#1999 - Robert Kennedy, Jr.

And I think they're doing that also when they're having these conversations with you, because they want to establish right away that they have problems with you. And they have problems with some of the positions that a lot of people have problems with. I was one of those people. So when I had heard of you in the past, before I had read your book and before I had met you, I had no information on you. But there was this narrative, and this narrative was you were anti-vax and you believed in pseudoscience, and you were kind of loony.

I didn't look into it at all. I just took it at face value, because that's what everybody had said. And in my mind, vaccines have been one of the most important medical advancements in human history, saved countless lives, protected children. And I thought very strongly that they were important. I didn't have any information on that either.

This was also just a narrative adopted from cursory reading of news articles and not really getting into the subject at all. Then the pandemic happens. And I had quite a few very reasonable, liberal people, rational people, people that I trusted their mind, recommend The Real Anthony Fauci, your book. I'm like, Robert Kennedy wrote a book about Anthony Fauci? What is this going to be about?

This is my initial reaction. You've got this, what I perceive to be a kind of fringy thinking, almost conspiracy theorist type person. that's not based, in fact, what their argument was. And he had written a book on Anthony Fauci. And this was right around the time where I was very concerned with the way things were going, that people were just blindly trusting that there was only one way out of this.

That was kind of bothering me, particularly when I had known that so many people had gotten the virus had been fine. So I'm like, well, what's the reality of this? So then I read the book.

And I've talked about it multiple times on the podcast. But if what you were saying in that book was not true, I do not understand how you are not being sued. You would instantly, immediately be sued. The book was very successful. It sold a lot of copies, but it was mysteriously absent from certain bestseller lists.

People were not promoting that book at all. But through word of mouth and through the time that we live in, through this time where there was so much uncertainty and people were very confused and also suspicious, they were suspicious that they're being told a narrative. And they were starting to remember that, hey, this has happened in the past. These kind of narratives about medications, they have happened in the past. They just never happened.

where this is like, the whole country is being convinced that this is the way to do it.

So I read your book. And by the end of the book, it was so disturbing that sometimes I had to put it away and just read fiction for a few days. I was like, I don't want this in my head right now. Because I listen on audio. And a lot of times I'm listening in the sauna.

So I'm listening while I'm already getting tortured. So it's 185 degrees and I'm listening to this book. that, if it's telling the truth, just about the AIDS crisis. Just about the AIDS crisis. Just about the use of AZT.

Just about all of it. All of it.

So I had seen numerous interviews with you. And you seemed very reasonable and very rational. And then I was like, is this possible, that this is the guy that's telling the truth? Is this possible that everyone that I know that had these strong opinions of you, that most of them at least, were like me? They had formed these opinions through a glance at a headline.

Someone talking about you on a television show.

And so then we run into each other in Aspen.

Just randomly.

So, first of all, I wanted to ask you if you could just please explain how you got into these controversial positions in the first place. How did you adopt these opinions that people find so controversial? Because you started out as an environmental guy, right?

And I didn't want her reading that. Her life is about making people laugh, making people joyful, which is its own contribution to kind of global health. People who can make you laugh are doing something for you that is going to probably extend your lifetime. I look at Norman Lear, who's like 96 years old or whatever, and he looked like 50.. And Carl Reiner and all these people who – there's something about laughter that makes – that is good for you.

And so I admire anybody who took it on to read that whole book and made it through. I was kind of one of the leading environmentalists in the country. I founded – I started – I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River in 1983, when I first got sober. And I wanted to do something with my life that I felt drawn to, and I'd always been an outdoors person. I'd always been a fisherman and outdoors, wildlife, kayaking and all that stuff.

And I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River. We began suing polluters. They purchased a patrol boat, began patrolling the river, and we sued. While I was there, we sued over 500 polluters. We forced polluters to spend almost $5 billion on remediation on the Hudson.

And today, partially as a result of our work, the Hudson is now the richest waterway in the North Atlantic. It produces more biomass per gallon, more pounds of fish per acre than any other waterway in the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator. The miraculous resurrection – and when I first started working on the Hudson, it caught fire. It was dead water, zero-dissolved oxygen for 20 miles north of New York City, 20 miles south of Albany, no life in it.

blue, crab, etc.

And the miraculous resurrection of the Hudson inspired the creation of new river keepers. We copyrighted the name, and we started helping these other groups get started. And today, it's the biggest water protection group in the world. So we have 350 water keepers. Each one has a patrol boat.

Each one patrols their local waterway, and they sue polluters. And we're in 46 countries. So in 2005, I was representing a bunch of water keepers all over the United States and in the provinces of Canada, suing coal-burning power plants and cement kilns for discharging mercury. Two years before, in 2003,, the National Academy of Sciences and the FDA had published a report, like a five-year study, that showed that every freshwater fish in America had dangerous levels of mercury in its flesh. The CDC simultaneously published a study that showed that one out of every six American women had levels high enough in her core blood that her child would have some kind of intellectual deficiency, like lost IQ, etc.

We know that saltwater fish, the big predatory species that have mercury, but the freshwater fish are just as bad. And it struck me then that we were living in a science fiction nightmare where my children and the children of every other American could now no longer engage in the seminal, primal activity of American youth that I had grown up with, of your parents taking you to the local fishing hole and then coming home and safely eating the fish. You can't do that anymore in the United States of America or anywhere in North America. And so we started suing coal plants and cement kilns, which were the primary contributor of mercury. And there were a lot of people suing coal plants back then, but they were suing them for other reasons, for ozone particulates, for acid rain, for carbon, etc.

And the waterkeepers were mainly focused on mercury. So I was also pushing legislation about mercury, lobbying EPA to reduce it, and I was giving lectures all over the place. So these women start showing up at every lecture that I give, public lectures. And they would come and sit in the front seat, occupy the front. They'd come early, occupy the front row, and then afterwards they'd stay late, and they would ask to talk to me.

And they would say to me in a very respectful – and by the way, these women all looked kind of similar. They were very pulled together. They were women in childbearing years. As it turns out, they were all the mothers of intellectually disabled children, and they believed that their children had been injured by the vaccines, by mercury in the vaccines.

So they would say to me, in kind of a respectful but vaguely scolding way, if you're really interested in mercury contamination exposures to children, you need to look at the vaccines. Now, this is something I didn't want to do because, first of all, I'm not a public health person. I wanted to do environmental stuff. Second of all, I've been involved since I was a little kid, in the whole area of intellectual disabilities. My family – it was part of the DNA of my family.

My aunt had been intellectually disabled. My Aunt, Rosemary, my Aunt, Eunice Shriver, who was my godmother, founded Special Olympics in 1969.. But she was called – before it was called Special Olympics, it was called Camp Shriver. She lived 10 minutes from my house, and I would go over there every weekend to be a hugger and a coach in Special Olympics. And then, when I was in high school, because this was so much part of my family DNA, I spent 200 hours in, let's say, a comfort – retarded, you know, working, doing service.

But it wasn't something I wanted to do with my life. Other people in my family were devoting their lives to that. My cousin, Anthony Shriver, started Best Buddies and many other people. My family had written a lot of the legislation that protected people and gave rights to people with intellectual disabilities. My father had kicked down the door of Willowbrook, which was a big hospital in Staten Island.

So my family was deeply involved, but it was not what I wanted to do with my life. But these women kept continually – I don't want to say harassing me, but they were following me. And it was different ones at every speech. And one of them – and I was like – I did enough research to show that the public health authorities were saying that these women were crazy. But they didn't look crazy to me, and they were rational.

