It is SUCH a breath of fresh air to see how genuinely interested RFK Jr. is, in listening to people, wherever he goes. I posted a classic example of this, further down the page.
Personally, I cannot stand seeing power-hungry politicians in office who think they're somehow above listening to the "little people" like me. And there are far too many people who are just like that!
Back in 2010, there was a politician in my state, running for governor, who worked for eBay. I had been an eBay seller for many years, but when she started running the company, I was no longer able to contact the company to ask questions or voice my opinion. It was as if she felt that it wasn't important to listen to the sellers at all. She was acting like some kind of Queen behind a castle wall, that just wanted to Be In Charge, without having to actually listen to people at all.
I remember watching her in her campaign ads, as I thought, people who aren't eBay sellers are going to have NO IDEA that this woman doesn't actually care about listening to the people she's supposed to be "governing." If she's not interested in listening to people NOW, it's extremely unlikely that she's going listen to them if she becomes our governor.
So, I made it my personal mission to do whatever I could to make sure this person did NOT get elected! I put fliers every place I could, in Northern California, encouraging people to get out and vote AGAINST her. I have a thing about seeing the truth being hidden... it irritates me to no end. I guess that's why I'm fighting so hard to help people see the TRUTH about Kennedy!
"Somebody needs to listen to them!"
During his interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, Robert F. Kennedy explained how he originally got involved with the "Anti-Vaccine" movement. Kennedy has explained over and over again that he is not Anti-Vaxxine.... he is PRO SAFETY. And if you look at the videos on THIS PAGE, you'll see he has very good reasons for wanting to see vaccines go through the same vigorous safety testing that other drugs have to.
You can see the part where he talks about the women who alerted him to the dangers of Mercury in vaccines, at around the 10 minute point in this video (though I recommend watching the whole thing). You can also read the transcript below the video.
JRE 1999 - Robert Kennedy, Jr. (RFK)
RFK Jr. tells Joe Rogan how his stance on VACCINE SAFETY began...
"The National Academy of Sciences and the FDA had published a report, like a five-year study, that showed that every freshwater fish in America had dangerous levels of mercury in its flesh.
that showed that one out of every six American women had levels high enough in her core blood that her child would have some kind of intellectual deficiency, like lost IQ, et cetera. And where's the mercury coming from? The mercury was largely coming from coal-burning power plants. It's in the geology in the coal, and it precipitates out when there's rain. When you burn the coal, it's an element so it doesn't degrade. And when the rain comes, it falls onto the landscapes and it washes off the landscapes into the rivers.
And the fish were all contaminated. We know that saltwater fish, the big predatory species, have mercury, but the freshwater fish are just as bad. And it struck me then that we were living in a science fiction nightmare when my children and the children of every other American could now no longer engage in the seminal primal activity of American youth that I had grown up with, of your parents taking you to the local fishing hole and then coming home and safely eating the fish. You can't do that anymore in the United States of America or anywhere in North America.
And so we started suing coal plants and cement kilns which were the primary contributor of mercury and there were a lot of people suing coal plants back then. They were suing them for other reasons, for ozone particulates, for acid rain, for carbon, et cetera. And the water keepers were mainly focused on mercury. So I was also pushing legislation about mercury, lobbying EPA to reduce it. And I was giving lectures all over the place. So these women start showing up at every lecture that I give, public lectures. And they would come and sit in the front seat, occupy the front, they come early, occupy the front row, and then afterwards they'd stay late
and they would ask to talk to me. And they would say to me in a very respectful – and by the way, these women were very – all looked kind of similar. They were very pulled together. They were women in childbearing years. As it turns out, they were all the mothers of intellectually disabled children. And they believed that their children had been injured by the vaccines, by mercury in the vaccines. So, they would say to me in kind of a respectful but vaguely scolding way, if you're really interested in mercury contamination to get exposure to children, you need to look at the vaccines. Now, this is something I didn't want to do because, you know, first of all, I'm not a
public health person. I wanted to do environmental stuff. Second of all, I've been involved since I was a little kid in the whole area of intellectual disabilities. My family was part of the DNA of my family. My aunt had been intellectually disabled. My aunt Rosemary, my aunt Eunice Shriver, who was my godmother, founded Special Olympics in 1969. But before it was called Special Olympics, it was called Camp Shriver. She lived 10 minutes from my house. And I would go over there every weekend to be a hugger and a coach in Special Olympics. And then when I was in high school, because this was so much part of my family DNA, I spent 200 hours in what, say, a comfort, retarded, you know, working, doing service.
