On June 26, presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr hosted a "health policy roundtable" on Rumble. His guests included Joe Mercola, Sherri Tenpenny, Mikki Willis, and a host of other anti-vax luminaries. Very little policy was discussed, though RFK put forward plenty of ideas about executive orders, including blackballing scientists and researchers behind FDA-approved drugs and censoring scientific journals. Derek breaks down some of the more egregious moments.
Show Notes
Health Policy Roundtable on Rumble
Joe Rogan's worst misinformation yet, with RFK Jr.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hello everybody, Derek Barris here with a conspirituality brief entitled RFK's Health Propaganda Roundtable.
Last Tuesday, June 26th, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
held his health policy roundtable on Rumble.
It was an hour and a half long and it featured a number of the figures that we've covered extensively over the years here on the podcast.
What is most, well, I shouldn't say surprising, it's kind of expectable, but considering that RFK took the following people to discuss healthcare in America, we should definitely be concerned that this is even a thing.
So for example, the people involved were Joe Mercola, who's an osteopath, who has been cited by the FDA
and had a number of products recalled over the years.
He's been sued as well for his pseudoscience.
He is one of the most egregious players on the scene.
We had Sherry Tenpenny, who's also an osteopath.
She is an anti-vax activist.
Most people know her name when she tried to stick forks and coins on her body in a public hearing.
We had Pierre Corey, who is still going on the ivermectin tip.
He considers himself a contrarian doctor at this point.
He also discussed that early on during the roundtable.
You have Sayer G., the founder of GreenMedInfo, who we've covered extensively as well, and who I will say, during this roundtable, is probably the most tame and asks the best question.
I'm not even sure I'm going to clip him because It was kind of benign, and there was not really a problem there, although, of course, he is a big promoter of anti-vax ideology as well.
Mickey Willis, the plandemic pseudo-documentary filmmaker, and then Maureen McDonald, who is a pediatric nurse, who is also an anti-vax activist now, and Patrick Gintempo, who, we need a chiropractor in the mix, so here he is, and he considers himself a health freedom figure.
It was moderated by Charles Eisenstein, who, of course, we have also covered a lot on the podcast.
Very early on, he came on for two episodes and an extensive interview with Matthew, which actually turned out great.
It's rare that anyone we criticize comes on to talk to us about it.
The problem is, since then, he's gone pretty off the rails.
The event ended with a 15-minute monologue by Del Bigtree.
I'm not going to include that in this brief.
There's already a lot to get to.
What I will say is he is one of the leading anti-vax activists and filmmakers out there.
He has been covered extensively over the years, before the pandemic as well, and he was probably honestly the most eloquent speaker on the panel.
Now, interestingly, he spent the first five minutes or so baiting reporters and positioning himself as a journalist, which is completely untrue because he likes to fashion himself in such a manner, but his journalism always tends to go along with what he wants to put forward and what he gets paid to do, which is pump out anti-vax propaganda.
So he did the baiting, but he does come from a lineage of preachers and he is way more charismatic to me than RFK Jr.
And I can see the appeal of his speaking tone that said, maybe we'll cover that 15 minute excerpt.
I think it's worthy of its own brief.
So I might actually do that in the coming weeks.
Today, I'm not going to do a point-by-point fact check on this policy roundtable.
In fact, there was very little policy actually discussed.
If you want to see someone do that to, for example, RFK's appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, I will link to Dan Wilson, aka Debunk the Funk.
And he did a 45-minute video on YouTube that does that much better than I ever can because he's actually a doctor.
What I want to look at is more the techniques that are being used and the way that healthcare is being framed.
That will include some of the questions by the people on the panel as well as RFK's responses.
I want to begin by stating what I do agree with RFK, because there are points that are very important that he makes, and I think that's why he gets a lot of traction.
They include the fact that there is way too much pharma lobbying and money in the healthcare industry.
Well, I never really hear him talk about lobbying, which is very interesting, because I think that would be one of the first things that you do is go after lobbyists, and pharma is the biggest lobbyist in Washington.
And that's actually part of the problem, because the way that he frames it is he starts at a place where he's talking about the immense amount of money in healthcare that is controlled by pharmaceutical companies, but he puts the blame on the researchers and the doctors
much more than he actually looks at how the money moves through Washington.
That said, he talks about distrust in the government.
He talks about America's outsized role in foreign interventions.
I am not a policy expert when it comes to foreign wars and how we're trying to spread democracy
or control other nations.
