Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an Oxford-educated pathologist and former University of Alberta president, joins Sheila Gunn-Reid to critique COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children, citing WHO’s sudden reversal on mixing Moderna/Pfizer shots due to "lack of data" while ignoring risks like myocarditis and infertility. He highlights 200% surge in Alberta’s teen suicide calls and SickKids’ research showing 38–41% increases in child depression, anxiety, and irritability from lockdowns. Hodkinson condemns censorship of dissenting doctors—e.g., Dr. Francis Christian’s job loss in Saskatchewan—while vaccines face underreported complications like blood clotting, with U.S. data showing 9,000 deaths post-vaccination. Their argument: untested mass vaccination outweighs natural herd immunity, exposing systemic collusion between tech, scientists, and governments to silence medical debate. [Automatically generated summary]
It's me, Sheila Gunread, your favorite journalist, or at least I hope that I'm somewhere in the top eight to ten.
Anyway, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
It's Wednesday night.
I'm recording this, but you can listen or watch whenever you feel like, because that's the beauty and convenience of not being tied to traditional, old-fashioned, boring, dying TV.
Tonight, my guest is Dr. Roger Hodkinson.
He was on the show a little while ago.
He's back by popular demand.
We got a lot of really great feedback, people wanting to hear more from him.
And good news because Dr. Roger had a lot more to say.
We're talking about a lot of things, how the science seems to be changing day by day with regard to vaccinations, masking, mixing vaccines, vaccine injuries.
And truly, I think the most tragic part in all of this is the effect the lockdown has had on children and their mental health.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then I promise you're going to love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
As you know, that's what we call our long-form TV style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my show, which obviously I think, you know, like I work really hard on it.
I think it's pretty good.
But you also get access to Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show, David Menti's fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup, where you see your favorite rebels, including me, talking about our favorite stories of the week.
And you also get Andrew Chapatos' brand new show, Andrew Says, which I know, I know, it's not brand new, but I've been here for a long time.
So anything in the last two years sort of seems brand new.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe.
And just for my podcast listeners, well, all of our podcast listeners, you can get an extra 10% off your new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com to become a member today.
And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
Little Data, Big Concerns00:05:04
What changed in vaccine news this week?
Today we're catching up with Canada's most censored doctor.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know,
just a week ago, if you called the Alberta government to book your second dose of a vaccine, they would tell you that it was perfectly okay, perfectly safe to mix vaccine manufacturers.
So if you got a Moderna, you could get a Pfizer the second time around.
If you got Pfizer the first time, you could safely take Moderna as your second shot.
Now, I've even heard anecdotal stories from people I trust quite explicitly who have told me that when they questioned the advice from pharmacists and online bookers that it was perfectly fine to mix vaccines, they were sort of scoffed at.
But as is the case with literally everything to do with the coronavirus pandemic, the recommendations have suddenly changed basically overnight.
Here's the story in Global News.
The World Health Organization's chief scientist on Monday advised against people mixing and matching COVID-19 vaccines from different manufacturers, calling it a dangerous trend since there was little data about its health impact.
So mixing vaccines that was safe on Friday but dangerous on Monday.
However, I would tend to agree with the World Health Organization's chief scientist here for once when he says that there is very little data here because that's the case with everything to do with the coronavirus pandemic.
There's very little data to do with any of this.
However, if you question the very little data, you can immediately become censored and othered, such as the case with my guest tonight.
He's a good friend to me, good friend to Rebel News, and good friend to the show.
It's Dr. Roger Hodkinson.
Now, Dr. Roger has a CV that reads more like a book.
He's an Oxford educated pathologist and entrepreneur.
He's worked in the medical examiner's office.
He was the staff pathologist at a major hospital in Edmonton.
He's also a general practitioner, associate professor at the University of Alberta, president of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, and a chairman of a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Committee in Ottawa.
Dr. Rogers' credentials are truly endless.
However, he's repeatedly been censored, and it gets worse than that.
Anybody who posts anything related to Dr. Roger also gets censored.
And I think it's because Roger points out that there is very little data regarding anything to do with the coronavirus.
You see, Dr. Roger Hodkinson has said the same thing for a year already that the chief scientist at the World Health Organization is saying now.
But if Roger says it, he's censored and attacked professionally and personally.