They weren't excitable, and they had done their research. And I was like, I should be listening to these people. Even if they're wrong, somebody needs to listen to them. I mean, you know, and by the way, I had worked on the Hudson River with a commercial fisherman. And I'd seen so many times when the scientists were wrong and the commercial fishermen were right about what was happening in the Hudson River.

One time, I'll just give you an example.

This commercial fisherman came to me and said, all the goldfish are dying up in the Wallkill Creek. And I went up. They said, will you help us get to it? because there's a new sewer plant up there that's discharging chlorine. It's hard to kill a goldfish.

They're one of the most hardy species in the world. You can put oil on a goldfish and it won't do anything. It won't hurt it. And I went up to the Department of Environmental Conservation. They said there are no goldfish in the Hudson River.

Well, these were people who I had watched them catch goldfish in the Hudson. So anyway, that was just part of the background of my, you know, little bit of skepticism about government scientists, that they're not always right. That sometimes you have to listen to people and that human experience is valid. And that if a woman tells you something about her child, you need, you should listen. And so then one of these women came to my home and she found my home in Hyannisport, at a little bungalow.

Her name was Sarah Bridges. She was a psychologist from Minnesota. And she found my home. She came to it. She took out of the trunk of her car a pile of scientific studies.

It was 18 inches thick. She put it on my front porch, my stoop, and then she rang the bell and then she pointed to that pile. She said, I'm not leaving here until you read those. And as it turns out, her son, Porter Bridges, had been a perfectly healthy kid, got a battery of vaccines when he was two, and lost the ability to speak. He lost the ability to –, he lost his toilet training.

He began headbanging and engaging in other stereotypical behavior like stimming, hand-flapping, toe-walking, and got an autism diagnosis. And the vaccine court had awarded her $20 million for acknowledging that the child had gotten autism from the vaccines. And she didn't want it to happen to other kids. And so I sat down with this pile of studies. I'm used to reading science.

I'm very comfortable reading it. I wanted to be a scientist when I was a little kid. And my life, my legal career, has been about science. It's, you know, virtually all the cases that I've been involved with, hundreds and hundreds of cases, almost all of them involve some scientific controversy. And so I'm comfortable with reading science, and I know how to read it critically.

I know how to look for the flaws in it and, you know, how to weigh the – attribute, weight to various studies, et cetera. And I sat down while she was there, and I read through the abstracts of these studies, one after the other. And before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying – were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual, peer-reviewed, published science was saying. Then I took the next step, which is I started calling people, high-level public officials. And I had access to everyone.

I called Francis Collins. I called Marie McCormick, who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences. I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences, who was the chief staffer, and I was asking her about these studies. And I realized during these conversations that none of these people had read any of the science. They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science.

And then – and they kept saying to me, well, I can't answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit. Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine.

And it would be – it was odd to me that government regulators were saying you should talk to somebody in the industry. It's like if I – you know, I used to talk to EPA people all the time asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit? Why did you put it in there? And if they said to me, I don't know, why don't you go talk to the coal industry or this lobbyist for the coal industry, and he will tell you what we're doing, I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indignant. It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me go talk to somebody who's an industry insider, because we don't understand the science.

And when I talked to him, I caught him in a lie. And both of us knew that he was lying and that both of us recognized that he was lying. And at that point, I was like –.

I'm susceptible, like anybody else, to that kind of flattery, so I was inclined to like the guy. But then he said this. I asked him about how can you be telling people not to eat tuna fish, but giving them a flu shot that has these huge doses. And he said, well, Bobby, there's two kinds of mercury. There's a good mercury and there's a bad mercury.

And the minute he said – and I knew there's a different kind of mercury in the vaccines. It's ethylmercury in the vaccines and methylmercury in the fish. But I know a lot – and you can imagine, I know a lot about mercury. I've been suing people. When you sue somebody, you get a PhD in that.

You know more than anybody in the world. You have to, or you're not going to win your lawsuit. So I knew a lot about mercury, and I knew that his argument was not with me, but it was with the periodic tables, because there's no such thing as a good mercury. And I also knew the history of why he was saying that, because, you know, mercury was added to vaccines in a form called dimerosol in 1932.. And Eli Lilly, which is a manufacturer, was – because people knew then that mercury was horrendously neurotoxic.

Mercury is 1,000 times more neurotoxic than lead. You would never shoot lead into your baby.

So it wasn't a good preservative. What NIH admitted to me in 2016,. the real reason was there as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a toxic material that they add to dead virus vaccines to amplify the immune response. So your body, when – I mean, this is kind of getting into the weeds, but a live virus vaccine, if they give it to you, it can spread the disease.

It can mutate in you and spread the disease. That's why most of the polio today, 70% of the polio today, is vaccine polio that came from the vaccines. But so the regulators expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines. A dead virus vaccine, however, will not produce a durable or robust immune response enough to get a license. The way you get a license for a vaccine is showing that you got an antibody response for a certain amount of time and that it's a strong antibody response.

But the dead virus vaccine won't produce that. A vaccinologist figured out that if you add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine, that your body confuses that toxic product. You add it with the dead antigen, which is the viral particle. Your body confuses that toxin with the viral particle and gets frightened and mounts this huge, humongous immune response. The next time it sees that virus, the immune response is there.

So at that point, vaccinologists went around searching around the world to find the most horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines. And there's a mantra in vaccinology that the more toxic the adjuvant, the more robust the immune response. And so that's why toxicologists and vaccinologists don't get along with each other. Because the toxicologist would say to the vaccinologist, well, I understand, it gave you an immune response, but then what is the fate of that in your body? Where is it going?

Is it being excreted? Is it being lodged in the brain? Is it penetrating the blood-brain barrier? And the vaccinologist could not answer those questions and did not want to. So they basically moved the toxicologist out of the vaccine, the whole vaccine universe.

Anyway, so when it was added in 1932, the industry said, Eli Lilly said, well, the reason, because everybody was saying, how can you put mercury into a child? Who would do that? And they said, well, it's a different kind of mercury. It's ethylmercury, and the ethylmercury is excreted very quickly, so it won't stay in your body. They had no science to say that, but that's what they were saying for years.

And then, in 2003,, a CDC scientist called Pichiero did a study where he gave tuna sandwiches that were mercury-contaminated to children and then measured their blood. And the mercury from the tuna sandwich was there half-life, 64 days later, so it was still there 64 days. And he injected the children with mercury from a vaccine, and that mercury disappeared from their blood within a week. And this kind of confirmed what Eli Lilly had said in 1932, oh, it disappears really quickly from the body. And that was published, I believe, in the Lanceter Pediatrics.

But immediately, the journal began getting letters from people, including this famous scientist called Dr. Boyd Haley, who is the chair of the chemistry department of the University of Kentucky. And he said, but what happened to the mercury? Because Pichiero couldn't find it in the children's urine, or in their feces, or in their hair or sweat, or nails. So where is it?

And NIH actually then commissioned a study, because at that point, they were really trying to figure out whether this was dangerous. And they commissioned a very famous scientist called Thomas Burbacher of the University of Washington, Seattle, to do a study with monkeys, with macaques. And he did the same study Pichiero did. But he did something you can't do with children, which he then killed the monkeys. And then he looked for the mercury.

And what he found was the mercury, yes, it left their blood immediately. The methylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week. The methylmercury from the tuna fish was there a month later, two months later.

But when he sacrificed the monkeys and did postmortems, he found that the mercury had not left their body. Instead, the reason it was disappearing from their blood is because ethylmercury causes the blood-brain barrier much easier than methylmercury. The ethylmercury from the vaccines was going directly to the brains of these animals. And it was lodging there and causing severe inflammation.

