The Megyn Kelly Show - 20220321_fauci-vaccines-and-big-pharmas-power-robert-f-kenn

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

March 21, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:55:49

20220321_fauci-vaccines-and-big-pharmas-power-robert-f-kenn

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Beyond The Vaccine Debate 00:04:17
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr., born into the Kennedy dynasty and the namesake of one of the most famous men in America.
	He has been in the spotlight for decades.
	Many of us grew up seeing the Kennedy family as the closest thing we had to American royalty.
	The patriarch Joseph Kennedy, an entrepreneur, ambassador to the UK, and first head of the SEC under President Roosevelt, helming a family of nine children, one of whom is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s dad.
	The names of those children would come to define politics for much of the 20th century as they became war heroes, senators, attorneys general, even a president.
	Bobby's father was Attorney General Robert Kennedy, assassinated in 1968 while on his way toward becoming the Democratic nominee for president.
	Bobby was just 14 years old at the time, but years later would go on to follow in his father's legal footsteps, entering the legal profession and becoming one of the nation's top environmental lawyers, leading the charge against various toxins and pollutants and demanding remediation of chemical wastelands like the Hudson River in New York.
	But it is his position on vaccines that has left him a bit of an outcast in some circles, including with many in the medical community, the media, and even with some of his own family.
	I spoke to Robert for nearly four hours, my longest interview ever.
	We discussed everything from his position on vaccines and censorship to the claims he makes in his latest book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.
	The book, essentially blackballed by the media, is nonetheless an enormous hit with the American people, making the bestsellers lists of the New York Times, Amazon, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.
	And while what you're about to hear is not a cheerleading session on vaccines, it is an important conversation about public health, the agencies in charge, and whether we have been getting the protection we deserve from those we fund with our tax dollars.
	We taped this conversation about a week ago, and we have spent the time since taking a deeper dive into some of his more controversial claims.
	What you will hear are many of his opinions, along with some context and some fact-checking as we go.
	We did this because we want our audience to hear this discussion, but to understand where Robert and his critics most differ, and because we hope this exchange can be seen on as many public platforms as possible.
	We think it's a vital exchange.
	Also, if you are watching on YouTube or listening on the podcast services, you can find links to other sources like the CDC, the WHO, and so on in our episode description.
	We've tried to provide you with as many resources as possible.
	You can make up your own minds.
	We talked about far more than just vaccines, however.
	This is, after all, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including an incredibly revealing conversation about the toll his work has taken on his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, the assassinations of his father and his uncle, and why he thinks the Democratic Party is no longer what they fought so hard to represent.
	We even went there on Marilyn Monroe and claims about his father and his uncle allegedly having affairs with her.
	Truly, nothing to his credit was off limits.
	We have divided the interview into two separate shows because clearly there's a lot to cover.
	In today's show, we dive into vaccines.
	I asked him point blank how he can claim to be pro-vaccination, which is what he claims, when his words and positions sound far from it.
	We also look into Dr. Fauci, his career, his finances, and why Kennedy says Fauci is not the hero the media made him into during the COVID pandemic.
	Thank you so much for being with us today.
	Thank you for having me, Megan.
Personal Challenges And Disability 00:08:20
	All right, let's start with the Fauci book, because one of the most interesting things about it is how it's been totally blackballed by basically everyone.
	I mean, it's been a complete media blackout on the book.
	You know, we, we've gone into 12 separate printings.
	And so we ran out of books a dozen times.
	And now they have plenty of books.
	Wow.
	And Bobby, if we can, just to remind folks, your voice is a little raspy, and there's a reason for that, just so people aren't distracted.
	And would you care to share the reason for that?
	And I apologize to that, particularly to your listeners and to you, because my voice is really hard to listen to.
	I had a very, very like unusually strong voice until I was 42 years old, 1996, 1997.
	I was struck with this condition, which is called spasmodic dystonia.
	My throat, actually, if you scoped my throat, it would look like a very, very healthy throat.
	But I have a neurological condition.
	So my brain is instructing my voice box to tighten up.
	And for some reason, nobody really understands.
	It goes in and out.
	So some days my voice is pretty strong.
	And other days it's very staggered and kind of difficult to listen to.
	And today is not a good day for my voice.
	So again, I apologize to you.
	Not at all.
	Not at all.
	I'm sorry to even raise it.
	It's just whenever there's a distraction, I want to.
	You know what?
	Whenever I give a speech, Megan, I'll always explain it to people because, I mean, it is, I can't listen to myself.
	I have never listened to my own podcast.
	I don't listen to myself on TV or radio because it's disturbing for me to hear my voice.
	So I feel sorry for people who need to listen to it.
	And I feel like it helps me to give them an explanation.
	You're worth it.
	You're worth it.
	And, you know, I was thinking about it as I was reading about your condition, thinking it's a particularly cruel thing to have handed to you, right?
	I mean, it's quite literally the loss of your voice, right?
	It's to have your actual voice diminished in any way or interfered with must be, it must be galling, must be frustrating.
	I don't know.
	How has that felt to have that deteriorate?
	Well, you know, it's definitely a paradox or an irony because so much of what I do is dependent on my voice as an attorney, as public speaker, as somebody who is a voice now kind of for the movement.
	I have this particular disability.
	But, you know, I think any, listen, there's people who have a lot worse disabilities than me.
	I have a cousin who lost a leg when he was 11 years old.
	My family has been around people, you know, working on disabilities for many, many years.
	So I've never spent even a second feeling sorry for myself or, you know, it's just something that God gave me.
	I have to figure out, you know, why is this a gift?
	Why has this challenge been given to me?
	And that's, you know, and then to do the best I can and not be deterred by it.
	It's not something I would complain about.
	Well, the patriarch of the Kennedy family, Joseph Kennedy, the man with whom it all started, and that's your grandpa, Bobby Kennedy's dad, Jack Kennedy's dad.
	As I understand it, he wasn't so big on whiners.
	And so you were all raised from the cradle to toughen up and not walk around feeling, woe is me.
	Yeah, I think that's right.
	He would, if you wind around him, he would come into the house, clapping his hands, there are no whiners in this house.
	There's no complaining in this house.
	And, you know, we were reminded growing up time after time that we were very, very fortunate compared to 99% of humanity.
	We had a very, very cushy existence.
	And, you know, that none of us really had a right to complain about anything.
	And I, you know, I think it's a better way to live to just say you're not going to complain.
	I think self-pity is crippling to people.
	Yes.
	I mean, coming from that kind of an upbringing and family approach to life, today's day and age must be very frustrating to you.
	I'm sure your grandfather would be horrified to see how much we lean into victimhood today, whether actual or imagined.
	It's become something we prize.
	It's celebrated.
	It's no longer something to triumph over.
	It's more like, great, you've got something to complain about.
	We all want to hear it.
	Yeah.
	Well, I don't think that anybody ever got to their deathbed and said, you know, I wish I had spent more time complaining.
	I think there's one of the things that I found out during my early sobriety, it was really a technique that was a gift to me, was that gratitude was a choice.
	And that, you know, my inclination, I think the inclination of most people is not to be grateful, but to wake up every day with a sense of impending doom and then, you know, to look for reasons to be discontent.
	And it's really about the way that we process reality.
	You could have two people who are doing this, who are shoveling manure.
	And one of them could be whistling and laughing and the other one could be grumbling and cursing.
	And it all is taking place inside our own heads.
	How do we choose to process our reality?
	Do we choose to look at the half glass half empty or glass full?
	Every day of my life, I make a gratitude list.
	I just list a lot of banal things like orange juice, antibiotics, and air conditioning and the glass on the windows, the things that generations, 20,000 generations of humanity never had those things.
	We live like gods compared to most of the human beings in history, even the most unfortunate, you know, American today.
	And so we can either choose to be grateful about those things or we can choose to be anxious.
	And, you know, it was a revelation to me to learn to realize that that was a choice and it wasn't a condition that was, you know, that was imposed upon us.
	Gosh, I mean, I wish people could understand the full extent of what you've been through.
	How old are you now?
	I'm actually 68 years old.
	68.
	You look so young.
	You look good.
	You know, because it's crazy.
	Like people will have one of the many things that have happened to you and spend the rest of their lives lamenting it and leaning into their sadness, their depression.
	It's something that defines them.
	Not to bum you out, but I'm just just off the top of my head.
	Obviously, your father was assassinated.
	Your uncle, the president of the United States, was assassinated when you were a young boy.
	Your cousin, JFK Jr., died far too young in a plane crash.
	You've had your own personal challenges.
	And here you are on a mission, staying on the thing that you care most about, the environment, public health.
	You've taken a ton of incoming.
	You've been demonized by large factions of the press.
	You never stop.
	You never stop.
	And I admire it.
Mercury In Fish And Food 00:15:52
	Okay, so let's go and let's talk about vaccines because I know a lot of people, the reason a lot of people will dismiss the book on Fauci is the prior stance on vaccines.
	And when you say RFK Jr. to people, they say, oh, you know, he's against vaccines.
	He hates the MMR vaccine.
	You know, it's saved millions of people.
	It's helped so many kids.
	And you have been critical of obviously the vaccine regime.
	So for the record, where do you stand on vaccines like the MMR vaccine and other related childhood vaccines today?
	Well, I have never been anti-vaccine.
	That is a pejorative that's applied to me in order to marginalize me and silence me.
	And as you point out, have people dismiss me as somebody who's irrational or crazy.
	What I've said is we should have safe vaccines.
	We should have good, robust science.
	We should have regulators that are independent of the pharmaceutical industry that is profiteering on the vaccines.
	That's true.
	I started doing this work trying to get mercury out of the vaccines.
	And, you know, I spent, and that was real, I was very focused on that issue because mercury clearly is a neurotoxin.
	There is no, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of studies that show that it is devastating.
	It causes dramatic IQ loss.
	It damages every organ.
	It causes all kinds of brain damage and that there's no safe level of mercury exposure.
	And the idea that we would be injecting mercury directly into babies, you know, I was suing at that time, this is 2005, I had lawsuits against, I think, 39 coal-burning power plants and cement kilns for discharging mercury from the stacks.
	Mercury was getting precipitating out of the rainfall, getting into our fish.