But it wasn't something I wanted to do with my life. Other people in my family were devoting their lives to that. My cousin Anthony Shriver started Best Buddies and many other people. My family had written a lot of the legislation that protected people and gave rights to people with intellectual disabilities. My father had kicked down the door of Willowbrook, which was a big hospital in Staten Island. So my family was deeply involved but it was not what I wanted to do with my life. But these women kept continually – I don't want to say harassing me but they were following me and it was different ones at every speech. they were following me and it was different ones at every speech. And one of them – and I was like – I did enough research to show that the public health
authorities were saying that they – these women were crazy. But they didn't look crazy to me and they were rational. They weren't excitable and they had done done their research. And I was like, I should be listening to these people. Even if they're wrong, somebody needs to listen to them. I mean, you know, and by the way, I had, you know, I'd worked on the Hudson River with commercial fishermen. And I'd seen so many times when the scientists were wrong and the commercial fishermen were right about what was happening in the Hudson River. One time, I'll just give you an example.
This commercial fisherman came to me and said, all the goldfish are dying up in the Wallkill Creek. And I went up and they said, will you help us get to that because there's a new sewer plant up there that's discharging chlorine. It's hard to kill a goldfish. They're one of the most hardy species in the world. You can pour oil on a goldfish and it won't do anything. It won't hurt it.
And I went up to the Department of Environmental Conservation. They said there are no goldfish in the Hudson River. Well, these were people who I had watched them catch goldfish in the Hudson. and River. Well, these were people who I'd watched them catch goldfish in the Hudson. So anyway, that was just part of the background of my, you know, little bit of skepticism about government scientists, that they're not always right, that sometimes you have to listen to people and that human experience is valid. And that if a woman tells you something about her child, you should listen. And so then one of these women came to my home and she found my home in Hyannisport at a little bungalow.
And her name was Sarah Bridges. She was a psychologist from Minnesota. And she found my home. She came to it. She took out of the trunk of her car a pile of scientific studies that was 18 inches thick. She put it on my front porch, my stoop, and then she rang the bell. And then she pointed to that pile and she said, I'm not leaving here until you read those. And as it turns out, her son, Porter Bridges, had been a perfectly healthy kid, got a battery of vaccines when he was
two, and lost the ability to speak. He lost his toilet training. He began headbanging and engaging in other stereotypical behavior like stimming, hand flapping, toe walking, and got an autism diagnosis. And the vaccine court had awarded her $20 million for acknowledging that the child had gotten autism from the vaccines. And she didn't want it to happen to other kids. And so I sat down with this pile of studies. And I'm used to reading science. I'm very comfortable reading it. I wanted to be a scientist when I was a little kid. And my life, my legal career has been about science.