And we now know it's there 20 years later.

So when I'm on the phone with Orfin, he said the ethylmercury is excreted quickly. And I said, how do you know that? And he said, because of the Pichiero study. Because a study by Pichiero found that it was excreted quick in a week. And I said, but you're familiar with the Burbacker study.

It's gone to the brain. And there was dead silence on the phone. And then he said to me, he kind of hemmed it all in and said, well, you're right. It's not that study. It's just a whole mosaic of studies.

And I said, can you cite any for me? And he said, I'll send them to you. And he never did. That's the last I heard from him. So at that point, I knew there was something wrong.

And then somebody handed me a transcript of a secret meeting that took place in 1999..

And it was 1999.. It might have been 2000.. But it's called the Simpson-Wood meeting. And what happened is, in the midnight, I mean, the history is that in 1986, well, I'll go back a little further. In 1979 and 1980, when I was a kid, I only had three vaccines.

My kids got 72 vaccines. That's what you need now to get through school, 72 doses of 16 vaccines.

And it started changing in the 80s and 90s. But in 1979, they brought out a vaccine called the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine. And that vaccine was very dangerous. And it was killing or giving severe brain damage to one in 300 kids. And it was pulled in the United States.

It was pulled in Europe. But Bill Gates still gives it to 161 million African children every year.

They had 30 years of data. And Gates had gone to the Danish government and said, you know, give us money because we've saved millions of lives with this vaccine in Africa. And the Danish government said, can you show us the data? And he couldn't. So they went to Guinea-Bissau, which is a country in the west of Africa.

In Guinea-Bissau, the Danes for 30 years had been paying for these very advanced health clinics, local health clinics all over Guinea-Bissau. And the clinics were weighing every child at three months and every child at six months. And in the 80s, they began, or 90s, they began, or the 80s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, three-month visit. But if they didn't hit the child exactly, if they didn't have full 90 days, you know, of age, if they were 89 days, they wouldn't give it to them at the six-month visit. As it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the kids were vaccinated and half the kids were not, between two months and five months of age.

It was a perfect, natural experiment. And they went in there and they looked at it. They looked at 30 years of data and they found the girls who got that vaccine, the DTP vaccine, were 10 times more likely to die over the next three months than girls, than children who did not. And they weren't dying of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. They were protected against those by the vaccine.

They were dying of anemia and bilharzia and malaria and pulmonary disease, but mainly they were dying of pneumonia. And what the researchers said is that the vaccine is almost certainly killing more children than diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the vaccine, because it was protecting them against the target illnesses, but it had ruined their immune systems. So they could not defend themselves against these other minor infections. And nobody noticed for 30 years that it was the vaccinated children who were disproportionately dying. And that's the problem with not doing real placebo-controlled trials.

None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials. It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure. Anyway, what happened in the DTP vaccine, when it was pulled in this country, it was pulled because so many people were suing the drug companies. Wyatt, which is now Pfizer, was the primary manufacturer. They went to the Reagan administration in 1986..

And they said, you need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines or we're going to get out of the business. And Reagan actually said to them, they said, we're losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we're making in profits. And Reagan said to them, well, why don't you make the vaccine safe? And they said, because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. That's the phrase they use, and that phrase is in the statute.

And it's also in the Brusewitz case, which is the Supreme Court decision upholding that statute. And so anybody who tells you vaccines are safe, in effect, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

And it was Harvard scientists who looked at one of the HMOs, the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, which is one of the top HMOs.

It's actually, I think, the ninth biggest HMO. And they were testing a machine counting system that could do cluster analysis, because right now the only vaccine injury surveillance system they have doesn't work.

It's fewer than 1 in 100 vaccine injuries are ever reported because it's voluntary. And this is where you can find support for this. in the Lazarus study. Lazarus actually looked and said, how many injuries are actually happening? How many are reported?

And they said fewer than 1 in 100 are ever reported. And they developed a system of machine counting so that it doesn't rely on voluntary reporting. What you do is you look at all the vaccine records for a population and all of the medical claims, the subsequent medical claims, and you do machine counting. You do a cluster analysis. And it's very, very accurate.

And they found, CDC at that time was saying 1 out of a million people were being injured by the vaccine. They found 1 in 37..

And CDC had asked this team to design a machine counting system. because their system was so heavily criticized by everybody. David Kessler, who was the Surgeon General, everybody was saying it's terrible. It doesn't work. And Congress had told them you have to accurately count vaccine injuries, and they weren't doing it.

So when they did it, when they actually looked, they found that it's not 1 in a million. 1 in 37 kids had potential vaccine claims. Now, you can't tell whether any of those claims were actually from the vaccine, because it's machine counting. So it's statistical. But you can say that the number of injuries is much higher than anybody was admitting.

And then, in the year 2000,, CDC did a study with Johns Hopkins called Geyer, because there was this emerging claim that vaccines had saved tens of millions of lives around the world. And I'm not going to tell you that they don't, because nobody should trust my word on this. You know, what I say is irrelevant. What is relevant is the science. And this is the principal effort by CDC to actually verify that claim.

And what the Geyer study, and they looked at all the, you know, the history of each vaccine and health claims. And what they were trying to say is there was this huge decline in mortality from infectious disease that took place in the 20th century. An 80% drop in deaths from infectious disease. And what caused that? Was it vaccines?

And what they said is no, it had very little, almost nothing, to do with vaccines. The real drop happened because of really engineering solutions.

Refrigerators. You could store food. Transportation systems that would get oranges up from Florida, etc. Roads. Better housing.

Sanitation. The invention of chlorine. Sewage treatment, but mainly nutrition. Nutrition is absolutely critical to building immune systems. And so what was really killing these children was malnutrition.

And, you know, it was the infectious disease that was kind of knocking them off at the end. But the real cause of death was malnutrition and a collapsed immune system. And that is what the Geyer study tells us. Now, anybody who's listening to this, you know, you can go look at this study. Don't blame me and don't say, you know, Kennedy's in denial.

This is the only time CDC ever looked at this. And it's called G-U-Y-E-R. It's published, as I recall, in Pediatrics. And it's CDC and Johnson Hopkins in the year 2000.. And I believe the study is true and that it's borne out by many, many others.

There's another study from 1977 called McGinley and McGinley. And that study also said that fewer than 1% of the decline in infectious mortality deaths could be attributed to vaccines. And that study was required reading in almost every medical school in this country until the mid-1980s. So, anyway, I'm just saying that that orthodoxy that you just described,

it's not orthodoxy that should be accepted on faith. People should actually look at it. And when they have, it has not borne up. I just finished this story, and I'll try to be brief.

Because what? Because Reagan caved in, and it wasn't just Reagan. It was the Democrats. My uncle was chairing the health committee at that time, and the Democrats also went along. They passed the Vaccine Act in 1986.

And the Vaccine Act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies if you, for any injury, for negligence. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the agreement, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, you, your vaccine company, you cannot be sued. This was a huge gift for this industry, because the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities.

And all of a sudden, those have disappeared. So you're not only taking away that cost, but you're also incentivizing production of many new vaccines. You're also disincentivizing. You're removing the incentive to make them safe. Because no matter how dangerous they are, they don't care because they can't be sued.

And then you may say, well, if they're really dangerous, then nobody's going to buy them. But the problem with that is nobody has a choice. They not only got rid of the downstream liability, but they don't have any advertising or marketing costs, because the federal government is ordering 76 million people, essentially ordering 76 million kids to take the product a year. If you can get that on the schedule, it's like printing a billion dollars for you. And so there was a gold rush.

