Aaron Siri challenges vaccine orthodoxy, exposing the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s legal immunity shielding pharma from lawsuits—unlike other drugs—and citing CDC data showing measles’ pre-vaccine death rate (400/year) as negligible compared to modern risks. He questions untested claims like MMR’s safety, pointing to Denmark’s near-zero Hep B vaccination despite no disease spike but higher reported vaccine injuries, including infant deaths. Siri links declining birth rates to reduced measles transmission while critiquing mandates as government overreach, comparing vaccine advocacy to climate change dogma. His legal battles reveal the CDC’s admission of no peer-reviewed studies disproving early-vaccine-autism links, yet AI models regurgitate unsupported narratives, suggesting algorithmic bias. The episode frames vaccines as a profit-driven system with no accountability, mirroring opioid-era corporate impunity, and warns of institutional suppression of dissent—from Pfizer’s regulatory capture to media complicity. [Automatically generated summary]
And just some stuff that was like, what's in there?
How did, first of all, I want to talk you through, like, when you were a younger man before you had looked into this, what was your opinions on medical science?
What was your opinions on vaccines?
Were you skeptical, or did you just kind of assume that everything that we're told is exactly how it is and the experts have only the best interests of human beings in mind and not money?
I think it's anybody that didn't consider themselves a fool.
You know, you would have to be a fool, like a real fool, to ignore all this medical science, which is the reason why there's so many people alive today that would have died.
And a lot of that's true.
Look, penicillin, antibiotics, there's a lot of stuff that has saved a lot of people's lives.
But the vaccine one, until this COVID epidemic, I would have never questioned it.
I mocked anti-vaxxers.
I was like, these people are silly.
Don't they know all the good things that vaccines have done?
And there's the blatant propaganda that we were force-fed like one of those ducks are trying to make faux gua with.
It just made me stop and pause and go, is the whole thing like this?
Is this whole thing just a dirty money laundering operation?
Because it kind of seems like that's at least part of the reason why they were telling people to get boosted when they knew it wasn't working and telling young people that didn't need it.
They wanted to make a lot of money.
That's the only reason why you would do any of those things after a certain amount of information is out.
And so it just made me stop and think about the whole thing and go, well, why would I assume that this is the one area where pharmaceutical drug companies, doctors, everybody's been totally honest in this one area when it's like a religious thing if you question it?
And that's the, well, I love the title of your book.
And it causes incredible cognitive dissonance for anybody out there to come to the conclusion that the CDC and the FDA and our public health authorities and what the entire medical establishment has been telling you may not be accurate about vaccines.
Because like what you just said, the claim that you're a flat earther, you're an anti-vaxxer, deserves.
And they're used as a way to say you are really out there and dumb.
And so it takes incredible cognitive dissonance to say there are real problems with vaccines.
But vaccines really sit in their own little universe.
They're unlike any other medical product.
They're not like penicillin.
They're not like any other drugs.
They're not like any other product out there, any other product in this room, anything out there, for one major reason.
Every other product that exists, I can sue the company.
I can hold them accountable if that product injures or kills you or your child on the basis that product could have made safer.
The only product, and I mean this literally, the only product in America where you cannot sue to say had you made that product safer, my child wouldn't be dead.
My child wouldn't be seriously injured.
They wouldn't have a neurological disorder.
They wouldn't have immunological disorder.
They wouldn't have a nervous system disorder.
They wouldn't have a cardiac issue are childhood vaccines and child vaccines used by adults.
It's the only one.
And that's because of a law called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
It gave pharma companies that incredibly special immunity.
Now, just to put that into context, okay, and I'll tie this back in a second as to how we ended up with this notion of this belief, religion, and vaccines, because, you know, given industry 40 years of unopposed ability to influence, they're going to get pretty dang far, and they did with vaccines.
And so, you know, a lot of industries face a crossroads where their products are causing more harm than good.
Gas tanks used to explode.
What did they do?
Made a better gas tank.
Building materials had asbestos, caused cancer.
What did they do?
They make better building materials.
Did they give them immunity?
No, of course not.
But in the instance of vaccines leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines.
That's it.
That's all there was.
A child following the CDC schedule in 1986 got three injections on or before their first birthday.
Those three products were causing so much harm and injury that every manufacturer of them went out of business.
And that was the MMR vaccine, the DTP, and the OPV vaccine.
Every single one, from six down to one, or for the Peotuses vaccine, six down to one for measles, about three downs, one for polio.
And with one company left for each, instead of forcing them to do what every other industry has to do, like I said, make better building materials without asbestos, make better cars that don't explode, go down the chain of different products out there.
Congress did something completely unique.
It said, you know what?
We're just going to give you immunity.
We're going to make it so that no company, excuse me, no individual, no parent, no child can sue you for the injuries and deaths caused by your vaccine products.
That is what the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 did.
And not only for those three products, but for any other childhood vaccine thereafter.
And what that effectively has done is given 40 years for the industry to promote their products, no pushback.
When you read about a problem with a car, where are you reading about it from?
Usually a class action lawsuit in the paper, right?
You're not going to read about that in vaccines typically.
And because of that, you ended up where we are.
Anyways, there's a lot more detail to that, but I'll stop there for now.
So does everybody, the people who owe the stock, everybody involved, all the employees that have stock options, including usually the major ones, everybody wants it to go up.
If you lose money, it doesn't go up.
So normally, the interest to assure a product is safer is aligned with the profit motive.
Because if your product causes injury and harm, then you're going to lose money.
So you want to know typically.
You have an economic self-interest as a corporation to know, not because you're altruistic, not because you're moral, not because you're ethical, just because you have that economic self-interest to assure the product is safe before you go to market and after you go to market.
Okay?
And that exists for every product in America, with effectively one exception.
Vaccines.
That's really it.
Now, I'm going to show you one result of that in practice.
When you think of drugs, and this will help, I think, tie into what you were saying about what happened with COVID.
Most drugs are licensed based on multi-year placebo-controlled trials.
Most of them.
Why?
Because the FDA requires it?
Because the FDA is so great?
No.
Nothing to do with the FDA.
It's because the company wants to know whether the drug is safe or not before it goes to market.
Because you know what happens with the drug that they put out that's going to make $40 billion in revenue or $20 billion but causes $100 billion in harm?
They end up upside down.
So they want to know to a reasonable degree how safe the drug is before it goes to market.
In an attempt not to cherry pick, as I did in my book, I found an article that listed the top four selling profitable drugs by Pfizer as of like 2021 or something, 2019, okay?
And if you look at those four most profitable drugs, as I put in my book, each one has two to seven years of follow-up in the clinical trial that was relied upon to license that drug against a placebo control group.
Just to make sure everybody, I'm sure everybody knows what that means, but that just means a group that gets something inert.
So this way you give the group the experimental drug, you give a group the placebo, something inert, you track them for multiple years, and then you compare all the outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, neurological outcomes, immunology, go down the list, and cancer rates, and you see the difference.
You get a real actual sense of the safety between those two for that product.
In contrast, for most childhood vaccines, instead of years, it's often days or weeks of safety you're viewing the clinical trial relied upon to license them.
Not a single, and I know that folks contest this all the time, but it's in the FDA literature.
Not a single routine-injected childhood vaccine was licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial, save for the COVID vaccine, by the way, for children.
It's the only one.
Not a single one, okay?
Nor was the vaccine sometimes uses the control itself licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial, nor anywhere down that chain.
Chapter 10 of my book, I go through every vaccine.
I go through, I have it all cited to the FDA licensure documents.
You can listen to the talking heads, or you can rely on the primary sources from the FDA, which is why I call my book Vaccines Amen, because there is what they tell you, and then there's what the actual evidence shows, right?
So that gives you an example at the outcome of not having an economic self-interest.
With drugs, they have it, so they want to know the safety.
Like, the Viox people knew that there was one of the things that was revealed during the trial is that they knew that there was going to be issues, but I think the quote was: we still think we'll do well.
And that was one of the damning aspects of the email disclosure, because you got a chance to see how these guys talk about this drug that they're about to release.
I think they wound up paying a percentage of the amount of money they made from the drug, but they made way more from the drug than they did the fine.
The crazy thing about the Viox one is I think it killed somewhere north of 50,000 people and they still made profit off of it, which is kind of bananas.
They pulled it and made billions in profit.
This is the darker aspect of this.
If you were talking about companies that never did anything wrong, it had the highest moral and ethical standards, and they're the ones because it's not about money.
It's about saving people's health and it's about public safety.
And we've got to make sure that we do this right.
We're going to make sure we squash all the disinformation.
But that's not what you're talking about.
You're talking about these companies that have been fined billions, billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, for all kinds of shit.
These are the people.
And the idea that they wouldn't lie about vaccines, like this is the one thing they're going to tell you the truth.
Ruthless capitalist attached to money and drugs.
This is the one thing they're going to 100% tell you the truth about.