It's, you know, virtually all the cases that I've been involved with, hundreds and hundreds of cases, almost all of them involve some scientific controversy. with hundreds and hundreds of cases, almost all of them involve some scientific controversy. And so I'm comfortable with reading science and I know how to read it critically. I know how to look for the flaws in it and, you know, how to weigh the – attribute weight to various studies, et cetera. And I sat down while she was there and I read through the abstracts of these studies one after the other. And before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer-reviewed public science was saying. Then I took the next step, which is I started calling people, high-level public
officials. And I had access to everyone. I called Francis Collins. I called Marie McCormick, who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences. I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences, who was the chief staffer. And I was asking her about these studies. And I realized during these conversations that none of these people had read any of the science. They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science. And they kept saying to me, well, I can't answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit. Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine. And it would be, it was odd to me that government regulators were saying,
you should talk to somebody in the industry. It's like if I, you know, I used to talk to EPA people all the time asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit? Why did you put it in there? And if they said to me, I don't know. Why don't you go talk to the coal industry or this lobbyist for the coal industry and he will tell you what we're doing, I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indignant. It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me, go talk to somebody who's an industry insider because we don't understand the science. And when I talked to him, I caught him in a lie and both of us knew that he was lying and that both of us recognized that he was lying. And at that point, I was like—
Trevor Burrus What was the lie? Well, I asked him this question. I said, why is it that CDC and every state regulator recommends that pregnant women do not eat tuna fish to avoid the mercury, but that CDC is recommending mercury-containing flu shots with huge bolus doses of mercury, I mean massive doses, to pregnant women in
every trimester of pregnancy. And he said to me, he said, well, Bobby, in this kind of patronizing way, and by the way, And he said, well, Bobby, in this kind of patronizing way, and by the way, when I talked to Paul Offit, he started the conversation. He was very enthusiastic and he said, you know, your father was my hero. The reason I got into public service and public health was because I was inspired by your father. So that kind of, you know, I'm susceptible like anybody else to kind of that kind of flattery. So I was inclined to like the guy. But then he said this.
I asked him about how can you be, you know, telling people not to eat tuna fish, giving them a flu shot that has, you know, these huge doses. And he said, well, Bobby, there are there's two kinds of mercury. There's a good mercury and there's a bad mercury. And the minute he said – and I knew there's a different kind of mercury in the vaccines. It's ethyl mercury in the vaccines and methyl mercury in the fish. But I know a lot of – and you can imagine I know a lot about mercury. I've been suing people. When you sue somebody, you get a PhD in that. You know more than anybody in the world.
You have to or you're not going to win your lawsuit. So I knew a lot about mercury and I knew that his argument was not with me, but it was with the periodic tables because there's no such thing as a good mercury. And I also knew the history of why he was saying that because, you know, mercury was added to vaccines in a form called dimerosol in 1932. And Eli Lilly, which was a manufacturer, was because people knew then that mercury was horrendously neurotoxic. Mercury is a thousand times more neurotoxic than lead. You would never shoot lead into your baby.
Why was thimerosal introduced in the United States? It was allegedly introduced as a preservative, but it doesn't kill streptococcus or any of the other contaminants you would be worried about. In fact, it kills brain cells at one-thirtieth the dose that it takes to kill streptococcus or staphylococcus. So it wasn't a good preservative. What NIH admitted to me in 2016, the real reason was there as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a toxic material that they add to dead virus vaccines to amplify the immune response. So your body, when, I mean, this is kind of getting into the weeds, but a live virus vaccine, if they give it to you, it can spread the disease.
It can mutate in you and spread the disease. That's why most of the polio today, 70% of the polio today is vaccine polio that came from the vaccines. But so the regulators expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines. A dead virus vaccine, however, will not produce a durable or robust immune response enough to get a license. The way you get a license for a vaccine is showing that you got an antibody response for a certain amount of time and that it's a strong antibody response. But the dead virus vaccine won't produce that. In fact, it's always just figured out that if you add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine, that your body confuses that toxic product. You add it with the dead antigen,
which is the viral particle. Your body confuses that toxin with the viral particle and gets frightened and mounts this huge, humongous immune response. The next time it sees that virus, the immune response is there. So at that point, vaccinologists went around searching around the world to find the most horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines. searching around the world to find the most horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines. And there's a mantra in vaccinology that the more toxic the adjuvant, the more robust the immune response. And so that's why toxicologists and vaccinologists don't get along with each other. Because the toxicologist would say to the vaccinologist, well, I understand it gave you
immune response, but then what is the fate of that in your body? Where is it going? Is it being excreted? Is it being lodged in the brain? Is it penetrating the blood-brain barrier? And the vaccinologists could not answer those questions and did not want to. So they basically moved the toxicologists out of these, you know, out of the vaccine, the whole vaccine universe. out of these, you know, out of the vaccine, the whole vaccine universe.