And then the other thing is, they are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing. They don't have to be tested, and they're not. And I said this for many, many years. You know, I said not one of these 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo-controlled trial. We're looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and looking at health outcomes.

Never been done. And Tony Fauci was saying he's lying. He's not telling the truth. This is vaccine misinformation. In 2016,, Donald Trump asked me to serve on a vaccine safety commission, and I agreed to do it.

And he then ordered Fauci and Collins to meet with me, and, you know, Peter Marks at FDA and all that. So I had meetings with all these guys. I actually went into that meeting with Fauci with three people. One was Del Bigdream. Another one was Aaron Seery, the attorney.

And another one was Lynn Redwood, who's, you know, a very, very famous nurse, practitioner, public health official in Georgia. And during that meeting, there was a referee there from the White House, the West Wing. And I said to Fauci, I gave kind of a lecture showing what we knew. And I said to him in the middle of it, I had a PowerPoint. I said, Tony, you have said – and by the way, you know, he's known my family forever.

And, you know, my uncle was chair of the health committee, writing his salary every year, everything else like that. And, you know, very cooperative relationship with him. Two of the senators there at NIH are named for members of my family, for Eunice Shriver and my aunt, my grandmother. So, you know, I said to him, Tony, you've said, been telling people. I'm a liar.

When I say no vaccine has ever been – none of the mandated vaccines, what they call recommended, they're actually mandated in many of the states. And none of them have ever been tested against – in a placebo-controlled trial, a safety test prior to licensure. And I said, can you show me one vaccine that has been subject to a safety test? Show me one study that shows that. And he made it this show of looking through a Redwell.

They had brought in from NIH this big tray full of file folders. And he made a show of kind of looking through that at the time, but he couldn't find whatever he was looking for. So then he said, it's back at NIH in Bethesda, and I'll send it to you. Well, he never did. So Aaron and I sued him, sued HHS, and said, show us one study that's ever been done on, you know, pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines.

And after a year of stonewalling, they finally gave us a letter and said, we don't have any. They literally don't have any. So nobody knows what the risk profile for these products are. So they're telling people they avert more harms than they cause. But there's no science behind that statement.

It's just a, you know, it's just a guesswork.

And if someone calls you, they're like, oh, he's one of those. And it's kind of amazing what they've done, especially in a world where we're very aware of the side effects that were hidden from the public with other drugs, whether it's opiates or whether it's Vioxx. We're very aware that deception has taken place. But for this one, for whatever reason, that one, I think maybe it has to do with protecting children. Because good parents, who don't, you know, they want to trust science.

And they want to think that medical science is the reason why people live so well today. And a lot of that's true. But they want to think that it's all connected and that they don't know what they're doing. So if they say you're supposed to get 72 shots, you should get 72 shots, because they really know.

You know, about oxycodone. Which is crazy. Right. And everybody knew it was addictive. You had the entire medical community who said, oh, we must have been wrong, because FDA says it's safe and effective.

Oh, you can imagine if they did that for vaccines. and then you saw what they did in COVID. You know, and they had to continually change the goalposts. It prevents transmission, if you get it. Grandma won't get sick.

And, you know, and each time it won't, you'll never get sick. You know, you only have to take one. It's really effective. And then now it's two and that's it. And now it's three and now it's four.

And, you know, and that, and each time they had to move the goalposts and everybody just would go along with the next claim without ever saying, but wait a minute. You know, why should we trust you now? Because you were, you know, you were saying was so. And, by the way, the defense is, well, they were in the middle of pandemic. They had to act quickly.

But, and, you know, they had to sort of do some guesswork. But they were saying it was such assurance. And they were punishing doctors of conscience who began questioning them. They were ruining their careers. They were destroying their reputations.

They were taking away their livelihoods, scientists and doctors, people who were getting injured. They were, you know, they were marginalizing, vilifying, gaslighting them and urging others to do the same. You know, getting on TV and saying, if you didn't do this, you're a bad person and you shouldn't be treated when you go to a hospital. You know, and all of these things, which is not that something was one. You know, something was really wrong.

now. You know, the hot box with Mike Tyson got pulled. Theo Vaughn's podcast got pulled.

Yeah, there was. I think it's a place called Free Press. Had an article, but it was an old. you know, it was all. it was weird because it was a.

it was a discussion. I've been on his show a bunch of times, but it was something that we did during the pandemic and they let it stand.

And because I, he he said to me, why don't you come on again? And, you know, I love him and his podcast really fun and it's really close to my house. And I get a really good response from it. He is kind of a very interesting audience. I think he's got a big overlap with, you know, you know, he it's, it's really.

he's such a pleasant guy.

Are you aware of any other ones that got taken down as well?

But I'll just finish this. What happened in the, in around 1999, that the vaccine schedule, immediately after they passed the Vaccine Act, exploded. Because all these companies were rushing to get new vaccines onto the schedule. Many of them for diseases that weren't even casually contagious, like ridiculous diseases that are in that, like hepatitis B. Why would you give, you get hepatitis B from, you know, from sharing needles or from like going to a really seasoned prostitute or from,

you know, sort of compulsive homosexual behavior.

But a baby, a baby can get it if they get it from their mom. But every mom is tested. So, you know, at the hospital, every mom, every pregnant woman is tested for it. So the baby doesn't need this.

Because those cohorts had other, better things to do with their money. And they didn't, you know, they weren't going to buy the vaccine. Oh, CDC, Merck went back to CDC and said, we built all these plants and we got the thing and got it approved. And we were, you know, a billion dollars in. What are you going to do?

And CDC said, well, just recommend it for children. And that way they keep what they call the warm production lines. They keep the vaccine.

They like to have a lot of vaccines in case there's an emergency. They have a lot of lines out there that they can, you know, manufacture a pandemic response on. This is what they say. So, anyway, all of these new crazy diseases, rotavirus, and, you know, were all put on the schedule.

And then they started seeing all of this explosion in chronic disease and particularly autism. So around 1995, CDC, Congress said to EPA, what year did the autism epidemic begin? And EPA is a captured agency, but it's captured by the coal industry and the oil and the pesticide industry, but not by the pharma, because it doesn't regulate pharma. So it actually did a real science. And it said 1989 is the year the epidemic began.

It's a red line. And 1989 was the year the vaccine schedule exploded. That doesn't mean that's a correlation. It does not mean causation. It is something that should be looked at.

And NIH decided to look at it because women were saying it was the vaccine. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Women were coming with the same story. I had a perfectly healthy two-year-old. exceeded all his milestones.

I gave him on their second birthday or 18th month wellness visit. The full battery was six or eight vaccines, and that child spikes a fever that night, has a seizure, and over the next three months loses their language, loses their capacity to make eye contact, to finger point, social interactions and languages disappear. And it happened so many times that NIH was saying we've got to look to see if it's the vaccine, and CDC was. So CDC hired a Belgian epidemiologist named Thomas Verstraeten, and they opened up the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is the biggest database for vaccines for HMOs, all the top 10 HMOs have all their records in there. So they have all your vaccination records and all your health claims, so you can do these kind of cluster analyses.

And Verstraeten went in there, and he looked at one thing. He looked at children who got the hepatitis B vaccine within their first month of life and compared those health outcomes in children who did not. In other words, children who got it after 30 days or didn't get it at all. That was the second cohort. What he found in his first run through the data is there was an 1135% greater or elevated risk for an autism diagnosis among the kids who had gotten it in their first 30 days.

