Viva & Barnes - Pam Bondi CORRECTS COURSE! Ghislaine Maxwell Will TALK? Special Guest Dr. Joel Warsh & MORE!

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 22, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:12:23

Pam Bondi CORRECTS COURSE! Ghislaine Maxwell Will TALK? Special Guest Dr. Joel Warsh & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, ordinarily I'd start with the voiceover, but today I feel that we need not a trigger warning, an F-bomb warning.
	For any children in the room, earmuffs.
	For any sensitive people in the room, earmuffs.
	Behold, Hunter Biden, the smartest man Joe Biden knows.
	And he's somehow convinced all of us that these people are the fucking criminals.
	White men in America are 45 more times likely to commit a fucking violent crime than an immigrant.
	And the media says, well, you got David Axelrod and, you know, Rom fucking Emmanuel, so fucking smart Rom Emmanuel.
	And so we got to understand that these people are really mad.
	And we got to appeal to these white voters.
	Ron, the only people that fucking appealed to those fucking white voters was Joe Biden, 81 years old.
	And he got 81 million votes.
	And he did because not because he appeased their fucking Trumpian sense, but because he challenged it.
	And he said, you can be an 81-year-old Catholic from fucking Scranton that doesn't understand it, but still has empathy for transgender people and immigrants.
	Then nobody said, oh, Joe Biden's going to turn us into a socialist state, no matter how much they said it.
	But these guys think that we need to run away from all values in order for us to lead.
	I say, fuck you.
	How are we getting those people back from fucking El Salvador?
	Because I'll tell you what, if I became president in two years from now or four years from now or three years from now, I would pick up the phone and call the fucking president of El Salvador and say, you either fucking send them back or I'm going to fucking invade.
	It's a fucking crime what they're doing.
	He's a fucking dictator thug.
	Bukely or Trump?
	Both.
	I mean, at some point, all you can do is laugh.
	I say laugh.
	We're not laughing at other people's misfortune.
	We're just laughing at what an absolute idiot Hunter Biden is.
	Has everybody seen Boogeynights?
	I know it's a violent, dirty movie.
	I think it's one of the best movies ever made.
	This was literally an outtake scene from Boogey Nights.
	That scene when Roller Girl and the mom, what's her name?
	I'm not going to remember her name right now.
	When Roller Girl Heather Graham and the mom were doing Coke in a room for days on end and they were having delusional thoughts, speaking manically, that interview, at least the portions that I've seen thus far, because it's three hours and I haven't had the chance to listen to the entire thing.
	That entirety of that interview sounds more like an edited uncut cut scene from Boogie Nights.
	And can you imagine being Joe Biden, not that he knows what the hell is going on, watching Hunter talk like that?
	I mean, I swear every now and again.
	Every time I do, I feel a little bad.
	Every time I call someone an effing tard on Twitter, I say, all right, my dad would probably be minorly disappointed in me right now.
	And I would say that, you know, he's a foul-mouthed sailor, but for goodness sake, even sailors cuss with more meaning and more purpose.
	The immigrants.
	Everything of what he said is absolute insanity.
	The immigrants.
	He would invade El Salvador to coercively bring back illegal aliens who have been deported to their homeland.
	I mean, it's so insane.
	I think Bukeley actually said something about it.
	This is what Bukeley had to say about Hunter Biden.
	Salvadorian president responds to Hunter Biden's invasion threat.
	What is he sniffing?
	President Naiba Bukeley responded by mocking Biden's prior drug use.
	I would pull the, I would be holier than that.
	I wouldn't make fun of him for his prior drug use.
	I would just make fun of him for his current retardation, because that's what it was.
	Can you imagine Hunter Biden in his own mind at some point is thinking, if I were president, I would call up Bukele.
	How are you going to invade El Salvador?
	If I could just ask the obvious questions.
	Salvadorian president Naeb Bukele responded late Monday to having his country under threat of invasion from a future called President Under Biden.
	I mean, it would be the next chapter in idiocracy, but we're not yet there.
	And it looks like we might be coming back from the idiocracy and heading back to something of a meritocracy.
	Bukele, who has emerged as a top ally of President Donald Trump and a partner in the U.S. leader's mass deportation operations targeting illegal immigrants, appeared to laugh off the threat.
	Is Hunter Biden sniffing powdered milk?
	Bukele replied on X, where he had shared a snippet of Hunter Biden's interview with podcaster Andrew Callahan.
	These guys think that we need to run away from all values in order for us to lead.
	Biden fumed in the clip.
	Values.
	He respects immigrants.
	81 million votes.
	That idiot still thinks Joe Biden got 81 million votes in 2020.
	He might have gotten 81 million ballots.
	He might have gotten 81 million names on a paper that he got 81 million constitutionally valid ballots.
	You would have to be high as Hunter Biden in order to think that.
	But Hunter Biden's love and deep respect for immigrants, it's so beautiful.
	You know, he wants his modern slaves.
	This is another one, which is Ozzie Osborne just died today.
	Not for nothing.
	Joel Osborne, I think it's his daughter or his granddaughter.
	I think it's his daughter.
	When she was on the view with those other wenches talking about immigrants, and Joel Osborne said, Mr. Trump, if you kick out all the illegal immigrants, who's going to scrub your toilets?
	And then everyone on the view was like, you had Gloria Palip-Perez on the show.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	That's not what I mean.
	It is what you mean.
	You said the quiet part out loud, you idiot, Joel Osborne.
	The only problem is you apologized for it at the time.
	Jerry Nadler since has said the quiet part out loud proudly.
	If we don't bring any legals, the vegetables are going to rot in the field.
	Adam Crine Kinzinger came out and said, we can't bring back manufacturing of iPhones because we don't have those little hands.
	Nobody's going to want to do that.
	And Trump has already deported all of the illegals so that we don't have any slave labor to use little kids to build little things together.
	Here's Hunter Biden taking the same humanitarian tone when it comes to what Democrats want to be their modern day slaves.
	For someone, it might as well be like all these Democrats say, you have to talk about and realize that people are really upset about illegal immigration.
	Fuck you.
	How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned?
	How do you think you got food on your fucking table?
	Who do you think washes your dishes?
	Who do you think does your fucking garden?
	I can tell you who does hunters.
	Who washes our dishes in our house?
	I'm not going to say my wife to suggest that it's a woman's job.
	Both my wife and I, well, we actually have a dishwasher.
	So I put them in the dishwasher.
	My wife takes the extra 30 seconds to scrub them down.
	Who does our garden?
	I've never actually asked.
	There's landscapers, but my wife does the garden, tends to the garden in the back.
	I got to play there.
	Who does your menial trite labor that you get to exploit people and underpay them for?
	Immigrants.
	That's what Hunter Biden and his I do think he might be might have been on drugs during this because this is abnormal.
	Like it's nice to swear.
	You don't swear that much unless you're out of control.
	Illegal immigration.
	Fuck you.
	How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned?
	How do you think you have food on your fucking table?
	Who do you think washes your dishes?
	Who do you think does your fucking garden?
	Who do you think is here by the fucking sheer fucking just grit and will that they figured out a way to get here because they thought that they could give themselves and their family a better chance?
	And he's somehow convinced all of us that these people are the fucking criminals for someone.
	I mean, it's it's borderline delusional.
	I'd say borderline psychotic.
	That is, that's brain rot.
	But, you know, like they say, out of the mouths, out of the mouths of, what is it now?
	Out of the mouths of babes, children say the darndest thing.
	You know who is painfully honest in terms of what they actually think?
	Kids, because they don't have the filter, and geriatrics, because they've lost the filter.
	I would also say people who might have had their capacities impaired for an extended period of time.
	He's lost the filter of what decency is, proudly boasting that they need their immigrants for cheap labor to be exploited so that they can do his garden, wash his dishes, clean his effing home.
	Holy sweet, merciful hell.
	I also think he's kind of off on the numbers, but that doesn't really matter anyhow.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	When I post that clip to other platforms, there's going to be like a beep every two seconds.
	It's going to be like happy Gilmore.
	Play it as a lies, mother.
	Oh, wow.
	Anyhow, he's doing wonders for the namesake of the Bidens, doing wonders to prove that he truly is the smartest individual Joe Biden has ever known.
	Not to mention the fact that he, oh, never mind.
	I was going to say terrible things.
	Terrible but truthful things.
	But there, but for the grace of God goes I. Everybody, good afternoon.