I will just say from my own perspective, it seems like there's a balance there.
Probably don't want nuclear armed countries spreading their territory too much.
At the same time, America has a terrible track record of overturning governments.
So that is a bit more nuanced than I am capable of talking about.
So I'm not going to touch those.
But he does bring those up here, which is very interesting.
In fact, he goes a little bit off the rails a lot.
I find the fact that people say how charismatic RFK, a little bit baffling because you always
hear people on the right and in the middle talk about Biden's gaffes.
If you actually listen to the entire roundtable, and I will link to it on Rumble, so if you
feel that I've unfairly clipped some of the moments from it, you can watch the entire
thing yourself.
I clipped what I thought was most important.
But when he starts with a question, he often goes many different places.
He meanders a lot before getting to a point which may or may not have actually addressed the question.
During this conversation, I remember Mickey Willis twice and Charles Eisenstein once or twice breaking in to try to get him back on track.
So as you can imagine, this was all over the place.
But what I really want to do is look at what I think are some of the dangers of what he's saying and whether or not RFK ever becomes president.
I've always felt that since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, which caught me like many other people by surprise, that a smarter, charismatic figure could step in and actually do a lot more damage than what Trump has done and is continuing to do.
Now, it said we can see the consequences of his decisions in the overturning of Roe versus Wade in affirmative action
in colleges being overturned.
There's a lot that's happening that we have to remember the original definition of karma, which is the fact that
actions create consequences in the future.
And we are watching that play out.
And I really believe there is space for people who are a little bit or a lot smarter than Donald Trump to come in.
Not so egomaniacal, although RFK does have some of those traits.
I also understand his appeal.
So when you look at too much power and money, I'm fully on board with what he's saying.
Where he goes from there, I think is very dangerous.
And I think you're going to hear that in some of the clips.
I will fact check a few things to give a little more context because I think it's important.
But overall, I'm just mostly going to play the clips and briefly discuss because if you haven't heard this roundtable, and it's not something that's getting clipped like the Russell Brand or the Joe Rogan podcast appearances, This is where the man wants to take health in America, or health care in America.
And he's right.
Also, in saying that chronic diseases are a real problem in this country and worldwide.
Again, starting from a place of truth that needs to be addressed.
How he's trying to do it, though?
Well, I'll let you be the judge of that.
Let's get into it.
We'll start with some of Charles Eisenstein's preamble before RFK joined the call.
You know, what distinguishes the people who I will introduce shortly on this panel, on this roundtable, is courage.
This is not merely a It's something that all of us have risked our careers for and it's also not abstract in the sense that it's of being disconnected from actual health
Expertise and ideas based on long experience about health policy.
Many of the people participating tonight are experts in their fields, some from a very conventional background who are recent defectors into the more alternative spaces, and others who have built careers in alternative and holistic and complementary medicine.
But what unifies us all is a certain independence of thought and also a practicality that we're actually seeking to do something about it at a time when the information landscape has become so fragmented that it's hard to tell who to trust.
I agree, Charles.
It is difficult to tell who to trust, but I will say that I would not trust anyone on this roundtable discussion.
You are talking about people who have created their own media ecosystems and platforms in order to predominantly sell products or services.
But this is the contrarian playbook as it has played out on social media and in these spaces over the last few years.
You create this system, which according to the people on this call and very much what RFK does, does not have any complexity or nuanced.
It creates this idea that the pharmaceutical industry or the Western medical system is comprised completely of people who are all on the same exact playbook, working toward the same goals, which is monetization and the capitalization of people's fears around their health.
And then you position yourself as the response to that, the alternative to that.
Now again, it starts from a place of truth in that the fact that we have a for-profit healthcare system in America is really problematic.
The fact that some doctors turn to scripts very quickly before doing a sort of holistic view of a person's health is also problematic.
But that's also not what all doctors do.
There are plenty of practitioners and researchers and doctors who are looking for other interventions.
The idea that no one talks about diet or exercise is ludicrous.
I don't think I've ever gone to a doctor in my 48 years who didn't talk about those things on some level.
But they create this very un-nuanced picture of what health care is and then position themselves as the advocates of quote-unquote health freedom, which is very much their platform.
So right away we're setting up the stage as these are the rebels who are gonna save us and then everything else is just in this bucket of bad.
So I hope that everybody listening will tune in both to the the There it is.
101 Conspiratuality.
to the tone of the inquiry and to trust your instincts on who is sincere and who is truthful.
There it is.
101 Conspiratuality, the wellness influencer trope of trust your instincts around health
care.
One of the problems of consciousness is how little actually of our physiological processes
come to awareness.
There's a reason that some people don't identify cancers until stage 4.
They don't know what's happening in their bodies.
None of us know the extent of what's going on at any time.
We can't even tell how and when we're processing or digesting food.
But this trope is the perfect way to set up what's going to happen for the rest of this.
You choose your healthcare by your instincts.
And I'll tell you what, I don't really want my instincts, and nothing wrong with listening to instincts on occasion, but when it comes to healthcare, I want some tests and I want people who know what they're talking about to help me decide what's best for me, not Something that I dream up in my mind and then think that's the right way to go.
And just a reminder that instinct or intuition have been studied pretty extensively by social scientists and neuroscientists.
And pretty much where experts land is that it's just trained repetition that we then assume to be the truth.
If you're looking at everything through the lens of the Bible, for example, you're going to instinctually believe that everything that happens in the world can be traced back to some biblical verse.
If you are a Buddhist, you're going to have your own set of ideologies to pull from that will feel instinctual.
There is nothing mystical about it.
It's just what you've already primed yourself to believe happening at a rate that you cannot consciously perceive.
That is all instinct really is.
Yeah, speaking for myself, you know, I pretty much put a successful career on pause because I was like, we are never going to have a candidate again who represents the values that I care so deeply about, you know?
And if I'm not willing to put something on the line right now, then what am I waiting for?
I mean, look, yes, you've kind of gotten to bed with Aubrey Marcus in the Austin circuit, so you can argue that, but a reminder that the profits from your last few books from your publisher are now being donated to causes of some of the harm that you did.
So yeah, we can debate success, sure.
And whether or not you put it on hold to work on the campaign, I don't know.
But the self-mythologizing in this talk is pretty rich.
Many of us have been alternative, quote unquote, for a very long time.
This is the moment where alternative might become no longer alternative.
That reminds me of something that people say to sound deep and actually doesn't really mean anything, because if it's no longer alternative, then it's not alternative.
But I'm always reminded of Dr. Paul Offit's statement that there's no such thing as alternative medicine.
There's medicine that works and then everything else doesn't matter where it was created or whether or not it's natural.
If it works, it's medicine.
There's no alternative medicine.
Now we get to the first question.
Kennedy was about 15 minutes late to the event.
Don't know what happened.
Not really important.
But this is Maureen McDonald speaking.
What is your plan to help turn our health care system into one that takes into account and effectively addresses root causes of illnesses, underlying issues of these chronic conditions that are plaguing our nation?
Just throwing a few out.
ADHD.
Autism, type 2 diabetes, chronic fatigue.
How are we going to shift this paradigm so physicians and practitioners really address the underlying issues that are causing these problems instead of just naming it, diagnosing it, and giving a drug for it?
I've also heard this trope for a long time and it sets up this idea that the only thing that medical doctors do is give you drugs.
Completely untrue.
There's tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more.
I did a few searches and easily found tens of millions of dollars that are dedicated to uncovering The roots of chronic diseases.
In fact, if you're researching these diseases and you're creating pharmaceuticals or interventions or therapeutics for them, you are also looking for how they arose and spread through populations and what they signify.
This notion that no one is doing it, we need to focus on that, is completely bogus.
And it's honestly so tired.
But again, that's the only way these people can set up their own products and services
and sell them because they make you believe that those things are not being addressed.
Again, true that some doctors too quickly prescribe, but in general, from my experiences,
doctors, when I've had surgeries, are giving you something to alleviate pain.
Now, whether or not you wanna use that is up to that person, and it can be confusing
if you're getting a script for something you think you should take it.
That is a serious problem, but the idea that no one's looking at the root causes is just garbage.
I know how to fix the problem, and a lot of the problem can be fixed.
from.
In the beginning, I mentioned danger, and this is something that Kennedy does throughout this talk.
can be done pretty quickly.
I mean, the regulatory process usually takes about seven years,
but you can change policy and guidelines overnight.
In the beginning, I mentioned danger, and this is something that Kennedy does
throughout this talk.
He keeps discussing what he can do through executive orders, and that is really scary.
Now, every president issues executive orders.
That's not new.
But where he's going to get to with some of those orders, which we'll get to soon, is extremely problematic.
As you may have noticed if you follow our Instagram feed, Kennedy is very much leading with this strongman attitude.
It's being shown in his pushups and now his pull-up challenge on Russell Brand that he's talking about and he wants to seem like a strong leader.
So right off the bat, this is the very first thing he says.
is that I'm going to do these things without even really addressing the totality of it.
And he'll get into some of those issues, as I said.
But also a good time to remember that no president actually fulfills everything they say off the top.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the Biden administration is allowing oil drilling when that was supposed to be something that we're supposed to have less of.
So when I hear things like that, I don't take them totally on face value, but at the same time,
the fact that he keeps going back to how much he can do without Congress, that's a red flag.
As everybody on this phone call knows, FDA gets almost 50% of its budget
from pharmaceutical companies.
Okay, so this requires a little bit of unpacking because what he says is true in a certain context.
So the FDA splits its budget between taxpayer-funded money and between what are called user fees.
And overall, about half, about 40, 45% comes from user fees,
but it also depends on what you're talking about.
So if you're talking about infrastructure, that is predominantly comes from taxpayer money.
If you're talking about toxicology research, that entirely is funded by taxpayers.
Tobacco is completely funded by the tobacco industry and that was part of the hand slap that they had when they were lying and using doctors to lie about the benefits of tobacco.
When you're talking about foods and regulation of foods, that is almost entirely like 98% funded by taxpayers.
When you get to biologics and human drugs, that's where he gets the 50% number, which is true.
So about half of that money is funded by the industry itself.
Okay, so how it works is about 45% of the overall budget comes from user fees.
of funding for human drug regulatory activities come from user fees.
And this was signed into law by President H.W. Bush in 1992 under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
And what happened was a lot of people were very disgusted by what happened during AIDS and the ways that biologics
and therapeutics were not involved early on in trying to help people.
So some Congress people went out and decided to hold the pharmaceutical industry more accountable
and make them pay to have their drugs tested instead of all of that money falling back on taxpayers.
Now, how that's evolved is.
I'm open for debate.
There are critics saying that there should be not that much money coming from these companies.
The other side of the argument, of course, is that we're testing their drugs.
They should be funding those tests, but then you get into the lobbying issues.
So it is very complex.
I don't know if RFK came out and said, we should go back to 100% taxpayer-based money
funding of the FTA, how that's going to work out, because in my recollection, no politician
or aspiring politician saying, we're going to raise taxes goes over very well.
So it's interesting how he constantly positions this as a real problem, which is again, open for debate
and I agree with that, but then doesn't actually offer the solution.
Like he keeps going back to executive orders, but he doesn't say how the FDA is going to be funded.
And the only other real way is through taxpayer money.
So you can see where he creates again, this scenario where everything is a problem,
but he doesn't actually offer a solution in this instance, which is kind of a problem
if this is your health policy round table.
There are systemic conflicts within all three of those agencies
that are economic entanglements that are pose these huge conflicts of interest.
There's There's a number of other problems.
One is the advertising on pharmaceutical drugs on TV, which I can change with an executive order as well.
At least I can direct NIH or I can direct FDA and the FCC and that practice to institute regulatory Again, notice the jumping to executive orders right away on this, but I also agree.
America is, I believe, one of two countries that allow pharmaceutical advertising on television.
I think that should completely stop because it really influences people when they're going to their doctor to the point of a lot of doctors have complained that they see these advertisements and then people come in just I'm also going to intervene directly with the journals.
without actually going through the process of discovering whether or not they actually need it.
So this is a very good point. I'm also going to intervene directly with the journals. I'm
going to call the journals into the Department of Justice and tell them that we believe that
they're involved in racketeering with the pharmaceutical industry to systematically
lie to the public through their retractions, through their financial entanglements, which
which, which.
Yeah.
Encourage them to publish false information to promote the pharmaceutical products.
Okay, this is a doozy.
What journals are you talking about?
That's very important.
There are thousands of journals out there.
Again, you can see how he's playing on affect here.
This idea that all the journals are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry.
I'm sure some are.
In fact, to be published in a reputable journal, you have to list your conflicts of interest.
So there is already some sort of guardrails that are in the journal process, but coming through with a sledgehammer and just making statements like this makes it seem like any article that is not showing a link between vaccines and autism, let's call them in.
Any journal that does purportedly show a link, of course, those are some of the most famous retractions that exist.
We will leave those alone.
So this is really problematic.
And oh, it continues.
One thing I can directly do that I'm most excited about is I can terminate a lot of the grants to infectious disease and virologists.
And I can redirect those grants just to order FDA to stop writing those kinds of grants
and to instead start writing grants to study chronic disease.
That sounds sane.
Stop studying infectious diseases.
That's a really good call there.
As you'll see again, it's going to go even more off the rails very soon.
But there are grants for studying chronic disease already.
I'm going to open up the vaccine safety data link, which is now in a lockbox.
It's like locked up like Fort Knox.
I'm going to open it up so every scientist can get in there and look at the data.
That data you can do cluster analyses on because that is the vaccination records, the health records of at least 10 million Americans.
It's all the data from the top 10 HMOs.
Those HMOs have every vaccination record for every patient, plus they have every medical claim.
Oh, you can do a cluster analysis of that and, you know, what I would like to do is do a real medical informatics system where you digitalize all that data and you can do these peer-reviewed studies literally in seconds.
You can say, you know, show me the association between children who got the hepatitis B vaccine within their first 30 days and diabetes and ASD and autism and, you know, subsequent Does he not think that meta-analyses are being done in exactly this fashion already, that exist?
and really look at and really find very, very good data almost instantaneously.
Does he not think that meta-analyses are being done in exactly this fashion already that exists?
They're usually the ones that are shown to show why his conspiracy theory mongering is false.
Maybe that's what he really doesn't like.
It's not 10 HMOs, it's 13 healthcare organizations to be clear.
And it's not like 10 people have control of that information he's discussing.
You're talking about the Kaiser Permanente Northwest Organizations, which accounts for thousands and thousands of people.
You're talking about the CDC has control of that, the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Indiana University, Denver Health.
very large organizations where people have access to what he's discussing already.
So it really sounds that he's really just trying to push funding into proving a vaccine
autism link, which through numerous meta-analyses have been shown not to exist.
There's millions and millions of just really cool things that we're going to be able to
do, including blackballing the scientists who worked on AZIP and approved a lot of these
interventions that should not have been brought on without using evidence-based medicine.
If you're sitting on those committees, on VRBPAC and ACIP, and you're allowing medications through the gate, you have a responsibility.
You have a responsibility to protect American health.
If you are not living up to that responsibility, you should be forbidden from serving on any federal medical commission ever again, lifetime ban.
And you should be at least penalized for a long period of time against, I'm saying at least eight years.
I'm from receiving any federal grant for any purpose.
You know what's not evidence-based?
That alternative medicines fear that Eisenstein flagged early in the conversation about becoming the mainstream.
There's no evidence to all those supplements that you have on the shelves,
some of which have been studied and shown not to be effective.
This is probably the scariest part of this entire talk to me.
Going to put lifetime bans and blackball people who have gone through evidence-based studies and gotten drugs approved?
That's really fucking scary.
That's also some real authoritarian type thinking.
I do not agree with the science.
I don't want to be true.
I do not believe that infectious disease is an enormous threat to human health.
with the FDA approval process.
I wrote a book that partly includes the problems with that process.
But oh, didn't think it could go more off the rails?
Here we go.
I do not believe that infectious disease is an enormous threat to human health.
You know, we had a huge death rate from COVID in this country, but almost everybody who died
had chronic disease.
I don't even know how to reply to that.
But it perfectly tracks with so much of the conspirituality we've covered over these years and we've seen for generations now.
If you're in ill health, it's your fault.
The idea that Infectious diseases don't harm quote-unquote healthy people is just utter bullshit.
Yes, you are more susceptible to dying or having sustained injuries from infectious diseases if you have a chronic disease.
That is true, but that's not the entire population.
And the notion that Doing some pull-ups or funding research for chronic disease will magically make everyone be healthy enough to not fall victim to infectious disease.
It's just ridiculous.
I will end all gain-of-function research.
I will sign a treaty to end gain-of-function research to get all the nations And gain-of-function research.
It's just a disaster.
It's given us no benefits.
It's given us everything from Lyme disease to COVID and many, many other diseases that RSV, which is now one of the biggest killers of children, Oh, the lab leak.
You knew that was going to make it in here somehow.
And hey, Jillian and I did an episode years ago where we said, if it turns out it came from a lab, we will change our story.
Right now, most research points to the fact that it didn't.
And if that fact changes and becomes something else, you update what you say.
And I'm totally willing on this one.
But the idea that gain of function has never had a benefit is provably false.
There was a lot of work done on recombinant DNA in the 1970s and 80s with gain of function research, which led to a cheaper and more effective version of insulin being produced.
Now, Follow that line, the fact that most people pay more money for insulin in the U.S.
than any other country is really problematic given how cheap and efficacious regular grade insulin is for people.
That's a pharmaceutical problem we should tackle.
Biden did, lowered it to $35 for a whole cohort of people, which is still well above the monthly cost of anyone in the world, but Gain of function definitely help insulin manufacturers.
So yet another falsity.
But it also brings to mind the fact that both with Kennedy and with conspiritualist and wellness influencers in general, they almost seem to have this idea that humans cannot be infected from other animals.
It gets back to that the secret morality question about health.
This notion that we're above all other animals, that's very biblical.
Kennedy is a professed Catholic.
Then translates to the world can't really harm us because we're divine creatures.
And you're seeing that creep in.
In fact, we'll get to zoonotic jumps next and we'll see that Kennedy continues right along with that line.
And in fact, you know, Ralph Baric wrote an essay back in 2008 saying that That zoonotic jumps from, you know, from the wild to human beings pose very, very little, a negligible risk to humanity in the future because we have so many therapeutic drugs that can cure those diseases.
And that's why he said we need to start, and that will never be evident, develop And who's the we that are going to be able to cure these diseases?
wild, we're we're going to need to tamper with it because anything you find in a
wild, we're going to be able to cure.
And who's the we that are going to be able to cure these diseases?
Would it be the pharmaceutical researchers?
When you actually start to piece together the varying threads
of what Kennedy says, you'll see that there's no logical consistency.
Pharma is bad when I want it to be bad.
But hey, over here, it's good because I want it to be good if it's going to make this argument.
It's a good reminder that he is a lawyer and he's not a researcher.
He's not a scientist, because all he's doing is these rhetorical tricks
to move your ears or eyes from the ball constantly to focus on something else.
It's popularly known as Gish Gallop.
That's one thing that he does very effectively with journalists.
But even in these situations, he just jumps from thing to thing.
And people never point out his logical inconsistencies when it comes to especially facts around science.
There's good evidence that even Spanish flu came from a vaccine and vaccine research.
And, you know, we don't know and we'll probably never know.
But they, you know, they're very, very strong articles suggesting that now.
He has one note.
He truly only has one note.
And I'm playing all of these clips because I just want to give you the listener who maybe didn't make that 90 minute event.
An overview of all of the places his mind goes during these conversations.
And again, just as a reminder, this is a roundtable where he's discussing the health policies he wants to see instituted in the United States should he be president.
Anybody who reads The River will come away pretty much convinced that HIV also came from, you know, a vaccine program.
And there's plenty of, plenty of evidence of that as well.
Fuck it.
Everything is caused by vaccines.
Everything terrible ever in humanity is the result of vaccines, even if it happened before vaccines were invented.
Still the fault of vaccines.
Here's his AIDS denialism coming out.
The River is a pseudoscience book.
The first indication of this idea that the oral polio vaccine caused AIDS.
Was in 1987 by a man named Blaine Ellswood and Tom Curtis and then a few years later in 1992 Curtis published an article in Rolling Stone for which he made some claims about scientists researching leading to the cause to HIV being caused in the laboratory and Rolling Stone was sued for defamation.
They only had to pay $1 in damages, but had to pay half a million dollars in legal fees defending it.
And over and over again, when people have contacted the researchers in the supposed lab that this happened, they never actually worked on what the conspiracy theorists were claiming that they would work on, specifically chimpanzee kidneys.
And the cells derived from there, which apparently is what eventually led.
It is a much deeper rabbit hole here.
We're deep in conspiracy world.
But again, being seen mainstreamed on a platform for a presidential campaign.
There's very little evidence that jumps of viruses from the wild are a threat to human.
We do know what is a threat to human.
Autism is.
One in 34 kids have it.
We know that food allergies are a threat.
We know that rheumatoid arthritis, all those autoimmune diseases are a threat.
Let's find out where they're coming from and actually make healthier kids.
This is what we point out in the book as the soft eugenics phenomenon that seems recurrent throughout the generations.
Here you have autism being framed as something that is diseasing children.
I'm sure most parents who have children with autism will know it's part of a spectrum and it's something that people Manage and deal with on their own terms but the idea that those people cannot be healthy and functioning is also part of the problem with this sort of just language keeps falling back on the idea that the healthy kid is this specific thing and that anything that strays from that is a problem.
The food allergies we also cover in the book because that's something he's experienced in his family.
It was part of his origin myth.
about why he's against vaccines.
And again, none of it is actually grounded in any scientific research.
OK, we've been on health stuff for a while.
And if you think that I'm pulling answers from a lot of different questions,
no, these are pretty much just his stream of consciousness.
There might have been one other question in there, but that was pretty much the last few minutes have all been one ramp that I'm just clipping moments from.
But now he makes one of the most bizarre comparisons that I've heard, and I'm going to play it in full.
During the American Civil War, The Confederates were sending agents provocateur into the northern cities to cause draft riots, which were demoralizing the Union cause.
And Lincoln knew who the men were, who were coming north.
And he tried to arrest them, and put them in jail and some of them were giving speeches and you know inflaming the public and he would try to remove them from the street and in order to do that he had to suspend habeas corpus because you know those guys would get a lawyer and get right out of jail and do the same thing that afternoon.
And he suspended habeas corpus.
And at that time, the life of the union was at stake.
There was 659,000 Americans were killed.
It's the equivalent of 7.2 million today.
In today's population, the country was close to literally being torn to pieces.
And Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said to Lincoln, you can't do it.
You know, it doesn't matter if the nation, if the life of the nation is at stake, you cannot do it.
It's the Constitution.
It's more important even than the nation or any amount of lives.
What?
This is the health policy roundtable?
So, as I've said, the authoritarian leanings here, very troublesome and overlooked and not addressed by anyone on the panel.
But up next is Joseph Mercola, who decided to keep on the politics tip.
And he asks his question, which has nothing to do really with health care, but has to do with why RFK is running as a Democrat.
And his framing is pretty interesting.
Bobby, I love you, and I think everyone on this call loves you.
And anyone who hasn't lost their critical thinking skills yet and has a rational mind would likely come to the same conclusion if they evaluate your positions.
But I want to play the devil's advocate tonight and ask you some hard questions, because all of these wonderful ideas and plans you have just can't happen if you're not elected.
So the US federal government has been hijacked by globalist billionaires and the Democratic Party under the Biden regime has been the most authoritarian administration in United States history.
They brought censorship to a new level that we see in the communist countries and the banana republics.
They froze my personal and business accounts.
Ah, so Joe, it's not really personal at all, is it?
And relentlessly censored us from the head to the toe, especially about the lab leak that they funded and they created.
Um, And the issue here is that almost every single Democratic administration and state were behind this, all the blue states, yet a few of the Republican states stood out.
Now, I know Republicans aren't the answer to everything, but, you know, there's a massive difference in the way they respond to the Democrats.
So the question becomes, why should we support a Democrat after seeing what happened during COVID?
So here Kennedy replies that he's trying to get back to the original spirit and intention of the Democratic Party, which is for the people, gives a head nod to his family, talks about his family legacy a little bit.
Interesting to note that his uncle, Former president was very pro vaccine.
I don't really see him talking about that, but he does point to the conspiracies around his family's death.
And then Sherry Tenpenny comes on and she asks about the people that Kennedy is going to appoint to his health administration should he be elected president.
I'm going to have people who are dissidents.
I'm going to have people who are who are moving away from the the the pharmaceutical paradigm.
And have idea I mean, I really want to try to move this country away from the pharmaceutical paradigm and move our objectives center all of our objectives on actually metrics that show better health.
Are we reducing chronic disease?
Are we as our medical bills going down?
Are children healthier?
Do we have better infant mortality?
Do we have better longevity?
And base everything on empiricism, on evidence-based science.
Let's do the studies and make sure these interventions work.
and then not be close-minded to natural remedies and to integrative medicine and to, you know,
chiropractors and- You know how chiropractors are known
for curing infectious disease.
I don't wanna keep beating on about this, but he says that we need evidence-based medicine
in the country, and we do.
It's not alternative medicine, however, and again, it's not that the industry is without problems.
There are many that need to be addressed.
I don't know why he can't focus on the ones that actually should be addressed, like lobbying.
He does, as I said earlier, talk briefly about taking pharmaceutical advertisements out of media, which is a wonderful idea.
But at this point, we're over an hour in.
You can see where this is going.
I hope it brought some clarity on all of the places his brain goes.
And I want to close a little bit here with Mickey Willis.
Mickey had sent out a mailer a few hours before the roundtable saying that he was happy about Bobby, how are you, my friend?
but that he still doesn't have my votes.
So knowing that, let's see how Mickey frames the opening question.
Bobby, how are you, my friend?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we can hear you.
Yeah, go ahead.
Go ahead, now. Thank you so much.
Okay, I kept that in because I think it's important and telling.
So Willis frames himself constantly as a journalist.
And as I just said, hours before this, he tries to say, he doesn't have my vote yet.
I'm gonna ask the hard questions.
We're gonna go in.
First thing he does, how are you, my friend?
And you don't have the visual, but Kennedy just sat there with his arms crossed and didn't he heard it.
He just didn't acknowledge it because he wasn't playing that game and it caught Mickey off guard.
So interesting opening there.
Now we'll get to the question.
So, Bobby, I am, as you probably heard through our mutual friends, I've been very conflicted by your campaign.
I really appreciate that.
Dr. McCullough brought up the big blue elephant in the room, and as a former progressive Democrat myself, I do have some issues with your campaign only because I know who you are, and I've been with you behind the scenes, and I will say to the American people right now, That you are one of the most integral, caring, compassionate, brave, and brilliant men I've ever met in my life.
That is without a doubt.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Did I say we'll get to the question?
No, of course not.
Mickey had to talk about himself for a little while.
Now let's start the question.
As a veteran environmental activist, I am now aware that the climate change narrative has been grossly exaggerated by power-hungry politicians.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, What will you, how will you retell the story that so many people, particularly young people, are currently being terrorized by?
Okay, Mickey, it's heated up.
Let's see how he swings.
Well, I believe that the climate is an existential threat, and I believe that carbon contributes
to climate change.
It's not important to me whether you believe it or not.
Oh, poor Mickey.
Thought you had it there.
Kennedy goes on for three minutes talking about the problems of coal and climate change and how it is, in fact, an existential threat.
So what happens?
Mickey has to cut in to try to get him more on board with what he originally wanted to talk about, and these are the last clips, I promise.
I've held you here for a while, but again, I think they are important to understand the broader mindset that is going into these sorts of events.
I understand.
If I may, forgive me, I want to interject because what I'm most concerned about, beyond getting into a debate regarding the specifics about climate change, it's the way that the politicians have We have exaggerated the narrative such that we now have a generation of young people vowing never to have children because they think that our world is going to end in whatever it is today, whatever the doomsday clock states today.
We have eight years left.
I want to know that if you're in a position of great power and leadership, a man who has fought for our environment for so long, and I agree with that, in my personal opinion, I think the misinformation of the climate narrative has taken our eye off the ball.
And stopping us from correcting pollution and things that we actually have the funding for and the technology for today.
But beyond that, it's the doom narrative that is terrorizing so many Americans, particularly young people.
And I would love to know Are you going to carry on with that narrative?
Or what will you do to put our next generations at ease such that they won't pass up one of the greatest gifts ever, which is creating a family?
If you haven't noticed, Mickey has been signing off on all of his propaganda emails that he sends as father filmmaker activist.
And he's really been leading with that family aspect.
And you know what?
Maybe it is an existential threat.
I think a lot of young people think that.
I know I think that, and I have probably less time than the younger generations on the Earth, unless some cataclysmic event happens sooner, and we just don't know about that.
But maybe a little bit of concern about the effects of the Industrial Revolution two-plus centuries later should be daunting for people to try to figure things out, and I don't think That creating anti-vax propaganda films is going to address that problem.
So I find it a very interesting line of question that Willis is doing here.
Again, it becomes very self-referential, given that his own films are that crossover between anti-vax territory and the importance of family.
It's all a very conservative affair, even though he likes to waive his liberal credentials or formerly liberal credentials all the time.
But we'll say this, it kind of snapped Kennedy out of his trance and it put him back on track
to agreeing with the people who were at this event.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Mickey. I think that the climate narrative that has been
hijacked by the World Economic Forum and by Bill Gates...
Gotta slip in the Bill Gates there.
I didn't clip the Peter Hotez part where he talks about how there's a $3 million bounty for the debate.
That was also in there.
There was a lot in this, and you've been with me almost an hour.
I hope that this at least shed a little bit of light.
I'm constantly fielding comments on social media about how can you disagree with Kennedy?
He's pushing back against the narrative.
He's an environmental champion.
He's just asking questions.
All of that bullshit we've been covering for a long time, but it's all kind of coalesced and gelled into this one candidate at this moment.
And once you stop and take a little bit time and think about the sentences and what those sentences represent instead of the entire And right now, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