And a number of them explode every year, burning the people inside them alive to death.
Horrible way to go.
And there was a lawsuit.
And in that lawsuit, what they discovered was the company had done an internal calculation in which it did the math.
What's it going to cost to actually fix all the gas tanks?
What's that dollar number versus what's it going to cost to just pay out for those deaths every year for those people that we burn knowingly are going to die and burn to death in those cars?
And the calculation was that it was going to cost less to pay out for the deaths.
And that is what the internal document showed.
And that, by the way, is in part the case, the quintessential case you learn in law school for why they have punitive damages.
Because the punitive damages were there to force the company to conform its conduct in exactly that scenario where the economics weren't going to do it, right?
Even in something that horrible, when the market forces weren't sufficient, the economic self-interest wasn't there, you had to make it happen.
How?
Through punitive damages.
I know there's a lot of news about punitive damages.
Oh, it's excessive and so forth.
But that's what they're there for.
They're there for that scenario where we're just holding them accountable.
Now, go back to vaccines.
Think about how incredibly harmful and how much harm these vaccines must do that they cannot survive on the market without this immunity from 1986.
If you were going to steal me on the argument against that, wouldn't you say, look, we can't have frivolous lawsuits against these people that are providing us the most important medication that's available to humans.
The whole reason why we survived smallpox and polio and all these different things.
It's these vaccines.
Without them, we'd all be dead.
This episode is brought to you by Montana Knife Company.
I have used their knives for years.
They are absolutely fantastic.
The company was founded by one of the most experienced master bladesmiths in the world, my friend Josh Smith.
He has been making knives since he was a kid.
He's been making knives for 30 years.
He made his first hunting knife when he was 11 years old and became a master bladesmith at 19.
This man loves knives, the construction of knives.
They are absolutely next level.
Everything is made right here in the USA in Montana, and these knives are designed, tested, and built by hunters.
They come insanely sharp, out of the box, and are crazy easy to sharpen.
Montana Knife Company is a young company working hard to keep up with demand because these knives sell out in minutes.
If you want one, head over to Montana Knife Company.com to see what's available now.
Sign up for their email newsletter so you know when they restock and get in on their SMS notifications for special knife drops.
My personal favorite blade is the SpeedGo 2.0.
I use it all the time.
It's an amazing knife.
Montana Knife Company, working knives for working people.
Drugs, drugs that are for very small populations, meaning not a lot of market, not a lot of sales, that cause incredible side effects can survive on the market profitably.
Okay, if I was a silly person, I would probably say these vaccines are more important than any medication that's ever existed because they are the reason why we are here, because that's how we survived smallpox and polio and the measles and everything else.
And without them, we would have perished.
We would have never achieved the technological states that we're at because we wouldn't have been healthy.
Yeah, I try not to do too much believing, and I try to do a little bit of evidence-based thinking.
But any event, look, when it comes to these products, I saved my beliefs for religion, the unanswerables, where do we go when we die, and so forth.
I have to take a leap of faith, and I do it when I need to, but you don't need to with these products.
Okay.
On the first part of what you said, first of all, there are products probably that are far more important to humanity at the moment.
No question about it than vaccines, even assuming it had the results that you just claimed, which I'll address in a second.
Imagine you said, well, look, cars are essential.
I mean, cars, you can't get an ambulance, you can't get to the hospital.
Without cars, you can't get to work.
You can't get your kids to school.
I mean, it's essential to a functioning society.
So let's give cars immunology.
Intuitively, you'd say that's ridiculous.
On the death's point, that is one of the myths.
That is one of the mythologies around vaccines that has developed over time.
This notion that everybody in America die without vaccines.
In chapter seven of my book, I lay it out for every single disease.
And what I do there is I say, okay, how many deaths were there in America the year before the vaccine was first introduced or widely or widely used or so forth, okay?
In any real degree.
And what you find is, if you go down the list, there were typically dozens to hundreds, maybe a thousand or so deaths from each disease for which we vaccinate.
The further back in time you go, the larger the number, but in that dozens to 1,000 or so deaths, okay?
For example, measles, the dreaded measles that they say everybody will die from.
No measles vaccine, we're all going to die, right?
That is the impression they give you.
You have any idea how many people died of measles in the years before there was a measles vaccine in the United States?
Yeah, I have a whole giant footnote in my book about this, and I've actually tweeted this out and did a substick about this, a whole series of articles.
Studies that show that those that have had the influenza vaccines, maybe these studies often reflect have around the same rate of influenza.
Maybe they have less respiratory and fluenza infections, but many studies show they have multiple times the rate of other respiratory infections.
So good job.
Maybe you've reduced your risk of influenza by this much, but you've increased your risk of another different respiratory disease by that much.
I mean, literally three, four, I mean, huge percentages.
And they're statistically significant in these studies.
And so, you know, when you're looking at a now, these are all retrospective epidemiological studies.
But when you do a retrospective EPI study, which means you take existing data and then you study it versus saying, okay, we're going to do a study and follow people going forward.
Okay.
If you find like a 1.3 time, which means 30% increased risk, that's a pulpofo finding.
This is 3%, 400% increased risk.
Yes.
And in many of these studies, it's inconvenient data, so obviously it's not talked about.
So measles, the ideal age to get it is not when you're an infant, which in the pre-vaccine era, infants typically did not get measles because they got maternal immunity from the mother.
And you don't want to get it as an adult because it is more likely to cause problems, which again, in the pre-vaccine era, wasn't a problem because everybody virtually got it as a child.
Find that clip and let's watch it because it's so indicative of what measles was actually like in the culture of the people that would get it all the time versus this boogeyman of today.
I mean, it is, it's so stark.
It's so, I mean, it's like, imagine the kid coming home.
And I can add another data point to that to help support that, which is that between 1900, and this is again CDC data, between 1900 and the late 1950s, early 1960s, the mortality from measles declined in the United States by over 98%.
Measles has been around for forever, as far as we know, thousands of years.
The year 1900 wasn't the beginning of herd immunity.
1900, measles already endemic.
Everybody was getting measles.
So every year, there's a few million people cohort that were getting it, and you had this decline.
And so you have to ask yourself, what was the decline?
It was probably better sanitation, better acute medical care.
I mean, all kinds of things.
And you know who could take credit for most of that stuff?
Better sanitation, better living conditions, better, you name it.
Probably public health authorities.
Meaning, the improvement in acute care, the introduction of antibiotics, better living conditions, not having sewage in the street, you name it, probably had a massive contributor to that reduction, but they never point to that.
And there's one other really inconvenient data point with measles, and this is really where it gets upsetting for folks out there who you were just saying are going to watch the show.
And it's this.
That over 98% reduction in mortality, there's no reason that that curve was not going to continue.
Because pockets of the United States in the late 15 and early 60s were like a developing country.
In a developing country, kids are going to die of any infectious disease because of extremely poor living conditions.
And as those improved, most likely that 400 deaths also would have continued to decline.
4.2 million births in the United States in the late 50s, early 60s, about 3.8 million births today.
So in fact, there's less children being born in America today than there was then.
So you have a smaller cohort of babies, young children to infect.
And final data point, and it's this, and this is really, I know this is going to cause cognitive dissonance for some, but studies that have looked at those that have had measles versus those that don't find that those that have had measles have a statistically significant greater reduction in deaths from cardiovascular disease and various cancers.
There's a 20-year, 22-year prospective study in Japan funded by the government of Japan and major universities that tracked 100,000 people in Japan for 22 years.
And it found that those that had measles and mumps had a 20% statistically significant decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease.
Think about that for a second.
Just think about that.
About 800,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease.
If eliminating measles and mumps has increased cardiovascular deaths in the United States by even 1% on a life years lost basis, you are still way upside down on your public health benefit by eliminating measles.
Why would it also, those that have not had measles, have a 66% increased rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 266% increased rate of Hodgkin's lymphoma, which kills 20,000 people a year?
Why would women that have had measles have 50% less ovarian cancer, which kills a lot of women every year?
What is it about it?
Maybe, and here's the thing.
And you can have evolutionary biologists talk about this as well.
You've had some on.
Think about it this way.
Pathogens have come and gone throughout the ages, right?
So it has like a hermetic effect and it makes you physically stronger somehow or another.
It makes your immune system stronger, your cardiovascular, like a stress test.
I mean, it's not outside the realm of possibility, right?
I mean, if lifting weights makes you stronger and, you know, studying makes you smarter, wouldn't it make sense that some form of infection that you recover from will make you more resilient?
It does make sense.
It's just like no one wants to say, hey, you should go get measles.
Why is it as you approach a more massive object or approach the speed of light, does time relatively slow down?
I don't know if it makes sense or not.
It's just what when you put two atomic clocks on a plane, one on the ground, one in the plane, you fly it around the earth, they're not ticking the same, so there it is.
Very inconvenient, a lot of cognitions there, but it could very well be that our whole, this whole program, not only do we, so going back to your whole, going all the way back to your point, you're like, well, they'll say vaccines are so important.
