Welcome to this curated educational transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience. In this session, we provide a deep-dive examination of the critical perspectives and historical dialogues presented in Episode #2462. Our mission is to offer a high-fidelity, searchable research resource for students of cultural history, emerging technology, and global discourse. This transcript has been specifically optimized for academic reference, linguistic study, and archival preservation regarding Legal Transparency, Public Health Ethics, and Healthcare Accountability The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan
Podcast by night. All day. So you had a pile
of notes and then you just folded them up. Like,
did you commit them to memory? No, just these
two things. I have the links I sent you guys.
Oh, okay. And just some stuff there. I just saw
the piece of paper that you folded. I was like,
what's in there? How did, first of all, I want
to talk you through, like, When you were a younger
man before you had looked into this, what was
your opinions on medical science? What was your
opinions on vaccines? Were you skeptical or did
you just kind of assume that everything that
we're told is exactly how it is and the experts
have only the best interests of human beings
in mind and not money? I had what you would effectively
call the mainstream view. Vaccines saved humanity.
Me too. We'd all be dead without them. You know,
there was the Bible given to Moses at Sinai,
and then there were vaccines. Yeah. That's basically,
you know. I think it's anybody that didn't consider
themselves a fool. You know, you would have to
be a fool, like a real fool, to ignore all this
medical science, which is the reason why there's
so many people alive today that would have died.
And a lot of that's true, like penicillin, antibiotics.
There's a lot of stuff that has saved a lot of
people's lives. But the vaccine won. Until this
COVID epidemic, I would have never questioned
it. I mocked anti -vaxxers. I was like, these
people are silly. Don't they know all the good
things that vaccines have done? And there's the
blatant propaganda that we were force -fed like
one of those ducks they're trying to make foie
gras with. It just made me stop and pause and
go, is the whole thing like this? Is this whole
thing just a dirty money laundering operation?
Because it kind of seems like that's at least
part of the reason why they were telling people
to get boosted when they knew it wasn't working
and telling young people that didn't need it.
They wanted to make a lot of money. That's the
only reason why you would do any of those things
after a certain amount of information is out.
And so it just made me stop and think about the
whole thing and go, well. Why would I assume
that this is the one area where pharmaceutical
drug companies, doctors, everybody's been totally
honest in this one area when it's like a religious
thing if you question it? And I love the title
of your book. Yes. Vaccines, Amen. Yeah. The
Religion of Vaccines. That's what it is. It's
a religion for secular, intelligent people with
a higher education. And it causes incredible
cognitive dissonance for anybody out there to
come to the conclusion that the CDC and the FDA
and our public health authorities and what the
entire medical establishment has been telling
you may not be accurate about vaccines. Because
like what you just said, the claim that you're
a flat earther, you're an anti -vaxxer. They're
used as a way to say you are really out there
and dumb. They're completely equal in their impact.
And so it takes incredible cognitive dissonance
to say there are real problems with vaccines.
But vaccines really sit in their own little universe.
They're unlike any other medical product. They're
not like penicillin. They're not like any other
drugs. They're not like any other product out
there, any other product in this room. anything
out there for one major reason. Every other product
that exists, I can sue the company. I can hold
them accountable if that product injures or kills
you or your child on the basis that product could
have been safer. The only product, and I mean
this literally, the only product in America where
you cannot sue to say, had you made that product
safer, My child wouldn't be dead. My child wouldn't
be seriously injured. They wouldn't have a neurological
disorder. They wouldn't have immunological disorder.
They wouldn't have a nervous system disorder.
They wouldn't have a cardiac issue. Our childhood
vaccines and child vaccines used by adults. It's
the only one. And that's because of a law called
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986. It gave pharma companies that incredibly
special immunity. Just to put that into context,
okay, and I'll tie this back in a second as to
how we ended up with this notion of this belief
religion in vaccines because, you know, give
an industry 40 years of unopposed ability to
influence, they're going to get pretty dang far,
and they did with vaccines. And so, you know,
a lot of industries face a crossroads where their
products are causing more harm than good. Gas
tanks used to explode. What did they do? Made
a better gas tank, right? Building materials
had asbestos, caused cancer. What did they do?
They make better building materials, right? Did
they give them immunity? No, of course not. But
in the instance of vaccines leading up to 1986,
there were only three routine vaccines. That's
it. That's all there was. A child following the
CDC schedule in 1986. got three injections on
or before their first birthday. Okay? Those three
products were causing so much harm and injury
that every manufacturer of them went out of business.
And that was the MMR vaccine, the DTP, and the
OPV vaccine. Every single one, from six down
to one, or for the Piertussis vaccine, six down
to one for measles, about three down to one for
polio. And with one company left for each. Instead
of forcing them to do what every other industry
has to do, like I said, make better building
materials without asbestos, make better cars
that don't explode, go down the chain of different
products out there. Congress did something completely
unique. It said, you know what? We're just going
to give you immunity. We're going to make it
so that. No company, excuse me, no individual,
no parent, no child can sue you for the injuries
and deaths caused by your vaccine products. That
is what the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986 did. And not only for those three
products, but for any other childhood vaccine
thereafter. And what that effectively has done
is given 40 years for the industry to promote
their products with no pushback. When you read
about a problem with a car. Where are you reading
about it from? Usually a class action lawsuit
in the paper, right? Not going to read about
that in vaccines typically. And because of that,
you ended up where we are. Anyways, there's a
lot more detail to that, but I'll stop there
for now. No, please keep going. Well, I mean,
when you think about what makes products safer,
right? Because I've got a law firm with over
100 individuals. I'm the managing partner of
the firm. Half my firm does all types of plate
-to -side class actions. We can hold companies
accountable for almost anything. Your data. We
do hundreds of data breach cases, genetic privacy
cases, biometric privacy cases. We do all types
of lawsuits like that nature, by the way. And
New York Times loves those lawsuits, by the way.
That stuff nobody attacks me for, okay? Oh, making
my privacy better? Oh, protecting me from cars
that explode? Oh, thank you. Make vaccines safer?
You want to kill everybody. Okay. But that's
where it's really weird. Well, here's where I
think I'm hoping I can make it make sense without
causing cognitive dissonance. So going back to
how we make products safer in America or anywhere,
it's not the government. Governments don't make
products safer. Look at extremely authoritarian
regimes. where there was very little free market
like the former USSR. You think products were
safe? No. What makes products safe? It's the
economic self -interest of the company. It's
the economic interest of the company to make
the product safer. Why? You probably own stock,
right? And where do you want your stock to go,
up or down? How do you want it to go? You want
it to go up or you want it to go down? Where
do you want it to go? Up. You want it to go up.
Okay. So do all the investors. Right. So does
everybody who owns that stock. So does Wall Street.
So does the CEO. So does the board. So does everybody.
The people who own the stock. Everybody involved.
All the employees that have stock options, including
usually the major ones. Everybody wants it to
go up. If you lose money, it doesn't go up. So
normally, the interest to assure a product is
safer is aligned with the profit motive. Because
if your product causes injury and harm, then
you're going to lose money. So you want to know
typically. You have an economic self -interest
as a corporation to know. Not because you're
altruistic. Not because you're moral. Not because
you're ethical. Just because you have that economic
self -interest to assure the product is safe
before you go to market and after you go to market.
Okay? And that exists for every product in America
with effectively one exception. Vaccines. That's
really it. Now, I'm going to show you one result
of that in practice. When you think of drugs,
and this will help, I think, tie into what you're
saying about what happened with COVID. Most drugs
are licensed based on multi -year placebo -controlled
trials. Most of them. Why? Because the FDA requires
it? Because the FDA is so great? No. Nothing
to do with the FDA. It's because the company
wants to know whether the drug is safe or not
before it goes to market. Because you know what
happens with the drug that they put out that's
going to make $40 billion in revenue or $20 billion
but causes $100 billion in harm? They end up
upside down. So they want to know, to a reasonable
degree, how safe the drug is before it goes to
market. In an attempt not to cherry pick, as
I did in my book, I found an article that listed
the top four selling profitable drugs by Pfizer
as of like 2000, 2021 or something, 2019. OK,
and if you look at those four most profitable
drugs, as I put in my book, each one has two
to seven years of follow up in the clinical trial
that was relied upon to license that drug against
a placebo control group. Just to make sure everybody,
I'm sure everybody knows what that means, but
that just means a group that gets something inert.
So this way you give the group the experimental
drug, you give a group the placebo, something
inert, you track them for multiple years, and
then you compare all the outcomes, cardiovascular
outcomes, neurological outcomes, go down the
list. Cancer rates, and you see the difference.
You get a real actual sense of the safety between
those two for that product. In contrast, for
most childhood vaccines, instead of years, it's
often days or weeks of safety review in the clinical
trial relied upon to license them. Not a single,
and I know that folks can test this all the time,
but it's in the FDA literature. Not a single
routine injected childhood vaccine was licensed.
based on a placebo -controlled trial, save for
the COVID vaccine, by the way, for children.
It's the only one. Not a single one, okay? Nor
was the vaccine sometimes used as the control
itself licensed based on a placebo -controlled
trial, nor anywhere down that chain. Chapter
10 of my book, I go through every vaccine. I
go through, I have it all cited to the FDA licensure
documents. You can listen to the talking heads
or you can rely on the primary sources from the
FDA, which is why I call my book Vaccines Amen,
because there is what they tell you and then
there's what the actual evidence shows, right?
So that gives you an example of the outcome of
not having an economic self -interest. With drugs,
they have it, so they want to know the safety.
Can I challenge you on that? What about Vioxx?
Like the Vioxx people knew that there was one
of the things that was revealed during the trial
is that they knew that there was going to be
issues. I think the quote was, we still think
we'll do well. And that was one of the damning
aspects of the email disclosure, because you
got a chance to see how these guys talk about
this drug that they're about to release. I think
they wound up paying a percentage of the amount
of money they made from the drug, but they made
way more from the drug. then they did the fine.
No, I appreciate that challenge. And it's why
I said when I was saying that they do the analysis
of whether they're going to have $100 billion
in loss or $40 billion in revenue. I'm not saying
they won't put out a drug that causes harm. You're
saying it can't cause too much harm. Exactly.
They don't want to end up upside down. And remember,
the whole reason a drug is licensed is because
it can cause harm. The crazy thing about the
Vioxx one is I think it killed somewhere north
of 50 ,000 people and they still made profit
off of it, which is kind of bananas. They pulled
it and made billions in profit. This is the darker
aspect of this. If you were talking about companies
that never did anything wrong and had the highest
moral and ethical standards, and they're the
ones – because it's not about money. It's about
saving people's health and it's about public
safety and we've got to make sure that we do
this right. We're going to make sure we squash
all the disinformation. But that's not what you're
talking about. You're talking about these companies
that have been fined billions. billions of dollars
in criminal fines for fraud, for all kinds of
shit. These are the people. And the idea that
they wouldn't lie about vaccines, like this is
the one thing they're going to tell you the truth.
Ruthless, capitalist, attached to money and drugs.
This is the one thing they're going to 100 %
tell you the truth about. That seems kind of
kooky. That's a hard sell for anybody who's not
ideologically captured. That's a hard sell. Yeah,
but I don't think you need to go down the road
that there's some kind of evil nefariousness
there. No, that's not what I'm saying. It's a
broken economic and regulatory system from my
perspective. Right. It's just a completely broken
economic. To your point about Vioxx, right? So
in Vioxx, it caused an incredible amount of harm,
but they still decided that the benefits of it
raised the risk. Do you know the story about
the cars that used to explode? It's the classic.
case we learned in law school. And the gas tank
and these cars - Was it a Pinto? It was the Pintos.
That's right. And a number of them exploded every
year, burning the people inside them alive to
death. Horrible. Way to go. And there was a lawsuit.
And in that lawsuit, what they discovered was
the company had done an internal calculation
in which it did the math. What's it going to
cost to actually fix all the gas tanks? What's
that dollar number versus what's it going to
cost to just pay out for those deaths every year
for those people that we burn knowingly are going
to die and burn to death in those cars? And the
calculation was that it was going to cost less
to pay out for the deaths. And that is what the
internal document showed. And that, by the way,
is in part the case, the quintessential case
you learn in law school for why they have punitive
damages. Because the punitive damages were there
to force the company to conform its conduct in
exactly that scenario where the economics weren't
going to do it. Even in something that horrible,
when the market forces weren't sufficient, the
economic self -interest wasn't there, you had
to make it happen. How? Through punitive damages.
I know there's a lot of... you know, news about
punitive damages. Oh, it's excessive and so forth.
But that's what they're there for. They're there
for that scenario where we're just holding them
accountable. Now go back to vaccines. Think about
how incredibly harmful and how much harm these
vaccines must do that they cannot survive on
the market without this immunity from 1986. Think
about that. If you were going to steal me on
the argument against that, wouldn't you say,
look, These are we can't have frivolous lawsuits
against these people that are providing us the
most important medication that's available to
humans. The whole reason why we survive smallpox
and polio and all these different things. It's
these vaccines. Without them, we'd all be dead.
This episode is brought to you by Montana Knife
Company. I have used their knives for years.
They are absolutely fantastic. The company was
founded by one of the most experienced master
bladesmiths in the world, my friend, Josh Smith.
He has been making knives since... He was a kid.
He's been making knives for 30 years. He made
his first hunting knife when he was 11 years
old and became a master bladesmith at 19. This
man loves knives, the construction of knives.
They are absolutely next level. Everything is
made right here in the USA, in Montana, and these
knives are designed, tested, and built by hunters.
They come insanely sharp out of the box and are
crazy easy to sharpen. Montana Knife Company
is a young company working hard to keep up with...
demand because these knives sell out in minutes.
If you want one, head over to MontanaKnifeCompany
.com to see what's available now. Sign up for
their email newsletter so you know when they
restock and get in on their SMS notifications
for special knife drops. My personal favorite
blade is the Speedgoat 2 .0. I use it all the
time. It's an amazing knife. Montana Knife Company,
working knives for working people. So let's just
assume that the last part of what you said is
true, which we know it's not. But with that said,
let's steel manning it. Easy response. Okay.
Okay. Drugs, drugs that are for very small populations,
meaning not a lot of market, not a lot of sales,
that cause incredible side effects can survive
in the market profitably. Think about that for
a second. Why? Okay. Here's why. It's a little
bit of legal stuff, but it's not that hard. It's
not that bad, okay? The primary claim you would
typically bring against a product is the claim
that it could have been made safer. It's called
a design defect claim. It's a claim where I say,
hey, had you put in a two -cent stopper on that
gas tank, it wouldn't have exploded. If you had
put in a one -penny plastic shield on that saw,
I'd have my finger. Okay? Design defect claim.
The claim you could have made a product safer.
It is the primary claim you would bring for a
product. Okay? Injury claim. So how do you protect
against it? You make the product as technologically
safe as possible. Right? So if you have a drug
that causes incredible side effects that we just
talked about, make the drug as safe as possible.
Make sure there are no contaminants. Make sure
that you use the best possible ingredients. Make
sure the combination, right, the safest adjuvant,
go down the road. That's number one. Number two,
the second way you hold them accountable is you
bring a claim called a failure to warrant claim.
I failed to warn you about the harm that the
drug could have caused. OK, and so what do you
have to do there to protect yourself? The company
has to disclose all the potential harms. If it
has it right there in the package insert and
you get it and it says, hey, it can cause this,
this, this, this, this. You were told you chose
to still take the product. They made it as safe
as technologically feasible. They disclose the
risks. And that is how companies typically limit
their liability with medical products, with drug
products. OK, why can't they do the vaccines?
