Aaron Siri: Everything You Should Know About the Polio Vaccine, & Its Link to the Abortion Industry
01:55:20 Share

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their U.S.-based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

So you're Bobby Kennedy's lawyer. Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by President Trump to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS. Bobby Kennedy has a, this is just my quick summary, has a very large constituency in the United States. He's not some anonymous character. He's a guy who's been around for many, many years and has many, many fans. So it's hard for his opponents, who are many in Washington, to take him on directly.

And so they are trying to discredit him preemptively before the vote. This is my read. And the latest way that they have done this is by accusing him and you of trying to limit access of Americans to the polio vaccine, the one vaccine that most people think is great.

I think that's a fair summary. - Yeah, I would say they accused us of trying to eliminate. - Eliminate. - The polio vaccine. The New York Times headline was, right, that it was filed to get rid of the polio vaccine. - The polio vaccine. - That was the headline that everybody picked it up.

Welcome to Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at TuckerCarlson.com. Here's the episode.

So you are, as we say, objectively pro-polio in the characterization of the New York Times. It's a classic retort. If you question anything about the safety of these products or even their efficacy or the clinical trials or the post-licensure safety, the typical retort is, so you want everybody to have polio, huh? Yeah, desperately. Kind of a life goal. It's a product. We're just asking questions. Oh, just asking questions is not allowed. I've been penalized for just asking questions. No questions. Okay.

So, okay, so that's the context for this question. What is your position on the polio vaccines? And I think as you speak, you were also suggesting what Bobby Kennedy might think you are as a lawyer, but you tell me. So what the New York Times did is they purposefully, knowingly misled the entire country into believing that a petition that I filed on behalf of a client was

not my petition, my client's petition, not Mr. Kennedy, he was not the client, a petition I've never spoke to him about ever, nor did my client, sought to eliminate the polio vaccine, that was the headline. And therefore, because I'm Mr. Kennedy's lawyer, in some instances, my firm has almost 80 people, we have lots of clients, including Mr. Kennedy, including many others,

And because we filed this petition on behalf of a different client, nothing to do with him, that questioned one polio vaccine, by the way, and it's licensure and only has two children. I'll get into that. Somehow he wants to get rid of the polio vaccine and they knew it was untrue and they published it for the following simple reason. First of all, and if they didn't know this, they're not fit to be a high school newspaper. One, the petition only sought review

and this was a petition to the FDA, only sought review as to one of six licensed polio vaccines and only as to children. Why? What was the basis of the petition? Which, by the way, should have been the headline. This particular polio vaccine, licensed in 1990, not the Salk vaccine, it's not the Sabin vaccine, it's not the vaccine that you think of when you hear the polio vaccine, okay? This vaccine was based on a novel technology.

You need to grow a virus in some kind of cultural medium. Here, they use something called Vero cells. These are chromosomally modified monkey kidney cells that are rendered immortal, just like cancer cells. That means they'll grow forever, just like cancer cells. And they end up as an ingredient in every single vial. The clinical trial relied upon to license this brand new novel polio vaccine in 1990

reviewed safety for literally three days after injection. Three days. That sounds incredible. It sounds like it cannot be true, but it is on the FDA website. On behalf of my client, we FOIA the FDA for all the clinical trial reports for the summary basis of approval. We tortured them for years, basically saying, come on, there's got to be more than this. You license it based on three days of safety review in the clinical trial after injection with no control group.

There's no way you could know the safety of this product before you licensed it to be injected. There was no control group. There was no control group. Isn't a control group a prerequisite for a scientific experiment? I...

Because you need a baseline. What do you compare it to? The best you could do is compare it to the background rate, which is almost impossible. Because then you'd have to figure out the background rate for that exact demographic. It essentially renders the trial useless for safety. But here's the thing. Even if they had a control group, Tucker, even if they did, with three days of safety review, what are you reviewing?

It takes weeks often for even any immune dysregulation caused by the product to appear, just like it takes at least many weeks for you to build up, let's say antibodies to the target antigen in the vial. - Exactly. - If you're gonna have self-attacking antibodies, those take weeks as well to develop.

And oftentimes when you're giving it to a baby, this product is given at two, four and six months. If they're gonna have an immune dysregulation, if they're gonna have a developmental issue, you're not gonna know that for years. Asthma is not even diagnosed until a few years of age. Developmental issues are take years. And so, you know, a lot of the issues that we see, I mentioned, you know, my firm's got about 40 people that just do vaccine work. We do other things, but they just do vaccine work. And so, and we don't represent pharmaceutical companies. So as far as I know, we have the biggest,

vaccine practice in the world that doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies. One of the practices we have is vaccine injury claims. We don't sue pharmaceutical companies. You can't. They have immunity to liability since 1986, the only product like that. But you can't sue the federal health authorities in this little program. And so, you know, a lot of the injuries that we see when we do that work are immune or immune-mediated neurological disorders.

And those things are not going to appear until typically a few days after vaccination. So this trial, going back to this polio vaccine that was the subject of this petition, it was utterly useless to determine its safety. A couple quick questions. Please. I've never heard of that. I've never heard of an experiment without a control group.

And three days is obviously inadequate to judge the safety or the efficacy, for that matter, of a product. So how did federal health regulators sign off on that? You know, that's an excellent question. Why would the FDA agree to license it, right? It's a great question. We could talk about

regulatory capture. We could talk about the ideological beliefs that the folks who are involved in CBER, which is the biologics division of the FDA. And within that, there's an office called the OVVR. That's where the vaccines are actually licenses are reviewed. And I've met some of the folks who've been in that department and they're very much

I don't know if the right, I guess, ideologues, you know, they believe almost a priority, priority in the safety of these products, even when they're experimental to such a degree that I guess they let products like this. And I should tell you, if you think that. Because they believe the category of products is so virtuous that the details aren't important. I'm speculating.

Right. The important point is they did it. Why they did it, we could speculate on, but they did it. Well, Sue, I do. But I do want to ask you to pause and try to solve a mystery that I've been thinking about for a long time. And I don't know. I really don't understand it. What accounts for the religious attachment of certain people, particularly affluent, well-educated people to vaccines as a category? I mean, there are a million medicines out there.

And prophylactics and there's all kinds of treatments for all kinds of diseases. But people take a kind of cooler, less emotional view of them. Chemotherapy saves lives, but there are downsides to chemotherapy. And most people are like, you know, kind of weighing it out. Is it worth taking chemo or not? Right. But vaccines quickly become religious, like almost immediately. Like even the word has an emotional power that no other word.

treatment or medicine does, and this has been true for a long time. Why is that? What is that? Well, I'm... Have you noticed this, by the way? Absolutely. I...

There's an irony in the following way. Those who often don't wanna receive vaccines, I find are the ones, not always, who have taken the time to really look at the clinical trials, the post-licensure safety, to understand these products more objectively. The CDC will tell you that the people who have the highest rates of completely unvaccinated kids are ones with PhDs and are highly educated often in the sciences.

So what are they learning? What are they understanding that caused them not to receive these products? And so I find the quote-unquote those who oppose vaccines, you know, whatever pejorative one wants to use about them. They're the ones who believe the science. Oftentimes, and that's just not me saying it. I mean, I'm saying that when they survey, because they've tried to identify, well, who are the populations refusing these products?

they find they're disproportionately highly educated. There are some folks who don't have access to care and they just don't get it because they don't get it. But those who consciously choose, typically very highly educated. Now,

And to answer your question, which is, have I seen religion almost when it comes to these products? Yes, I have. But it comes from often the side of the folks who want to make you get them, force people to do it. You must believe what I believe about these products. That's right. You must submit. How dare you ask questions? Do not ask questions. You must just believe. And you often hear it in the following.

I've never heard people say, I believe in statins. Well, that's exactly the point, right? I believe in vaccines. That's the language they use. It's the language of religion. And you're asking me to speculate, so I'll speculate, which I prefer usually for not to do. But it is for a lot of people, and I found this with a lot of the vaccinologists who I've deposed and interacted with. A lot of them are atheists.

And maybe they were brought up in a certain religion, but they have now become atheists. And I think when somebody doesn't have religion in their life, any religion, they don't believe in God, some God, ends up with an empty space that needs to be filled with something. They have to believe in something. How do you not believe in something in this life? You have to have meaning. It's gotta be a really dark place to not believe, to believe everything came from nothing. And if you do...

You know, I'm speculating that vaccines start holding a place of religion, that they look to it as, see, this saved us. This is what saved humanity. And I think there's maybe some degree of that, that this notion that vaccines are, especially those in the medical profession. And I'll give you an example. You know, I'll use the example of measles, okay?

the great killer that you'll often hear, you know, they make you feel like everyone's going to die if you don't get measles vaccines. Well, here's the thing. Public health authorities should take credit for the decline in measles deaths in America. They should, but they should take credit in the following way.

Between the year 1900, this is all on the CDC website, what I'm about to tell you, and the year 1960, 61, 62, the years before the first measles vaccine in America in 1963, the mortality rate for measles declined by over 98%. Yes, by over 98%. That is, you can just go pull up the mortality data on the CDC website. This is...

It's uncontroversial. It's just data, what I just said. Some people get emotional about it, but it's just data, what I just said. Why would they get emotional? Well, for the reasons we just discussed. That decline had nothing to do with vaccines. You know how I know? There was no measles vaccine. That's how I know. What caused that decline? I think that in part, it's the public health industry

health authorities should take a lot of credit for that. Nutrition, sanitation. Better sanitation, clean water, getting sewage running out of the streets. Right. Right. All of these things, initiatives to make sure that there's natural light, like remember all the tenement buildings? Yes. All these initiatives, even basic things like quarantine. Oh, if you're sick, not that, not the kind of forced kind of stay at home stuff that we're talking about. Just if you're sick, hey, maybe you should stay at home in bed kind of stuff.