Anyway, so when it was added in 1932, the industry said, Eli Lilly said, well, the reason, because everybody was saying, how can you put mercury into a child? Who would do that? And they said, well, it's a different kind of mercury. It's ethylmerc and the ethyl mercury is excreted very quickly, so it won't stay in your body. They had no science to say that, but that's what they were saying for years. And then, in 2003, a CDC scientist called Picciaro did a study where he gave tuna sandwiches that were mercury contaminated to children and then measured their blood.
And the mercury from the tuna sandwich was there half-life 64 days later. So it was still there 64 days. And he injected the children with mercury from a vaccine. And that mercury disappeared from their blood within a week. And this kind of confirmed what Eli Lilly had said in 1932, oh, it disappears really quickly from the body. And that was published, I believe in the Lancet Pediatrics.
But immediately, the journal began getting letters from people, including this famous scientist called Dr. Boyd Haley, who is the head of – he's the chair of that chemistry department of the University of Kentucky. And he said, but what happened to the mercury? Because Pidgey couldn't find it in the children's urine or in their feces or in their hair or sweat or nails. So where is it? And NIH actually then commissioned a study. Because at that point, they were really trying to figure out whether this was dangerous. And they commissioned a very famous scientist called Thomas Burbacher up at the University of Washington, Seattle, to do a study with monkeys, with macaques.
And he did the same study Pichiero did, but he did something you can't do with children, which he then killed the monkeys. And then he looked for the mercury. And what he found was the mercury, yes, it left their blood immediately. The ethylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week. Methylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week. Methylmercury from the tuna fish was there a month later, two months later. But when he sacrificed the monkeys and did postmortems, he found that the mercury had not left their body. Instead, the reason it was disappearing from their blood is because ethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier much easier than methylmercury.
The ethylmercury from the vaccine was going directly to the brains of these animals. And it was lodging there and causing severe inflammation. And, you know, we now know it's there 20 years later. 20 years later. So, you know, so when Burbacar went off and when I'm on the phone with Offit and I said, he said, the ethyl mercury is excreted quickly. And I said, how do you know that? And he said, because the Pichiero study, because the study by Pichiero found that it was excreted quick in a week. And I said, but you're familiar with the Burbacher study. That showed it's gone to the brain. And there was dead silence on the phone.
And then he said to me, kind of hemmed and hawed and said, well, you're right. It's not that study. It's just a whole mosaic of studies. And I said, can you cite any for me? And he said, I'll send them to you. And he never did. That's the last I heard from him. So at that point, I knew there was something wrong.
And then somebody handed me a transcript of a secret meeting that took place in 1999. And it was 1999. It might have been 2000. But it's called the Simpsonwood meeting. And what happened is in the midnight, I mean, the history is that in 1986, well, I'll go back a little further. In 1979 and 80, when I was a kid, I only had three vaccines. My kids got 72 vaccines. That's what you need now to get through school, 72 doses of 16 vaccines. And it started changing in the 80s and 90s. But in 1979, they brought on a vaccine called the diphtheria tetanus and pertussis vaccine. And that vaccine was very dangerous.
And it was killing one out of – killing or giving severe brain damage to one in 300 kids. And it was pulled in the United States. It was pulled in Europe. But Bill Gates still gives it to 161 million African children every year. The same vaccine? The same vaccine. And to South Asian kids. And I'll tell you, we now know what that does because the Danish government did a study called Morganson in 2017 that showed that African kids, and that's published in a journal called
eBioPharma. And it was done by the leading deities of African vaccinology, all of them pro-vaccine, people like Peter A.A.B., whose name is very famous, Sigrid Morgan, a bunch of others. And they went to Africa and looked at that. They had 30 years of data. And Gates had gone to the Danish government and said, you know, give us money because we've saved millions of lives with this vaccine in Africa. And the Danish government said, can you show us the data? And he couldn't. So they went to Guinea-Bissau, which is a country in the west of Africa. And Guinea-Bissau, the Danes for 30 years had been paying for these very advanced health clinics, local health clinics all over Guinea-Bissau. And the clinics were weighing every child at three months and at six months.
