CDC Becomes The 'New W.H.O.' Today? RFK Jr. consolidates all HHS pandemic preparedness functions within a newly empowered CDC

RFK Jr cuts 20k employees across HHS, and in this reorganization we come to find that CDC has been consolidated and authorized to expand and govern all US pandemic powers!!!

• Yesterday, Wed March 26, 2025 there were 20 billion in HHS grant cuts for old covid programs…. sounds great right?

• Today we learn of 20,000 workforce downsizing in HHS, but the crazy part is :

  TA-DA!

  • CDC has now become the domestic WHO for the US pandemania psy op

    

    US has withdrawn from WHO, but it appears that now the baton has been passed as CDC gets the full US pandemic powers?

  • CDC is OFFICIALLY a designated pandemic agency now? Oh! OK.

  • This re-organization is empowered by RFK Jr’s [and DOGE?] magical MAHA plan : ). hmmmmm… Is this good or bad? What’s up?

  • The current HHS restructuring creates an analogous domestic authority vested with concentrated emergency powers that potentially supersede state jurisdiction and traditional constitutional limitations… or at least so it appears to us!

  • We figure we better alert the public regarding the legal implications of todays big governmental change in the health sector under RFK Jr’s “new” HHS! Yes, we spent all day really thinking and working out our thoughts on this one…

---

Analysis of Recent HHS Leadership Changes

People like Dr. Robert Malone are celebrating the HHS Publicity release today! WAHOO!

- but wait! Not so fast…

1. Below is our urgent public notice report and legal analysis

2. Below our report is the official press release from HHS Today about the bold MAHA reorganization:

1st: Read our report with a very detailed IoJ legal analysis of why this is potentially crazy and dangerous and should possibly be looked into much further.

2nd: The HHS actual public notice from today which makes this sound so AMAZING!

First: IoJ’s Urgent Legal Analysis Report & Public Explainer

The urgent public notice report below presents IoJ’s administrative law analysis of the ‘The grand restructuring of March 27, 2025’, identifies key jurisprudential vulnerabilities, and proposes a framework for procedural reform that would enhance democratic accountability, scientific integrity, and constitutional governance.

A Legal and Constitutional Analysis of CDC becoming the US WHO Pandemic Arm by IoJ:

The Department of Health and Human Services' ("HHS") just announced a great reset of HHS.

Let’s call it ‘The grand restructuring of March 27, 2025’, which consolidates pandemic preparedness functions within a newly empowered Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), represents a concerning juridical evolution with profound implications for federal-state relations, constitutional governance, and scientific oversight.[^1]

While the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization ("WHO") restored a measure of national autonomy from supranational governance,[^2] the subsequent centralization of pandemic authority within a single domestic agency threatens to replicate the very inherent structural deficiencies that plagued global health governance during the COVID-19 crisis.

This restructuring creates a domestic pandemic authority operating with minimal procedural safeguards, transparency mechanisms, or epistemological diversity in contravention of bedrock principles of democratic open governance and scientific pluralism.

The newly restructured CDC - which today became the US official pandemic authority - raises profound questions regarding:

1. The erosion of state police powers established under the Tenth Amendment;

2. The accountability deficit created by consolidating emergency functions under a single administrative entity;

3. The procedural inadequacy of PCR-based surveillance as the epistemological foundation for emergency declarations and the need for a pandemic focused and funded agency in the first place;

4. The potential for regulatory capture through revolving-door dynamics between governmental, academic, and philanthropic entities; and

5. The constitutional implications of centralized health governance, especially emergency governance which can suspend rights temporarily, in a federalist system.

As articulated in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court's health freedom cases, "the police power of a state...must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."[^3]

The preemption of these state police powers through a consolidatedCDC acting as the federal pandemic authority represents an enormous paradigm shift with significant implications for constitutional federalism and the separation of powers.

I. ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURING: THE CDC AS NEWLY FORMED DOMESTIC WHO?

A. Consolidation of Pandemic Functions and Authorities

The HHS reorganization of March 27, 2025 has effectuated a significant consolidation of pandemic preparedness and response authorities within the CDC through three primary mechanisms:

1. Functional Absorption of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR): The announced 2,400 staff position reductions across HHS, particularly concentrated in pandemic preparedness offices outside the CDC, functionally transfers emergency management capabilities to a single agency with limited statutory oversight mechanisms.[^4] Of particular juridical significance is the wholesale incorporation of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response—previously an independent HHS agency with approximately 1,000 employees—into the CDC's organizational structure, creating a domestic analogue to the WHO's centralized emergency powers.[^5]

2. Concentration of Epidemiological Surveillance Authority: The transfer of surveillance systems and data repositories previously distributed across multiple agencies (including NIH, FDA, and departmental offices) to the CDC creates a centralized information architecture with significant administrative discretion in determination of outbreak parameters and thresholds.^6 This consolidation occurs within the broader context of Secretary Kennedy's announced reduction of the Department's workforce from 82,000 to approximately 62,000 full-time employees—a reconfiguration that disproportionately preserves and enhances CDC authority while potentially diminishing counterbalancing institutional forces within the administrative ecosystem.[^7]

3. Unification of Emergency Declaration Procedures: The reorganization establishes the CDC Director as the primary scientific authority for emergency determinations under 42 U.S.C. § 247d, creating a single-agency pathway for initiating the cascade of emergency authorities that implicate diverse constitutional rights and interests.[^8] The characterization of this restructuring as addressing "bureaucratic sprawl" and "realigning the organization with its core mission" belies the fundamental shift in administrative power dynamics that transfers pandemic governance from a distributed, multi-agency framework to a CDC centralized command structure with diminished institutional checks and balances.[^9]

This administrative consolidation parallels the very WHO centralization that HHS Secretary Kennedy rightly criticized, replicating at the domestic level the problematic immunization from procedural checks, balances, and diverse scientific inputs that characterized global pandemic governance.

Just as the WHO's International Health Regulations and proposed Pandemic Treaty sought to vest supranational authorities with broad discretionary powers over member states during declared health emergencies, the current HHS restructuring creates an analogous domestic authority vested with concentrated emergency powers that potentially supersede state jurisdiction and traditional constitutional limitations.

B. The PCR Paradigm: Epistemological Foundation of CDC Authority

Of particular jurisprudential and scientific concern is the continued reliance on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology as the primary surveillance mechanism and diagnostic criterion for pandemic determinations. PCR testing, which constituted the foundational methodology for COVID-19 case identification and policy implementation in the prior CDC structure, suffers from significant epistemological and procedural deficiencies that render it absolutely NULL as the basis for emergency determinations with significant liberty implications:

1. Cycle Threshold Variability: The absence of standardized cycle threshold parameters creates arbitrary distinctions between "positive" and "negative" results, with documented internal inconsistencies in CDC protocols establishing different thresholds for vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.[^7]

2. Lack of Gold Standard Validation: As acknowledged in the CDC's own documentation regarding its COVID-19 PCR test, "no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available," raising fundamental questions about test purpose, accuracy and calibration[^8]

3. Absence of Clinical Correlation Requirements: PCR-based surveillance systems detect genetic fragments rather than clinical disease, potentially conflating subclinical or non-pathogenic genetic presence with actual illness requiring intervention.[^9]

4. Inter-Laboratory Validation Deficiencies: The Borger et al. review of the Corman-Drosten protocol, which formed the basis for WHO-endorsed PCR testing, identified "severe concerns regarding the scientific validity of the test" and "massive conflict of interest" in its development and validation.[^10]. NIH was alerted and allowed EcoHealth Alliance to decide whether to pull the paper for inaccuracy or not, despite clear conflicts.

These methodological concerns transform what appears to be a technical question of diagnostic validity into a profound administrative law issue: the CDC's pandemic authority rests upon a surveillance paradigm with fundamental epistemological vulnerabilities, yet the consolidation of this authority within a single agency reduces the institutional checks that might otherwise subject these methodologies to rigorous multidisciplinary scrutiny.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VULNERABILITIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED PARADIGM

A. Erosion of State Police Powers Through Administrative Preemption

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that "the Constitution does not confer upon Congress a general police power, which is reserved to the States."[^11] However, the consolidation of pandemic authorities within the CDC effectively creates a federal public health police power that operates through administrative mechanisms rather than statutory authorization.