And so that declined over 98%. You know how many people died in the few years, on average a year before there was the first measles vaccine in 1963 when pox of this country were still like the developed world? Around 400 Americans a year died. That's one in 500,000 Americans died of measles in the years before they were vaccinated. Every death's a tragedy. And measles can still kill people just like any virus can in parts of the world that are really underdeveloped.

Any virus can kill children, adults. And there were still pockets of America in the early 60s that were like that. But that declining rate of mortality, it was a trajectory that was ongoing, even when the measles vaccine was introduced in 63. So those 400 deaths, which have now gone down, how much of that is attributable to measles vaccine? How much of it is to the continued efforts of public health organizations

Agencies, right? That could be debated forever. We don't need to. But the important point is this. Long way to answer your question is this. When you listen to public health authorities today,

They will say to you, measles is what caused the decline. Measles vaccine is what caused the decline in mortality. They never talk about those other things that they did. They never talk about the increased sanitation, the better, all the different effective measures that they took to get it down by 98%. They talk about that last 1%, but they make it seem like the vaccine, which caused that last 1% of decline from 1900, or some, I shouldn't even say, they caused it,

You could argue it's up to one point something percent was from the measles vaccine. You can't argue it's more than that in the decline. It's not possible, but they ignore that.

And the only thing they'll point to is say measles, excuse me, measles vaccine is what saved us. And that's true of most of the vaccines, actually. When you look at the number of people that died in the year before the vaccine, typically the mortality had precipitously declined. For diphtheria, for tetanus, for almost every disease declined 80 or 80, 90% before the introduction from the year 1900, introduction of the first vaccine. And oftentimes in the year before that,

you're down to a dozen or two big mumps a dozen or two dozen deaths you know for most of these things so you know um when you talk about religious beliefs but yet many in the medical community they'll say how could you not take a vaccine millions in america would die and that's an incredible statistic to think millions in america would die a year for if you don't get vaccinated because if you just add up

the number of deaths in the year before every vaccine that is now on the schedule, putting aside COVID vaccine, because there were hundreds of thousands of deaths before the vaccine, right, they say. And you can argue whether the vaccine reduced mortality, though there was increased all-cause mortality afterwards, putting aside the flu shot, which the science is clear doesn't reduce mortality based on numerous reviews like Cork and Crabbe collaboration.

which I understand now is owned by the Gates Foundation, so maybe those studies will change soon. You're at thousands of deaths, thousands total. And many of those were occurring in years long before the current acute care that we provide, the current increases and all the other factors that cause the reduction in mortality to begin with.

But nonetheless, this is the only thing they want to point to is vaccines. So I think that that's maybe what it is. There's just, it fills a space of they have to believe in something and these products fill that space for them. Because I find a lot of times you can't really have an objective conversation, a non-emotional objective conversation with some people about these products. And they are just products.

How do travelers stay prepared for the unexpected? Well, when you're flying across the country or driving for hours crammed into crowded spaces, and yet most people don't think what they'd do if they got sick or someone they love got sick. Have you thought about that? Well, now it's the holidays. It's the busiest travel time of the year, and it's also flu season. Everyone's stressed. People are coughing. And if you're unlucky, you could find yourself ill in a place where you need medication. So what do you do about that?

Well, thankfully, there's a solution. It's called Jace Go. Jace, J-A-S-E, Go. It's a compact kit of essential prescription medications for all of those unexpected health emergencies.

for infections, food poisoning, and more. It's designed to go wherever you go. Think about that. Snow hits, pharmacies close, flights get delayed, bad things happen. If you have Jaceco, you're covered. There's no scrambling, no worrying. You can be content because you've got peace of mind. So don't wait until you're stuck without essential medications. It's crucifixion. Is there going to be an ear infection? Probably.

So go to Jace. Go to Jace.com slash go. J-A-S-E dot com slash go. Use the code Tucker to get your Jace Go with a special discount. Jace.com slash go code Tucker.

What's up, y'all? It's Joe Budden, here to talk about PrizePix. Football season is heating up, and PrizePix is the best place to get real money sports action while watching football. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePix has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. The app is really simple to use. Pick two or more players across any sport, pick more or less on their projection, and you could win real cash on your lineup.

PrizePix even invented the FlexPlay, so you can still cash out if one of your picks doesn't hit.

On PrizePix, you can mix and match players from different sports. Real money sports action while watching football. Download the PrizePix Daily Fantasy app today and use code FIELD and get $50 instantly when you play $5. That's code FIELD on PrizePix to get $50 instantly when you play $5. You don't even need to win to receive the $50 bonus. It's guaranteed. PrizePix. Run your game. Must be present in certain states. Visit PrizePix.com for restrictions and details.

Was this review, the polio, the one of six licensed polio vaccines in question, you said received its license in 1990. It was 35 years ago. Did anyone over the course of 35 years say, wait a second, you know, the process used to evaluate the safety of this product was like a joke, woefully insufficient. Did anyone say anything about it for all those years up until recently?

Well, my client, the informed consent action network, ICANN, has been beating on that drum now for a good eight, almost eight years with the FDA, starting with an extensive letter about all of these shortcomings in 2017. ICANN was formed at the end of 2016. And you might say, well, the vaccine had been licensed for decades at that point, but

Well, first ICANN was just formed then to really start looking at these things. And also, in 1986, there was something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was passed. I don't know if you're familiar with that. And basically leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines in the United States. That's it. A child in the first year of life received three injections

According to the CDC schedule. Okay. Problem is, is that- And what were they? DTP, OPV, and MMR. For the layman? What are those? So one is DTP with diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis. So that's one vaccine. OPV, which is oral polio vaccine. And then MMR is measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. So each of those are-

counting three different vaccines on the market, three separate products. So that was the state of play as of 1986. That was the state of play. That's it. And they were causing so much financial losses to the manufacturers of those three products. There were many companies that made those products that all of them went out of business or stopped making them, except there was one company remaining for each of them. And they were threatening to go out of business too. Now,

Congress, in its wisdom, should have let them do what every other manufacturer does for every other product. You make a plane that falls out of the sky, make a better plane. You make a car that gas tank blows up, make a better car. You make a drug that's causing people to have all kinds of complications, make a better drug. Instead, Congress said, you know what, actually,

we'll just make it so nobody can sue you for the injuries for those three so these companies have gone out of business because of lawsuits from people who were injured that's right they were going to go yeah that's right they were succumbing to incredible financial losses because of the injuries these products are causing and so you know when you think about it drugs don't have this immunity but congress passed the national childhood vaccine injury act of 1986 and that gave them immunity for any injuries from those two products but not only those three products

any other vaccine, routine childhood vaccine that came on the market thereafter. And so we have gone from three injections in the first year of life on the CDC schedule, those ones we just talked about, to if you look at the CDC schedule today,

you get 29 injections in the first year of life. If your child gets all of the vaccines that is currently on the CDCs, just in the first year of life schedule, I'm not even counting the four shots that you're supposed to get in pregnancy now, which didn't exist back in 86. And that assumes you don't get any combination vaccines. That's what you would get. That's the differential between then and now. And in that same time period,

We have gone from under 13% of kids in America have a chronic health issue in the early 80s to well over 50% of kids today have a chronic health issue. And many of those issues that have exploded are- From 86 to present. From 86 to present, yes. And many of those chronic health issues amongst children that have exploded are immune mediated conditions.

So something has gone wrong with the immune system of our children. I'm not saying vaccines caused all of that rise, but what I am saying is that we do know that vaccines can cause a number of immune and immune-mediated neurological conditions, including some of the conditions that we have seen explode since the early 80s.

It's obviously not the only environmental change, right? Because something in the environment had to change between the early 80s and today to cause this dysregulation in our children's immune system to cause all this chronic disease. Was it vaccines? Was it pesticides? Is it all the new chemicals that are kind of lying in our food? There's a whole host of factors to look at. But when you're talking about immune system dysregulation, right?

Looking at the products that came online between 1986 and today, it's pretty critical. And so to answer your question now, you said, well, has anybody asked a question about this clinical trial for this polio vaccine? So when my client, ICANN, started really looking at this issue, it said, well, you know, are the vaccines a contributor? Because

given a lot of vaccines in the first year of life, is that's what's causing these immune system issues. Well, the place that you go to assess whether a product is safe is its clinical trial. Why? It's the one time you can determine causation, really, between a product and a claimed injury. You need a prospective...

Double-blind placebo-controlled trial, typically, or well-controlled trial. It's okay to use non-placebo if you have an existing standard of care that has already been established as safe in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, right? Okay? And so that process began by looking at

the package inserts and the 58 documents. Well, let's look at what the clinical trial data says for each of these products. Not only because I can want to look at that investigation, but also when our clients call our firm and they say, hey, my kid went in totally healthy, you know, his baby Apgar score perfect, goes in 10 minutes after getting a shot or these shots has a grand mal seizure, bubble, you know, has a cascade of issues. When we go to vaccine court,

The program I told you about, because you can't sue the manufacturer, you sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And if Mr. Kennedy becomes, for example, the Secretary of HHS, we'd actually be suing him, ironically. You sue the Secretary of HHS. And in a program where almost every claim, you have to prove causation. You have to prove it.

Okay, I don't have an MD, I don't have a PhD. I'm a lawyer. So when I go to court about vaccines, I have to prove things with real evidence. I need good evidence. I don't get to just say stuff. I don't get to appeal to my credentials. Okay, how do I prove it? Starts with clinical trial data because everything after licensure is almost all retrospective epidemiological studies. And those they say can never show causation. You roll into court with those are like, well, that's just correlation. You can't prove anything with that.