	How goes the battle?
	Welcome to the show.
	Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler during my daily time slot, three o'clock on the Rumble lineup.
	Okay, I'm getting used to the two screens.
	This is the second day of Viva having discovered that you can toggle things from one screen to the next.
	I can look at my next story while I'm talking to you.
	So you might see me looking to this side as opposed to typically this side where I would fidget with things.
	And it will run smoother when I get the hang of it.
	Thus far, I think it's coming along.
	Before we even get into today's show, I do want to thank our sponsor of today's show, Bright Core Kim Chi people.
	What do they call these things?
	The square codes, the QR codes?
	These things are magic.
	I mean, they're like barcodes, but they're QR codes.
	Scan it with your phone.
	It will bring you to the website of today's sponsor, Kim Chi from Bright Core.
	There's a war happening right now, and it's probably not where you think it's in your gut.
	A battle between good bacteria and bad bacteria can determine your health.
	Kim Chi-1 from Brightcore Nutrition is the fermented superfood your body needs to arm the good guys with the right weapons to defeat the bad actors once and for all.
	Containing over 900 strains of beneficial bacteria in each capsule, Kim Chi-1 supports healthy digestion, fortifies your immune system, and helps detoxify your body.
	Kimchi has also been shown to reduce the risk of obesity and promote smaller waistlines by curbing appetite and naturally boosting your metabolism.
	Kimchi One, all-natural, made in the USA, non-GMO.
	I recommend this product because it all starts in your gut.
	My wife sensitized me to this.
	I'll explain something about antibiotics in a second.
	Putting the right fermented superfoods in your gut improves every aspect of your health, your skin, your hair, mental performance, and you can do it the natural way.
	Today, you can get an exclusive offer by clicking on the link below or scan that QR code, code Viva for 25%, your entire order, or even better deal, call Brightcore for up to 50% off and free shipping.
	They actually have real people that take the call so that you can ask questions.
	They can answer them in real time.
	You can call them at 888-501-2209.
	888-501-2209.
	I did an interview with Kim from Brightcore and asked her all these questions.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's a great company.
	Check it out, 888-501-2209, or check out the link in the description.
	And it's in there.
	It's in the description.
	Yeah, I come back to the antibiotics.
	Do you know why people get diarrhea when they take antibiotics?
	It's an interesting thing.
	Antibiotics kill bacteria.
	They kill the good and the bad bacteria.
	And so that's why they say if you're taking antibiotics, you also want to take probiotics.
	And then there's literally something called prebiotics and postbiotics.
	And if you have the right balance in your gut, kimchi can do it.
	Some people don't like the way raw kimchi smells and it gives some people gas, but that's cabbage.
	You can get it in the pill format at Brightcourt.
	So check it out.
	All right, people.
	Now, let me see what's going on here.
	We're across platforms.
	I've got a guest coming on talking medical.
	We're talking medical stuff.
	If you don't know, it goes by Dr. Gator on Instagram.
	His name is Dr. Joel Warsh.
	And I didn't know that my wife was following him on Instagram, but she brought that to my attention last week when I was having a fight on Twitter with the shameless propagandist, Dr. Neil Stone.
	So he's going to come on at about give or take 3.30, and we're going to have a great discussion and talk about the purported study that purportedly confirms that vaccines or jibby jabs, and the aluminum adsorption in them doesn't cause problems.
	We're going to get to that.
	Before we get to that, I want to see what's going on on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Oh, yes.
	And to say, we're going to have a portion of that interview behind, no, behind no paywall, not behind a paywall on Viva Barnes Law.
	So you can come over to locals today.
	There will be no paywall because I'm using StreamYard, not Rumble Studio.
	So there will be no paywall on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	If you want to check it out, decide whether or not you want to support the work there.
	We're getting to that.
	And let me just make sure that we all got what's good.
	We got cat pics over there.
	We've got QR codes are the real thing we need for barcodes.
	We no longer need for barcodes anymore.
	Says Dan Sundon and can't wait, can't watch here or on Rumble.
	Muriel says, well, you have to be able to.
	All right.
	That's it.
	We're done here.
	Stop.
	How do I?
	Okay, hold on one second.
	I've got a bit of an issue here because I can't.
	There we go.
	Bring that out and bring up two crumble crants over on Rumble.
	Hunter likes effing and okay.
	The Remanded says, Aussie Osborne has passed away this morning.
	Rest in peace.
	Condolences to his friends and family.
	Remanded, thank you very much.
	I saw that actually before going live.
	I've never been the one to like, you know, do the public, oh, someone passed away, you know, rest in peace.
	If I know the person personally, I DM family or whatever.
	But it was apropos just because Joel Osborne, his daughter is the one who had that infamous soundbite.
	Hunter likes effing and crack, obviously.
	It says 808 Scotty.
	And the Remanded says, we've reached our filing benchmark for our lawsuit.
	Should be filed in one to three weeks' time.
	We still need funding to see it in to court.
	I hope to speak on election integrity in Canada at We Unify.
	The Remanded, I haven't forgotten.
	We're going to talk about this on my show, but when the news doesn't get in the way, I say this whenever I plan a guest, I was like, dude, if something breaks in the news and we don't talk about it, you're going to be exposed to a very angry chat who's going to say, this is all nice, but holy crap, did Pam Bondi pull a 180 and write the ship?
	Or is it smoke and mirrors, as some people think, and just a little raw meat to placate the crowd and nothing's going to happen?
	We'll see.
	But for now, I was on with Benny Johnson this morning.
	The breaking news of the day.
	I love it.
	I get a text, look, deciding what to do with the family.
	It's, you know, it's not spring break.
	It's summer break.
	Got to entertain at least three to five kids, depending on the day.
	And we were about to decide to go to the beach and I get the message like, hey, Viva, can you pop on to discuss the breaking news?
	To which I say, what breaking news of which you speak, Team Benny Johnson?
	And they say, you didn't see this tweet from Pan Bondi?
	To which I reply, no, I did not see the tweet.
	I don't know why I'm speaking like a pirate today.
	This is the latest breaking news of the day as it relates to the Epstein file.
	The story that just won't go away because A, other people keep talking about it because they're interested in it.
	And B, the administration keeps talking about it ostensibly because they want people to stop talking about it, which is the exact opposite way you get people to stop talking about something you want them to stop talking about by telling them to stop talking about it.
	Serenity now.
	Attorney General Pam Bondi at AG Pam Bondi writes, statement from DAG, that is Attorney General Todd Blanche.
	What does the D stand for?
	Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who last week put out a tweet, which I found curious, to the effect that everybody signed off on that magic midnight leaked Axios memo that nobody signed off on.
	Todd Blanche, statement from Todd Blanche, listen to this.
	It's good.
	I'm not needling them today.
	I'm saying this is one of those cases of better late than never because it's not too late yet.
	The Department of Justice does not shy away.
	Do I do my British voice here?
	No, Todd Blanche isn't British.
	This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths nor the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.
	The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6th remains as accurate today as when it was written.
	But it's coming, people.
	Namely, listen to this.
	And it's very, very important to read things critically with the eye of an attorney.
	It's not for nothing.
	The statement remains as accurate today as it was when it was written.
	That is like saying it's true today.
	However, the reason for which I'm reminding you of that is because it requires clarification.
	And here's the clarification.
	It remains as true today as it was when it was written, namely that in a recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
	I've highlighted the important words there, and I put out a tweet in response to this saying, these are the important words, people, namely in a thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI.
	This was what I've been saying since day one.
	How the hell can anyone rely on those files that had hitherto been maintained by a treasonous conspiracy of an administration under Obama?
	To a lesser degree, because this sort of broke afterwards, but it predates Obama.
	Wait a minute, does it predate Obama?
	Yes, it does predate Obama, a little bit.
	How can anyone rely on the review of that file that was maintained by that criminal FBI?
	And I'm talking about the Biden administration and the Obama administration.
	Now they're saying it.
	Well, when we told you that Epstein killed himself, that there was no blackmail material and no client list, it was because we had reviewed the file maintained by the prior criminal DOJ FBI.
	And I'm not saying that they were involved with criminal investigations.
	I say that they were involved in criminality.
	So what they're telling you right now is what we said when we said it was true, because based on the review of the deficient file that we had, we saw no evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
	You'll remember what I said.
	How the hell can you rely on that file?
	Now we've had Trump finally come out after a little bit of pushback, which I think did have a little bit of impact.
