RFK Jr From the Vault | Unreleased Darkhorse Podcast from 2021
In November 2021, Bret spoke to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the DarkHorse podcast. It was unreleased, until now. Find RFK on Twitter: (https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr)Find RFK on his campaign website: (https://www.kennedy24.com/)Read his book: The Real Anthony Fauci (amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Childrens-ebook/dp/B08XQYGC68) ***** Find Bret Weinstein on Twitter: @BretWeinstein, and on Patreon. Please subscribe to this channel for more long form content ...
So why if you are, you know, a liberal Democrat, and you know, these companies are murderous, and it's part of their business plan that they are there.
It's not even moral elasticity.
It's a complete detachment from any kind of moral imperative at all.
Why would you think that they're going to hurt people with all their other pharmaceutical products?
The one product when and never be liable even if they do get caught, they're suddenly gonna find Jesus and be honorable.
It defies any kind of logical analysis. - Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the distinct pleasure and honor of sitting today with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is the founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense and the founder of Waterkeeper Alliance.
Welcome, Robert.
Thank you, Brad.
This may be Brad's last podcast.
Let's hope that's not the case.
But actually, I mean, you joke, but I think we should talk a little bit about the the predicament here.
This is uncharted territory, and I want to tell you a little bit.
I don't know how much you are aware, but I know a great many people that we know in common, and I keep having a conversation with people that I respect.
Who like and respect you but are afraid to say so publicly because of the incredible pushback that you have gotten since I guess 2005, is that fair?
Yes.
And I must say I wrestled with this myself.
You and I met some months ago and I was very heartened and reassured by the person that I met.
You are clearly You are a patriot, you are clearly a person who is intensely committed to doing the right thing, and you have had to make incredible sacrifices.
Sacrifices are something the Kennedy family has made at a level that is almost impossible to imagine, and you have paid incredible prices personally for the stances that you have taken.
Among other things, I just want to point out, I know that many people who do tune into this podcast will presumably have disagreements with you, perhaps over the interpretation of evidence, but at the very least, You are clearly a person who believes in what he is doing and is willing to pay a price to get it done.
And I don't think the world can ask any more of anyone.
Even if you were incorrect about the interpretation of the evidence, which I don't think you are, it would still be... It is still an absolute requirement for the rest of us to recognize that a person doing what they believe to be the right thing is an honorable person and should be treated as such.
Well, what I would say about that is this.
The character traits that you describe are all objectively admirable traits, but I would not consider them admirable if they weren't accompanied by an additional trait, which was a willingness to look at contrary evidence.
And a willingness to recognize that you're wrong and to admit that if the evidence goes against one of your hypotheses or suppositions.
And that's something I feel that is part of my makeup.
If somebody, and I've said this from the beginning, Show me data that says that I'm wrong and I will publicly, in fact, if you can show me data that shows that people, for example, who get the COVID vaccine are more likely to live and have healthier lives than people who aren't, I will fold my tent and go back to protecting, you know, rivers full time.
But we don't have that data.
And my demand has not been to get rid of vaccines or to say they're bad, but just to say, let's have the kind of randomized placebo or other evidence, real evidence, you know, randomized placebo tests are not the only good scientific evidence, but any evidence that actually shows that the all, you know, that the Health outcomes are better among the people who take the intervention than people who don't.
Yes, I completely accept and agree with your improvement to my model.
Somebody who does what they think is the right thing but resists evidence that they are incorrect is a hazard.
If they get it wrong, they can do harm.
And so, I agree with you and I also aspire to that same standard.
But in any case, I do want to say that I not only have you opened my eyes to a number of things, but I also just simply appreciate your commitment to doing what is necessary in spite of the cost, because I know they have been tremendous.
So I regard you as a patriot.
I know that I'm a patriot and one patriot to another.
I appreciate what you have done for us.
Thank you.
Now, there's a lot of preliminary work that I think we need to do to get to the conversation that I hope to have.
The conversation, ultimately, will center around your new book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
Now, I must confess, I have tried to read this book, I tried to triage it in advance of this podcast, but there wasn't enough time and triaging it turned out to be almost impossible because Virtually every paragraph contains something jaw-dropping, and so I did find it a bit of a slow read, but absolutely captivating.
But in any case, when we get to that part of the conversation, I think you're going to have to lead me through it because I didn't get very far in advance of our conversation.
But I do want to clear something up for our viewers and listeners.
Um, your voice has a wobble to it.
Um, I know there's a story here and I know that you don't, uh, like talking about it.
And I think I know that that's not because it's personally troubling to you, but your concern, uh, is that it will be misinterpreted.
Um, if you talk about, uh, where this may have come from, but I think actually it probably makes sense just to clear the air.
Um, so what is the wobble in your voice?
Well, I really don't know where it comes from.
I know that I got it.
I had a very, very strong voice until 1996.
When I was 42 years old, my voice got this tremor in it.
And the disease is called spasmodic dystonia.
And I had no inkling, after many, many years, doctors have said to me, did you have some trauma at the time?
Because apparently the onset of this disease, which affects, I don't know how many people, but there's a significant number, maybe 50 or 60,000 people who are affected in this country.
But the onset of the disease is often accompanied by trauma.
Two years ago, I was preparing a racketeering lawsuit against a bunch of vaccine companies, against four vaccine companies, that make all 72 of the mandatory childhood vaccines that are given to children in this country.
And for the first time, I had to go through the manufacturer's insert of every one of those vaccines.
When I got to the flu vaccine, I realized for the first time there's 420 side effects listed as vaccine side effects on those inserts, and I had never read them all the way through.
When I was doing the flu vaccine section, I saw that many of the flu vaccines listed spasmodic dystonia as one of the side effects, the known side effects.
They have to get FDA approval to put that side effect on their, on their manufactured insert and FDA under federal law has to agree that there's a probability based upon the evidence that that injury is caused by the vaccine.
So, this was only two years ago, and I've been working on vaccine issues since 2005, and people would ask me, do you have any vaccine injuries in your family or among people who are close to you?
And I would say no.
For the first time, I recognized that there's a possibility at my injury.
The reason it's a possibility is because at that point in my life, I was teaching at Pace University Law School in White Plains, New York, and right next to my clinic, where I taught, was the school infirmary.
And the infirmary every year would post a sign saying come get your flu shot and every year I went in and got my flu shot.
In 1996 I got a flu shot and I have no idea whether that flu shot caused this condition but it is now at least a hypothesis.
And it's possible that you don't remember the dates well enough, but if you do, the onset of the condition was following the flu shot that year and not too far or something along those lines.
Exactly.
All right.
Well, that's fascinating.
So, it's only in the last couple of years that you even potentially connected the dots between your voice condition and vaccines.
Now I must say, I'm also beginning to wonder about something that has affected my life.
And that is, as my viewers know, I have a severe wheat allergy.
Right?
The tiniest amount of wheat in something sets off a cascade of symptoms.
And basically, until I discovered that I was allergic to wheat, I had, I think, basically continual inflammation.
Having gotten wheat out of my diet, the inflammation has cleared up.
Lots of things I didn't know were symptoms of anything went away and improved the quality of my life dramatically.
And when I accidentally get wheat because somebody hasn't been clear on where there is wheat, the symptoms come rushing back.
So, I know I have this condition.
It's mysterious to me.
It has been for a long time because my ancestors have been eating wheat for thousands of years.
And I had thought, I had a model in my mind of there being exposure of things in the gut to elements of the immune system that are not actually supposed to contact the contents of the gut, which regard the food contents as foreign and they fight, right?
Basically develop an allergy because a part of your immune system is seeing molecules that it shouldn't.
And what I did not understand at the time, I must say, I don't know, and I will ask you shortly, how you regard yourself, you know, if there is such a thing as an anti-vaxxer and if there are such people, if you are one.
But I am certainly, I would say, almost the opposite.
I am a huge fan of vaccination.
I have lectured on the beauty and elegance of this mechanism.
And to this day, I believe it is the most powerful tool in our medical toolkit.
However, what I did not realize was that the thing I had been lecturing on, that is to say, the borrowing of the immune system, the sending information into the system of B and T cells so that they are alerted in advance of pathogens that one's ancestors have never seen.
That mechanism is only part of what goes into a modern vaccine.
And there are other elements, for example, these adjuvants, which effectively They irritate the immune system so that it reacts more strongly, so that the vaccine is more effective.
And, you know, in principle, sure, that's a great idea.
On the other hand, Aggravating one's immune system may have arbitrary consequences, and nobody ever told me that, you know, you're getting this vaccine, you should be especially careful about contacting certain kinds of molecules, about other things you might do, because if you, in the period, and frankly I don't know how long the immune system is in this excited state after one is vaccinated,
But these adjuvants have the potential to intervene in arbitrary ways and cause you not only to have a strong reaction to the antigens in a traditional vaccine, but they can also cause you to react to other things that are present in your body.
So, I have not put that together.
That means I am now wondering if I might be suffering from a vaccine adverse event, and I will likely never know.
Well, it's interesting because, first of all, there's a lot of potential culprits.
And as you know, I was on the trial team in the Monsanto case, and Monsanto has this herbicide which is glyphosate-based.
And one of the things we know about glyphosate is that it interferes with the shikame pathway, which is the pathway that your microbiome uses to regulate immune responses.
And in 2006, Monsanto told farmers to start spraying glyphosate onto wheat at harvest time as a desiccant to dry out the crop to avoid mold.
And actually the largest sales of glyphosate, I think about 70% of the sales have occurred since then and for the first time they were spraying it on food because most of the use of glyphosate is early in the growing season when you're trying to fight weeds and allow the corn to grow up above them.
It also had never been sprayed on wheat before 'cause they have Roundup Ready corn, but they don't have Roundup Ready wheat, or at least they didn't.
And huge amounts of glyphosate were sprayed on the wheat, on the weed and people in our country and around the world began having celiac diseases and gluten allergies at a rate beginning in 2006 that we had never seen before.
So they're, you know, we're all swimming around in a toxic soup right now and you can't really pinpoint one One culprit, and I identify that in an outcome like you have, I will say this, on the vaccine adjuvants, here's what happened.
The original vaccines were live virus vaccines, polio vaccine and smallpox vaccine.
What happened is that they realized that if you give somebody a live virus vaccine, it can mutate in your body and your gut.
And you can create a more virulent form of the vaccine.
What you're doing is you're giving people a disarmed version of the virus, so a less virulent form of the virus, which will give you immunity against all forms, including the much more virulent which will give you immunity against all forms, including the much more virulent
The virus, when they use a live virus vaccine, can morph in your body and it can turn pathogenic and virulent and transmissible.
For example, today, 70% of the polio in the world is vaccine strain, so it's coming from vaccinated individuals.
This is what WHO acknowledges.
Very early on in vaccinology, The regulatory agencies expressed preference for dead virus vaccines.
So you disable the virus, you give a fraction of it, or you kill it and then give it to people.
The problem is the dead virus vaccines do not provoke A durable and robust immune response that you need to get a license.
And what vaccinologists discovered very early on was that if you add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine, that the body, it kind of shocks the body, and the body then remembers the antigen and associates it with that toxic element.
And so there was a search around the world by vaccinologists for the most toxic elements in the universe.
And they began adding mercury, which is a thousand times more neurotoxic than lead, and it is the most toxic element in the universe that we know about that is not radioactive.
Right, I was going to say plutonium is going to beat it.
And mercury was discontinued, got a really bad name, was discontinued in most of the American vaccines in 2003, with the exception of the flu vaccine, and it was replaced by aluminum.
And you saw, but there was aluminum throughout.
What we've seen in this country, the vaccine schedule exploded in 1989.
We went from the three vaccines that I got as a kid to 72 vaccine doses.
It's 72 doses of 16 vaccines that my children's generation got.
And it happened very quickly.
Beginning around 1989, and you started seeing these explosions of neurodevelopmental disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, TICS, Tourette syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism went from 1 in 10,000 in my generation and your generation to 1 in 22 boys in our children's generation.
Food allergies, like peanut allergies, also eczema, anaphylaxis, asthma, allergic disease, and then a third category of diseases also became epidemic, the autoimmune disease, like rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile diabetes.
And most people think that the allergic disease we began seeing was a result of the aluminum adjuvant, because the aluminum is put in the vaccine to prompt essentially an allergic response, a heightened antibody response.
And it turns out that it's not just, you know, there are things like peanut oil excipients in the vaccine itself.
So you may get an allergic response to that, but also things that are in the ambient environment at that time appear to also get targeted by that response that you just pointed out.
So if you have a Timothy weed outbreak the week that you get that vaccine, You may have now a lifetime allergy to Timothy weed, and there's two scientists, one called Callings and another called Anthony Mawson, looked on studies that show that children who are vaccinated have 30 times the rate of allergic rhinitis as children who are not unvaccinated.