We've got to give them this immunity.
No.
In fact, quite the opposite.
Our babies are so precious, are so important.
We want to make sure we have the safest possible product you can have.
And the way to do that is to make sure the companies have an economic interest to make sure they're as safe as possible.
But if I was questioning anything, I would say, okay, if we don't have genetic immunity anymore, because our parents didn't have it, because our parents are vaccinated against measles, wouldn't it be better to keep vaccinating people rather than let a whole bunch of people with no immunity to measles get it, particularly like older people?
It's like, in any other business, if you were running a pharmaceutical drug business, if you were running Chevy and you're making a new Corvette and you started talking about how this Corvette is a gift from God, everybody will go, oh, Kathy's cracked.
And so to your, now going back, so that's the differential.
And in fact, for most of the other vaccines, like pertussis vaccine and so forth, they make you more likely to spread the pathogen if you're vaccinated.
And I can tell you all about that.
But before I do that, let me just point out that to your last comment, because measles, MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine can prevent transmission, you are correct.
If measles were to come through society right now, right now, in the current time, it would be problematic because babies who aren't supposed to get it would be more likely to get it because the mothers aren't conferring the same maternal immunity that they did in the pre-vaccine era because the vaccine doesn't confer the same level of immunity anywhere near.
And older folks, because the vaccine is nowhere as efficacious as having had the infection, depending on the study, 2% to 10% do not sero convert even after two doses, meaning they are not getting immunity at all, pretty much, or immunity that's considered immune.
And that's why when there's a measles outbreak, a lot of times you'll hear a call to even have folks who are older get the measles vaccine again, right?
There's guidance on that because it doesn't confer.
If you've had measles, you're done.
You never need a vaccine.
Again, you'll never get measles again.
One and done.
So yes, It would be problematic right now for those for MMR, measles bones rubella, and chickenpox to just kind of let it rip.
You would have to really, you know, have an educational campaign beforehand if you were going to do that.
But for the other vaccines, Hep B vaccine, pertussis vaccine, not a problem.
Kind of crazy if the parent aren't intervening as drug users or whatever, whatever would give them Hep B, that you're going to inject a baby with a vaccine that prevents them from getting a sexually transmitted disease and like a rarely, you got to be doing something rough.
So when you have conversations with people and they are the way you used to be and the way I used to be, where you just sort of just assumed that the people that are experts in their fields are doing a great job and that's why we're alive.
And you start telling them these things.
Like, are you a real problem at a cocktail party?
Like, have you ever had a conversation that just went completely sideways and they started getting angry at you for quoting things?
First, for some, like medical professionals, a lot of them seem to derive a lot of their self-schema almost, their value, their worth from these products.
They saved humanity.
How could you question that?
We are the saviors, right?
In some respects, almost like supplanting God, right?
What's the only thing that will save us during COVID?
Was it God?
No.
Vaccines.
That's the only thing.
And then for others, they think that they know, okay?
But they don't know intellectually.
They've never looked at the primary sources.
So when you challenge them with evidence, what can they draw from?
The intellect?
No.
They draw from their emotions.
They draw from their feelings, and that's why they get angry.
I get that all the time.
But I also often get folks who are just curious and interested to listen.
It was stunning to watch people not be outraged, too.
When information was getting out about different people that were silenced, Jay Bhattacharya and all those different people that were getting attacked, Martin Koldorf.
It was stunning how no one was going, hey, what is going on here?
This seems really weird that you're removing posts from guys from MIT and Stanford and banning their accounts.
Like, that's fucking crazy.
And until Elon purchased Twitter, we really didn't know the extent of it.
Because it's true information that might cause problems, which is fucking almost everything.
As soon as you have a problem with malinformation, like you are encouraging the creepiest kind of groupthink that's available, and no one freaked out.
Well, a few people freaked out, but not enough.
It wasn't, it should have been bipartisan.
It should have been a bipartisan freak out.
It should have been left and right, but it got politicized in this really stupid way where people on the left were pro-vaccine and pro-pharmaceutical drug company and pro-narrative.
And people on the right were like, I'm going to take my chances.
And those were the kooks.
And, you know, it was this like ideological battle as much as it was a public health crisis.
But I'll tell you what made me think people were going to go into the street with pitchforks was when the government told everybody stay at home.
That wasn't hidden.
That wasn't behind the scenes, the stuff you're talking about.
They said, stay in your house.
They didn't say, we recommend you stay in your houses.
They didn't say we recommend you get this vaccine.
We don't recommend you wear this mask.
They said, stay in your house.
When they had that first order came down, I was like, people are just going to be outraged.
People are going to protest.
And when they didn't, that's what dismayed me personally.
And I'll tell you why.
Okay.
Because when you think about civil and individual rights, First Amendment, the right to free speech, the assembly, right?
That was passed and adopted by the states in 1791.
What's the First Amendment intended to do?
It's restricted government from infringing on those rights.
You think life was easy in 1791?
What do you think life was like in 1791?
You think it was easy?
I think it was all hunky-dory.
Life in 1791 was brutal!
Brutal!
You want to talk about disease, pestilence, famine, war?
You want to talk about a life that is no electricity, no running water, no sewing, nothing.
And that amendment was passed for times that are more brutal than that.
And here comes a virus.
And every right you have is basically taken away.
And Americans are like, take it.
Take it away.
That is what outraged me.
Because look, what was the whole point of this country?
What is America born out of, in my view?
It's born out of the idea that every other government that preceded it got it wrong in the following sense.
Your life should not be dictated by a king or a dictator or a polit bureau or a central authority.
It's the idea that you are born with inalienable rights.
You should be able to choose your destiny, including what risks you want to take.
Individual rights come with risks.
Letting Joe Rogan say what he wants on this podcast comes with risks.
Letting you practice what religion you want, assemble with who you want, especially in Austin.
Very interesting time yesterday.
That comes with risks, let me tell you.
A lot of risks, okay?
But the greater risk is always ceding that right to the government, because once you do, you don't get it back often.
And so, yes, there was that hidden stuff you talk about.
And that was bad.
Don't get me wrong.
That was bad stuff.
That's really, really bad.
But the stuff they did in the open to me, in some ways, was even worse.
And I hope that there's a lesson that folks learn from that.
Because let me tell you something.
Even if you love every vaccine out there, you're listening to this.
You love every vaccine.
You love every mask, right?
Great.
I support every American's right.
You're 17, you're 18, you're totally healthy, no comorbidities, and you want to get a vaccine a day, wear 70 masks, and live in your basement in a self-imposed state home order.
This is America.
I support your right to do it.
I'll fight for your right to do that.
And you're 90 and you're a war veteran and you want to go to the, you have 16 comorbidities and you want to go to the coffee shop with no vaccine and no mask, you should be free to do that because that's America too.
And if you don't stand up for that right now, the day comes when there's something, a medical product you don't want, the government says you have to get.
Because trust me, it is so much cheaper to lobby to get a medical product required than it is to market to get people to get it.
Oh, they've learned that lesson.
That's why there's so much lobbying to get mandates, get rid of exemptions across the country that you don't want and you can't get a job and you can't go to school and you can't leave your house, then what good are the rest of your rights?
They're useless.
That's why medical liberty truly is a fundamental right.
And it's such an important thing to get out there, to get people to understand that It's such a natural human inclination to when you're in a place of power, of control, any form of government, you want more control.
And it's just natural.
And what you're talking about, when you lose rights, you very rarely get them back.
That was so on display in California with the COVID regulations because they had everybody locked down way past where they had to.
A friend of mine's brother worked in one of the COVID, some government office when they were considering the closing of outdoor dining.
And he brought up, but there's no transmission related to outdoor dining.
And the woman who was in charge said, yes, but it's all about the optics.
So she was willing to, with a wave of her magic wand, shut down outdoor dining for a bunch of small family businesses that were probably barely staying alive after COVID.
Barely.
We lost somewhere around 70% of Los Angeles restaurants went under during COVID.
That's fucking bananas.
And so they finally get outdoor dining.
Like, okay, we could kind of pay the bills this month.
And then they shut down outdoor dining for optics.
So this kind of desire to just put a foot down, control people, keep a boot on their neck, it's normal, even if it doesn't make sense.
Everybody knows that from high school.
Everybody knows that from, I mean, the Stanford prison experiments.
People like to control people.
They enjoy it.
And when they get a place like becoming the mayor or becoming the governor and being able to tell people, oh, you got to listen to me.
I've got rule.
Everyone stay inside.
Be scared.
Fucking California.
Garcetti literally had a campaign that said snitches get rewards.
This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp in honor of International Women's Day.
BetterHelp is celebrating the women in your life.
I think we can all appreciate everything the women in our lives have done for us, and everyone deserves a little self-care.
A good way to get that is through therapy, because not only is therapy a time for you to focus on yourself, it's also a way to create balance and learn how to take care of your needs in your daily life.