	FDA did a study in 2003 that showed that every freshwater fish in America had dangerous levels of mercury in its flesh.
	And, you know, it occurred to me that we were living a science fiction nightmare where my children and the children of every other American could now no longer engage in the seminal primal activity of American youth, which is to go fishing with their mom or dad at the local fishing home, then come home and safely eat the fish.
	Oh, I've been trying for 17 years to get the mercury out of the vaccines.
	It's out of many American vaccines.
	We're still giving it to every African child and it's still in the flu shots, which are given to pregnant women, which is insane.
	But, you know, I spent 35 years trying to get mercury out of the fish and nobody called me anti-fish.
	So I'm trying to get mercury out of the vaccines.
	It doesn't make me anti-vaccine.
	It makes if the vaccine works, I'd be the first one to take it.
	And I took flu vaccines for 20 years every year.
	All of my children are fully vaccinated.
	So the pushback that... you know, against that claim is on the mercury.
	Let's just start with that.
	As I understand it, there are two types of mercury that we're dealing with, right?
	There's ethyl mercury in vaccines, and then there's methylmercury, which is found in fish.
	And apparently, you know, methylmercury is more of a potent neurotoxin than ethylmercury is, which is said to be safer, ethyl is, than methyl.
	And the experts, right, the people on the other side of you, I'm using that term in quotes, experts, but they say that ethyl mercury in the vaccines will exit the body much faster.
	So it's less of a safety issue than the methylmercury you might find in eating a fish.
	They say that, okay, so that's with respect to mercury.
	And there's a guy, I'm sure you've read his piece, he's a professor of pediatrics, director of the vaccine education center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Paul Offit, who says, look, the human body will eliminate ethylmercury that's in vaccines far more efficiently than it eliminates naturally occurring methylmercury that's in fish.
	So we're better at getting rid of the ethyl that would be in a vaccine.
	They use it as basically a preservative so that the vaccine remains viable to give to you.
	So they say we're way better at taking care of that ethyl mercury, our bodies.
	And they say, he says that a baby would receive far more of this methyl mercury during the first six months of life than they would ever receive long before their first dose of, say, the influenza vaccine.
	And saying that just simply by living on Earth, he writes, by six months of age, babies will have ingested an amount of mercury that is 1440 times greater than the safety limit that you propose.
	So in other words, even if we don't give the vaccines to the babies, or even if we take the mercury out of all vaccines, the babies are still going to be getting this methylmercury thanks to their moms and the way we eat and so on, which belies the claim that somehow the ethyl mercury in the vaccines is somehow causing harm.
	Okay, so Paul Offit, who told you that, knows that that's untrue.
	And the reason I know he knows it is because I had a conversation with him, which I recorded in 2006, which he admitted that that was a lie.
	And here's what happened, Megan.
	And that claim that ethyl mercury is quickly excreted from the body was made originally by Eli Lilly, which developed this thimerosol, the mercury preservative for vaccines in 1932.
	There was no science that supported them.
	It literally had no science.
	Then in 2000, they were all repeating this again and again, like a mantra.
	And in 2003, a CDC scientist called Pichiero did a study that seemed to confirm that claim.
	And what he did was he measured the mercury levels in the blood of children who had been given a thimerosol vaccine.
	And within a week, the mercury, the ethylmercury, and the vaccines had all disappeared.
	Then he gave the same children a tuna fish sandwich.
	And the methylmercury from the tuna fish was in their blood 54 days later.
	That was the half-life.
	His conclusion is: wow, you know, we've been saying this for all these years, and it turns out to be true.
	And he published that in pediatrics.
	And a bunch of scientists, like world authorities on mercury toxicity, like Dr. Boyd Haley from the chair of the chemistry department of the University of Kentucky, wrote a letter to the journal and said, What happened to the ethyl mercury?
	Because Pichiero could not find it in the sweat of the children, the feces, the blood, the hair, or the fingernails, or the urine.
	What happened to it?
	Did it really leave the body?
	So, NIH commissioned a monkey study by one of the famous, iconic scientists, Dr. Thomas Pichiero at the University of Seattle in Washington, or University of Washington in Seattle.
	He took macaques.
	He did the same thing.
	He gave half of the macaques tuna fish sandwiches.
	He gave the other half mercury vaccines at the same level that our kids are getting.
	And he found the same thing that Pichiero did.
	Within a week, mercury from the vaccine was gone from the blood.
	The mercury from the tuna was still in those monkeys 54 days later.
	But then, when he sacrificed the monkeys, which means he killed them at a PM and mercury content post-mortem of their brains, what he found was that the mercury in the brains of the monkeys who had gotten the ethylmercury from the vaccines was more than double what the monkey, what the monkeys had who had gotten the tuna fish.
	Not only that, but the mercury had metabolized into organic mercury, which is the most toxic form of mercury.
	And we now know that 27 years later, it is still in the brain, causing inflammation, causing destruction.
	So it's very clear that ethyl mercury is much worse for your brain than methylmercury.
	Why does Paul Offitt?
	Paul Offitt told me the same story.
	This is something they repeat and repeat and repeat it, and they all know it's untrue.
	And that actually, a conversation that I had with him that I taped, and that I hope at some time to depose him on.
	When I said to him, he said, well, Bobby, and you know, listen, Paul Offitt was very sweet to me on the phone.
	He said, I love your father.
	He said, your father is one of the reasons that inspired me to get into public health, etc.
	So I was inclined to really like Paul Offitt.
	You know, I'm susceptible to that kind of flattery.
	And then he started saying things to me that I knew weren't true.
	And I asked him this question.
	I said, how is it that the CDC recommends that pregnant women not eat tuna fair sandwiches?
	And yet they're giving flu shots and other shots, DTP shots.
	The same women where the mercury is not going to be filtered out by stomach acids or by gastric fluids or the gastric process directly into the blood and much greater loads than you would get from a tuna fear sandwich.
	And he told me that story.
	He said, Bobby, it's because there's two kinds of mercury.
	There's a good mercury, which is ethyl mercury and vaccines, and there's a bad mercury, the methylmercury and fish.
	And I knew at that time that I was being lied to because I knew a lot about mercury, having litigated it, which is like getting a PhD.
	And I knew that there is no such thing as a good mercury and a bad mercury.
	His argument was not with me.
	It was with the periodic tables and the periodic tables would beat him.
	So the fact that he is, and I confronted him.
	I said, how do you know it leaves?
	He said, because there's a study by Pitchiero.
	And I said, Dr. Offitt, what about the Burbecker study?
	And there was dead silence with the money.
	And then he said to me, and I can play you this tape.
	He said, you're right, Bobby.
	The Pitcher study doesn't really prove that.
	It's a mosaic of studies.
	And I said, a mosaic.
	Can you cite any of them?
	And he said, I'll get back to you.
	And that's the last I ever heard of Paul Offitt.
	It was a lie.
	By the way, mercury is cumulative.
	And Dr. Offitt is right.
	The kids have many exposures to mercury.
	Vaccines are much worse.
	And we know this because FDA's own studies, their internal studies, that show that kids, by their own regulations, are receiving huge amounts of mercury, hundreds of times what the EPA maximum exposures are repeatedly during childhood from these vaccines.
	But Paul is right that we're getting mercury from everywhere.
	You know, this was not true in pre-industrial times.
	It was a source of mercury from the environment because we were not designed for exposures to all these heavy metals.
	We're getting them out because there's pollution all around us.
	There's dental and algans and there's all these other sources.
	We know that the exposures are cumulative.
	So let me jump in.
	Let me jump in here and advance it.
	Because the bottom line is that in 1997, the FDA did a review of this thimerosol, which has the mercury, which is what they put in the vaccines to preserve the vaccine.
	And the FDA found that the mercury level in the vaccine schedule was too high.
	The FDA found that.
	They said they found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosol as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions.
	And nonetheless, though, they nixed it from the childhood vaccines.
	I mean, so whatever.
	People can draw their own conclusions about what the FDA really thought.
	But for whatever reason, it came out, or they said it came out.
	But as you point out, still in the flu vaccine, which is given to pregnant mothers.
	But of all, like the MMR and all that, they took it out.
	They said there's no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule.
	This is 1999, because the fear in the 1990s was that we upped, you write all about this in your earlier book, but we basically had a situation where in the 1980s, these companies could get sued.
	These vaccine manufacturers could still get sued.
	And so one by one, they stopped wanting to manufacture vaccines.
	I mean, as a lawyer, that has a way of happening.
	And so under President Reagan, we gave them immunity.
	Basically said, you can't sue them anymore.
	We're going to create a pot of money for victims to sue if they think they've been vaccine injured, but you really can't sue the vaccine manufacturers.
	So they started to develop more.
	And then lo and behold, the vaccine schedule started to have a bunch more requirements for young kids.
	So your pediatrician in the 90s was recommending way more vaccines for your kid than back when I was born in 1970.
	And parents started to do it.
	And then in the 90s, we started to see an uprise in the number of autism cases, cases of the autism spectrum disorder.
	And the question came from many parents, is there a link?
	You know, did I do something to my child when I gave him all these many vaccines, more than have ever been required in a short amount of time?
	And then people started to look at the mercury in the vaccines to say, could that have been it?
	Too much.
	You know, as Jenny McCarthy said, because she's one of the parents who believed it happened to her child, too many vaccines in too short a time.
	And they did study after study after study after study after study.
	And what the medical community concluded, right?
	I'm not going to say I'm not a scientist.
	What they concluded is that mercury or no mercury, right?
	Like mercury, no one's making the case that it's perfectly safe, but that it didn't cause autism, that that rise in autism could not be linked to thimerosol.
	And even when they took thimerosol out of all these vaccines, the number of autism cases continued to go up.
	So they used that to say, you know, the argument that the vaccines in the 90s were causing autism in children is, it falls apart when you look at what happened after we took it out, which is the cases kept going up.
	The reason, you know, they kept going up is, and the reason they were going up in the 90s is because we were casting a wider net for what would fall within autism and what wouldn't.
	You know, we were more awake to what that disorder looks like and we were slapping the proper label on it.
Why Autism Rates Rose 00:07:43
	It wasn't anything to do with the vaccines.
	Okay, well, those you raise a number of issues there.