And by the way, it's not even like there's a mountain of that stuff. If you go to PubMed and you want to research the safety of any particular trial of the vaccine, you're not going to find a lot of studies. I know they say these most robustly studied products, but there's what they say and there's a reality to the state of the science. So bringing this all the way back. And the reality is that they're just not studied very closely. And this polio vaccine is a great example.

And as well as the other two petitions they took issue with in the news recently. So in this one petition, here we are, right? Two or 20 something years later, we've got this explosion of chronic health in our children. And the manufacturer of this product, this was a novel product at the time. The manufacturer's product, 20 something years later, still needs immunity to liability? You still don't know it's safe enough to live that? Really? It's been how many years?

Right? So merit's really looking into. Look at the clinical trial. Like I said, on behalf of ICANN, we FOIA the FDA for all the clinical trial reports. We sent them letters. We did everything we can to give them an opportunity to show us it's more than three days with no control because that is not believable. Meaning if you had said to me, you said, Aaron, come up with the most nefarious thing you can come up with about vaccines. Like, just go crazy. I wouldn't even dream of saying that to you.

Because nobody would believe it. It sounds crazy, but it's right there. It is the reality. And so we filed a petition that I think if anybody in America read, if you didn't read the headline of the New York Times, but instead read,

The actual petition, you'd be like, oh, that's very reasonable. So you license a completely novel, yes, polio vaccine based on essentially cancerous monkey kidney cells that end up as an ingredient. And you're resaging for three days after injection with no control. So the petition said, hey, FDA, excuse me, can you require a proper clinical trial of this product, please, before it's licensed? And it was only asked to children. That's what the request was in this petition filed on behalf of ICANN.

Okay. So let me address two things. Wait, so that was the ask just for a clinical trial? Before it's licensed for children. Yes. And so what we're asking now, just to understand, it's not even like ICANN wanted to withdraw the licensure of this one product. It's not the point. The clinical trials are done by the manufacturer. They're not done by the FDA. Okay. They're done by the manufacturer. So how do we get the manufacturer to do another clinical trial that's appropriate?

Well, you have to when you file a request with the FDA on their formal docket, like when Pfizer files a request on this formal docket that we use, FDA hates that we use it because it's only pharma companies typically use it. They're like, we'd like to license this product. We would like to change the licensure. We would like to change that company's licensure because of this, right?

So we use the same document on behalf of ICANN and we filed on it and we said, hey, we want you to take this action, but we have to ask them to change some action the FDA took. Well, the only action they took was to license it. So the valve to ask them to get them to require a new trial is to say,

pause or pull the licensure for this one product until there's a proper trial, okay? It was the legal mechanism to get another trial. It wasn't, the purpose wasn't to get rid of the vaccine. The purpose was to get them to do a proper trial. And in no universe, to be clear, did we ever think that

My client ever think, and I ever think, that the FDA would actually pull the licensure. We just hoped, thought, they'd say, hey, go do a proper clinical trial. They're on to us. It's now been, that petition was filed in 2022. It's been years. They haven't done it. And I like to make this point very clear, just super clear. I really got to set this record straight. It's so important. Even if this petition was granted, there is not a single claim

child or adult in America that would not have had access to a polio vaccine. Not one. That is what makes the New York Times headlines absolutely false. They knew it was false. They intended for the country to be deceived because they're trying desperately to derail Mr. Kennedy's nomination. And I'll just... But hold on. I know you don't like to speculate as to motive, but it does raise this...

Confusing question. Why would the New York Times, A, be so opposed to Bobby Kennedy? It's a liberal newspaper. He's a lifelong liberal. Was. Kennedy was. Yeah. Right. In their minds. Yeah. He is a classical liberal. Oh, I couldn't agree more. And I would say this compliment. He believes in civil liberties. We all should. But why would the New York Times be willing to lie about

in order to keep him from getting confirmed. Why is it so important?

I think it's probably a mix, like many things in life, of a number of factors. For sure. I think that it matters whether you're looking at the level of the two reporters that wrote this piece, at the level of the New York Times as an organization, at the various people between those two reporters and New York Times as an organization that had some hand in that piece before it came out. I think it's probably a blend of ranging from ideology. I will tell you, these two authors of this article...

I mean, they are in the category of what I would call vaccine zealots. I mean, they, I think, are incapable of objectively thinking and looking at this product. Do you remember their names? Their names are Cheryl and Christina, and I could pull it up if you'd like. If people are interested, the first names are great. People can find it. Yeah, they're right there on the article. But from, you know, over the years, and Cheryl has reached out and

You never have a conversation with somebody and you're like, hey, look, look at this fact right here. And they just, instead of responding to it, they just immediately go to something else, right? Because they can't deal with that fact. So they just bring up something else. I feel like that's a sign to me of a lack of being able to really objectively evaluate the evidence in front of you. And I feel like that, you know, there's an issue there. So there's ideology there.

And then there's also, you've to look at, always got to look at somebody's financial interests, always, right? Because it conforms their conduct, whether in one way or another, as objective as we all think we would like to believe we are, and we should all strive for it.

financial interests affect us. They do. - Of course, yes they do. - And so where does New York Times get some of its financing? Is there any dollars that flow to their advertising coffers from those who want informed consent, medical freedom, or is there more dollars that flow from pharmaceutical companies?

And so, you know, that's maybe a consideration as well. So what's the answer to that question? Oh, it's obviously more from the medical pharmaceutical industry flows to the New York Times. I don't believe that there are many medical freedom informed consent organizations with a lot of money

So I don't think that's there, but- Is pharma a big advertiser? I don't know the percentage, but I know, I mean, I've seen ads, so I've not dug into it. I have not engaged in trying to answer the question you just asked me. So you asked me to speculate, so I speculated. You know, I mean, again, whatever their motives are, they did it. And the reason that I, and just to, you know, I'll wrap up the point of why they knew it was false and why it was false is that

The petition only asked for the reevaluation as to children, which would have meant, even if the petition was granted, it would have made available for all adults in America, licensed, okay? Which would have meant it would have remained off-label use for all children, right? So nobody would have been deprived in America for even that one vaccine we asked about. But putting that aside, there are five other licensed vaccines for children, right?

polio on the CDC schedule is given at two, four, six months of age and four years of age. And there are five other shots you can get at those intervals because they're given with other vaccines at those time periods. So it would have taken them two seconds of thinking to know their headline of the polio vaccine is going to be eliminated was absolutely a lie. I mean, why do you think they did it?

Um, because I think Bobby Kennedy, well, because some of them are vaccine zealots. I think that's right. I've certainly seen a lot of that. But I also think there's something about the way he assesses facts and history that's terrifying to a certain sort of person who's very vested in the current system, who's a rigid dogmatic thinker. A lot of them are.

A lot of the dumber people are rigid and dogmatic, in case you haven't noticed. It's a sign of mediocrity, in my opinion, but it's very common in our professional class. And Bobby, like Trump, is the kind of person who assesses things on the basis of what he sees and doesn't necessarily genuflect before, you know, the pieties that all of us have to or are required to, you know, whatever we're supposed to say. He doesn't necessarily go along with that.

And that temperament is incredibly threatening. Once you start asking questions, you know, are these products safe? You might wind up asking other questions like, why do we have NATO? Or how was John F. Kennedy murdered? Like, what was that? I mean, there's people who ask uncomfortable questions in one area are likely to ask uncomfortable questions in other areas. And if your entire system is built on lies...

That's a huge threat. That's my personal view. I'll build on that then, which is when you look at the last 40 years,

who has been one of the big supporters in many ways of what's occurred, right? You don't often, a lot of times you'll see the New York Times supportive of what the HHS administration has been doing over the last 40 years. And where's that gotten us over the last 40 years? Let's think about this for a second.

So under the current approach that's been going on, which Bobby stands in opposition to in many ways, right? And I'm not talking about just vaccines. I'm talking about the way business is done across health. Exactly. Right? I'm not talking about just vaccines right now.

When you look over the last 40 years, we've gone, we've already talked about child chronic health gone exploding, right? Which is, you know, suffering on a micro scale. You know, each one of these families that has a kid with a chronic health issue, it's devastating. When we have families with a vaccine injured kid, it's a devastating event. But then there's also the macro issue too, which is we got $35 trillion in debt.

We have almost $2 trillion a year that we can't cover of what we spend in this country. We're bringing in $4. something trillion in revenue.

And just one agency, CMS, that does Medicare and Medicaid is almost $1.7 trillion of our $6 trillion budget. And when you look at the growth curve of that agency alone, it's just skyrocketing. We are, you know, if a few countries stop using our dollars or national reserve currency, we could be in a death spiral. I mean, this is how empires fail. And what is driving a massive component of,

of our national debt, it's healthcare spending and it's gonna rise and it's gonna increase. And really Congress unfortunately has in many ways rigged the rules for Medicaid and Medicaid. So it's really hard to reduce

the total spend other than getting people healthier. And that is what Bobby wants. That's all he's focused on. He has no interests that extend my experience with him beyond that. He is genuinely committed to helping people and saving people. And I think you're right. He stands against what has brought us to this place. And in many ways, I guess, you're right in that

If he's right, if there are a whole host of things that our health agencies have been doing or ignoring or not properly studying, and I'm talking about everything right now, it would show that the New York Times and all of these papers have not been doing their job. It was five years ago this month that people started to drop dead in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Five years since the beginning of COVID, tens of millions dead, societies reordered completely. A

Economies destroyed. And yet, for some reason, we still don't know answers to the most basic questions. Where did this virus come from? How did it get here? Why did the government tell us to do things they knew wouldn't work? None of those questions have been adequately answered. And one man knows those answers. His name is Dr. Tony Fauci.

Until now, nobody has really pressed. And now a documentary filmmaker called Jenner First is out with a new film explaining exactly what happened. The film was called Thank You, Dr. Fauci. Jenner First spent years trying to get answers. And in that time, as he awaited Dr. Fauci's response, he went through tens of thousands of pages of documents.

and piece together the story, which is shocking. We are proud to host that documentary here on TCN from December 20th to January 19th. You will see it exclusively here on TCN. Again, it's called Thank You, Dr. Fauci, and it's worth it.