Why can't they just make them as safe as technologically
feasible, can't sue them for design defect, and
disclose all the actual risks in the package
insert? Okay? The logical conclusion is, and
one other point to that, and then I'll respond
to your steel man, okay? And it's this, all right?
It's been 40 years for some of these vaccines.
Hep B vaccine, for example, licensed in 86 and
89, the two standalones. It's been 40 years.
You're telling me they still don't know it's
safe enough to lift that immunity? You're giving
it to millions of kids a year. You're making
billions of dollars on the sales of this product,
and you still don't know it's safe enough to
lift that immunity? Please. OK, if I was a silly
person, I would probably say these vaccines are
more important than any medication that's ever
existed because they are the reason why we are
here, because that's how we survive smallpox
and polio and the measles and everything else.
And without them, we would have perished. We
would have never achieved the technological states
that we're at because we wouldn't have been healthy.
We would have gone through mass plagues. Okay,
out. So because of that, it's just important
that they stay in business. Well, a few things.
And we trust the science. We should trust the
science, Aaron. Trust the science, yes. Believe.
Aaron, trust the science. Yes, sir. Amen. Amen.
Yeah, I try not to do too much believing, and
I try to do a little bit of evidence -based thinking.
But any event, look, when it comes to these products,
I save my beliefs for religion, the unanswerables.
Where do we go when we die? Right. And so forth.
I have to take a leap of faith, and I do it when
I need to, but you don't need to with these products.
Okay. On the first part of what you said, first
of all, there are products probably that are
far more important to humanity at the moment,
no question about it, than vaccines, even assuming
it had the results that you just claimed, which
I'll address in a second. Imagine you said, look,
cars are essential. I mean, cars, you can't get
an ambulance. You can't get to the hospital.
Without cars, you can't get to work. You can't
get to school. It's essential to a functioning
society. So let's give cards immediate liability.
Intuitively, you'd say that's ridiculous. Right.
On the deaths point, that is one of the myths.
That is one of the mythologies around vaccines
that has developed over time. This notion that
everybody in America die without vaccines. In
chapter seven of my book, and I lay it out for
every single disease. And what I do there is
I say, OK. How many deaths were there in America
the year before the vaccine was first introduced
or widely used or so forth, okay, in any real
degree? And what you find is if you go down the
list, there were typically dozens to hundreds,
maybe a thousand or so deaths from each disease
for which we vaccinate. The further back in time
you go, the larger the number in that dozens
to a thousand or so deaths, okay? For example,
measles, the dreaded measles that they say everybody
will die from. No measles vaccine, we're all
going to die, right? That is the impression they
give you. You have any idea how many people died
of measles in the years before there was a measles
vaccine in the United States? How many? About
400 a year. That's it? That's it. 400 a year,
dying in the United States at a time when everybody
had measles, which comes out to about 1 in 450
,000 Americans dying of measles. That's in the
CDC. Anybody listening to this is like, come
on, that's not true. CDC mortality documents
on the CDC website, cited in my book, 400. And
don't about 50 ,000 people every year die from
the flu? Well, that statistic includes bacterial...
deaths that they say are potentially the result
from having influenza. So your immune system
gets weakened and then something else hits you
and that kills you? Is that the idea behind it?
Well, that's just the way they gather the data,
is the way I'll put it. But with influenza...
Let me finish up with the measles, because I
think this is important on the measles one, and
I can deal with influenza as well. But on the
measles one, just to really, because you're saying,
well, everybody would die without these. I don't
think people think of influenza, by the way.
They think of measles. Right. They think of those
diseases. Right. I don't ever hear anybody say
to me, well, everybody will die of influenza
without influenza vaccines. It's available. Everybody
can get it. The mortality hasn't changed much.
In fact, if you look at the mortality of influenza
before influenza vaccines were widespread, we're
not doing that great. Okay. Anyway, putting that
aside for a moment. Not only that, isn't there
data that shows that if you get it, you're more
likely to get other colds? Yeah. I have a whole
giant footnote in my book about this, and I actually
tweeted this out and did a stuff stick about
this, a whole series of articles. Studies that
show that those that have had the influenza vaccines,
maybe these studies often reflect have around
the same rate of influenza. Maybe they have less
respiratory influenza infections. But many studies
show they have multiple times the rate of. other
respiratory infections. So good job. Maybe you
reduced your risk of influenza by this much,
but you've increased your risk of another different
respiratory disease by that much. How much is
it? How much of the increase? Depends on the
study. Some studies show four times risk. Some
studies show three times risk. Yeah. I mean,
literally three, four. I mean, huge percentages.
So and they're statistically significant in these
studies. And so, you know, when you're looking
at these are all retrospective epidemiological
studies. And but when you do a retrospective
epi study, which means you take existing data
and then you study it versus saying, OK, we're
going to do a study and follow people going forward.
OK, if you find like a one point three. time,
which means 30 % increased risk, like that's
a published full finding. This is three, 400
% increased risk. Yes. And in many of these studies,
it's inconvenient data. So obviously it's not
talked about. Right. So 400 people is not a whole
lot. I'm sure, I mean, it's sad when 400 people
die, but it's also one of those diseases that
when you're a child, it's much more survivable,
right? Than adult, adult, it's rough, isn't it?
Yeah. So measles, the ideal age to get it is
not when you're an infant, which in the pre -vaccine
era, infants typically did not get measles because
they got maternal immunity from the mother. And
you don't want to get it as an adult because
it is more likely to cause problems, which again,
in the pre -vaccine era, wasn't a problem because
everybody virtually got it as a child. Right.
And when you got it as a child, My recollection
of it was the episode of the Brady Bunch. Do
you remember? Yeah. Remember that episode? Yeah,
they were laughing about it. Let's watch this.
Find that clip and let's watch it because it's
so indicative of what measles was actually like
in the culture of the people that would get it
all the time versus this boogeyman of today.
I mean, it is it's so stark. It's so I mean,
it's like imagine the kid coming home. Hey, mom,
I've got AIDS. I got to stay home from school.
It's not that right. It's it's the way that most
folks who've had chicken pox think of chicken
pox. Right. But we're told that it's killing
people. We're told that it's killing people now.
We're told that it's killing. It's always kids.
We're told it's killing kids now. And look, if
anybody dies from measles, I'm very sad. But
I want to know, is it with measles? Remember
the with COVID or from COVID? Like what kind
of condition were these people in before this
hit them? Because some, I mean, that was the
thing about COVID. It's like, yeah, it's fatal.
If you have four plus comorbidities, you're more
likely to be fatal. And that was most of the
people that wind up dying from it, right? That's
almost certainly the case. And I can add another
data point to that to help support that, which
is. that between 1900, and this is again CDC
data, between 1900 and the late 1950s, early
1960s, the mortality from measles declined in
the United States by over 98%. You know what
didn't cause that? Vaccines. Yeah, because it
didn't exist. So immunity had become a herd thing,
just like COVID -ish. right now well everybody
basically has had covet or at least he's been
exposed to it by now yeah here it is what's yeah
it's a whole episode there's multiple clips i
don't know which one just just let's just try
i think it's he finds out he's coming over put
on your headphones for a second so we could hear
this aaron oh yeah grab your headphones thank
you no are you sure it's the measles well he
certainly got all the symptoms a slight temperature
a lot of dots and a great big smile A great big
smile. No school for a few days. You've got measles.
Golly, mothers are supposed to know everything.
But do you have to keep proving it? You've got
a temperature, too. What do you mean, too? Peter
was sent home from school a little while ago.
Oh, what was his temperature? 101 .1. Oh, is
that all? I'm 101 .2. Oh, Greg, you are my railroad.
I'll be a sport. You can ride on it free. Thanks
a lot. It's... Your turn, Peter. They're having
a measles party. Boy, this is the life, isn't
it? Yeah. If you have to get sick, you sure can't
beat the measles. That's right. No medicine.
Inside or out. Like shots, I mean. Don't even
mention shots. Yes! Okay. I mean, am I crazy?
Or have we gone through one of the wildest gaslightings?
Of anything ever. There's there's people out
there that because of the things that you said
so far about the measles will be 100 percent
freaking out on Twitter. Right. But this is this
is a window into how the American public thought.
I know it's a television show. I know it's a
sitcom, but you can't joke around about stuff
that other people wouldn't think is funny. People
would think that was funny, these kids saying,
if you're going to get sick, you should get the
measles. And everybody at home would be like,
oh, I wish I had a day off. Well, that's how
they thought of it. Yeah. And to put hard data
on it, going back to that statistic, over 98
% reduction. Remember, it's not like COVID, Joe,
because COVID, there was no immunity in the population,
right? Right. Measles has been around for forever,
as far as we know, thousands of years. The year
1900 wasn't the beginning of herd immunity. 1900,
measles already endemic. Everybody was getting
measles. So every year there's a few million
people cohort that were getting it and you had
this decline. And so you have to ask yourself,
what was the decline? It was probably better
sanitation. better acute medical care, I mean,
all kinds of things. And you know who could take
credit for most of that stuff? Better sanitation,
better living conditions, better you name it,
probably public health authorities. Meaning the
improvement in acute care, the introduction of
antibiotics, better living conditions, not having
sewage in the street, you name it, probably had
a massive contributor to that reduction, but
they never point to that. And there's one other
really inconvenient data point with measles.
And this is really where it gets upsetting for
folks out there who you were just saying are
going to watch the show. And it's this. That
over 98 % reduction in mortality, there's no
reason that that curve was not going to continue.
Because pockets of the United States in the late
50s and early 60s were like a developing country.
In a developing country, kids are going to die.
of any infectious disease because of extremely
poor living conditions. And as those improved,
most likely that 400 deaths also would have continued
to decline. 4 .2 million births in the United
States in the late 50s, early 60s, about 3 .8
million births today. So in fact, there's less
children being born in America today than there
was then. So you have a smaller cohort of babies,
young children to infect. And final data point,
and it's this. This is really... I know this
is going to cause cognitive dissonance for some,
but studies that have looked at those that have
had measles versus those that don't find that
those that have had measles have a statistically
significant greater reduction in deaths from
cardiovascular disease and various cancers. So
I'll give you an example. There's a 20 -year,
22 -year prospective study in Japan funded by
the government of Japan and major universities
that tracked 100 ,000 people in Japan for 22
years. And it found that those that had measles
and mumps had a 20 % statistically significant
decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease.
Think about that for a second. Just think about
that. About 800 ,000 Americans die of cardiovascular
disease. If eliminating measles and mumps...
has increased cardiovascular deaths in the United
States by even 1 % on a life years lost basis,
you are still way upside down on your public
health benefit. By eliminating measles. Can I
ask you what the speculation is and how that
could be? Why would measles and mumps infection
at an early age improve your health cardiovascularly?
Why would it also, those that have not had measles,
have a 66 % increase rate of non -Hodgkin's lymphoma
and 266 % increase rate of Hodgkin's lymphoma,
which kills 20 ,000 people a year. Why would
women that have had measles have 50 % less ovarian
cancer, which kills a lot of women every year?
What is it about it? Maybe, and here's the thing,
I'm, you know, and you can have evolutionary
biologists talk about this as well. You've had
some on. Think about it this way. Pathogens have
come and gone throughout the ages, right? Right.
This one didn't. Measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox,
they didn't. It could be, maybe, I'm not saying
it is, I'm just saying this is what the data
appears to reflect. What I just told you about
with cardiovascular disease and cancer, they're
all in PubMed. They're all PubMed studies. They're
all in the published literature. And they're
all consistent having the findings that I just
described, okay? I'm just a lawyer. I'm just
repeating to you what the data reflects. It could
be that having those febrile childhood infections
conferred a survival advantage overall. And it
could be the reason they never actually went
away over time, became less obviously pathogenic.
So it has like a hormetic effect and it makes
you physically stronger somehow or another. It
makes your immune system stronger, your cardiovascular
– like a stress test. That means it's not outside
the realm of possibility, right? I mean if lifting
weights makes you stronger and studying makes
you smarter, wouldn't it make sense that some
form of infection that you recover from will
make you more resilient? It does make sense.
Just like no one wants to say, hey, you should
go get measles. Look, theory of relativity is
not intuitive. Why is it as you approach a more
massive object or approach the speed of light
does time relatively slow down? I don't know
if it makes sense or not. It's just when you
put two atomic clocks on a plane, one on the
ground, one on the plane, you fly it around the
earth. They're not ticking the same. So there
it is. Right. You can't pretend that's not data.
The data is what it is. It doesn't have to make
sense to be true. That's a good point. That's
just what it is. And I'm just saying what the
studies show. Very inconvenient, a lot of cognitive
dissonance there, but it could very well be that
our whole, this whole program, not only do we,
so going back to your whole, going all the way
back to your point, you're like, well, they'll
say vaccines are so important. We got to give
them this immunity. No. In fact, quite the opposite.
Our babies are so precious, are so important.
We want to make sure we have the safest possible
product you can have. And the way to do that
is to make sure the companies have an economic
interest to make sure they're as safe as possible.
I agree with you entirely. But if I was questioning
anything, I would say, OK, if we don't have genetic
immunity anymore because our parents didn't have
it, because our parents are vaccinated against
measles. Wouldn't it be better to keep vaccinating
people rather than let a whole bunch of people
with no immunity to measles get it, particularly
older people? So this is a really important point,
actually. I agree with you. Can I stop before
we get going? When they mandated vaccines or
when they started giving them to people was what,
in like the early 60s, I believe? For measles
vaccines, 63. Did a lot of people resist it?
Was it back then? Were the hippies opting out?
Is there like a group that you could follow and
track that never got it, never got the vaccine
while everybody else did? It has to be, right?
I'm sure there's a group out there you can identify.
I mean, the Amish. There you go. Right. So, you
know, who we represent right now because New
York's trying to basically kick them out of New
York for not vaccinating. That's crazy. We just
won in the U .S. Supreme Court. We were just
successful in vacating the lower court decisions
just a few weeks ago. Do you remember when Kathy
Hochul was talking about the vaccines like they're
a gift from God? She believes it. But do you
remember how she was saying it? It was like,
in any other business, if you were running a
pharmaceutical drug business, if you were running
Chevy and you're making a new Corvette and you
started talking about how this Corvette is a
gift from God, everybody would go, oh. Kathy's
cracked. What are you talking about? It's a bunch
of engineers. We put together a great car. It's
a gift from God. What? People don't say, I believe
in tables, or I believe in chairs, or I believe
in TVs, and I believe in wallpaper. But they
say, I believe in vaccines all the time because
it carries a truism. But do they work? Does the
measles vaccine prevent people from getting measles?
Or is it a leaky vaccine? Is it a completely...
Answering that and your prior question at the
same time. Sorry. No, no, no. I'm very scattered.
Is that is that is that the measles vaccine,
measles, MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine can
prevent transmission. That is not true of most
vaccines, but those can't. So those can those
can. And so to your now going back. So that's.
the differential. And in fact, for most of the
other vaccines like pertussis vaccine and so
forth, they make you more likely to spread the
pathogen if you're vaccinated. And I can tell
you all about that. But before I do that, let
me just point out that to your last comment,
because measles, MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine
can prevent transmission. You are correct. If
measles were to come through society right now,
right now. In the current time, it would be problematic
because babies who aren't supposed to get it
would be more likely to get it because the mothers
aren't conferring the same maternal immunity
that they did in the pre -vaccine era because
the vaccine doesn't confer the same level of
immunity anywhere near. And older folks, because
the vaccine is nowhere as efficacious as having
had the infection, depending on the study, two
to 10 % do not seroconvert even after two doses,
meaning they are not getting immunity at all,
pretty much, or immunity is considered immune.