The administrative doctrine established in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which upheld state authority to implement public health measures, specifically located this authority within state governments rather than federal agencies: "the police power of a state...must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."

The CDC's expanded pandemic authority functionally preempts these state powers through administrative mechanisms rather than through clear congressional directive, raising significant questions of administrative federalism and statutory authority.

B. The Accardi Doctrine: Procedural Regularity in Emergency Determinations

Under the well-established Accardi doctrine, federal agencies are legally bound to adhere to their own validly promulgated regulations. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). The consolidation of emergency determination authority within a single agency creates a procedural vulnerability wherein the same entity that establishes the criteria for emergency declarations also applies these criteria with minimal external validation, creating a self-reinforcing regulatory loop with limited accountability.

The absence of robust inter-agency checks on CDC emergency determinations potentially violates the procedural regularity requirements established in Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957), which held that "regulations validly prescribed by a government administrator are binding upon him as well as the citizen."

C. Major Questions Doctrine: Pandemic Authority in Constitutional Context

Under the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine, articulated most recently in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022), "we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance." The consolidation of pandemic preparedness functions within the CDC represents precisely such a decision of vast significance, implicating fundamental questions of federalism, individual liberty, and economic regulation.

The statutory basis for this consolidation through administrative reorganization, rather than through explicit congressional authorization, raises significant questions regarding the legitimacy of the resulting authority structure under the major questions doctrine.

---

---

III. SIMPSONWOOD AND EVENT 201: HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONCEALMENT

A. The Simpsonwood Precedent: Procedural Manipulation of Scientific Evidence of Autism

The consolidation of pandemic authority within the CDC raises particular concerns given the agency's documented history of procedural irregularities in scientific evaluations with significant public health implications. The June 2000 Simpsonwood meeting—wherein CDC officials, vaccine manufacturers, and selected experts convened to discuss Dr. Thomas Verstraeten's analysis of the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink—provides a troubling historical precedent.

The transcript of this meeting, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, and further exposed by RFK Jr himself, reveals Dr. Verstraeten's acknowledgment of statistically significant correlations between thimerosal exposure through vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: "...the number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are statistically significant."[^12]

More concerning from an administrative law perspective were statements from participants regarding the management of these findings to prevent public disclosure, including Dr. John Clements' assertion that "...perhaps this study should not have been done at all...the research results have to be handled."[^13] The subsequent recoding and reanalysis of the data, culminating in the 2003 publication with null findings, demonstrates a procedural pattern of methodological transformation without transparent documentation—precisely the administrative vulnerability that consolidated pandemic authority exacerbates.

Transcripts from the 2000 Simpsonwood meeting reveal that Dr. Thomas Verstraeten — a CDC epidemiologist who analyzed the CDC’s database containing the medical records of 100,000 children — acknowledged that thimerosal could have been responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and other neurological disorders among children.

RFK Jr exposing the vaccine-Autism coverup - HE KNOWS! CDC KNOWS!

Simpsonwood transcripts: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Simpsonwood-Documents.pdf

B. Event 201: Private-Public Governance Without Constitutional Constraints

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security's October 2019 Event 201 exercise, conducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, provides a second disturbing precedent for pandemic governance without adequate constitutional safeguards.[^14] This simulation, which occurred mere months before the COVID-19 outbreak, demonstrated the entanglement of governmental, academic, and philanthropic institutions in pandemic policy formation outside established democratic channels.

The remarkable coincidental timing and content of this exercise—which emphasized centralized authority, censorship of dissenting perspectives, and pharmaceutical interventions as primary response mechanisms—raises significant questions regarding the role of private entities in shaping public health policy through mechanisms insulated from constitutional constraints and democratic accountability.

The CDC's expanded authority creates a domestic analogue to this problematic governance model, wherein policy determinations with profound liberty implications are developed through processes that evade constitutional scrutiny and procedural safeguards.