Hi, I'm Melanie, a tech lead at Capital One, where we use serverless at scale. Recently, my team used serverless to build an API that lets you generate a pass you can add to your digital wallet for a faster check-in at Capital One airport lounges. And we made it reusable so other Capital One dev teams can also implement digital pass services. Our

Our serverless first approach allows engineers like me to focus on the fun part, building impactful solutions for our business and our customers. That's technology at Capital One. Learn more at CapitalOne.com slash tech slash serverless. So just to kind of tie a bow in the New York Times story element of this conversation, they made the claim that you and Bobby Kennedy are pro-polio. What other claims did they make?

They also said we were trying to get rid of hep B vaccines. And then they pointed to yet another petition that I could talk about. Because, again, the petition that we filed with regards to hep B vaccines, and again, only with regards to two of them. There are others. Okay? So there were not about all hep B vaccines. And again, it was filed on behalf of our client, ICANN. Not on behalf of Mr. Kennedy. He knew nothing about it. He had nothing to do with it. Right? So the association with him is totally false. Yeah.

And it would have allowed have left Americans without access to happy vaccine. So that was false too. What did the petition actually ask for? Well, let me tell you, because that's what should have been the headline. The headline should have been the following in the New York times, FDA licenses, happy vaccines for infants and toddlers based on clinical trial with five days or less of safety monitoring after injection and no control group. That should have been the headline that should,

is patently insufficient to determine safety. And I think anybody that reads the petition that was filed with the FDA would find it eminently reasonable because it doesn't just say you did this. It starts with in 2017, we said to you, how could you do this? You didn't really do this. Give us documents. And then they gave us an answer and they didn't provide anything of substance. Then we did it again on behalf of ICANN and we FOIA them. Then we sued them and we won't,

On behalf of ICANN, we did this for years, and then we finally brought the petition. Again, saying, come on, you got to require proper clinical trial. Again, this is yet, these were two vaccines that also came online during that period between 1986 and now that were part of the explosion of chronic health condition. Let's make sure they're really safe and the way to do that is a proper clinical trial.

The New York Times also accused us of wanting to get rid of a bunch of other vaccines, okay? Because there was a third petition that was filed with the FDA, again, after a lot of back and forth. And that petition, I think most people, again, would find eminently reasonable. That petition was based on a peer-reviewed study that came out by the world's leading aluminum expert and four of his colleagues. And what did this paper find in this peer-reviewed journal?

It found that amongst 10 childhood vaccines, there was far more aluminum adjuvant in the vial or far less in the vial than what was on the FDA label for those vaccines. So you got a label, the FDA approved label. It says it's got 0.5, let's say micrograms, but the finding was that it had double maybe inside of it. That's a serious concern.

Aluminum adjuvants are neuro and cytotoxic. They're what you use to induce autoimmunity in lab animals. They're not like candy. If I just injected you with just dead pieces of proteins from a pertussis bacteria, your body would probably, your macrophages and dendritic cells would probably just gobble it up and throw it away as garbage because to have a real immune reaction, you have to have cellular death.

Okay, you have to have cellular death. And how do bacteria cause cellular death? They're replicating and killing cells. Viruses are taking over cells. But if you have just dead pieces of protein in the vial, it's not gonna do much. So they include aluminum adjuvants. Aluminum is bound to silica acid in the ground. Humans not come into contact ever with aluminum throughout all human history for the most part, until not long ago in the scale of human history, we started,

or mining it and separating it with silica acid. Most metals that you come into contact with in the environment have a human function, like iron, right? Magnesium. Your body has some mechanism it uses it for. Aluminum has no biological function in your body, zero. That's why when you have an aluminum can, you know how it can like survive forever and bacteria and virus don't grow because it's toxic to life, okay? People think of aluminum like as if it's

because it's now ubiquitous in our, you know, but the, so aluminum, imagine having too much or too little is problematic. And the aluminum that you ingest is usually an ionic form, you know, like in the periodic table of elements, it's like tiny, you know, tiny, tiny piece of aluminum. So if this cup was an ion of aluminum that you ingested, which, you know, wouldn't cross the blood brain barrier, which your body could, you know, use its pathways to get rid of,

a piece of aluminum adjuvant would be like the size of this whole city we're sitting in. Okay. On the micro scale, it's massive. So it gets injected into your arm with the vaccine in the, it's in the vial to cause cellular death at the injection site. Okay. So that your, your blood neutrophils come pouring out and you have that inflammation that you see when you have an infection, it gets red and that's your immune system working. And it,

And those aluminum adrens are bound to the antigens. So when your macrophages and dyrtric cells, those are immune system cells, take them and go to your lymph nodes to create antibodies, adaptive immunity, right?

After they're done doing that, where does the aluminum adjuvant go? Well, let me tell you. The CDC and others have done studies where they inject aluminum adjuvant into animals and then they sacrifice them. They mark the aluminum adjuvant with like a fluorescent so they could see where is it afterwards and they can shine it on the animal. It ends up in all their organs, their brain, their lungs, their heart, everywhere.

So that's not good. You know, having that kind of material deposited is not good. So you don't want too much of it in a vial, okay? I'm not saying what kind of harm. I'm just saying you don't want too much. And you don't want too little because that presents efficacy issues. Right. And even safety issues. So the petition, all it asked for, and those might have been too much detail about aluminum, but the petition, all it asked for is said, hey,

FDA, and if you read it, the ask was this, please confirm, please provide documents that confirm that the amount of aluminum adjuvant in the vial of these 10-childhood vaccines matches what's on the product label. And if you can't, and you don't have that documentation, and you can't show, then pause distribution until you do, because that's a serious safety issue and efficacy issue. You're giving kids vaccines that might have safety concerns, like a shot in the dark in many ways,

And also may not even be efficacious, may not even produce the immunity you're looking for. That petition was filed years and years and years ago, and still they have not confirmed it one way or another. Again, the point of these petitions was not to actually stop the distribution of these vaccines. ICANN didn't want to do that. It just wanted them to do proper safety studies.

That's really it. The legal mechanism was to say, pause it so that they then would require the science. Otherwise, there's no legal mechanism to get the FDA to do the things it should have been doing. And I would like to think we could all agree that, you know, when you go to the store and you get a box of Captain Crunch cereal and you read the ingredients, what's on the ingredients should match the

What's in the box. Right. And in the case of the third petition, it wasn't just that you showed the safety testing was inadequate. There was evidence of an actual problem. The ingredients didn't match the label. Absolutely. Right. By the world's leading aluminum scientists. That's right. So, but...

The headline wasn't FDA shirks its duties to assure product safety. FDA, no, it was, you know, by implication, Mr. Kennedy wants to ban vaccines, which is complete and utter nonsense. So the purpose of this piece was obviously not to report the news or tell the truth or, you know, get to the heart of anything. It was to stop Bobby Kennedy's nomination at the confirmation stage.

Has it been effective? Well, that is why I'm on your show to make sure everybody understands that the New York Times...

this entire country about what's in those petitions, deceived the country about their connection to Mr. Kennedy. It's nothing to do with him. And I do not think, I do not think, thankfully, because of folks who are willing to actually cover the truth, and thank goodness there is media that's willing to cover the truth about this, I don't think it will hurt him. But if we were 15 years ago,

And there was no alternative media, as it's called. That's right. And the New York Times ran the story and everybody else picked it up. Who would I talk to to tell the truth? Who could I go on? Who would I be speaking with? I'd be in my office just talking to the wall. So, you know, I'm very thankful that there are those, you know, and I'm thankful to the alternative media that's hosting me, as well as others, you know, who have hosted me, you know, Fox News.

put me on to talk about this. Chris Cuomo had me on to his credit to talk about Zen News Nation. And the Wall Street Journal just published an op-ed to their credit. They're rivals of the New York Times. I don't know. So maybe that helped, as my understanding. So, you know, and it was an op-ed. It wasn't a piece, but fine. So my hope is that, no, I don't think it's going to hurt him because...

I like to hope and think the senators will look at the actual facts at the end of the day on this, and they'll realize it just wasn't true what was in this article. There's just no truth. There's just no truth to the claim that he wants to get rid of vaccines. He just wants transparency, and he wants good science, and we should all want that. I want to ask a specific question that's bothered me for a long time. So 1986, Congress grants blanket immunity to the vaccine manufacturers. They cannot be sued.

You know, those are not the only products people sue over, of course. The trial bar, which was famously the most powerful along with teachers unions, the most powerful single constituency in the Democratic Party because it gave the most money. You know, they've lobbied to make it easy to sue over anything. You know, OBGYNs go out of business because, you know, they get sued.

Why haven't they complained about this? It's a great question. I mean that. I just think that there aren't many plaintiff's firms that have made a line of business in it. So it's not like they had this line of cases and business suing on vaccine injuries, and now you've taken it away. I mean, there were a few doing it, obviously, back in the early 80s.

But I think you're talking about like in the decades since, why hasn't the trial bar done this? You know, maybe it's a blend of ideology. And it's also none of the big plaintiff's side firms have a vaccine injury practice. And the ones that do have gotten used to maybe the existing system. But it's just weird. I mean, sue over talcum powder, asbestos, tobacco, slip and falls. I mean, you name it.

playground equipment manufacturers, the rest of the medical establishment gets sued constantly, but nobody thinks, well, wait, everyone knows there are a lot of vaccine injuries. That's not a controversial point. It's known.