And BetterHelp, as one of the largest online therapy platforms, makes it so easy to meet with the right therapists.
All you need to do is fill out a short questionnaire.
You don't even need to go into an office to meet them.
You can chat at home from your couch in your car before you hit the gym or while you're walking your dog.
Plus, if you aren't jiving with your first match, you can switch to a different therapist whenever you need.
Your emotional well-being matters.
Find support and feel lighter in therapy.
Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com/slash J-R-E.
Well, when the government gets it wrong, they always always double down because, and that's the problem with the mandates.
Once they've required it, they have taken a position.
And then to admit they're wrong, often what government ends up saying is, oh, well, we're the CDC.
If we admit we're wrong about this, that's going to hurt our ability to influence the public.
And that's more important than admitting we're wrong on this or correcting course because our legitimacy, our ability to influence the public is so important.
We have to, you know, we can't admit we're wrong.
That's what Bobby's doing right now when some of these things is, you know, is some of the stuff, like the new autism page on the CDC website, for example, is contrary to anything I've ever seen come out of the federal health authorities to date.
But yes, it's disturbing.
And it's why government should, no public health authority should ever be able to tell you and infringe on your rights.
They should be able to recommend, recommend the law, recommend like crazy, but never do it.
Because that is the normal course of how tyranny dictators, bullies, thugs operate.
First, they tell you what to do.
You don't listen, apply a little pressure.
You don't listen, then they mandate.
You still don't listen?
They censor you.
Still, take away more of your rights.
That is the normal progression throughout history.
And we saw it happen in front of our eyes, which is why it should be a line in the sand.
Federal health authorities, state health authorities should be able to recommend and encourage, never mandate, ever.
But that I don't think that what Fauci was saying is anything.
Fauci, everything in my view that you saw during COVID is not like some giant leap into some new territory.
To me, it's just another natural step in progression from where we've gone over the last 40 years with vaccines.
Fauci saying that is no different than school mandates right now to get children.
Most states have, 45 states have basically checked the box exemption to send your kids to school.
There's about five that don't.
They're trying to eliminate exemptions, right?
Clearly, they're able to persuade most parents on the merits, but yet they can't take it.
They can't take that.
A 2%, 3%, 4% just will not take these products.
And I'll tell you, by the way, most of these folks are.
They're the folks who really need the exemptions because most people who don't choose to take childhood vaccines, they don't typically just wake up and decide to do that for fun.
Not many people wake up one day and go, you know what I'm going to do today?
I'm going to take a socially ostracizing position.
I'm going to get my kids kicked out of school, me thrown out of my job.
My friends call me an anti-this, an anti-that, you know, you name it, all the horribles that come with not vaccinating.
No, most people don't vaccinate, don't vaccinate because they've had a very, very personal or negative experience with these products.
They or one of their kids or one of their family members, or they've learned stuff they cannot learn about them.
And it happens for people regardless of their religious status.
It's a weird thing.
It is like a religion.
I mean, which is why I'm so glad you wrote your book that way, because I think there's these natural patterns of groupthink and of just complying that people automatically fall into.
It's very easy.
That's why people can get people to join cults.
That's why people are part of like weird Christian sects.
And if you scale it outward, it goes to a lot of stuff.
There's a lot of stuff that people just have these like climate change as a religion right now.
Like there's certain people that if you confront them with like the actual ones that are willing to question the narrative that are legitimate clients, scientists, they'll tell you, like, it is so complicated to figure out what is causing the changes in the Earth's climate, warmth and cold, and the fact that it's never been static ever in human history, never before humans, never millions of years.
It's done this crazy thing.
It involves the precession of the equinoxes and the fucking polar vortex and it's a lot of, and then also stuff we burn.
That too.
But, like, what percentage is what?
But it doesn't matter.
You can't have that conversation.
It's like you questioning, you know, whatever Messiah this person believes in.
They'll just lock down.
And climate change is this.
Not one climate change prediction of doom has been accurate.
You guys are a bunch of crooks that are making money off of this idea that you're forcing down everybody's throat, that everybody's got a green new deal and everybody's got to do renewable this and renewable.
And then who's got money invested in all this stuff?
A bunch of people who are pushing it.
And it's a fucking scam.
Just like so many of these things are fucking scams.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the damage that we're doing to the earth.
We should probably stop overfishing the ocean.
We should probably stop dumping shit into the rivers.
And when I've talked to certain scientists in different fields that feel very constricted by the academic environment, one of the things that they point to is that the group think involved in that is just like the group think involved in everything and left-wing politics, whatever it is.
Just figure out whatever it is, right-wing politics.
Groupthink in academia is also higher, it's hierarchical.
There's tiers, and you got to agree with everybody that's above you.
You want to get tenure, you want to progress, you want to get grants.
It's got to be, you guys got to be in line on all this shit.
And he's like, and anybody thinks out of the box is ruthlessly attacked.
And even when they turn out to be correct, no one apologizes.
No, they are reluctantly agree that the person was initially correct, but they'll destroy their career if they can.
San Francisco, Berkeley, were two different things.
I completely agree.
And even in, I mean, let's go outside the bubble of Berkeley from 20 years ago.
Look back over 20 years ago.
Who was fighting for civil individual rights?
It was the left.
ACLU.
Think about Skokie, Illinois, right?
Fighting for the neo-Nazis to be able to march through a Jewish town to say what they want.
Who fought that case?
Who protected their right to say that?
Democrat, ACLU, liberal lawyers and liberal judges.
And they said protecting their right to say the things they're saying is despicable, as horrible as we might find it, protects all our right to free speech.
Could you imagine those same folks today bringing that case and deciding that way?
And what's stunning is that if you asked anybody alive then, if you had ultimate access to information, literally you could pick up your phone and ask it any question about anything and get information instantaneously, would people be more or less informed?
You would say, well, certainly they'll be more informed, so there'll be more understanding of the value of free speech, and they'll know more about that ruling and what a brave stance they took to allow the KKK to march and how it just shows intellectual superiority.
The way to beat a bad idea is not to silence it, is to argue it with a much better idea.
That you would think by 2026, well, they'll be way better.
This would be a super advanced society of flying cars.
No.
It's more ideologically captured, more wrapped up in the algorithm, which I think is probably at least 50% fake.
50% is a bunch of bots tweeting a bunch of shit that they don't even believe.
They're just trying to rile people up and stir people up and push certain narratives.
I don't want to go down this rabbit hole because it's not my area per se, but for the whole length of humanity, right, when you think of the spectrum, right?
We were pretty much only exposed to natural light, which is a very narrow light, narrow band of the spectrum, okay?
Right?
When you think of waves.
So as you go down on the left side of the spectrum, the waves get longer, like AM waves, really long, FM waves, microwaves, natural light, and then above that, you get X-rays, cosmic rays.
And anything above natural light, they say, oh, it's really bad.
That's just going to mess you up.
And stuff below natural light, they say, well, as long as it doesn't heat up your cells, that's typically the standard our government uses, it's safe.
So as long as it's not heating your cell, but that's not, that's a very old standard, but it's still the one in effect today.
So in any event, when you think about microwaves, they said stay away from it, even those below natural light.
There's, you know, what is the cumulative effect of being, if you put your Wi-Fi right under your bed every night your whole life, what is the effect?
There are numerous studies that show that it does have certain effects.
Every environmental insult has the potential to cause some kind of dysregulation in your body, whether it's microplastics, whether it's you name it, okay?
And the precautionary principle would indicate that until you know it's safe, the onus is on those who want to expose you to it to prove to you it is, right?
It shouldn't be the other way around.
I don't think anybody has to prove to you that Wi-Fi is not safe to say, you know what, based on the precautionary principle, I'm just going to turn off the Wi-Fi every night in my house because I don't know.
Like, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me because humans have been exposed to forever.
I've not seen the studies that validate that it doesn't cause an issue or large robust studies.
And so, you know, but obviously, I think what I just said, some people might hear and go, well, that sounds crazy.
Why would it be crazy if we found out that there's a particular frequency that's bad for your memory or bad for your brain and that we're using it to broadcast something?
Yeah, except that I never think about harms the way you just said it because that would indicate that we have to find out what harms it causes.
To me, when I go into a car dealership, for example, I walk in and the salesman says, all right, this car.
Okay.
And I say, well, is it safe?
And the car dealer says to me, prove to me it's not safe.
And I said, well, and I say, well, what do you mean?
If you can't prove it, you got to take this car.
By the way, that's how vaccines work.
That's how I lie.
And that is become a little bit of the, depending on the, mostly for vaccines, but a little bit for some of these other products where it's like, you got to prove it's not safe.
No, I don't have to prove it's not safe.
I'm not buying this car.
You prove to me it's no.
You prove to me this vaccine causes harm or you better take it.
That's the way it's approached.
A little bit like that Wi-Fi and with all with 5G and the LTE and all that stuff.
But what I'm saying is there's been things that human beings did and they found it was really bad for you.
We've talked about it a few times, but those ladies, they used to test the x-ray machines with their hands.
And no one told them.
No one told them that x-rays can give you cancer and fuck you up.
And these poor ladies, every day, when they would show up at the medical office, they would put their hand in the x-ray machine to make sure it worked.
And there was a false story about his death and in the newspaper they called him the merchant of death and he realized it and he was like, oh shit, I got to change my PR.
I got to change my image.
And so he came up with the Nobel Prize.
He started awarding this prestigious prize.
And then instead of him being connected with blowing people up with dynamite, he became connected with the most prestigious prize in all of medicine and all of government and the peace, the Nobel Peace Prize.
But what's really stunning is you're also allowed to influence the people that actually deliver the news, which is, you know, that's the crazy one.
Like, Callie Neans talked about that.
Like, they're advertising not because they want to sell their products with the advertisement that they're putting on the air.
They're doing that too.
But they're also ensuring that this steady stream of revenue that's going to these networks, they won't be opening up any lines of investigation into the vaccine injuries.
Like, it's not going to happen.
You're not going to see a giant CNN piece about COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
It's not happening.
It's not happening.
You're not going to hear much about anything.
It has to be a big fucking story where they have to say it or they'll just mention a judgment real quick and then move on, moving on.
The Rasmutan poll, I don't know if you remember this one, found that I believe one in four, and I think that's right, but I'm not sure 100%, people said they believe they knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine or knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine.
When you have that many people with that, with that lived experience, and yet the mainstream media, as you just said, was still able to continue to push the narrative around COVID vaccines the way they did.
Nobel Prize-related lobotomy refers to a 1949 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Antonio Agas Boniz, a Portuguese neurologist, for developing the prefrontal lobotomy.
He developed something called a leucotomy, which was slightly different than what became known as the lobotomy, which we know as like the ice pick method.
It's just hard to recommend a certain amount of it.
It's like how much Twinkie should you eat a day?
I don't mind if you eat Twinkies, but if you're eating Twinkies all day long, you're going to be fucked up, man.
And that's how I feel about social media interactions.
But I do think it's an important way to distribute information.
Say if you're working for some corporation and you know something fucked up is going on and you could put it up on Twitter and with details and facts and people could look into it and you can open up a line of reporters and investigative journalists that are going to find this, expose it, and you could really break a story that is like good for everybody.
Like having a way to communicate ideas like that is fantastic.
Everything else, like all the arguing, all the shit that people do back and forth, you're just rotting your brain out.
I mean, during the COVID pandemic, when all of these government overreaches were occurring, but for the existence of social media, you know, podcasts like yours and other alternative platforms, right?
The information in many respects wouldn't have come out if you didn't have Peter McCull on, Robert Malone on, and if Fox and just that little portion of the, I guess, more traditional media wasn't willing for a time period to have folks on.
I mean, trust me, when I started doing vaccine-related work a decade ago, I never thought a single outlet, whether it's Fox or CNN, would ever have me on.
And they had me on numerous times until vaccines kind of like, all right, let's not touch that again.
Was this during this during the Biden administration then?
And I think part of that was because it was a point of contention between the right and the left, right?
It was the right opposing the draconian measures that the left who is in power, and we got to get the right back in power because we're all about freedom.
Yeah, so I think there was a little bit of that going on there, right?
For sure, there was some of that going on, as you pointed out, I believe in the past, when Trump was promoting the vaccine, we're not taking that vaccine.
And in the moment, Biden was like, we're taking the vaccine.
When that got struck down by the courts, a number of airlines said, we're going to keep our mask mandate.
I don't know if you remember that.
They proudly came out.
The CEO said, we're going to keep it.
Half of them said they were going to keep it.
The other half immediately lifted the mask mandate on planes.
And those that decided to keep it, they dropped it within a day or two, I think, or something like that, really rapidly because economically they were losing business.
And I think that changed the center of gravity on that issue.
I think Elon buying Twitter X basically changed the center of gravity on censorship, whereby without that, they might have all just kept going even in the worst direction.
And they saw they were losing market share to X once he bought it and he didn't have censorship.
Well, it was also indicative of how people actually felt versus what was suppressed.
Like when you realize that there's, well, have you ever seen how people identifying as non-binary and trans dropped off like right after the purchase of Twitter?
It's because people got a chance to talk about it now.
And you can criticize it.
And people could put up memes and they can call it a mental illness again.
And then all of a sudden everybody's like, hey, what are we supporting?
Men with penises in the women's room?
Like, did we get hypnotized?
Like, what the fuck happened?
And now you're seeing even prestigious mainstream media publications talking about the dangers of gender transition for young kids.
Wow.
Okay.
So what happened?
What happened?
What happened was Elon bought Twitter and people were out to actually accurately gauge what people were willing to tolerate and what they actually want versus what's being shoved down everybody's throats with censorship and with mainstream media narratives.
They just keep piping back and forth, pretending everybody agrees with them.
And one of the things you realize if you have children is that they are very malleable and they want to fit in and they are subject to social contagions.
And that social contagion can be dressing up, golf.
It could be like whatever it is.
Like they want to fit in and they're experimenting.
They're kids.
And if you just decide, oh, you're a boy, and then you bring that kid to it, and you're giving them all this positive attention, and you're giving them all this positive feedback.
And then you go to school, I'm trans now, and everyone says you're brave.
Like for awkward kids, that is absolutely enticing.
And not only that, they do it in clusters.
Like Abigail Schreier has written about this.
That this is a lot of these girls have autism, and a lot of these girls are socially awkward and they're very uncomfortable with their body and they're going through puberty, which kind of freaks them out already, freaks out any girl.
And then something comes along like this.
And now you've been taken to a doctor and had your breasts removed and you're 15.
That's fucking crazy.
And to say anything in opposition to that somehow became you're a bigot or you're a Nazi or you're transphobic.
This is crazy talk.
Like you're talking about very malleable children doing something.
The unelected bureaucrats sitting there and you name your alphabet agency that you've probably never heard of that pass these regs that are the same force of law.
And who really has, again, the time and inclination to influence them?
So it starts as a good idea, but unfortunately it ends up being what the literature calls, this is the political science literature, came out of Harvard and Yale and all those places.
They don't want to talk about it today, captive agencies.
Okay, that's what they often become.
CDC, FDA, and very much are, to varying degrees, depending on what they're doing, are very much captive agencies when you look closely at it and you understand it.
That's true of many other parts of the government.
Well, particularly, people don't know, a lot of people don't know, haven't gone down these rabbit holes, that a lot of these people, it's a revolving door.
They leave the FDA and then they go and work for the pharmaceutical drug companies and they make a lot of money.
Like Julie Gerberding, who was the head of the CDC in the 90s, that oversaw some of the most controversial disputes about what, whose products, Merck's vaccine products.
Okay.
And then after her, you know, she cleaned all that up, left CDC and went to work for who?
Merck.
Making tens of millions of dollars, I believe she's made over the time that she's been there.
So she did good.
She got rewarded.
You think if she didn't do good, she wouldn't get rewarded?
You don't think other people see that in the federal health?
Well, this is the thing about having an obligation to your shareholders, which brings me back to the whole stock market thing.
I know this is a kooky thought, but I mean, if we never had the stock market in the first place and you didn't have an obligation to your shareholders to consistently make more money every quarter, if people could just accept the fact that you own this business, this person, you make a certain amount of money, everybody's doing great.
Like, why have all these people making money just moving stocks around insane amounts of wealth, manipulating systems to crash stocks?
And there's people that are like in public office that say things that aren't necessarily true, that influence the market.
And then it turns out they were totally wrong.
And then you find out that they bet on it and they made a bunch of money in the stock market.
This is crazy.
This is crazy.
And it's all true.
It's all legal, which is so fucking bizarre that in a time where we are completely aware that all this stuff is taking place.
There are companies that provide services, including financial services that can be useful.
Like you need a mortgage if you can buy a house.
You can't afford it.
So mortgage products are a service that are brought to the financial industry.
And then there is, I think, what you're talking about, which is the part of our economy that is finance.
It's just moving money.
It's just moving numbers where they've got high-speed computers that are trying in micro fractions of a second to beat out the other guy to basically triage and make money based on that adds no value to our economy.
Products and services add value.
And everything you see around that we're sitting in right now is made by a company, right?
And so, and I'm not aware of a system that has been more efficient at producing products and services that improve the lives of others than the free market system with some regulation.
Now, when you break the alignment of economic self-interests of the companies, the market interest, to whatever it is, protect consumers, that's when you have a problem.
And that is the idea, or at least they sell it as the idea from a lot of government regulations.
Well, the company is not on its own going to do what's right in this instance.
So we need government to do it.
And if government really only stepped in when it was truly needed, it would be a good system.
You're right.
But the system often breaks when they step in when they're not needed, and sometimes when they step in and have the opposite effect, when they're really just protecting the industry at the expense of consumers, which happens too often.