	And again, these are all classic industry talking points, but let's take them one at a time.
	Number one, the mercury was not removed from the vaccines in 2003.
	It was removed from some of the pediatric vaccines.
	But at the same time, the CDC mandated for the first time what they call recommended, but it's effectively a mandate vaccine, flu vaccines for pregnant women and for children in every year of life.
	So the vaccines that they took out were vaccines they were giving one, two, three, four times to kids.
	And now they're giving kids vaccines every single year.
	And for the first 15 years, 85 to 95% of the flu vaccines had bolus doses of mercury, meaning 25 micrograms, huge doses.
	The maximum exposure is one microgram.
	So they were getting it again and again and again.
	Furthermore, for the first time, they're recommending flu vaccines to pregnant women.
	Next, the mercury, when it was taken out of the other vaccines, was replaced with aluminum.
	And aluminum is also very, very similar, very potent neurotoxin.
	So now we're giving kids aluminum vaccines.
	And in the same wellness visit, you're giving them a mercury flu shot.
	So, you know, the science on the impacts on autism are unclear.
	And, you know, anybody who's looked at what CDC and NIH is and FDA's behavior during COVID understands that these are industries that are not doing public health.
	They are doing pharmaceutical profit promotion.
	Look, go out and look at this doc, this movie that is now on Netflix called or Hulu called Dope Sick.
	Yeah, we've seen it.
	We interviewed the creator.
	FDA conspired with pharmaceutical makers to addict American children to opiates.
	100% true.
	And so this is the same FDA and the same companies that are out killing 56,000 kids a year with opioids, more kids every year than were killed in the 20-year Vietnam War.
	These are companies, these are companies that are in the world that are in many cases criminal.
	I just pay the work, the highest criminal penalties of any corporation in history.
	These are serial felons.
	And they have captured the agency that's supposed to be protecting us from their behavior.
	Well, wait a minute.
	So let me let me pause you.
	I agree with, I agree that the public health agencies have proven over the course of COVID that they're nothing of the kind, that they are in bed with Democrat politicians and with big pharma.
	And their behavior to this day, it confirms that in many ways, and we'll talk about that.
	But on the subject of vaccines, if you go back, if they're so bad, right?
	It's like, then why isn't everyone sick?
	Why don't we all have autism?
	And why?
	Why did you give them to your kids?
	Stay tuned for Robert's response next.
	But first, we did reach out to Dr. Paul Offitt on Robert's claim that he has Dr. Offutt on tape, admitting that he shares concerns about ethylmercury in vaccines.
	Dr. Offutt confirmed that Robert did indeed once record him, but he told us if he said what Robert is alleging on that tape, Robert would have released it publicly by now.
	We followed up with Robert's team on his offer to play us the tape.
	They said he recently moved and that it would be difficult to find in time for our air date.
	Also, regarding aluminum in vaccines, we spoke with one of our trusted doctors, Dr. David Dowdy, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
	He's been on our show before.
	He says it's important to remember that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is substantially lower than the aluminum we inadvertently eat and drink and put under our arms and deodorant every day.
	We'll be right back.
	On the subject of vaccines, if you go back, if they're so bad, right?
	It's like, then why isn't everyone sick?
	Why don't we all have autism?
	And why?
	Why did you give them to your kids?
	Well, because I didn't know, like most American parents, I didn't know.
	I just believed what my doctor said.
	I wasn't in this space.
	I wasn't studying what was happening.
	If I had to go back, I would not.
	But here's the thing, Megan: is that, you know, we are to say that kids aren't sick.
	Explain what happened with autism.
	But you just said it's simply not true.
	That we're just noticing it more.
	You mean we miss it before.
	That's not from me.
	That's from the experts.
	Right.
	I know it's not from you.
	I see it all the time, but missing autism is like missing a train wreck.
	You can't do it.
	Listen, I was raised.
	I'll tell you a couple of things.
	One, we have gone, the autism rates, which, you know, the scientists in the 40s and 50s were as smarter, smarter than the scientists today.
	They knew what they were looking at.
	The first scientist to ever see autism to identify was Leo Kanner in 1934.
	And he said, nothing like this has ever been seen before in science and will never be seen again.
	It was genuinely rare.
	I was raised in the heart at the spear tip of the movement to provide people with children with intellectual disabilities.
	Right.
	My aunt Eunice, who was my godmother, started Special Olympics 10 miles from my home.
	I worked there every weekend when I was a kid as a hugger, a coach from when I was eight years old.
	It was called Camp Drive then.
	We changed it in 1968, the Special Olympics.
	Because of my family's immersion, that part of our DNA is, you know, serving the community of people with intellectual disabilities.
	I spent 200 hours during my high school years at Wasaic Home for the Retarded in upstate New York as a helper.
	I never saw a case of full-blown autism.
	You know, people back then, you had a quirky uncle or somebody who didn't have social skills.
	Full-blown autism, we never saw it.
	We didn't see it in Special Olympics.
	We prided ourselves on being able to accommodate every child, no matter how debilitating their disability.
	So, even children who are functionally vegetative, we could put them on a platform and have them teach them to push a beanbag off onto the ground, and people would cheer for them and make it a good event.
	The kids today, kids who are these kids that we're seeing with autism that are non-verbal, non-toilet trained, screaming, biting, head-banging, violent, toe-walking, stemming.
	We never saw kids like that in the 60s and 70s.
	We just, and today, to this day, I have never seen somebody my age, 68 years old, who has full-blown autism.
	Where are they?
Changing Diagnostic Criteria 00:15:47
	It's okay, but wait, but let me let me ask you because I know you, as an environmental lawyer, have to this day say there's all sorts of things in the environment that may be poisoning us.
	You know, I'm sure you could give us the list, right?
	To make a link to the vaccines is a bit too far.
	There's actually a doctor out there who has made that list because you have to what happened is Congress at the EPA.
	And by the way, there are many, many studies, including the MIND Institute at UC Davis, commissioned by the California legislatures to answer the very question that you just asked: Could this be changing diagnostic criteria?
	Could it be an expanded knowledge of diagnoses?
	The answer they've said persistently, one after the other, is no.
	Whoever told you that from the industry knows that this is true.
	No, no, I'm citing I've read your book, and I know you say, Why wasn't Dr. Fauci studying things like corn syrup?
	You know, like just other toxins, well, whatever about corn syrup, but other toxins in the environment.
	Exactly.
	So, here's what Congress said: Congress at the EPA, and EPA is not a public health agency, so it's not part of HHS.
	All the other ones are NIH, CDC, and FDA, and they're all in the pocket of pharma.
	But EPA is in the pocket of the oil industry, but they don't care about pharma.
	They said, Congress said to EPA, tell us what year the autism epidemic began.
	And the EPA scientists came back and said it's a red line 1989.
	What happened in 1989, as you pointed out, we passed the Vaccine Act in 1986, we gave immunity from liability to all the companies.
	There was a gold rush because suddenly the biggest cost of producing pharmaceuticals and marketing pharmaceuticals, which is downstream liabilities, had been eliminated.
	They also didn't have to do upstream testing.
	So, two of the biggest costs were gone.
	Plus, they don't have to do advertising and marketing because the product is mandated to 76 million American children.
	So, it's a dream product for them, and they can charge basically anything they want.
	It was a gold rush, and they added all these new vaccines to the schedule.
	And people, when they think of vaccines, think of polio and smallpox and the miracles of eliminating those.
	But these were, you know, many of these diseases, these are completely unnecessary to vaccinate against.
	Things like that are not even casually contagious, like hepatitis B that you get from, you know, unprotected sex with, you know, or from using, from sharing needles to a day-old baby.
	And yet rotavirus, hepatitis B, all of these other, you know, so-called diseases that are just on the schedule because the vaccine companies can make money from them.
	What about measles?
	Well, the MMR vaccine never had mercury in it.
	And let me just tell you what happened.
	And I'll answer that question.
	Because it's a complex issue, because the measles vaccine definitely eliminates measles, you know, or close eliminates it.
	There are breakthrough cases.
	First of all, there's a number of questions you have to ask.
	Was measles a killer disease?
	It clearly was at the beginning of the century.
	In 1963, it was killing only 400 kids a year.
	Mainly, they were kids who had malnutrition or some other devastating comorbidity.
	A lot of them were Black children in the Mississippi Delta.
	This is before we had the poverty programs.
	And my father went down there and found the severe malnutrition like you'd see in Africa or South Asia.
	Those were the kids who were dying.
	It was the death rate was one in 500,000.
	So two in a million.
	It was very, very small from measles.
	And the measles vaccine started in 1963.
	It never had thimerosol in it because it's a live virus vaccine.
	We had, and then in, and in 1999, CDC did a study, an internal study, because of what you said a few minutes ago, that many,
	all of a sudden, beginning in 89, you know, we went ultimately from three vaccines that I have a kid, that I took as a kid, to the 72 doses of 16 vaccines that my children had to take.
	And this began in the 90s.
	And in the 90s, people started to seeing this explosion of neurological disorders.
	And it wasn't just autism.
	Autism went from one in 10,000 or three in 10,000, depending on what studies you follow, to one in 44 kids today.
	But not only autism, all the neurodevelopmental disorders, ADD, ADHD, speechless, language, ticks.
	I never heard of ticks when I was a kid.
	11 brothers, 70 cousins, never knew anybody with ticks.
	Narcolepsy, ASD, and autism.
	The allergic disease suddenly appeared.
	Peanut.
	I never knew anybody with a peanut allergy.
	Why do five of my seven kids have allergies?
	Eczema, asthma, which we had, but it's now one in every four black children.
	We never saw.
	I get all that, but that doesn't prove causality.
	Oh, you talk to anybody who's my age.
	These are all new diseases.
	We went.
	I get it.
	When Tony Fauci came into office, because this answers your previous question, why aren't we seeing the kid?
	We are.
	And Tony Fauci came into office, 6% of American children had chronic disease.
	Okay, but that doesn't prove causality with vaccines.
	By 2006, 54%.
	Now, you make the point.
	There are many other exposures besides vaccines.
	Our kids today are swimming around in a toxic soup.
	And I don't just work on vaccines.
	I work, you know, I was part of the trial team in the Monsanto.