And in the 80s, they began, or 90s, they began, or the 80s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, a three-month visit. But if they didn't hit the 80s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, a three-month visit. But if they didn't hit the child exactly, if they didn't have full 90 days of age, if they were 89 days, they wouldn't give it to them for the six-month visit. As it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the kids were vaccinated and half the kids were not between two months and five months of age. It was a perfect natural experiment. And they went in there and they looked at it. They looked at 30 years of data and they found the girls who got that vaccine, the DTP vaccine, were 10 times more likely to die over the next three months than girls, than children who did not. And they weren't dying of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
They were protected against those by the vaccine. They were dying of anemia and bilharzia and malaria and pulmonary disease, but mainly they were dying of pneumonia. And what the researchers said is that the vaccine is almost certainly killing more children than diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the vaccine because it was protecting them against the target illnesses, but it had ruined their immune systems. So they could not defend themselves against these other minor infections. And nobody noticed for 30 years that it was the vaccinated children who were disproportionately dying. And that's the problem with not doing, you know, real placebo-controlled trials. None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials. It's the only
medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure. Anyway, what happened in the DDP vaccine, when it was pulled in this country, it was pulled because so many people were suing the drug companies. Wyeth, which is now Pfizer, was the primary manufacturer. They went to the Reagan administration in 1986, and they said, you need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines or we're going to get out of the business. And Reagan actually said to them, they said, we're losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we're making in profits. And Reagan said to them, why don't you make the vaccine safe? And they said, because vaccines are
unavoidably unsafe. That's the phrase they use, and that phrase is in the statute, and it's also in the Brusewitz case, which is the Supreme Court decision upholding that statute. And so anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Now, the argument against that would obviously be they've prevented disease that would have killed untold numbers of children, right? That would be the argument they would use against that. Exactly. And that vaccine injuries are very rare. That is the argument that is used against them. And both of those arguments in CDC's own studies have been severely challenged. So the CDC did a study in 2010 called Lazarus. And it was Harvard scientists who looked at one of the HMOs,
the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, which is one of the top HMOs. It's actually, I think, the ninth biggest HMO. And they were testing a machine counting system that could do a cluster analysis. Because right now, the only vaccine injury surveillance system they have, it doesn't work. It's fewer than one in 100 vaccine injuries are ever reported because it's voluntary. And this is where you can find support for this in the Lazarus study. Lazarus actually looked and said, how many injuries are actually happening? How many are reported? And they said fewer than one in 100 are ever reported. And they developed a system of machine counting so that it doesn't rely on voluntary reporting. What you do is you look at
all the vaccine records for a population and all of the medical claims, the subsequent medical claims, and you do machine counting, you do a cluster analysis, and it's very, very accurate. And they found, CDC at that time was saying one out of a million people were being injured by the vaccine. They found one in 37. And CDC had asked this team to design a machine counting system because their system was so heavily criticized by everybody. David Kessler, who was the Surgeon General, everybody was saying, it's terrible. It doesn't work.
And Congress had told them you have to accurately count vaccine injuries and they weren't doing it. count vaccine injuries and they weren't doing it. So when they did it, when they actually looked, they found that it's not one in a million. It's one in 37 kids had, you know, had potential vaccine claims. Now, you can't tell whether any of those claims were actually from the vaccine because it's a machine counting. So it's statistical. But you can say that the number of injuries is much higher than anybody was admitting. And then in the year 2000, CDC did a study with Johns Hopkins called Geyer because there was this emerging claim that vaccines had saved tens of millions of lives around the world. And I'm not going to tell you that they don't because nobody should trust my word on this.