Is the benefit of the stock market, and this is again nonsense, right?
I'm not an economist, clearly.
But if we had never invented it, if human beings had never come up with this idea, if instead we just had a free market, what has the stock market, what has publicly traded companies, what has the ability to own stock companies and hedge funds and all that stuff, what has that done for innovation and for progress and for creating more products?
Do you think it's encouraged more products and encouraged more activity in the economy and we're further ahead than we would have been if no one had invented it?
Because it seems like at the very least, it's a weird opening for people that just move money around and add no value and extract enormous amounts of wealth.
So that seems like you got a hole in your pipe.
Like, why are people that aren't even involved?
Why do they get to make all the money on this?
Like, what is going on here?
You're doing a weird thing that I don't know if you had to do to achieve the same result that you achieved with a free market, capitalist society that doesn't have a stock market, that just has a bunch of companies making money and everybody doing the stuff they do.
This is just my off-the-cuff musings, and that's something I actually really want to think about more.
But so when I think about companies going public, it certainly appears to help drive capital to those companies because venture capital funds, a lot of times they're exit strategy.
So I'm willing to give you all this.
I'm a venture capital.
I'm willing to give you all this money to start this company because I know at the, you know, my goal is three to five years from now, it can go public and I, the venture capital fund, can get back X amount of my money.
That's my, that's the exit strategy for that investment.
Now, if there was no efficient market to do that, right?
Meaning you couldn't just have a publicly traded market where just easy to sell to have this public offering.
What would that do to venture capital funds?
Well, I mean, would they still invest as much?
They might.
And instead, they might just focus on hard money returns.
They want companies that really just make money, you know, cash on cash versus this immediate bubble of equity inflation that happens when you go public because it's now liquid, the ownership.
But the question is, if a bunch of people are making money that aren't contributing, they're just siphoning money by moving money around all over the place.
Isn't that leaky money?
If you don't really contribute anything, you don't provide any value, and you're extracting extreme wealth.
Don't you have a leak in the pipe?
It seems like if that money was just being distributed normally, like the buying and selling of goods and services, that would be a much more honest society.
But would it have the same amount of in would it have the same amount of innovation and would it have the same amount of productivity?
Or is that productivity not just enhanced by this flood of capital, but also encouraged?
So it like stimulates everything.
So like having these vampires sucking on the pipe, like ultimately it does move numbers around and it gets more stuff out there, which also encourages innovation.
And if people ignore it because it's inconvenient and it doesn't align with their ideology, you've been captured.
And this is why I think what you're talking about all the time is so hard for people that are true believers to swallow.
Because it makes you have, you're forced to reformulate your entire worldview.
If you've been duped that hard by something like the actual data on vaccine efficacy and who's really profiting and why it's set up the way it is and what the studies really are, when you realize you've been duped that hard, that's a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people.
Because that happens to a lot of people with vaccines.
I've seen not the majority, not most, but it happens to some where it's like, oh my goodness, if the government's lying or not telling me the truth about these products, then what can I believe?
And, you know, people, some folks can go down some different alleys.
And I would say that I would really, truly, I've not seen anything like vaccines.
Vaccines really are in their own bucket because of that immunity.
It's what I call original sin in my book.
There really is no product, no product that I'm aware of that operates in this kind of landscape.
Like I said, every other product, the market force will, to varying degrees with wrinkles, correct for the issues because there's economic self-interest.
They broke that with vaccines.
So we've gone from three shots following in 1986, one before the first year of age.
At the beginning of 2025, you know how many shots it was that a baby got on or before their first birthday?
It went from three to 29 shots, including in utero.
Now, with the recent changes, it's down to 19.
And the reason I focus on the first year, most of the shots in the first six months of life, is that's when the baby is going through really critical stages of neurological, immunological development, right?
Synapse.
I mean, think how small a baby is, okay?
And so they're really susceptible to various effects.
Also, babies can't express what's going wrong with them.
Okay.
So now, in the normal course, okay, in the normal course, you've got a product.
You've gone from three of them in 1986 by the first year.
You're up to 29 at the beginning of 2025.
Now you're at 19 still.
During that period, you've gone from under 10% of kids had a chronic health issue in the early 1980s, according to the data.
You now have over 40%.
Some data show over 50% of kids having chronic health issues, often multiple times the rate.
And what are those chronic health issues that have exploded?
To be sure, by the way, any environmental insult can cause dysregulation in the body, including a pharmaceutical product, including vaccines.
But when you look at those chronic diseases that have exploded, almost all of them have an etiology relating to some form of immune system dysregulation.
Look at asthma.
Look at atopic issues.
Look at ticks.
Look at ADHD.
Nobody thinks about it this way, but if you look at the public literature, there's immune markers that have gone awry in kids with ADHD.
So you look at that.
Now, I'd say, okay, the lawyers, those who would hold these companies accountable, would look at that, and then they would start looking at the data.
And I'll show you what some of the data shows.
We talked about the Amish earlier, for example.
The Amish that I represent in New York, there's three schools.
The New York Health Department decided that it doesn't like what the Amish beliefs are.
It wants the Amish to adopt their beliefs and abandon their real religious beliefs and to give their kids these vaccines.
Otherwise, they were going to impose crushing fines on these three Amish schools.
Three schools, by the way, which means a room, no electricity, a teacher, you know what I mean?
On Amish land.
They don't take tax money.
They pay taxes, but they refuse to take tax money, taught by Amish teachers.
And so amongst those families of those three schools, there was like 160 or something kids.
And what we did is we did a survey.
We asked them, what health conditions do those kids have, those 160 kids, many of them are already older, too.
So you would know their health outcomes.
And this is all in our court papers.
It's all in a federal docket.
Anybody can go and read it for themselves.
Amongst those children, you would expect to have, because like one in 10 kids approximately have asthma, you would expect to have like nine cases of asthma.
You'd expect to have six cases this five kids.
They have none, zero of the chronic health conditions plaguing kids in America today.
And the approximately 10 or so studies that have been done, and I'm going to bring this back to my legal point, the approximately 10 or so studies that have done that compared kids with no exposure, meaning zero vaccines, to kids that have had one or more vaccines, show the same outcome.
Kids with zero vaccines, almost none of the chronic health issues that face kids today in America.
Kids with one or more vaccines, multiple rates of the chronic health issues facing kids today.
Now, that data all exists.
I put those studies in my book.
Anybody can read them.
I even put the Amish information in my book.
It's all cited.
You can go look at it yourself if you're out there.
Some of them are even on PubMed.
The market could have corrected for that if you could hold those pharma companies accountable, but you can't.
But the follow-up question would be, are they even being diagnosed?
So if they're getting Amish care and Amish teachers and Amish, is it possible that there are some kids that are just behaving odd that would be diagnosed?
The notion that autism is just better diagnosed, and that's the only reason for the increase is, I don't know a better word for it than say nonsense.
Okay.
Even if you look at the, because they've changed the DSM-5, which is what we're up to, the diagnostic manual, that is the psychiatric manual that has the criteria for diagnosing autism.
It has changed over time.
But when you even just look at severe autism, just severe autism, which California has very good data on, from the 70s and onward into today, it's exploded.
So the notion that we just have better diagnosis is not a serious point.
But putting that aside, the Amish do go to doctors.
Just like every religion, there are different communities.
And so there's like old, old line Amish, and then there's old line Amish.
And so, you know, in Christianity and Islam and Judaism, there's different degrees.
Black hat Jews and there's so forth.
So in many respects, they do still go.
But, you know, as I was told by one of the main folks who I interact with there, and I've been up there and I've slept there and I've interacted with them.
He told me, he said, yeah, you know, there are a few that mistake, got some vaccines.
And he goes, one of those kids, they just don't act right.
He said it to me.
But we don't see that with our other kids.
And I'll tell you this about the Amish community.
They don't have phones.
Not, you know, smartphones.
They have old school phones, some of them.
They don't have TVs.
When they're with their kids, they're with their kids.
When they're there at the end of the day, they really are so much more in tune.
When I spend time with them and when I went up there, I mean, it's incredible.
You know, we have lost, it's a hard thing to experience.
Maybe for somebody who keeps like maybe the closest thing I think of is like those who observe the Sabbath biblically, you know, so they're just totally locked in.
They lock in with their families for a day or so or things like that.
And so they're very in tune with their kids.
They know if those kids have health issues.
And those kids don't have those issues.
But forget the Amish.
Go to the rest of the kids in the other studies that are not Amish studies.
The 10 other studies that I just told you about, one is three pediatric practices that have vaccinated, unvaccinated kids.
There are a whole line of studies that have nothing to do with the Amish community.
But if you do want to focus on autism, okay, which is just one potential issue from vaccines, by the way, what you find in the peer-reviewed literature is that 40 to 70% of parents who have a child with autism report, still report, that they believe vaccines cause their child's autism.