And no one, no lawyer thought, well, wait a second, you know, we need to lobby to change this law because we could save people and make a ton of money. I just think it's very strange. Well, you asked me a lot of questions that are complex and require a lot of speculation, but, you know, maybe part of it is that you said the trial bar has a lot of lobbyists, right, and influence, but- Yeah, they do. But pharma and health-

The healthcare industry has, my understanding, over 2,000 lobbyists. My understanding is they have the most lobbyists of any industry out there. Double is my understanding in terms of dollars. Don't quote me on this one, but you should look it up. I think last I heard, and this should be verified,

double the next in line, which I thought was like oil and gas industry. So I don't know where trial lawyers stand in that thing, but I suspect those who would benefit from keeping that immunity probably have far more influence. And that's probably why it stays in place. It's just very strange because all of us, well, thanks to propaganda from organized lawyer lobbies, have been told from birth that the

civil law keeps us safe. You know, if you make a crappy product, if again, if you're, as you said, if your gas tank blows up, some lawyer's going to sue the car manufacturer and you'll get a safer car. That is, that is how product safety works. When you look at countries that don't have, you know, basically market-based systems, how do their products get safer? They didn't. Go look back at other countries in that way.

The way that products get safer is the company's economic interest, which is a good thing, meaning their economic interest aligns with safety. I make a car. I make a drug. I want to make sure that it's as safe as I can make it so that I can still make money when I sell it and not face exposure downstream that will make me end up with a loss. Well, I'm glad you said drug, too, because this immunity applies only to vaccines. There are lots of drugs out there. Some of them have...

You know, all of them have side effects. Some of the side effects are scary as hell, but they're still on the market. And they're given to only very small groups of people. So you have drugs given to small groups of people, like you said, can go side effect and they can survive. But a product that you give to millions, often by coercion, by school mandates every single year.

promoted by the federal government, you can't make a profit on. You don't have to pay a marketing budget because the government does it for you. You don't have to worry about selling it, promoting it because they're mandating it to go to school. Millions have to take it. You're breaking in billions a year and you still can't turn a profit without the immunity?

I mean, it's a very troubling reality. It's part of the reason I drove that petition. I will give you, I'm going to put this into- How profitable, just to clear up something you said, how profitable are vaccines? The vaccine industry profits to the tune of billions of dollars a year. So it is a legitimate profit center for the pharma companies? Oh, absolutely. Oh my goodness. And since the early 80s, it is becoming an increasingly large percentage of their portfolio, in particular for Sanofi,

Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Those four in particular make most of the childhood vaccines and vaccines in America and their portfolio, their percentage of portfolio has been increasing because imagine I came to you and I said, "Hey, Tucker, I got a business idea for you. Okay, you ready? You wanna hear it? Listen to what we're gonna do.

we're gonna put out this product, okay? Like, what is it? Don't worry about it. But we inject into people. Well, why would people take it? Well, the government's gonna mandate it. Oh, okay, great. Well, is it safe? Don't worry about it because they're gonna give us immunity. Well, I mean, what if people like start attacking us in the media? Don't worry. The federal government's also gonna promote it for us as well as all 50 health agencies. You'd be like, well, let me get this straight. Guaranteed market, immunity to liability,

it's a no-brainer. So obviously, yes, vaccines have increased. But why did the 86 law passed as a public service in the name of public health, why did it allow vaccine manufacturers to profit? So, right, you get an immunity shield, but you're not allowed to get rich off it. That seems fair. Well, what they did was is that

They left the financial incentive to make more vaccines, but they didn't leave the financial incentive that makes them make more vaccines that are safe. Exactly. So what they did is they took away the one true way you assure product safety. And to be clear, there is no other product on the market that's like this. And let me draw this into sharp contrast for you, okay? Pfizer, according to Money, Inc.'s top five selling drugs, okay? When you look at that list-

Four of them are drugs, one's a vaccine, not including COVID vaccine, okay? Embryol, Eliquis, and so forth. If you go to the FDA website, everybody should do this, and I actually have a chart on this on my Twitter feed, okay? And you can see what was the clinical trial relied upon to license those four drugs, right? The top five selling Pfizer products. Most of those clinical trials relied upon to license products were multi-year placebo-controlled trials, okay?

Why would Pfizer do that? Why would Pfizer do that with those products? But when you look at vaccine products, and again, this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling you, it's right there on the FDA website. Most childhood vaccines are licensed based on days or weeks of safety review after injection. Virtually never a placebo control group, ever, or sometimes no control or a control that makes no sense. And often underpowered, meaning you don't have enough kids in it to really assess if there's even an issue.

So why would Pfizer have multi-year placebo controlled trial for its drugs, but all these vaccines are put out with just ridiculous, like this polio vaccine we talked about, okay? It's because Pfizer wants to know whether or not those drugs are gonna cause harm after they're licensed. Because if it does, they're on the hook

They don't want to end up upside down financially. They don't want to lose money on those drugs. So before it goes on the market, they make sure they want those trials. Forget you asked me before about the FDA. Forget the FDA. That's what economic interest does. It conforms the conduct of the company to assure safety. And that's a great thing. That's part of why our market system works well with regards to product safety. People talk about the lawsuits.

Yeah, the lawsuits are there, but it's not the lawsuits that make them safe. It's the fact that they want to make money. And most of safety happens before the lawsuit. It happens before the product even goes to market. The company cares. They test it. They evaluate it. They don't want to face the liability and be upside down. But when it comes to vaccines, they don't have that interest. When you look at most lawsuits that big companies face, the board members face, the officers face, all of them are saying,

oftentimes because they cause a financial loss, right? You ever hear of a lawsuit of securities class action because a company was immoral, was unethical? No, it's because they lost money. It's because they didn't do things to maximize money in many ways. And so that's what conforms. That's what drives money.

Corporate conduct drives the companies to make decisions about what they're going to do. And you have a company that's making a product. When they make the drug, their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to make sure they test that properly. But their fiduciary duty to their shareholders when it comes to vaccines is to test them as little as possible. Because if they do test them and they find a problem, then they can't make money from it. They might not get to market. They would actually be kind of in some ways...

Forget ethics and morality. They would in many ways violate their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to test the vaccine too much. If they know too much. If they know too much, then it won't get licensed. It's a perversion of it. And then after, so not only did they gut the economic interest, there is one other way you assure product safety. It's a far weaker way. It's not very good, but it's there. And that's regulators. And they have a role to play. They have a role to play.

but the regulators here are completely conflicted because hhs the department of health and human services is the department of the federal government in which you have the cdc the fda the nih all of the health agencies okay and it's it is responsible for promoting vaccines so it's responsible for the safety of vaccines and promoting vaccines

Those are in conflict. For example, you think, for example, the Department of the Department of Transportation is responsible promoting transportation. So they go to the airlines and they say, hey, make more planes, get more planes in the sky, have more airports, you know, and so forth.

but who's responsible for safety if there's a crash the ntsb a completely different agency you separate them it's hard for me to shake your hand with industry i'm the government i say hey make more planes and at the same time slap you and say hey you're out of it's hard to do the same role so you separate or the department of energy is responsible for promoting nuclear power in america

But there's an atomic energy, the nuclear regulatory agency, excuse me. Yeah, thank you. It was responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants. They completely separate this function with vaccines. They're not separated. And additionally, not only do they not separate those absolutely diametrically opposed duties, you cannot have the same department responsible for both. One will win out. More than that, remember what I told you earlier.

The 1986 act that I referenced did create a very narrow path for some compensation if you're a vaccine injured. But you sue the Department of Health and Human Services, the secretary. You are suing the very same federal health department that is responsible for safety. So if, and they're represented by a little law firm called the Department of Justice. You might've heard of them. Okay. So you're fighting against the Department of Justice in this program where there's no discovery. Let's put that aside. The important point is this. It is the,

Only product that I know of where the government defends the product and the industry and the companies against the consumer.

and the citizens, and that creates an incredible conflict. So if they do any study, Tucker, think about it. If they do a study that shows this vaccine causes asthma or causes an increase in some serious issue, what are the few lawyers that engage with vaccine engineering program gonna do? Is an admission against interest. They're gonna use those studies, those science to get liability against who?

the federal government for those vaccine injuries. It's an incredible conflict. - If I bring suit against the secretary of HHS on behalf of someone who's vaccine injured and I win, where does the money come from? - So there is a tax, 75 cents is paid for every vaccine dose. And that goes into a fund.

That fund has about $3 billion right now. It's paid out, you know, I think over $4 billion to date with a cap of $250,000 in pain and suffering and a cap of $250,000 for death claims. And so it comes out of that. It's called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund. So the manufacturers are not on the hook for it? They still are not on the hook for it, no. So the system's even more grotesque than you described. There's a product made by a publicly traded company, a private company, non-government.

The government requires its citizens to buy the product. The manufacturer product cannot be sued if the product is faulty. And if someone's injured, they have to fight the government to get paid. And when they do get paid, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay.

Right and well and I'll add to it in that this when you sue the government It's not like you get an article 3 judge, you know article 1 2 and 3 of the Constitution article 3 created the judiciary there are judges that are You know that are nominated and confirmed by the Senate you don't get an article 3 judge you get something called a special master in this program, which is I Will submit is in many ways policy driven. So there are things that compensate for

They don't want to compensate dead babies, basically almost on a policy basis. Why? Well, that would, people won't vaccinate. Come on. I mean, ideology around these products is very strong.

That I don't joke about. I mean, people are very ideological around this product. They believe without vaccines, everyone will die. I mean, that's the typical retort. Oh, you want a proper clinical trial? Everyone will die and get polio. Oh, you filed a petition on a novel polio vaccine from 1990 that would have left nobody without a polio vaccine, even if granted, that just asked for a proper clinical trial? Oh, you want everybody to get polio and die?