	Maybe I think too much of myself, of the, I'll say, dissident voices, the nagging voices who would say, we're not letting you forget about this just yet.
	And no, we're not ready to move on.
	And by the way, this is a rollout that's going to cause unwarranted, unnecessary, and Distracting problems.
	They're saying exactly what I had been saying from the beginning.
	That file was bogus.
	That file was corrupt.
	That file was altered.
	I think more evidence was deleted than manufactured.
	They're saying it now.
	All right, everybody.
	When we said there was suicide, no list, no blackmail, it's because we were reviewing the file that James Comey and Brennan and whoever the hell the other one guy was gave to us.
	Okay.
	Now, President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence.
	If Jhislaine Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.
	Fine.
	And by the way, I could hear everybody out there saying, why the hell wasn't Pam Bonte doing this on day one?
	This isn't a time when I will abide by Scott Adams.
	You can always say, you can say, why didn't you do it on day one?
	You can't say why you didn't do it before day one.
	We're six months in.
	We haven't passed any critical deadline that makes something uncorrectable, any errors.
	So fine, it could have been done earlier.
	It's going to be good enough if it's going to get done now because the word on the street is that Maxwell is ready to talk.
	Therefore, at the direction of the Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department.
	I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days.
	Until now, no administration on behalf of the department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government.
	That changes now.
	I'm not going to take a victory lap, but I am going to tell everybody out there who said, if you keep pushing this Epstein stuff and don't shut up, you are the actual protector of pedos to politely go suck a lemon.
	If you think that any of, maybe this all happens if everyone had just shut up and said, yep, we believe that memo, cut and dry, thank you, moving on.
	Maybe this would have happened nonetheless.
	We will never know what might have happened had what not occurred, not occurred.
	But I'm a little skeptical that we would have gotten here if people had just shut their mouths like they were being implored and browbeaten into doing.
	So they're going to sit down.
	Apparently, apparently, Jelaine Max, I don't know how to pronounce her name because I'm not pronouncing it to be deliberately crude or crass.
	I don't know if it's Ghislaine, Jelaine, Ghelane.
	Maxwell is now prepared to talk allegedly.
	Let me bring this one up here.
	Trump administration seeks Jelaine Maxwell meeting in Epstein investigation.
	If you think this happens without the loud pushback from loyal Trump supporters, people who want to see Trump succeed and not see Trump's presidency get mired down in unnecessary controversy.
	If you think that happens without those voices, we'll never know, but I'll kindly say it happened and those voices happened so you can decide causation or correlation.
	President Trump directs the release of all credible evidence as Justice Department pursues uncomfortable truths.
	Department of Justice signaled a shift in approach to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
	By the way, Fox News, they're not the best.
	They're better than CNN.
	And the bottom line is whether or not I think that they are the cheerleader of the administration, that's fine.
	When they recognize that there's been a shift in approach, that's the polite way of saying there's been a shift in the approach.
	There's been a shift in the approach.
	Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche revealing he's reached out to Ghelain and gauge her willingness to cooperate.
	Blanche confirmed Tuesday that under the direction of the Attorney General Bondi, they're now open to hearing what Maxwell might have to say regarding uncharged individuals who may have participated in Epstein's criminal enterprise.
	We've got that.
	We read that letter.
	The House Oversight Committee also took action in this case Tuesday by voting to subpoena Maxwell, requiring her to appear for deposition.
	Look at the sex trafficking lovebirds.
	A House Oversight Committee source told Fox News the committee will move to quickly subpoena Maxwell.
	She's in federal prison.
	The committee will coordinate with the DOJ and the Bureau of Prisons to schedule her deposition, they said.
	In the statement, okay, we got that.
	We saw that part of the thing.
	Sources told Fox News that Bongino, who signed off on the memo, complained about it in private following backlash.
	Bongino never signed off on the memo.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Neither did Bondi.
	Neither did Patel.
	Neither did Todd Blanche.
	You know why I suspect Bongino didn't sign off on that memo?
	Because he would never have signed off on that memo.
	Same thing for Patel.
	You know why Bondi did not sign off on that memo?
	Because she couldn't sign off on that memo because that memo contradicted statements that came out of Bondi's mouth for the last six months.
	Five months.
	Nobody signed off on that memo.
	The new outreach to Maxwell marks the first time, according to Blanche, that any administration had approached her legal team with an inquiry into potential cooperation.
	That changes now.
	Go down here.
	Okay, we got this.
	We got that she was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein traffic teen girls.
	She was sentenced to 20 years, has appealed her case to the Supreme Court.
	According to prosecutors and survivors' testimony, Maxwell helped recruit and groom underage girls, arrange traveling, travel and housing, as well as facilitate abuse at Epstein's owned properties.
	It doesn't say only by Epstein.
	Victims describe Maxwell as a trusted adult figure who manipulated course, yada, yada, yada.
	DOJ and FBI declined to comment.
	That's the news.
	And the question is going to be now, I say it not to be glib, not to be funny, because, and not even every fear hides a wish.
	There's no wish here.
	This is an outright fear.
	God forbid, if something happens to Ghelaine Maxwell and Maxwell gets Epstein, whatever happened to Epstein, what do you possibly think is going to happen?
	Not in terms of consequences of action, but consequences of trust.
	If Maxwell gets Epstein, you think, forget the right and Trump supporters never abandoning the story.
	This is going to confirm every single conspiracy theory.
	And I say the unhinged maniacal conspiracy theories of the left that Trump is on the list.
	He's doing it to protect himself.
	They better take good care of Ghelane Maxwell.
	And that means no overworked security guards, no, no malfunctioning cameras.
	She's not suicidal.
	You better protect Ghelaine Maxwell.
	And when she gets out, people are going to say we can't trust a word out of her mouth.
	She's got ties to Mossad because her father was connected to Mossad.
	We'll see when we get there.
	I mean, you can't complain when you're making progress after having gotten some things that you have been clamoring for for the last little while.
	The bottom line, this is a damn good step in the damn right direction.
	If Ghelane Maxwell gets Epstein, holy sweet, merciful hell, it will be Bedlam.
	And we'll see what they have to say.
	All right, now, before we bring our guest in, I want to bring up one other thing here just so we can.
	It's sort of on point here in terms of conspiracy theories and whatnot.
	People, we've got to take a blast to the, what is it?
	We've got to go do a flashback in honor of some of the stupidities that's prevalent on the internet today.
	Look at this.
	I mean, some of you are going to know where this is going or have already seen this video.
	This is Malcolm Dance, people.
	Ukraine's unique territory.
	Is that going down?
	No.
	But I've never seen a fast mover.
	Where'd it go?
	Yeah, I heard one boom.
	Are we in an air raid?
	Yes.
	Yeah, we are.
	We had the air raids.
	There's another coming.
	Wait, there'll be three.
	Stand by.
	Stand by.
	There'll be three, because everything happens in threes.
	We're getting hit.
	a 500 pound bomb.
	It's coming from the east, southeast.
	So those are Calibur Annie ship missiles.
	They're striking to the west.
	Striking to the west.
	This is what fortune tellers of military look like.
	That's Malcolm Nance.
	I'm going to come back to that actually afterwards.
	There's a longer story to that.
	And we'll do that part on the VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com.
	It's going to be the tee so that people who are afraid of coming by because of the paywall can come by today to appreciate that story.
	One last one before we head over, by the way, 1775 Coffee is the other sponsor of today's show.
	People, let's be honest, most coffee gives you a quick hit, then leaves you jittery, foggy, reaching for another cup.
	And not to mention the bitter aftertaste of that burnt crap that comes out of the most prominent coffee shops in America.
	I'm not naming them.
	But what if your coffee actually did something to your health?
	Rejuvenate coffee is a science-backed coffee, real Arabica beans infused with C-A-A-K-G, a compound shown to support cellular energy, metabolism, and even healthy aging.
	It's not a gimmick.
	It's not a trend.
	It's actual stuff.
	It's built for people who take their health seriously, who want to show up with focus and strength every day.
	If you care about how you feel now and how you'll feel in 10 years from now, this is your coffee.
	Go over to 1775coffee.com forward slash viva.
	Order Rejuvenate Coffee Today.
	Feel your body.
	Protect your future.
	Rejuvenate.
	It's delicious.
	It's a Rumble partner.
	They value the Rumble base.
	They value free speech.
	And it's freaking delicious coffee that I drink every day.
	Here we go.
	It's empty.
	It's empty, but I kept it because it still smells good.
	All right, here we go.
	We're talking to a doctor.
	I've got many, many questions.
	Dr. Joel Gator.
	I know the origins of his name.
	We're going to get into the fight that I was having with Dr. Neil Skoodstone, who I think is a shameless propagandist.
	Dr. Gator, are you ready to come in?
	Here we go, whether he's ready or not.
	Here he comes.
	Dr. Gator, sir, how goes the battle?
	It's great.
	Well, thank you for having me on.
	And thanks for chatting.
	Thanks for waiting that extra half an hour so I can get back from the dentist.
	I feel like I have the cleanest teeth for anyone that's ever been on your show, you know, straight out of still the gum pain.
	If I didn't cover the Epstein stuff, the breaking news, everyone's going to be like, what about Epstein?
	What about Epstein?
	But we're going to, Doctor, I'm going to ask you, you're going to get questions from a neurotic hypochondriac.
	My first question is, well, you came back from the dentist.
	What type of doctor are you?
	I'm a pediatrician.
	So I do integrative medicine, but general pediatrics in Los Angeles.
	And now I understand you're born in Toronto.
	I am born in Toronto.
	You grew up there?
	You grew up in Toronto.
	When did you leave?
	I left for med school.
	So I went, well, I did York University for undergrad.
	Then I went to Queens for a master's in epidemiology.
	And then I went to Philadelphia for med school.
	So about like 15 years ago now.
	Pediatrician.
	So that is for children, which is going to be particularly relevant given the discussion of the jabs, the studies, the vaccine, all this stuff.
	Receding gumline, I'll ask you that.
	I think I've got a receding gumline.
	I'm told on the one hand, it's not from brushing too hard.
	On the other hand, I'm told it's from brushing too hard.
	I mean, they tell me that too a little bit.
	They say that just from nervousness and biting your teeth and clenching your teeth can make that receding.
	I don't know.
	Who knows?
	I'm not nervous.
	I'm cool as a cucumber.
	I'm totally sure everybody knows that.
	All right, Dr. Gator.
	So we came to meet because of this fight that I was having with Dr. Neil Stone, but I think people should appreciate your evolution during COVID.
	I understand you went through a rather sharp one because you, like many other doctors who were asking reasonable questions, not even taking extreme beliefs, were experiencing a blowback that I think you found surprising.
	Tell the chat what your experience was during COVID.
	Yeah, well, I mean, I think even before COVID, you know, for me, I guess going back, so I did all the regular medical training, trained at a very Western program, Children's Hospital Los Angeles.
	So really never thought that much about integrated medicine, you know, maybe 20 years ago, but met my wife at that point and she was very holistic-minded.
	So that kind of opened up my eyes to another world.
	And then practicing in that world for almost a decade or, you know, maybe about seven years at that point, I would talk about vaccines a lot in the office, but never really that often outside of the office because it was just so controversial and so censored.
	And I just didn't want to get in that topic without really knowing all the facts, all the details, really diving into it.
	And I just was so censored that it was hard to do.
	And during COVID, I just got more and more frustrated and just hearing so many things that didn't make any sense, things that changed, things that obviously weren't true.
	And that really pushed me over the edge to write a book about vaccines and really dive into the research as much as I possibly could.
	And so that was really my big evolution.
	I mean, certainly I was more open to some of the other discussion, but I think until you actually dive into it and look at the research and the data, you're not really aware of all the information that I really think every doctor should be aware of.
	I was listening to, I will not remember her name, but it's Dissolving Disillusions.
	She was on with Rogan.
	I forget what her name is.
	Suzanne Humphreys.
	Yes.
	Okay, fine.
	And I don't think they ever got into the tetanus vaccine because I remember she said something that rang true with me.
	Everybody's got a vaccine that they trust.
	And when I cut my finger, metal detecting, I was digging up some metal and it was a freaking cap and cut my finger.
	I went right away and got my tetanus shot, made a video about it.
	This was like seven or eight years ago.
	Um, what I mean, I didn't fully appreciate some of the arguments as to why tetanus is not necessarily something that you need to get a shot for.
	But as you start diving and delving into the vaccine history, what were some of the most shocking things that you, or some of the most eye-opening discoveries that you came across?
	Yeah, well, I mean, I guess just starting with tetanus, since you brought it up, I think it's really interesting when you dive into the research to look at risks versus benefits and what we know versus what we don't know.
	Some of the shocking things really going back to how the research was done, what research we actually have, the lack of research on long-term safety.
	So there are many areas that are really shocking.
	But even, you know, just simply with tetanus, I mean, you hear like, oh, you get a cut, you need to get a tetanus shot.
	And the reality is that's not really true.
	I mean, we all hear about rusty nails and people think, oh, you get a rusty nail, that's where you're going to get tetanus.
	And somebody smear campaigned rusty nails at some point because it has nothing to do with rust at all for getting tetanus.
	It's really just that you can get tetanus from, usually you get it being outdoors, usually from feces.
	So more often on farms is where you'll see it and you can possibly get it.
	And so rusty nails tend to be, or rusty metal tends to be more outside in farms just because there's more metal, more tools, those kinds of things.
	So you have a chance to get it, but it really doesn't have anything to do with rust.
	It's really just to do with the fact that you get a deep cut that is anaerobic.
	So don't get oxygen to it.
	You don't clean it properly.
	It's in an area where there is tetanus and then you get unlucky and you get symptoms from it.
	So, which is very rare.
	I mean, you don't hear the statistics, but it's just a few cases every year.
	It's not very many.
	I've heard of as many people getting tetanus as getting rabies.
	That is zero in my entire life.
	And I'm a hypochondriacal neurotic individual.
	When I cut my finger and everyone's like, I said, I'm going to go get a tetanus shot.
	I was like, why'd you step on a nail?
	And it's like, haha, dummies, I know more than you.
	It's about shit in the soil, not about rusty nails.
	But then, I mean, I knew nothing.
	I knew nothing.
	I didn't think there was any risk.
	I didn't think there was any risk to any vaccines in the sense I always just thought either they work or they don't, but not that they actually cause harm, which I have since learned a lot about in the last four years.
	So what was the ultimate realization of your deep diving into the history of vaccines?
	I think my overall big realization is that I don't think we have a great understanding of the risks from vaccines.
	So it makes it really hard to make a true informed decision.
	You have to make decisions based on what we know, but I really don't think we have a great understanding of how vaccines might affect us in the long term.
	And I think that's a really important piece of the puzzle when trying to make decisions, because I do think we have a reasonable understanding of the diseases from many years ago.
	We understand how they affected us, how many people died.
	We understand how many people get them now, how many people die and get really sick.
	We have a pretty good understanding of short-term side effects from vaccines.
	But I think the most important piece of the puzzle really is those long-term complications and the risks from the vaccines, because you have to make a decision.
	Things have risk and you have to weigh the pros and the cons for yourself.
	You don't have a crystal ball.
	Like you said, if you get a cut and you're outside, it's possible you get tetanus, right?
	That's a possibility.
	You could get really sick from tetanus, but what is the actual risk of that happening?
	You need to understand.
	And then you have to balance that with what the risk is from the vaccine to make a decision for you.
	Because if you rubbed yourself in tetanus, it's probably a good idea to get a tetanus shot, right?
	But if you just get a small cut when you're walking down the street, you probably don't need a tetanus shot for that.
	And then you're exposing yourself to risks from the vaccine, which you may not really need.
	And so why are you exposing yourself to risks when you don't need to?
	And you're asking very reasonable questions.
	What was the blowback you got from the book when you published it?
	I presume you were in California when you published it?
	Yeah, I was in California.
	I mean, it's only been out for a couple of months, but so far, not a lot of blowback, which is good.
	I think people are much more open to it now.
	I mean, certainly more blowback before when I'm just talking about vaccines.
	But I still don't, I don't tell people what to do.
	And I think that keeps it in a more balanced place where I don't get as much of the blowback because I don't feel like I should be telling people what to do.
	I don't think people should be forced to do vaccines.
	I think that's wrong.
	But I, in my office, I have patients that do the regular schedule, some that do a slow schedule, some that choose not to do it.
	And I feel like that's our job.
	And so online and in the book, I don't tell people what to do.
	And I think that does mitigate a little bit of that risk.
	I just try to provide information.
	And if you feel like that information gives you concern around vaccines, that's the information.
	It's not me.
	I'm just trying to provide the data as best as I see it and try to take you through the evolution and what I'm finding and what I'm researching.
	Because the reality is we just don't get taught any of this in med school.
	You're a practicing pediatrician during COVID, right?
	Correct.
	And you're practicing pediatrician in Los Angeles during COVID?
	Yes.
	The question is, I mean, I guess I got a bunch of questions about this and feel free to not answer if they're going to be too intrusive.
	At what point did you start questioning what the hell was going on as a doctor?
	Pretty early on.
	I think at the beginning, it's obviously hard to know because things were so new, but the information that we were getting just didn't make a lot of common sense based on anything we've ever known about disease for any of the other infections, especially respiratory infections that we were taking care of.
	And the claims that were coming out just didn't make a lot of sense because there were claims that couldn't possibly be true.
	Like, oh, it's safe.
	Well, we don't know if it's safe.
	How do you know if it's safe if it's new?
	You can't say that.
	And that was one of the big aha moments to really open up my eyes to propaganda that we were getting around medicine, around vaccines.
	It just doesn't make sense to say something is safe and effective.
	Like you can say, well, based on the research and data that we have so far, it seems to be safe.
	It seems like the short-term safety profile is pretty good.
	It seems like here's the benefits that we're seeing, but we don't know if you're going to go a third arm in five years.
	So we can't say that, but the statements were so definitive.
	It was just pushing people to do it.
	Natural immunity didn't count, which made no sense in any other vaccine.
	And I have, I just saw what I saw, right?
	I mean, you have to also go with the anecdotes when it's happening.
	And it didn't seem like it was a big problem for my patients.
	Like things like RSV and flu in general in the winter seem much more concerning to some patients than COVID ever did.
	I never really had patients going to the hospital.
	It didn't seem like it was a big deal for the kids that were getting it.
	I mean, I had it, my family had it, it was not a big deal.
	Obviously, for some people, it is, but just watching with my own two eyes, I was like, what, what is going on?
	Like, why are we pushing kids to get this if it just doesn't seem like we're seeing a lot of serious disease?
	And certainly, why are we forcing people to get like it should be available if you want to do it?
	I think that's okay, but I think it shouldn't be forced in any way.
	And it seemed like it was getting more and more forced without the data to really back that up.
	Joel, by the way, just check your mic because when you tapped, when you moved it, I didn't hear anything.
	Oh, just to make sure you're on the good mic.
	You hear me now?
	No, no, I hear you.
	I hear you all the time.
	Just make sure that you're on your good mic versus your computer mic.
	Because when you moved it, I didn't hear a thump.
	It did switch.
	There you go.
	There we go.
	Okay.
	Now, see, let me let me make sure.
	Okay, we're going to go on.
	Now, okay, so you start asking questions.
	When they say it's safe and effective, this was the issue.
	We've got three kids and we had a pediatrician say, yeah, get them, get them the shot.
	And my wife is a neuroscientist, follows your work closely.
	She's like, how do you know it's safe?
	He's like, it's safe.
	The literature shows it's safe.
	And then that's when we had serious questions.
	But were you, did you ask those questions right from the beginning when it came to administering this when the authorization came out that you could give it to young people who are asking for it?
	Definitely.
	I mean, I think at that point already in my career, I was starting to question everything about vaccines.
	So it was certainly something that popped into my mind.
	I think it's hard.
	And the appropriate thing when you discuss with patients is what you do know, right?
	I think it's just about being honest.
	You don't know what you don't know.
	And if there's a new vaccine and it's just came out and you have a pandemic, you're not going to know 10 years safety data.
	You have to go based on some faith if you're going to choose to do it or not.
	And that's up to each person to decide what their risk tolerance is.
	You may very well be open to the risk that you just don't know that it might cause myocarditis or whatever you find out later.
	And that's fine.
	But not everybody is.
	But if you're just telling people, well, it's safe.
	It's proven to be safe.
	We have great data.
	We have great long-term safety data.
	That's just not really truthful.
	And I think honesty is what's really important.
	And that's not the message we're getting out of medicine.
	It's like, let's do everything we can to make sure that people get vaccinated, as opposed to let's do everything we can to give people the best information so that they can make a choice that's right for them.
	Those are two very different medical models.
	And it seems like we've moved very far away from providing information and very much towards kind of pushing an agenda or what we feel or like what some doctors feel or most doctors feel is the best thing for people, which is vaccines as a religion.
	And that, to me, is just really going to create a very combustible situation.
	Like we have seen it's going to continue to get worse where people are going to increase their hesitancy.
	Were doctors actually getting kickbacks from Pfizer Moderna to administer the jab to anybody, but especially kids?
	I mean, I saw some of that around.
	I don't think that was a major driving factor for most people.
	Most doctors were not.
	I mean, you certainly see these things kind of floating around the internet.
	These are big bonus programs and things like that.
	Most doctors are not seeing bonuses from vaccines, or even if they are, it's very, very minimal and it's part of many things that are offered.
	I think the bonuses come into play a little bit more at the large scale corporate level.
	Like if there is some sort of small bonus for, I don't know, Kaiser, let's say, like of, you know, if you're giving hundreds of thousands or millions of kids, that could add up and make a big difference at the business level.
	I don't think most doctors are giving a vaccine or not based on bonuses and most don't get bonuses.
	So because those are two different statements, like most are not giving it because they're getting bonuses or incentives, but it is in fact correct as a matter of fact that some, we don't need to quantify it.
	Some doctors would get incentives, financial incentives, depending on meeting certain thresholds, because I had heard it and I had been told off.
	That is definitely correct.
	There are all sorts of different incentive programs that different insurances might provide.
	Most don't, and most of the time you don't see that, but there certainly are programs.
	And it's usually in the mix of many things, like keeping their weight down, diabetes education.
	But vaccines are one of those.
	During COVID, there was certainly incentives for some doctors to provide.
	I mean, I've seen it.
	I've seen it around.
	So I know it was the case, but that's not the majority.
	That's a small minority.
	Most doctors never see bonuses for vaccines, or if they do, it's really, really, really small.
	Okay.
	And people will take that answer with not with a grain of salt.
	I mean, it's just a question of it happens.
	The question is the prevalence.
	When myocarditis, you mentioned it before I forget it.
	We were told, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not a doctor.
	I'm just a hypochondriacal lunatic that mild myocarditis, what do they call it?
	It was a sub-clinical myocarditis for some, but others who get hospitalized with mild myocarditis and full recovery in kids.
	I have also been told by people who I trust more that there is no such thing as mild myocarditis.
	Myocarditis in a kid, is it always a very serious thing?
	And does it necessarily leave some level of permanent scarring or permanent damage?
	Well, I think mild is kind of relative to what you think mild means, right?
	I think, no, myocarditis is mild.
	I mean, why would you want inflammation in your heart, right?
	So that's not a good thing.
	There are different levels of how severe that might be.
	There's, you know, death, that's pretty severe.
	Putting in the hospital in the ICU, that's, you know, a little less severe, but still very severe versus mild, I guess, if you're looking at a threshold, like something that isn't necessarily going to leave you obviously permanently damaged or have any serious consequences in the short term that you can tell.
	It's very debatable what mild means because the heart doesn't recover like other organs do.
	And so even some mild myocarditis could have some long-term effects for you.
	Depends on where in the heart, how much inflammation.
	So I think any myocarditis from disease or from a vaccine is bad, but there's obviously different levels of how bad that might be for you.
	And so I think people use the word mild like, oh, it's just fine.
	It's just mild myocarditis.
	It's going to get better.
	And I think that's an overstatement of the issue, which is you probably don't want kids to have myocarditis unless unless they, you know, like just because.
	If they get a mild myocarditis from an infection, there's little you can do to prevent that unless the vaccine, the jab actually prevents the infection.
	And then the argument goes there.
	But I try not to get over my skis too much.
	And I'm always very familiar with Dunning Krueger.
	But when people are trying to tell me that myocarditis is mild and mild cases where people have presented to the hospital, I lose faith in humanity and think that these are actually the biggest demons on earth trying to perpetuate the most outlandish lies on earth that it's no big deal.
	Shut up and take the jab.
	I mean, as a doctor, are you not flipping out when you hear the highest ups in the medical profession talking about mild myocarditis for young people who have been administered, who've gone to hospital for it?