	I work on pesticides.
	I work on neonicotoids.
	I work on PFOAs, PFAAs.
	I was on the trial team that tried the Dark Waters case that Mark Rufflows now in that movie.
	I do EMFs, all of these different exposures that began on the same timeline.
	Well, Phil Landrigan, who is probably the most famous toxicologist in this country, Mount Sinai in New York, made a list of 11 called potential culprits of toxics that became ubiquitous in 1989 following that timeline.
	You have to find something that impacted every demographic in this country the same year, which, you know, from Cubans in Biscay to Inuit, Alaska.
	There's only a small number of those.
	And it's very easy.
	So you can identify them.
	And he did.
	And one of them, the potential is the vaccines.
	I think all of them, I think these impacts, what the science shows, all these impacts are cumulative.
	And our kids today are sick because we are bombarding their immune systems with these toxics that they simply cannot handle.
	Vaccines is part of that story.
	And it's probably, in my view, the largest single cause, although all of them are very big.
	Now, in 1999, CEC was also alarmed at the same thing that you described with the parents.
	So they decided to do an internal study of their own database, which is called the Vaccine Safety Data Link.
	It is the medical records, including the vaccination records of 10 million kids from the 10 biggest HMOs.
	So it's all the cumulative medical records from all those HMOs and are all housed in one place.
	And they studied, they said, let's see if these mercury vaccines are causing autism.
	So they look at one vaccine.
	They can look at every vaccine record and they can look at your medical claims to see if you had seizure disorders or allergies or if you have an autism diagnosis.
	They can do a cluster analysis and they can look for associations.
	They looked at the hepatitis B vaccine, which is loaded with mercury during the first 30 days of one kids.
	They looked at kids who got it during the first 30 days.
	They compared them to kids who did not get it during the first 30 days, who got it later, who didn't get it at all.
	And here's what they found.
	The relative risk of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and lung cancer is 10.
	This was 11.35.
	They knew what it was causing from thyme aerosol.
	And this is what the story that got me involved because they pushed the panic button and they had a secret meeting.
	They didn't want to do it on the CEC campus because they thought it would be susceptible to freedom of information requests.
	So they did it in a remote Methodist retreat center on the banks of the Chattahoochee River in Norcross, Georgia, and it was called Simpsonwood.
	They had a two-day meeting with 52 individuals, including all the major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies that administer vaccines, WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS, and the leaders of the leading academic vaccinators.
	So the people who basically conduct clinical trials and make hundreds of millions of dollars from medical schools around this country.
	And the first day, and somebody made and recorded that meeting.
	We don't know why.
	We don't know if they knew they were being recorded, but I got a hold of the transcripts in 2005, and it is horrific.
	It's a nightmare.
	Any of your listeners can go to our website, Zero children's health events and read those transcripts and make up your own mind about what happened.
	And you see, the panjarrums of the American healthcare system, these regulators who are supposed to be protecting us the first day, they're looking at the science and they are saying it's bulletproof.
	We are causing autism.
	I want the audience to be aware of.
	The FDA and the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, the American Association of Pediatrics, and several other agencies have concluded there is no evidence that thimerosol causes any harm, that there's none that it causes any harm.
	They removed it from vaccines anyway, they say, as a precautionary measure.
	They also are concerned about the resurrection of measles.
	In 2015, nearly 200 Americans were sickened with it.
	And that's a disease that we had eradicated 15 years earlier as a consequence of parents not vaccinating their kids.
	As you point out, it's a disease that could be potentially deadly.
	You've made this claim before about this horrific conference in which they confessed, oh, you know, it's causing autism.
	We got to bury the data.
	You wrote about it in a January 2011 article that was in Rolling Stone and Salon.
	It's since been withdrawn by Salon altogether.
	Rolling Stone had to offer a bunch of corrections.
	It removed it from its website as well.
	And your allegations spurred an 18-month investigation by a U.S. Senate committee that found allegations of CDC misconduct were unsubstantiated.
	And they concluded that there was no cover-up.
	There was a two-year committee hearings by Senator Burton at the Government Oversight Committee, and he found that there was a cover-up and that vaccines do cause autism.
	So, you know, anybody can go, you know, don't trust me.
	Listen, anything I say about the science.
	You shouldn't trust me.
	You should go do your own research and I'll tell you, you know, the research that I'm relying on.
	And you can go make up your own mind.
	You also should not trust CDC, NIH, American Association of Pediatric Academy of Pediatrics, which gets 80% of its money from the pharmaceutical industry.
	FDA gets 45% of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry.
	CDC spends 4.9 billion of its $12 billion.
	I get it.
	I'm not going to argue with you that those organizations are bought and paid for.
	We've seen that.
	But I got to ask, but let me ask you.
	No, let me ask you.
	No, let me ask you because the same parents inside those organizations vaccinate their children.
	The parents who work for Pfizer stick the needle in their kids' arms.
	Like, are they willingly hurting their children?
	Like, why would they all be giving the MMR and the vaccines that had thimerosol in it?
	You're alleging sort of a vast government conspiracy to force these vaccines on us from these health quote unquote officials who knew it was unsafe, but yet they gave it to their own kids.
	Go look at the movie DOPSEC.
	I watched it.
	You'll answer your own question.
	The doctors in that movie.
	That's different.
	They weren't sticking their kids with patients and their children opioids because they believed what FDA told them.
	We'll pick up the conversation in one minute, but first, a note on the exchange we just had about that Simpson Wood conference on thimerosol.
	In 2007, a U.S. Senate committee on public health did investigate allegations that this meeting established the dangers of thimerosol and that the CDC came up with a plan to cover up those dangers.
	The committee found that, quote, allegations of a cover-up are not substantiated.
	Instead of hiding the data or restricting access to it, CDC distributed it, often to individuals who had never seen it before and solicited outside opinion regarding how to interpret it.
	The transcript of these discussions was made available to the public, end quote.
	The Senate report went on to conclude, quote, Simpson Wood participants generally agreed that the data set was weak.
	it was difficult to assess causality and further study and investigation were warranted.
	Now, the author of the original hypothesis that thimerosol might be linked to autism went on to conclude in phase two of his study that the original results being discussed at Simpsonwood could not be replicated.
	By the time he reached that conclusion, he had begun working for GalaxoSmithKline, which makes vaccines.
	But the Senate committee believed that his findings were in earnest.
	Also, when Robert made reference in our conversation to Senator Burton having concluded that there was a cover-up, he was actually referring to former Congressman Dan Burton.
	Burton did hold many hearings in Congress over this issue because he firmly believed that thimerosol contributed to his grandson's autism.
	We'll be right back.
	What I would say is there's a small group, and I can tell you the names of the people within CDC, within FDA, with NIH, who know what they're doing and aren't doing it anyway, but it's a small group.
Who Funded Those Studies 00:08:23
	Everybody else, because of the way that the medical system works, gets subsumed in that orthodoxy.
	And it's very much the way that, you know, the Catholic Church reacted to the pedophile scandal.
	There was only a handful of priests relatively who were raping children.
	And nine out of ten priests who weren't weren't.
	But all of them, the priests, the Monseniors, the bishops, the archbishops, all the way up to the Vatican, became trapped in this orthodox, subsumed in this orthodoxy, that we need, that this institution is so important to children, to peace, to all of these other good things, that the people who are getting injured are collateral damaged.
	How does it happen?
	And it's exactly the phenomena that you're talking about.
	And I think they do a really good job in the movie DopeSick of showing how good, idealistic, high-minded, patient-oriented doctors ended up giving this poison to their patients to their family because they believe the regulators.
	And, you know, Americans are ideal.
	No, I got all that.
	And I mean, I don't even think you have to go to DopeSick.
	I don't even think that's your best example.
	I think you're better off.
	Yeah, no, I think that what's happened during COVID with all these doctors and all these organizations writing articles about how masks are the key to our safety, which completely fell apart.
	And all the medical professionals who wrote that this 100% did not begin in a lab, but it came from, you know, some animal source, which we've never found despite testing 80,000 animals, right?
	Well, how did Fauci get all the doctors to go along with that?
	He's got a lot of influence.
	I get it.
	I get your point.
	However, the reality is the studies on this saying there is no link between the vaccines and autism, any of, you know, from the MMR or otherwise, come not just from the United States.
	They come from the UK.
	They come from Canada.
	They come from Denmark.
	They do come from the CDC.
	They come from independent physicians.
	They come from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
	I could go on.
	It's a worldwide conspiracy to stick needles in the arms of babies, irrespective of the catastrophic damage we could be causing to them cognitively.
	Let me tell you what the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine say.
	Hey, you know, Pauloff and all those groups that you talk about have studied two things.
	One vaccine, which is the MMR vaccine.
	They've only done one kind of study.
	According to you, that's problematic too.
	Epidemiological studies, which are very easy to vaccinate, don't do bench trials.
	They don't do animal trials.
	And they've studied one ingredient in my merit.
	When we sued them, they admitted that of all the vaccines that are given during the first six months of life, the ones that are the only ones that could be related to birth autism, that they've never studied a single one of them.
	So you show me a study of the MMR vaccine, the DTP vaccine, the HIV vaccine, and I'll concede to you.
	You cannot show me those studies.
	You can only show me the one study and one kind of study, which is the MMR.
	And they deliberately restrict.
	And by the way, those people, all those studies that you're talking about from all over the world, look who funded them.
	Two groups or three groups, Wellcome Trust, which is GalaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical industry, or NIH.
	They're being funded by people who are funding them in order to cover up the association.
	And you can easily design, particularly epidemiological studies, you can conceal the impact to small subgroups of vulnerable populations.
	And that is epidemiology 101.
	Everybody knows that.
	And that's why they do those studies and they don't do other studies.
	I mean, I understand.
	I get what you're saying.
	I also understand that many medical professionals, my own on up, will say that the risk of flu to children is far more significant and dangerous than the risk from any minuscule trace of thimerosol in the vaccine.
	And you can also get the vaccine without thimerosol in it now.
	So unfortunately, the people who get the ones without thimerosol are wealthy people who know to ask the questions.
	The thimerosol vaccines are sent to poor black neighborhoods where there's no political power.
	There's no power for them to ask or to object or to get an alternative.