I mean, this is the, you just saw it happen. It's your own eyes. But you could be for vaccines. I'm not sure I am, but you could be. Many people are. I always have been.

and still demand good vaccines. I'm for cars. I think it's fair to expect they're not going to blow up. I don't know. It doesn't even make sense. I don't understand what that means, by the way, to be pro for or against vaccines or pro or anti vaccines. I mean, I'm not for or against cars. I'm not pro or anti cars. Cars have a purpose. They have a function. Sometimes I want to use them. Sometimes I don't. If you want to like park it in my bedroom, I don't want it. I mean, they just...

It's just a product. And this is the problem. This is what I'm talking about, is that they're just a product. They're a product. They were not given to Moses at Sinai. They're a product made by companies. And the problem is, is that people just can't talk about them objectively. Like, it's a problem. And it feeds into, so you said, I think that this program and the federal government is

They also are part and parcel of the overall objective. Let me put it this way. Agencies set policy. The CDC is not a science organization. It's a political organization. What do political organizations do? They set policies and then they subscribe and they follow them. Okay, so the CDC, for example, I'll give you a great example.

There's something called the MMWR. It's what they call their scientific publication. It's what I call their newsletter, okay? And they publish studies in it, all right? And those studies are often used to then set CDC policy. But here's the thing. They don't go through a peer-reviewed process. They go through something called, this is all on the CDC website, a clearance process within CDC. And one of those steps is that the study must align with the CDC policy. Come on. I'm not joking.

I'm not joking. How's that science? It's not science. It's the perversion of science. I've written about this. I've substacked about it. I've tweeted about it. But I don't have your platform. But it's the perversion of science. I mean, but that is the reality of the MMWR. And I'll give you an example of how this plays out in the lives of everyday Americans.

Do you remember the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when the vaccines first came out, the COVID-19 vaccines, and the CDC came out with all this guidance about how natural immunity is useless. It's worthless. You got to get the vaccine no matter what. And so their guidance to the public and the states around this country, luckily not all of them, followed it. And they said, okay, if you've been vaccinated, you're allowed to have your civil and individual rights.

You've had COVID. You're not allowed to have your civil individual rights. How do they get to that conclusion? There were at that point, numerous peer reviewed studies around the world with millions of people in them that showed natural immunity was more protective than vaccine immunity. But what did the CDC do?

They went and they did this 300 person, basically case controlled, retrospective nonsense of a study. We could do a whole show on that one study. We could pull it up and you and I could sit here and we could read it and you could spend your all day reading it. And I promise you would never understand the study design because it is the most convoluted nonsense to achieve the result they wanted. But

but it achieved the result they wanted. If that study, which showed Vax, you know, what they wanted it to show regarding natural immunity versus vaccine immunity, they relied on that one study in the MMWR. I shouldn't even call it a study in their newsletter. Uh,

to deprive people with natural immunity of their civil individual rights, ignoring all the other science. So yes, it is the perversion of science, but it has real life consequences. And I just gave you a real life example of it. On behalf of ICANN, by the way, and others, I actually wrote the CDC, my firm wrote the CDC a letter. We put all these studies and I could provide these, you could make these available. They're such great letters. I wish everybody in America read them.

We laid out all the science, all of them showing natural immunity is at least as efficacious as vaccine immunity. Can you please give these people their rights, civil individual rights, freedom? They wrote back with that one study, that one study that I just told you about. We wrote back another letter saying, this study is total garbage. We explained why it's garbage. You know, as I told you, I, um,

One of the things that I do is I depose vaccinologists. It's part of what I do in infectious disease doctors and immunologists. So I have to learn epidemiology, statistics, vaccinology, immunology. That's part of what deposing experts requires you to do. Again, I don't have any degrees, but I have to learn this stuff. And I can tell you that that study design

It categorically is designed to reach the conclusion that they wanted. And because it's a clearance process I described, if something had shown a different result, it just wouldn't have made it through. So yes, it is the perversion of science. Going all the way back to your actual question now, CDC is a policy entity. HHS is a policy entity. And to your point, why wouldn't the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensate? Now, finally going to answer your question. That was a long road to get there.

Because it's a policy organization. And yeah, of course, what the policy of that organization is, vaccines are safe and effective. That's a mantra. I don't know what that means entirely, by the way, but they say it all day long. And anything that shows they're unsafe will get people to not vaccinate, and that goes against their policy. So absolutely, they are-

You graduate law school, you went to Berkeley? I went to Berkeley for law school, yes. And what did you plan on doing when you graduated? How did you wind up here? Well, after law school, I clerked for the chief judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for a year after law school. And after that, I worked for Latham & Watkins, which is one of the biggest firms in the world for almost six years, doing bet-the-company litigation, right, multi-billion-dollar disputes. And then I left there and started my own practice there.

I wasn't home enough. I wanted to see my kids more and my wife more. So my own practice. And I continued to do commercial litigation, actually. That's what I kept doing.

And, but instead of doing multi-billion dollar cases, we would do, you know, a few million dollars or a few hundred million dollars, a few hundred million dollar cases. You know, there are some cases, for example, that, for example, Latham would have or a big firm would have, and they're doing a giant bankruptcy and they can't do a litigation, right? They can't do the litigation because it conflicts with the bankruptcy, but they don't want a different big firm to do that litigation, right?

because they might steal a client. So I would get some of those cases that would kick off to our firm because they trusted us to do good work. So we would do some of those cases from half of publicly traded and large corporations. So I did that for a few years. And then in terms of legally how I got involved, there was a law in California passed. The bill number was called SP-277 in 2014.

And what it did was eliminate non-medical exemptions for children to attend school, okay? So all these kids, tens of thousands of children were thrown out of school in California because their parents made the medical decision. And like I said before, these are often the folks who I find are most informed about these products, sometimes more informed than many of the pediatricians I depose about these products. And I was in New York at the time and they- Who pushed that?

That proposition. Senator Richard Pan, who's no longer there, and Senator... Excuse me. And Senator... Richard Pan and Ben Allen were the two members of the California legislature who drove that bill through. I mean, if you look back and see... Did pharma back it? Hard to know. I mean, you know, it's... But it happened. And...

And so they started, some schools in New York started kicking kids out of school, just kind of- In California. In New York, actually, even though they didn't need to. I was in New York at the time. So I brought some suits to help those kids get back to school so they can get back in. I got injunctions and got them back into, there's typically private schools that were starting, you decided, but they don't want to have any of the kids who had religious exemptions. New York state allowed religious exemptions at the time.

And here's the fateful moment. The city of New York required a flu shot for preschoolers. And so my wife was also an attorney and partner at our firm, said, "Hey, can we challenge that?" And I looked at it and I said,

You know, and after looking at it saying, yeah, we could, because it was not passed by the legislature, it was passed by the Department of Health. They don't have the authority to do it. So we can just challenge it on separation of power grounds. And she's like, okay, great, do it. And I said, whoa, wait a second. I said, I mean, we have clients who are public traded companies. I said, if I prevail, if we prevail and we strike this down, I mean, you understand this will make headlines. I do not think our clients would like that. And she's

You know, I won't use the word she used because I don't know if it's appropriate for the show, but she basically said, bring the suit. And that was the end of the discussion. And I did. Good for her. Absolutely. My wife's incredible. She is the North Star to, you know, what is right and good. You have to have that if you're going to do a job like yours. Yeah. She's, you know, she does not compromise on what's right for anything. And so I did.

I got it. I did win in the trial court level. I got the injunction and made national news and as expected there, you know, and,

It's expected what? As expected, our commercial-led practice contracted. Really? Absolutely. People didn't want your services as a lawyer because you had challenged a flu vaccine mandate. It just doesn't accord, I think, with what big Fortune 500 companies would. I don't think it fits well into their portfolio of lawyers that they would use for what they do. You're very diplomatic. Yeah.

Because that's grotesque. I'm not accusing all of them. I'm just... I mean, lawyers at big firms defend pro bono, you know, death row inmates who have, you know, murdered people, raped children. I mean that, and that's fine. You know what I mean? But you can't...

defend the rights of parents to educate their children? Like, it's crazy. There is a very strong ideology around these products. And again, I stress they're products. And so we started doing more of that work. And there's a lot more to that story, but I don't know if it's, I don't know, it could go on forever. How did your views, so you didn't expect this, your life to take this turn, it sounds like.

I will tell you that. Oh, no. If you asked me 10 years ago, I'd be doing this, that the New York Times run a headline that I want to, you know, basically take away the polio vaccine and give everybody polio again. And, you know, and senators would say, fire that lawyer, Mr. Kennedy. No, I would not expect to be in the spot. Nor did I expect to ever do vaccine work. But did you have views on this subject?

When I was in law school, no. I wouldn't know the first thing about a vaccine. And I will tell you the very first time I ever looked at this topic and a long time ago, I was sent some material. I was actually still late to Milwaukee at the time. And like I said, and a lot of it was medical and I didn't know anything about immunology or vaccinology or in fact, I didn't know any of this medical stuff. No idea what I was reading.

But then I read about the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986. And I was like, I remember, I just like, was like, what? Because I don't understand medicine. I didn't understand that stuff. But, oh, I understood corporate conduct. And I understood fiduciary duties. I understood conflicts of interest. I understood what drove corporations. I represented them in really important critical litigations. I understood those things very well. And I was, I remember...

I remember it was like late at night in my office when I read this. I remember being up there in the lipstick building in Manhattan. And I was dumbfounded when I saw that law. I couldn't believe it. I mean, I just didn't understand it. Because I remember thinking like, this is the product they tell you is perfectly safe and it's given to babies.

And you can't sue the manufacturers for injury. I found that to be immediately troubling. So you didn't know that? No, I did not know that until I read it. I didn't know that until I read it. I think a lot of people don't know that. I can tell you they don't know that because obviously, because of the work I do. I mean, people all the time in this area and they don't know that. And sadly, they don't know it until they do know it. And often they know it after they have some kind of personal experience.