Is this when they take it later in life or when
they take it when they're young? This is when
they take it when they're young. And that's why
when there's a measles outbreak, a lot of times
you'll hear a call to even have folks who are
older get the measles vaccine again, right? There's
guidance on that because it doesn't confer. If
you've had measles, you're done. You never need
a vaccine. Again, you'll never get measles again.
One and done. So yes, it would be problematic.
right now for those, for MMR, measles, mumps,
rubella, and chickenpox to just kind of let it
rip. You would have to really, you know, have
an educational campaign beforehand if you were
going to do that. But for the other vaccines,
hep B vaccine, pertussis vaccine, not a problem.
Those vaccines don't stop transmission. And I
go into that. Kind of crazy that they give that
to babies. It's kind of crazy. Kind of crazy
if the parent aren't intravenous drug users or
whatever, whatever would give them hep B, that
you're going to inject a baby with a vaccine
that prevents them from getting a sexually transmitted
disease and like a rarely, you got to be doing
something rough. Joe, you just don't understand
what goes on in the NICU. I mean, it just seems
crazy. It is. And here, I'll give you. Another
data point, which is in Denmark, there is no
Hep B, universal Hep B for kids. The only time
they give Hep B in Denmark is if the mother is
Hep B positive. So their Hep B vaccination rate
amongst children is like 0 .1 % or something
to that effect. So here you go. Two first world
countries, America and Denmark. Universal Hep
B here. Virtually zero hep B vaccine given there.
The rate of hep B amongst children, not statistically
significant. You know what is different between
those two countries? The rate of harm from hep
B vaccine. That's different. You know what a
baby's never died of on the first day of life?
Hepatitis B. You know what a baby has died of
on the first day of life? Hepatitis B vaccine.
In fact, adjudicated as such not long ago for
a newborn that died from a hep B vaccine. And
I said earlier, you can't sue the manufacturers.
You cannot. There is a little program, though,
in the federal government where you can bring
a claim if you're injured from a vaccine. That's
what I'm talking about right now. I went about
that baby that died of Hep B. Right. It's called
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I have
like 20 folks in my firm that do that work. And,
you know, it's not like a regular court. You
don't get an Article 3 judge, Article 3 of the
Constitution, a federal judge. You don't get
any discovery as a right, which is how you prove
harms. There's a $250 ,000 statutory cap on pain
and suffering and on death, which is ridiculous.
And it doesn't have, you know, anyways, long
story short, it's paid out about $5 billion for
damages and so forth from vaccines over the years.
But so so I don't want people to get confused.
Like when I said, well, how did this baby get
adjudicated? Right. Got adjudicated in this program.
Got it. Got it. So when you have conversations
with people and they are the way you used to
be in the way I used to be, where you just sort
of. just assumed that the people that are experts
in their fields are doing a great job and that's
why we're alive. And you start telling them these
things. Are you a real problem at a cocktail
party? Have you ever had a conversation that
just went completely sideways and they started
getting angry at you for quoting things? Yeah.
It's not a problem for me because I don't know
emotions or feelings about the products. They're
just products. They're no different for me. But
a lot of folks, there's two things. First, for
some, like medical professionals, a lot of them
seem to derive a lot of their self -schema almost,
their value, their worth from these products.
They saved humanity. How could you question that?
We are the saviors, right? In some respects,
almost like supplanting God, right? What's the
only thing that will save us during COVID? Was
it God? No. Vaccines. That's the only thing.
And then for others, They think that they know,
okay? But they don't know intellectually. They've
never looked at the primary sources. So when
you challenge them with evidence, what can they
draw from? The intellect? No. They draw from
their emotions. They draw from their feelings,
and that's why they get angry. I do get that
all the time. But I also often get folks who
are just curious and interested to listen. Well,
I think there's more of those now than there's
ever been before. Absolutely. I think COVID in
that respect forced the conversation. You had
millions of people who were listening to basic
stuff that 10 years ago when I started doing
this work, nobody talked about what is a placebo?
What's a clinical trial? What's the stuff like
this became? Or even the idea that a vaccine
can cause a harm was just that notion was totally
taboo seven years ago. Right. No more. Yeah,
I think you're entirely correct. And also credit
to YouTube because YouTube doesn't suppress this
stuff anymore, which is why I found. dozens of
interviews with you on YouTube. I mean, I'd seen
some of your stuff on social media, but then
I've watched a bunch of your stuff now on YouTube,
whereas during the pandemic, everything you said,
you would have got removed. I was removed. Everything
I said was removed. I'll tell you the first thing
they ever posted that got said, it was on Twitter.
Yeah, the old Twitter. So we brought this lawsuit
against the FDA to get all the documents they
relied upon to license Pfizer's COVID -19. vaccine,
okay? Yeah. They licensed it in 42 days, and
we said, all right, for 42 days, give us all
the documents, right? And they wanted it forever.
They wanted to produce it at a rate of a few
hundred pages a month, which would have taken
hundreds of years, effectively. Got a tranche
of those documents. Took some of them. Literally
took one of the documents and posted it, and
my tweet was just literally quoting from the
document, effectively, and that was taken down
as misinformation. Pfizer's own documents submitted
to the FDA. One of the first things, that was
just, that was mind -jarring. It was stunning.
It was stunning to watch people not be outraged,
too. When information was getting out about different
people that were silenced, Jay Bhattacharya and
all those different people that were getting
attacked, Martin Koldorf, it was stunning. How
no one was going, hey, what is going on here?
This seems really weird that you're removing
posts from guys from MIT and Stanford and banning
their accounts. That's fucking crazy. And until
Elon purchased Twitter, we really didn't know
the extent of it. We didn't really. We really
weren't aware that it was government involvement.
They were stepping in to remove mal -information.
That was my favorite. They came up with, you
know that one? Disinformation, mal -information.
Mal is the best because it's true information
that might cause problems, which is fucking almost
everything. As soon as you have a problem with
mal -information, you are encouraging the creepiest
kind of groupthink that's available, and no one
freaked out. Well, a few people freaked out.
But not enough. It wasn't. It should have been
bipartisan. Should have been a bipartisan freak
out. It should have been left and right. But
it got politicized in this really stupid way
where people on the left were pro vaccine and
pro pharmaceutical drug company and pro narrative.
And people on the right were like, I'm going
to take my chances. And those were the kooks.
And, you know, it was just like ideological battle
as much as it was a public health crisis. Censorship
was bad. It was very bad. Real bad. But. I'll
tell you what made me think people were going
to go into the street with pitchforks was when
the government told everybody, stay at home.
That wasn't hidden. That wasn't behind the scenes,
the stuff you're talking about. They said, stay
in your house. They didn't say, we recommend
you stay in your houses. They didn't say, we
recommend you get this vaccine. We don't recommend
you wear this mask. They said, stay. In your
house, when they had that first order came down,
I was like, people are just going to be outraged.
People are going to protest. And when they didn't,
that's what dismayed me personally. And I'll
tell you why. Because when you think about civil
and individual rights, First Amendment, the right
to free speech, the assembly, that was passed
and adopted by the states in 1791. What's the
First Amendment intended to do? It's restrict
government. from infringing on those rights.
You think life was easy in 1791? What do you
think life was like in 1791? You think it was
easy? You think it was all hunky -dory? Life
in 1791 was brutal! Brutal! You want to talk
about disease, pestilence, famine, war? You want
to talk about a life that is no electricity,
no running water, no sewage, nothing? And that
amendment was passed for times that are more
brutal than that. And here comes a virus. And
every right you have is basically taken away.
And Americans are like, take it. Take it away.
That is what outraged me. Because, look, what's
the whole point of this country? What is America
born out of, in my view? It's born out of the
idea that every other government that preceded
it. Got it wrong in the following sense. Your
life should not be dictated by a king or a dictator
or a polar bureau or a central authority. It's
the idea that you are born with inalienable rights.
You should be able to choose your destiny, including
what risks you want to take. Individual rights
come with risks. Letting Joe Rogan say what he
wants on this podcast comes with risks. Letting
you practice what religion you want, assemble
with who you want, especially in Austin. Very
interesting time yesterday. That comes with risks,
let me tell you. A lot of risks, okay? But the
greater risk is always ceding that right to the
government. Because once you do, you don't get
it back often. And so, yes, there was that hidden
stuff you talk about. And that was bad. Don't
get me wrong. That was bad stuff. That was really,
really bad. But the stuff they did in the open,
to me, in some ways, was even worse. And I hope
that there's a lesson that folks learn from that.
Because let me tell you something. Even if you
love every vaccine out there, you listen to this,
you love every vaccine, you love every mask,
right? Great. I support every American's right.
You're 17, you're 18, you're totally healthy,
no comorbidities, and you want to get a vaccine
a day, wear 70 masks, and live in your basement
in a self -imposed stay -at -home order? This
is America. I support your right to do it. I'll
fight for your right to do that. And you're 90,
and you're a war veteran, and you have 16 comorbidities,
and you want to go to the coffee shop with no
vaccine and no mask? You should be free to do
that, because that's America, too. That's freedom,
also. Just like you can bull ride. And if you
don't stand up for that right now, The day comes
when there's something, a medical product you
don't want, the government says you have to get
because trust me, it is so much cheaper to lobby
to get a medical product required than it is
to market to get people to get it. Oh, they've
learned that lesson. That's why there's so much
lobbying to get mandates, get rid of exemptions
across the country that you don't want and you
can't get a job and you can't go to school and
you can't leave your house. Then what good are
the rest of your rights? They're useless. That's
why medical liberty truly is a fundamental right.
I'm off my high horse. No, it's a great high
horse. That was an awesome rant. You're absolutely
100 % on the money. And it's such an important
thing to get out there, to get people to understand
that it's such a natural human inclination to
when you're in a... place of power, of control,
any form of government. You want more control.
And it's just natural. And what you're talking
about when you lose rights. You very rarely get
them back. That was so on display in California
with the COVID regulations because they had everybody
locked down way past where they had to. A friend
of mine's brother worked in one of the COVID,
some government office, when they were considering
the closing of outdoor dining. And he brought
up, but there's no transmission related to outdoor
dining. And the woman who was in charge said,
yes, but it's all about the optics. So she was
willing to, with a wave of her magic wand, shut
down outdoor dining for a bunch of small family
businesses that were probably barely staying
alive after COVID. Barely. We lost somewhere
around 70 % of Los Angeles restaurants went under
during COVID. That's fucking bananas. And so
they finally get outdoor dining. Like, okay,
we could kind of pay the bills this month. And
then they shut down outdoor dining for optics.
So this kind of desire to just put a foot down,
control people, keep a boot on their neck, it's
normal. Even if it doesn't make sense. Everybody
knows that from high school. Everybody knows
that from, I mean, the Stanford prison experiments.
People like to control people. They enjoy it.
And when they get a place like becoming the mayor
or becoming the governor and being able to tell
people, you got to listen to me. I've got rule.
Everyone stay inside. Be scared. Fucking California.
Garcetti literally had a campaign that said snitches
get rewards. snitches snitching on people having
more than one person over your house standing
too close in the backyard you get money you get
money for ratting out your neighbor This episode
is brought to you by BetterHelp. In honor of
International Women's Day, BetterHelp is celebrating
the women in your life. I think we can all appreciate
everything the women in our lives have done for
us, and everyone deserves a little self -care.
A good way to get that is through therapy, because
not only is therapy a time for you to focus on
yourself. It's also a way to create balance and
learn how to take care of your needs in your
daily life. And BetterHelp, as one of the largest
online therapy platforms, makes it so easy to
meet with the right therapist. All you need to
do is fill out a short questionnaire. You don't
even need to go into an office to meet them.
You can chat at home, from your couch, in your
car, before you hit the gym, or while you're
walking your dog. Plus, if you aren't jiving
with your first match, you can switch to a different
therapist whenever. you need. Your emotional
well -being matters. Find support and feel lighter
in therapy. Sign up and get 10 % off at BetterHelp
.com slash J -R -E. That's BetterHelp .com slash
J -R -E. Well, when the government gets it wrong,
they always, always double down because, and
that's the problem with the mandates. Once they've
acquired it, they have taken a position and then
to admit they're wrong. Often what government
ends up saying is, oh, well, we're the CDC. If
we admit we're wrong about this, that's going
to hurt our ability to influence the public.
And that's more important than admitting we're
wrong on this or correcting course. Because our
legitimacy, our ability to influence the public
is so important. We have to, you know, we can't
admit we're wrong. That's what Bobby's doing
right now with some of these things is, you know,
some of the stuff like the new autism. page on
the CDC website, for example, is contrary to
anything I've ever seen come out of the federal
health authorities to date. But yes, it's disturbing.
And it's why government should, no public health
authority should ever be able to tell you and
infringe on your rights. They should be able
to recommend, recommend like crazy, but never
do it. Because that is the normal course of how
tyranny dictators, bullies, thugs operate. First,
they tell you what to do. You don't listen, apply
a little pressure. You don't listen, then they
mandate. You still don't listen, they censor
you. Still, take away more of your rights. That
is the normal progression throughout history,
and we saw it happen in front of our eyes, which
is why it should be a line in the sand. Federal
health authorities, state health authorities
should be able to recommend and encourage, never
mandate. Ever. Fauci literally expressed it that
way. I'm sure you've heard that recording of
him. Once people realize they can't go to work,
they'll drop their ideological bullshit and they'll
get vaccinated. He's essentially telling them,
you're going to make people's life hell and they'll
do what you want them to do. Not they will have
free will, they will have the ability to choose.
No, no, no. You will make them do what you want.
Yeah. Who wants a government that persuades you
on the merits? Forget that. But imagine that
that is something that someone said out loud.
But that, I don't think that what Fauci was saying
is anything. Fauci, everything in my view that
you saw during COVID is not like some giant leap.
into some new territory. To me, it's just another
natural step in progression from where we've
gone over the last 40 years with vaccines. Fauci's
saying that is no different than school mandates
right now to get children. Most states have,
45 states have basically checked the box exemption
to send your kids to school. There's about five
that don't. They're trying to eliminate exemptions,
right? Clearly, they're able to persuade most
parents on the merits. But yet they can't take
it. They can't take that. A two, three, four
percent just will not take these products. And
I, you know, and I'll tell you about most of
these folks are they're the folks who really
need the exemptions because, you know, most people
who don't choose to take childhood vaccines,
they don't typically just wake up and decide
to do that for fun. Not many people wake up one
day and go, you know, I'm going to do today.
I'm going to take a socially ostracizing position.
I might get my kids kicked out of school, me
thrown out of my job. My friends call me an anti
this and anti that. You know, you name it. All
the horribles that come with not vaccinating.
No, most people don't vaccinate. Don't vaccinate
because they've had a very, very personal or
negative experience with these products. They
are one of their kids or one of their family
members or they've learned stuff they cannot
learn about them. OK, they were usually a very
good reason not to. And yet, as you saw during
COVID, it's not about, in many respects, the
medicine to the examples you gave. It's about
they cannot stand that somebody is not agreeing
with their beliefs. They cannot extend the exceptions.
Those who stand up say, no, I've come to a different
medical conclusion. They can't let that exist.
Right. That is what it is. And it happens. for
people regardless of their religious status.