But Roger's not wrong.
And so I wanted to have Roger on the show today to talk about what's changed in the approximately one month since I had him on the show last regarding coronavirus and vaccine science.
Because Dr. Roger is one of the few people in medicine in Canada who is loudly doing what the mainstream actually tells us all to do, and that's follow the science.
Dr. Rogers following the science instead of just blindly marching along, accepting the narrative.
Joining me tonight in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon is my friend, the incredible Dr. Roger Hodkinson.
Joining me now from his office just outside of Edmonton, Alberta, is good friend of Rebel News and good friend of Freedom and Medical Independence, Dr. Roger Hodkinson.
My mouth doesn't want to say Dr. Rogers' name, but it's important that we get our facts straight and our words straight.
Dr. Roger, I wanted to have you on the show because there's so much information that has come out just in between when we spoke last time and now.
Concerns About Ivermectin Use00:15:55
And the one thing that's on the top of my mind as a mother with kids within the age of this push to vaccinate kids has been the effect of the COVID lockdown on children.
And while there has been a lot of medical censorship and medical silencing, sick kids in Toronto somehow has managed to escape a lot of it.
And the one thing that I want to point to is that they have released recent research actually just the other day that it shows the evidence of the impact of the lockdown on the mental health of kids.
So where most people are most children who have already had existing problems with anxiety and mental health, by and large, they're reporting rapid deterioration.
So they say, and I'll quote directly from their article, one concerning finding from their study was the significant proportion of otherwise healthy school-aged children who experienced a deterioration in a number of mental health domains,
including depression at nearly 38%, anxiety at nearly 39%, irritability at nearly 41%, and attention span problems at 41%.
So these are actually healthy kids, and we have given them these problems with the lockdown.
And all for no reason.
All for absolutely no reason at all.
The litany of consequences for children beyond mental health.
I can speak to Alberta.
The last stat that I saw were that there's been a 200% increase in calls to the teenage suicide line with those ridiculous lockdowns that basically had them shuttered in their rooms.
The litany of consequences just keeps on growing.
Quite apart from the serious psychological consequences, we have the retardation of toddlers failing to appreciate non-verbal communication, which is a very important aspect of education for a young child, seeing expressions on an adult's face.
We have the very disturbing reports of myocarditis in young males, you know, described as mild essentially by CDC.
Let me tell everyone listening, there's nothing mild about myocarditis.
It's an inflammation of the heart pump.
And we know in medicine from myocarditis due to other viruses before COVID that this can reduce the heart reserve many years later, decades later, and result in premature onset of heart failure, for example, all resulting from a very unnecessary vaccination of children because they're not coming down with this condition any more than a mild cold or cough.
They're certainly not dying of it.
There hasn't been a single death in children in North America from COVID other than children with serious underlying disease.
So they're not coming down with it.
They're not spreading it to teachers.
That's been shown conclusively.
And therefore, there is absolutely no reason to contemplate vaccinating them, even if the vaccine was shown to be safe, because it's just not needed.
There are always complications from vaccines, even after they've been finally declared safe.
But of course, this one has not been declared safe.
Government is using that word without any qualification whatsoever.
That itself is really despicable.
This is not a safe vaccine for anyone.
It's not been through the usual rigorous clinical trials, but it's certainly not safe for children, and it's certainly not safe for pregnant women who are getting this vaccine as we speak.
And now we find increasing evidence of other complications, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, paralysis of the legs, and sometimes the arms as well.
Those numbers are also growing.
So heart attacks in children in the States, in the VERES reporting system, heart attacks in children.
So I think you can see where I'm going with this.
I call it state-sanctioned child abuse to vaccinate children for something that they don't need and which is known not to be safe.
And that's quite apart from the long-term complications, which are completely unstudied, namely the potential for infertility affecting both boys and girls.
That is potentially a nightmare.
There's good scientific evidence to be concerned about it, not just as a random possibility, but certain medical evidence that makes that very concerning and has just not been investigated.
Look, pregnancy takes nine months.
At the very minimum, you do a clinical trial for nine months.
That's not been done.
These trials should really have taken place over a period of years, given the fact that this was not an emergency in the first place.
It's not Ebola.
It's not SARS.