Most of the folks around the country who do know it are the folks who've been negatively impacted by these products in one way or another. They know it. They know about the law. They know about the science. They know about these things because when your kid's impacted or you're impacted by a product, you research it. You know about it. And until you don't, you don't. And I'll say one other thing about that just because I know a lot of people always say to me like, well, if there were vaccines caused a lot of injury or they cause injury, I would know it. And I always say to them,

Do you know which drugs cause which injuries? Of course you don't. Even though they come off the market all the time. Vaccines won't because you can't sue the manufacturers, but drugs do. And do you know which drugs are coming off the market? Do you know what injuries are causing? No. Why would you know? That's right. Why would you know? Why would you know that vaccines cause injury? Why do people, it's always funny to me, people assume that I would know. You wouldn't know. You know who would know? I'll tell you who would know.

It's the firms that accumulate cases for people who are injured. You know who knows that a particular drug is causing harm first? It's the plaintiff's lawyers. There are a lot of things you can say about plaintiff's lawyers. But the one thing is that they know because they're getting phone calls. Hey, I took this drug. Exactly. And they get another call. And they get another and they're like, oh, a pattern emergence. They're the ones who typically know it. And they start accumulating the cases. Just like we've got...

I mean, for vaccines, we have, you know, that's what we get called for. We have endless cases. For COVID vaccines, I mean, it is, we basically had to, our entire phone system is basically, if you're injured by a COVID vaccine, press one and you get instructions to go to our website and just fill a form because there's pretty much nothing we can do for you. Because not only do they have immunity essentially under the 1986 act,

They have, for COVID vaccines, a completely another level of immunity called PrEP-act immunity. You can't see those manufacturers for, you can't even go to the VAICP, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for COVID vaccine injuries. Seriously? Yes. You can't even go to that program. Even as limiting as that program is, you have to go to something called the CICP, the Counter Injuries Compensation Program.

which we have two federal lawsuits right now we're suing to strike those programs down as unconstitutional because it's the most ridiculous system you've ever, court program you've ever heard of.

Who you're filing a claim with, you don't really know. Who's reviewing it, you don't know. Who's their experts, you don't know. What's their basing it on, you don't know. It's a complete black hole. There's no due process. There's no hearing. You can't confront the people that are going to use to evaluate it. You don't know who the trier of fact is. You don't know who the trier of laws are. You don't know anything. All you do is you submit a piece of paper and then you get, you know, at some day when, you don't know, you only have one year to file, some response. And the whole program only has about $7 million in

And most of it goes to pay the staff. So we can't compensate anybody. It's a ridiculous program. And this is a product of the PrEP Act? It's a product of the PrEP Act. And so I sued to render the program unconstitutional on procedural due process. I said...

If this program, like the government doesn't have to afford you a remedy, but if I say to you, hey, they can have zoning laws, but I say, but you can have a variance on your house. Well, they gotta give you process for that. They can't make it unfair. It can't be I give you a variance and I don't give that guy a variance. It's gotta be fair. So if there's gonna be a process, it has to conform with due process.

This thing is the most procedurally defunct program ever. I got a call from a reporter. I forgot which paper, national paper, after I filed the lawsuit. And they said, why are you filing the suit? I said, here, let me explain it to you in layman terms. If you're injured by a COVID vaccine, fill out a piece of paper, okay? Doesn't matter what you write on it. Use crayons. Go to your backyard. Take a hole. Bury the paper in the hole. Cover it up with dirt. Now I want you to water it. Make sure it gets a lot of sun. And just wait for it to grow compensation. I said that. That's it.

I literally told that to the reporter. I don't think she kept talking to me. But that is what I would describe the program as. What has this done to your personal life? I mean, did you, like people you know, your family, your friends, your law school classmates, what do people think of what you're doing?

Well, it matters how much you know about this. And it matters how much you understand what I'm actually doing. Are you looking at what the New York Times is saying I'm doing? Or are you looking at what I'm actually doing? Of course. And of course, again, to be clear, I'm an attorney. I just ask questions in many ways kind of like you. I ask questions. I bring suits. I'm looking for answers. I'm looking for truth. I don't really have any emotional attachment to these products like some people do. And I don't have a need for a priori assumptions.

You know, the data, the science, the studies, they are what they are, you know? So it really just depends who. I think some people-

It's not shared by a lot of people. So you said that there was a cost to your business. Yes. When you started representing these clients, was there a cost to your friendships? I guess that's what I'm asking. I would say that was there a cost to my friendships? Well, not friends that you'd want to keep, I guess. Yeah. Absolutely. So yes, I would say it absolutely has come with, I guess you would say a cost and communally, certainly back in New York,

But it also comes with amazing rewards because there's a community of people who really need help and they really need support. I'll tell you one more story that I think drives us home. So New York City, there were cases of measles in New York City. Remember that back in 2000, number of years ago, okay? In which nobody died.

Yep. I think Bobby got blamed for that. In which everyone died. No, nobody died. And nobody got, I'm not aware of any actual person who got really any real issues. And so, and there were thousands and thousands and thousands of cases. You know how I know? Because as the New York State City Department of Health said, please stop having measles parties. Why? Because the only way you could get your kid back into school

was if you got the vaccine or you had measles. So there were these giant measles parties occurring in Brooklyn so that people could get their kids back into school. So they could then get blood work to show titers to show they had immunity in any event. The city of New York decided the way they were gonna deal with that was to make it literally illegal to exist in certain zip codes in Brooklyn if you didn't get an MMR vaccine. It was illegal.

If you did not get the shot, you were violating the law. Now, let me explain to you why some people oppose the MMR vaccine. In every single dose of an MMR shot, there are literally, literally millions of pieces from the cultured cell line of an aborted fetus in every single injection. Now, again, that might sound crazy.

but I could literally pull up right now the CDC's own ingredient list for the MMR vaccine. Anybody can do this at home. Just Google MMR, excuse me, vaccine excipient list CDC, and you can pull it up and you can see. It has MRC5, WI38. Those are cultural cell lines from aborted fetus because MMR,

You have to grow viruses in a cell. Viruses won't just grow. They have to grow in cells. That's how they replicate. They take over the machinery of a cell. So you have to grow it on a cellular substrate. So how do they grow the rubella virus? They grow it on these cultured cell lines from aborted fetus. Where do they get aborted fetuses? Um,

from babies that are aborted? From abortion clinics. Well, it has to be, you can't use, so the cells need to be alive, okay? So you understand like the aborted fetal tissues has to remain alive to be used. And so, you know, I depose, for example, the,

And the world's leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And that deposition is actually available on ICANN, thehighwire.com. The whole deposition, nine hours, is available there. Parts of it are available on X. And I watched part of it in preparation for this interview and was so shocked and revolted by it. I was already on your side, obviously, as a parent of a child who was vaccine injured.

So I'm in tune with everything you're saying, but that deposition with Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who's still alive, 93, I checked, was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in my life. You watched the whole thing? No, I watched selections of it. Okay, yeah.

And so then you know about what the clip I'm about to talk about, which is relating to just one study that was done that involved over 70 normally normal, healthy fetuses, right? That would have, there was nothing wrong, no abnormalities that were aborted for the purposes of this one study. Past the first trimester. They're all older than three months, he said. That's right. That's right. And some of them, absolutely. And what they do is they take...

They take those in that one study, those 70 something babies, and they then they chopped them up into little cubes, each body parts. They take the tongue, the lung, the liver, the every body part, and they chop them up into little cubes. And then they try to culture viruses on them because they want to see which part of the body

is the best suited for growing the virus used in the vaccine. And so this is, you know, in any event, and there's a lot, you know, anybody who wants can research about this. So this is answering the question, why is this a religion for some people? There is a, I mean, there's some heavy stuff going on. You mean for folks who don't want to receive the vaccine? No, no, no. For people who support them.

Well, you have to... There's a human sacrifice quality here. Sorry. That was my takeaway from that interview. And I think you actually asked him, are you an atheist? Yes, I am. Yes. Well, the case was about a religious belief that our client had, you know, contrary to the practice of vaccination. They didn't want to vaccinate her kid. And he...

decided to volunteer for reasons I'll never understand to be an expert. And he came to the deposition. He didn't come to trial. He did not show up for trial. We even sent him a subpoena due to take him after the deposition. If you ever see the deposition, he says, oh, well, there is this or there's that. So I sent him a document request saying, hey, you said there's this and that. Give

Give it to us. And then he brought a collateral lawsuit to quash that subpoena, believe it or not, because he did not want to give it because he doesn't, they don't have it. It doesn't exist. Just like this polio petition. You know, it's not, I don't ask for things, you know, you know, we do, I try to do my homework beforehand in any event. So, but this vaccines are grown online.

with the cells of aborted baby tongues? Well, no, no, no, no. Let me be clear about that. In that study, they were trying to figure out which body part was best to use. So the one that they ended up with was actually from the lung of the aborted baby, this aborted fetus. So it's lung fibroblasts are the, where the cells, the substrate that ended up working. So they tried with tongue,

it didn't work as well. And there's a number of qualities that are looking for how well does the virus replicate? Are there other potential, you know, viruses back, you know, and so forth and so forth and so forth. Well, what's the best medium to do it? And so there's... But you said that the cells have to be alive. So where do the bodies come from? Do we know? I mean, when they, when the baby is aborted for the purposes, and they're typically aborted for the scientific purpose, right? I mean, they,

They have to know beforehand for the most part, because if they abort the baby and they don't immediately act to make sure that the tissues don't die, then you can't use them in these experiments. I'm about as uncomfortable as I've ever been in an interview right now. This is like really beyond that this happens.

Well, I mean, there's a whole industry around. It's not something I litigate about, but as you know, there is a whole industry around

with regards to abortions. You've heard of humanized mice, for example. No. Right, so for example, in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trials, for example, right? COVID-19 vaccine development process. Those products have no border fetal tissue in them, okay? Killed vaccines typically don't. You don't need to grow them in the same way. Well, it's not always true, any event. But,

In the process of development, a lot of times they use humanized mice in order to experiment with the vaccine. And this is not just vaccines, by the way. This is across science. So they basically take, and sometimes from aborted babies, sometimes in other ways. It doesn't have to necessarily be an aborted baby. And they inject the mice with these vaccines.

human cells to quote unquote humanize them to then use them for experiments. You should have somebody on to talk about this. I'm not your person for this. I just, I just, I only know about this enough to depose around religious belief around these products because there's a whole industry on this. I don't know if I want to know more. I mean, you do, as you hear this, you think, you know, this can't continue. This is too, this is tampering with the

the secret sauce of nature. So, you know, this will not end well at all. So the, yeah, well, yes. I mean, it's, what's unfortunate about it is that, and the reason I know about any of these things is because in these depositions with regards, in these depositions with regards to religious beliefs,

the issue of aborted, aborted fetal tissues come up. And so a lot of times they like to say, oh, well, it only involved a few babies way back when. And so I have a whole series of, in these depositions of showing, no, it's not just a few babies way back when, it was a lot of babies.

And it's still ongoing. And this industry has only grown. And with that said, I was saying that these parents in Brooklyn, unless you want to stick on this topic. No, no, no. I mean, you've just shocked me. I know. I mean, yeah. So, you know, going back to these families in Brooklyn, many of them, you know, religious and not in different religions, not all of them were religious.

Many of them were ultra-religious Jews, but some of them were other religions actually who have beliefs where they do not want to participate with that product for the reasons we just discussed. Okay? And so they will not take the MMR vaccine. They won't give it to their kids. They won't take it. And so here is the city of New York saying no.

You must, you must take it. I mean, if you didn't, and what they did is they went into like the registry. And if you were not in the registry as vaccinated, they hunted you down to your house and they showed up at your door and they gave you a violation for literally existing as God created you. You got, as God created you, you're just standing in your house.

just existing, and they gave a violation. And so ICANN actually supported us to represent anybody, anybody that got those violations. And hundreds of people got them. And we got almost all of them dismissed before the hearing. Technical stuff. You served at this time. But they were disproportionately ultra-Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn. Yes. In this instance, yes.

The good news about it, it's a group I like in general, but they're also politically organized. So pretty dumb of the city of New York to do that. Well, yeah, I mean, they're organized, but also, you know, they were very lucky in some respects in that, you know, ICANN, which believes in informed consent, that's the name, Informed Consent Action Network, you know, supported our firm. A lot of the policy work we do is on their behalf.

to defend anybody with these violations. And so they put a notice out in Yiddish in the paper, if you got a violation, just call our firm. And so they did. And like I was saying, we got most of them dismissed except for like 20. Now, we went down to the hearing, this is a long road to answer your question from earlier, is that we went down to the hearing, the head lawyer of the New York City Department of Health was on the other side in the hearing room defending the city of New York.

And so we ended up in the hallway at one point, you know, just chatting. Very nice guy, actually, you know. Actually, not as much of an ideologue as a lot of the folks I encounter in health departments. And, you know, we had worked collaboratively to, we got most of them dismissed even before that. And, you know, lawyer to lawyer says to me,

"Why are you doing this?" He's like, "I mean, I looked you up, you went to Berkeley, clerk for the chief judge, you went to late." And this was earlier on before I clearly was doing this work. Do you know what I mean? At this point, this is what I do. And I said to him, and this answers your question from earlier.

I said to him, look, you asked me a question earlier. You said, how am I treated, right? Do I feel like I'm outcast? And I said to you, but there's a community that needs support. And so this is me finally answering that question. He said to me, why do you do this? And I said to him, I said, look, I said, I want you to just imagine the following. Imagine a group of people in America right now, today,

Pick a group, pick an ethnic group, a religious group, pick a group in your mind, okay? Now, I want you to imagine people go on national television and they say the most horrific things about them and they feel no filter in saying them. They talk about throwing their kids out of school, spelling them from their jobs. They call them quacks. They call them all kinds of horrible names. They do all the things to them we say we should never do to somebody, right? Because they're this religion or this ethnicity or they...

or so forth. You should never do those things. I said, that's the group you're talking about. I said, you're talking about a group of individuals. Most people vaccinate. I said to him, most people vaccinate. They choose to do it. Rare is the person in my mind who just wakes up one day and goes, you know what I want to do today? I'm going to just stop vaccinating my kids so that I can be called anti-quack, anti-vax, maybe get them kicked out of school, lose friends, be called anti-science. That's what I'm going to do today. No.

No, nobody makes that decision lightly. To go against the social grain, and there's a strong social grain on this, especially pre-COVID, you have to have something pretty powerful happen to you. That's right. To make you decide, whoa, I'm not going to do that. Or have some seriously held beliefs or one thing or another. And I said, this is the group of people you're talking about. You're talking about a group of people who typically...

They're not vaccinating because their child themselves has had a, somebody in their family has bad, some kind of adverse events, some kind of bad experience. And so they've realized they overcome that social conformity to do what they think they have to do in that instance. And then to add to that injury, what does society do to them? It adds insult. It calls them names. It berates them. It throws their kids out of school.

I mean, it treats them in the worst ways possible, the type of stuff we should never do to people, but that's how those people are treated. And so when you say to me, do I feel like I've lost friends? Yeah, yeah, I've lost friends. But there's an entire community of folks out there who are that group I just described to you. And those folks don't have the government working for them. The government not only doesn't work for them, the government fights them with DOJ attorneys.

berates them when they try to even file claims i mean you some of the reports about the vaccine compensation program talks about the aggressiveness these some of the attorneys you know how they treat some of the petitioners the government's not working for vaccine interest working against the vaccine injured literally fights against their claims so they're not looking out for them industry's not looking out for them who's looking out for them they look out for each other and that forms a really strong community of individuals of

what some call the anti-vaxxers or the medical freedom folks. Really, they're just people who want to live their lives and they don't want to talk about this. And worship their God. Worship their God. They don't want anything to do with the topic. They're the ones who actually don't typically. There are a few people who are very loud. They get all the attention. But most of the folks our firm represents who've got issues with this, the last thing they want is to be on the radar on this topic. We represent a lot of people when it comes to these products. A lot of people are, you're open about

which you just said earlier with regards to your family and your experience with vaccines. But most people, including many famous people, are not, and they don't want to be. Yeah, I mean, I, yeah, I've never talked about that at all. So I'm okay if people don't like me for what I do. Yeah, well, I've learned more in this interview than I expected to, and you've single-handedly raised my regard for lawyers. And I never do this, but I just, I want to do it in your case. Tell us the name of your firm. Okay.

Oh, sure. It's Syrian Glimpstad, LLP. In New York? Well, we're all over. We're national. You know, for our vaccine practices, we try, you know, we help people across the whole country. So for people who have a family member who suffered an injury, you're...

You're open to talk to them about next steps. Yeah, my firm does. We do vaccine injury cases in the VICP for folks who need to buy vaccines. Okay, good. Well, I just— And then we also—but that's just like 15 of the folks. But then we do vaccine policy cases. So that's like, you know, that's actually even more than the—more folks. So a lot of the cases around COVID vaccines that you may have heard of, like—

suing the FDA to get all of Pfizer's clinical trial documents. We brought that case suing on behalf, we sued on behalf of, you know,

over a dozen members of Congress about mask mandates on planes. We struck down COVID vaccine mandate for school in California. So we have a big policy practice and that dovetails with what a lot of what we've been talking about, which is where a lot of my work is and how I find fascinating. And then we have, we do vaccine exemption cases in all areas. We brought the case against the Air Force and the Army where we got the injunction, prevented one of the great honors of my life, actually fighting for the people who fight for us.

to preserve the thing that they swear to, which is to defend the Constitution. What is the first freedom in the Bill of Rights? The right to religion. And what did the military do? Said, no, you don't get to have your religious beliefs with these vaccines. So that was truly one of the great honors of my life was to defend members of the military and them come to me and

it was humbling they're thanking me for defending them well i mean i'm just a lawyer i'm just going to court and you know and these guys just i mean those hearings were incredible like it would have brought tears to your eyes to be in those injunction hearings when those members of the military come in and anyways um so we do we kind of do everything and then we have and then we do uh yeah we do plaintiff's side class action stuff because you know there's

There is work that we need to do to make money. Is Bobby Kinning going to get confirmed, do you think? I sure hope so. There truly is nobody who is... His whole life experience, I believe he was put on this earth to have that role. He's prayed every day for 20 years, as he always says, to be able to help save children. And in that role, he can do it.

Anybody who says, well, he's going to disrupt the way things are working. Good, good. We need disruption because the way things are working right now, we've got a country that's got over 50% of people with a chronic health condition, often multiple conditions. Did you know that? I did. Okay. And we are...

dead last pretty much on every single health metric amongst all developed countries, despite spending almost three times as much on healthcare. Just think about those numbers. We are on the fast path, not only to be the sickest country. This is the largest decline in human health, this chronic disease explosion in recorded human history that I am aware of.

okay and i'm that i'm aware of this 40-year chronic disease explosion i don't think there's any records in recorded human history of that kind of increase and we're spending three times as much and we have the worst outcomes developed world yeah we need to change and mr kennedy is not beholden to pharmaceutical interests he's not beholden to health insurance companies not beholden to anybody he truly just wants to do what's right i think it's it's a rare quality and he is

He has gone through the fire and he does not care what anybody says about him. He does not care. He only cares about what's right and what's true. And it is exactly the type of leadership and leader that we need in this country. And so, God, I hope he is confirmed. Aaron Seery, thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to TuckerCarlson.com to see everything that we have made. The complete library. TuckerCarlson.com.