Now, I had 11 brothers and sisters I have something like 71 cousins on both sides and I didn't know anybody with a food allergy growing up and yet my children, almost all of my six children have allergies and so we know that something happened and when Congress told EPA What year did, for example, the autism epidemic begin?
EPA scientists came back and said it was 1989.
And that's the year that the vaccine schedule exploded.
It doesn't mean it's all coming from vaccines, because there's other things that happen on that timeline, like PFOAs.
which are flame retardants, which became ubiquitous.
Glyphosate around that time became ubiquitous.
Cell phone radiation, ultrasound, neonicotoid pesticides, and a number of others.
So you can't pinpoint one toxin.
But vaccines make a very good culprit because of those adjuvants.
The adjuvants are designed to give you allergies, and allergies suddenly beginning in 1989.
It's hard to find somebody prior to 1989 who has a peanut allergy.
Right People It's pretty easy, like in every classroom, you'll find people.
We went from having 6% of Americans having chronic diseases in 1940.
By 1986, we had 11.8%.
And by 2006, 54%.
chronic diseases in 1940.
In 1986, we had 11.8%, and by 2006, 54%, and the big change happened in 1989.
Well, so this actually treads into the area that Heather and my book is focused on, what we And I think people need to start thinking about the puzzles, about what's wrong with them, in a different way, right?
It may be, you know, you can have an argument about a particular cause and whether it leads to autism, for example, right?
And lots of people can shut down that argument and they can say, well, this doesn't cause autism.
We've established that.
But the question is, well, then what does?
There's something in the environment.
If there is an increase in the rate of this disorder, it is implausible that it would be a change in the underlying genes.
So it's something that we are allowing to interface with children.
So do jeans.
As you know, genes don't cause epidemics.
They may provide the vulnerability, and there are subgroups that are more vulnerable, but you need an environmental toxin.
That's just pure science.
So there's a very, very famous scientist, I think he's up in Mount Sinai, called Phil Landrigan, and I've actually used him as an expert in some of our cases.
He's one of the leading toxicologists in the world.
And he has looked at this problem that you're talking about and said, why did all these things happen essentially beginning, you know, in the early 1990s?
Why was this this huge explosion of chronic disease?
Yeah.
And he he came down with 11 suspects.
You have to find something that became ubiquitous in that period.
So it has to be something that affected equally Cubans in Key Biscayne, Miami and Inuit in Homer, Alaska.
Right.
And there's only a certain number of interventions that occurred during that period that you can blame.
But it's an easy scientific problem to solve.
If you were.
We have a government official's interest in solving it. - If you were inclined to solve it. - Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for all of those toxic exposures are also the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States economy and in Washington.
So we, I don't even know what the description of this problem is, but in some sense you have a, um, the fox inherits the role of guarding the chicken coop.
I don't know.
I'd say the fox is guarding the fox coop.
Yeah, it's something along these lines, but nonetheless, you know, in instance after instance, we play this game where we rule out causes in order to exonerate some group of people that has altered something.
And the problem is we don't then go to the next step and say, look, it is something that's causing the uptick.
Therefore, we, you know, if you really wanted to address the issue, you would figure out what was doing it.
So even if you can't help people who've already been affected, you could prevent it from affecting anybody.
And the problem is.
That there's also an entire industry of what we call biostitutes, which are these, you know, phony mercenary scientists for hire, who can drum up particularly epidemiological studies, which are very, very susceptible to corruption.
In order to exclude a certain cause.
In my racket, which is plaintiff's litigation and pharmaceutical litigation and litigation against polluters, we have a saying that statistics don't lie, but statisticians do.
And also there's another saying that, you know, statistics are like prisoners of war.
They'll say anything you want if you torture them enough.
And these guys are experts.
of taking industry money and then torturing data to make it exclude a certain uh and to exonerate a certain culprit and so when government officials say well um we have excluded that we know it's not that you also need to say show me the actual study because i don't actually believe anything that you say and then you need to read that study and you need to read it critically because
As you know, the scientific journals have also been captured by the industry, and when, you know, something is peer-reviewed, it does not mean it's true.
You have to read it critically.
Right.
No, peer-review, well, you know, Heather and I sometimes say that peer review is different than review by one's peers, right?
We think peer review is just, you know, it's something you can interpret in a straightforward, common parlance way.
But no, no, no, no, no.
It's a very corrupt process.
But actually, this leads.
And I don't mean to interrupt.
I think one of the things that kind of led me to where I am today is I have kind of a unique job, which is, you know, is litigating against powerful polluters.
That has put me in this niche of having to study peer-reviewed publications and to read them critically.
And even the ones that I'm not smart enough to read critically, I need to find somebody who can and say, I suspect they cheated here.
Tell me how they did it.
I don't automatically believe peer review, and I know that there's certain tricks that they all use, and there's gimmicks, and there's the stratification of data, and there's exclusionary criteria, and all these tricks that they use to get any outcome that they want.
All right, and I think it's going to be hard for people who haven't encountered it in a professional context to even comprehend what you're getting at.
But the fact is, and you know, this is another place Heather and I say that science is an extremely powerful process, but it's also extremely fragile.
Right?
In order to get the scientific method to work, it has to be insulated from things like market forces.
Market forces completely overwhelm the scientific method.
And what you're saying can be translated as any hypothesis can be falsified for a price.
Right?
If you want to run a study that falsifies the connection between A and B, it can be done.
And so the problem is you have to figure out how to exclude studies that are built to do that and leave only studies that actually meet the bare minimum requirements of an actual scientific test, which is not easy.
You can't always spot it from the outside.
You know, the best, anybody who doubts that that's happening should look at the testimony of people like Richard Horton.
Who is a scoundrel, but a highly respected one who has run the Lancet, I don't know, which is the highest gravitas scientific and medical journal for decades.
And he says, we have become propaganda vessels for the pharmaceutical industry, that there's basically nothing in our journal.
You can't believe it anymore.
Marsha Engel, Who was, until recently, the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who has written a book saying exactly the same thing.
The editors of the highest-gravitas, highest-weight journals, all of them, have acknowledged that what is published in their journals is not necessarily truth, and that, more often, it isn't truth.
It's profit-making, mercenary propaganda by people who have a lot at stake in saying, I have a scientifically ratified product.
Which results in something the public is completely incapable of navigating, which is a world in which basically you have two kinds of cherry-picking pitted against each other.
You've got the honorable cherry picking where you are trying to get rid of the stuff that isn't right because it was built to fail, right?
And you've got the exact opposite in which a false picture is being painted for some purpose you don't necessarily even know.
And this is not an environment that is conducive to figuring out what's true, right?
Because really then it becomes a question of You know, who do you trust?
And that's not a scientific question, right?
That's the opposite of science.
Right.
Appeals to authority is a logical fallacy.
Right.
Oh, you can't do it that way.
And that's right.
I mean, the, you know, the essential sort of intention of liberal democracy and of science and medicine and even law
Has been the discernment or the search for existential truths, and we're all walking around at this point in a wilderness of mirrors that has been deliberately constructed to lie to us and to deceive us about where the truth actually lies.
Right, which, alright, I don't even know where to start here, but let me just say, your book It has thrown a certain number of people that I quite respect.
These are people who are on the front lines, fighting the good fight, who do know this material.
And yet, in diving into your book, they are thrown because of what they didn't know.
Right.
There is something about the, you know, I don't know how to describe it exactly, but to the extent that I've been into your book, it feels to me like a beautifully written indictment.
Right.
So it is in its own way encyclopedic in going through the history of these conclusions of the history of the people involved in making them.
And drawing connections.
And here's what I'm getting at.
I've long been focused on political corruption and capture.
I've long been aware that capture is an inadequate term, right?
Regulatory capture is too narrow to describe what we see almost anywhere, right?
Regulatory capture is really about regulatory agencies that begin to function on behalf of the sectors that they... They become sock puppets for the industry.
Right, but that does not cover what we begin to see, right?
For the FDA to be corrupted by pharma is not surprising.
It's tragic, it's dangerous, but it's not surprising.
For Google to be in on it is A new twist.
And so I don't know what the right term for what we see is.
As a placeholder, I've been saying something like extended capture, right?
It's capture of all of the things necessary in order to create what you're describing as a hall of mirrors.
I would say it's a it's an entirely Potemkin public health narrative.
And so before I got to your book, I've obviously been talking to Heather and Pierre Corey and Robert Malone and all of these folks about what we're seeing.
And it's like we're backstage, right?
We can see the thing happening in front of us.
It's not that hard to see if you know where to stand, but the public can't understand what they're seeing.
And here's the little puzzle that I'm left with.
If I look at the public health recommendations for COVID.
I think that the public health recommendations are the exact inverse of what one would do if one wanted to control this disease and minimize the harm from it.
And it's not that they're bad and arbitrary and wrong.
It's the inverse, right?
You can't get to the inverse through incompetence.
That would be impossible, right?
You would get arbitrary from incompetence.
What we have is, you know, we have drugs that work early.
What's the recommendation?
That we don't treat you until very late in the progression of disease, right?
When we know that the stuff that we have that works doesn't work anymore, right?
Where do we send you?
We send you home where you're going to get people who you live with sick, right?
All of these things don't make any sense, so we use exactly the things that don't work.
Remdesivir doesn't work.
It's a dangerous drug that doesn't work, and we use that.
We don't use the safe drugs that do work, right?
So again, it's the inverse of what you would expect if we were trying to control the pandemic.
Now, somebody watching may hear me say that and say, Brett's lost his mind.
Right.
He's got it exactly upside down.
And I think, you know, an honest broker who's walking into this conversation for the first time has to wonder who has it exactly wrong.
Somebody does.
Right.
It could be me, but it could also be, you know, Tony Fauci, for example.
Now, your book comes at this puzzle and what it does that I think is so valuable is it begins to lead people through how you might end up at a response that was upside down, right?
Upside down is a very troubling thing and it suggests, I mean, what do you do about a public health apparatus that's doing the exact inverse of what you're supposed to do?
How do you even turn it around, right?
It has to go 180 degrees in the other direction in order to be effective.
And I don't even know that there's precedent for that.
So I guess It's a hall of mirrors.
It's a Potemkin public health response.
It's the inverse of what we should do.
It creates a vast chasm between people who are making sense and people who are not, which makes it much harder for people, you know, to dip their toe in the water and begin to, you know, to listen to the other side.
So, What do you see?
Where are we?
Right?
You're shocking people with your book.
Is there a way out of this?
Well, that's a huge question that I really don't deal with in the book.
What is the way out of this?
And, you know, I think the way that you put this, I kind of wish I had some of that language in the conclusion of the book, because It's a way of saying something is really wrong here without actually trying to read people's minds and attribute motives to them.
And I try to avoid that throughout the book.
I don't say, here's why Tony Fauci was scheming to do this.
I just show these recurring patterns of behavior that began early on in his career and that again and again and again.
Work for him.
The alliances with the pharmaceutical industry, the capacity to control science, to suppress science, to punish scientists who are, you know, publishing contrary science.
And to really control the extraordinary hegemony that he has over global scientific research, not only what gets funded, but also what gets suppressed.
Between him and his two partners, Jeremy Farrar, who runs the Wellcome Trust, and Bill Gates, they control 61% of the biomedical research in the world, and those three men Have used the same pattern of control, of the manipulation of fear, of the generation of fake pandemics.
And I'm not saying this one is a fake pandemic, because it isn't.
But throughout their careers, they've repeatedly faked pandemics.
And I show all that in the book.
Um, and I don't, you know, I try not to look into their heads and, you know, and speculate.
I just really try to tell, give the facts about what happened.
And out of these recurring patterns, you can see that there is something truly wrong.
Now, how do we correct that?
The brief answer to that is we need to fix democracy, which is not a, you know, I mean, the problem is I, you know, I feel like I saw all this happening beginning because of the nature of my work as an environmental advocate and just being part of the family.
family that I'm part of, I saw this trajectory of how corporations take control and, you know, execute essentially a coup d'etat against democracy.
And over a long period of time, and, you know, part of it is, you know, the getting rid of campaign finance reform and unleashing these huge tsunamis of money that are coming into all of these mechanisms of corruption, including all the well-documented mechanisms of agency capture that always are happening in a democracy. including all the well-documented mechanisms of agency capture that always
But, you know, we've now, we've really now, I believe, kind of obliterated democracy in our country.
And even my party, the Democratic The Democratic Party realizes that.
And they realize that democracy, I mean, the whole theme of the censorship drive, which the Democratic Party, 80% of Democrats now believe that censorship is an okay thing.
And that's extraordinary, because we all grew up reading Kafka and, you know, Robert Heinlein and, you know, Aldous Huxley.