	And they're sent to 161 million children in Africa annually.
	So this is an attack on the poor.
	And listen, I just want to point something out that people should understand.
	When you hear that the science says this because CDC says it, or because my doctor says it, or because FDA says it, that is a debating technique that is known as a logical fallacy.
	It's specifically known as appeals to authority.
	So instead of showing me the scientific study, which you cannot show me, that shows that flu vaccines save more lives than they cost.
	You cannot show me a study that shows that.
	I can show you many studies, and I've written about this.
	It is on our website.
	It's in the Dear Sanchez Gupta letter.
	You can go through each of those studies and you can link to the study in preeminent journals by independent scientists, universities, research centers all over the world.
	You cannot show me a study that says, that shows that the flu vaccine actually averts more problems than it causes.
	You cannot show me that study.
	You show me that study and I will walk away from that issue.
	I know.
	But every time I say, and I listen, I understand I've ceded to you the point that the CDC is not necessarily a public health organization, but that doesn't mean that everything they've ever said is wrong and that we get to discard every single study that they've done.
	You know, there are hundreds of millions of people who have gotten these vaccine vaccines who are perfectly healthy, perfectly healthy in part thanks to the vaccines.
	They're not walking around with measles.
	They're not walking around with flu.
	They're not walking around with rubella.
	They don't have Hep B.
	Those are good things.
	The vaccines are not all bad.
	Just because we have suspicions about some of them, and in particular, the COVID vaccine, it doesn't mean we can, and because you started that, you started this, Bobby, by saying, I am not anti-vax.
	You started it by saying I'm not, and then you cited as evidence of that, the fact that you had all of your children.
	Let me finish.
	You cited as evidence of that, that you had all of your children vaccinated.
	And then when I said, Well, then, if you have all these concerns, why did you have your children vaccinated?
	And you said, Well, I didn't know any of this back then.
	So the fact that you had your children vaccinated does not suggest you are not anti-vax.
	And listening to you now for an hour, you sound very anti-vax to me.
	Well, let me say this.
	And I here is my bottom line: show me or call all of these guys who you talk to on Paul Off and the other people and ask them to show you a scientific study for each vaccine that shows that this vaccine is averting more harm than it's causing.
	That's all I asked for.
	That they say the studies show no linkage of harm.
	That's what they say.
	They show no linkage between autism and the vaccines or any other harm.
	Look at the health outcomes.
	Okay, let me can I give you an example?
	Well, I really kind of want to move on to the Fauci book.
	So, I mean, I think the audience, well, listen, listen, I think the audience has a feel for your position and that of the CDC and the other authorities.
	They can make up their mind at this point.
	Let's advance the discussion, okay?
	With respect to you.
	Then they could read the book and they should read both of your books.
	Up next, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and whether he thinks the COVID pandemic was fake.
	His answer might surprise you next.
Bill Gates And Africa Claims 00:11:58
	Next up in our discussion, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	In his book, Robert writes several chapters about Dr. Fauci's finances.
	He's not the only person who has done deep dives on this.
	Recently, former Forbes reporter Adam Anjievsky wrote several articles on all the money Dr. Fauci has made while working for us, the U.S. government.
	We fund him and them, from pay raises and big bonuses to royalties and investments, all added up.
	He reports it's several million dollars Dr. Fauci has received.
	In return for that reporting, Adam says he was fired by Forbes.
	But Robert Kennedy says he does not think Fauci's main focus is money.
	So I asked him, What is it?
	I would characterize Anthony Fauci as kind of the preeminent architect of agency capture of the transfer of NIAID and also its parent agency,
	NIH, from a public health agency to an agency that is primarily concerned with drug promotion, with drug development and drug promotion, and partnering with the pharmaceutical industry on profit-making enterprises.
	Does he personally make a profit through this?
	I would say that that is the least important factor in this, you know, in this problem.
	But what's his motivation?
	Legally, he can make money and he does.
	We know at least one patent he has.
	Any product that is developed by NIA, by NIAID, anybody who works on that product that he designates can get a patent margin rights on that product that entitle them under the federal rules now to collect $150,000 a year or royalty for life.
	So he has four of his top employees who each have margin rights, patent rights, royalty rights for the Moderna vaccine, because we paid for, we put a U.S. taxpayer through Fauci, put in $1.5 billion, now $2.5 billion to develop that vaccine.
	NIH claims half of the vaccine, to own half of the vaccine.
	So it stands to make billions and billions of dollars.
	The agency, but also high-level individuals, influential individuals in the agency, people who are very loyal to Tony Fauci, can get awarded through Fauci the rights to get to collect lifetime royalties on those products.
	And they make hundreds and hundreds of products.
	They develop hundreds and hundreds of products.
	And all of those are potential profit-making enterprises for people, high-level people within NIH.
	But you don't seem to be alleging that that's really his motivation.
	No, I don't think that's.
	Is it power?
	Like, what's the motivation?
	Power?
	I think it's power.
	Yeah.
	You know what, Megan, one of the things I really try to do in the book is to never look into his head and never or Bill Gates's head or any of the other people in the book and say, this is why they're doing it, because I don't know.
	I don't know what motivates them.
	What I, my job, is to document their conduct.
	And if you look at his conduct time after time after time, he does things that are consistent with making profits for his partners, which are these pharmaceutical companies.
	And that even at the direct and clear expense of public health.
	Can you talk about his relationship with Bill Gates?
	Because I'll tell you, on the lunatic fringe, with respect to the lunatic fringe, there literally are people in the country who think that if you get the COVID vaccine, they're injecting a little bot in your arm that Bill Gates created that's going to monitor you and report information back on you to Bill Gates.
	Now, that's crazy town.
	But that's not to say that Bill Gates has absolutely no connection, certainly, to vaccines, Big Pharma, or Anthony Fauci.
	So can you talk about that relationship between the two of them?
	And by the way, the idea that these monitoring chips are in the vaccines, I have never promoted that and don't believe that to be true.
	But one of the stories I tell in my book is that WHO, with Gates's influence, support participation, administered a million vaccines to Kenyan women that designed to sterilize them against without their knowledge and against their will.
	Pretending it was a tetanus program that included in the tetanus vaccines without anybody knowing human gonadotrophic hormones, which interact with tetanus toxoids as essentially a chemical castration drug for women.
	And he gave that to WHO, gave that to at least a million women in Kenya.
	And they had similar programs to Nicaragua and Mexico and the Philippines, which clearly they were doing that, although we don't have the vials.
	We got the vials from Kenya, so we know what they were doing, and they've admitted it.
	They've admitted that they secretly sterilized African women against their will and without their knowledge.
	And I would urge you to read this chapter of my book.
	They've admitted that there was human gonadotropic, at first denied that there was human gonadotropic hormone in that vaccine, which there's no reason it should have been, and then admitted that there were.
	But if you read my book, you'll read that for 20 years, WHO has been spending tens of millions of dollars developing these sterilization drugs to surreptitiously give women.
	Now, you know, this sounds paranoid, but they've published papers on it.
	Well, they've already, as you already established, that doesn't mean anything.
	Yeah.
	No, no.
	I'm saying WHO has published, has paid researchers to find ways to chemically castrate women.
	Against their will and without their knowledge.
	Well, we don't know.
	Well, that's a relevant factor.
	Some women get an IED put in.
	Some women get their tubes died.
	All I can tell you is from the papers, it's just saying these are studies that are developing drugs.
	They're saying, here's how this works, and we test it on people and it works.
	And then when it came time for them to give, to use those products that WHO has spent all those years developing, they gave it to a million women surreptitiously without their knowledge.
	So the papers don't say, here's what we're going to do.
	We're going to sneak up on them and ambush them.
	The papers say, here's how you develop this vaccine and you hide it in a tetanus vaccine.
	And then when it actually came time for them to do the program, they did not tell the women.
	And they were caught by the Catholic Medical Association of Kenya, who noticed that, first of all, usually when you give a tetanus vaccine, you only give one dose and it's good for 10 years, but they were told to give five doses in six months, which made the doctors, the Catholic Catholic Medical Association, say something's wrong here.
	And it was only given to women of childbearing years, women from 14 years old to, I think, 34 years old, which was weird because men also get tetanus.
	Third, there was no tetanus outbreak at that time.
	That's when the Catholic Doctors Association got a hold of the vials and they tested them in half a dozen different labs.
	And they all came back, or most of them, not all of them, but most of them came back and said, yeah, they contain this drug.
	Look, I understand, and I have read your book, and I understand there are plenty of allegations in there speaking about what Bill Gates has done in Africa and the number of people who have been hurt or killed by experimental vaccines that he's behind.
	What I also understand is most of the experts who look at this and work with the Gates Foundation or with Bill Gates say he's saved millions of lives with the vaccines that he's pushed.
	Let's put it in context.
	He has been testing medicines in Africa, sometimes with success and sometimes not in an effort to improve public health over there.
	This is not, there's no evidence he's some madman who's out there on a quest to kill women, African or otherwise.
	You can attack me personally, which is what they do, or ignore the book, but nobody has found a single factual error in my book.
	The book is 230,000 years of words.
	It has 2,200 footnotes.
	Every factual assertion is cited and sourced to peer-reviewed publications or to government databases.
	And, you know, if they want it, if they really believe that I was saying something that was untrue, why not come out and say what it is?
	And nobody's done that.
	The WHO and Kenyan authorities have both said that the claim about sterilizing Kenyan women using the tetanus vaccine is incorrect, that it's not fact-based.
	And the UN Health Agency says the vaccine is safe, okay, for the record.
	The World Health Organization has dismissed that the presence of HCG in the vaccine is a problem.
	They've confirmed that it's safe.
	I understand you reject that, but this is what they say.
	They say the vaccine has been used in 50.
	Let me just finish.
	They say, quote, the vaccine has been used in 52 countries to immunize 130 million women to protect them and their newborn babies from tetanus.
	This is from WHO in November 2014.
	There is no HCG hormone in tetanus toxoid vaccines.
	And they go on to say that the Kenyan health authorities say the allegations that describe this is a problematic or a deadly vaccine are baseless, not backed by science, scientific evidence, and ill-intended to cause fear and despondency among Kenyans in the uptake of much-needed essential health services.
	Go ahead.
	Have they explained why the HGH was in the vaccine?
	There's no reason to put it in the vaccine.
	Initially, they said it's not in there, and now they're saying in the current ones, it's not in.
	But they admitted that it was in the ones that the Catholic Doctors Association tested.
	And they could not, they said, it's in there, but it wasn't put in there to sterilize women.
	And it's not largely.
	And they say it's safe.
	I mean, and they say that the vaccines are safe and that they're there to protect women and their newborn babies from tetanus.
	So, I mean, look, we're out on a thin reed talking about the intentional sterilization of women in Africa without their consent or knowledge.
	The evidence is very well documented.
	You're suggesting there was an intention to sterilize women without their consent.
	They spent 20 years studying the inclusion of HGH in tetanus vaccines as a way to sterilize women.
	Then they included HGH in a tetanus vaccine program that they gave to a million women without telling them.
Fraudulent Drug Approval Tricks 00:05:13
	Oh, you know, you can connect whatever dots you need to or not.
	Let's move forward.
	One of your principal beefs against Fauci is the way he handled the AIDS epidemic, which is something he's been universally lauded for.
	And we've had folks come on the show and raise issues before about how he handled, in particular, the drug AZT and draw parallels between his fealty to that drug above all other treatments back in the 80s when treating HIV and his fealty to the COVID vaccine at the expense of all other treatments in the past two years.
	So what does that tell us about Dr. Anthony Fauci?
	Well, again, I think it speaks for itself.
	You know, AZT was horrendously toxic.
	It was regarded, it was developed originally by the National Cancer Institute as a chemotherapy drug.
	And it was regarded, it killed all the rats when they gave it to them.
	Oh, you know, chemotherapy drugs will kill you.
	Virtually 100% of the market want to kill you.
	They're designed to kill human cellular tissue.
	The hope is it will kill the tumor tissue before they kill the rest of you.
	And so when you give somebody a chemotherapy drug, it's only given for a couple of weeks.
	And then, you know, they look at what's happened to the tumor and what's happening to you.
	But this drug was regarded as so horrendously toxic that they threw it on the junk pile and they didn't even patent it.
	And then, you know, when AIDS came along, of course, what they do when they find a new virus is they take all of these different compounds and they have petri dishes full of the virus of live colonies.
	And then they put the, you know, they put a dropper of toxic compound onto the petri dish and see if it kills the virus.
	If it kills the virus, they now have an antiviral drug, but they also have to find out whether it kills the human.
	And, you know, and with AZT, it worth rats.
	With AZT, it was, again, it was regarded as so too toxic to use for a two-week course for chemotherapy.
	And GlaxoSmithKline found that it did kill HIV virus.
	And so they, you know, spearheaded this effort, they were called Burroughs Wellcome at that time.
	They spearheaded this effort to get it approved.
	And Tony Fauci, because he did not know at that point, NIAID had never developed the drug.
	It won this, it won jurisdiction over AIDS.
	Originally, the National Cancer Institute, which knows how to develop drugs, that's what they do.
	They inherited AIDS because the initial signal for AIDS was copposes sarcoma, which is a cancer.
	So it went to the National Cancer Institute.
	But then when Luke Montenier said, wait a minute, we found HIV viruses in 47% of the men who have AIDS, maybe the virus is causing the AIDS.
	Tony Fauci used that to say this is an infectious disease.
	It's not being caused by toxic.
	It's an infectious disease and therefore it should come to NIAID, National Institute for Allergic Infectious Diseases.
	He didn't, unlike National Cancer Institute, he did not know how to develop a drug.
	So it made him very dependent on GlaxoSmithKline.
	And that really was the beginning of his permanent association with drug companies.
	He needed to develop a drug fast.
	GlaxoSmith, he put GlaxoSmithKline on employees and loyalists on all of the committees that approved new drugs or experimental drugs, and they kept everything out of the competition except for their drug.
	And then they rushed it through and Tony Fauci helped them rush it through.
	They used a number of fraudulent tricks to get the drug approved.
	The drug was killing, AZT was killing everybody who took it in the study group.
	And what Fauci did and Burroughs Wellcome did is they started giving the people who they were giving AZT, they started giving them blood transfusions to keep them alive.
	And when you give somebody a blood transfusion, it makes them, when their body is filled with toxic chemicals, it makes them healthier and longer lived.
	And the only reason those people survived a six-week drug trial was because they were getting these transfusions.
	And then he got the drug approved, you know, on very, very little evidence and clear, clear safety signals.
Superbugs And Pandemic Plans 00:15:46
	And that drug, you know, according to critics, killed 330,000 people over the next 10 years.
	So when by the time we get to, you know, more present day, Anthony Fauci, you write in the book that he kind of went not underground, but he kind of got quieter and left the national scene for a number of years and was running this organization and became a kingmaker and controlled a bunch of money.
	And, you know, there was utter fealty to him, as there still is in this public health industry.
	So then you write that there, you know, we had a couple of not real pandemics, but we had other problems with, you know, bird flu and some other things and earlier SARS issues, and that he sees opportunity when those things happen.
	He sees an opportunity to what?
	Because you argue that he sort of saw the ultimate opportunity with COVID-19.
	Oh, NIAID, you know, one of the things I talk about is the history of both CDC and NIAID by the middle of the 20th century.
	Epidemic infectious diseases, debt, mortalities from infectious disease essentially disappeared.
	And it disappeared not because of vaccines, as is now claimed.
	It disappeared because primarily because of nutrition, better nutrition, better sanitation, chlorinated water, electric refrigerators, road systems, reductions in overcrowding.
	And the reason I say this is not that you should believe me, but the CDC studied this question in the year 2000, along with Johns Hopkins.
	And they looked at the question, at the claim that vaccines had something to do with the reduction, this profound reduction, an 80% reduction in mortalities of infectious diseases since the beginning of the 20th century.
	And the scientists from CDC, and you can read this study and Johns Hopkins, you can read this study in pediatrics, and it's called Geyer, G-Y-I-E-R 2000, Geyer et al. 2000.
	What they concluded is that vaccines had practically at virtually nothing to do with this profound reduction in mortality from infectious diseases.
	The diseases were disappearing.
	Not the disease themselves.
	People were still getting measles.
	They just weren't dying from it.
	But the mortalities had disappeared because of these engineering improvements.
	And what's happening at CDC and NIAID is they were losing relevance because very small numbers of Americans were dying from infectious disease.
	And the Reagan administration and its budget director in 1982, David Stockman, were actually publicly saying that we should abolish CDC.
	And, you know, as I point out in the book, there was memos going around saying we need to figure out infectious disease to make ourselves relevant again.
	And so, you know, what I show is that there's a series of fake pandemics that were done in 1976, right after Tony Fauci came to NIAID.
	There was a swine flu epidemic, another bird flu epidemic that was fake in 2005.
	I think only one person died.
	There was a fake swine flu epidemic in 2009.
	Each time it gave the vaccine companies immunity from liability and they sold tens of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, unnecessary vaccines.
	Many of them caused profound impacts.
	And then the Zykovat, the Zyka pandemic was a fake pandemic.
	Tony Fauci was claiming that Zyka caused microcephaly, which is a smaller head.
	And he alarmed, you know, caused panic around the country.
	People were terrified.
	They were advising women not to get pregnant.
	Psycho is coming to America.
	Somebody from his agency actually made a March Madness chart of all the phony pandemics that he's been drumming up over the years.
	And the triumph one is COVID on that.
	And I reprint that in my book and his signature is at the bottom of the page.
	Oh, you know, that was, it's something that they've done again and again and again over time that makes that agency relevant.
	Okay, so you don't.
	Well, you tell me, was the COVID-19 pandemic fake?
	What do you mean, fake?
	There were people dying of COVID-19 all over the world.
	It was a pandemic.
	It was a genuine pandemic.
	Okay, that's what I'm going for because you say these other ones were made up.
	And this one, you know, we've got upwards of five, six million people dead.
	So you agree this one was real and we needed somebody to manage it.
	But the question is whether he was the man for the job.
	We'll continue our discussion with Robert next.
	But first, I wanted to let you know that we did reach out to the Bill Gates Foundation regarding the claim that their vaccine efforts led to women being chemically castrated.
	Their response to us was, quote, these claims are false, end quote.
	We'll be right back.
	Next up in the discussion, we talk about how Dr. Fauci and other public health leaders have misled the public about the origins of this pandemic.
	You will hear Robert reference Dr. Ralph Barrick in his lab at UNC Chapel Hill.
	He says Barrick had an issue with creatures escaping from his lab and people knew it.
	And according to a 2020 ProPublica article, that's true.
	Kennedy also claims here that the United States Agency for International Development or USAID is actually a front for the CIA.
	According to the New York Times, that's true.
	The organization was, quote, at times used as a CIA front in the past.
	And Dr. Fauci once getting a 68% pay raise.
	You'll hear that too.
	That's correct as well.
	But it was for bio defense and not for bioweapons work, as Kennedy is about to claim here.
	And those two things, according to our experts, are not one in the same.
	All right, back to the conversation.
	I have another book about to come out called Wuhan Cover-Up.
	And it shows, you know, the, it shows that Dr. Fauci, along with other people with Dietra, with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, with the CIA through USAID, was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the enterprise to develop pandemic superbugs that could cause pandemics.
	And they were keeping them in areas that they all knew they were certain to escape.
	So, you know, and there's memo after memo after memo that says that Wuhman lab is, you know, is a place where, first of all, the bugs were escaping from all their labs at Galveston, at North Carolina, I think his biggest fundee, Ralph Barrick, had eight or 10 escapes.
	And Fauci gave him 147 grants, separate grants, tens of millions of hundreds of millions of dollars.
	Why?
	Right?
	Why is he doing that when this guy can't keep the bugs contained?
	I'll tell you why he was doing, I mean, I can explain, again, I can explain the chronology and I can explain some of the possible motivations.
	We had signed, Nixon had signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972 that made it illegal to handle, store, or develop any kind of biological weapons, but there was a loophole in it.
	And the loophole said, if it's a dual use research, you can do that, meaning if it's defensive.
	So a lot of the research that you use to develop bioweapons is identical to the research that you use to develop a vaccine, or it can be.