It's a weird thing. It is like a religion, which
is why I'm so glad you wrote your book that way
because I think there's these natural patterns
of groupthink and of just complying that people
automatically fall into. It's very easy. That's
why people can get people to join cults. That's
why people are a part of weird Christian sects.
Like, wait, what do you guys do? Huh? Who's the
guy? Who's the head guy? This guy? And he gets
to marry everybody? What? Okay. Well, that's
what happened. It's normal. It's a normal thing.
And if you scale it outward, it goes to a lot
of stuff. There's a lot of stuff that people
just have these like climate changes of religion
right now. Like there's certain people that if
you confront them with like the actual. The ones
that are willing to question the narrative that
are legitimate client scientists, they'll tell
you, like, it is so complicated to figure out
what is causing the changes in the Earth's climate,
warmth and cold, and the fact that it's never
been static, ever, in human history, never before
humans, never billions of years. It's done this
crazy thing. It involves the precession of the
equinoxes and the fucking polar vortex. And then
also stuff we burn. That too. But like what percentage
is what? But it doesn't matter. You can't have
that conversation. It's like you questioning,
you know, whatever messiah this person believes
in. They'll just lock down and climate change
is this. Not one climate change prediction of
doom has been accurate. Not one. Not even in
the ballpark. You remember the fucking Al Gore
movie? Yeah. We're supposed to be dead. We're
out. Meanwhile, they're all buying fucking oceanfront
houses in Maui. You know, get out of here. Shut
the fuck up. This is another thing. This is another
thing. Like, yeah, we shouldn't pollute. Yeah,
we shouldn't release particulates in the atmosphere.
Yeah, we should have clean energy. Yeah, but
also, you guys are crooks. You guys are a bunch
of crooks that are making money off of this idea
that you're forcing down everybody's throat,
that everybody's got a green new deal. Everybody's
got to do renewable, this renewable. And then
who's got money invested in all this stuff? A
bunch of people who are pushing it. And it's
a fucking scam. Just like so many of these things
are fucking scams. Doesn't mean we shouldn't
be aware of the damage that we're doing to the
earth. We should probably stop overfishing the
ocean. We should probably stop dumping shit into
the rivers of 100 percent. You know who used
to go to court for that? Bobby. RFK Jr. He fucking
cranks the guy who is like cleaning up the East
River. That's Bobby Kennedy Jr. He was the guy.
And an easy way to identify that somebody is
not really coming at you with science and they're
coming at you with belief, religion. Yes. Is
exactly what you just said, which is they're
not willing to debate. They're not willing to
discuss it. They're not willing to engage because.
That is antithetical to the scientific method.
The whole idea is it's never settled. The whole
idea is you push the fringes, you push new theories,
you push new ideas. Where would science be if
you said this is it? Of course, that is the whole
notion of it, dispassionately looking at it over
and over and over and seeing what more you can
learn. And the moment somebody says, no, we need
to stop. You can't discuss, you can't debate
that. That's when you know you're dealing with
a religion, not science. And when I've talked
to certain scientists in different fields that
feel very constricted by the academic environment,
one of the things that they point to is that
the groupthink involved in that is just like
the groupthink involved in everything, in left
-wing politics, whatever it is. Just figure out
whatever it is, right -wing politics. Groupthink
in academia is also hierarchical. There's tiers.
And you got to agree with everybody that's above
you. You want to get tenure. You want to progress.
You want to get grants. It's got to be – you
guys got to be in line on all this shit. And
he's like – and anybody who thinks out of the
box is ruthlessly attacked. And even when they
turn out to be correct, no one apologizes. They
reluctantly agree that the person was initially
correct. But they'll destroy their career. if
they can. He's like, the pissing matches are
horrifying. And these are the people that are
in charge of telling you what's real in the world.
They're just like everybody else. They have ego
and there's a fucking social scramble going on
at all times and people are playing Succession
and Game of Thrones. It's like... The reality
is not what you're being told in the news. What
you're being told in the news is a narrative.
And when the news has a giant chunk of their
money for advertising, it's paid by pharmaceutical
drug companies. And they never criticize me like
this is wild. Like this is wild that this this
is America in 2026. And the only way you can
find out what's kind of real is on the Internet.
Yes. And also, when it comes to censorship, if
I said some totally crazy, stupid thing about
you that was totally untrue, ignore it. If I
said it by government, they ignore it. When do
they censor? They censor when it's true because
that's when they're scared. Right. If you start
talking about the government being lizard people,
nobody's going to— Nobody cares. Nobody comes
for you. They're all shapeshifters. Nobody cares.
But when you start talking about something that's
true— That's when it hurts. That's what they
need to suppress. You think they need to suppress
stuff about, I don't know, a certain island with
death? If it's not true, no. But if it is true,
that's when it gets scary. And that's when you
need suppression. And also, I'll note, I went
to Berkeley for law school. So I'm familiar with
a little bit of what you were just talking about.
And that experience, too. Even though it was
over two decades ago, it was going strong back
then. It was going strong back then, but I feel
like it was much more reasonable. Like, I used
to love San Francisco back then. It was a great
town to visit. They were smart. They were cool.
They were laid back. People liked to drink. But
they were fun. They always seemed like a smarter
L .A. that got out of show business. San Francisco,
Berkeley, the university were two different things.
I completely agree. And even in, I mean, let's
throw outside the bubble of Berkeley from 20
years ago. Look back over 20 years ago. Who was
fighting for civil individual rights? It was
the left. ACLU. Think about Skokie, Illinois,
right? Fighting for the neo -Nazis to be able
to march through a Jewish town to say what they
want. Who fought that case? Who protected their
right to say that? Democrat. ACLU. Liberal lawyers.
and liberal judges, and they said protecting
their right to say the things they're saying
is despicable, as horrible as we might find it,
protects all our right to free speech. Could
you imagine those same folks today bringing that
case and deciding that way? No way. No way. And
what's stunning is that if you asked anybody
alive then, if you had ultimate access to information,
literally you could pick up your phone and ask
it any question about anything and get information
instantaneously. Would people be more or less
informed? You would say, well, certainly they'll
be more informed. So there'll be more understanding
of the value of free speech and they'll know
more about that ruling and what a brave stance
they took to allow the KKK to march and how it
just shows intellectual superiority. The way
to beat a bad idea is not to silence it, is to
argue it with a much better idea. That you would
think by 2026, oh, they'll be way better. This
will be a super advanced society of flying cars.
No, no, no. It's more ideologically captured,
more wrapped up in the algorithm, which I think
is probably at least 50 percent fake. 50 percent
is a bunch of bots tweeting a bunch of shit.
That's, you know, they don't even believe they're
just trying to rile people up and stir people
up and and push certain narratives. And then
people are locked into it 12 hours a day. So
they're really crazy. And no one's considering
things like the important. Well, let's go back
to old cases and let's look at why they did that.
And I was like, no, no, no. Everybody's like
captured with whatever the fuck is on TikTok
today. What's the latest stupid thing you're
supposed to be paying attention to? And the fact
that now we're at war. Right. OK, great. Social
media and the scrolling through those videos,
which is what you're describing, I think, is
so troubling. First of all, my understanding
is that they just show you stuff that confirms
what you already believe because that's what
you want to see. You want to see the things that
you already agree with. So you just get this
incredible confirmation bias that happens, which
is antithetical to thinking critically, to really
opening your mind to it. And then you end up...
You know, without because without actually understanding
both sides of an argument without really understanding
it. I mean, look, I understand the stuff about
vaccines that I know which one stop transmission.
Right. And I know which ones don't. Right. And
I don't have to live in the world of believing,
for example, they all do. I know how much death
there was before each vaccine. And I know. So
I don't have to say didn't ever save any life.
And I don't have to say millions would die. I
just the data is the data. Right. But if all
you're getting is one viewpoint all the time,
you get this terrible confirmation bias. And
did you see this recent study that I did? I just
read the abstract, so I didn't delve into it.
But apparently watching social media reduces
your IQ over time, just doing all of that scrolling.
That's really scary when you think about our
current generation. Imagine if it could make
you smarter. How many more people would be interested
in doing it? Right? Like if there was a thing,
if you could just stare at your phone for a few
hours a day and you get significantly smarter,
it's a 10 point jump in IQ. You know, my wife
calls our wifi at our house. If you find the
wifi, it's called read a book. I'm not kidding.
That's funny. That's funny. And then you hear
things like you shouldn't have Wi -Fi in your
house because all the signals flying around are
bad for you. Like, how bad? Are you sure? Like,
what is that? Like, how long have we been doing
the Wi -Fi thing? A decade, two decades, three
decades? I mean, in the course of the length
of humanity, that's not very long. That's not
very long. I mean, look. I hope Wi -Fi is not
killing us. I really do. It's so convenient.
Look at most. Listen, obviously, most things
that will just kill you get identified. Right.
It's not the things that kill you immediately
that are a problem, typically, because they killed
you, and so you know. It's the things that cause
slow issues, ongoing issues. I mean, we know
folks who work on high power lines have far higher
rates of cancer. Study after study reflects that,
for example. Which makes sense. I mean, if the
iPod's bad for you, you know what I mean? If
AirPods are bad in your ears, imagine being next
to those power lines. What does that do to you?
I don't want to go down this rabbit hole because
it's not my area per se, but for the whole length
of humanity, right, when you think of the spectrum,
right, we were pretty much only exposed to natural
light, which is a very narrow light, narrow band
of the spectrum, okay? Right? When you think
of waves. So as you go down on the left side
of the spectrum, the waves get longer, like AM
raves really long, FM raves, microwaves, natural
light. And then above that, you get X -rays,
cosmic rays. And anything above natural light,
they say, oh, it's really bad. That's just going
to mess you up. And stuff below natural light,
they say, well, as long as it doesn't heat up
your cells, that's typically the standard our
government uses, it's safe. So as long as it's
not heating your cell. But that's not... That's
a very old standard, but it's still the one in
effect today. So in any event, when you think
about microwaves, they should stay away from
even those below natural light. There's, you
know, what is the cumulative effect of being
if you put your Wi -Fi around on your bed every
night? Your whole life. What is the effect? There
are numerous studies that show that it does have
certain effects. But anyway, it's not worth going
down that road. But yeah. But it might just be
minor or it might be cumulative, right? Yeah.
And then how about cell phone signals? You can't
even stop those. They're around you all the time.
Yeah. I mean, if you can FaceTime someone in
New Zealand right now from your phone, clearly
something's going on in the air. I'll put it
this way. Every environmental insult has the
potential to cause some kind of dysregulation
in your body. whether it's microplastics, whether
it's you name it, okay? And the precautionary
principle would indicate that until you know
it's safe, the onus is on those who want to expose
you to it to prove to you it is, right? It shouldn't
be the other way around. I don't think anybody
has to prove to you that Wi -Fi is not safe to
say, you know what, based on the precautionary
principle, I'm just going to turn off the Wi
-Fi every night in my house because I don't know.
Like that doesn't seem unreasonable to me because
humans have been exposed to it forever. I've
not seen the studies that validate that it doesn't
cause an issue or large, robust studies. But
obviously, I think what I just said, some people
might hear and go, well, that sounds crazy. But
why? Why would it be crazy? If we found out that
there's a particular frequency that's bad for
your memory or bad for your brain and that we're
using it to broadcast something, that completely
makes sense. Yeah, except that I never think
about harms the way you just said it. That would
indicate that we have to find out what harms
it causes. To me, when I go into a car dealership,
for example, I walk in and the salesman says,
all right, this car. And I say, well, is it safe?
And the car dealer says to me, prove to me it's
not safe. And I said, well, and I said, well,
what do you, what do you, what do you mean? You
can't prove it. You got to take this car. By
the way, that's how vaccines work. That's how
I lie. And that is the, that is become a little
bit of the, depending on the, mostly for vaccines,
but a little bit for some of these other products
where it's like, you got to prove it's not safe.
No, I don't have to prove it's not safe. I'm
not buying this car. You prove to me it's no,
you prove to me this vaccine causes harm or you
better take it. That's the way it's approached.
A little bit like that Wi -Fi and with 5G and
the LTE and all that stuff, it's almost like
you proved to me that doing this all day is going
to cause brain cancer or else you're a kook.
No, why don't you show me the study shows it
doesn't do that? That's the way it should work
with products and product safety. That makes
sense. That's very reasonable. Again, I don't
know. I'm not saying that it does. But what I'm
saying is there's been things that human beings...
And they found it was really bad for you. We've
talked about it a few times, but those ladies,
they used to test the x -ray machines with their
hands. And no one told them. No one told them
that x -rays can give you cancer and fuck you
up. And these poor ladies, every day when they
would show up at the medical office, they would
put their hand in the x -ray machine to make
sure it worked. And then you see their hands
next to each other. It's horrifying. They've
got horrible lesions on their hands. It's really
creepy. They x -rayed pregnant women until the
70s. Until the 70s, they were x -raying pregnant
women. Not with the x -rays of today that are
far less radiation exposure. The x -rays of the
70s, which is a lot. They gave the, I believe,
the Nobel Prize. I'm pretty sure about this,
for the lobotomy. Yeah. If I'm not mistaken.
I think they did. I think you're right. I think
they did. Find that out. Jamie, put that into
our sponsor perplexity. The Nobel Prize, Peter
Berg told me about the origins of it. And I was
like, wait. What? It was a guy who made dynamite.
And there was a false story about his death.
And in the newspaper, they called him the merchant
of death. And he realized it. And he was like,
oh, shit, I got to change my PR. I got to change
my image. And so he came up with the Nobel Prize.
He started awarding this prestigious prize. Instead
of him being connected with blowing people up
with dynamite, he became connected with the most
prestigious prize and all of medicine and all
of... Government and the peace, the Nobel Peace
Prize. It's pretty crazy. It's amazing when you
have money how you can influence the world to
think certain things about, in his instance,
him, and other certain products. Exactly. Absolutely.
But what's really stunning is you're also allowed
to influence the people that actually deliver
the news, which is, you know, that's the crazy
one. Like, Cali Means talked about that. Like,
their advertising. Not because they want to sell
their products with the advertisement that they're
putting on the air. They're doing that, too.
But they're also ensuring that this steady stream
of revenue that's going to these networks, they
won't be opening up any lines of investigation
into the vaccine injuries. Like, that's not going
to happen. You're not going to see a giant CNN
piece about COVID -19 vaccine injuries. It's
not happening. It's not happening. You're not
going to hear much about anything. It has to
be a big fucking story where they have to say
it or they just mention a judgment real quick
and then move on. Moving on. The Rasmussen poll,
I don't know if you remember this one, found
that I believe one in four, and I think that's
right, but I'm not sure, 100%, people said they
believe they knew somebody that died of COVID
vaccine or knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine.
When you have that many people with that. With
that lived experience, and yet the mainstream
media, as you just said, was still able to continue
to push the narrative around COVID vaccines the
way they did at the Nobel Prize. Wow. Nobel Prize
-related lobotomy refers to a 1949 Nobel Prize
in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Antonio
Agos Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, for developing
the prefrontal lobotomy. I believe that continued
until the 60s, by the way. Yeah, imagine that.
He got that prize in 49. They're like, good job.
Meaning the medical profession as it stood in
the 60s when the measles vaccine was rolling
out. He's still doing this, by the way. I think
they stopped lobotomies in 60s. Was it 67? He
developed something called a leucotomy, which
was slightly different than what became known
as the lobotomy, which we know as like the ice
pick. Method. What was his? It said also called
the leucotomy. So that was this Freeman. That's
the guy who was like the doc. I think they called
him even Dr. Death or something like that. For
he did like he did a ton of lobotomies all over
the country. Unfortunately, today, you don't
need a lobotomy apparently to have a lobotomy.
Just spend a lot of time on social media and
get your information from certain places. It's
so bad for people. You can maybe end up in the
same place. It's just hard to recommend a certain
amount of it. It's like how much Twinkies should
you eat a day? I don't mind if you eat Twinkies,
but if you're eating Twinkies all day long, you're
going to be fucked up, man. And that's how I
feel about social media interactions. But I do
think it's an important way to distribute information.
Say if you're working for some corporation, you
know. something fucked up is going on and you
could put it up on Twitter and with with details
and facts and and people could look into it and
you can open up a line of reporters and investigative
journalists that are gonna find this expose it
and you could really break a story that is like
good for everybody like having A way to communicate
ideas like that is fantastic. Everything else,
like all the arguing, all the shit that people
do back and forth, you're just rotting your brain
out. And we're all guilty of it if you're on
it. I mean, during the COVID pandemic, when all
of these government overreaches were occurring,
but for the existence of social media, you know,
podcasts like yours and other alternative platforms,
right? the information in many respects wouldn't
have come out if you didn't have Peter McCullough
on, Robert Malone on, and if Fox and just that
little portion of the, I guess, more traditional
media sphere wasn't willing for a time period
to have folks on. I mean, trust me, when I started
doing vaccine -related work a decade ago, I never
thought a single outlet, whether it's Fox or
CNN, would ever have me on. They had me on numerous
times until... You know, vaccines kind of like,
all right, let's not touch that again. Was this
during this was during the Biden administration
then? And I think part of that was because it
was a point of contention between the right and
the left. Right. It was the right opposing. the
draconian measures that the left, who is in power,
and we got to get the right back in power because
we're all about freedom. So I think there was
a little bit of that going on there, right? For
sure, there was some of that going on, as you
pointed out, I believe, in the past. When Trump
was promoting the vaccine, we're not taking that
vaccine. And in the moment, Biden was like, we're
taking the vaccine. Colin Harris was saying it.
Why would you trust him and whatever his vaccine
is like? That is so crazy. These people are fake.
I mean, if Trump came out tomorrow and said,
That everybody should get every vaccine out there.
I, you know, see what would happen. I don't know.
That's the way. If folks would stop saking it.
Yeah, if he really got into trans kids. They'd
put a ban to it immediately. Yeah, it's weird.
It's weird to watch. Weird to watch us so divided
and at each other's throats. And I really do
think that a giant percentage of the uptick and
the craziness is just social media. I don't think
people are designed for it. Thank God Elon bought
Twitter because if he didn't, we would not have
the kind of access to the actual truth, the real
data. It would all be suppressed. You would never
find out about it. How would you know about these
studies? You're not going to go scouring through
journals. Even if you do, what are you going
to do? Are you going to get on Rumble and talk
about it? That's probably the only way you can.
And if anybody from Rumble tries to share that
on Twitter, they'll get banned. So it's like
we were in a real pickle. It was a bad spot.
It was just a few years ago, which is nuts. We
could have gone a very different direction. I'll
use an analogy. Remember the airlines, because
CDC required masks on planes? Yeah. When that
got struck down by the courts, a number of airlines
said, we're going to keep our mask mandate. I
don't know if you remember that. They proudly
came out. The CO said, we're going to keep it.
Half of them said they were going to keep it.
The other half immediately lifted the mask mandate
on planes. And those that decided to keep it,
they dropped it within a day or two, I think,
or something like that, really rapidly, because
economically, they were losing business. And
I think that changed the center of gravity on
that issue. I think Elon buying Twitter, X, basically
changed the center of gravity on censorship,
whereby without that... They might have all just
kept going even in the worst direction and they
saw they were losing market share to X once he
bought it and he didn't have censorship. I think
that can form their conduct. Well, it was also
– it was indicative of how people actually felt
versus what was suppressed. Like when you realize
that there's – well, have you ever seen like
how people identifying as non -binary and trans
dropped off like right after purchase of Twitter?
It's because people got a chance to talk about
it now, and you can criticize it, and people
can put up memes, and they can call it a mental
illness again. And then all of a sudden everybody's
like, hey, what are we supporting? Men with penises
in the women's room? Like, did we get hypnotized?
Like, what the fuck happened? And now you're
seeing even prestigious mainstream media publications
talking about the dangers of gender transition
for young kids. Wow. OK, so what happened? What
happened? What happened was Elon bought Twitter
and people were out to actually accurately gauge
what people are willing to tolerate and what
they actually want versus what's being shoved
down everybody's throats with censorship and
with mainstream media narratives. They just keep
piping back and forth, pretending everybody agrees
with them. That's one piece of it. They are also,
by the way, a lot of the hospitals and doctors
are getting sued. Right. Left and right on this.
In fact. Especially after that first ruling,
right? We have, you know, I can't talk about
it, but very, very troubling matters, which includes
suicide and hiding it from parents, school districts.
I mean, it's really troubling stuff. Do you have
children? Yeah, I do. I do, too. And one of the
things you realize if you have children is that
they are very malleable and they want to fit
in and they are subject to social contagions.
And that social contagion can be dressing up
goth. It could be, like, whatever it is. Like,
they want to fit in. And they're experimenting.
They're kids. And if you just decide, oh, you're
a boy, and then you bring that kid to it and
you're giving them all this positive attention
and you're giving them all this positive feedback
and then you go to school, I'm trans. now and
everyone says you're brave like for awkward kids
that is absolutely enticing yeah and not only
that they do it in clusters like abigail schreier
has written about this that this is a lot of
these girls have autism and a lot of these girls
they're socially awkward and they're very uncomfortable
with their body and they're going through puberty
which kind of freaks them out already freaks
out any girl yeah and then something comes along
like this and now you've been taken to a doctor
and had your breasts removed and you're 15. That's
fucking crazy. And to say anything in opposition
to that somehow became you're a bigot or you're
a Nazi or you're transphobic. This is crazy talk.
Like you're talking about very malleable children
doing something. You can't even get a fucking
tattoo if you're 15. Why can you get your breasts
removed? That's nuts. Unfortunately, it became
a very big business. The number of centers in
America that perform these surgeries exploded.
And so with that explosion, you need clients.
Like every business, it needs to feed that business
model. That is so evil. It's so creepy to think
that people are willing to talk people into that
just for money. They've done it with so many
other things. It's not impossible to believe
that it's true. It's scary. A lot of times, if
you follow the money trail, you can see how things
develop and where they go. It often helps, you
know, puts in perspective. And look, rare is
the person that says, I'm evil, I'm bad. I mean,
people find a way to justify things. They find
a way to excuse them and, you know, find, you
know, the, well, I'm doing more good than bad
justification in their minds. Or there's the
diffusion of responsibility that comes with being
a part of a corporation that's doing something.
hey, look, I'm just an accountant or, hey, I'm
just an engineer or, hey, I'm doing – I don't
want the company to move in this direction. However,
I do own stock. So as it goes up. Especially
in public -traded companies, which brings us
back to the very beginning of it, which is that
is what happens in those corporations. Should
that be a thing? Like if you could redo the –
if you had a magic wand and you could completely
redo the economy, would you have the stock market?
I mean, isn't it enough that people just buy
things, sell things, your company's worth money
because it makes money? Isn't that enough? Why
do we have to complicate it? Why do we have a
stock market? I don't know if the stock market
itself is the problem. I mean, stocks, the whole
idea is just to find a more... an efficient way
for me to sell you shares in my company. That's
all it is. But the underlying problem is not
the market, in my view. It's not the existence
of the stock market. It's the government intervening
into the market forces in a way that do not result
in a good outcome. And often that is at the behest
of industry. There needs to be some government
regulation. So that's the problem. The problem
is that corporations have money. They can use
that money to influence laws, influence government.
That is a significant part of the problem because,
look, most regulatory agencies are born out of
some crisis, right? Right. So they often start
as a great idea, like people wanting to do good,
members of our Congress wanting to do good. But
then who's got the time, money, and inclination
to influence that regulatory agency? You? No.
Well, you do have some money, but you? Me? Who?
No. It's going to be, even wealthy folks don't
have it. They're not going to do it. It's not
even the lobbyists per se. It's the very industry
they're trying to regulate. They have the money,
time, patience, inclination to do that, to create
the revolving door, right? Right. Think about
it like this. Article I of the Constitution creates
Congress. Right? First article. And what's its
purpose? Primary purpose is to pass laws. Right?
How many laws a year is it passed, you think,
approximately? About 200. Okay? Our agencies
and the federal government, do you know how many
regulations which have the same exact weight
as law, they pass every year? Can I guess? Yeah.
2 ,000. It depends on the year, but often more.
Really? Yes. There's a chart on this. I'm sure
it can be pulled up. But it's something to that
effect. Depends on the year. But somewhere between,
let's say, 100, 300, 2 ,000 on the other side.
And who are those folks passing? Are they part
of the Article I, the constitutional branch that's
supposed to pass laws that are elected representatives?
No. The unelected bureaucrats sitting there,
and you've named your alphabet agency that you've
probably never heard of. that pass these regs
that are the same force of law. And who really
has, again, the time and inclination to influence
them? It's often the very industry. So it starts
as a good idea, but unfortunately it ends up
being what the literature calls. This is the
political science literature. It came out of
Harvard and Yale and all those places. They don't
want to talk about it today. Captive agencies.
Okay? That's what they often become. CDC, FDA,
to varying degrees, depending on what they're
doing, are very much captive agencies when you
look closely at it and you understand it. That's
true of many other parts of the government. Well,
particularly people don't know, a lot of people
don't know, that haven't gone down these rabbit
holes, that a lot of these people, it's a revolving
door. They leave the FDA and then they go and
work for the pharmaceutical drug companies and
they make a lot of money. Yes. Like Julie Gerberding,
who is the head of the CDC in the 90s, that oversaw
some of the most controversial disputes about
what? Whose products? Merck's vaccine products.
OK. And then after her, you know, she she cleaned
all that up, left CDC and went to work for who?
Merck. Making. Tens of millions of dollars, I
believe, she's made over the time that she's
been there. So she did good. She got rewarded.
You think if she didn't do good, she wouldn't
get rewarded? You don't think other people see
that in the federal health? Of course they know.
They all know. Of course. So it's the golden
parachute, and everybody strives for it. If you
can get that post, you can get the top of the
food chain over at the CDC. Guys, see you in
about five years. In five years, you're thinking
about your Lamborghini, you've got a yacht. future.
It's just, it's kooky. It's kooky that it's legal.
Look, I don't know if it's as nefarious to that
in the minds of people in public health. Let's
put it that way, since we're talking about public
health officials. But I think that it has a corrupting
influence that cannot be detangled from the fact
that they're human. It will influence them. I
don't think it's... There's also a precedent.
There's a precedent that's been set with many
people before them, so it's something they look
forward to. If you get this job, you will likely
get a job like this afterwards. A bunch of people
have, and so you think about that while you're
trying to get that job. It's part of the motivation
is financial reward. Absolutely. It has to be.
There's a Pfizer executive who was serendipitously
recorded specifically saying that. I have the
exchange in my book. It's something to the effect
of, Well, you know, those who are working at
the FDA, you know, they're eventually going to,
you know, come work for industry. So they don't
want to, you know. hurt industry too much. And
the person asking the question says, well, you
think that's bad? He goes, yeah, it's bad for
America, you know, but not bad for the companies.
That's the problem. That's exactly right. Well,
this is the thing about having an obligation
to your shareholders, which brings me back to
the whole stock market thing. I know this is
a kooky thought, but I mean, if we never had
the stock market in the first place and you didn't
have an obligation to your shareholders to consistently
make more money every quarter, if people could
just accept the fact that You own this business,
this person. You make a certain amount of money.
Everybody's doing great. Like why have all these
people making money and just moving stocks around,
insane amounts of wealth, manipulating systems
to crash stocks? There's people that are like
in public office that say things that aren't
necessarily true that influence the market. And
it turns out they were totally wrong. And then
you find out that they bet on it and they made
a bunch of money in the stock market. This is
crazy. This is crazy. And it's all true. And
it's all legal, which is so fucking bizarre that
in a time where we are completely aware. that
all this stuff is taking place. All right. Can
I put that into three different buckets? Yeah,
yeah, yeah, please. I'm going to put it in three
different buckets. There's the bucket of making
products. Right. There are companies that make
products. There are companies that provide services,
including financial services that can be useful.
You need a mortgage if you can buy a house. You
can't afford it. So mortgage products are a service
that are brought from the financial industry.
And then there's, I think, what you're talking
about, which is the part of our economy that
is finance. It's just moving money. It's just
moving numbers where they've got high -speed
computers that are trying in micro fractions
of a second to beat out the other guy to basically
triage and make money based on that adds no value
to our economy. Products and services. Add value.
And to everything you see around that we're sitting
in right now was made by a company. Right. And
so and I'm not aware of a system that has been
more efficient. at producing products and services
that improve the lives of others than the free
market system with some regulation. I'm not aware
of one. Socialism doesn't do it. We've seen that
in action. Communism does not do it. We've seen
that in action. We need to just do it right.
Dictators. Kidding. Clearly. So I wouldn't throw
out the whole system is what I'm saying. I'm
not saying that. Yeah, I'm saying that that part
of it's good. Now, when you break... The alignment
of economic self -interest of the companies,
the market interest, to whatever it is, protect
consumers, that's when you're a problem. And
that is the idea, or at least they sell it as
the idea from a lot of government regulations.
Well, the company is not on its own going to...
Do what's right in this instance. So we need
government to do it. And if government really
only stepped in when it was truly needed, it
would be a good system. You're right. Right.
But the system often breaks when they step in
when they're not needed. Sometimes when they
step in and have the opposite effect, when they're
really just protecting the industry at the expense
of consumers, which happens too often. Is the
benefit of the stock market – and this is, again,
nonsense, right? I'm not an economist, clearly.
But if we had never invented it, if human beings
had never come up with this idea, if instead
we just had a free market, what has the stock
market, what has publicly traded companies, what
has the ability to own stock in companies and
hedge funds and all that stuff, what has that
done for innovation and for progress and for
– creating more products? Do you think it's encouraged
more products and encouraged more activity in
the economy and we're further ahead than we would
have been if no one had invented it? Because
it seems like at the very least, it's a weird
opening for... People that just move money around
and add no value and extract enormous amounts
of wealth. So that seems like you've got a hole
in your pipe. Why are people that aren't even
involved, why do they get to make all the money
on this? What is going on here? You're doing
a weird thing that I don't know if you had to
do to achieve the same result that you achieved
with a free market capitalist society that doesn't
have a stock market. that just has a bunch of
companies making money and everybody doing the
stuff they do? It's like, is it a necessity,
is what I'm asking. Well, outside of my air expertise,
but... Definitely outside of mine. I mean, I'll
give you my musings. Yes, please. So this is
just my off -the -cuff musings, and that's something
I actually really want to think about more. So
when I think about companies going public...
It certainly appears to help drive capital to
those companies because hedge venture capital
funds, a lot of times they're exit strategy.
So I'm willing to give you all this. I'm a venture
capital. I'm willing to give you all this money
to start this company because I know what the,
you know, my goal is three to five years from
now, it can go public and I, the venture capital
fund, can get back. x amount of my money that's
my that's the exit strategy for that investment
now if there was no efficient market to to to
do that right meaning you couldn't just have
any a publicly traded market where just easy
to shell sell right to have this public offering
what would that do to venture capital funds well
i i mean would they still invest as much They
might. And instead, they might just focus on
hard money returns. Right. They want companies
that really just make money, you know, cash on
cash versus this immediate bubble of equity inflation
that happens when you go public because it's
now liquid, the ownership. Right. Market caps.
I don't know if that answers your question. No,
it does. Well, I don't think it does because,
you know, your question was a good one. It's
far more sophisticated than what I answered because
you're saying, what does it contribute to society?
Right. I don't think it contributes anything.
I just answered it so narrowly and said, well,
it might add some, it might entice venture capitalists.
Though I don't know if, I don't even know if
what I just said is entirely correct. They might
still do it anyway because they'll just might
do the best thing. Now, what does it add to the
side? All of it have liquid. I mean. It'd be
harder to have like a retirement account in the
way you have right now to own stock, right? That
would be more difficult to put your money in
and buy shares of Coca -Cola. Would you prefer
for big corporations to be owned by certain families
or would you rather them be owned by the public?
I think you should be allowed to keep your company
in your family if you own it. Well, you should.
Well, you certainly can look at New York Times.
The New York Times, the family kept control.
My understanding, again, we're outside of my
normal area of expertise, but the family, my
understanding, has the controlling of votes in
that company, but it's publicly traded as well
in the New York Times. Yeah. If I'm not mistaken.
I know people that have taken their company public
and regretted it. Like, it's too much shit. You
deal with too much nonsense afterwards. And they're
like, it wasn't worth it. Just for the hassle
and the quality of life, I would have never done
it if I had known this. I guess it depends what
they wanted. Yeah, I guess it depends what they
wanted. But the question is, like, if a bunch
of people are making money that aren't contributing,
they're just, like, siphoning money by moving
money around all over the place. Like, isn't
that leaky money? Like, if you don't really contribute
anything, you don't provide any value, and yet
you're extracting extreme wealth, don't you have
a leak in the pipe? It seems like if that money
was just being distributed normally, like the
buying and selling of goods and services, that
would be a much more... like honest society but
would it have the same amount of in uh would
that same amount of innovation and would it have
the same amount of productivity or is that productivity
not just enhanced by this flood of capital but
also encouraged so it like stimulates everything
so like having these vampires sucking on the
pipe Like ultimately it does move numbers around
and it gets more stuff out there, which also
encourages innovation. I don't know. I mean,
I think that there's a gray area between the
second and third bucket. So we were talking about
like products and services. Maybe we'll make
that one bucket because those can have value
to society, many of them. And then there at the
extreme, there's like just like. triage nonsense
that happens. I put my supercomputer as close
as possible to the stock exchange so I can make
money on fractions of a fraction. Then there's
that gray zone in between where there's mortgages
good. Help the American family achieve their
dream of owning a home. Mortgage -backed securities?
Maybe not so good. Mortgage -backed securities
that are double, triple -sliced into all these
tranches, getting worse, going down that road.
There's a degree where you're getting further
and further away from the very point of that
financial instrument that had goods. So I think
that there is a point at which, yeah, no good.
But I think it's hard to talk in generalities
in my mind. If you have a specific example, let's
go down that road. Well, Bernie Madoff is the
best example. Right? Obviously, everybody had
to know something was – there was some shenanigans
taking place because the returns were too crazy.
But look at how many intelligent people invested
money with him because he was so successful.
My old office in Manhattan when I used to work
at Latham & Watkins was, I think, three floors
above Bernie's office in the Lipstick Building.
It was on 23rd. I think it was on 24th. Nothing
to do with him. Anyways, zero. Okay, but Bernie,
Bernie just straight up. Stole. Just stole. I
mean, that's not even a thing. Come on. No, no,
no. You're right. He just stole. and gave out
fake returns, as far as I know. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
He had people thinking that they were making
all this money. Yeah, he's just a pyramid scheme,
basically. 100%. That was eventually going to
fail. I mean, it only could go on for so long.
Well, I think it fucked up because of the 2008
crisis, right? They think he could have kept
it going if there wasn't the crash. Wasn't that
what did him in? There's always going to be a
dip, so it was only a matter of time. I mean,
he was going to get... That was a big one, though,
and people wanted their money back, and he was
like, yikes. That's an incredible scheme. It's
amazing that somebody could even pull that off,
frankly. It is crazy and it is incredible. But
it just shows you that this is a weird system
that you can pretend to be moving money around
and you don't have any products. But it corrected.
It did. It's a good point because he did go to
jail. He corrected. He went to jail. And, man,
did he become the post -trial of like, don't
do that. Don't do that. He became don't do that.
It's just. It's probably a stupid question because
I don't know anything about economics. But I
was just thinking that like couldn't we have
the same world and not have that? Wouldn't that
be more honest and more beneficial? But it would
have to have happened from the beginning. It
would have to be like there was never publicly
traded companies from the beginning. All right.
Think of a company you like. Coca -Cola. You
like Coca -Cola? I like a little Diet Coke every
now and then when I want some brain fog. All
right. I don't want a nice taste in my mouth
and an aspartame hangover. Okay. I'll think of
another one. I don't know. Chevy. Chevy. Okay.
Chevy. So I don't know. Without the ability to
raise money in liquid capital markets, would
Chevy have grown to what Chevy became? Or at
least in the speed at which it did that then
revolutionized automotive and other industries.
Probably not. Maybe not. Yeah, maybe not. Maybe
not. But you wonder, like if people were motivated
and people were ambitious, and we always have
been, you know, like if that wasn't a part of
our economy. Yeah. I wonder. I bet it has a pretty
big impact when you put it that way. You think
about something as big as Chevy, you know. But
it's just the motivation of money. is always
going to be there. And if people ignore it because
it's inconvenient and it doesn't align with their
ideology, you've been captured. And this is why
I think what you're talking about all the time
is so hard for people that are true believers
to swallow. Because it makes you have, you're
forced to reformulate your entire worldview.
If you've been duped that hard by something like
The actual data on vaccine efficacy and, you
know, who's really profiting and why it's set
up the way it is and what the studies really
are. When you realize you've been duped that
hard, it's a hard pill to swallow for a lot of
people. Absolutely. But I will say this. You
don't need to go down a rabbit hole. OK, because
that happens to a lot of people with vaccines.
I've seen. Not the majority, not most, but it
happens to some where it's like, oh, my goodness,
if the government's lying or not telling me the
truth about these products, then what can I believe?
And, you know, people, some folks can go down
some different alleys. And I would say that I
really, truly, I have not seen anything like
vaccines. Vaccines really are in their own bucket
because of that immunity. It's what I call original
sin in my book. There really is no product, no
product that I'm aware of that operates in this
kind of landscape. Like I said, every other product,
the market force will, to varying degrees with
wrinkles, correct for the issues because there's
economic self -interest. They broke that with
vaccines. So we've gone from three shots following
in 1986, one before the first year of age. At
the beginning of 2020 -25, you know how many
shots it was that a baby got on or before their
first birthday? Take a guess. 72. No, no, that's
their whole childhood. 29. 29 by the first birthday?
Yes, on or before the first birthday. It went
from three to 29 shots, including in utero. Now,
with the recent changes, it's down to 19. And
the reason I focus on the first year, most of
the shots in the first six months of life, is
that's when the baby is going through really
critical stages of... neurological immunological
development right synapse and think how small
a baby is okay and so um they're really susceptible
to various effects also babies can't express
what what's what's going wrong with them okay
so now in the normal course okay in the normal
course you've got a product you've gone from
three of them in 1986 by the first year You're
up to 29 beginning of 2025. Now you're at 19
still. During that period, you've gone from under
10 % of kids had a chronic health issue in the
early 1980s, according to the data. You now have
over 40%. Some data show over 50 % of kids having
chronic health issues, often multiple times the
rate, okay? And what are those chronic health
issues that have exploded? To be sure, by the
way, any environmental insult can cause dysregulation
in the body, okay? including a pharmaceutical
product, including vaccines. But when you look
at those chronic diseases that have exploded,
almost all of them have an etiology relating
to some form of immune system dysregulation.
Look at asthma. Look at atopic issues. Look at
ticks. Look at ADHD. Nobody thinks about it this
way, but if you look at the PubMed literature,
there's immune markers that have gone awry in
kids with ADHD, okay? So you look at that. Now,
I'd say, okay, the lawyers, those who would hold
these companies accountable, would look at that,
and then they would start looking at the data.
And I'll show you what some of the data shows.
We talked about the Amish earlier, for example.
The Amish that I represent in New York, there's
three schools. The New York Health Department
decided that it doesn't like what the Amish beliefs
are. It wants the Amish to adopt their beliefs.
and abandon their real religious beliefs and
to give their kids these vaccines. Otherwise,
they were going to impose crushing fines on these
three Amish schools. Three schools, by the way,
which means a room, no electricity, a teacher,
you know what I mean? On Amish land, they don't
take tax money. They pay taxes, but they refuse
to take tax money taught by Amish teachers. And
so amongst those families of those three schools,
there was like 160 or something kids. And what
we did is we did a survey. We asked them, what
health conditions do those kids have, those 160
kids? Many of them are already older, too. So
you would know their health outcomes. And this
is all in our court papers. It's all in a federal
docket. Anybody can go and read it for themselves.
Amongst those children, you would expect to have,
because like 1 in 10 kids approximately have
asthma, you would expect to have like 9 cases
of asthma. You'd expect to have 6 cases of this,
5 cases. They have none. Zero. of the chronic
health conditions plaguing kids in America today.
And the approximately 10 or so studies that have
been done, and I'm bringing this back to my legal
point, the approximately 10 or so studies that
have done that compare kids with no exposure,
meaning zero vaccines, to kids that have had
one or more vaccines show the same outcome. Kids
with zero vaccines, almost none of the chronic
health issues that face kids today in America.
Kids with one or more vaccines. multiple rates
of the chronic health issues facing kids today.
Now, that data all exists. I put those studies
in my book. Anybody can read them. I even put
the Amish information in my book. It's all cited.
You can go look at it yourself if you're out
there. Some of them are even on PubMed. The market
could have corrected for that if you could hold
those pharma companies accountable, but you can't.
Is it correct that the only instances of autism
they found in Amish kids were adopted kids? There
are data and some reports that reflect that.
So there are that. But those are more news reports.
Somebody will criticize you, by the way. You're
going to get criticism and say, well, that's
not a peer -reviewed study. Well, I had a follow
-up question that would maybe clarify. Yeah.
And so we can move on to what does the peer -reviewed
literature show, if you want. The follow -up
question would be, are they even being diagnosed?
So if they're getting Amish care and Amish teachers
and Amish, is it possible that there are some
kids that are just behaving odd that would be
diagnosed? Like this is the criticism. Yes. People
say like this is when you hear some mainstream
suit talking on television. Well, there was always
someone odd when we were kids. You know, there's
no they just the diagnosis is different today.
That's why it's one in 12 boys in California.
They're over diagnosing. And I'm like, no. No,
I have friends that have—I have multiple friends
that have nonverbal children. I never had that
when I was a kid. That was not normal. That was
not a common thing. It was very, very, very rare.
The notion that autism is just better diagnosed,
and that's the only reason for the increase,
is—I don't know a better word for it. I'm going
to say nonsense, okay? Even if you look at the—
Because they've changed the DSM -5, which is
what we're up to, the Diagnostic Manual, that
is the psychiatric manual that has the criteria
for diagnosing autism. It has changed over time.
But when you even just look at severe autism,
just severe autism, which California has very
good data on, from the 70s and onward into today,
it's exploded. Okay, so the notion that we just
have better diagnosis is not a serious point.
But putting that aside, the Amish do go to doctors.
Do they go to Amish doctors? No. Okay. They go
to regular doctors. The Amish, for example, couldn't
even go in a car. They just can't drive a car.
So they can get an Uber? There's different—I
should be more— Somebody orders it? I should
be clearer about that. Just like every religion,
there are different— you know, communities. And
so there's like old, old line Amish and then
there's old line Amish. And so, you know, in
Christianity and Islam and Judaism and all different,
you know, there's different degrees of black
hat Jews and there's so forth. So in many respects,
they do still go, but. You know, as I was told
by one of the main folks who I interact with,
and I've been up there and I've slept there and
I've interacted with them. He told me, he said,
yeah, you know, there are a few that mistake
got some vaccines. And he goes, one of those
kids, they just don't act right. He said to me,
but we don't see that with our other kids. And
I'll tell you this about the Amish community.
They don't have phones. Not, you know, smartphones.
They have old school phones, some of them. They
don't have TVs. When they're with their kids,
they're with their kids. When they're there at
the end of the day, they really are so much more
in tune. When I spend time with them and when
I went up there, I mean, it's incredible, you
know. It's a hard thing to experience, maybe
for somebody who keeps like. Maybe the closest
thing I think of is like those who observe the
Sabbath biblically, you know, so they're just
totally locked in. They lock in with their families
for a day or things like that. And so they're
very in tune with their kids. They know if those
kids have health issues. And those kids don't
have those issues. But forget the Amish. Go to
the rest of the kids in the other studies that
are not Amish studies. The 10 other studies that
I just told you about, one is three pediatric
practices that vaccinate unvaccinated kids. There
are a whole line of studies of nothing to do
with the Amish community. But if you do want
to focus on autism, okay, which is just one potential
issue from vaccines, by the way, what you find
in the peer -reviewed literature, is that 40
% to 70 % of parents who have a child with autism
report, still report, that they believe vaccines
cause their child's autism. Okay? 40 % to 70%.
That's after how much billions of dollars to
try to tell them and gaslight them and convince
them that vaccines don't cause autism. Apparently,
no matter how much you beat these families...
They're just not going to change their lived
experience. And what vaccines do they point to?
They often, they point to the vaccines given
in the first six months of life. When you ask
them, what vaccines do you think cause your child's
autism? They'll say the vaccines given in the
first six months of life. And then they'll also
point to MMR vaccine, which is given no earlier
than one year of age. Okay. And so on behalf
of ICANN, which is the informed consent action
nonprofit that our law firm represents. We sent
a Freedom of Information Act request, FOIA request,
to the CDC, and we said, hey, your website says
vaccines do not cause autism. Great. Please give
us the studies that show that Hep B vaccine,
given three times in the first six months of
life, do not cause autism. Please give us the
studies that show that DTaP vaccine, given three
times in the first six months of life, do not
cause autism. Same thing for IPV vaccine, for
PCV vaccine. And for Hib vaccine. Okay. Each
one of those vaccines is given three times each
in the first six months of life. 15 injections.
Okay. Okay. You say vaccines don't cause autism.
These parents are saying these vaccines cause
their child's autism. Provide us the studies.
They never gave us the studies. I sued them in
federal court. I didn't go to Texas. I sued them
in Southern District of New York. Not the friendliest
territory to bring that kind of lawsuit. Days
before the hearing, I get a list of 20 studies
finally, also from the DOJ, because they represent
the CDC. Maybe they think I don't read. So I
looked at the 20 studies. I read them. 19 of
them have nothing to do with the vaccines given
in the first six months of life. They were all
either MMR studies. or studies of an ingredient
that wasn't in those vaccines. One of them was
an Institute of Medicine review from 2012 that
canvassed all the literature on whether DTaP
vaccine does or does not cause autism because
the CDC and HRSA, which is the agency in HHS
that fights vaccine injury claims, asked the
IOM to look at whether DTaP causes autism because
it remained one of the most commonly claimed
injuries still, according to them. And the Institute
of Medicine came back and said, we could only
find one study on DTaP and autism. And in fact,
it showed an association between vaccine, DTaP
vaccine and autism. But the IBM threw it out
because it said there's no unvaccinated control
in it. So they threw out the studies based on
VAERS data, if you know what that is. So I called
up the DOJ attorney. This is days before the
hearing. And I said, I got the list of 20 studies.