At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic, because a relative risk, it's called a relative risk of 11.35, a relative risk of 2 is considered proof of causation, as long as there's biological plausibility.

The relative risk of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and getting lung cancer is 10.. This was 11.35.. So there was a panic throughout the industry. As people heard about this study, CDC wanted to do a meeting with all the big panjerams of the industry. They didn't want to do it on CDC campus, because then they thought it would be subject to a freedom of information law request.

They wanted to do it, just to keep it secret. They found this retreat center, a Methodist retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, called Simpsonwood, and they assembled, I think there was 72 people there. They were from the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, and all the vaccine companies and all the big academics, the people who basically develop vaccines in the academic institutions. They were all there. They spend the first day.

They give them all a copy of the first-round study, but they have to give it all back, because they don't want it out there. Then they have a day of talking about it, where they're all saying, holy cow, this is real, and the lawyers are going to come after us. We're all in trouble. Then they spend the second day talking about how to hide it.

Check if you think it's true or not.

When I read that, then I was like, okay, I've got to drop everything and do something about this. I published this article in Rolling Stone, and I was kind of shocked by just the power of the reaction against it. People coming out of Rolling Stone and Salon, which also published it, were just bulldozed with these hate reactions. Six years later, by the way,

there were four or five corrections in the article. in the next week. All of those corrections were made by the editors of Salon and Rolling Stone. They've sent me letters, which are also on our website, saying this. None by me.

But from then on, they said, oh, Kennedy, it was loaded with mistakes. Six years later, Salon, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, takes it down and says, we found mistakes in it. But they never showed any mistakes. They wouldn't have never. I've said repeatedly to them, show me one mistake in that published piece.

Show me one, and they have not been able to do it. And then they also forget that the four mistakes that were found, that we printed a rata for, that Rolling Stone printed a rata for, were all made by them. Because they edited my 16,000-word piece down to a 3,000-word piece. And when they were doing that, they made some errors.

But what happened after that is, you had this explosion in chronic disease. So,

and this is something everybody, this is the punchline. And this is what everybody needs to focus on.

In 1960s, when I was a kid, 6% of Americans had chronic disease. What do I mean by chronic disease? Basically, three categories, plus obesity. One, neurological disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism. Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation.

It's still one in 10,000 in my generation.

And so, and that, you know, any real scientist? now, even the big backers like Paul Offit won't, I don't think even he will say that. But nobody from CDC is actually going to stand up and say that. They certainly won't debate the point. But even more so, if it's one, if it's not an epidemic, then where are all, where are the one in 34, 69-year-old men who are wearing helmets and non-toilet trained?

You know, if you've got autism, you live forever. It doesn't affect lifespan. You're going to, these kids are going to be around forever. And they, and, but there's nobody my age who looks like that. So if it was, if it was really better recognition, you'd see it in every age group, not just in children.

Not only that, but it changes every year. It gets worse and worse every year. So they can't keep saying, oh, we're just noticing it for the first time. And also, you know.

And there's all kinds of whistleblowers from the different states who say that they're pressured to not report cases and that kind of thing. So, but the CDC releases new data every year and every year it gets worse. It goes from, you know, it's now, I think, 1 in 22 boys.

But there's aluminum in those vaccines, which, you know, operates along the same biological pathway and does the same kind of damage. It's extremely neurotoxic. And then there's other things, lots of other toxics in the vaccines that, you know, could be responsible. I mean, there's lots, there's hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies that looked at it, but nobody ever reports them. I did a book in which I have 450 studies that are digested in that book, you know, that I summarize and cite and 1,400 references.

And everybody will say, oh, there's no study that shows autism. And vaccines are connected. That's just crazy. That's people who are not looking at science. So anyway.

It's not, and totalitarianism is not a function of science or democracy. You know, in democracies, you question people in authority and maintain a posture of skepticism toward them. The same is true in science. You don't trust the experts.

And they both said completely different things from each other. And they were totally credible. Oh, that's why, you know, and the jury decided that our experts were right and their experts were wrong. And the idea you can trust the experts, experts get biased too. You know, you pay expert enough money and a lot of them will say whatever you want them to say.

And the people who were saying this at the top had a lot of money and power at stake. So anyway, I'm almost finished. The autoimmune, the second category is autoimmune diseases. And all those neurological diseases exploded in 1989,, as I say. Autism just exponentially exposed.

And if you're my age and you're listening to this, you know, and I know you got a younger demographic, but you will remember that you didn't know anybody who looked like this when you were, you know, in school. We didn't know kids who had diabetes. We didn't know kids who were at EpiPens. The autoimmune diseases like diabetes, juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Crohn's disease, all of this stuff suddenly appeared. I didn't know any of these diseases when I was a kid.

Why do five of my seven kids have allergies? You know, and of course, we know why. Because aluminum adjuvants give you allergies. They're designed to make you, you know, to create a hyperimmune response to, you know, to form particles. And the last category is, you know, the allergic diseases, peanut allergies, food allergies,

eczema, which I never knew anybody with eczema when I was a kid. I never, asthma, I knew people with asthma. But it wasn't one in every four black kids like it is today. So, you know, all of those things. Now, we went from 6% of Americans having chronic disease.

By 1986, we're starting to have the vaccines. And we get 11.8% of kids now. So it's doubled. By 2006, 54%. These are kids who are permanently disabled.

And they have to be on medication their whole lives. So we have the sickest generation in history. There's no other country in the world that has this kind of chronic disease epidemic. We have the biggest chronic disease. And of course, this is one of the reasons we have the highest death rate during COVID.

Because we have the highest chronic disease burden in the world. And, you know, listen, it's not just the vaccines. And I never have said that. Our children are swimming around in a toxic soup. What we can say is most of it started in 1989.

And there are only a certain, there's a finite number of culprits that you can point to and say, it has to come from a toxic exposure. Because genes don't cause epidemics. They can provide a vulnerability, but you need a toxic exposure. What is it? You know, it could be glyphosate.

It could be neonicotinoid pesticides. It could be PFOAs, which are the flame retardants, that became ubiquitous. You know, around that same timeline. It could be cell phones. You know, it could be, you know, Wi-Fi radiation.

So there's a certain...

And, you know, we have the science. So if anybody lets this in front of a jury, it will be over.

Wi-Fi radiation, opens up your blood-brain barrier. And so all these toxins that are in your body can now go into your brain.

There are tens of thousands of studies that show the horrendous danger of Wi-Fi radiation.

And...

You should not be having them near your head when you're sleeping. You know, you need to get away. And you should never put one next to your head. You should always... Like, I will never put this next to my head.

I put it on a... You know, I put it on a speaker phone or use earphones. But, you know, I won the case in front of... on this issue.

Suing FCC and FDA about it. And, you know, and the court sided with me. So now they're going to have to go back to the drawing board and do it. But the Russians... You know, Russians know more about Wi-Fi radiation than anybody.

They developed it as a weapon. And a lot of the really good science came out of Russia. And, you know, the Russians won't let kids use cell phones in kindergarten. Or, you know, in grade school. A lot of the schools in Russia don't let cell phones in there because of the danger.

And the levels of radiation that they allow from cell phones is like one one-hundredth of what... And I don't know exactly what it is. You know, so that's a number people shouldn't hold me to. But it is a tiny fraction of what we allow in this country.

And... Really? From Wi-Fi? Yeah. We have a woman who was...

Who developed an allergy to Wi-Fi. She was in the Israeli Defense Forces. And she was in their cyber warfare unit. She was in a room with it all the time. And suddenly she developed...

And she's a brilliant lawyer. And she's one of the leaders of, you know, in this movement to get... To make sure that they don't put Wi-Fi antennas on elementary schools. Which they're doing now. There's no control over where people put these antennas.

And...

How come, we don't know that?

And let's figure out what it is, why kids have chronic disease, and end it. It's costing us. During COVID, we have 4.2% of the global population. We had 16% of the COVID deaths. And that's probably a lot of reasons for that.

But one of the reasons has got to be the burden that we have of chronic disease in our country. And we spend $4.3 trillion on health care every year in this country. 80% of that goes to chronic disease. Oh, it's bankrupting us.

So you're going to get some people that are exposed to tremendous amounts. And that it could be toxic levels. Then some people are exposed to very, very little. This is the average. But there's no data on, is there data on long-term, even low-dose, glyphosate in your system?

Because glyphosate, we should just tell people, is ground-up.

there's many, many diseases that are linked to glyphosate exposure.

Including non-alcoholic fatty. liver cancers are very, very closely linked. A lot of kidney diseases. And then severe damage to the microbiome. Because it's designed to kill plants.

And there are structures in your gut biome that are critical structures in your gut biome. Which have plant-like metabolisms, which are destroyed by glyphosate. And so what happened is glyphosate was originally developed as a tank scalant. So to scale the calcium and other deposits, metal deposits, rust deposits from the inside of underground tanks. And in 1973,.

Monsanto had to stop producing DDT. Because, you know, we passed the laws at that time. And that was its flagship product. It needed another product. And it figured out that glyphosate, somebody at some point apparently threw some glyphosate out in the back in the yard.

And everything green died where they touched it, where it touched glyphosate. And so somebody said, oh, this will be a good herbicide because it kills all plants. Originally, Monsanto developed it as a herbicide.

But the way that it was applied initially, from 1973 to 1993, was in backpack sprayers. So guys would walk down the cornfield, corn rows, early in the season. When the corn was competing with nearby weeds for sunlight. And they would shoot the individual weeds. And then in 93, somebody figured out a way that glyphosate, there were certain bacteria that glyphosate would not kill.

And they said we could take a gene out of that bacteria and put it into a corn seed. And develop a corn that cannot be killed by glyphosate. So they developed Roundup Ready corn. And that corn, you could pour glyphosate all over it and it will do nothing to it. So now you could fire all of those workers who were expensive.

And you hire one airplane and they fly over the fields. They saturate the entire landscape with glyphosate. Everything dies except the Roundup Ready corn. And within a couple of years, Roundup Ready corn was now 90% of the corn, 95% of the corn in the United States is now Roundup Ready corn. And so, but it was still being, and then they developed it for soybean and for barley, for sorghum, for a lot of other plants.

But it was still being applied early in the season. And then in 2000,, around 2006,, they discovered that if you sprayed it on wheat late in the season, it would desiccate the wheat. In other words, it would dry it out. And one of the big losses for farmers is wheat is if it rains during the harvest season, you can't harvest it because it gets moldy. And so if you can spray a desiccant on it and dries it out and kills it, you can harvest it right away and it won't get moldy.

So all the wheat in our country started being sprayed that year in 2006 with glyphosate. And that's the year you saw this explosion of celiac diseases and gluten allergies and all of this stuff. And people, you know, you may have noticed around then.

Sorry, Joe.

So when they started doing this, there's a direct result? Like you can see, the increase in celiac disease? You can see, is this like documented?

No, that's not documented. But there's a whole range of diseases that are now, you know, that people are, that different levels of science have linked to glyphosate exposure. Here's the thing. When you litigate, when you're suing somebody for a chemical exposure, you have to go through a threshold called the Daubert hearing. And the Daubert hearing is a hearing that says, is there sufficient science, that it's now considered kind of mainstream, that we can show this to a jury?

And the judge has to make that decision because the judge doesn't want people saying, you know, coming in and saying, you know, a loud noise has made me crazy. Right. There has to be before. And then a good attorney might be able to convince a jury that, yeah, this, my client got crazy because he heard a loud noise. So the judge needs to make a threshold decision about whether there's sufficient science to show a jury.

And that is a very high threshold. of all of the diseases that are probably caused, almost certainly caused, by glyphosate. The only one to pass that threshold was the case that we brought for Hodgkin's lymphoma. So at that point, we had enough rat studies, enough human studies. We had about 10 of each.

And we were able to go to the judge and say, we got enough science on this now to show that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is being caused by glyphosate. So those were the only cases. we brought. The other thing, but there are a lot of, you know, really interesting studies that show links between injuries to children and the amount of glyphosate in a woman's urine and the mother's urine, you know, including a lot of including sexual development. That's an endocrine disruptor.

So, you know...

What is his name? Jamie.

They put it below the exposure levels that EPA considers acceptable to humans. And 30 of those frogs, they were all male frogs. And they were double Z, you know, male frogs, so they were super males. And 30 of those frogs were chemically castrated. Four of them turned into females and produced fertile eggs.

So, they took male frogs, gave them atrazine, 10% of them turned into female and produced fertile eggs. And we're subjecting our children to exposure to that every day.

Those kind of persistent exposures would do to our children.

What has this been like for you? Because up until those women came to see you speak, your life had been, I mean, obviously, you went through a lot. With your father being assassinated, with your uncle being assassinated, you being a part of this very public, both in service and in just being famous family. And then you take on this thing and even members of your own family sort of disavowed your opinions and attacked you for it. And what I find remarkable, genuinely, is the way you have been able to communicate with people who approach you with this erroneous idea of what you stand for.

And that you can just rationally have a conversation with them and saying, if I'm wrong, I'd like you to tell me where I'm wrong. And those conversations are fascinating. It's because people just want to shut you down, they just want to stop talking about it. They don't want to give you the time like you just had to lay all this out. It's a thing people don't want to believe.

What is that like to be a person who carries around a thing that people don't want to believe? But that seems to be true.

And they immediately, a week later, were disavowing me. And you've been like a hero. I mean, you're an institution that's kind of a critical institution of this era.

Because you've maintained this little island of free speech in a desert of suppression and of critical thinking. You've been a champion of critical thinking. My uncle, my aunt Jackie, met my uncle,

Jack John Kennedy. He was a senator and a confirmed bachelor. And she was a reporter, a journalist. And she did this kind of man-on-the-street interviews with people. These kind of quick kind of interview.

And she asked him what his best quality was. And she expected him to say courage, because he'd been a war hero. And he had written a book, run a Pulitzer Prize for profiles in courage. But the answer that he gave her was curiosity. And I think that is the quality that made him a great president.

Because he was able to put himself in other people's shoes. He had a level of empathy about other humans, where he was always thinking about what it would be like. You know, why would people do things and act? in certain ways, including Groucho and Castro. And when he had conversations and exchanges with those people, he was able to put himself in their shoes.

And actually his most important speech was the speech he gave 60 years ago. Three days ago. It was June 10, 1963..

And it was the speech at American University about trying to persuade Americans to change their minds, because they were universally against the nuclear atmospheric test ban treaty that he was trying to push. And that speech turned the country around. It was one of the most important, impactful speeches in history. And in that speech, he told Americans what it was like to be Russian. It was the strangest speech.

And, you know, because I was raised and most Americans of that era were raised thinking that we won World War II. And he said to them, you know, we believe this. I was watching combat, Vic Morrow with combat, you know, every week with my brothers. It was all about how the Americans won. And he said, that's not what happened.

The Russians won. And they paid in a way that no nation should ever have to pay. One in every seven Russians died, you know, at Hitler's hands. And a third of the Russians, he said, imagine if America, every city and every building was leveled from the East Coast to Chicago. That's what happened to Russia.

And he was telling Americans, you know, they're not evil. They're having a rational reaction when they develop a nuclear bomb. They don't want to be invaded again. And we have to somehow make them feel safe if we're going to have peace in this world. It was just a beautiful, beautiful speech.

And it came, I think, because he had that gift of curiosity. And, you know, you have that. And I think, and you have this love for critical thinking and this admiration. You have this parade of people on here, you know, like the Weinsteins and all these other people who are thinking out of the box and who are not subsumed in orthodoxies, but are able to break away from those orthodoxies. And, you know, and see the humanity in everybody and everything.

And it's beautiful. So I think, when the history of this time is written, you will have the role that you played in it. And if we manage to get our way out of this kind of totalitarian trajectory, I think a lot of that will be because of what you did.

In answer to your question, this is a roundabout answer. About a week before, no, about two weeks before he died, my father gave me a book. And the book was a book by Camus, who was one of his favorite writers. My father, after my uncle's death, went through a period of kind of reassessment of his own sort of relationship with God and with the Catholic Church and religion. And he never rejected the Catholic Church.

He always embraced it. But he began to look for meaning in other areas, in poetry and Shakespeare, and particularly in the existentialists. So he, and one of the existentialists was Camus. And Camus had written this book called The Plague. My father gave it to me, and he told me with this kind of peculiar intensity, I want you to read this.

And he had given me, he always gave me stuff to read, poetry and stuff. But he said this with this directness that after he died, I ended up reading that book about three times, trying to figure out kind of what the message was that he was, you know, he was trying to give me.

And the book is about a doctor who is in a city in North Africa where there is an unnamed plague ravaging the city. It's a walled city and it's quarantined. And the city is, the plague is something nobody's ever seen before. And most of the people who get it are dying. It's a huge infection fatality rate.

And this is, and a lot of the book, the beginning is this conversation. the doctor is having to himself. He's locked, you know, in his room. And he's trying to say, I don't want to go out there because if I go out there, I'm going to catch it. And I can't really help these people anyway, because we don't know, you know, anything about this disease.

We don't know how to treat it. And everybody gets it dies. So why, you know, why don't I just stay here and wait it out? And then in the end, he ends up leaving and he ends up just comforting people. And, you know, Camus was an existentialist, which are kind of the legatees of the Greek and Roman tradition of stoicism.

And what he was saying about this doctor is the doctor had brought order to the chaos of this, what was happening in the city. Rube, by doing his own duty and going out, and how I'm being a service to other people, even at great sale, sacrifice to himself. And the kind of the iconic hero of stoicism is Sisyphus. And Sisyphus is condemned by the gods because he does a good deed for humanity to for eternity to push a rock up a hill. And then when he gets the top of the hill of a boulder, he can never get it over the top.

It always rolls back down and on top of him and kind of mangles him. And then he goes up and does it again. But in the, in the stoic cosmology, Sisyphus is a happy man because he put his his shoulder to the stone. He was given a duty and he does his duty. And and that and that that at Selkirk sacrifice that he makes brings order to a chaotic universe.

And, you know, we're all living in a kind of chaotic universe for me to have kind of a concrete task that I know is right. You know, and I'm open to criticism. I have a critical mind. If somebody shows me where I got it wrong, I'll change. I'm not dug in.

I'm not hardheaded in that sense. But until somebody shows me that, I'm going to try to help these children. And, you know, and I feel like it's a gift. So, and the more people he abuse on me, the more the bigger the gift is in some way.

They wouldn't sell it in most of their stores. And the independent booksellers almost all boycotted it. The only place you could really reliably get it was Amazon. It was odd, because those are people who are usually against censorship. And yet they were, you know, that this, you know, all of this weird stuff happened with the censorship.

And we're people. I know, you know, you consider yourself a liberal in most. And, you know, as do I.

Yeah. And when you start questioning things, people get angry at you. They don't want to hear it. They don't want to talk about it. Unless they know someone has been injured.

And when that happens, generally people have an open mind and they start to change. And I think so many people know, so many people that have been injured now that they're a little more critical. And then shows like Dope Sick and then all these different articles where you see like the Sackler family bought off immunity. They can't get prosecuted. They gave up like six billion dollars out of how many, whatever billions they made, selling these things that they knew absolutely to be addictive.

It's. there's enough people now that feel duped that they're willing to open their mind. There's still some people that have dug in. And that's what's going to be interesting about this.

It's easier to fool a man than to persuade him that he's been fooled. Right. Once they swallow it, they don't want to relinquish it because ego. Yeah. Or it just threatens their, you know, their worldview.

And there's so many things that are threatening about believing the counter narrative that, you know, you and I now are seeing. Because, then, can I trust my doctor? Can I trust, you know, the authorities? Can I trust my country and all of it? And it's really this.

the entire cosmology around which we've kind of, you know, weaved and constructed our lives. The whole foundations are. you have to start questioning everything. And most people don't want to do that. It's just, it's, you know, I think it's terrifying.

And I understand that. You know, I see it in my family.

And understanding that they've been duped and still digging their heels in because they've already defended themselves once. So now they defend themselves. Now they double down. And now they seek out all these. I've seen people defend the natural spillover hypothesis, which at this point seems kind of ridiculous.

You know, and Michael Schellenberger actually just published something today about that, where there's even more evidence that it was from the very lab that they think it's from.

Yeah. Well, those conversations, too, the email conversations after it was it happened. And then the conversations with Fauci and Rand Paul, were infuriating. Those were infuriating. They were so crazy.

Senator, you do not know what you are talking about. This appeal to authority, this trying to diminish what he's saying, when what he's saying is what people have been quietly saying that understood what was going on.

I'm very happy. Yeah. So for me, it was fine. And then most of my friends were comics, a lot of comics and a lot of jujitsu. guys, very like minded in their approach to this thing.

They weren't really interested in becoming an experiment. And a lot of them because they were touring a lot and a lot of them because they're in clubs a lot and that they were getting it and they already had it. And so this idea that even after getting it and getting over it, that somehow or another they had to get injected, and that didn't make any sense. They're like, why? Like, this, doesn't?

this doesn't follow what even the studies are showing about natural immunity due to prior previous infection, because they had a previous infection. They knew that there were supposedly at some point in time, was, the studies were showing there was seven times more effective than getting a vaccine. And the vaccine, the effectiveness it was showing, it was very short. And even then, people, even after I got over COVID, I had people that I like, that I admire. They're telling me you should get vaccinated now.

I said, why? Why? Make it make sense to me. Sanjay Gupta said that to me. Like, make it make sense to me.

Why should I do it? Because you'd be even more protected. I got over it quick. I got over in three. I made a video in three days and it looked too good.

So CNN put a filter on it and made me look yellow on TV. Did you see that? You never saw that?

And I was saying essentially that I had to cancel the shows that I was doing with Dave Chappelle that weekend.

So that's the top one is the CNN version. And the bottom one is the real version. This is me outside in Texas. So it's nice and sunny out. And look what they did to my face.

They made me look like I was ill.

They didn't concentrate on all the other stuff that I took. They didn't concentrate on the Z-Pak. They didn't concentrate on the prednisone. They didn't concentrate on the monoclonal antibodies or the IV drip of vitamins that I did. And NAD plus cocktail.

I did a lot of stuff. Yeah, and I got better quick. But no one cared that I got better. That was not the narrative. The narrative is like Joe Rogan is taking veterinary medication.