That's after how much billions of dollars to try to tell them and gaslight them and convince them that it's not autism, that vaccines don't cause autism.
Apparently, no matter how many you beat these families, they're just not going to change their lived experience.
And what vaccines do they point to?
They often point to the vaccines given in the first six months of life.
When you ask them, what vaccines do you think cause your child's autism?
They'll say the vaccines given in the first six months of life.
And then they'll also point to MMR vaccine, which is given no earlier than one year of age.
Okay.
And so on behalf of ICANN, which is the Information Action Working nonprofit that our law often represents, we sent a Freedom of Information Act request, FOIA request, to the CDC.
And we said, hey, your website says vaccines do not cause autism.
Great.
Please give us the studies that show that HEP B vaccine, given three times in the first six months of life, do not cause autism.
Please give us the studies that show that DTAP vaccine, given three times in the first six months of life, do not cause autism.
Same thing for IPV vaccine, for PCV vaccine, and for HIP vaccine.
Each one of those vaccines is given three times each in the first six months of life.
These parents are saying these vaccines cause their child's autism.
Provide us the studies.
They never gave us the studies.
I sued them in federal court.
I didn't go to Texas.
I sued them in the Southern District of New York.
Not the friendliest territory to bring that kind of lawsuit.
Days before the hearing, I get a list of 20 studies finally from the DOJ because they represent the CDC.
Maybe they think I don't read.
So I looked at the 20 studies.
I read them.
19 of them have nothing to do with the vaccines given in the first six months of life.
They were all either MMR studies or studies of an ingredient that wasn't in those vaccines.
One of them was an Institute of Medicine review from 2012 that canvassed all the literature on whether DTAP vaccine does or does not cause autism because the CDC and HRSA, which is the agency in HHS that fights vaccine injury claims, asked the IOM to look at whether DTAP causes autism because it remained one of the most commonly claimed injuries still, according to them.
And the Institute of Medicine came back and said we could only find one study on DTAP and autism.
And in fact, it showed an association between vaccine, DTAP vaccine and autism.
But the IOM threw it out because they said there's no unvaccinated control in it.
So they threw out the studies based on VARES data, if you know what that is.
So I called up the DOJ attorney.
This is days before the hearing.
And I said, I got the list of 20 studies.
I said, are you sure that your client, the CDC, wants to settle this case basically on the basis that these are the studies they rely upon to claim that vaccines don't cause autism?
That the vaccines in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
Because that's what the lawsuit was about, that FOIA request.
He went, he called me back, and he said, yeah, they want to settle it.
I said, all right, I gave him another chance.
Those 20 studies were put into a settlement agreement between the CDC and ICANN, my client.
The DOJ signed it on behalf of the CDC.
I signed it on behalf of my client.
And the federal judge in the Southern District of New York entered it as an order of the court in 2019, I believe it was.
And there it was.
I mean, I had done years and years of work fighting with them to try and figure out, show me the vaccines don't cause autism.
This was the crescendo.
This was the end.
I mean, when their back was to the wall, they had nothing.
There are no studies.
They could not produce one that showed the vaccines given in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
There is one study out there regarding Hep B vaccines and autism.
It's from Gallagher and Goodman out of the University of Stony Brooks in the peer-reviewed literature.
And it showed that kids that got Hep B vaccine versus those that did in the first month of life had three times the rate of autism, statistically significant.
Gallagher Goodman, University of Stony Brook, it's on PubMed.
That is the only study of Hep B vaccine autism you will find in the peer-reviewed literature.
If you're going to do it based on the science, on the published literature, that's the only one out there.
That DTAP vaccine study is the only one out there for DTAP given in the first six months of life.
So when this narrative, which you hear all the time on these panels, on these news shows, vaccines do not cause autism, that has been thoroughly debunked.
I wrote the book because in 10 years that I have litigated hundred, 200 lawsuits against federal and state health agencies, that I have deposed the world's leading vaccinologists, including Dr. Stanley Plotkin.
You go down the list and chasing them when they're in a deposition, when their back is against the wall in a federal or state lawsuit, and they have no choice but to admit the truth or give the evidence, put up or shut up.
What I have found is that the claims they make about vaccines versus the reality are completely different.
And it is disjarring.
When I came into this, had you told me, yeah, they don't have any studies that show vaccines don't cause autism in the first six months, I'd be like, you're crazy.
They're drowning in studies that vaccines don't cause autism.
But then when you demand it, not the bull crap that they say on TV, but you actually demand it.
That's the result.
And you could pull it up on the internet, by the way.
That court stipulation, it's right there.
You could also hear me depose Dr. Stanley Plock and the world's leading vaccinologist.
What I said to him, I said, Doctor, you know, and you have this clip's on the internet.
I said, I said, There's no studies that support that DTAP does not cause autism, right?
And he's, and first he said, Well, I said, Well, what do you think the IM concluded?
He goes, Well, I would assume they said it doesn't.
So I showed it to him.
He goes, Oh, it's the world's leading vaccinologist.
He didn't even know this.
He goes, Oh, okay, there are no studies.
Okay, he goes, So I said, Shouldn't you wait until you do?
Shouldn't you wait until you have the studies that show that DTAP doesn't cause autism to then tell parents that vaccines don't cause autism?
You know what he said to me?
No, no, I don't wait.
I don't wait because I have to take into account the health of the child.
He said, I said, So, for that reason, you're willing to tell parents that vaccines don't cause autism, even though you don't have the data to support it.
He said, Absolutely.
You can play that clip if you want.
It's on the internet.
And then I deposed in a case about vaccines and autism.
It was about it, Dr. Catherine Edwards, who is one of the four, I guess, leading vaccinologists in the world, one of the four editors of the medical textbooks on vaccine, which is called Plotkin's Vaccines.
I deposed her about vaccines and autism.
And I said, Do you have a study that shows Hep B vaccine doesn't go to autism?
This was after this court stipulation, the court order I told you about.
She didn't have any for Hep B, for HIP, for the ones I just took the first six months of life.
So, yes, they say on TV it's thoroughly debunked, but I'm telling you, that is a belief that is not science, that is not fact, it is not based on data, it is based on pure belief.
I think they believe actually in vaccines more because they'll kick kids out of school in some archdiocese, even in some other Christian schools, far less.
Most archdiocese won't, if the kid won't get vaccines.
So, I actually think they believe in vaccines more than Jesus in some places, by the way.
But I just want to, I just got to be clear because anybody here in this might think that that just sounds crazy.
But I implore anybody who heard me say that, pull up the court order yourself, look at it yourself, watch the depositions, go to PEBMed, see for yourself.
Oh, and by the way, do not rely on AI because I've done this fun job with them.
Like, I'm like, Do Hep B vaccines cause autism?
It's been thoroughly researched, and there's no studies.
I go, Okay, great.
So, how do you, and I say to AI, I go, How do you reach a scientific conclusion?
Well, you use peer-reviewed studies.
I go, wonderful.
So, to conclude that HEP vaccine does not cause autism, you need peer-reviewed studies.
That is correct.
Wonderful.
Now, please, in a list, these studies that show hep B vaccine does cause autism.
Give me three studies.
I've had...
I've had ChatGPT make up studies.
Literally, HEPI vaccine does not cause autism.
And I'm like, that doesn't exist.
Give me the PubMed number.
You are correct.
I aim to provide valid information, but in this instance, I fell short.
Let me ask you this: do you think that these large language models are programmed with certain truths that they can't fight against?
Or do you think it's because they're pulling from so much bullshit on the internet and so many bullshit narratives on the internet from trusted sources that'll tell you that vaccines don't cause autism?
Like there's a ton of major newspapers, major magazines, there's a ton of them that have talked about how it's been thoroughly debunked.
And then they'll quote doctors and scientists that don't list any specific studies, but they'll say we've done exhaustive studies, they've been thoroughly debunked.
They'll say that, and then they'll print that.
And so is the AI just pulling from so much bullshit online that it looks through all the noise and says, like, 89% say vaccines do not cause autism, therefore it must be true.
Or is it programmed to say, hey, this is what you say?
You've held me out as an incredibly complex economic questions and now large language model questions.
Sorry, very smart guy.
I appreciate the compliment so far on that score.
With that said, I mean, I don't know the answer, but I will speculate because I don't know the answer.
I'm going to guess, I'm really guessing that it might be a mix of some programming because Google, for example, if you go and you search for Aaron's Siri Substack, you get Paul Off at Substack.
Why?
How in the world do you get Paul off at Substack when you search for mine?
And mine's like, it's not even like on the first page.
Well, I think one of the things that Robert Epstein, because he's been on my podcast, been on multiple podcasts, but he's been talking about the dangers of these curated search engines and how it's essentially election rigging.
Like you're manipulating a statistically significant number of people to one side or the other, and you could do it by curating search engines.
But I would speculate that the probably bigger component is the who's got, again, it comes back to who's got the money to understand how these AI algorithms work and to maybe put the stuff out there that it's going to most likely read from.