It could have waited until we had full documentation from clinical trials.
The essence of a clinical trial is to answer the question: we don't know what we don't know.
That's why we do clinical trials.
And now we're finding, coming out of the woodwork, all these serious complications that some of which are involving children, that should be a reason to stop vaccination of children immediately and not induce them with ice cream and lollipops and the peer pressure that goes along in the classroom when the nurse is saying,
come on, get in line, roll your sleeve up, jab, You know, no informed consent, even if they were capable of understanding it.
So vaccination of children contravenes two central medical ethics.
First, do no harm.
And secondly, inform consent.
Neither of those are happening with vaccination of children.
Now, I want to talk about the vaccine still because you're so well informed about this.
And, you know, as recently as earlier in the week, Sunday, it was perfectly fine, according to accepted medical science.
And if you thought the other way, you were some sort of conspiracy theorist.
It was perfectly fine to mix vaccines.
And in Alberta, if you called to book your second vaccine appointment, the pharmacist or whoever was taking the booking would say, oh, no, no, it's fine.
You can mix Moderna and Pfizer.
And now, you know, the directive on that has suddenly changed, come out of the World Health Organization.
And I think this goes to the fact that there are literally no studies.
And there's a lot of, you know, if you have any questions, just shut up about it.
It's a guess, like so many other things.
There's no complete studies on that.
It's obviously an accommodation to the reality that they've run out of certain vaccines and want to substitute other ones.
That's going down the wrong rabbit hole.
Not that you should go down any rabbit holes in this condition.
It's the wrong argument.
The argument should not be about is it safe to mix vaccines.
The argument should go back right to the very start of the process of decision making, which was based upon this being alleged to be a public health emergency, which it was not and still is not, because the working well are dying in fewer numbers than they did with the flu.
It's the older people with comorbidities in nursing homes that need to be protected with extra measures.
So the whole argument about different vaccines, different doses, who gets it, who doesn't, is utterly irrelevant in my opinion, because this was not needed in the first place as an emergency response, because it was not an emergency and still is not an emergency.
Well, and I think too, as you rightly point out, it is the elderly, particularly in long-term care facilities, who are at the greatest risk of dying of this disease.
But that's really nothing new.
That is a symptom of every single flu season and a failing of government regulation and government oversight in long-term care facilities during every single flu season.
What made this one so different?
It's not.
That's the whole point, other than for those people that are very vulnerable.
And the elderly in nursing homes, I hate to use the word the new vernacular because new words have been introduced into our vernacular because of this COVID nonsense.
Elderly people in nursing homes are self-quarantined by definition.
They're in a place with four walls and a door.
That means it has in and out control.
It also means that because they're inside all the time, by definition, they're all vitamin D deficient.
And for those that are not in nursing homes, the elderly that go, or anyone else for that matter, that goes to a hospital with shortness of breath, headache, cough, fever, and they think they might have COVID, and they get a test in that environment that's positive, which is probably a true positive if it matches the symptoms, as opposed to the enormous false positives in the working well.
But if you're going to a hospital with that syndrome of complaints and a test that matches it, guess what happens next?
You get a PO2, an oxygen level done on you.
And if that's not low enough, basically they say go home.
Well, go home, okay.
Subtext medically is come back when you're blue, you're not sick enough.
So those people are being sent home without any treatment whatsoever, except simply wait and see what happens.
Instead of allowing physicians to prescribe agents that may well work, but which are known to be very, very safe, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Those are now prohibited from use by physicians to treat early symptoms of COVID-19 before people come back blue.
That prohibition is medical malpractice.
So I guess my next question is: why the prohibition?
Because we know hydroxychloroquine has been used worldwide safely, and we know ivermectin has been used for decades.
If anybody has animals that they've had veterinary concerns with, ivermectin is used frequently for animals as well.
I mean, this is a safe and effective drug.
So I guess my next question is, why are they prohibiting use of these?
They need to explain it, don't they?
I'm not there to make excuses for them.
I think it's reprehensible.
Because of this, look, they can't say out of one side of their mouth, this is an emergency, which it's not, but let's accept that.
This is an emergency.
It demands the use of a jab in every arm with an unsafe product.
Ignore those billboards that say, get vaccinated, it's safe.