	Well, I think it goes along with just about everything with vaccines, which is trying to minimize any harms and try to maximize or embellish the potential benefits.
	And I think it just goes along with that.
	I think it's a minimizing of the potential harms for kids and calling it mild.
	Oh, it's just mild myocarditis, which is kind of true.
	I mean, it's on the milder end of myocarditis.
	It's not killing them necessarily right away, but that doesn't make it good or okay.
	And we should be, instead of saying, well, it's just mild, it's like, okay, well, how do we make sure that kids are not getting myocarditis?
	Why are they getting myocarditis?
	Is there a way we could, if we are going to do vaccines, like what ingredients?
	What's going on?
	Why is it happening?
	Can we minimize it?
	You don't want this ever.
	No vaccine's probably going to be perfect and never have side effects.
	But when you minimize it and say, oh, it's just a little mild myocarditis, then you don't get to the heart of the issue, which is it's causing myocarditis and why.
	And also you hear the same, oh, well, you know, you can get more myocarditis from the disease.
	Okay, maybe that's true.
	Maybe that's not.
	I don't know.
	That doesn't negate the fact that you could get myocarditis from the vaccine.
	And it doesn't make, it doesn't mean it's the same thing, the same, I don't know.
	Like there's a lot to unpack there.
	And I don't like when you minimize vaccine side effects, which is what is done always because the push for medicine is just get vaccines.
	They're good.
	There's a net positive.
	They're good for everybody.
	And we should just all do more and more vaccines.
	And I don't know.
	I just don't think that's the right attitude we should be having.
	That's not informed consent to me.
	I'm just, this is not a fear hiding a wish either.
	I'm fearful of what the blowback because you're in LA and you're sort of in the eye of the storm, but the ideological storm, but I think people are in fact waking up.
	And I'll ask you these questions.
	I've asked other doctors the same questions, but there were studies being reported that your life expectancy after a case of clinical myocarditis was five to 10 years.
	People were pushing that online.
	I'm skeptical as to whether or not that's even definitively proven, but if you get a very serious, I mean, any truth to that whatsoever to the extent that you can understand those studies better than I can?
	In terms of life reduction from myocarditis?
	Life reduction from myocarditis, yes.
	From a clinical case of myocarditis.
	From severe, yeah, I mean, for sure.
	I mean, you certainly, if you have severe inflammation of your heart, it could decrease your life expectancy.
	I mean, severe, you know, it could lead to heart attack.
	It could lead to some sort of change in electric pulses in your heart.
	And it could lead to something.
	Like it certainly could.
	So yes, I think there's some truth to that.
	Again, it goes back to, well, is that more of a risk than from the actual disease?
	How much of a risk?
	How often is it happening?
	It's so hard with COVID.
	I think what's so frustrating with COVID is you have two worlds of information.
	Like the vaccine is the best thing ever and it saved millions of people and it saved trillions of dollars.
	And then you have the other world of information that's like, it's the worst vaccine ever and it's causing all this harm.
	It's causing all this death.
	And you rarely ever see people actually get in a room and discuss it and debate that information and say like, well, okay, here's why I'm saying this.
	What are you showing?
	Why are you saying this?
	Why are we saying that?
	It's like people just talk over each other and the pro vaccine camps like, look, it decreases your hospitalization risk.
	And the other people are like, yeah, but it seems like it's killing more people than it's actually helping.
	Like those two things need to be discussed so you can make a decision because just because it does have some benefit potentially doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks that warrant you to discuss that.
	I mean, both things could be true.
	And it doesn't sound, and you never hear these things discussed together.
	It's like really very disparate information on COVID and most vaccines, but especially with COVID right now, where you have, I mean, the ultimate is like, you know, Secretary Kennedy comes out and it's like, all right, we're going to take it off the schedule.
	And then a couple of days later, they're like, no, no, no, no, no, we shouldn't do that.
	And then a few days later, he says more stuff.
	And then the American Academy of Pediatrics sues him for what he's doing.
	And you're like, did you guys ever get in a room and talk?
	Like, did the American Academy of Pediatrics ever, and I don't know, maybe they did, but did they ever call up Kennedy and be like, look, we should get in a room and discuss what you're, what you're deciding and why we don't agree before we sue you?
	Like, it's crazy to me.
	Yeah.
	Well, my problem, I'm thoroughly on the camp of everybody who's saying the vaccine is the greatest thing ever are confirmed historical liars.
	And so I can thus deduce that they're probably lying about this as well.
	And the excess mortality typically should not be higher after the pandemic than during.
	But what do I know?
	I'm just a former lawyer.
	Have you noticed in your practice any increased ailments affecting the kids that you have been treating?
	I would say my practice is quite unique just because it's a very self-selecting group of patients.
	I've mostly been taking care, taking on new babies, and mostly people are health conscious if they're coming to the office.
	So they're not necessarily, you know, they're not necessarily the average population.
	So I don't know that I've noticed any major difference.
	If anything, over my career, I've seen people getting healthier and healthier just based on the people that are coming to me as opposed to when I worked in the hospital.
	But certainly in the population, we're seeing kids getting less and less healthy overall.
	So there's no question that's happening.
	Well, when you say your clientele is health conscious, does that mean they're more prone to fewer jabs or vaccines or subscribing to everything on the schedule?
	Oh, my patients are definitely less prone to doing vaccines than would be the average population.
	Not everybody, not everybody.
	Some do all the vaccines, but I would say a good chunk of my patients will do at least a slow schedule.
	Some don't do any, but a lot of people are more on the conscious side of going slow and at least just doing one at a time or something along those lines.
	And again, I don't force them to do anything.
	Not everybody does that, but certainly they do less than average because most offices don't even take patients that don't vaccinate on the regular schedule.
	They just kick you out.
	So yeah, I would be on the lower end.
	I just don't believe in that.
	I believe in taking care of everybody.
	It doesn't matter if they choose to vaccinate or not.
	I just don't think I should replace my opinion with theirs.
	Like, if you choose not to vaccinate, that's your choice.
	Just like a Jehovah's Witness, if they choose not to get blood, that's their choice.
	If you choose not to get your cancer medication and chemotherapy, that's your choice.
	Like, I don't think vaccines are different.
	So, it doesn't matter in my mind what my opinion is.
	I give my opinion, but I don't think it should replace your choice for your family.
	Fantastic.
	By the way, we got rated.
	I don't know if you know how Rumble works.
	We got rated by the quartering.
	So I welcome everyone from the quartering who's coming to listen to this.
	And I think they're going to appreciate your my audience or the people who tend to watch me are definitely ideologically aligned on this.
	So they'll probably appreciate your position as a doctor because the, yeah, I knew doctors who would not drink.
	They would not take you.
	They will not look at you if you're not fully jabbed up, fully vaxxed up to the max.
	Let's get into what caused us to meet each other.
	Do you know who Dr. Neil Stone is?
	I do.
	I've seen his posts on.
	Okay.
	You never met him in person?
	No, I've never met him.
	I've accused him of being a paid shill for Pfizer.
	Okay.
	I don't want to leave the question or leave the witness.
	He's a total jackass.
	Is he a jackass?
	Is he a propagandist to you or do you, does he actually, is he a legit doctor that has a legit practice that just comes off badly on Twitter?
	I don't know him, so I have no idea.
	I presume he's a legitimate doctor.
	I presume people don't necessarily all love his opinion on everything.
	But I would say, at least from what I've seen, and I mean, I've seen some of his posts, I think he does amplify the kind of mainstream message of CDC.
	I don't know if you want, you know, if you, if people on the other side might call it propaganda, but that's kind of the mainstream opinion.
	He's very, I guess, clinical and very, you know, dogmatic in his opinion on vaccines.
	And so he just follows kind of the mainstream narrative, which I think a lot of people do.
	He thrives off being a shit poster on Twitter.
	I can't stand it.
	But set that aside, substantive debate that we had last week.
	Well, let's see, without getting into details of your practice, I presume that you're noticing the same trend of autism diagnoses in your practice?
	Or does your practice actually tend to reflect lower levels of autism than other doctors or other pediatricians?
	I mean, my practice for sure has lower autism than other practices based on the statistics.
	I don't know.
	I'm obviously not there, but in California, the rate of autism in boys is like one in 12.5 now, which is insane, one in 31 overall.
	And I don't know the specific statistics in my practice because I don't get that kind of research, but it's probably one in 100.
	I have a few patients with autism, not many.