And Solzhenitsyn and we know that censorship always leads to tyranny.
Oh, you know, why is it that 80 percent, 78, 80 percent of Democrats now endorse it?
And what does that mean?
What it means fundamentally is that they've lost, they've lost faith in democracy.
They now believe that the people, the demos, cannot be trusted with information and that the information has to be manipulated, changed, diffused before it's given to them.
And that the government ought to be in charge of that process and ought to collaborate with these titans like Mark Zuckerberg and Google to make sure that the population is controlled, which is the opposite of democracy.
And so, you know, when you ask, how do you fix it?
We need to really.
Let me go back and say one thing, give a hopeful message, because I don't want to depress everybody.
But we lost democracy at another era in American history, which was during the Gilded Age in the 1890s, you know, 1900s, where You had a few of these very, very wealthy, it's very analogous to what's happening now, the Carnegie's and the Rockefeller's and the Mellon's and the Morgan's and the Frick's, who controlled not only the entire economy, But also at that point, there was no direct election of senators.
And so they were handpicking senators.
And democracy really disappeared in America.
And you had the press that rose up.
You had these mock-raking journalists.
You had the populist movement, the countryside, the progressive movement, the cities.
And you had a very dynamic leader, Teddy Roosevelt, who came in and they Well, I think it can happen.
an antitrust act, they forced, they had graduated income tax for the first time, they created the 40 hour work week, they gave women the vote, they abolished child labor, they allowed unions to actually function and they restored democracy in many they allowed unions to actually function and they restored democracy in Well, I think it can happen.
The problem is today, this is not just tyranny, it's totalitarianism.
And what is the difference?
Totalitarianism seeks to control the way people think every aspect of your life.
And they have, for the first time in history, the capacity for that kind of total control.
You know, the Chinese are now using facial recognition systems that can tell whether you look guilty.
And, you know, we're seeing these track and trace surveillance now that I think is a really, it's a daunting obstacle to the restoration of democracy.
Yeah, well, I see the same picture.
I must say I'm a bit concerned about a couple things.
I agree it is also, it is still possible to rescue democracy, and in fact that we don't really have any choice.
And during the last election I tried to make this point.
I launched Unity 2020, which was a plan for doing Just that, and actually we did quite well.
We reached a lot of folks.
It obviously wasn't going to turn the election, but nonetheless, I do believe it's possible.
I believe it's very late, but not too late.
On the other hand, I think some new things are stacked against us, and it's very hard to get people to spot them.
One of them I'm watching all sorts of people who understood the problem of authoritarianism when it came to woke ideology.
Lots of people who saw through it and did not cotton to the authoritarian impulse.
They are on a different side with respect to the public health response.
They are quite convinced I think that the lies they are being told are noble lies and therefore it's time for us all to get on board to get past COVID and they do not understand there is no plan here to get past COVID.
That's not what's being deployed and they've got it wrong.
Those aren't noble lies at all.
So even journalists who would have been the people I would expect to out the whatever this pattern is and to say this makes no sense, nothing about this is what you would do if you were trying to control COVID, those people have by and large been
They've been quiet, and I think they've been quiet because as soon as you step into a scientific milieu, many people who would otherwise have the courage of their convictions start cowing to authority because they don't internally feel entitled to challenge things that are patently wrong.
Right.
They feel that they're outranked by someone.
So I worry.
I worry about that.
And I also worry that the nature of the censorship is now.
Maybe it's not even just the censorship.
The nature of the tyranny is now much more surgical.
And so, because there's a lot more capacity to... You know, you don't... It used to be that if the intelligence agencies wanted to spy on somebody, it was an effort.
They had to spend on it, which meant that they couldn't just spy on everybody.
And that limited the amount of spying that got done, presumably.
This is a practical matter.
Now, because we're all transmitting virtually everything through channels that can be just simply captured, it's become impossibly cheap.
And they don't even need to know who they're spying on, they just collect it all, and then at the point you become trouble, they look into what you've said, they can map your entire social landscape and figure out who you trust, who you don't trust, what your blind spots are, whatever it is they want to know, they can do it.
And then they can punish you instantly by cutting off your money, your cell phone, all of the, you know, without any kind of due process or trial or even regulatory involvement.
They can tell you don't travel.
They can deny you access to your job, to your education.
Basic rights are now...
Rewards for compliance and obedience rather than you know rights that you can't take from me no matter what right now They're now all on they're just they're Cookies they you give you they give you for you know for demonstrating obedience right, which means that They have a great deal more leverage over those people who would stand up and say, no, people like you.
Right.
You are being ruthlessly punished for disagreeing.
And I think it will be any honest broker who listens to this conversation or any other conversation that you've had will hear a careful, thoughtful person who is trying to make sense out of a complex, a complex crisis.
Right.
But the point is...
For somebody who doesn't know what you think, I haven't looked at your Wikipedia page, but I would guess that there's a lot of colorful stuff on it, as there is on my Wikipedia page.
Stuff designed to cause anybody who might be tempted to listen to you to back away, because they don't want to get near the social contagion that comes from the various stigmas and epithets that are directed your way.
In any case, my overarching point is the modern tools have made it possible to prevent change much more surgically, which leaves most people unaware that this force that prevents change is doing this, right?
Because it has far more information and it has, as you point out, all sorts of mechanisms to reward and punish those that it wants to.
And I worry We're going to have to think our way around that puzzle in order to to make change.
And we have to make change because we're obviously I mean, as you point out, it would appear that even the Democratic Party has lost faith in the idea of of democracy and the consent of the governed and frankly, rule of law and everything else.
I guess I do have to ask you, I'm also a lifelong Democrat.
Do you do you have any hope left for the party?
Well, I don't think that we can win without, you know, getting a substantial part of the people, a number of the people who are now subsumed in the orthodoxy of Democrats, who are subsumed in the orthodoxy, who are well-intentioned.
Um, but just don't see it.
And we, those people, if we're going to win this battle, we need to wake them up.
And one of the things that I really try to do in my communications is to avoid the polarization, is not to point my finger at this party or that party or that race or, you know, vaccinated versus unvaccinated, all the way, all the mechanisms that they use to divide us, which I believe are strategic.
In order to protect, you know, the vested interests and the elites.
And we need to stop fighting with each other.
And I think we need to turn, you know, the Democratic Party around.
And it's not, I mean, it's really stunning what's happened, the attack, the outright coup d'etat against democracy.
And against constitutional governance that's happened in the past 20 months because we've seen, you know, James Madison put the, I said that, Jefferson and Adams and the other framers put the First Amendment, put freedom of speech and expression into the First Amendment because all of the other amendments depend on it.
And we saw them immediately go after the First Amendment.
In fact, in October of 2019, When the virus was already almost certainly circulating in Wuhan, they had this, you know, this pandemic tabletop simulation in New York called Event 201, and where they
They did a simulation of a coronavirus, a global coronavirus pandemic.
This is a time when it was Bill Gates, it was Avril Haines, the former deputy director of the CIA, pharmaceutical people, Johnson & Johnson, people from the social media and the mainstream media, and they're all sitting around a table.
Simulating what's going to happen if a coronavirus pandemic hits is quite extraordinary, but the response that they're talking about has nothing to do with a medical response.
It's all about using the pandemic for a very militarized response and a monetized response.
They use the pandemic as an excuse to clamp down totalitarian controls and they spend the entire four... anybody can go and look at this, you know, it's still on YouTube.
And they spend, you know, a two hour discussion talking about how to censor social media when people start saying that the coronavirus was laboratory generated.
And you have The head of Chinese CDC, George Gao, there, you have the CIA, the person who is now Obama's highest spy, the head of the National Security Agency, and that's what they're all talking about.
And as soon as the pandemic came, That's the first thing they did is they started censoring everybody.
Well, once they did that, and what Madison said is the reason they put it in the First Amendment is because once you give a license to a government to silence speech, the government has a license to commit any atrocity, including abolishing all the other amendments.
So then they got rid of the, you know, the other part of the First Amendment is freedom of religion.
They shut down the churches for a year.
Without due process, without any science being shown, without any public hearings, no notice and comment rulemaking, and they kept the liquor stores open as essential businesses.
So, you know, which I don't have an objection.
A lot of people, liquor stores are essential, but liquor stores are not in the Constitution, and churches are, so there should have been some Public national discussion of that, and some science demonstrating that this was something that was going to work, and they shut down jury trials.
They said, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, the Seventh Amendment says, no American shall be denied the right of a trial before his peers in cases or controversies exceeding $25 in value.
Well, they passed the PrEP Act and the CARES Act that said if a vaccine company or any other corporation that says it's involved in countermeasures injures or kills you, no matter how negligent they are, no matter how reckless, no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue them.
They got rid of property rights.
They closed a million businesses with no due process, no just compensation.
They got rid of all of the prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures, you know, with all this track and tracing surveillance that they implemented.
And they got rid of two processes along the wall.
Government is no longer by public hearing and notice and comment rulemaking and you show me the science and I'll cross-examine you and you cross-examine me.
It's just one doctor.
Who's saying put on masks, you know, lockdown without any scientific justification, no argument.
And that is so frightening and so disconcerting to, I think, anybody who understands how democracy got rid of every amendment except the Second Amendment, which is the guns.
The rest of them are all gone.
Right.
So.
All right.
So they got rid of it all.
One doctor.
What are the chances that that doctor would also be one of two people who appears potentially to have been responsible for the pandemic in the first place?
Yeah, I mean, that's the big question.
And, you know, I have a chapter in the book about, I have a couple of chapters that are, you know, about how Dr. Fauci ended up doing these gain-of-function experiments.
And what happened is that, I mean, if you go back just historically, and I'll make this very brief, when I was a kid, so you're going to think this is a long story, but when I was seven years old, President Eisenhower made what is today probably the greatest speech, most important speech in American history.
Where he warned Americans against the obliteration of democracy if we allow the military-industrial complex to continue to expand, to emerge and dominate democracy.
My uncle took over as president three days later.
I was at that inauguration.
He spends his three years fighting the military industrial complex, dies.
My father runs five years later, running against the military industrial complex, the Vietnam War.
He dies during that campaign.
And then in 89, And you see the expansion with Nixon coming in and, you know, the military getting more and contractors taking more and more control of American democracy.
In 1989, the communism collapsed, and we're all told we're going to get a peace dividend.
And, you know, the money that went into that billion-dollar stealth bomber that cannot fly in the rain, okay, that billion dollars isn't We're now going to go to schools and hospitals and roads and, you know, and health care and improving quality of life.
And we're all saying this is going to be great.
We're going to pound the weapons into plowshares.
But there were people in our, you know, in who were listening to that and saying that's coming out, that piece of evidence is coming out of my pocket.
Oh, 93, four years later, we have the first terrorist attack.
And there's a screeching halt to all that money that was headed towards civilian uses now.
It goes into terrorism, Islamic terrorism.
And it gives us justification to have bases and, you know, 670 bases and countries across the world and all of this, you know, this global hegemony.
But Islamic terrorism has a problem.
Because it's hard to justify these huge allocations of our GNP to a harm or potential risk that kills fewer people every year, Americans every year, than lightning strikes.
And when the World Trade Center attack occurred in 2001, three weeks later there was an anthrax attack.
And that and our country, you know, first Bush and then Obama said that declared officially official documents that biosecurity is now the spear tip of American foreign policy and germs are much more appealing than Islamic terrorism because germs can get into everybody's home and they can kill you.
And people have a natural repugnance to germs, and it's easy to exploit that fear to get them to give up their constitutional rights and to turn this into a national security state ruled by the people that Eisenhower warned us against.
Fauci was part of that.
You know, the anthrax attack was used as a justification to invade Iraq.
It turned out, we found out later, that the anthrax came from one of three U.S.
military labs.
It was somebody in the U.S.
military that was associated, and it had nothing to do with Saddam.
The military began, and people who were involved in biowarfare began funneling huge amounts of money into biowarfare.
It's illegal.
In '72, we signed the treaty.
We closed all of our biowarfare labs.
Nixon signed the treaty saying, we're never going to do it again.
We're not going to create them.
We're not going to study them.
We're not going to use them, and we're not going to store them.
Bioweapons.
So the military wanted to do bioweapons research but it was scared to because of the legal violations and so they started taking this money And funneling it to NIH and specifically Tony Fauci.
So, beginning in 2001, immediately after those attacks, he began receiving $1.6 billion a year to do essentially bioweapons research.
There's a loophole in the bioweapons treaty.
That says you can do bioweapons research as long as it's what they call dual use.
As long as you can say you're developing vaccines, you can develop bioweapons.
And Tony Fauci had a personal stake in this.
They gave him a payoff, which is they gave him and the Pentagon gave him that money.