I mean, when you do AI, you can get that, I see that like crazy scroll of all the things it's looking at, right?
So, if I've got, if I am a pharma company and I've got a multi-billion dollar budget every year to influence and to market and so forth, you know, I'm going to deploy that in the way that's probably the most effective.
One of the things I probably would do is maybe do the things that would influence the results on AI.
That's the weird thing about curating search engines.
If it's like your search engine, you can kind of do whatever you want, especially if your company, like, wasn't it like one of the major tech companies after Donald Trump won in 2016 that had a meeting, they were like, we can't let this happen again.
Was that Facebook or Google?
Do you remember, Jamie?
It was like very famous that people were like, what are you talking about?
Like, the idea that you can somehow or other stop someone from being elected if the public wants that person to be elected because you disagree with it is kind of a crazy thing to say out loud.
Well, you know, I'm thinking more about your question.
So when we found that thing with Paul Offitt, when we found that thing with Paul Offitt a few days ago, my social media manager and my, I've got a, you know, got a lot of folks at my law firm, and we have somebody who does like Google AdWords stuff and SEO stuff.
And then we have another guy who does the web-related stuff.
I know they did some things, and maybe with my little measly budget, it had that effect.
And so, Matt, so that would go to my second point that with enough dollars, and who cares about my, I mean, I don't think pharma cares about my substack.
Well, no, I think that, you know, they had brought up doing like keywords and stuff like that because there were some emails about, I remember trying to fix it.
I just don't like the idea of curated search engines.
It's really spooky.
It's no different to me than curating information on social media platforms based on whatever your ideology is.
Like, I don't think you should be able to do that in terms of like, I don't think the company should be able to tell you you can't see certain things.
And YouTube was terrible about that during the pandemic.
All the things that turned out to be true could have got you banned from YouTube.
The lab leak theory kicked off.
You know, the fact that the vaccines, even if you get vaccinated, you still can catch COVID.
Remember, that was a breakthrough infection.
It was extremely rare.
Extremely rare breakthrough infection.
Never heard of it.
And now it's everybody, literally everybody.
And then it became this weird fucking, everybody did these weird mental gymnastics where they started repeating, oh, but it stops hospitalization and death.
And like, what are you talking about?
You never said that before.
You are saying that they were saying it stops hospitalization and death.
And you don't even have anything to gain here.
You just don't want to be wrong about your decision to get injected and to promote it, which is nuts.
It's like people are doing the man's work for the man.
They don't realize that they are creating more vaccine hesitancy with that kind of conduct than anything that you and I could do on this podcast at all.
You know, the CDC webpage on vaccines and autism has now been updated, and it says now that there's effectively no studies to show the vaccines in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
It now says that.
And that we have missed, that the CDC has misled the public on that score.
And people trashed, the mainstream media trash Bobby for that, while instead of celebrating it as an opportunity to correct course of transparency, honestly, people are more likely to trust our federal health agencies when they're honest, when they're apologized, when they're willing to admit mistakes.
You know, depositions I've taken of vaccinologists, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and immunologists, where I will say something about this.
You know, these studies show that, for example, the studies show that children that have had cancer and measles have lower rate of cancers and they'll go out.
That's just nonsense.
Those studies are just junk.
I'll say, have you read the studies?
No, no.
Have you seen them?
No.
But see, but they knew already.
You know, they've already reached that a priori conclusion.
I remember my deposition, not to go back to autism, of Dr. Edwards, where I said to her, You have any studies that show the Hep B vaccine does not cause autism?
She said, no.
I said, but there is a study that shows three times the rate of autism amongst kids that didn't get HEP vaccine.
And she says, well, I don't think that's not a good study.
And it's all when the entire, when you have a company, like whatever company it is, whether it's Google or Facebook or whatever, and that company operates on an ideology that's not grounded in reality, and then they enforce it across their platform, it's very frustrating and really nutty to watch.
And just thank God there exists some alternatives.
Like you would need a crazy person worth a ton of money, like Elon, to just go and buy it.
And then also show, hey, it's still the number one platform for distributing information.
When I'm using it, it's usually when I'm writing, I'm writing about a certain subject.
I'm like, well, who were the first people to discover these Aztec pyramids?
You know, I'll get into something like that.
Like, what were they looking for?
Like, you know what I mean?
And like, it's almost like you're talking to an expert.
So instead of it being like something that I use to think for me, it's like a super smart friend I'm bouncing questions off of.
And you could find so much about things so quickly, as opposed to having to go through article after article after article, and like, and that's what I'm looking for.
What did Court, how did he trick those people and give them up their land?
There's only fucking 600 of them.
How'd they do that?
You know, like you need to, like, AI is fantastic for that kind of shit.
But if you're using it all day, like a lot of kids in my school, my kids' schools are getting busted for writing papers that are 100% AI.
But the more that technology has been adopted into classrooms, it appears the more detrimental it has been and actually the markers of what you would consider an educated or education or intelligence.
But if you're using AI, the one thing I will say, depending on the topic, but you probably should do it for all topics, is never just rely on the output.
You got to ask if you should.
Show me the primary source and look at it yourself.
Yeah, but I do think facing the opinions and the views, substantive opinions, views of those that don't agree with you is an important exercise in life and in any, in every area, frankly.
I mean, I'm, you know, when it comes to the work that I do, you know, I welcome having debates with those who claim they are the vaccine experts.
I mean, I'm well, this is, we're talking about a very different kind of thing than looking at yourself.
Yeah, you're looking up hardline data.
And it's very important what you do because it's crazy to say that being honest in this regard is courageous, but it is courageous because I've seen you attacked.
I've seen crazy shit that people said about you.
And it's like, good Lord, are you paying attention to what he's actually saying?
Or are you some bot from somewhere, some fucking bot farm in Vietnam that's been hired to push a narrative?
I don't know.
But there's a reality to data that's undeniable that needs to be promoted.
And I think that's what you're doing.
There's a reality to the data.
I don't imagine a whole lot of people are lining up to debate you about this.
And you will go down in history as the one who's harmed and killed children.
That's what he wrote me a letter.
And I wrote him back a response.
And I said, look, I said, Dr. Plach, and I said, thank you for your letter.
I appreciate that you're writing me finally.
Because I've reached out to him before, one time at least.
And I said, look, I said, I think we can agree on one thing.
We want to save as many children as possible.
I want to save children from infectious disease.
That's important.
I agree.
But I also want to save children from the harm from these products.
They matter too.
They're not just, there shouldn't be accepted casualties.
The tens of thousands of families have contacted my law firm, devastating harms from these products.
They matter too.
And I said, let's work together.
Let's work constructively.
I said, because look, at the end of the day, If you don't address this, if you don't address this issue, I said, history is not going to remember you for the good.
History is going to remember you for all the harm you cause.
Because when people look back in history at products that cause devastating harm, which vaccines can do, they don't remember the good those products did.
They remember the harms that people ignored, that were overlooked, and those were just cast aside.
I said, that will be your legacy.
I said, but there's time to correct.
He hasn't written me back.
So of course I posted both letters on my sub stack and I tweeted them out.
So this way I figured they could do some good that way.
Well, I think it's a very unique time that this message can get out there.
Because what they did when they removed liability and they gave them blanket protection like that, they opened up the door to a bunch of people that really don't give a shit about you.
They just want to make as much money as possible.
There's the scientists.
This is what I always describe like these companies.
You've got the people that are making these drugs.
You've got these really interesting, brilliant scientists.
And then you got the fucking money people.
And the money people don't give a shit.
They just want to make more money.
And they're both together.
So you have this weird, contradictory world where you have like some amazing pharmaceutical drugs that helped so many people and kept people alive and cured diseases.
And then you got the money people who want everybody to get shot up because it's going to make them more money.
And those two working together is a very bad mixture, especially when you have mandates.
Then you mandate that these people have to be able to inject you and inject your children with this thing that's going to make them money and they have zero liability.
Like, how could that possibly go well?
Knowing what you know about human beings, who would sign off on that?
No liability, guaranteed market, free promotion, guaranteed payment.
It's the most, if it wasn't vaccines, you'd say it's insane.
It is insane, and that is the business model of vaccines.
That literally is what I just said.
Think of it.
It's just, so you're right, it's perverse.
But this thing that you're just saying before about like the money men who want to just make money, like, look, we live in a capitalist system where we have tapped into that self-interest, but we try to harness it for good.
So every company has that to some degree.
You know, people have that to some degree.
But the idea with capitalism is, yeah, but you got to channel that and you got to do good.
I'll get locked up for the rest of my life, especially if he killed a bunch of people, which is really crazy that none of these people do wind up going to jail.
They pay giant criminal fines and then they slip away.
I mean, look at the Sackler family.
They haven't been jailed, right?
Wasn't there like they were going to get immunity in favor of like $6 billion or something crazy?
But then a judge kind of put the kibosh on that after Painkiller, the Netflix docudrama came out.