	And so the Pentagon wanted to start doing this kind of research, but it was worried that the public would not believe that the Pentagon was doing all of this bioweapons research in order to develop vaccines.
	It just didn't seem plausible.
	So they outsourced it to Tony Fauci and they gave him a 68% raise, which is one of the reasons today he is the highest paid person in the history of the federal government.
	He makes $434,000 a year.
	And the president only makes $400,000.
	So he is more than the president or the vice president.
	And a lot of that is money that's coming from his military weapon, bioweapons function.
	Yes.
	He began, they began pumping $1.7 billion into, he already has a $6.1 billion budget.
	On top of that, they gave him $1.7 billion to begin developing bioweapons.
	That is now at $2.2 billion a year.
	And he then distributes that to different labs around the country.
	And in 2014, three of the bugs escaped.
	Three bugs from U.S. labs escaped.
	Dangerous bugs were found in very, very dangerous places, including smallpox.
	And 300 leading bioweapons experts, including Mark Lipsich of Harvard and Richard E. Bright from Rutgers, were kind of the leading voices in that space, signed a petition, 300 people to Obama asking Obama to shut down Tony Fauci's experiments because he was going, because they were feared that he would release a pandemic.
	And Tony Fauci and the Obama administration issued a cease and desist order to Tony Fauci.
	He defied the order and he continued doing the experiments at Ralph Barracks' labs, which were the worst experiments because he was developing, he was engineering these gain of function bugs in ways that nobody had ever devised before.
	But he moved a lot of his operations to Wuhan, where they would be out of sight of the White House.
	And he laundered the money through this, you know, zoologist called Peter Days Act.
	Yeah, yeah, our audience knows him.
	But at the same time, he was giving millions of dollars every year, but the big money was coming from USAID, which is well known as the CIA front group, and from DETRA, the defense reduction agency, as well as millions of dollars from BARTA and ARPA, which are all connected to the U.S. military.
	And they were...
	Just to pause, just to pause and interject.
	That's backed up by the fact that, you know, thankfully now we've seen thanks to the Intercept and some other folks who have gotten FOIA requests and information that this EcoHealth Alliance was trying to hit up Anthony Fauci for money for gain of function.
	And when they couldn't get it directly, they went to DARPA.
	They went to the defense agency saying, how about from you?
	All that's been out now.
	So there's proof of everything you're saying.
	Keep going.
	Yeah.
	So then they began, you know, the Chinese were already doing these kind of studies.
	And they, Fauci's been doing them since 2002.
	He had funded a study by a scientist called Kuo, where they had taken a mouse virus and made it so it could not infect mice, but it would infect and kill cats.
	It was a gift to the mouse community.
	But in doing that, he had proven that you could do these cross, engineer these cross species transmission, and people were really freaked out about it.
	And they did a lot of other sketchy experiments.
	He ended up in China.
	The Chinese government was, you know, the U.S. government was saying we're not really doing weapons development.
	We're really doing vaccine development.
	The lead scientist was Xing Li Ji, who was called the bat lady.
	And Ralph Barrick, who is Fauci's favorite funder from the University of North Carolina, started exchanging samples with her of spike proteins and teaching her and working with her about how to take the spike protein, how to remove the spike protein that affected bats and build a spike protein that had this furrin cleave site that could attach to human lung cell.
	And then they tested it.
	They were breeding mice, humanized mice that had human lungs.
	And they would give it to the mice, not only to see if they could kill the mice and infect them, but also to see if they could get the mice to cough and infect each other.
	And they succeeded in doing that.
	And then he did something, you know, so Tony Fauci can still say, what I'm doing is for medical purposes, we're developing these things and we're going to develop defense against them.
	He funded one study that put the lie to all of that.
	He funded Ralph Barrett to develop a technique called seamless ligation.
	And that is a technique for hiding the engineering project.
	So you could normally when you do that kind of engineering, you can see it and you can say that bug was created in a lab.
	He developed a way of hiding all traces that was developed.
	And he taught that to the Chinese scientist, Xing Li Ji.
	And that, you know, there is no public health.
	It is the opposite of what you would do if you were interested in public health.
	It's the opposite.
	If you're interested in public health, you would make sure that any kind of tampering you did like that had red flags all over it that says we made this thing.
	Teach it out, to teach people how to hide that only has a nefarious purpose.
	And that's because he was getting so much money from the Defense Department, like he had to keep that money for.
	I don't look again, Megan.
	I don't look into his head.
	I just show what the facts are.
	He was getting the money.
	He was doing these experiments.
	And I can show that he knew that something had to escape this lab because not only, but Ralph Barrett's lab is famous as the most protective, the best protocols way beyond federal protocols, way beyond any protocols that you use in the world.
	Ralph Barrick is famous.
	He brags about it.
Emergency Use Authorization Issues 00:17:46
	Other people brag about it.
	And yet on his lab, he had at least a half a dozen escapes.
	You know, mice that were infected bit people and infected them, et cetera.
	So there was a lot of disasters.
	So they knew the Chinese labs, the Chinese weren't even using their BSL-4 lab, which is the highest level.
	They were making these things in BSL-2 labs.
	The State Department was writing letters.
	The embassy officials in China inspected the lab and wrote these alarm letters saying there's no protocols here, there's no personnel, there's no safety.
	You know, something, we know something's going to escape.
	And every lab there's escapes from.
	And this lab was clear.
	And so, you know, if you, if you're a guy with a long history of taking part in fabricating pandemics, you know, I guess it's plausible that one way of creating a real pandemic would be just to do these, a lot of these experiments in a lot of different places where you know something is bound to escape.
	I'm not saying he did that because I cannot look into his head.
	And I'm saying it's something, it's the consideration that, you know, we know that he knew it was, there were improper safety protocols.
	Well, yes, but that's where you, but you lose me on, you know, the suggestion, I understand you're not in his head, that it was intentional.
	I just, that's suggesting he's a sociopathic lunatic.
	I agree with that, and I would draw that.
	And I didn't say that.
	I think if you replay the tape that I said, it's plausible to imagine that this might happen.
	But again, I would draw it and it's something that I don't do in the book.
	I don't speculate.
	I just tell the facts.
	And I get.
	I got it.
	So let me ask you this because we covered this on the show, but there was the moment after we saw the first few cases and the virologists started to look at the virus.
	You know, they got their first look at it.
	And there was reporting that he, Fauci, and Francis Collins, who was then running in our NIH, they had a conference call with all these maybe 12 top virologists in the world.
	And they said, let's take a look.
	You know, what do we think this is?
	And that virtually all of them came into this call and the notes reflect that saying, this is man-made.
	This looks man-made.
	Looks like it's from a lab.
	And then miraculously, days later, after four days later, and after who knows what communications with Fauci and Collins behind the scenes, they all did a 180.
	And they all stand behind that 180 to this day.
	It was like, oh, and yet they have failed to share with the rest of us what was it that changed your very strongly held opinions that it was man-made to this very strongly held opinion, which they were now calling racist, that they were calling the man-made theory racist to change it 182.
	No, no, no, it definitely came from an animal, zoonotic origin, even though to this day we have yet to find the animal.
	They've examined it, as I said earlier, 80,000 animals haven't found it.
	Yeah, Megan, it's also noteworthy that all of those people on that telephone call were receiving, were doing work at the Wuhan lab, or we're receiving money from Tony Fauci from NIH that, you know, and not just a little money, tens millions of dollars and more.
	Yeah.
	Or from Wellcome Trust, which is the British version of the Gates Foundation.
	And, you know, it's kind of a, I don't know, almost like functions as an arm of the pharmaceutical industry.
	It's essentially like Alexismith Klein stock portfolio.
	And even more interesting, almost all the key players on that phone call who then took part in creating all of this literature out there that, you know, that characterized suggestions of Labley as correct conspiracy theories.
	I got off Instagram, you know, for saying we the Congress should investigate this.
	So virtually all of them following their publications in the Lancet and Nature Medicine received huge, huge grants from Tony Fauci.
	I mean, grants of, you know, 30 million, 40 million, I think up to 60 million.
	Kristen Anderson, I don't remember exactly what he got, but it could have been as high as $60 million since after he performed that very, very important task for the, you know, for the medical cartel and the orthodoxy.
	We checked that too, that they not only had they received grants beforehand, they received them after their miraculous and as yet unexplained 180.
	So it goes to a larger point that you make in the book, which is that there's the, you call it the medical cartel, but there is no daylight between Anthony Fauci and his group and big pharma.
	And there needs to be.
	Yeah, I mean, people ask, how do you fix this?
	And, you know, that's what you need.
	You need an independent regulator.
	We need regulators that are not getting money from pharma, that are not, you know, doing pharma's bidding, but aren't really working for public health and the American people that are using real science.
	Listen, you can go in the you can go in the public health records for Kaiser, the HMO records.
	If let's say you're a young associate professor at UCLA Medical School, you want to do a publication, an easy publication would do, get a hold of the Kaiser Permanente medical records, a depersonalized version, so you can't tell who the people are.
	And then look at the vaccine records and look at associations with subsequent diagnosis for autism or ADD or peanut allergies.
	If you try to do a study, propose a study like that, NIH is going to find out because they fund everything.
	And, you know, it's likely that the dean of your medical school will get a call from you Auchenclaus or one of Tony Fauci's other operatives saying, you know, don't let this clown do this study or it's going to put 50 or 60 or 100 million dollars in annual funding from NIH to your medical school in jeopardy.
	Oh, he, you know, between him and Gates and Welcome Tras, Jeremy Farrar, who is up to his neck in Wuhan, they provide 64% of the biomedical research on the planet.
	If you are a young researcher, a scientist, you know, a professor in a medical school, they have the capacity not only to make your career, but also to ruin it.
	And that's the way that they control not only the scientific studies that get done, but also the outcome of all those studies across the planet.
	And, you know, what Fauci has done, he's supposed to do that kind of study.
	Instead, what he does, he spends the bulk of his budget developing medications, which they then farm out to the university to do phase one, phase two, and phase three trials.
	And the university could make $100 million on one of those trials, plus it gets royalty rights to the drug they're developing.
	So NIAID takes royalty rights.
	The university takes royalty rights.