He also got a 68% pay raise.
That is attached to his bioweapons research.
Tony Fauci today is the highest paid official in the U.S.
government.
He gets $434,000 a year.
The president gets only $400,000, which is the next biggest.
And why does he get that?
where the president gets only 400,000, which is the next biggest.
So, and why does he get that?
He gets almost 70% of it comes from his military work.
So he has a $6.1 billion budget, which is money just that he just gives away to scientists to do basically drug development.
And then he has an additional $1.6 billion, so it's about $7.7 billion altogether.
It comes from the military, and that he had to justify by doing these gain-of-function studies.
And, you know, at first it was completely unregulated.
He really, and I talk about it in the book, about how he manipulated the regulation and got controls of the committee that were supposed to be overseeing him by putting his grantees on those committees.
And he began and then in a bunch of the bugs escaped in 2014 and 300 scientists signed a letter to Obama saying you got to stop essentially Tony Fauci from making any more of these bugs.
And that year he began transferring his studies to the Wuhan lab, because the Chinese were welcoming them, and the Chinese were, and the Wuhan lab is run by the Chinese military.
You cannot work in that lab without some association with the Chinese military, and the Chinese military are very frank that what they're doing is weapons development.
And so you had all this group of characters, very, you know, interesting, and people like Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina and Peter Daszak, who had their own self-interest and made excuses to themselves that they were, you know, doing the, I mean, listen, Tony Fauci is saying it out of the corner of his mouth.
He's saying we're doing this in order to develop vaccines as countermeasures.
The people who know most about this area, like Mark Lipsitch of Harvard and Richard E. Bright and a bunch of others, say there's not a single development that has come out of gain-of-function research that has helped in any pandemic, including this one.
It's worthless research.
But Tony Fauci himself was funding Ralph Baric to create these ligation processes where you not only are developing these pandemic superbugs, but you're also developing methodologies for hiding the fact that they were bioengineered.
Oh, the no-see-um edits?
The no-see-um edits.
Oh, and the interesting thing about that is how do you justify them?
Why in the world, why is that a benefit to public health?
Right, right.
And Fauci was funding that.
Right, you would in fact want the exact opposite, because you would want the ability to at least know when something you had done caused a harm.
Yeah, that's incredible.
And I mean, again, I just think people, okay, you've got two narratives.
One is we're doing the best we can, it's the unvaccinated who are causing this pandemic to go on and on, and we've got the tool at our disposal and people just need to use it.
Okay, that's obvious nonsense, but nonetheless, that's the story.
And then you've got the alternative narrative, which is actually the vaccines, interesting as they are as a technological discovery, have multiple design failures within them.
They are weak as can be, which anybody, you don't need any biological knowledge whatsoever to recognize that if they've faded to the point you need a booster in six months, this isn't much of a vaccine by any standard, right?
There's no pretense that they prevent transmission.
Right.
And it's this incredible cognitive dissonance, this incredible intellectual discontent.
People, your friends, are telling you, you can't come to my party because you're unvaccinated.
And you can't even say to them, but vaccines, Tony Fauci says, vaccines don't prevent transmission.
Right.
And you can tell somebody that fact.
And the reaction will be to get furious at you rather than say, oh, then how am I protected?
We know that vaccinated people are equally likely, from all the data that we have, to pass the illness.
There's a lot of data that says if you're vaccinated, you're more likely.
I can't say that's true because nobody's funding the science to show that.
But the science that we have, and also common sense, And this is what Luke Montanaro, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus in 1993, and what he said from the beginning, if you vaccinate people with what they call a leaky vaccine, which is a vaccine that does not prevent transmission,
During the height of a pandemic, you are turning every vaccinated person into a mutant factory.
You're actually, it's a, each person is a serial passage gain-of-function experiment.
Exactly.
A de facto.
The same reason that sub-therapeutic antibiotics Right, exactly.
Generate antibiotics-resistant superbugs.
A vaccine that is sub-therapeutic is going to, from anybody who understands natural selection or biological evolution, Would immediately say, of course, that is going to create mutant superbugs.
Right, now, and they've played this game, they've played it with me, and I don't much like it because they accuse me of not understanding what I'm talking about, when in fact what they're doing is just playing a linguistic game.
We say, escape mutants, right?
That puts the emphasis on mutation, and so they make this argument.
that the number of cases is is proportional to the amount of mutation which is of course true but it's the selection for the mutants that are resistant to these vaccines that is driving this so the these are escape variants which is the result of selection which is very definitely happening in those who have been vaccinated what's more and this is again very hard to convey to people who haven't been paying attention but
COVID is not the worst disease it might be from the point of view of the symptoms, but it's very bad on its own, right?
It does damage to many different types of tissue.
It does... Tags all organs, essentially.
Right, all organs, which I take to be indicative, actually, of the likely origin from the lab because Most bugs have to pay attention to, you know, keeping you on your feet so you spread them, but in a laboratory things are very different if you're spreading it in a tissue or in an animal that doesn't have to forage, right?
If you are a pathogen You want your host to be eating, drinking, having sex, going to parties.
Right.
And because you, the advantage goes to the ones that are not sickening at reorgan in their host.
Right.
So this is a bad disease.
Heather and I have said that from the beginning.
This is a dangerous disease.
Those who downplay it, we're making a mistake.
The irony is that this has actually changed.
This was a very dangerous disease until some very good dedicated doctors figured out how to treat it, right?
It is now a very manageable disease except for the fact that all of the tools that would prevent it and are useful in treating it are being removed from the table as quickly as possible.
Yes, Ivermectin, indeed.
There's a really good drug that works really well in this case.
We know that from doctor's clinical experience.
Likewise, hydroxychloroquine.
But even if you take those off the table, We still have a whole host of substances that work, and we actually in fact have substances that prevent people from coming down with it.
And yet, our public health response does not include a discussion of things like vitamin D and zinc and magnesium, right?
This is unconscionable.
Right?
We are actually talking about a disease that at great cost we have learned how to deal with.
It does not require us to lock down the world at this moment because we have enough knowledge, but we're not deploying it.
And so what they've effectively left us is a vaccine that is effectively an interesting prototype, right?
Not nearly well enough understood, not nearly safe enough to be deployed into the public, Not justified on the basis that it doesn't, as you point out, prevent transmission, right?
We have this prototype vaccine being deployed as if it's a solution to the pandemic, and the actual solutions are being kept out of play, and that is keeping this disease much more dangerous than it actually is, or would need to be at this point.
This is preposterous.
It's the upside-down, inverse public health response.
And the problem, I mean, really, let's talk about the actual problem.
The actual problem is if what I just said is true, then the world is upside down.
That leaves the person watching this podcast with nothing to grab onto.
Okay, so there are some renegades who say we're doing the exact inverse of what we should be doing.
Even if you would acknowledge that, it doesn't tell you how you change anything.
So, you know, it leaves... I think people are simply doubling down on the idea that the public health authorities must be doing the right thing.
Because if they're not, it's hopeless.
Yeah, and it's hard, you know, you discredit yourself and marginalize yourself if you even by inventorying all the like bad things they do because the the The conclusion that you kind of corral yourself into is feeling like they, you know, a lot of evidence that they're deliberately doing things that they know are wrong to harm public health.
And, you know, that's, for most people, that's, it's impossible to believe.
When I was studying law and later when I was teaching litigation, one of the things that I taught my students when they're talking to a jury, you never tell the jury that all doctors are wrong about this.
You really target it to that doctor because the jury does not want to believe all doctors are wrong.
They want to believe something's wrong with that doctor who you're suing.
And I think it's unacceptable to people that these medical officials who are in charge of our lives may have bad motivations.
I don't even go into that in my book because I try to stay away from the motive, but I do lay out this very damning case.
You and I talked earlier today about what happened in China.
China and we don't really know, but why, how the Chinese were able to deal with this, this pandemic so quickly.
They eliminated it by April.
So, you know, April 2020.
So they had a two month pandemic and it was gone.
But we know that the Chinese did exactly the opposite of what we did.
If they did really tracking and tracing, which is they figured out who was infected and they immediately isolated them and then they gave them early treatment and they had by April they had published an early treatment protocol.
Which included chloroquine, which is a form of hydroxychloroquine, and it included all kinds of herbs that have kerosene in them, and zinc, and vitamin D, all the things that we know work, and many, many others, and antibiotics, and anti-inflammatories, and all the things that you have to do to deal with this multifaceted disease.
And we did the opposite.
This goes to your supposition that we did the inverse of what you're supposed to do.
The Chinese took people who were sick and immediately treated them, even if they didn't have any symptoms.
Tony Fauci, his procedure was if you came in and you got a positive test, they sent you home to infect your family and to get yourself so sick that you couldn't breathe and then come into the hospital and get remdesivir, which is deadly.
So deadly that it was pulled in 2019 from a study on Ebola because it was killing so many people more than the four other drugs and this was Tony Fauci's study and the Safety Review Board said you cannot give this to Ebola victims because it's too dangerous and now this is the only drug that we have you know other than monoclonal
Antibodies is the only approved drug for COVID.
And it is one of the most dangerous drugs.
And also the lethality of that drug mimics COVID.
So it's kidney collapse, it's lung collapse, you know, it's pulmonary injury.
So people don't know whether it's the drug killing them or the COVID.
And to get ventilators.
Right.
Oh, that Tony Fauci's prescription is wait at home in terror till you're two.
You're so sick that you're not getting enough oxygen in your blood.
Come to the hospital and we're going to give you remdesivir, which is deadly, and ventilators, which are deadly.
The Chinese did the opposite.
He said, as soon as we know you're sick, we're getting you out of the population so you can't infect other people.
We're going to give you treatment so you never have to go to a hospital.
And you know that, what we did is the opposite of quarantine.
Right.
It is the exact opposite of what everybody who has done.
Epidemic management in the history of medicine, who knows that you quarantine the sick, you do not quarantine the healthy.
Yeah, not only we quarantine the healthy and then we send the sick home to them, We send the sick home and then we nuke the economy so that everybody's sitting at home to get infected.
Right.
It is literally the exact opposite of what you would do reasonably.
And even if somehow that was an accident at the point that it didn't work and we racked up extremely high levels of mortality for this disease, we should have realized, hey, something we're doing is wrong.
And we knew from the beginning that this was a, this was an indoor ailment.
Yep.
The people who were locked in, you know, in senior centers, elder care homes, it raced through those areas and killed everybody.
Yep.
And so, you know, why?
And we don't see it spreading outdoors.
Right.
So what do we do?
Why do we lock everybody inside?
We close the beaches, right?
We close the parks.
We give thousand dollar tickets to surfers.
Right.
Who are in the sun getting vitamin D. Yes.
Heather and I were yelling about this.
It's like, well, you know, I mean, at some level they caused us to view the entire world as dangerous when 99% of the world was safe, right?
By masking the healthy, and I must say, this is one of the places I did get wrong.
I initially thought masks were likely to work.
I masked before almost anyone in my community.
In fact, I developed a reputation at the hardware store as we were preparing for lockdown and building our studio.
I would go in there masked and they started referring to me as the bandit because I had a bandana on.
These things don't actually work nearly as well as people think they do.
In fact, the cloth masks probably don't work at all.
But nonetheless, all right, I got that one wrong.
But well, what are we doing?
We're putting masks on everyone, all of the healthy people, which creates this ever present reminder.
Right.
And I think actually you do talk about this in your book, that there is the psychological aspect of to the extent that we have two we have two diseases.
One is COVID.
And the other is authoritarianism.
Yeah, right.
And so that authoritarian thing depends on people feeling frightened and feeling, you know, uncertain about each other.
Right.
The whole idea pandemic of the unvaccinated.
That was nonsense.
And the masks are amplifiers for fear.
Right.
They cause you.
The point is, if you were if we were to view this disease as it actually is, The answer is, you step outside your door into the outside world, you have become very nearly safe, right?
To the extent that you wish to interact with other human beings, and you do it in that outside environment, you are very nearly safe.
That ought to be a tremendous relief.
It gives us a loophole in this disease that we can exploit to retain our humanity and to interact with each other in normal ways by doing so.
And, you know, maybe you would interact at home before and you find a way to interact outdoors now and it gives you normalcy.
And the thing is, just as we are doing the wrong thing medically and epidemiologically to control this disease, we are also doing the wrong things socially.
Right?
We are amping up people's fear, and irrationally so.
And there's no excuse for it, but it's all part of, hey, if it would be a good idea, we're going to do the opposite.
Right?
And you know, another thing, in pandemic management, you want to reduce stress on people.
You don't want to say you no longer have a job.
You don't want to say that we're not going to let you see your parents.
We're going to remove you.
We're not going to allow you to make facial expressions.