I said, Are you sure that your client, the CDC,
wants to settle this case basically on the basis
that these are the studies they rely upon to
claim that vaccines don't cause autism? The vaccines
in the first six months of life do not cause
autism. Because that's what the lawsuit was about,
that FOIA request. He went, he called me back,
and he said, yeah, they want to settle it. I
said, all right. I gave him another chance. Those
20 studies were put into a settlement agreement
between the CDC and ICANN, my client. The DOJ
signed it on behalf of the CDC. I signed it on
behalf of my client. And a federal judge in the
Southern District of New York entered as an order
of the court in 2019, I believe it was. And there
it was. I mean, I had done years and years of
work fighting with them to try and figure out,
show me the vaccines don't cause autism. This
was the crescendo. This was the end. I mean,
when their back was to the wall, they had nothing.
There are no studies. They could not produce
one that showed the vaccines given in the first
six months of life do not cause autism. And here's
the thing they left out. There is one study out
there regarding hep B vaccines in autism. It's
from Gallagher and Goodman out of the University
of Stony Brook in the peer -reviewed literature.
And it showed that kids that got hep B vaccine
versus those that did in the first month of life
had three times the rate of autism. Statistically
significant. Gallagher, Goodman. University of
Stony Brook. It's on PubMed. That is the only
study of hep B vaccine and autism you will find
in peer -reviewed literature. If you're going
to do it based on the science, on the published
literature, that's the only one out there. That
DTaP vaccine study is the only one out there
for DTaP given in the first six months of life.
So when this narrative, which you hear all the
time on these panels, on these news shows, vaccines
do not cause autism, that has been thoroughly
debunked. Where's that come from? Vaccines, amen.
That's why I call my book Vaccines, Amen. The
crowd cheers. Have you seen those live shows
where crowds cheer? But this is what I'm talking
about. This is why I wrote the book. I wrote
the book because in 10 years that I have litigated
100, 200 lawsuits against federal and state health
agencies, that I have deposed the world's leading
vaccinologists, including Dr. Stanley Plotkin.
You go down the list. And chasing them when they're
in a deposition, when they are back as against
the wall in a federal or state lawsuit and they
have no choice but to admit the truth or give
the evidence, put up or shut up. What I have
found is that the claims they make about vaccines
versus the reality are completely different.
And it is disjarring. When I came into this,
I had you told me, yeah, they don't have any
studies that show vaccines. don't cause autism
the first six months. I'd be like, you're crazy.
Get out of here. They tell you it's thoroughly
debunked. Thoroughly studied. The most studied
thing ever. They have a mountain of science.
Joe, there's a mountain of studies. You know
how big it is? It's so big. And you know what's
on top of that mountain? Another mountain of
studies. You know how much? Another mountain.
There's so many studies. They're drowning in
studies that vaccines don't cause autism. But
then when you demand it, not the bull crap that
they say on TV, but you actually demand it. That's
the result. And you could pull it up on the Internet,
by the way, that court stipulation. It's right
there. You could also hear me depose Dr. Stanley
Plotkin, the world's leading vaccinologist. Well,
I said to him, I said, doctor, you know, and
you have these clips on the Internet. I said,
there's no studies that support that DTaP does
not cause autism, right? And at first he said,
well, I said, well, what do you think the IOM
concluded? He goes, well, I would assume they
said it doesn't. I showed it to him. He goes,
oh. It's the world's leading vaccinologist. He
didn't even know this. He goes, oh, okay, there
are no studies. Okay. He goes, so I said, shouldn't
you wait until you do? Shouldn't you wait until
you have the studies that show that DTaP doesn't
cause autism to then tell parents that vaccines
don't cause autism? You know what he said to
me? No. No, I don't wait. I don't wait because
I have to take into account the health of the
child, he said. I said, so for that reason. You're
willing to tell parents that vaccines don't cause
autism, even though you don't have the data to
support it. He said, absolutely. You can play
that clip if you want. It's on the Internet.
And then I deposed in a case about vaccines and
autism. It was about it. Dr. Catherine Edwards,
who is one of the four, I guess, leading vaccinologists
in the world, one of the four editors of the
medical textbooks on vaccine, which is called
Plotkin's Vaccines. I deposed her about vaccines
and autism. And I said, do you have a study that
shows hep B vaccine doesn't go to autism? This
was after this court stipulation, the court order
I told you about. She didn't have any for hep
B, for the ones I just took the first six months
of life. So, yes, they say on TV it's thoroughly
debunked. But I'm telling you, that is a belief
that is not science. That is not fact. It is
not based on data. It is based on pure. And they
say it just like they say, you know, Jesus Christ
is Lord. I think they believe actually in vaccines
more because they'll kick kids out of school
in some archdioceses, even in some other Christian
schools, far less. Most archdioceses won't if
the kid won't get vaccine. So I actually think
they believe in vaccines more than Jesus in some
places, by the way. What an amazing job of gaslighting
and propaganda they've done. But I just want
to, I just got to be clear because anybody hearing
this might think that that just sounds crazy.
But I implore anybody who heard me say that,
pull up the court order yourself. Look at it
yourself. Watch the depositions. Go to PubMed.
See for yourself. Oh, and by the way, do not
rely on AI because I've done this fun job with
them. I'm like, do you have B vaccines because
autism? It's been thoroughly researched and there's
no studies. I go, okay, great. So how do you,
and I say to AI, I go. How do you reach a scientific
conclusion? Well, you use peer -reviewed studies.
I go, wonderful. So to conclude that hep B vaccine
does not cause autism, you need peer -reviewed
studies. That is correct. Wonderful. Now please
put in a list these studies that show hep B vaccine
does cause autism. Give me three studies. I've
had chat GPT makeup studies. Literally, hep B
vaccine does not cause... And I'm like, that
doesn't exist. Give me the PubMed number. You
are correct. I aim to provide a valid information.
But in this instance, I fell short. Literally
made up a... I'm not joking. Made up a study.
That's crazy. I fell short. I lied to you. I've
done this for fun with friends. And so I'm like,
watch this, watch this. And finally, I'll get
it to admit that the only study is the Gallagher
and Goodman study. That is the only study. I
will get it to admit. It takes about often...
45 minutes to an hour. Really? Yeah. It takes
a while, but it will eventually admit it. And
they all do it. Grok does it too, by the way.
Grok's better, by the way. Better? But it's bad
too. And they will say, you know, on all of these
questions, they will make stuff up. And unless
you know, like, I know the universe of studies.
I know it's bloody. Can I ask you this? Do you
think that these large language models are programmed
with certain truths that they can't? fight against
or do you think it's because they're pulling
from so much bullshit on the internet and so
many bullshit narratives on the internet from
trusted sources that'll tell you that vaccines
don't cause autism like there's a ton of you
know major newspapers major magazines there's
a ton of them that have talked about how it's
been thoroughly debunked and they'll quote doctors
and scientists that don't list any specific studies,
but they'll say we've done exhaustive studies.
They've been thoroughly debunked. They'll say
that and they'll print that. And so is the, is
the AI just pulling from so much bullshit online
that it like looks through all the noise and
this is like 89 % say vaccines do not cause autism.
Therefore it must be true. Or is it programmed
to say, Hey, this is what you say. Vaccines don't
cause autism. You must hold me in very high regard.
You've held me to incredibly complex economic
questions and now language model questions. You're
a very smart guy. I appreciate the compliment
so far on that score. With that said, I mean,
I don't know the answer, but I will speculate
because I don't know the answer. I'm going to
guess, I'm really guessing, that it might be
a mix of... Some programming, because Google,
for example, I, you know, if you go and you search
for Aaron Siri Substack, you get Paul Offit Substack.
Why? How in the world do you get Paul Offit Substack
when you search for mine? And mine's like. It's
not even like on the first page. I don't think
it's on the second. Now, maybe they fixed that.
I don't know. So some of that. Is that using
Google? That's using Google. Let's look right
now. Last time I've done it. Let's do it right
now. Let's do it right now. Let's do it. Because
have you seen Robert Epstein's work? Robert Epstein's
been on my podcast a few times. Unfortunate last
name. But he has nothing to do with that. He
is a data scientist. Well, I don't know what
his original background is. What he does is he
is very vocal about how they're using these coordinated
– it's very curated search results. And through
that, especially during election times, they
can take a lot of people that are undecided voters
and swing them a very noticeable number. Like
I forget what the number was, but it's a large
percentage, 10 percent, 20 percent, something
like that. So if you Google something about,
say, Hillary Clinton, for instance, during that
first election, you would get all. these positive
articles. If you Googled Trump, you would get
all these negative articles. And if you asked
it certain things, it would give you things that
were completely contrary to that. So you'd look
at that first. And I think that's you and Paul
Offit. It could be. So let's find out. Maybe
it's fixed at this point. How do you want me
to word this? Aaron's series sub stack. Yeah,
just do Aaron's series sub stack. Just do that
on Google. Let's see what the results are. But
while he's pulling that up, I'll add that. So
this might be some of that. Again, I'm on speculation.
territory. And then separately... So it goes
right away to you. It goes right away to me this
time. You know what it is? They got Jamie's fucking
data and they know from your metadata. If you
ask a question in a word way, it might come up
differently. That's what I did. Try Aaron's Siri
injecting freedom sub stack. See what happens.
That could be the way we search for it. Oh. See,
I'm telling you, when you add words, it kind
of really fucks up all Google searches. Yeah,
but I don't see Paul Offit in there. I don't
see Paul Offit in there. Have you talked about
this publicly before? No, never. Oh, too bad.
No, I just did. This was actually literally just
a few days ago. Well, I think one of the things
that Robert Epstein, because he's been on my
podcast, been on multiple podcasts, but he's
been talking about the dangers of these curated
search engines and how it's essentially election
rigging. Speculating a statistically significant
number of people to one side or the other, and
you could do it by curating search engines. Well,
the experiment we just did might reflect that
my first theory might be less of that, right?
Because, look, there it is. It's happenstance.
That's why I said I have no idea. I'm speculating.
But it could be – it could not. It could be also
your own algorithm because maybe you were searching
for Paul Offit. Maybe you had Googled Paul Offit's
full of shit just before that. I don't need to
Google that. I don't know when they've added
this, but they definitely added on the screen
what they call personalization for these results.
Uh -huh. Results are personalized. Try without
personalization. So that could have something
to do with it. Interesting. Well, let's try it
without personalization. Let's see if it changes.
Well, I'm already done a different round. Oh,
you already put Paul Offit in there? Yeah, I
already started searching for that. So if you
do without presenting, it doesn't delete the
prior one? Interesting. Personalized. It knows
you're a right winger. Well, they started using
AI a long time ago. It knows you're a radical.
But I would speculate that the probably bigger
component is the who's got, again, it comes back
to who's got the money to understand how these
AI algorithms are worth and to maybe... put the
stuff out there that it's going to most likely
read from. I mean, when you do AI, you can get
that. I see that like crazy scroll of all things
it's looking at, right? Right. So if I've got,
if I am a pharma company and I've got a multi
-billion dollar budget every year to influence
and to market and so forth, you know, I'm going
to deploy that in the way that's probably the
most effective. One of the things I probably
would do is maybe do the things that would influence
the results on AI, potentially. Yeah, I would
too. Especially if there's no regulations. That's
the weird thing about curating search engines.
If it's like your search engine, you can kind
of do whatever you want, especially if your company
– wasn't it like one of the major tech companies
after Donald Trump won in 2016 that had a meeting?
They were like, we can't let this happen again.
Was that Facebook or Google? Do you remember,
Jamie? It was like very famous that people were
like, what are you talking about? You – what?
How can you say that? How could you even say
that? Even if you you're right. Like the idea
that you can somehow or other stop someone from
being elected if the public wants that person
to be elected because you disagree with it is
kind of a crazy thing to say out loud. Well,
you know, I'm thinking more about your question.
So when we found that thing with Paul Offit,
we found the thing with Paul Offit a few days
ago. My social media manager, Mike and my I've
got, you know. got a lot of folks at my law firm.
And we have somebody who does like Google AdWords
stuff and SEO stuff. And then we have another
guy who does the web related stuff. I know they
did some things and maybe with my little measly
budget, it had that effect. And so Matt, so if
that would go to my second point that with enough
dollar and who cares about my, I mean, I don't
think pharma cares about my sub stack. Trust
me, they're not scared of my sub stack. I don't
know about that because even if you don't have
a ton of subscribers, it's still out there. And
all it takes is one podcast appearance like this
one and people go there. And then all it takes
is one investigative reporter to talk about it.
It's a weird time for stuff like that. Let's
see if two weeks from now it goes back. They'll
never put it back. They'll never put it back.
But if you guys did do something about it, that
does make sense. They corrected it. You complained
about it. Well, no. I think that they had brought
up doing keywords and stuff like that because
there was some emails about, I remember trying
to fix it. I'm amazed at it. It looks like it
did. Well, I don't want that smoke. So maybe
it's, you know, it just kind of shows you. They
just need to be, yeah, shine light on it. It's
the best disinfection, sunlight. I just don't
like the idea of curated search engines. It's
really spooky. It's no different to me than curating
information on social media platforms based on
whatever your ideology is. Like, I don't think
you should be able to do that in terms of, like,
I don't think the company should be able to tell
you you can't see certain things. And YouTube
was terrible about that during the pandemic.
All the things that turned out to be true could
have got you banned from YouTube. The lab leak
theory kicked off. You know, the fact that the
vaccines, even if you get vaccinated, you still
can catch COVID. Remember that was a breakthrough
infection. It was extremely rare. Extremely rare
breakthrough infection. Never heard of it. And
now it's everybody. Literally everybody. And
then it became this weird fucking, everybody
did these weird mental gymnastics where they
started repeating, oh, but it stops hospitalization
and death. And like, what are you talking about?
You never said that before. are saying that they
were saying it stops hospitalization and death,
and you don't even have anything to gain here.
You just don't want to be wrong about your decision
to get injected and to promote it, which is nuts.
It's like people are doing the man's work for
the man. They've signed up as volunteers in the
propaganda army. And shaming all the people that
didn't go along with it and never apologizing.
No one wants to apologize for calling people
plague rats and telling people that they should
have their children taken away from them. Nutty,
weird, dystopian shit. They don't realize that
they are creating more vaccine hesitancy with
that kind of conduct than anything that you and
I could do on this podcast at all. Because, you
know, and like they say, you know, the CDC. The
CDC webpage on vaccines and autism has now been
updated, and it says now that there's effectively
no studies to show the vaccines in the first
six months of life do not cause autism. It now
says that, and that the CDC has misled the public
on that score, and people trashed, the mainstream
media trashed Bobby for that. while instead of
celebrating it as an opportunity to correct course
of transparency. Honestly, people are more likely
to trust our federal health agencies when they're
honest, when they're apologized, when they're
willing to admit mistakes. They're not there
yet, though, unfortunately. No, because it's
still a part of their political ideology. It's
a part of their clan. And they don't even think
about it. They don't look into it. They don't
read any studies. They don't read any synopsis
of any studies. They just go full bore. ahead.
It's been thoroughly debunked and they'll argue
with you. It's been thoroughly debunked. This
is all nonsense. Do you know how many depositions
I've taken of vaccinologists, pediatricians,
infectious disease experts, immunologists, where
I will say something about this, you know, these
studies show that, for example, the studies show
that children that have had cancer and measles
have lower rate of cancers and they'll go out.
That's just nonsense. Those studies are just
junk. I'll say, have you read the studies? No.
Have you seen them? No, but see, but they knew
already. You know, they've already reached that
a priori conclusion. I remember my deposition,
not to go back to autism, of Dr. Edwards, where
I said to her, you have any studies show that
hep B vaccine does not cause autism? She said,
no. I said, but there is a study that shows three
times rate of autism amongst kids that didn't
get hep B vaccine. And she says, well, I don't
think that's, that's not a good study. I said,
what study is that? She goes. Why don't you show
me the study? Because she hadn't read it. She
doesn't know. Why don't you show me the study?
That's because it doesn't fit within the belief
system, unfortunately, when it comes to this.
And it's so easy because, like you said, all
you got to do is just say, eh, they're just an
anti -vaxxer. Exactly. And it's all – when you
have a company, like whatever company it is,
whether it's Google or Facebook or whatever,
and that company operates on an ideology that's
not grounded in reality and then they enforce
it across their platform. It's very frustrating
and really nutty to watch. And just thank God
there exists some alternatives. Like you would
need a you need a crazy person worth a ton of
money like Elon to just go and buy it and then
also show, hey, it's still the number one platform
for distributing information. In the same way
that what what Elon did for social media, if
he could do that for search. That'd be great.
But I think search is dying. I don't think AI
is going to take over. I hardly ever search things
anymore. Everybody goes to AI these days from
what I could see. Because I can ask a question.
Like, how did this come about? I could ask follow
-ups. Are there any dissenting opinions? I love
doing that. It's good, but it also requires less
thinking. So it's bad in that regard. But yes.
Well, it depends on how you're using it. When
I'm using it is usually when I'm writing. I'm
writing about a certain subject. I'm like, well,
who were the first people to discover these Aztec
pyramids? I'll get into something like that.
Like, what were they looking for? Like, you know
what I mean? And like, it's almost like you're
talking to an expert. So instead of... It being
like something that I use to think for me. It's
like a super smart friend I'm bouncing questions
off of. You could find so much about things so
quickly as opposed to having to go through article
after article after article. And that's what
I'm looking for. How did he trick those people
and give them up their land? There's only fucking
600 of them. How'd they do that? You know, like
AI is fantastic for that kind of shit. But if
you're using it all day, like a lot of kids in
my school, my kids. are getting busted for writing
papers that are 100 % AI. Like, they were a moron.
Seventh grade. It's like PhD genius level paper.
Also, these 12 -year -olds are fucking wizards.
It's hilarious. It's not good. That's not good.
You saw those studies that came out. Again, not
my area, and I don't know. I've only read the
abstracts. I don't know. The more that technology
has been adopted into classrooms, it appears
the more detrimental it has been and actually
the markers of what you would consider an educated
or education or intelligence. 100%. It's a distraction.
It's like there's no way it could be good. You're
on TikTok all day. But if you're using AI, the
one thing I will say, depending on the topic,
but you probably should do it for all topics,
is. Never just rely on the output. You got to
ask, show me the primary source and look at it
yourself. It's so critical in every area. Especially
if it's something controversial. I mean, generally
I'm asking questions about something I'm looking
up that's not that controversial in terms of
like whether or not it's argued. You ever look
up yourself? No. No, why not? Jesus Christ. I
don't look up myself ever because I don't want
to know. I don't want to know people's opinions.
I don't want to know what it thinks of me. I
couldn't care less. I think it's much better
to just keep on going. If you're in a public
eye, including you now, everyone is subject to
an opinion. And there are certain opinions that
are just – they're not people that you would
ever want to talk to. And those kind of people
exist. There's going to be shitty people out
there. And their opinion written down looks just
like your opinion. Better to not have any of
it. Better to not watch any videos. Better to
not listen to anything. Be a good internal judge.
Be objective about your own self and be self
-critical to the point where it's healthy and
leave it alone. I was talking to this the other
day. I was watching this lady who was this very
boring, not very exciting lady talking about
how bad the Beatles were. And I was like, you
should shut the fuck up. The Beatles are incredible.
You're just a moron. You're just a dull -brained.
Fucking dork just wandering through life. But
you're allowed to. You're allowed to have those
opinions. It's like good luck finding a bunch
of people that agree with you, but you're allowed
to try. But I don't want to be a part of it.
I don't want to be washing, swimming through
bullshit opinions all day long. I don't think
it's healthy. But I do think facing the opinions
and the views, substantive opinions, views of
those that don't agree with you is an important
exercise in life and in any... In every area,
frankly. I mean, I'm, you know, when it comes
to the work that I do, you know, I welcome having
debates with those who claim they are the vaccine
experts. I mean, I'm. Well, this is we're talking
about a very different kind of thing and looking
at yourself. Yeah, you're looking up hard line
data. And it's very important what you do, because
it's. Crazy to say that being honest in this
regard is courageous. But it is courageous because
I've seen you attacked. I've seen crazy shit
that people said about you. And it's like, good
Lord, are you paying attention to what he's actually
saying? Or are you some bot from somewhere, some
fucking bot farm in Vietnam that's been hired
to push a narrative? I don't know. But there's
a reality to data. That's undeniable that needs
to be promoted. And I think that's what you're
doing. It's a reality to the data. I don't imagine
a whole lot of people are lining up to debate
you about this. Well, Paul Offit and I had an
exchange on the internet. First, we had it on
Twitter. In person? No, he won't do it. Yeah,
that's what I'm talking about. And then he moved
it onto Substack, and it's all there. It's a
great exchange. And I've offered him. Just to
be clear, not like a gotcha debate. I've offered
him to have a debate where we each get 10 minutes,
10 minutes, 10 minutes, and we each get to present
the evidence. So we have a screen. We can put
up our evidence and we can go back and forth.
With equal amount of time so nobody's talking
over each other. It's civil and it's based on
the substance. I've offered him to do that. But
the truth is I don't need to debate him. I've
already debated the world's leading vaccinologist,
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, in a nine -hour deposition.
People talk about, we should have a vaccine debate.
Well, I've done that. That was it. It's nine
hours. It's all on the internet and you can watch
it. And when my client put it out there and it
ended up on YouTube. This was many years ago.
It had like millions of views at one point. And
then YouTube took it off. And then people keep
putting it back on. And it's just a deposition.
It just keeps coming back and forth and back
and forth. Why are they taking it? YouTube, leave
it up. Stop. Well, I don't know if they're still
taking it down right now. I hope now the climate's
changed enough. It used to take it on and down.
And I've done Senate hearings where they've...
But those vaccinologists, they don't want to
show up anymore. I offered Peter Hotez that opportunity
on the podcast. And I told him I would donate
$100 ,000 to whatever charity of his choice.
And he, like, mocked that number as being insignificant.
I'm like, well, tell me what the fucking number
is. Like, just come on. And I was going to have
him and RFK Jr. Because he was talking about
me having RFK Jr. on. They're saying a bunch
of lies. And, like, well, instead of saying that.
And I think he. God, I forget what term he used
for me. I'm like, Peter, you've been on my podcast
twice. So what the fuck are you talking about?
Like why are you behaving like this? This is
crazy. What did he call me? Like it was something
about some alt -right adjacent or. Neo -fascist
adjacent podcast. The point is it was ad hominem
instead of substance. You gave him an opportunity
to show he was right in front of the world. He
is the vaccinologist. Bobby, just a lawyer, obviously
will drool on himself. Like, debate him. What's
the big deal? I only did this after he did that.
I didn't. He said all this stuff about me because
Bobby was on the podcast. And it was one of the
rare times that I ever go after anyone on Twitter.
But I was like, stop. Why are you saying that?
This is stupid. And I remember a whole bunch
of people added in. They were willing to add.
I forgot the number. It was in like a million,
two million. It was in the millions. And he still
would not sit down and do it. And the argument
that you'll often hear is they'll say, well,
I'm not good at debating. He's a lawyer. He'll
use lawyer tricks. Peter Hotez is a lawyer? No,
no, no, no. Oh, he's a lawyer. Bobby's a lawyer.
Bobby's a lawyer. Or they'll say that he's a
lawyer or I'm a lawyer, you know. And what they
don't, but, you know. Data wins. Exactly. And
I would let that data win. The substance should
win. If you're right, I want to know. I don't
fucking know. You tell me. I'm willing to debate
Peter Hotez here any day. I don't think he's
going to do it. I'll pull off it. Any of them.
In fact, Stanley Plotkin just wrote me a letter
after all these years, after I deposed him, first
time ever, wrote me a letter. Really? What did
he say? He said, I heard you wrote a book. I
heard you wrote a book. And your deposition went
very, very long. And I wasn't prepared enough.
He's a world's leading vaccinologist. And I will
be credited with saving millions. And you will
go down in history as the one who's harmed and
killed children. That's what he wrote me a letter.
And I wrote him back a response. And I said,
look, I said, Dr. Plotkin, I said, thank you
for your letter. I appreciate that you're writing
me finally. Because I've reached out to him before,
one time at least. And I said, look, I said,
I think we can agree on one thing. We want to
save as many children as possible. I want to
save children from infectious disease. That's
important. I agree. But I also want to save children
from the harm from these products. They matter
too. They're not just, there shouldn't be accepted
casualties. The tens of thousands of families
have contacted my law firm. Devastating harm
from these products. They matter too. And I said,
let's work together. Let's work constructively.
I said, because look, at the end of the day,
if you don't address this, if you don't address
this issue, I said, history is not going to remember
you for the good. History is going to remember
you for all the harm you caused. Because when
people look back in history at products that
cause devastating harm, which vaccines can do,
they don't remember the good those products did.
They remember the harms that people ignored,
that were overlooked, and those were just cast
aside. I said, that will be your legacy. I said,
but there's time to correct. He hasn't written
me back. Of course he hasn't written you back.
I posted both letters on my sub stack, and I
tweeted them out. So this way, I figured they
could do some good that way. So they're available
to everybody to read. I think it's a very unique
time that this message can get out there because
what they did when they removed liability and
they gave them blanket protection like that,
they opened up the door to a bunch of people
that … really don't give a shit about you. They
just want to make as much money as possible.
There's the scientists. That's what I always
describe like these companies. You've got the
people that are making these drugs. You've got
these really interesting, brilliant scientists.
And then you get the fucking money people. And
the money people don't give a shit. They just
want to make more money. And they're both together.
So you have this weird contradictory world where
you have like some amazing pharmaceutical drugs
that helped so many people and kept people alive
and cured diseases. And then you... You got the
money people who want everybody to get shot up
because it's going to make them more money. And
those two working together is a very bad mixture,
especially when you have mandates. Then you mandate
that these people have to be able to inject you
and inject your children with this thing that's
going to make them money. And they have zero
liability. Like, how could that possibly go well?
Knowing what you know about human beings, who
would sign off on that? I don't know. That's
crazy. You know, I had a business idea for you.
Okay. Want to hear it? Sure. It's a great business
idea. Listen, we're going to sell this product.
Okay. We're going to make it. Let's go. Okay,
we can inject it into people. Are you worried
it's going to hurt people? Well, I'm a little
worried. I want to hear your story first. Don't
worry. Don't worry. Don't worry about it because
governments can give us immunity to liability
no matter how many people we hurt or kill. Oh,
how did you work that out? Yeah, I know. Now,
the weird part is you might be saying to me,
you say, Aaron, Aaron, wait a second. But who
the hell did I take that? And I'll say, Joe,
don't worry. The government's going to mandate
it, too. And you might say, OK, but what if people
rise up? And I'll say, Joe, don't worry. They're
going to spend billions convincing the public
it's the best thing since sliced bread. And then
you're going to say, but what if people still
don't want to pay for it? And I'll say, don't
worry. The government, through a program, literally
pays for half of all vaccine, guarantees payments
to the pharma companies, even if people cannot.
Sounds like a good investment. No liability,
guaranteed market, free promotion, guaranteed
payment. If it wasn't vaccines, you'd say it's
insane. It is insane, and that is the business
model of vaccines. That literally is what I just
said. So you're right, it's perverse. But this
thing that you were just saying before about
the money men who want to just make money, look,
we live in a capitalist system where... We have
tapped into that self -interest. But we try to
harness it for good. So every company has that
to some degree. You know, people have that to
some degree. But the idea with capitalism is,
yeah, but you got to channel that and you got
to do good. You got to do a good product. You
got to do a good service. You got to do something
positive. And if you don't, you'll be held accountable.
So it's got guardrails. Yes. So, you know, it's,
you know, because I, you know, people are like,
well, what are you saying? Like people are sitting
there on the farm coming with horns and evil.
No, they're just, but they're just, they don't
have guardrails. And they've gone totally, you
know, they've gone totally off the rail. Do you
like my business idea? It's a great idea. I'm
going to talk to my lawyer first because I don't
want to go to jail. Oh, you're right. I don't
think in a sane society I'd get locked up for
the rest of my life, especially if he killed
a bunch of people, which is really crazy that
none of these people do wind up going to jail.
They pay giant criminal fines, and then they
slip away. I mean, look at the Sackler family.
They haven't been jailed, right? Wasn't there
like they were going to get immunity in favor
of like $6 billion or something crazy, but then
a judge kind of put the kibosh on that after
Painkiller, the Netflix docudrama, came out?
Yeah. And then critically, too, I would say it's
like remember during the bank crisis, there were
the banks that were too big to fail. Yeah. So
they want to touch those. The Sackler family,
to me, it's like the smaller bank that they could.
There was I mean, it was bad, but they could
sacrifice them. They could sacrifice that pharma
company. Are they going to sacrifice Merck? Sanofi,
Pfizer, GSK, any of those guys? Are they really
going to sacrifice them at the end of the day,
no matter how much harm they do? I don't know.
It's hard to see it. Well, listen, I'm glad you're
out there, and I'm glad you can articulate these
points so clearly and passionately, because people
need to hear it. They need to know what the actual
data is, what the actual story is about all of
it. It's better for all of us. And as hard as
it is, a pill to swallow, people need to get
that glass of water and start swallowing. So
thank you very much. Thanks for being here. I
really enjoyed it. And tell everybody your book.
Did you do an audio version of it? I did. Did
you read it? I did. How much work was it? Oh,
my gosh. Oh, my gosh. That was a lot. I thought
I could read, by the way. I was like, yeah, it's
reading. And then I realized when I had to read
the book, it was like I couldn't read anymore.
Oh, that's hilarious. Oh, my gosh. Did you ever
have to read an audio book? No, but I do ads
for the podcast, and Jamie will tell you. I'm
always like, fuck. I'm always fucking up sentences.
Then you got to redo them. It's brutal. Yeah.
Just talking is fine. Right. But when you have
to read out loud, like your tongue gets all tripped
up. I'm like, I go to federal court. I can argue.
I go to Senate hearings. I'm like, tell the audio
guy because we're in the studio alone. I'm like,
I really am. I think I might seem like a total
moron. I probably am a moron, but I'm just a
little bit – I don't know. I felt like such a
moron. Yeah, I have friends that have read their
own books and they feel the exact same way. It
was so painful. Oh, my goodness. But I did it.
It's done. It's out there on Audible and the
books on Amazon. All right. Aaron, thank you
very much. It was an honor and a pleasure having
you in here. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Goodbye, everybody.