That's such a gross distortion of not just the English language, but how the word is used medically.
But let's accept that for a second, that it really is an emergency, as they say, and it demands the introduction of an unsafe product into every arm.
Okay.
So if you're saying that out of one side of your mouth, you cannot say out of the other side of your mouth, we prohibit you from using agents that might save a life that are known to be safe.
We prohibit you.
You can't have it both ways.
Either it's an emergency and it's not.
If it is an emergency, individual physicians should be allowed to use their good professional judgment with a patient in front of them to try and prevent them from dying.
And that is being actively prohibited, not just in Alberta, but right across this country.
You know, it is very fascinating because, as you point out, again, doctors use drugs all the time off label because they think they're going to be effective.
And these drugs are cheap, easy, and already approved.
They've gone through decades of human use, and yet they're not allowed to be used for this disease.
And not even when the person is at imminent risk of dying, when you should be able to use whatever you think is going to work at that minute.
It's the early treatment that's being missed.
When you get to the point where you're coming back to hospital blue, you're in a much more dangerous situation because the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't work as effectively in the later stages of the disease as they do in the early stages.
Dr. Peter McCullough, who's taken the lead on this in the States, has projected, given his vast experience, he treats people with COVID as well as being a cardiologist.
Of the 600,000 or so deaths in the States that are being attributed to COVID-19, he estimates that a half a million of those could have been saved if they had been treated early with his cocktail of drugs that includes ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D and some other agents.
That's a disastrous consequence of inaction with safe agents.
You see, what these bureaucrats don't appreciate is when you're practicing medicine and you have someone sick in front of you and potentially going to get into trouble, you are obligated to do the very best that you can for that person ethically, given your training and the drugs that are available and the risk of the risk-benefit analysis that you're aware of.
Delta Variant Concerns00:02:28
That is our profession.
And that is being taken away from us by government.
Now, I do want to talk to you about that in a minute because you are really butting heads with some professional agencies.
Before we get there, I want to talk to you about the Delta variant and I suppose the Lambda variant.
These guys better slow down.
They're going to run out of letters to name these things after.
But in Israel, the number of fully vaccinated people contracting these variants has overtaken the number of people who are unvaccinated who are contracting these variants.
And so the way governments always do, they say, okay, well, then you need a third dose of Pfizer, just doing more of the same failed thing instead of stopping, pumping the brakes and assessing what's going on here.
The Delta variant is apparently more transmissible, but it is not more dangerous.
In fact, it's less dangerous.
It's causing less disease, less severe disease than the other variants.
So I take the position that is a good thing.
It's not a scariant.
It's not something to be fearful of.
It's something you don't want to encourage spread, but the natural transmission that occurs just from ordinary contact and living in a normal environment, the risk of life, you might say, that is a good thing because it builds herd immunity the natural way to the whole virus, not just a bit of it.
And indeed, that selectivity of the vaccination against the spike, a specific spike protein, has been shown not to be very effective against the spike protein of the Delta variant.
So, as you say, what are we going to do if this thing returns in the fall?
Are we going to continuously have to jab people over and over and over again just because of a new scarient is appearing?
It's obviously ridiculous because it's not just ineffective and expensive, but it's also exposing people to the enormous risks of an unsafe, untested vaccine.
Untested Vaccines' Risks00:06:33
You just don't do that in medicine.
We don't vaccinate people with unsafe products unless there's a catastrophic emergency.
We just don't do that.
Now, finally, before we move on to the professional agencies that are challenging you and you're challenging them back, what other news on the COVID-19 front do you think we're missing that isn't being talked about in the mainstream media because of self-suppression from the mainstream media, because of big tech censorship?
What is it that we're really missing right now since I talked to you last?
Well, there's a growing realization that a lot of the complications that are resulting from the vaccination are due to blood clotting, not necessarily in big vessels such as you've heard of already, the central venous thrombosis in the head, deep veins in the legs, and so on, but quite possibly on a more diffuse basis involving capillaries, which are throughout the entire body.
That may be the reason myocarditis has been happening.
It's still being investigated.
But if in fact, we do know that that coagulation is happening because of blood tests, they're called D-dimers that we test for after heart attacks, for example.
We do know that diffuse coagulation is happening in the body in people who are not symptomatic.