We're not going to allow you to kiss your children or children to hug each other at school.
You don't want to, you know...
All of the responses, you never saw Anthony Fauci act like America's doctor.
I'm kind of getting off the way Roosevelt wouldn't say.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Don't be scared.
Let's act rationally.
Let's take care of each other.
Let's have a medical response.
Let's make sure everybody has access to vitamin D. Let's tell people to get outside to exercise, to lose weight, to avoid chemical residues in your food, to avoid sugar drinks, To do all the things that you would want a doctor and then and then if you ask what should Tony Fauci have done?
The first thing he should have done is to create there's 11 million between 11 and 15 million doctors in the world.
Many of them working on the front line with COVID patients.
How do you create a communication grid that connects all those people so that if somebody in India or Tanzania is having extraordinary success, how do you measure that?
How do you calibrate it?
And how do you communicate that back to an analytics center?
All of these guys, Gates and Larry Ellison and Google people, Why weren't we creating a network grid?
We did the opposite.
To figure out what is the best existing therapeutic drugs treating these diseases?
Where are people showing us, publishing every day in real time, the best treatment protocols?
Instead, they did the opposite.
They kept us from accessing those treatment protocols they had.
You know, Burks, Redfield, Fauci on the stage every day doing these, you know, these press conferences.
None of those people ever treated a COVID case.
Right.
So we were getting our information on people who had no experience treating these cases.
All the frontline doctors who are treating thousands of patients and getting different results.
Why weren't we distilling that information and gathering it, collecting it, distilling it, aggregating it, and then turning it into useful treatment protocols that you could update every single day?
To this day, Tony Fauci has never published a treatment protocol, early treatment of COVID.
The Chinese did it by the end of March.
And they had obliterated the disease by April.
You're 100% right that we should have had doctors networking to figure out what worked, right?
That could have very quickly generated very high quality information.
And again, it's not even that we didn't do it.
We literally did the opposite, right?
We are now demonizing- Suppressing and demonizing and marginalizing and vilifying- Right, we are vilifying the very doctors who figured out how to do it.
In fact, I don't know that I'm at liberty to say who, but I was told
Of a doctor who has had excellent success with early treatment of COVID, who has literally been forbidden by his hospital to prescribe the drugs that he knows work, and he is now being forced to attend, effectively, the slow deaths of patients he knows he could save.
Oh.
Right?
This is preposterous, right?
And, you know, And I know the doctor that you're talking about in Virginia, I think, if it's the right one, but he's one of the most published and respected doctors in his field in America and has a track record of saving lives, of having a
Infection fatality rates that are a quarter, a third, or a fifth of what all of his colleagues have because he's been doing these early treatments.
This is the doctor you want.
Exactly, that's the doctor you want.
And he, you know, in Massachusetts now, they're illegalizing Prescriptions or ivermectin for any purpose.
Yep.
To keep people from getting life-saving medications.
And, you know, you look at this and say, how are they orchestrating this?
Yeah, and I... Okay, you and I don't know what drives the individuals who are making these bad decisions, but you don't really need to, right?
At the point that you discover, hey, this looks like the inverse of a good protocol, There's a conspicuous... I've noticed the following pattern.
There are lots of doctors who will argue that something like ivermectin is ineffective, and there are lots of other doctors who will say it's effective.
I have yet to encounter the doctor who has prescribed it who says it's ineffective, right?
You've got a lot of people who are effectively armchair doctoring who will swear to this one thing, but all of the people who have tried it seem to find it's effective.
Now, I don't know if I say that here on this podcast, or is there going to be a race?
Is there a price point to generate a doctor who will swear he's tried it and it doesn't work?
I don't know, but I have yet to see that pattern at all.
So at the point you discover that the doctors that do have good track records are using various things that are being there's obviously a massive campaign to shape public opinion around these medications.
At the point you discover all that's happening and then you spot that the person who is in charge of our response also happens to be one of two people who are plausibly causal of the pandemic.
Who seems to have circumvented actually federal law and gain of function research and offshored it to a lab that appears to have leaked this pathogen into the world.
How is it that the person who appears to be important in the causal chain of this pandemic and is now apparently mismanaging it at the level of not just incompetence, but inverting the best protocols?
You don't need to know what's on his mind.
You just need to fire him.
He just needs to go, right?
It would be hard to do worse than we are doing.
And, you know, that doesn't require us to know anything beyond where these, what am I trying to say?
If your public health officials aren't even recommending vitamin D this far into this pandemic, then there's no excuse.
We could replace them with any one of a number of people and instantly improve our response to this.
And our failure to do it suggests that something isn't interested in controlling the disease.
Yeah, there is a very, um, A powerful orthodoxy that has compromised the essential intention of some of the key institutions in our democracy.
The institutions that are supposed to serve the public interest and public health have now been subverted in a way that really is a kind of coup d'etat against democracy.
You can see the people who are involved in fortifying the orthodoxy.
It's clearly the pharmaceutical companies who are making a lot of money.
It's the internet titans who, you know, there's been a transfer in wealth of The latest figures I've seen of 3.8 trillion dollars from middle class to the super rich.
There's a handful of billionaires who are mainly the Silicon Valley billionaires and media moguls.
Who are making, on the lockdown, are making billions, are amplifying their wealth in these incredible ways, and nobody's saying, well, they're also the ones who are censoring any criticism or questions of the lockdown.
And then, you know, there are other sort of institutions that are involved in the captive agencies that have long ago been co-opted by the pharmaceutical paradigm.
And then the mainstream media, which, you know, the pharmaceutical companies, America, there's two countries in the world.
That allow direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies.
And this is one of the elements that has really facilitated the takeover of these, you know, the fortification of this orthodoxy.
Pharma spends about $9.6 billion in advertising directly to consumers.
The only other nation is New Zealand.
Every other nation says, no, pharmaceutical companies can't advertise on TV.
Are you out of your mind?
Because we know what they're going to do.
They're going to create, you know, demands for drugs that people don't need.
And it's predictable.
We use three times the amount of drugs that the average Western nation uses.
We pay the highest price for pharmaceuticals in the world, and we have the worst health outcomes in the developed world.
And I think we're 79th.
You know, they're different indicia like infant mortality, but we're at the bottom for everything.
And when I was a kid, America had the best health system in the world.
Now we have the worst in the Western world.
And Tony Fauci over 50 years has supervised the decimation of American medical system by healthcare system.
I essentially turning it over to the pharmaceutical industry, which What he's done, and this is what people need to understand with his agency, is he has transformed that agency into an incubator for pharmaceutical products.
So it used to be that the reason that the National Institute for Allergic and Infectious Disease was launched was to establish the ideology Of infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, and allergic diseases, and try to figure out how to cure them, or how to stop them, how to prevent them.
And so, under his watch, we've had this explosion in chronic disease.
The chronic diseases he's meant to prevent have gone from 6% of-- affecting 6% of Americans, affecting at least 54% of Americans as of 2006.
And so what is he doing with all this money?
Here's what he's doing.
He's developing drugs to sell to Americans with the pharmaceutical companies and this is how the system essentially works.
He has laboratories where NIH and NIAID scientists test molecules in petri dishes that are filled with viral cultures.
So you'll have coxsackie virus and dengue virus and zika virus and ebola and coronavirus and flu viruses in thousands.
This is a simplification of what happens.
They'll drop molecules, certain innovative molecules, into that petri dish and see if it kills the virus.
If it kills the virus, they now have an antiviral, but they have to make sure that it won't kill the person.
Oh, they give it to rats and see or other, you know, lab animals and see if it kills them.
And if ideally it will kill the virus, but it won't kill the rats.
So now they have a potential drug.
Now they farm it out to a college, to a university.
And this is how he really has the whole system rigged.
People have to understand.
There's a group, a class of scientists that are called principal investigators.
And the people that you see on CNN every night, Peter Hotez, Art Kaplan, Paul Offit, you know, Stanley Perlman, all the people who represent themselves as experts.
They're not independent experts.
Almost all of them are principal investigators who rely for their livelihood on grants from NIH.
They're usually powerful individuals at a university like Harvard or Baylor or Columbia or Stanford and at the medical school.
They'll be the dean of the department, the chair of the department or a dean and they're the ones who are bringing all the money into that school because the big money now in medicine is in clinical trials.
So that drug that Tony Fauci's developed at his lab, he now sends over to one of those PI's to do phase one trials.
They'll have 50 or 100 humans that they give it to.
NIH will give the PI, the principal investigator, $15,000 to $20,000 per subject for every patient they recruit for the trial.
The PI gets $20,000.
The university skims off 50% to 75% of that.
So now you have the university that's on the hook, right?
That can be controlled because they're making their money From Falchi's you know grants and it goes to phase 2 and sometime between phase 2 and phase 3 when you have maybe 20,000 subjects and huge amounts of money.
They now transfer the patent to a pharmaceutical company so they'll bring in Gilead or Johnson & Johnson or Merck or Sanofi or Pfizer and that company now shared partners with NIH and with the University in completing that study and Tony Fauci can keep
Part of the patent for his agency, he can distribute patents to his loyalists within the agency who he favors, who are allowed to own part of the patent of any drug they work on, if Tony Fauci okays it, and they can get $150,000 a year in royalties for life.
So with the Moderna vaccine, he's given either four or six of his top deputies, these royalty rights, so they're gonna make 150 grand a year.
He's got 50% of that patent for NIH, so it's gonna make billions.
The university that worked on it is, gets a part of the patent, And so they can make potentially billions, hundreds of millions.
And the PI gets a piece of it.
So you have this whole system where now he controls the university.
So what happens is, and here's how powerful he is, how much influence that has.
Between 2009 and 2016, There were over 200 drugs approved by FDA, most of the drugs approved during that era, that all came out of Tony Fauci's shop.
So that is how deeply embedded he is in the pharmaceutical industry.
He doesn't do public health.
He does drug development.
That's his job.
If you ask Tony Fauci, are Americans healthier since you came in, he's not going to tell you that.
He doesn't know.
He is not looking at that metric.
He's looking at how many people got vaccinated, how many people got, you know, this drug or that drug.
And, you know, so the metrics by which people, so with the other aid, and let's say, here's how he controls the science.
Let's say there's a young scientist, a young professor, associate professor at Stanford or Baylor, who says, hey, There's a Kaiser HMO database that has 200 patients in it for 20 years of data on 200 patients.
And they have all the vaccination records for every one of them down to the batch number.
And they have all of the health claims for diabetes, for EpiPens, for allergies, etc.
I could go in there and do a cluster analysis and see whether any of these batches or vaccines are associated with a greater risk or incident for the illnesses.
Genius idea.
Easy to do.
And so he proposes that.
Well, immediately, the dean of his medical school is going to get a call from Hugh Hawkins Claus or Cliff Lane or one of Fauci's deputies who tell him, if you let that clown do this study, you know, you're going to lose 300 million dollars next year and we're going to bankrupt you.
So, you know, nothing gets done.
Anything that is going to challenge his worldview, any science, just doesn't get done.
And these three guys, Jeremy Farrar, who was part of the cover-up at Gain of Function, Bill Gates, and Fauci control 61% of the biomedical research in the world, so research does not get done unless it's going to benefit a pharmaceutical company.
It's all been turned over.
And then you have agencies.
I've known about an agency capture my whole life.
Probably 20% of the cases that I brought when I was running Waterkeeper Alliance and running the litigation clinic at Pace were against EPA or state health agencies like the EC in New York.
Probably 20 to 30%.
I wasn't suing polluters.
I was suing the agency who was making the illegal sweetheart deals with the polluters to allow them to pollute.
Oh, I've known about agency capture my, you know, my whole career.
For 40 years, I've been suing captive regulators.
But when I started doing the vaccine work in 2005, I've never seen anything like this because FDA gets 50% of its budget between 40 and 50% every year.
I'm the pharmaceutical industry.
CDC has a $12 billion budget and $4.9 billion of that, so, you know, about 40%.
...goes to buying vaccines and then distributing them.
So, they're a vaccine company.
The way you get promotions, raises, salary evaluations, bonuses at CDC is by showing that you helped with vaccine uptake.
CDC owns 57 vaccine patents.
NIH owns over a thousand patents.
And makes money on the sales of drugs that it's supposed to regulate.
So it's like, this is agency capture on steroids.
It's like if EPA was making 50% of its budget, you know, from coal company revenues.
That's the same thing that we'd be dealing with.
This is an agency that no longer has any interest in public health.
It's completely about expanding the profit and revenues of the pharmaceutical industry who are its patrons.
I believe I understand what you just told me.
Some of it's very familiar to me.
Some of it's new.
It appears to be an environment in which corruption evolves.
That's the thing.
It's actually adaptation in a Darwinian sense that enlarges the capture.