You know, what I say is irrelevant. What is relevant is the science. And this is the principal effort by CDC to actually verify that claim. And what the Geier study, and they looked at all the, you know, the history of each vaccine and health claims and what they were trying to say is there was this huge decline in mortalities
from infectious disease that took place in the 20th century. An 80% drop in deaths from infectious disease. And what caused that? Was it vaccines? And what they said is no.
It had very little, almost nothing to do with vaccines. The real drop happened because of really engineering solutions. Refrigerators, you could store food. Transportation systems that would get oranges up from Florida, et cetera, roads, better housing, sanitation, the invention of chlorine, sewage treatment, but mainly nutrition. Nutrition is absolutely critical to building immune systems. And so what was really killing these children was malnutrition. And, you know, it was the infectious disease that was kind of knocking them off at the end. But the real cause of death was malnutrition and a collapsed immune system.
And that is what the Geyer study says. Now, anybody who's listening to this, you know, you can go look at this study. So don't blame me and don't say, you know, Kennedy's in denial. This is the only time CDC ever looked at this. And it's called G-U-Y-E-R. It's published, as I recall, in Pediatrics. And it's CDC and Johns Hopkins in the year 2000. And I believe this study is true and that it's borne out by many, many others. There's another study from 1977 called McGinley and McGinley. And it was, and that study also said that fewer than 1% of the decline in infectious mortality as could be attributed to vaccines.
And that study was required reading in almost every medical school in this country until the mid-1980s. So anyway, I'm just saying that that orthodoxy that you just described, it's not an orthodoxy that should be accepted on faith. People should actually look at it and when they have it has not borne up. I'll just finish this story and I'll try to be brief. Because Reagan caved in and it wasn't just Reagan it was the Democrats. My uncle was chairing the health committee at that time and the Democrats also went along. My uncle was chairing the health committee at that time, and the Democrats also went along.
They passed the Vaccine Act in 1986, and the Vaccine Act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies for any injury, for negligence. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the ingredient, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, your vaccine company, you cannot be sued. This was a huge gift for this industry because the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities. And all of a sudden, those have disappeared. So you're not only taking away that cost,
and incentivizing the production of many new vaccines. You're also disincentivizing. You're removing the incentive to make them safe because no matter how dangerous they are, they don't care because they can't be sued. And then you may say, well, if they're really dangerous, then nobody's going to buy them. But the problem with that is nobody has a choice. They not only got rid of the downstream liability, but they don't have any advertising or marketing costs because the federal government is ordering 76 million people, essentially ordering 76 million kids to take the product a year. If you can get that on the schedule, it's like printing a billion dollars for you. And so there was a gold rush.
And then the other thing is they are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing. They don't have to be tested. And they're not. And I said this for many, many years. You know, I said not one of these 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo-controlled trial where you're looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and looking at health outcomes. Never been done. And Tony Fauci was saying he's lying. He's not telling the truth. This is vaccine misinformation. In 2016, Donald Trump asked
me to serve on a vaccine safety commission and I agreed to do it. And he then ordered Fauci and Collins to meet with me and, you know, Peter Marks at FDA and all that. So I had meetings with all these guys. I actually went into that meeting with Fauci with three people. One was Del Bigtree. Another one was Aaron Seery, the attorney, and another one was Lynn Redwood who's a very, very famous nurse practitioner, public health official in Georgia. And during that meeting, there was a referee there from the White House, the West Wing. And I said to Fauci, I gave kind of a lecture
showing what we knew. And I said to him in the middle of it, I had a PowerPoint. I said, Tony, you have said, and by the way, you know, he's known my family forever. And, you know, my uncle is chair of the health committee, writing his salary every year, everything else like that. And, you know, and very cooperative relationship with them. The two of the senators that are NIH are named for members of my family, for Eunice Shriver and my aunt, my grandmother. So, you know, I said to him, Tony, you've said, been telling people I'm a liar. When I say no vaccine has ever been, none of the mandated vaccines, what they call recommended, they're actually ever been none of the mandated vaccines what they call recommended they're actually mandated in many of the states I said none of them have ever been tested against
in a placebo-controlled trial in a safety test prior to to licensor and I said can you show me one vaccine that has been subject to a safety test? Show me one study that shows that. And he made it this show of looking through a Redwell. They had brought in from NIH this big tray full of file folders. And he made a show of kind of looking through that at the time, but he couldn't find whatever he was looking for. So then he said, it's back at NIH in Bethesda, and I'll send it to you. Well, he never did.