And so what that brings to the fore is the possibility, again, untested, that we may be interfering with the reserve of organs that do not have the ability to regenerate such that we may have premature onset of heart failure, for example, from myocarditis.
Could we be seeing premature onset of dementia if the brain is being attacked?
We don't know these things.
It's a very new technology that should have been subject to even more rigorous assessment of risk than has currently happened.
What we do know is that there is evidence of coagulation occurring in the body in people who are not symptomatic after vaccination.
That's of deep concern because it could be the very small vessels that are being picked off as opposed to the big ones that produce immediate symptoms of massive headache and pulmonary emboli shooting off from your legs.
That's just, we think that's just the tip of the iceberg.
You know, it's very frightening.
I saw my friend Natalie Klein.
She got the Moderna, I believe, vaccination, and then she experienced a stroke.
So this isn't just happening to random people.
These are people that we know who are suffering these complications after getting the jab.
Well, look at the numbers coming out of the States.
The Canadian numbers are totally unreliable.
The difficulty of reporting and having it accepted is just so bureaucratic.
The numbers are meaningless.
But even in the States, there's, and in Britain, the numbers are similar, there's significant under-reporting of vaccine reactions.
But just looking at the numbers as stated, which are probably quite under-reported, in the States, we currently have 6,000, actually 9,000, it's just been increased, 9,000 deaths in the States within a few days of vaccination, particularly after the second dose.
Now, to put that number in perspective, over the last 30 years, in the States, with all the vaccinations that have taken place over a period of 30 years, if you add all of those deaths up over 30 years, it's less than the deaths that are being reported during a three-month reporting period in the States for one vaccination program.
That's the scale of difference here.
It's a massive, massive increase in deaths following vaccination.
That's just the deaths, by the way.
That's not all the other things that are hidden.
For example, untested fertility issues.
We don't know anything about that.
You know, it's very frightening.
I didn't even think, you know, when you mentioned, you know, the headaches, again, those will likely be one of those under-reported complications of the vaccines because people, it's just a stress headache, no big deal.
Exactly.
A random thing, a bad headache happens, you slough it off as just another headache.
But it could have been, we don't know, not investigated, not reported.
It could have been a direct consequence of the vaccination.
Frightening.
Similarly, these reports of brain fog, for example, they're just too prevalent.
It's a big mistake in medicine to slough people off as hysterical if you can't explain it.
Could the brain fog be due to this very diffuse capillary coagulation that may be occurring in certain parts of the brain?
Could it be?
Well, we don't know, but we should know, shouldn't we?
These things should have been investigated well before they were injected into everyone's arm for a condition that's not a public health emergency.
This is how bizarre this whole process is from a medical perspective.
The massive overreaction to something that, in the grand scheme of things, is nothing worse than a bad seasonal flu for the vast majority of the working well.
Now, I wanted to ask you what it's been like for you as a doctor, an accomplished doctor, speaking out on these issues, because these issues are not out of your scope.
Bizarre Medical Overreaction00:02:42
And yet, professional organizations, because you are not going along with the accepted narrative on these things, which, as we found out just this week with mixing vaccines, it literally changes day to day.
You are facing some pretty serious consequences and some pretty ugly pushback from your own professional organization.
Well, I'm not alone.
Across Canada, people are being very significantly censored by their professional organizations.
Dr. Francis Christian, a highly respected surgeon in Saskatchewan, all he did was stand up and say, I think vaccination for children is dangerous and shouldn't happen.
That's all he said.
That's all he said.
And yet he got his faculty position taken away from him with a conversation that was almost straight out of a gulag psychiatric hospital that went something like this.
Dr. Christian, you're a very intelligent man, but maybe you need help.
You know, we can help you.
You know, the next stage is, you know, go to hospital and get filled up with drugs and change your mind.
That's all he said, trying to protect children, and he lost his faculty appointment.
Dr. Hoff in British Columbia simply stood up and said, I'm seeing some neurological complications in this small community before it got burnt to the ground in Lytton, British Columbia.
I'm seeing some really unusual neurological complications.
And what happened?
His local hospital said, we don't need you in the emergency room anymore.
Just took away 40% of his income right there.
And other examples across Canada, Dr. Milbourne in Nova Scotia, Dr. Trozzi in Ontario, and so on.