So, the thing that you and I are familiar with from 25, 30 years ago about regulatory capture has evolved into some 2.0 or 3.0 version of that, which is much more elaborate.
But it does make sense, then, of the inverse public health response.
Because the thing is, to the extent that humans get control of COVID, it shuts down this brand new, gigantic market for pharmaceutical products.
And so, should something in that evolved environment recognize that the interest, the long-term interest of the pharmaceutical companies at the level of their financial well-being involves keeping this disease around and frightening and therefore increasing demand for its products.
Demand which isn't even really demand to the extent that government is going to mandate it in order for you to have a driver's license or whatever it is that they're going to hold in reserve.
This is a perfect environment and what I don't really understand maybe you can help me sort this one out.
Let me just add an addendum to that.
Sure.
The vaccine companies have no liability.
So no matter how badly they injure you, you can't sue them.
And if they impose an injury that is a chronic disease injury, like diabetes or seizure disorders or whatever, They've now created a lifetime customer for their other products.
And this will sound so cynical to many of your listeners that they probably will want to dismiss what I'm saying.
And so I'm not even going to say that they do that or they're conscious of it.
I'm saying that when those incentives exist, It is bad for a society.
What we want to do in an economic system and a democratic system is incentivize good behavior and punish bad behavior.
And we want to create an economy that does those things and economic rules that do those things.
And we've created the opposite.
So it is actually true that that's all you have to do.
I know this sounds wrong, but if that's all you did... I know that.
You know it.
Yeah.
But it will sound wrong to many, but if that's all you did was create a system in which externalizing harm onto others was costly and innovating actual generation of wealth rather than transfer of wealth paid, if that's all you did, the system would evolve towards producing benefits and it would avoid... And that's the answer to the first question that we began with.
How do you reclaim the system you create?
You rationalize the economic rules so that they do what we want an economy to do, which is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.
And because you cannot legislate morality, but you can create incentives that reward That's exactly right.
If you set up those rules so that people who are inclined to behave morally actually do well, then morality spreads.
You want to allow people to do well by doing good, rather than incentivizing them to make money by harming other people and externalizing their profits.
Right.
And if you're just the other side of that boundary, and you actually allow people to profit through externalizing harm, what you get is Capture 3.0.
Because what happens is those who have control over something enlarge their control.
And anyway, you end up with this shocking, elaborate, baroque system in which somehow, you know, YouTube is now shutting down people who say true things into a camera on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.
And, you know, nobody sees it coming.
I am stunned in my own social circles at the unwillingness of anybody who has not seen the full picture to recognize that pharmaceutical skullduggery Three years ago would not have been controversial in any group of intelligent people having a conversation about policy.
It was simply expected that there was regulatory capture and that evidence didn't necessarily mean what it appeared to mean.
In other words, all intelligent people would have taken it as an assumption that there was some degree of corruption in policy that affects pharmaceuticals.
During the pandemic, the only people who talk about this are people who, in my opinion, have their eyes open and have seen just how bad the policy is.
There's no ability to even raise the question.
Others simply assume corruption is playing no role here.
How can that be?
You know, it's part of this very, very, I mean, inexplicable Disconnect.
Cognitive disconnect.
I mean, the four companies that make all of the U.S.
vaccines have those, which are Sanofi, Pfizer, Axel and Merck.
collectively have paid, excuse me, $35 billion since 2009, so over a 10-year period in criminal penalties, in damages for falsifying science, for lying to in damages for falsifying science, for lying to regulators, for bribing, blackmailing, and physicians and regulatory officials.
and And those companies, and killing hundreds of thousands of people with drugs they knew were lethal.
So for example, Vioxx killed between Merck with Vioxx, which up until 2006 killed between 120,000 and 500,000 Americans with a drug that they knew was gonna cause those heart attacks. Americans with a drug that they knew was gonna cause
In fact, when we sued them and got their flow charts from their bean counters to their legal and marketing officials, they said, we're gonna kill all these people, but we're still gonna make money, even if we have to pay them off.
Every drug kills somebody.
Oh, you know, there's nothing wrong with marketing a drug that does kill a certain number of people, as long as you're honest with people about what the risk is.
Right.
You know, we live with grown-ups, and people have to make assessments about what risk they're willing to endure for what benefits.
But in that case, Merck knew what the risk was, and it didn't tell anybody.
So it was marketing a headache pill that it knew caused heart attacks, and most of the people who took that pill would probably have said, you know what, I think I'll take an aspirin.
But Merck never let them make that decision, because it never gave them the data.
These companies, Are the same companies that brought us the opioid, you know, Johnson & Johnson, the opioid epidemic, which is killing 56,000 Americans a year, more kids than died in the 20 year Vietnam.
But we're having a Vietnam every year from the opioids.
And they hatched it.
They knew it was going to happen and they did it anyway.
Oh, how do you how do you say, OK, the reason that those That they got caught for those crimes.
They paid the $35 billion was because private plaintiff's attorneys like myself sued them on behalf of an injured client.
And then in the discovery process came across documents that showed criminal conduct and walked those documents down to the U.S.
Attorney's Office and said, you know, you need to sue them and put them in jail.
And the only place that can happen is with vaccines.
Because in vaccines, no matter how badly they injure you, you can't sue them.
So would you explain that?
There's no discovery.
There's no deposition.
There's no class actions.
There's no multi-district litigation.
They can never get caught.
So why, if you are, you know, a liberal Democrat, And you know these companies are murderous and it's part of their business plan that they are there.
It's not even moral elasticity.
It's a complete detachment from any kind of moral imperative at all.
Why would you think that they're going to hurt people with all their other pharmaceutical products?
The one product where they can never get caught and they can never be liable even if they do get caught.
You're suddenly going to find Jesus and be, you know, honorable.
It defies any kind of, you know, logical analysis.
I agree.
It absolutely defies any kind of logical analysis.
To imagine that you don't at least have average levels of corruption in this case.
And also, there's no press scrutiny either.
None.
And there's no political scrutiny.
So the politicians won't touch them.
You can't bring them in front of a judge or a law court.
And the press, you know, defends them no matter what they do.
If you're that company, why, and you already are corrupt and homicidal, why would you suddenly, you know, not see the enormous opportunity?
community.
Pfizer and Moderna have said that in 2022, they're going to make $9 billion, no, $96 billion, $93 or $96 billion from vaccines.
Nobody's made profits like that in history.
Right.
Why would you have qualms about a few people dying?
You know, particularly since you're going to injure people who you can then sell other products to.
Right.
I don't know what these conversations sound like inside these entities.
I do know that what they are producing, one can detect from the outside, doesn't make the slightest bit of sense from the point of view of a well-intended effort to control the pandemic, to limit the harm of this disease, to save lives, any of these things.
Here's what people need to understand about the Pfizer vaccine.
The Pfizer vaccine we know more about because they actually have gotten approval for that vaccine.
From the FDA.
They're not going to market, they got approval for a version, this was all a scam, called the Comirnaty.
Okay, so it's the same vaccine, but it has a different name.
Yep.
And they got approval for that one, but they did not want approval for the BioNTech vaccine.
Why did they not want approval?
Because as long as they have emergency use authorization, they cannot be sued.
But once they get approval, now you can sue them.
So if somebody gets injured for an approved vaccine, you can sue them.
The only way they can get a shield from liability is if they get it recommended for children, because children's vaccines are immune from liability.
And so, and the trick is that if you get it approved, recommended for children by the CDC, It not only has liability for children's injuries, but it has liability for adult injuries.
This is why they're driving so hard to vaccinate children, because it's the only way that they can get liability protection.
And that is what this whole game is about.
They know The key metric that you need to look at with vaccines is called NNTV.
The number needed to vaccinate to save one life.
What is the NNTV for children?
I'll tell you what it is.
It's hundreds of thousands.
Because children don't get... Healthy children do not die from COVID.
That's what the Lancet study said.
They couldn't find anybody in the world, any healthy child, who died in the world from COVID.
So why would we give this to healthy children?
And they're high risk.
Let me just outline one thing that people really should understand about this vaccine.
When Pfizer did the study, it was supposed to be a three-year preclinical study, and it was the first time in history That a vaccine has been subject to peer-reviewed, randomized, placebic-controlled trials.
So it was a good thing.
We've never, the 72 vaccines we have for kids, none of them have gone through those trials, pre-clinical trials.
I did not know that.
Not one.
And we sued them, to say, I sued them with Aaron Seery from HyCan.
Because for years I was saying this and Tony Fauci and everybody was saying what he's saying is not true.
So we sued them.
We said show us one study for any vaccine.
But vaccines are exempt from safety testing.
And that is a historical artifact that has to do with CDC's legacy as the public health service.
So CDC, the public health service was a military agency, quasi-military agency, and that's why people at CDC have military ranks like Surgeon General and they wear uniforms because it's still part of the military.
The vaccine program was launched as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country.
So they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent, we could quickly formulate a vaccine and administer it to 200 million American civilians with no regulatory impediments.
As you know, for most medicines, before they get approval, they need to go through randomized double-blind placebo studies.
Double-blind meaning neither the researcher nor the patient knows which is placebo and which is real.
And those studies normally last five years.
Why do they last so long?
Because medicines cause injuries that have long diagnostic horizons or long incubation periods.
You do not see them for five years.
Even five years isn't long enough to know.
Even five years isn't long enough, of course.
But, you know, You need to have that five-year period.
So they didn't want to do that for vaccines because they said, we're going to be under assault and we need to get her right away.
So they said, what we're going to do is we're going to call vaccines by a different name because we call them medicines.
We need to do those studies.
We'll call them biologics and we'll make biologics exempt from safety testing.
So vaccines are the only medical product or device that never has to go through safety testing.
So it was finally a good thing.
They did this for the Pfizer vaccine.
Now, they were going to do a three-year study.
It ended in 2022 or 2023.
But they stopped it after six months.
Why did they stop it after six months?
Well, I can't tell you what their internal discussions were, but I can tell you that the vaccine doesn't work after six months, which you know.
So, if you have no efficacy, After six months, you do have some efficacy during the first six months, so you can justify it.
But those numbers, every month you go after that, are going to be dragged down until clearly the harms axis is going to cross the efficacy axis.
Right.
And nobody's going to be able to justify it.
So they had to stop it after six months.
So they unblinded it, meaning they told all the people in the placebo group, you got the placebo and now we're going to vaccinate you.
After that, there's no way to do a study because everybody's now vaccinated.
So then Pfizer took the data from that first six months and they brought it to FDA and they got an approval.
Here's the key metric that you want to look at.
All-cause mortality.
Does the vaccine, after six months, are more people alive in the vaccine group than in the placebo group?
You want that to be the case.
Here's what happened.
Of the 22,000 people in the vaccine group, 20 died.
Of the 22,000 people in the placebo group, 14 died.
20 died.
Of the 22,000 people in the placebo group, 14 died.
So the risk of getting the vaccine includes a 48% greater risk of death according to their own clinical trials.
How How in the world would FDA approve a product and their own data show that you have a 48% greater risk of dying in six months if you get the vaccine?
Here's why.
There were two people in the placebo group who died of COVID.
It was one of the 22,000 in that six month, two in the placebo group died of COVID.
It was one person who died in the vaccine group of COVID.
Therefore, Pfizer was able to make the claim that the vaccine is 100% effective against COVID because two Is 100% greater than one.
So now, when Americans hear the vaccine is 100%, which Tony Fauci and everybody repeat, what they think that means is that if I take the vaccine, I have 100% chance I'm not dying from COVID.
That's not what it means.
But they're not telling you that.
It's a gimmick they use.
It's called relative risk instead of absolute risk.
Instead of absolute, yeah.
And here's what the even worse news is.
In the placebo group, one person died of a heart attack.
In the vaccine group, five people died of heart attacks.
So there's a 500% increased risk for heart attack if you get the vaccine by their own numbers.
And furthermore, every life that's saved from COVID, four people die from the vaccine.
That's not a good metric from heart attacks.
So every life it saves from COVID, four people die from vaccine-related heart attacks.
And to go back to where we started, what then is the number needed to vaccinate?
Well, to avoid a death from COVID, you need to vaccinate 22,000 people to save one life.
You better make sure that that vaccine is so safe that none of those 22,000 are going to die from the vaccine.
But their own data say that five of those people are gonna die from heart attack, four excess deaths, because there's one in the placebo group that died.
None of those people were kids.
It was only 1,300 kids in the study.
And we know that Pfizer lied, because we know that Maddie Gary, who is a 13-year-old girl in that study, She got seizures immediately after the vaccine.
She ends up apparently permanent paralysis in a wheelchair for life, eating out of a feeding tube.
And Pfizer wrote that down, told FDA that was a stomach ache.
Oh, we know there was cheating going on.
So, we do know there was cheating going on.
If I remember the story correctly, basically, they declared it a stomachache, which allowed them to unblind, at which point they stopped recording so that it doesn't get recorded at the full level of harm.
Right.
Yes.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Yeah.
So we do know that there were shenanigans of all kinds.
We also know in your description of all of these things are all of the things that you actually want to measure.
This is not a hard problem, right?
In fact, legally, before FDA approves the vaccine, you know, there's that committee called VRBAC, and it's not actually FDA.
It's a panel in FDA that is made up mainly of Anthony Fauci's PIs.
And then there's another panel that were recommended, in other words, mandated, in CDC, which is called Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, and they also are Tony Fauci's PIs.
He keeps saying there's an independent panel, but they're not independent.
It worked for him and for Bill Gates.
So those people are required by law to know the number needed to vaccinate.
That is a key metric that they must consider.
And yet, They never considered it.
They approved the vaccine without considering something they were legally obligated to consider.
Okay, so they approved it even though the number needed to treat doesn't justify, especially in light of a vaccine that is as unusual.
As novel as these vaccines are, they didn't know this number.
And then, in the aftermath, they are not monitoring all-cause mortality.
And so, the point is, we are specifically, whatever the explanation is, whatever the conversation sounds like, we are specifically avoiding the measures that would allow us to detect if we were making a mistake.
Let's say it's an honest mistake.
If it's an honest mistake, then you take the measures and oh my goodness, we're actually, you know, the all cause mortality does not support the use of these vaccines.
And that's before we even get to whatever their long term arms might be.
Right.
That would be a stopping condition.
But by not monitoring this, right, by vaccinating a control group so that you can no longer tell whether or not the people in the control group are actually healthier, we're blinding ourselves.
Yeah.
And not only that, but we They deliberately have an injury surveillance system that is intended to fail.
It was built to fail.
So that's the vaccine adverse event reporting system, which is the system that is a voluntary system.
If you get a vaccine injury, your doctor is supposedly required to report it, but it's up to him to decide whether it was a vaccine injury.
Most doctors don't want to report it.
Many of them don't even know about the system, but most of them don't recognize vaccine injuries.
If you die within three months of a vaccine, you should be reported no matter what you died of.
That should be part of the database and it should be, and under the law, if you're part of a clinical trial, every death during a clinical trial must be attributed to the intervention unless proven otherwise.
So, we should have the same rule that if somebody dies two or three months after the vaccine, it's assumed to be vaccine related until proven otherwise.
In fact, what happens is almost no vaccine injuries get reported.
If you're the doctor, and you tell the patient, or you tell the family, your dad needs to get this vaccine, or he's going to die, and they say, well, could it hurt him?
And he says, no, it's totally safe.
It's proven safe.
He gives it to him, the father then dies 17 days later.
And most deaths, 99% of deaths, there's no autopsy.
For older people, there's never an autopsy, almost never.
Autopsy costs $5,000, so people aren't going to do it.
So, the doctor's incentive is to say, I did not kill your father.
The vaccine did not kill him, right?
It's just human nature.
People die, so they don't report it to VAERS, so nothing gets reported.
Actually, we've known this for decades, and important people who are part of the medical mainstream, like David Kessler, who's a former Surgeon General, has said this system is completely broken.
As a result of that, in 2010, HHS I retained or contracted a sub-agency, the Agency for Healthcare Research, HR, Research Quality, HRCQ, to study the VAERS system to see how effective it was.
And to develop a machine counting system that would not have the defects of a voluntary system.
And so how do you do that?
It's easy to do.
You go to the HMOs.
The HMOs have all the vaccine records of every patient.
They have all the medical claims.
And you do, like I said before, a cluster analysis.
And you get 95% of the vaccine injuries are going to appear on that.
Okay, if there's a vaccine causing diabetes, juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, ticks, Tourette's, you will see that.
So and you can stratify by age by gender by you know by in every way and you can figure out exactly what's causing the problems and then you can cure it.
Oh, AHRCQ developed, not only studied one of the HMOs, an HMO in Boston called Harvard Pilgrim, one of the 10 big ones, they also developed a machine counting system, which they plugged in at Harvard Pilgrim.
And what they found was that the machine counting system was collecting something like 40 times And what they concluded was that the VAERS system was not just missing 99% of injuries, it was missing more than 99%.
That's how bad it is.
And what they concluded was that the VAERS system was not just missing 99% of injuries, it was missing more than 99%.
That's how bad it is.
And the AHRQ, the plan was to roll their machine counting system out to all the other HMOs.
And as soon as CDC saw that data and showed an injury rate of 2.7%, so one in every 40 people who came in to get a vaccine were suffering some kind of noteworthy injury, they said, we are telling people that injuries only occur one in a million.
And they shut, not only did they shut down the whole project, But they stopped answering the phone calls of their sister agency.
How do I know that?
Because AHRQ did a peer-reviewed publication.
Anybody can look it up.
It's called Lazarus 2010.
And they say in it, CDC no longer would answer our phone calls once we gave them the data.
So Tony Fauci knows that system because he's been told many, many times.
That system is on a shelf at HHS, ready to roll out, and if you really wanted to know whether these vaccines were injuring people, it can do it overnight.
And yet, he left it there and left us with a system that he knows is collecting probably less than 1% of vaccine injuries.
There's some bad interaction between public health and medicine.
Medicine being targeted at helping the individual, public health being targeted at the overall rate of various disorders.
Public health clearly feels entitled to lie.
Right.
Yes.
That from the point of view of lies, it claims they're noble lies.
Those who look into these lies begin to wonder what the hell is driving them.
But nonetheless, because public health feels entitled to lie in order to simplify the story so that people will, for example, get vaccinated to control a contagious disease.
What it does, if you don't take the data, that then allows people to understand just what the rate of adverse events is, is it interrupts informed consent.
Yes.
Right?
Your doctor doesn't know how dangerous what you're being exposed to is, you don't know how dangerous, and therefore your doctor accepting that it is worth the risk for you, and you're accepting that it is worth the risk for you, is something you're not capable.
You're not capable of giving your informed consent because you're misinformed.
It's misinformed consent.
And so, the funny thing, funny, there's nothing funny about this, but you say the VAERS system is built to fail.
We know, we know well that it dramatically undercounts.
Is it getting 3%?
Is it getting 10%?
Is it getting 1%?
We don't know, but we know it's not getting the majority of these events, and yet, With these vaccines, there's an off-the-chart signal.
An off-the-chart signal that when it is called... In VAERS!
Right!
In VAERS!
Despite the fact that the system is built... More than half of the vaccine deaths...
It have occurred since the system was put in place in 1986 over 40 years have occurred in the last since the rollout of these COVID vaccines.
Yeah.
There's like it's not just a hockey stick.
It's a right angle turn off the off of the graph.
Yeah, no, it's... and so that tells you something, and then when that is pointed out to the authorities, what you get back is, here are the reasons that we don't believe the VAERS data, which even if that was correct, it leaves you with no understanding of how dangerous this is.
It leaves you with no data, which does not... it's not the same thing as an indication that they're safe.
Yeah.
So the whole thing, it behaves like something that doesn't want to know.
And the fact is, when your health, or worse, your children's health, is dependent on some system that claims to have rendered something safe but is actively avoiding the information that would tell you that it had made an error, that is the opposite of safe.
Yeah, well, you know, and here's how kind of pervasive it is, and how it's infiltrated the media, because everybody is part of this, has been co-opted into this conspiracy to tell people, to gaslight people who say that they've been injured, to marginalize them, to silence them, to de-platform them.
You know, it's not just me who's talking about the generalized risks, you know, and talking about science, but it's a mother Or a dad or a child who lost a parent who says, here's what happened when they got the vaccine as a video of, you know, the parent going into the seizure or the child going to seizures immediately after vaccination.
And if you put that out, you will be you will be disappeared.
Oh, this is early in the pandemic.
You know, Hank Aaron was part of who I knew.
It was part of a national campaign because blacks are very, very vaccine resistant.
A long history of mistrust of the medical establishment.
And so the CDC was rounding up civil rights leaders and sports leaders who are African American to publicly take the vaccine.
Hank Aaron went on stage and got the vaccine at Emory University and then and 17 later days later he dies.
And I wrote an article for the Defender for Children's Health Defense and talked about it on my podcast.
And I said, I never said his death was caused by the vaccine and nobody accused me of saying that.
What I said is that his death was part of a wave of deaths we're seeing in elderly people immediately after vaccination, which is completely documented.
And I was immediately attacked by the New York Times, by USA Today, CNN, ABC, NBC, thousands of news organizations literally around the world who were saying that I was lying.
And the New York Times said that They had spoken to the Atlanta coroner and that the Atlanta coroner had told them that Hank Aaron did not suffer from a vaccine injury, that it was not vaccine related.
So I called the Fulton County coroner.
Because I wanted to know what test they use to make that determination because, you know, mostly vaccine injuries and deaths don't leave fingerprints.
You don't know whether the person died of a heart attack or a stroke, they would have had anyway, whether the vaccine contributed.
And I was curious about how they had made such a, how they had such certitude about that determination.
And when I got the coroner on the phone, they said to me, we never saw Hank Aaron's body.
We never performed an autopsy.
The family buried that body and nobody ever did a postmortem on it.
And yet the New York Times reported a lie.
And there is just this incredible impulse in the, and you know, when I reported my conversation, It was just silence.
There was no effort by the Times or any of these other papers to correct their error.
It's quite extraordinary.
Everybody is part of this effort to make sure that nobody believed, that people believe the vaccines are completely safe and completely effective.
And anybody who disagrees with that, that's, you know, punished.
Yeah, anybody who asks questions is punished, and the punishment, I think, it is largely going to be invisible to anybody who hasn't been on the wrong end of it, but the punishment is absolutely ruthless.
Gaslighting.
And I must say, it's not the first time I've been demonized.
It is the first time I've been demonized by something that clearly has a many million dollar budget.
It is a whole different experience.
And the idea that there are billions, I presume hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in the market for COVID treatments and vaccines And that a cost of doing business would be some number of millions to just simply demonize those small number of people who didn't get the memo and raised obvious questions about all cause mortality or number needed to treat or absolute versus relative measures of effectiveness, right?
You know, of course, they're going to be successful at controlling the narrative, especially when they have partners in in the tech platforms who are willing to do their censoring.
For them.
Now, let me ask you this.
You raised the issue of the kids vaccines, which today is in some ways a historic day, or maybe yesterday was.
Yesterday, the CDC unanimously recommended approval of the vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds.
I did not understand that there was a hidden incentive for that, that that would actually give the adult vaccines immunity.
Do I understand that correctly?
Yes.
That is shocking.
I did know of the prior story where the emergency use authorized vaccine retained its liability shield.
And that a person who after the vaccine was given authorization, not authorization, given approval, a person who went in and got the authorized but not approved vial, even though in theory they contained the identical substances.
And they just have different labels.
They had different labels, but a person who got vaccinated wouldn't even know what they were vaccinated with and therefore wouldn't understand that they were actually being vaccinated with something that gave the manufacturer immunity from liability, even though the FDA had signed off on it at that point.
So these games are everywhere.
And I will say the the most common theme throughout all of this seems to be accounting shenanigans, right?
The label on the bottle affects your ability to sue or not to sue.
Somebody who dies with COVID is presumed to have died of COVID.
A person who has been vaccinated but hasn't been two weeks out from their vaccine is treated as unvaccinated.
All of these things are used to create a story that is not true.
But in any case, yesterday, the CDC unanimous recommendation for the five to 11 year olds to be vaccinated.
I can see exactly zero medical justification for this.
As you point out, healthy children do exceedingly well with COVID.
It's not a dangerous disease to them.
What's more, As they get lifetime immunity, lifetime immunity.
So from the point of view of a very robust and broad spectrum immunity, that is going to protect them against all variants.
And unlike the vaccine immunity, which is a very narrow spectrum and which requires and boosters year after year after year.
And those boosters each come with the risk of adverse events.
So from the point of view of the medical well-being of a child, this is a very strange It's very clear that it is damaging.
You're going to cause far more problems, injuries than you're going to avert.
And, you know, but it seems also clear that the rationale is economic rather than a public health Rational.
Well, I agree with you.
I also, the more I think about it, the more this does feel like a modern Tuskegee.
A Tuskegee without race.
Because effectively, these children are not in a position to consent, right?
Just as participants in the Tuskegee experiment were not informed, right?
They were told they were going to get free health care and they did not understand what it was that they were being signed up for and what harm they might come to.
This is effectively that with no medical justification.
We are apparently going to push vaccines towards children who would be better off if they got the disease out of the way.
I mean, I want to be careful in saying that because there is we do not know.
That 20 years down the road from a COVID infection that it is not going to reemerge and some harm come from it.
But based on what we do know about COVID, the harm to young healthy children is absolutely minimal.
And that means that the adverse events that children will face if they are vaccinated are uncompensated.
Also, you know, there's really strong indications, for example, you have the story of Matty Gary.
We know it's one of their, they're going to give this to 26 million kids.
And they only tested it on 1,300.
And one of the 1,300 we know, at least one of them, is spending their life in a wheelchair with a feeding tube.
And that's just the beginning of Maddie Gary's suffering, because her life is now a nightmare of agony.
So what we have to assume, you know, if we look at the reason we have clinical trials is to look at the risk if you give it to the entire population.
So if there's a 1 in 1,300 risk, Of ending up in a wheelchair for life with a feeding tube, you have to extrapolate that out to 26 million people.
And you may be able to do that in your head, but I think it's like 20 to 35,000 kids who potentially are now going to be exposed to that risk.
And that's a much, much higher risk than the risk that we know of from COVID.
Well, we have to leave open the possibility that Matty Gary was very, very, very unlucky.
But here's the thing.
Under federal law, any injury that occurs during a clinical trial must be attributed to the intervention.
And so they legally, the regulators and the company, must legally assume that that is a 1 in 1,300 risk that's going to apply across the population.
Right, that should be the presumption, and then it could be demonstrated that it was just a fluke.
But short of that demonstration, we have to assume that that's the baseline.
But you know, if you're only going to test your intervention on 1,300 people before you give it to 26 million, you ought to be stuck Yes, with whatever the outcome is, especially these.
I mean, I must tell you, the the recommendation to vaccinate young children for this shocks me more than anything I've seen so far.
And I've been repeatedly shocked.
But this is so brazen and so indifferent to the suffering of people who Cannot know better.
Cannot presumably say no.
It's inconceivable to me that, um, let's put it this way, as an evolutionary biologist, I almost never use the term evil because I believe you almost never see evil.
It's a terrible strategy, right?
Amorality is a good strategy and you see that regularly.
Sociopathy is a good strategy.
It's an amorality, but this is so Um, yeah, so brazen and the harm will come to literal innocence that I, I don't think there's another term.
I really do think that this is a, um, This is an atrocity in the making, and I don't know what we do about it, but I do think maybe, maybe, because the evidence is so clear that children, healthy children, do not suffer serious harms from COVID itself.
And because even the broken VAERS system captures this huge signal for adverse events, including deaths from these vaccines, that many people who have gone along with the public health narrative so far will detect that something is wrong.
Something must be wrong for us to be dragging our children into this when, frankly, they are a population that just doesn't need this protection.
Now, What I suspect is that in many of these people's minds, there's a conflation between the well-being of the individual and the control of the pandemic.
And although I think it is an appalling argument, one could make a rational argument for vaccinating children to control the spread of the disease.
Of course, these vaccines are not effective at controlling spread, but nonetheless, that might be on some people's minds.
But even that, what Healthy society transfers health from children.
How do you justify putting children at risk in order to preserve, in order to protect old people?
You know, listen, this is always, this is like a baseline philosophy 101, you know, A dilemma exercise, and it always has the same outcome as you don't.
You know, a government cannot put one person at risk to save somebody else.
You know, that's just something that we understand in Western liberal democracies and in Western civilization, that you don't do that.
And yet, and not only is it other people, but it's kids.
Yeah, I do.
I will push back a little bit.
I do think we put one person in harm's way to protect another.
We do that when we draft people.
I think it's called the trolley problem.
The trolley problem, yeah.
The trolley problem.
Whether you pull the switch, there's six people are going to get hit.
Do you pull the switch and let the one person, and I think the answer to that dilemma is If you're an individual that you may do that but we don't let governments make those decisions if possible because you know once once you give a government here's the problem once you give a government The right to sacrifice human life for the good of the community.
You're on a slippery slope to, you know, the worst kind of ruthless, barbaric, totalitarian decision making.
Yeah.
You know, because really it's better than you can say, well, It's better for society.
You know, old people in our society don't make much contribution and 80% of our health care costs go to people in the last year of life.
Wouldn't it be better just to get rid of them early?
And if government can make that decision, it can make some really brutal decisions.
And that's, you know, what we saw.
I'm not making the comparison with Nazism, because that also is a slippery slope.
You know, that's one of the reprehensible things we saw on the Nazis very early on, is they involved all of the doctors in saying, we're going to give these yellow cards to, you're required to report anybody in your practice who has, who's intellectually disabled, anybody who's gay, and anybody who has physical defects.
And then the state would come and get rid of those people.
And that is the end point when we start saying that government has a right to sacrifice children to theoretically save older people.
Yeah, it makes no sense.
And just as a hypothetical, I mean, I agree with you.
I don't find this a terribly long stretch from Nazi, I mean, especially Nazi doctor, you know, Mengele's experiments, for example, right?
Well, the doctors were so badly behaved that they had to have separate trials in Nuremberg just for the doctors.
And there was not a single doctor or medical association who came forward in Germany.
That's the astonishing thing.
Well, I want to be clear.
I'm not arguing that a doctor who vaccinates children is the equivalent.
Yeah, and neither am I. Right, no, of course not.
But I want to make clear that what I'm saying is that a government that can decide, well, for the good of the many, we'll sacrifice the few, may engage in twin experiments, for example.
Yes.
And I have cousins who were twins in Mengele's experiments, so I take this very personally.
But let's just say as a hypothetical here, if the idea is it is okay to put children at risk of serious injuries in order to control a pandemic that mostly harms the old and the infirm, then what is the distinction between that and deciding that those in need of a kidney can source that from the population?
That we can just, you know, people have two kidneys, they can live with only one.
And therefore, you know, maybe the government can decide to appropriate kidneys from healthy people to people who need them, right?
It's not that different, right?
It should be the case that we do not vaccinate children unless it is in the interest of those children to be vaccinated.
Yeah, I think that's the bottom line.
That is the bottom line.
Yeah, I think everybody, the stuff that we're talking about, anybody can dispute it.
I don't think, I think it's pretty hard to dispute that statement.
Yep.
I think so too.
And it's also important to point out that the original premise, which is there's no evidence that vaccinating children will protect adults.
Right.
Right.
So somehow, again, the driver seems to be vaccinate everybody.
There seems to be games played with legal liability that us lay people don't know anything about, you know, never in the discussion of Whether or not to authorize vaccination of five to 11 year olds, did I hear that the liability of adult vaccines was somehow in play?
That seems like an important consideration.
It seems like a place where if corruption was going to rear its ugly head, you would expect to see it.
And yet it was never mentioned.
So where's the press?
I mean, did you see it?
Was it discussed?
It's not in the press.
Yeah, that's that's a remarkable, remarkable fact.
It will be breaking news on this podcast.
Right.
Well, so...
I think we're heading towards wrapping up here.
There are, of course, a dozen things I know that we haven't touched upon that we probably should.
But, of course, what we have touched upon is already fairly mind-bending, and people are going to, I think, need some room to digest it.
Where do you foresee us going?
Your book comes out on the 16th.
I will remind people the book is The Real Anthony Fauci.
It is an amazing read.
It's beautifully written and really my experience, and again I haven't come close to finishing the book yet, but my experience is almost every paragraph is shocking in its own right.
What do you foresee happening?
Do you think this book is going to wake people up to the danger that the pandemic is being mismanaged and that Anthony Fauci is somewhere in the center of that?
That's my hope.
You know, it's hard to predict what... I've really stopped making predictions, Brad, because I have been consistently wrong about how low I think, you know, how bad things... Whether we've hit bottom?
Yeah, whether we've hit bottom.
So I, you know, I really...
My approach is to just keep trying to get the truth out, trying to pursue the truth, trying to be a good human being myself, and trying not to do things that polarize people, but to constantly reach out to
People disagree with me and try to find some common ground, you know, because I think we're in a We're in the worst epic of polarization in this country since at least the Civil War.
I see the same.
I think it's very, very dangerous and we're gonna lose, you know, this country or we're at risk of losing it.
We've already lost many of the He's very, very important institutions of our democracy, and we need to figure out a way to reclaim them.
And we're not going to do that by fighting each other.
No, I will say you're very clear in your thinking.
You're very easy to get along with, I think, frankly, in some sense.
It has been easier to demonize you than it has been to deal with your arguments, and that's why you've faced the brutal campaign that you have faced.
Maybe there are a couple things we should take care of before we finally wrap this up.
Without putting words in your mouth, I do want to have a sense of... Is there such a thing as an anti-vaxxer?
Are you one?
How should we think about this?
There are people who are anti-vaccine, who just believe that vaccines are always, messing with the immune system is misguided, and that the way to, basically, you know, it's the old argument with Pasteur, is it the terrain?
if you build your immune system, is that are you, and do you become resistant to disease?
And there's very good evidence that healthy people, that well-nourished people, people, societies with good sanitation, don't get sick from infectious disease.
In fact, the CDC has done a series of studies.
One of them is It's called GEYER, G-U-Y-E-R.
It's published in Pediatrics in 2000, and it's by a CDC and Johns Hopkins scientist.
And they looked at the issue about whether vaccines had actually anything to do with decline in mortalities from infectious disease, which is a momentous medical event that occurred in the beginning of the 20th century.
And what they found was that vaccines had almost nothing to do with the disappearance of infectious disease.
It was not, in fact, attributable to medical interventions at all, but mainly engineering development of flush toilets, of sanitation, of hydrating chlorinated water.
And then good nutrition, roads that could bring oranges from Florida and those kind of interventions.
There's other studies, many other ones.
There's another one called McKinley and McKinley back in the 70s was required reading in almost every medical school in our country that say the same thing.
So the people who are completely anti-vax have arguments.
They're not crazy people.
I'm not one of those people.
What I think is, I'm not against any intervention if it can prove itself with science.
My position is that we should have double-blind, placebo-controlled studies prior to the licensing of vaccines.
And if it shows that people who take that vaccine are more likely to live and have better health than people who don't, then I'm for it.
If you can't show that, then I'm against it, and that is completely my position.
I think the term anti-vax is a pejorative that is applied to me in order to marginalize me, to make me look like I'm crazy or that people don't have to listen to my arguments.
They can dismiss me for who I am.
And I think that's so much of the strategy is to silence debate rather than actually conduct it and entertain it, which is what we ought to be doing in a democracy.
And democracies are about, they flourish on the free flow of information, at least that's the theory, that policies that are annealed in the cauldron of debate are more likely to, you know, to steer us in a good direction than if we silence dissidents.
Yes.
And I think, you know, there is the issue of censorship and there is the issue of making an example of people who do what you've done and what I have been doing.
And it's very effective that you can spook people into not seeing the truth that's right in front of them by Showing that you can drive up the costs of those Who do see it now?
I will say I don't know that my position is identical to yours as you've stated it, but it sounds very similar I will add Not only, I still love the mechanism of vaccination, the idea of putting information into a system that can use that information to fend off diseases it has never seen before.
I still believe that that's an incredibly elegant mechanism, but my guess is that it needs to be used sparingly and that the market forces that see, you know, any vaccination that can be justified in a context where harms can be downplayed and benefits can be overhyped and all of this. any vaccination that can be justified in a context where
That what we ought to be realizing is that like everything else, that there is some sweet spot, that probably there are some diseases for which there is a net benefit for this mechanism.
We ought to identify which ones those are.
But most importantly, I don't think we are capable of identifying which things are in the interest of patients, which things are in the interest of society.
If there is a for profit sector driving that has inputs into the regulatory apparatus.
That's simply a deal-breaker from the point of view of good governance, proper regulation, and the protection of patients and citizens from harm.
And so really, you know, I think we're in the very ugly position of being demonized for being against treatments as if this is born of some Luddite impulse, right?
Rather than being alarmed at the degree to which corruption has hijacked this process and created a mandate for products that Create alarming adverse event signals, right?
So, I don't know how we get out of that trap.
I don't know how we get people to view the concern as about corruption and informed consent rather than about some, you know, Paleolithic resistance to modern medicine.
Yeah.
Well, I don't have anything to add to that.
That would enlarge on it.
I think that's exactly right.
You know, we need to rationalize the marketplace and we need to rationalize the regulations so that its objective is to serve public health rather than to serve the profit interests of companies who are making these products.
Yeah, I think that's very well summarized.
All right.
Bobby Kennedy.
I hope I continue to see you on the airwaves and that this isn't your swan song.
I hope so too.
You know, I guess that depends in part on whether or not the people who can hear us will defend what we're doing because it's obviously, I mean, this is what free speech is for.
It is for having difficult discussions like this.
And anyway, I applaud you for being so dogged in fighting the good fight and I'll share a trench with you anytime.