And then Rolling Stone printed an article saying that these hospital emergency rooms were getting overrun, with people overdosing on horse medication. And gunshot victims had to wait in line. First of all, how many people are getting gunshot in Oklahoma?

But the guy who runs it now is a guy with deep connections to the intelligence community. And is really deep, deep in the orthodoxy. It's not a counterculture magazine anymore.

It's now a culture. It's in the center.

But the one thing I wanted to mention to you. One of the incredible studies that came out, which is not surprising. But the Cleveland Clinic study.

So, in other words, if you got vaccine, you're more likely to get sick. It does the opposite. But this is what Fauci said at the very beginning. If you go back and look at his tapes, it could make you actually more susceptible. And that is exactly what it does.

But what that study shows, the more vaccines you get, the more likely it is that you're going to get sick. And that the people who are most vaccinated have 3.5 times the rate. And I could be wrong about this, but I think this was 3.5 times the risk of illness that people who are unvaccinated. Oh, I mean, that's not a good profile for a medical product.

I'm like, look, I've had diseases that were worse than this. I've had the flu that was worse than this. But also, I'm aware of ways to treat certain colds and flus and things. You can actually do things to improve your immune system.

He's saying, you know, he likes junk food. He eats junk food too much. He doesn't exercise. Walks a little, he was saying. He doesn't take vitamins.

And I was like, this is a crazy conversation. So you're advocating for this experimental mRNA vaccine technology, and you don't even do anything else to improve your immune system? Like, you don't do, there's all the studies on vitamins, on whether it's vitamin C, vitamin D, you know, exposure to sunlight increases your vitamin D as well. It's very good for the immune system. There's all these studies on this.

There's plenty of studies on what happens to people when they're nutrient deficient as well. Like, all of your systems are functioning incorrectly. And there's also studies on people that got administered to the ICU with COVID, that somewhere in the, it was above 70% were deficient in vitamin D.

It has a lot to do with your electrolyte balance. It has a lot to do with the nutrient content of your diet. So if you're not doing any of that, and you're telling everybody they've got to get jabbed, this is a crazy conversation.

Most of them were kids in the Mississippi Delta, black kids, severely malnourished, and they were dying of measles. And, you know, this was before the war on poverty, before my father visited Delta. And, you know, it's hard for a disease to kill a healthy person. It's hard for an infectious disease to kill a healthy person with a rugged immune system.

But when they've gone back and actually they have all the samples from thousands of people, they died from bacteriological pneumonia.

But the article that I read made a very strong case that the illness came from testing a new vaccine in Kansas at a military base in Kansas. And again, I'm a little hazy on the details.

But these people, obviously, they were saying that they were sick before this, correctly? Correct? Is that true?

That's hilarious. Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should be high priorities for pandemic planning.

Well, I had to stop doing that.

Smart people trust the science. And they believe that, you know, we have to all be in this together and you're a good person if you go out and get vaccinated. So you show your picture on your little Instagram page, got vaccinated, and everybody knows you're a good person. And then there's this sort of feedback loop. And then they start attacking people that differ from this.

And then they start, you know, calling you, my mother died from this, or my grandmother died from this, as if you somehow or another did it, not the fucking people that did this crazy research in Wuhan, China, and then lied about it. And then no one's mad at them. The same people who are mad at comedians for questioning it were applauding Fauci. Even though there was clear conversation that showed that, yes, they were doing what we consider to be gain-of-function research there. Yes, the NIH funded this.

Yes, this is all true. And when he's being confronted by Rand Paul, and you see him, he's essentially just lying in front of the American people.

And the same people that generally are these critical thinkers, they were so enamored by this narrative, and then so captive by it, and then also captive by their initial assertions. They're a prisoner of their initial statements on it. And they didn't want to say they were wrong. It took a lot of people a long time to say, I fucked up. That's not true.

It's just one of those things where it's a stress test. It's a stress test for people's character. It's a stress test for anxiety levels. It's a stress test for community bonds. It's a stress test for friendships.

It's a stress test. And you get to see. You get to see what it was like. And I feel, honestly, even though I was in the center of it all, I felt very fortunate. Because I can have no questions about how it actually works, how the system actually works to go against people that are dissenters.

I can have no questions because I was in the middle of it. I saw it. I saw it happen. I saw the CNN thing where they made my face yellow and said I was taking horse medication. Which is that the most, to say that and repeat that over and over again, is such a clear indication that they conspired.

It's such a, because it's uniform. It's horse dewormer. Uniform. A medication that's used far more often on human beings. It's been prescribed to billions.

So they had to destroy Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit it. And they had to tell everybody it's not effective. Because if they had acknowledged that it's effective in anybody, the whole $200 billion vaccine enterprise would have collapsed.

This is what they did with autism. They designed studies to fail. So they, you know, in fact, they designed studies. And the way they designed them to fail is by giving people lethal doses of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. And in fact, in Brazil, the researchers were charged with homicide.

You know, and that was one of those, I forget what it was called, the Solidarity Study. But it was one of the studies that was commissioned by WHO, paid for by Bill Gates and his people. And that, you know, they were literally giving people four or five times the prescribed doses of Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in order. And, you know, these were elderly people on their deathbeds. And a lot of them could not take that level of toxicity and died.

And so then they were able to say, oh, it kills people. But it wasn't killing anybody. They gave the prescribed doses too. And, you know, and Gates knew what the prescribed dose was for hydroxychloroquine, because his foundation gives it to hundreds of millions of people every year in Africa for malaria control. And so it wasn't, you know, it's hard to say that it was a mistake that they were overdosing these people.

And the IRB, you know, the safety panel that, you know, you have to have a safety panel for, it's called the Institutional Review Board. for every clinical trial. The safety panel stopped, stepped in and pulled Remdesivir out because it was killing so many people. It was killing more people than the Ebola. Ebola kills 53% of the people who get it.

And Remdesivir was doing worse. So why would you take that out of an, that got thrown out of an Ebola trial and give it to people with a disease that has an infection fatality rate of 1%?

And now they're getting, they decided, okay, we're going to give it to people lifetime, course of it, to people of AIDS. And of course, it's going to kill, you know, anybody on it is going to kill.

And then he died right after he started taking AZT.

He actually said that about AZT.

And so they were keeping those people alive artificially in order to, you know, make the drug look like it actually was efficacious.

Explain that, because it's such a bizarre, the way they do it. It seems like it should be illegal.

And that made it okay for the colleges and everybody else to force you to take an emergency use authorization vaccine, which is illegal. Nobody can tell you to participate in that medical experiment. And so they played this kind of shell game. But in order to get that, they had to reveal their testing. And what they did was they gave 22,000 people the vaccine and 22,000 similarly situated people the placebo.

And after six months, and they actually, they promised to do a five-year study, but then they cut it back to two months or four months and unblinded it right at the beginning. So, which is total deception. Now we don't know what any of the, you know, long-term effects are. There's a lot of impacts from these, from vaccines, like every other drug, that have long diagnostic horizons and long incubation periods. And if you don't have a five-year placebo-controlled trial, as Fauci himself said, you need eight years, he said, you're going to miss a lot.

And you could have mayhem, and that's exactly what happened.

So what they did is they had 22,000 people got the vaccine, 22,000 who didn't, and they have six months of data. Some of that is unblinded, but it's six months.

And during that six-month period, in the vaccine group, one person died of COVID. And in the placebo group, two people died from COVID. So that allows Pfizer to tell the public, and, you know, FDA to tell the public, oh, this vaccine is 100% effective, because two is 100% of one.