It's not just in Alberta at all.
And it's not even just in Canada.
It's throughout the Western world.
And it goes even further than that, where physicians are now being told in many jurisdictions: look, if you want to come back to work in this hospital, you're going to have to be vaccinated.
Do you understand that?
Well, it never happened for the flu.
Three Sources of Censorship00:07:06
You know, why is it so important now for these institutions to put livelihoods at risk for physicians who are often very, very capable, cream of the crop?
Why should they be insisting on these things?
It's none of their business.
For a physician, it's very much as a personal decision as it is for you or a member of the general public.
Yeah, the oppression, though, has a sinister complication, and that is the general public rely upon three sources of information to form their own decisions.
The politicians, the media, and physicians largely.
And the physicians are the most important group, I think, because of that doctor title, which we're given that comes with great responsibility to do the best we can for an individual patient.
So we're seeing, because of the censorship of physicians, we're seeing unopposed propaganda from government that the general public is they've got nowhere to turn.
The mainstream media has been bought off by the prime minister.
He's bribed them into silence.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
You're never going to hear any of this kind of stuff on CBC or the mainstream newspapers.
All you see in the newspapers is this rising graph, used to be rising, now it's falling, of these so-called cases, which are false positive PCR results that are no such thing as a case.
You see, there's another distortion of the English language.
Intentional distortion.
In medicine, a case is someone who is sick in front of you.
They've got pain, they've got fever, whatever.
They have serious issues.
That's a case.
They're calling a case a false positive result, screening tests, on someone who's perfectly well.
And translating that into a graph in the morning paper that drives fear into everyone and makes them wonder, well, you know, Armageddon is coming.
Maybe I should get the vaccine.
The general public are really sadly being, as I said way back in November, and I say it again, they're being led down the garden path because the evidence is totally one-sided.
They say they're basing their decisions on facts.
And when put to the task, as you well know, with court cases that are going on across this country, put to the task of being asked, what is your evidence for these interventions, they say, we need more time.
Well, if you've been doing something of this gravity for a period of a year and you've not assembled the evidence to support why you're doing it and monitoring it and calculating the consequences, that's a dereliction of duty.
And the obvious explanation for saying we need more time after a period of a year, the obvious implication of that is they don't have the facts.
And the very simple reason is because there are no facts.
The Orwellian situation that we're in is that they're claiming these interventions are based on facts when they're actually merely hearsay, they're an opinion, when the bulk of medical opinion is actually to the contrary.
There's always, in medicine, in science, there's always an experiment that shows the opposite.
That's the very nature of science, the very nature of medicine.
There's always a debate as to what's the consensus, you might say, of benefit versus harm.
And the overwhelming evidence is totally against mass social distancing, travel bans, and lockdowns.
And I would say vaccination, because it's just not needed.
I'll give the last word to you, Doctor.
What do you think people need to know right now about COVID-19?
I think they need to know that what they've been hearing is a pack of lies.
I see a lot of similarities here with the censorship surrounding anybody who questions coronavirus science and the censorship of anybody who questions human contributions to climate change.
Big tech, scientists, and politicians have all colluded to make sure that there is only one acceptable form of discussion.
And even when other evidence presents itself, and it always does, evidence to the contrary, big tech can take care of all of that to make sure that nobody ever even gets to see the new information.
These are dark and dangerous times when words don't mean what they used to mean anymore.
When calling a medicine safe doesn't actually mean safe, it doesn't mean proven, tested, and benign, but rather it means just something they want you to take without all the facts, no questions asked.
What becomes of the people damaged by that advice to mix their vaccines?
What becomes of all the people who were censored because they were skeptical, because they had questions about mixing vaccines?
What is accepted science one day is dangerous the very next morning, and we're all just supposed to forget how we were called anti-science deniers for simply having questions about things that seem to be changing all the time.
And I want to be clear the way I always am.
If you want to take a vaccine, take the vaccine.
If you don't want to take a vaccine, don't take a vaccine.
It is absolutely none of my business.
In fact, it's nobody's business.
But more importantly, I just want you to have all the facts so that you can make up your mind because I think that's the responsible thing to do.
I don't like when information is hidden or censored or obscured from the public.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.