	The principal investigator, who is the professor at the university who's running the clinical trial, recruiting the volunteers.
	He may get fifteen thousand dollars a volunteer in grant money and then he gets royalty rights.
	And then the pharmaceutical industry comes in for the phase three and they then own the bulk of the patent but they're sharing royalty rights with all these other players.
	So everybody is now corrupted.
	Everybody is making money on this drug and the people who are supposed to be telling us does the drug actually benefit people or is it just making money for pharma?
	Those people don't exist.
	Up next, RFK on why dr Fauci seems obsessed with making sure all of us get the covet jab again and again and again.
	His theory next.
	Well, you make the related point that Fauci has managed to populate the FDA, the CDC UH, with all of his loyalists now, which would explain so much of what we saw over the past two years.
	Yeah, because making, if you look at how these drugs get approved and recommended, they're not actually being approved by people who work at FDA, by FDA employees.
	There are committees.
	One of them is called the Verb ACT committee inside of UM, OF UH, of FDA, and then the ASIP committee and CDC Advisory Committee on immunization practices and the FDA committee approves the drug and then the CDC committee recommends it.
	But they're not made up of employees of those agencies.
	They're recruited from outside of those agencies.
	Almost all of them are recruited from the pharmaceutical industry or they're academic investigators who are funded by Tony Fauci.
	Tony Fauci gives away with his military budget.
	He gives away a total of about um 7.7 billion dollars a year or more, maybe 8 billion now.
	Um NIH gives away 42 billion and Tony Fauci has a lot to say about where that money goes.
	So it's just, it's vast amounts of money and it buys a lot of Omerta and that's the problem.
	Okay, there's another point you make in the book that is fascinating to me.
	If we, if there's, if we know one thing about Fauci, it's that he is obsessed with telling us to get vaccinated obsessed, no matter what you ask him, it comes back to get vaccinated, get boosted boosted, boosted.
	We need more and you know a lot of us have wondered what why right, why?
	And you make the point in the back in the vaccine in the book about how it's been the vaccine over any therapeutics.
	You know, this is why you claim he had to shame Hydroxychloroquine, had to shame Ivermectin.
	It was like no, it has to be all about the vaccine.
	But I I had never considered or, you know, read about What you posit in the book, which is, and I'm quoting, by vaccinating the entire population, Dr. Fauci seems to be striving to eliminate the control group to hide vaccine injuries.
	This is your opinion.
	I understand that.
	But that's a very interesting theory because we know, we know from first-hand testimonials we've had on this show and other shows, people have been injured by the vaccine.
	Not everyone, obviously, hundreds of millions of doses have been given, but some people have been severely injured.
	And almost to a person, their story ends with, and I was dumped from the clinical trial and my result was not reported.
	And the CDC went totally dark on me after acknowledging to me privately that I had a vaccine-related injury, right?
	So we know injuries have happened.
	And yet, other than VARES, which I know is not that reliable because you just self-report report and who knows, we don't have something like a completely trusted database that's keeping track of the vaccine injuries that would help us truly understand the level of risk.
	And I think this is a fascinating theory.
	And there won't be, is basically what you're saying, because he's trying to get rid of the group that doesn't, that didn't get the vaccine.
	So we won't have anything to compare it to.
	Well, that's, you know, it's again, that's a, it's hard to explain.
	It's sort of bewildering to explain why are they, even when they know that the vaccines do not prevent transmission, the vaccines do not prevent people from getting the disease.
	Why is there this single-minded obsession with forcibly vaccinating people with an experimental product?
	Well, and let me just jump in.
	And they know, they know that the large groups that they're demanding get it are at virtually no risk from it, you know, like the young children.
	So, so even, yeah, go ahead.
	And yeah, I mean, people who really get no benefit from the vaccine, it doesn't make any sense.
	And there's a number, a number of suppositions about why they are doing this.
	And that's one of them.
	I mean, it's a product that doesn't work.
	It's a product that, you know, you get.
	Well, you can't say that, right?
	I don't, I don't think, I think that's a bridge too far.
	I mean, you're 65 years old, you get the vaccine, you have a far less chance of getting severe illness or dying.
	That's what they say.
	And I don't know whether that's true or not.
	I know that the vaccine, I mean, Tony Fauci has admitted the two claims they made from the vaccine at the outset to justify the program was that prevent you from getting sick and preventing transmission and therefore ending the pandemic.
	That those are not true.
	It doesn't work against transmission.
	It does not reduce it at all as far as the science is concerned.
	So I'll say in their defense, and I'm anti-mandate, but I will say in their defense, it worked better at preventing transmission on the original variant, the original form, than it did as Delta came and then Omicron came.
	I mean, if you look back, like during the first variant, they were saying, we think it's going to prevent transmission.
	We're not sure it's going to prevent transmission, but it was doing better against that very first variant.
	Yeah, I mean, you may be right about that.
	I'd have to go back and look at the data.
	But right now, I mean, we're not dealing with the new variant.
	It doesn't work against Omicron transmission.
	It doesn't work against Delta.
	And we know, I know it doesn't work against Delta because the Philippine studies that show that you have an equal viral role.
	And Tony Fauci has admitted that.
	So I don't know.
	And I can't say.
	And I think we're going to find out over time, hopefully, whether it actually does function in the way that we hope it does to prevent vaccine injury and death.
	I'll say, explain to your listeners that there's a that people wonder why did we need to suppress ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine?
	Are well-established drugs with well-established safety profiles that have billions of doses have been given.
	Ivermectin is a human drug.
	It also works on horses, but it would won the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings.
	Tony Fauci's problem is this.
	There's a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease.
	So, if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal for them to give the emergency use authorizations to the vaccines and they could never have gotten them approved.
	And it would have been, you know, a 200 billion enterprise that would have collapsed.
	That is fascinating.
	I mean, I have been covering this very closely now for all of the two years.
	That's the first I've heard that.
	I mean, in your book.
	So he would not have gotten emergency use authorization for the vaccine if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works.
	It is an effective treatment for COVID.
	Well, the medical community, a lot of it was saying that.
	I mean, there's 17,000 doctors who've signed a petition, and there are, you know, there are so many peer-reviewed publications now that consistently say that, but he had to aggressively crusade against it to kind of drown out those reports by saying it's a horse medication.
	It's, you know, people are taking it and it's dangerous and it's overdosing people.
	And, you know, why did he keep saying it?
	Why did he keep saying it after he got his authorization?
	Well, one, even if you have the emergency use authorization, it's it the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there's a functioning medication.
	So, um, you know, that may be why, again, I try not to look in his head, but I do there's a very, very strong incentive for him to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
The Lab Leak Theory 00:04:18
	And, you know, there are many doctors, including Harvey Reach of Yale, who is one of the leading biostatisticians, epidemiologists in the world.
	Peter McCulloch, who is the most published doctor in the history of the world and his specialty.
	Pierre Corey, these doctors who've treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully, they consistently say, and the science supports this, that half a million Americans did not need to die.
	It should be noted for the record.
	You're not a medical doctor, don't claim to be.
	Anthony Fauci is a medical doctor who's, as far as we know, never treated a COVID patient.
	So just for the record.
	I want to ask you, though, because you mentioned the fact that you got bounced off of Instagram where you had a very healthy following, I think a million people or so.
	Correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers, but you got bounced off of there for saying we need to investigate the lab leak theory.
	You've been, I think you're number two on the White House's quote, disinformation dozen.
	So we've had a very strange situation where you have government action to try to silence a private citizen from expressing his viewpoints, which is, I mean, totally contrary to the First Amendment.
	And everyone seemed to roll over and say, yep, okay, fine.
	As long as we're shutting up RFK Jr., that's fine.
	That's okay with us because he's anti-COVID vaccine or he's raising questions about the COVID vaccine.
	So I wonder how you feel now that some of the claims that you were making have borne out, right?
	Like the lab leak theory now is you're, now you're allowed to talk about that.
	And, you know, some of the questions about ivermectin, now people are talking about ivermectin as a serious thing and so on.
	We could go down the list.
	What do you think about the censorship you've endured?
	Oh, that, I mean, to me, Megan, that's the most disturbing feature of this.
	And that is where we will pick it up tomorrow with part two, the efforts to silence Robert, the personal toll it has taken on his marriage to Cheryl Hines, and why he refuses, despite all of it, to back down.
	Here's a preview.
	When your spouse is on the side of the other people, you know you've done wrong, right?
	Because your spouse is rooting for you.
	Yeah.
	Well, my spouse is generally rooting for me.
	But let me tell you, you know, I want to say, you know, I encourage Cheryl to publish that statement.
	In fact, I asked her to do a statement that was much tougher than that.
	Really?
	Which, yes, because, and I'm glad she didn't.
	I'm very glad she didn't.
	But I actually gave her language that was much, much tougher than that because she needed to distance herself from me.
	My job as her husband is to protect her.
	And the arrows and the bullets that were being slung at me were hitting her.
	My activities, jeopardizing this thing that this incredible person put together was just, I felt like my job is to protect her.
	And I was doing the opposite of my job.
	So my heart was breaking.
	And I was, you know, I would have done taken any blow to make sure that she could distance herself.
	Plus, he shares the one moment that has always stayed with him after his father's assassination.
	Before we go, we wanted to let you know that we did reach out to Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Ralph Barrick.
	Neither responded to our request for comment.
	Remember, you can download the Megan Kelly show on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher and help support our reporting and shows and interviews like this by doing so.
	Also at youtube.com slash Megan Kelly.
	Again, download and subscribe to the show there.
	That will help support us, keep us on the air, and make it possible for us to continue bringing you shows like this.
	Thanks for listening.
	Part two, coming up tomorrow.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:20 Beyond The Vaccine Debate
00:04:37 Personal Challenges And Disability
00:12:58 Mercury In Fish And Food
00:28:50 Why Autism Rates Rose
00:36:34 Changing Diagnostic Criteria
00:52:22 Who Funded Those Studies
01:00:46 Bill Gates And Africa Claims
01:12:44 Fraudulent Drug Approval Tricks
01:17:57 Superbugs And Pandemic Plans
01:33:44 Emergency Use Authorization Issues
01:51:30 The Lab Leak Theory