So Aaron and I sued him, sued HHS, and said, show us one study that's ever been done on, you know, pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines. And after a year of stonewalling, they finally gave us a letter and said, we don't have any. They literally don't have any. So nobody knows what the risk profile for these products are. So they're telling people they avert more harms than they saw and then they cause. But there's no science behind that statement. It's just a guesswork. But it's an amazingly effective narrative.
hey, you know, it's just a guesswork. But it's an amazingly effective narrative. And that narrative, the way it's spread through this country, like I said, it has gotten me, and I think it gets a lot of people, and that people are terrified of being called an anti-vaxxer. It's a very dismissive pejorative. It's a very bad term. And if someone calls you, they're like, oh, he's one of those. And it's kind of amazing what they've done, especially in a world where we're very aware of the side effects that were hidden from the public with other drugs, whether it's opiates or whether it's Vioxx.
We're very aware that deception has taken place. it's Vioxx or we're very aware that deception has taken place. But for this one, for whatever reason, that one, I think maybe it has to do with protecting children because good parents who don't, you know, they want to trust science and they want to think that medical science is the reason why people live so well today. And a lot of that's true, but they want to think that it's all connected and that they don't know what they're doing. So if they say you're supposed to get 72 shots, you should get 72 shots because they really know. Yeah. And you think your doctor did the research, but he didn't. And you're absolutely right about the opioids. I mean, there's many, many other examples, but the opioids is a good one because if anybody goes and looks at that Netflix documentary Dope Sick.
Yeah. That documentary. Hulu, right? What? Is it Hulu? Is it Hulu? Is that Hulu? how this, you know, all of these subtle forces that lead to agency capture and this collusion,
this corrupt collusion between the industry and the regulator. Because it was the regulator who agreed to put on the label. It was FDA who agreed to put on the label, it's safe and effective and it's not addictive. You know, oxycodone. Right. And everybody knew it was addictive. You had the entire medical community who said, oh, we must have been wrong because FDA says it's safe and effective. You can imagine if they did that for vaccines and then you saw what they did in COVID, you know, and they had to continually change the goalposts.
It prevents transmission if you get it. Grandma won't get sick. And, you know, and each time it won't, you'll never get sick. You know, you only have to take one. It's really effective. And then now it's two and that's it. And now it's three and now it's four. And each time they had to move the goalposts and everybody just would go along with the next claim without ever saying, but wait a minute.
Why should we trust you now? You were, you know, you were saying was such. And by the way, the defense is, well, they were in the middle of pandemic and they had to act quickly. But and, you know, they had to sort of do some guesswork. But they were saying it was such assurance. And they were punishing doctors of conscience who began questioning them. They were ruining their careers. They were destroying their reputations. They were taking away their livelihoods of scientists and doctors, people who were getting injured. They were marginalizing, vilifying, gaslighting them and urging others to do the same, getting on TV and saying, if you didn't do this, you're a bad person and you shouldn't be treated when you go to a hospital.
You know, and all of these things, which is not something was when, you know, something was really wrong. But it's it seems to be the same pattern over and over again. It seems to be the same pattern over and over again. It's just bizarre that it takes so long to get the narrative out to people that when you get a corporation, any corporation, just any group of people that can make money unchecked, it seems to be a normal human characteristic that they do that. normal human characteristic that they do that when they're unregulated or unchecked or when someone's not watching them or when the people that are watching them are compromised and then if you were literally funding media so you're funding all these shows by and they have to essentially self-censor and you're seeing it.
These are the kinds of mothers with heart-wrenching stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment