. So we would just

encourage you to A, before you do a screen, know how the screen is going to be used and B,

know what possible benefit could the screen be for you and your child because if on the other end

of that positive screen, you're not going to want their solutions, then I would suggest you don't

scream because if you don't want their solutions, then what value is the information to you other

than to mess with your expectations and to manifest things. I mean, manifest not in not in a weird

sense, but the mind is powerful and what you expect to happen happens. Have you ever heard of this

nocebo effect experiment where they took individuals who were going to be giving chemotherapy and

there were a subset of these individuals who were not qualified for chemotherapy. So they just

received saline instead, but they were told in advance, you know, you're going to receive this

transfusion and you will most likely have hair loss vomiting and mouth sores. That's the side

effects. Well, the cohort that received the saline solution still experienced the hair loss,

the vomiting and the mouth sores because that is what they were expecting to experience. And

that's the power of getting news like this for your healthy newborn at day one of life.

Wow, that is so powerful. It's sort of like when they wanted to make a bracket gene testing,

you know, for whether or not you were predicted for breast cancer, which it's really not and that's

a completely different different topic and discussion. But if you turned out to be positive,

it would just be like, do I have a ticking time bomb sitting on my chest and maybe I need to get

rid of both of my breasts just because this might happen to one out of eight women down the road.

Am I the one? And it just kind of, you know, cogitates and turns and turns and turns. And that's

such a powerful example that you gave about the chemotherapy because if you think that your child

is going to develop this disease down the road and you think about it and you're focused on it,

that oh, I just, it's just so upsetting to me because I know exactly what you're saying.

And it is really, really bad. And remember that for the listener, what Leah said earlier that

these gene therapies for this one genetic gene thing, one dose is 2.1 million dollars.

What happens if you decide, yes, I want to do it, but I don't have 2.1 million dollars

laying around in my piggy bank to do that. Then what? What happens then?

Yes, and I've listened to so many stories of families who have gotten positive screens.

And then they sit and wait and they feel like their life is on pause and they're holding in

their breath, you know, through every day of their child's life, just waiting for the resources

and the ability to make these things happen. And it's so devastating. You bring up a good point

about Bracka. I think it's actually a very good illustration of understanding that

genes are not our destiny that we've been lied to about that because I remember

when the Angelina Jolie effect and everyone was having these very extreme procedures as a

preventative measure. And then I had my mom pass away of ovarian cancer and my grandmother.

And her oncologist looked at me as I'm sitting in the room and said, we need to get you on

preventative chemotherapy right away. And I said, no, I'm not here to be your patient.

Like, that's my mom. We're here for her. And they were like, no, but you really,

they're trying to put the fear of God at me. So I knew at that point in time that what had been

spoken over me that I needed to go home and dig deep into what these genes mean. I declined

the screen because it wasn't going to change how I lived my life. It wasn't going to change that

I ate healthy foods and exercised and drank clean water and thought good thoughts, you know.

So I was like, I don't need the screen, but going home to say and teach myself and teach

myself that Braca is actually protective of dozens of other things. You know, it's like you're

told that you have Braca, you're broken and we need to fix you, but you're not told that Braca's

actually protective of a dozen other cancers. And so it's just important that we have the whole

picture in order to ever give actual consent for how we want to live. So it's just I think it's

brilliant that you bring up Braca because it's it's an illustration to prove that you are not

your genes. Exactly. Well, in a few minutes that we have left here, I want to change gears just

a little bit and talk about Stanford Health Freedom a little bit about what you do and this lawsuit

that you have filed with the CDC. So we've got a few minutes left. Why don't we talk about that?

Absolutely. And I this lawsuit is truly foundational with the first of its kind.

And the reason we filed it, Dr. Tenpinning is because more and more people are waking up to

understand that the word vaccine and decision really belong together that it is a mother's decision

to decide if her child is a good candidate or needs any one of these 72 doses. It's on the

schedule. So if you look at the way the schedule is currently set up at the federal level,

they are universal recommendations for every American child. And that has not been studied and

the schedule as a whole has not been studied to know it's cumulative effect on any given American

child. So we told the court, look, these are bad agency decisions. They did not consider a very

salient fact when making this agency decision to put this dose next to this dose next to this dose

on this one childhood schedule. So therefore we need to take all of these doses and make them

individual recommendations so that the risks and the benefits are assessed at every single encounter.

And so we think that we have a really good chance at seeing a big shift with the childhood

schedule exposing these agency decisions as reckless and bad and unconstitutional

since the fact of long term effects of the schedule and cumulative effects have never been

considered by our government. And if we win that, it would really dismantle the whole

construct of mandates because all the states across the US are referring to this pediatric

schedule as the guide for the mandates. And that's what's exciting. And we saw ASIP a couple weeks ago,

ASIP spent two and a half hours discussing these very things. We filed the lawsuit August 15th

and then the ASIP meeting on December 4th and 5th. We saw a lot of that language used and a lot

of these things considered by the committee in charge of the childhood schedule.

What's the status of the lawsuit right now? So we filed in August and then right when the

answer was due, the government shut down happened. So it got kicked out until January.

So the government has until January to either file for an extension to answer or to answer the

lawsuit. We hope that we will see some type of quality response even from the agencies that

acknowledge that these changes need to happen. Maybe they won't need litigated all the way through.

Maybe because of who is in the administration right now, we can see some common sense take

foot if we give them the recipe for success to make that happen.

Yeah, common sense. You know, for years, I've said I wanted to, I wanted to create a bumper sticker

that said common sense ain't so common. Yeah. That's really kind of true. And we, well,

we got to be our own experts. We got to start thinking like you teach us to in order for common

sense to take foot. Exactly. In our last couple of seconds, Leah, tell us about Stanford Health

Freedom and the wonderful stuff your organization does. So Stanford Health Freedom.com,

we are an action center to help you make a difference in your state and your towns on health

freedom. So when we set up Stanford Health Freedom, our desire was really to give a meaningful

voice to the health freedom voting block so that we can get pro parental rights, pro privacy,

informed consent, religious freedom and free speech policies in place in every state across

the U.S. Because the parents that we hear from, that's what they want. They want strong

parental rights. They want to be the ones that make decisions for their children's health.

And they want privacy in place so that those decisions are never used against them.

So we've been at this now since 2019 and we have 147 policy winds under our belt and we've

helped elect over 1200 health freedom candidates into office, which that thanks to all of our

supporters. And that is how we pave the way for real change is by getting the right people into

office and using our voices to show up and shape these policies. Because if you don't show up,

the only voice that will be shaping policies is the industry's voice. So it's incumbent upon us

to take action and bring forward our concerns as moms and dads and teachers and doctors.

And where can people go to support your work? Because I think you're a 501c3, right?

So Stanford Health Freedom is a C4 and Health Freedom Institute is our sister organization,

which is a C3. So we have HealthFreedomInstitute.com or StanfordHealthFreedom.com and one is dedicated

to education and the other to advocacy, but it goes toward educating on the key issues of the day.

You know, right now our battles ahead are things like no more medical mandates,

getting fluoride out of water, deregulating small scale farming, digital ID.

And then the fifth one is strengthening parental rights in light of school-based health centers

and the rise of mental health care in schools. You guys have just come so far from where you started

and you're just such a powerhouse. Your whole organization is and what you're doing is just great.

What is your, as we just close up here in the last couple of minutes,

what's your takeaway from this message today? What would you advocate to people who are listening to this?

Yes, I think that the whole genome sequencing and newborn screening could be bigger than

the childhood vaccine schedule if we allow it to take root in our states. And it's going to be

incumbent upon us to know what is being offered to talk about it and to make an intentional decision.

Because if this becomes a part of newborn screening, this veil of darkness will be

thick in the biotech solutions that they have for our healthy newborns will be devastating.

So I want to encourage everyone to just go to samplehealthfreedom.com and join.

And we're going to give you the recipe for success to take action and make our voices heard

on this issue so that it does not proceed under a veil of darkness like the childhood schedule

did for decades. So brilliant. So brilliant. And I hope that everybody listening to this will go

to stamprehealthfreedom.org.com. That's even easier. stamprehealthfreedom.com and sign up to get

their alerts and be on top of what they're doing and make your voices count in a way that you just

can't even imagine how powerful they are. So Leah, I want to thank you so much for being here with

us today. I was this information is so important to get out. And so with that, I want to close with

one of my favorite verses from the Bible. I close all my podcasts with whether they are

library recorded, which is Romans 12 12 rejoice and hope be patient and trouble and be persistent

in prayer. Remember to lean in the God. He will never let you down. His timeline may be different

than yours, but he's always there with you. So we'll see you again tomorrow 3 p.m. Eastern right

here on America out loud. News or I heart radio. You can also listen anywhere in the world using

their media player at America out loud. News. You can find your pay or on your favorite podcast

platforms. You can also find more about me and all the things that we do because we're involved

in a lot of stuff. If you'll go to dr10penny.com where you can find my sub stacks, my books,

and please follow me on x. We need those numbers to grow. And Instagram and on x and both of those

I'm at busy drt busy drt. So with that have a great rest of your day. Everyone will see you here

again tomorrow or the next time at 3 p.m. Eastern Monday through Friday here at the 10 penny files.

Have a good evening. Good bye. Goodbye in time for us.