	And most of them came to the practice.
	They didn't start with me.
	So they came because of integrative.
	So maybe just a couple of patients overall have autism.
	So it's much lower than if you could help me break that down because I have family member like immediate within the within my orbit of nieces and nephews, best friends, multiple.
	And it's not a question of better diagnoses because these are like objective cognitive differences.
	I'm not going to qualify it compared to I never knew one Autistic Kid growing up, period.
	And it's not because there was lack of diagnosis.
	Like there were some weird kids, but not what I would say is clearly clinically, intellectually, developmentally different.
	Right.
	So what you're getting at there is kind of the media narrative of, oh, it's just we're better at diagnosing it, which is why it's so much higher.
	So if you go back, like what you were saying, just even a few decades ago, it was like one in 10,000, then one in 250, one in 150.
	Now, you know, one in 31, one in 36 a couple years ago.
	So it's much, much, much higher.
	And at least in my opinion, there's no question that it's happening more.
	It's a ridiculous BS narrative that we're better at diagnosing.
	Yeah, we are better at diagnosing.
	There's no question.
	That's a small part of it.
	There are certainly some people that would get the diagnosis now that never got it before, maybe got it in adulthood because they just, we didn't talk about it as much.
	There wasn't social media.
	We didn't screen it as much.
	So yeah, there's a part of it that's that for sure.
	But the vast majority of it is just happening more.
	Anyone that works in education works with like they're just seeing it way, way, way more.
	And it's not just seeing it more, it's severe that we're seeing a lot more, like a lot more severe cases of autism than ever before.
	So maybe some of that diagnosis part is around the mild, the mild forms.
	People that are educated, intelligent, doing well, can kind of function in their life totally, but maybe are a little, have some of those symptoms are on the more mild end.
	But the severe autism, you didn't miss that.
	I mean, it might have been misclassified or classified as something else before, but mostly it's just happening more.
	So I think that's really important to understand.
	I think anything outside of that is ridiculous.
	It just doesn't make any sense to say it.
	You see kids everywhere with autism.
	And nobody that I know can remember almost any autism when they were young.
	And there certainly wasn't the cases like there is today.
	It's just crazy.
	So let me bring this up.
	This will go back to, let me see which one it is.
	I deleted my previous post.
	Okay, here.
	I'm using two screens now.
	So this is how it started last week with a doctor.
	Someone posted a link to an NBC, ABC article that's basically said, you know, compared vaccination with aluminum adsorption.
	And you'll explain what that means because it's not the same thing as absorption, which I, despite the typo, I couldn't get it to auto-correct that.
	The study said that there's no correlation between autism and aluminum adsorption.
	The NBC article said the study did not include unvaccinated children.
	Somebody reposts that.
	And then Dr. Neil Stone says in a tweet, it covered vaccinated children next, moving on.
	And then I said, did you not read the article?
	And then he said, no, no.
	And people pointed out, no, no, Viva, it included some vaccinated children.
	But the reason why there were so few is because there are so few unvaccinated kids in Sweden or anywhere that the amount was like 15,000 of 1.2 million.
	Then it said, and then so like, then I'm like, okay, I go look into this.
	And it's accurate with quotes around it in that it included children who had been vaccinated with aluminum adsorption adjuvants.
	But it didn't compare the study of vaccinated children to a base study of unvaccinated children, which I think makes Dr. Stone's assertion that the study is legit, bona fide, and good because it included vaccinated children even more dishonest and misleading.
	Backing it all the way up.
	Aluminum adsorption.
	Adsorption is the opposite of absorption.
	Yeah, it's more on the surface as opposed to absorbing into it.
	I think it's kind of the difference.
	Yeah.
	So they use aluminum as an adjuvant, which is to sort of cause an, if I'm doing this right, it's sort of to trigger an immunological response from the body so that the body responds to the whatever was just injected into it.
	Correct.
	The theory or some argument is that injecting aluminum in newborns, however many micrograms it is or isn't, is correlating to an increase in autism, causation, correlation, et cetera, et cetera.
	What can you speak to on that in terms of someone who can probably read the studies and understand them better than me?
	Okay, so great, great question.
	So let's go back in history a little bit, I think, and then we'll come back to aluminum and this study, because over the last few decades, there has been increasing concern about vaccines being related to all the things going on, including autism, chronic disease.
	And so there's been this back and forth.
	Mainstream medicine continues to say vaccines have nothing to do with autism.
	The research is very clear and definitive.
	It doesn't have anything to do with chronic disease.
	Vaccines are the best thing ever.
	And let's keep doing them.
	That's kind of the mainstream information right now.
	And there certainly are studies that do show that vaccines are not related to autism or vaccines are not related to chronic disease.
	But there also are studies that show other things.
	And there just becomes an increasing concern around aluminum because there's this increasing concern around metals in general that we've had over the years, going back to lead, right?
	So lead wasn't in vaccines, but we were told, oh, it's totally safe.
	It's fine.
	It's in paint.
	It's in pipes.
	And then we realized, well, maybe it's not so safe and not so good and not so great for your IQ.
	And now we basically say we shouldn't have any lead that you're ingesting.
	So similar thing with mercury, right?
	Mercury used to be in medicines and it used to be.
	Thermometers, whatever we'd break and we'd sit there and play with.
	We're all about mercury for a while.
	And then, you know, it was in some vaccines.
	And in the late 90s, early 2000s, somebody was like, hey, wait a minute.
	We have more mercury in vaccines that we're injecting into kids than we actually allow in our food.
	And so we're injecting more than we allow to eat.
	And you would be like, well, didn't anyone ever think about this or safety test it?
	And the answer is, you know, no.
	They never really thought about it until that point.
	And they did certainly do some research on it.
	They never conclusively decided that it was a problem, but they took it out anyways out of precaution.
	And so now I think the biggest concern around vaccines is the aluminum in there.
	It's not just aluminum.
	I think there's concern around vaccines in general, but aluminum being the, I think, biggest concern amongst parents.
	And so we do come to this recent study that just came out in the last couple of weeks that talked about aluminum.
	And it comes on the heels of a study two years ago by DALI, which looked at aluminum similarly and actually showed an increase in asthma for increasing aluminum in vaccines.
	So I think this is kind of a response to that and a response to Secretary Kennedy, who most likely is going to be looking at more research and they're maybe kind of hedging against the fact that there might be some concerns around aluminum come out in the next few months or years.
	So they did come out with this study.
	So overall, as an epidemiologic study goes, pretty good study.
	I mean, they use a lot of kids, right?
	1.2 million kids.
	They follow them over 20 plus years.
	So all those things are good.
	The researchers are great researchers in Denmark.
	They've done other studies.
	The question when you look at epidemiologic studies is what is their bias?
	What inputs did they use?
	What variants did they use?
	Because depending on how you shape the study, you can get very different results for what you find.
	And so unless you really know their motivation and what they're doing, it's hard to know whether what they're finding is accurate or not.
	Making definitive claims like the media did with this study was wrong.
	It's not that definitive.
	And there's certainly a lot that you can look at very easily in this study and say, maybe they did some of these things to mask some of the findings, potentially.
	I don't know.
	We don't know unless we can see the raw data.
	We don't know unless we see alternative statistical models run.
	We just don't know.
	And the classic example of that is, this has been in the news recently.
	Kennedy was talking about that study on hepatitis B and autism from early 2000s where he was like, oh, they hit it.
	And they found a thousand percent increase in autism and hepatitis B for these kids.
	And then they hid it.
	So they didn't hide it per se.
	I mean, maybe they did if that was their motivation.
	But the initial study showed a thousand percent increase.
	Then they changed the statistical modeling, included visits to the doctor.
	And so that basically made it go down to zero.
	So the point I'm trying to make is, the point I'm trying to make is depending on how you do things, you can show the same data can give you very, very different conclusion, 1,000% increase versus zero.
	And so then the question is, okay, who did it correctly?
	What's the motivation behind it?
	What's the bias?
	And did you like, did you adjust appropriately?
	Because maybe the 0% is the appropriate one, or maybe it's not.
	And so when you have this new study where you're looking, they took out kids under two that had issues.
	They stopped at five when a lot of these diagnosis happened after five.
	And they included as a variable that they adjusted for the amount of visits to the doctor.
	And that is a really big question in the vaccine literature, which is used a lot because it does wash out the findings that you might find otherwise.
	Because the theory why they use it is they say, well, if you never go to the doctor, then you can't get the diagnosis of, say, autism.
	So we need to adjust for that.
	But it's also true to say, maybe if you get a vaccine, if it does cause a problem, then the people who get a vaccine have a lot more visits to the doctor because they have problems.
	And you shouldn't be adjusting that out.
	So if you do adjust for it and vaccines do actually cause problems, that adjustment washes out what you would find.
	You're right.
	You're being courteous when you say, you know, they're altering the, that is what the expression of liars, figure, figures, lie, and statistics can be used to prove anything.
	That is, as far as I'm concerned, overt manipulation to get to the results they want because they don't like the results they got.
	The aluminum.
	I'm going to say that is possible, but you have to know.
	See, when you have that research, we have to see the other side.
	We have to see what they did because what you're saying may very well be true if they ran the study and they were like, oh my God, we found a thousand percent increase.
	All right, how do we get that to be zero?
	Like, that is very possible.
	And I don't think people realize that because I did a master's in epidemiology, you know, many, many years ago.
	And you realize when you do that, how much you can manipulate the research depending on what you choose to do.
	And so that's where honesty comes in and unbiased comes in.
	Because if you do want to find something, if you're the vaccine safety person in Denmark and you're like, oh, okay, I'm doing a study on vaccine safety.
	You can change those variables up to find what you want.
	And you can say, well, no, we do need to have these visits in there because we need to adjust for that.
	And that's not totally unreasonable.
	It just might be wrong.
	Yeah, no, it's exactly.
	It's like polling.
	Well, we got to exclude that demographic or it's like those awards, you know, when they give a certification.
	We got to eliminate this guy.
	He belongs in another category so that we can get the results that everybody knows that you want.
	You don't need the knock at the door from the Pfizer exec.
	Borla is not showing up with a mobster type guy to get those results.
	Everybody just sort of knows how it works.
	Let me read two things here because there's one that is Bill Tong.
	I want to read the chats.
	These are on Rumble where you got healthy Bill Tong.
	Bill Tong USA.
	I'm not going to read the entire chat, but go read it.
	Go get its delicious stuff.
	Oh, fuck says, if I can't eat aluminum anymore, what am I going to put on my microplastics?
	Now, that's glib and I know it's a joke.
	Ha ha.
	The question is this.
	Hi.
	I don't know if you know who purported Dr. Ian Copeland is.
	Hold on.
	Where is this one?
	I heard of Ian Copeland.
	Yeah, you're called him.
	This guy right here.
	I still haven't gotten not just an adequate answer, any answer.
	When people say vaccines contain aluminum, and this guy who's purported PhD in jackassery said the claim is aluminum from vaccines cause autism.
	One, aluminum levels from vaccination are not significantly higher than dietary sources.
	Infants are exposed to aluminum in the womb of mother's diet.
	Humans consume three to eight milligrams of aluminum a day.
	Stop the horseshit.
	I said to this one, I said, oh, this was a big, I'm a bit of an ass and this does not reflect poorly on you, Joel.
	This is me.
	Aren't you the same idiot that compared dietary aluminum to injecting aluminum?
	Why, yes, yes, you are.
	Can I comment there?
	Please, because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, Dr. Joel.
	No, you're not.
	Okay, so the first point that he makes is true.
	I mean, we do inject, do ingest aluminum every day.
	It's a metal in the earth, and we do get a few milligrams every single day.
	So that part's true.
	That's a fact.
	You didn't argue that.
	But my point, you know, what I said in my book and what I've said always is just because you eat it doesn't make it the same as injecting it.
	That's not the same thing.
	So, and I'm not saying that it, you know, causes a problem.
	I can't prove that specifically, let's say.
	But it's not the same thing.
	So you're comparing not the same thing.
	You're saying, oh, well, I eat eight milligrams.
	So therefore I should be able to inject eight milligrams.
	You might not be able to inject almost anything.
	It could be totally different.
	You inject a little bit.
	It could kill you.
	Like that could be also possible.
	And aluminum is not the only thing you're injecting.
	You're injecting multiple other things.
	But eating something is the natural way that we do things.
	And injecting, it's not.
	So maybe your body reacts a little bit differently to something being injected, especially in the setting of dealing with an infection.
	I don't know.
	But it's just not the same thing.
	So making that comparison doesn't really fly with me, but that's the comparison that's always made.
	It's like, oh, you get all these milligrams.
	This is much less.
	So therefore it's fine.
	And oh, you could just get like a thousand vaccines and it would totally be fine.
	There has to be some upper limit of a problem.
	And everybody's different.
	So maybe you're right.
	Like, and I come back with it.
	I made this.
	Yes, you know, we can walk by and a lot of people can eat a whole bag of peanuts, but some people can just whiff a peanut in a room and have anaphylaxis.
	And that's, you know, a micro infinitesimal amount.
	So maybe for some people, a micro infinitesimal amount of aluminum injected is too much for their bodies.
	And maybe that causes problems.
	Maybe your argument doesn't hold for me.
	You're very diplomatic.
	I call those people godforsaken liars because I can drink a four ounce martini.
	I'll die if I inject a four ounce martini.
	It's like, it's basic common sense and it's sophistry.
	It's it's intellectual dishonesty.
	And anybody who makes that argument, and I think I saw Dr. Neil Stone making that argument recently as well.
	Okay, that's good.
	And then I feel like I'm, am I that Dunning-Kruger stupid that I don't understand why what I'm saying is wrong?
	I've never gotten an answer from that jackass on that particular question.
	No, but there are a lot of questions that I, again, I wish like that kind of conversation would happen because I would love to hear what these individuals say to those things.
	Like I mean, you know, Paul Offitt, I'm sure.
	And, you know, he says in his book in Multiplays, like, oh, you could have 10,000 vaccines.
	That's totally fine.
	Our body, you know, you eat an apple and we're exposed to all these vaccine, all these antigens.
	So it's like, okay, but there's still a lot of other stuff in there.
	And so at what point do you think it's not too many and there couldn't be a diminishing return?
	Even if you think the vaccines are the best thing ever and they totally protect you at all times, there has to be some point where you're like, okay, you can't just give me like 8,000 vaccines today and that's not going to kill me.
	Like there has to be a point there.
	And we're getting more and more vaccines.
	So where is that point?
	And when are intelligent doctors going to say, well, you know, maybe like it's too many.
	Maybe we don't want to do 10 vaccines today.
	Maybe one is the right number and that's good and safe.
	And that's where our love, like we don't want people to get infectious disease.
	I understand that.
	But we also don't want side effects and we don't want risk and we don't want death.
	And yes, like we're talking like serious, we don't he'll die from measles, right?
	Like we don't want that, but but we also don't want people to have a reaction from a vaccine.
	Like both things can be true.
	Do you have a few more minutes?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	What we're going to do is we're going to go raid the redacted.
	It changes nothing on our end.
	We're going to have, I'm going to get some questions and answers from our locals community over on locals.
	Dr. Joel, before we lose the crowd or the biggest part of the crowd, what's the name of your book?
	Where can people find it?
	It's called Between a Shot and a Hard Place.
	And they can find it on Amazon or the shotbook.com or at Dr. Joel Gator as my socials.
	Between a shot and a hard place.
	Yeah.
	Okay, excellent.
	I'm going to get all those links and put them in the pinned comment.
	What we're going to do right now, it's going to take a second on our end.
	We're going to go, it's called Raid.
	So we're going to push on Rumble the audience over to the redacted.
	If you want to come to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for the remainder of this stream, the Q ⁇ A from our members' community, come on over.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	And there's no payroll today.
	Doctor, how can people support?
	I mean, other than buying the book, you're on social, you're on Instagram.
	The name Dr. Gator, by the way, it's a known fact why you have that name.
	Yeah, my wife's last name is Intelligator.
	Your wife's last name is actually Intelligator.
	It is actually Intelligator.
	Awesome.
	That's an awesome last name.
	Yeah, so she's a lawyer, so she kept it for her legal profession.
	But I got started getting called Dr. Gator and, you know, it stuck.
	Amazing.
	Okay, so I got it.
	So everybody, come on over to locals if you want to get the Q ⁇ A. I got a bunch of questions lined up from our locals community.
	Dr. Gator, thank you very much.
	We're going to end this on Rumble, but it doesn't change anything on our end.
	We've got the after party on locals.
	Okay, now I'm just going to hit two buttons here.

▲