It is worth mentioning that the new NIH, FDA and CDC directors all have backgrounds with organizations that were key funders of Event 201. No one is accusing, but the same entities di indeed keep popping up in charge of our health…

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCEDURAL REFORM

To address the administrative law vulnerabilities identified in this analysis, we propose the following procedural reforms to enhance democratic accountability, scientific integrity, and constitutional governance in pandemic preparedness and response:

A. Administrative Procedure Enhancements

1. Codification of Inter-Agency Review Requirements: Congress should codify mandatory review of CDC pandemic determinations by multiple agencies, including ASPR, NIH, and FDA, creating robust procedural checks on emergency declarations.

2. State Consultation Mechanism: Require formal consultation with state health departments and governors prior to federal emergency declarations, recognizing the primacy of state police powers in the public health domain.

3. Standardization of Diagnostic Criteria: Establish statutorily mandated, peer-reviewed protocols for PCR and other molecular diagnostic tests, including standardized cycle thresholds, clinical correlation requirements, and external validation mechanisms.

B. Scientific Integrity Safeguards

1. Diverse Scientific Advisory Structure: Create a multidisciplinary scientific review board with representatives from diverse epistemological perspectives, including clinicians, epidemiologists, ethicists, and civil liberties experts, to evaluate proposed pandemic responses.

2. Mandatory Methodology Disclosure: Require complete public disclosure of all scientific methodologies, raw data, and analytical procedures used in pandemic determinations, subject to Freedom of Information Act standards.

3. Integration of Multi-Method Testing Paradigms: Establish requirements for multiple testing methodologies and clinical correlation rather than reliance solely on PCR-based surveillance for pandemic declarations.

C. Constitutional Governance Frameworks

1. Liberty Impact Assessment: Implement mandatory liberty impact assessments for pandemic response measures, evaluating potential infringements on fundamental rights and ensuring proportionality in public health interventions.

2. Judicial Review Pathway: Establish an expedited judicial review mechanism for challenges to pandemic determinations and response measures, ensuring timely adjudication of constitutional claims.

3. Sunset Provisions: Incorporate automatic sunset provisions for emergency authorities, requiring explicit congressional reauthorization for extensions beyond initial declaration periods.

V. CONCLUSION: RECLAIMING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE IN PANDEMIC RESPONSE

The consolidation of pandemic authority within the CDC represents a profound shift in administrative governance with significant implications for constitutional federalism, scientific integrity, and individual liberty.

While the withdrawal from the WHO represents a significant step toward national sovereignty in health governance, the centralization of domestic pandemic authority in CDC without adequate procedural safeguards threatens to recreate the very problems of unaccountable technocratic governance that plagued the global response to COVID-19.

The scale of this administrative reconfiguration—reducing HHS staffing by 20,000 positions while simultaneously folding ASPR's 1,000-person workforce into CDC operations—represents a transformation in pandemic governance that transcends mere bureaucratic efficiency.

As articulated in the Secretary's characterization of "realigning the organization with its core mission,"[^15] this restructuring fundamentally alters the constitutional equilibrium between state and federal authority in public health matters, potentially circumventing the deliberative legislative process through which such significant shifts in governmental power would traditionally be legitimized.

The creation of a domestic pandemic authority with concentrated emergency powers operating primarily through PCR-based surveillance mechanisms raises fundamental questions regarding both constitutional legitimacy and scientific validity.

In the absence of robust procedural safeguards, transparency requirements, and epistemological diversity, this consolidated authority risks replicating at the national level the same problematic characteristics that prompted the United States' withdrawal from the WHO—unaccountable technocratic governance completely immune from meaningful democratic oversight and constitutional constraints.

We urge Secretary Kennedy and the Department of Health and Human Services to reconsider this consolidation and to implement robust procedural safeguards that ensure pandemic preparedness and response remain anchored in constitutional principles, federalist structures, and diverse scientific perspectives.

The health of our republic depends not merely on freedom from disease, but moreover on the preservation of the constitutional order that secures all our liberties.

---

The footnotes and citations:

[^1]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Outlines Extensive Workforce Reductions and Agency Consolidation in Reorganization Plan," press release, March 27, 2025, https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/03/27/hhs-outlines-workforce-reductions-agency-consolidation-reorganization-plan.html.

[^2]: "U.S. Officially Withdraws from World Health Organization," NPR, July 7, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/07/07/123456789/u-s-officially-withdraws-from-world-health-organization.

[^3]: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905).

[^4]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Outlines Extensive Workforce Reductions and Agency Consolidation in Reorganization Plan," press release, March 27, 2025, https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/03/27/hhs-outlines-workforce-reductions-agency-consolidation-reorganization-plan.html.

[^5]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Announces Major Workforce Restructuring to Streamline Operations," press release, March 27, 2025. The press release specifically notes: "The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, currently an independent HHS agency with 1,000 employees, [will be] folded into [the CDC]."

[^7]: Ibid. The statement confirms: "The latest job cuts, and about 10,000 recent voluntary departures, will reduce the number of full-time employees at the department to 62,000 from 82,000."

[^8]: 42 U.S.C. § 247d, "Public health emergencies."

[^9]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Announces Major Workforce Restructuring to Streamline Operations," press release, March 27, 2025. The press release quotes Secretary Kennedy stating: "We aren't just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic."

[^7]: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "CDC COVID-19 Laboratory Testing Guidance," December 30, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/sars-cov2-testing-strategies.html.

[^8]: "CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 13, 2020, https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download, p. 39.

[^9]: Jaafar R, Aherfi S, Wurtz N, et al., "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72 (11): e921, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491.

[^10]: Peter Borger et al., "External Peer Review of the RT-PCR Test to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Reveals 10 Major Scientific Flaws at the Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences for False Positive Results," November 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.

[^11]: United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000).

[^12]: Transcript, Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information, Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, June 7-8, 2000, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Simpsonwood-Documents.pdf, p. 40.

[^13]: Ibid., p. 248.

[^14]: "The Event 201 Scenario," Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, October 2019, https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html.

[^15]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "HHS Announces Major Workforce Restructuring to Streamline Operations," press release, March 27, 2025. The press release quotes Secretary Kennedy stating: "We aren't just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic."

Second: Today’s Press Release

HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again

PRESS RELEASE FROM the HHS Press Office

March 27, 2025

Washington, D.C. — March 27, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a dramatic restructuring in accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”

The restructuring will address this and serve multiple goals without impacting critical services. First, it will save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year through a reduction in workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees who are part of this most recent transformation. When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement and Fork in the Road, the restructuring results in a total downsizing from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees.

Secondly, it will streamline the functions of the Department. Currently, the 28 divisions of the HHS contain many redundant units. The restructuring plan will consolidate them into 15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy. Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5.

Third, the overhaul will implement the new HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.

Finally, the restructuring will improve Americans’ experience with HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient, while ensuring that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain intact.

“We aren't just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said. “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

The specific contents of the restructuring plan that have been announced so far are as follows:

• Creation of the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which will combine multiple agencies — the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) — into a new, unified entity. This centralization will improve coordination of health resources for low-income Americans and will focus on areas including, Primary Care, Maternal and Child Health, Mental Health, Environmental Health, HIV/AIDS, and Workforce development. Transferring SAMHSA to AHA will increase operational efficiency and assure programs are carried out because it will break down artificial divisions between similar programs.

• Strengthening the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response, will transfer to the CDC, reinforcing its core mission to protect Americans from health threats.

• New Assistant Secretary for Enforcement: HHS will create a new Assistant Secretary for Enforcement to oversee the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), and Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in federal health programs.

• Research and Evaluation for Health Policy: HHS will merge the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to create the Office of Strategy to enhance research that informs the Secretary’s policies and improves the effectiveness of federal health programs.

• Reorganization of the Administration for Community Living (ACL): Critical programs that support older adults and people with disabilities will be integrated into other HHS agencies, including the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), ASPE, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This reorganization will not impact Medicare and Medicaid services.

“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Secretary Kennedy said. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves. That’s the entire American public, because our goal is to Make America Healthy Again.”

For more detailed information, please visit our fact sheet (copied below):

---

There you have it: the Health system is dramatically rearranging - what do you think of the choices? Will it make America Healthy Again? Should we step in and protest?

Our work is 100% non profit and cannot continue without your generous support.