#0026 - Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Dr.

India Woods here.

As a veterinarian, I demand a lot of my scrubs on the job.

That's why I show up in Figs.

Figs are made for the sometimes crazy situations I find myself in.

It doesn't matter if I have to squat, sit, bend, or even chase after one of my patients.

Figs moves with me and keeps me comfortable in the highest pressure situations.

Figs gives me one less thing to worry about.

Get 15% off your first order by visiting wherefigs.com and use code FIGSRX at checkout.

That's wherefigs.com, code FIGSRX.

How is Booz Allen solving our nation's biggest challenges?

With precision, speed, honor.

No manual, no roadmap, no problem.

We're launching AI in orbit, using XR on the battlefield, and stopping fentanyl at the border.

We're making America stronger, safer, faster.

It's who we are and how we lead.

It's in our code.

Find out more at boozallen.com slash our code.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience episode 1999 with Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the Know Rogan Experience.

It's a show where two podcasters with no previous Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's a show for anyone who is curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, or just anyone who just wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Michael Marshall.

I'm joined today by Cecil Cicarello.

And today, we're going to be covering Joe's June 2023 interview with Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.

It's an episode that's been viewed 1.9 million times on YouTube alone.

So, Cecil, how did Joe introduce RFK Jr.

in the show notes?

It says RFK Jr.

is an attorney, founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance and Children's Health Defense, author, and 2024 candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America.

And then they left his

presidential website, which was kennedy24.com.

Yeah, absolutely.

So, is there anything else we should know about RFK Jr.?

You know, we're going to learn a lot in this episode, but I think it's important early to talk about a couple things that are very important and the reason why we're covering this.

So, first, we should know that RFK is the current Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States, which is essentially the top medical job in the United States.

Now, this is a person who advises the president on any health matter.

And understand that this position is not often given to someone who's a medical doctor.

Often they're politicians or attorneys.

So it's not unusual for someone like RFK to have this job.

It is, however, unusual for someone with very radical ideas about vaccines and other health subjects to have this job.

He's the founder, and I mentioned this already, he's the founder and chairman of the Children's Health Defense, which is an anti-vaccination group.

He was named one of the top spreaders of vaccine misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

He thinks thimerisol, which is ethyl mercury, causes autism when there hasn't been any link whatsoever between those two things.

He's said, and this is a quote, quote, there's no vaccine that is safe and effective, end quote.

He wants to remove fluoride from the drinking water.

He questions the link between HIV and AIDS.

In 2023, the United States had 63 reported cases of measles.

2024, we had 282.

In 2025, so far, just in this so far this year, we've had 1,045 and three deaths.

All indications are that this is because of low vaccination rates in Gaines County, Texas, which has, they have a 14%

like skipping rate of the vaccine.

That's per, that's, that's in the prior school year.

So that's not going to improve under RFK.

Here's what Wikipedia says, quote, Kennedy published an opinion piece about the outbreak on the Fox News website.

He suggested parents consult with healthcare providers about vaccination, but didn't explicitly recommend it, stating the choice was personal.

He also promoted vitamin A supplementation in later interviews.

And cod liver oil, neither of these are effective treatments.

In April, the Texas Standard published this, quote, Covenant Children's Hospital in Lubbock, Texas confirms that it's treating children with severe cases of measles who are suffering from vitamin A toxicity.

According to the hospital, they have emitted fewer than 10 pediatric patients who were initially hospitalized due to measles complications, but have elevated levels of vitamin A, resulting in abnormal liver function.

End quote.

So people listen to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on this, and having RFK Jr.

in there is going to cause some real problems.

Finally, the next couple of things have nothing to do with his career, but I just got to say them out loud so people can hear them.

He says he has a brain worm that got into his skull and ate part of his brain and then died.

He once took a roadkill bear and planted it in central park with a bicycle on top of it and his daughter claims that he chainsawed the head off a dead whale on a beach in massachusetts and then bungee corded it to the top of their car and then drove five hours home so there's quite a lot to know about rfk jr then there really is so what did he talk about with joe in this episode You know, mostly it's vaccines

and how they're bad.

Big farm is twisting, sort of twisting their evil mustaches.

Fishing and waterways are polluted with mercury.

He talked about how vaccines cause autism, how the media is guilty of mass censorship, how podcasts

are the way for people to get their information.

And they claim Anthony Fauci was evil.

And RFK claims that Wi-Fi weakens the blood-brain barrier.

Yeah, there is a lot to be getting into here.

There really, really is.

For sure.

So our main event this week, it's got to be RFK's anti-vaccine views.

But before we do get to that, of course, we're going to thank our Area 51 all-access past patrons.

So they are KTA,

the Fallacious Trump podcast, Stargazer97, Scott Laird, Darlene, Stoned Banana, Laura Williams, no not that one, the other one, definitely not an AI overlord, 11 Gruthius, Chunky Cat in Chicago has a full belly.

Alfred at the Blue Ridge True Crime on Substack.

Am I a robot?

Capture says no, but maintenance records say yes.

Fred R.

Gruthius, Dr.

Messi Andy, and don't thank me.

Your show is just worth the investment.

A patron that we have now disrespected by going ahead and thanking them.

So instead of using, instead of thanking them, instead, I'm going to endorse their sentiment.

If you think this show is worth the investment, you can join all of those fine folks and many, many others too, over at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

All patrons there will get early access to episodes.

You'll get special patron-only bonus segments every week.

This week, we're going to be talking about Wi-Fi, the documentary Dopesick, and hot boxing with Mike Tyson.

You can check that out at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

You can also check out our May bonus show, which has gone out, which is looking at episode 539 from 2014, where Joe interviews, I'm going to say, our very own Cara Santa Maria, the expanded podcast universe's very own Cara Santa Maria.

And it's a fascinating listen to see how Joe has changed in in the last more than a decade.

So you can get that kind of stuff if you go to patreon.com forward slash no rogan.

But now it's time for our main event.

It's time.

And a huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Tom Curry from the D-Roll Dads podcast announcing our main event.

Remember that you two can be on the show just by sending us a recording of you giving your best rendition of it's time.

You can send that to no roganpod at gmail.com.

And you can also tell us how you want to be credited on the show.

So, before we start, I did want to talk about RFK's voice.

If you've never heard him speak, maybe you've never heard him speak.

He has a medical condition that makes him sound very raspy.

It's a little difficult for some people to hear, you know, especially if you hear it and you think, gosh, I want to clear my throat when I hear someone speak like that.

I know this is a difficult listen.

It's It's a difficult thing to listen to.

Even for our show.

Yeah, even for our show, right?

Like even for our show, it was difficult.

But I urge everybody, don't shut the podcast off just yet.

I think that this learning this stuff and knowing this stuff and hearing them speak is very important, especially for a lot of people out there.

There are a ton of people out there who are really in tune with this new Make America Healthy Again movement.

They really see him as a champion of this.

And if you want to have an opportunity to have a conversation with someone who has those opinions, you need to be informed on what they're actually saying and how they actually get there.

And if you just say, well, I don't like RFK, like we're going to hear it with Joe.

He sort of formed an opinion about him.

If it's not informed, then

you're going to be in a rut.

So I urge you.

try to get through listening to RFK because

it is sometimes a little difficult to hear.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I know that some of our listeners actually skip the Joe Rogan clips and just listen to to our analysis which you know is valid but it's very hard to know exactly what we're referencing if you haven't heard what it is that they're saying so do give rfk a chance so that he can uh explain to you all the ways all the things he thinks so we can then highlight the places where we think he's wrong okay so we're gonna have to start on some backstory uh like we suggested this is rfk and how his how his views developed on vaccines and his anti-vax views.

That's all in the main event, but we've got to get there first.

So here's some backstory on how Joe met RFK and how RFK sort of started his anti-vaccine views.

When I had heard of you in the past, before I had read your book and before I'd met you, I had no information on you, but there was this narrative.

And this narrative was you were anti-vax and

you believed in pseudoscience and you were kind of loony.

I didn't look into it at all.

I just took it at face value because that's what everybody had said.

And And in my mind, vaccines have been one of the most important medical advancements in human history, saved countless lives, protected children.

And I thought very strongly that they were important.

I didn't have any information on that either.

This was also just a narrative that I've adopted from

cursory reading of news articles and, you know, not really getting into the subject at all.

Then the pandemic happens.

And I had quite a few very reasonable, liberal people, rational people, people that I trusted their mind recommend the real Anthony Fauci, your book.

And I'm like, Robert Kennedy wrote a book about the about Anthony Fauci.

Like, what is this going to be about?

So, as we've already heard on previous episodes, Joe wasn't actually as convinced or persuaded on the efficacy and the safety and the wonderfulness of vaccines as he does like to make out.

And he brings this up a lot.

I would have said vaccines were the greatest thing ever.

But as we'd heard even ages ago, I I think going back to David Pachman interview, so right at the start of the pandemic, he was already spacing out his vaccine shots for his kids before the pandemic came along.

So either this is some disingenuous framing and he doesn't actually think that vaccines are as untouchably wonderful as he's kind of making out that he thought.

or it's that he has persuaded himself or he's been persuaded that spacing out vaccines isn't a sign that you've got unreasonable fears on vaccines.

So whichever of these two options it is, and I can't think it's a third option, it's one of those two.

Either way, that's not a great start.

This is like the first minute of the interview.

Yeah, and that book, The Real Anthony Fauci, comes out in 2021.

And Joe Points loves to point out that money is a motivator for bad actors.

He published a book about Anthony Fauci with a byline quote: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and Global War on Democracy and Public Health.

This is right after the pandemic.

I mean, like the pandemic, we had just started sort of mass vaccinating people at this point.

And, you know, this doesn't come across as sort of brave truth telling.

This comes across as a cash grab right in, right in the middle of when people are afraid of the vaccine.

They're afraid.

They're not sure.

Was it tested well enough?

You're going to come out and you're going to put out a hit piece on Anthony Fauci during that time when he's sort of been the voice of.

reason during the pandemic.

I'm not convinced that that isn't anything but a cash grab.

Yeah, absolutely.

And it's funny that in the last couple of episodes, we've also just put out the show with Asim Alhatra a couple of episodes ago.

And he too released a book in 2021 with his ideas about the pandemic.

And we had exactly the same criticism.

He was complaining about Big Pharma and how it's all cash motivated.

And yet there he was kind of putting out a book right at the heart of all of this.

So Joe doesn't ask those kind of questions of his guests, unfortunately.

Yeah.

We're going to move on to the next piece.

This is him talking about how he was approached by people while he was doing work for cleaning up public waterways as an attorney

and there were a lot of people suing coal plants back then but they were suing them for other reasons for ozone particulates for acid rain for uh for carbon etc and we were focused the water keepers were mainly focused on mercury so i was also pushing legislation about mercury lobbying uh EPA to reduce it.

And I was giving lectures all over the place.

So these women start showing up at every lecture that I give, public lectures, and they would come and sit in the front seat, occupy the front, they'd come early, occupy the front row, and then afterwards they'd stay late, and they would ask to talk to me.

And

they would say to me in a very respectful, and by the way, these women 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 exposures to children, you need to look at the vaccines.

Now, this is something I didn't want to do.

Now,

I want to make sure I mention that in the previous clips, he was talking about his background and how he had spent many years reaching out to a bunch of different sort of people in the coal industry and other industries who were polluting waterways in the United States.

And one of the main things he was talking about was mercury.

And he had mentioned that mercury was a, it was starting to get in the fish.

It was starting to get, people were starting to get a lot more mercury from their diet into themselves.

These waterways were polluted.

They were getting mercury that way.

And it was causing some issues.

He was claiming it was causing issues with women and childbearing, et cetera, and those children when they were born.

And now we're jumping right to vaccines.

It's not even the same kind of mercury that's in these two things.

One's ethyl mercury, one's methylmercury.

One is broken down by the body.

The other isn't.

So he's comparing these two things that shouldn't be compared in any way.

And this sort of, this is going to, this is going to come up, I think, in the toolbox section.

It shows the level of evidence needed to motivate RFK Jr.

On the one hand, you have

scientists who are giving him data about how mercury is getting into the food system and the waterways.

And here you have a group of what he calls pulled together women who have the same level of credibility because of anecdotal experiences that they've had.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And he says, I think just after this, he says, and that somebody needs to listen to these women.

It was just important that someone listens to these women.

And I think he's right.

Someone should listen to those women, but because everyone should be listened to in case there's something there.

But the someone who's listening needs to be somebody who is equipped to evaluate the veracity of their claims, what they're actually saying is true, or whether they're mistaken, whether they're going through some stuff and they've attributed it to the wrong cause.

You can't just have somebody who is going to accept at face value their story.

We need somebody who's credible in that kind of way.

And as we'll hear throughout this interview, and especially in the toolbox section, RFK Jr.

proves he is not the person to listen objectively to these women because he's way too convinced of his own ability to just eyeball the science and essentially read the vibes and figure out if it's true or not.

He's not equipped for actually establishing any causal link here or understanding whether these women are onto something when they're blaming the vaccines or whether they're just trying to blame something because they need an answer and that's what they've settled on, but they're mistaken.

Often on Joe's show, too,

there's this recurring theme that I've heard multiple times.

Clearly, we've heard it with Trump and we've heard it with a few other people, where they seem to mention how the person looks in order for them to, how they should be believed.

And this happens often.

And this happened in this very clip.

I mean, here he's saying, here's a pulled together person.

They're not some crazy person.

They're clearly, you know, these are, these are, you know, mothers.

These are serious women.

And it's like, you can't judge somebody how they look on whether or not the veracity of their claim stands up.

And so this is something that they misconstrue all the time.

And it flows right past the radar under Joe.

All right.

Now we're going to talk.

Now

RFK is going to start getting into some of the things.

This is something that RFK does really well is he mentions a lot of studies.

Throughout this entire piece, we're going to hear him mention these studies.

And this is where he starts.

And I sat down while she was there and I read through the abstracts of these studies one after the other.

And

before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer-reviewed published science was saying.

Then I took the next step, which is I started calling people, high-level public officials, and I had access to everyone.

I called Frances Collins.

I called Marie McCormick, who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences.

I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences, who was the chief staffer, and I was asking her about these studies.

And I realized during these conversations that none of these people had read any of the science.

They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science.

And then, and they kept saying to me, well, I can't answer that detailed question.

You need to talk to Paul Offitt.

Well, Paul Offen is a vaccine developer who made a $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, 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.

Yeah, so I'm not convinced by a great deal of this.

He uses the term at the very start saying there's a huge delta between the two sides of the argument and

between the two kind of things that are brought up.

He could say there's a huge difference.

He could say there's a gap.

He could say there's a disparity.

And it would mean exactly the same thing.

he's using a scientific sounding language the delta between the two in order to try and impress joe i think this is a a lawyer's move this isn't a scientist move i think oh it certainly isn't a science communicator's move if somebody was a skilled science communicator talking to a lay audience they wouldn't use terms like a huge delta people who aren't trained in those kind of areas pepper their language with that kind of stuff to give them extra credibility and i think that's kind of a little bit of a tell here um and then he was saying that he takes what he's been told by these women he handed a stack of papers, you know, several inches deep, and he calls everyone he knows.

And because of his name and his family, he's a Kennedy, he's got direct access to people in power.

So he's got this laundry list of

people with authority and connections that he can just rattle through in his roller deck because he's got this kind of background.

But then he's just saying, well, when I brought this stuff to them, they didn't understand.

He said they were just parroting what they've been told.

Isn't that what he's doing?

These women have come along with these papers and said said these papers prove everything.

And he's just parroting it to them.

And then finally, he's talking about Paul Offert there.

And he says, Paul Offert, well, he's just a vaccine developer.

Paul Offert's a qualified pediatrician.

He's a virologist.

Kennedy is trying to diminish all of that to make it sound like he's an industry shill.

You can't compare Paul Offert to a spokesperson for the coal industry, unless that spokesperson for the coal industry was

a hugely qualified geologist who was an expert in several fields of science related to the extraction of coal, rather than just like a press officer for the coal industry.

Paul Offitt is hugely qualified, but Kennedy's trying to dismiss this.

And I think, again, this is a lawyer making a case rather than a scientist laying out the proponents of evidence here.

Yeah, and he says they didn't understand the science.

I wonder how much he, how truthful this claim is.

They didn't understand the science.

I mean, you can't get to be someone in these positions, especially under like a, in a competent administration and actually not know what these things are.

And very specifically, I wonder if he just didn't, he couldn't understand their, their, the way in which they explained it to him.

Or maybe they didn't have time to sit on the phone with RFK to explain all of these details to him when they just say, look, go talk to this guy.

That's his job.

That's what he does.

That's, that's, that's, that's what he does.

That's how he explains these things.

And I'm not going going to sit on my i have a million things to do and one of them isn't trying to placate your fears about vaccines you know let's let's get you to somebody else who can do that i wouldn't he's making it seem like they're saying well they didn't understand what they were talking about i don't believe that that's true yeah i i don't believe that it's true either also bear in mind like these people as i say they're taking a call because he's a kennedy they're taking a call because of who he is they don't necessarily if it was you or i falling with that kind of thing they would we wouldn't get through they wouldn't even give us the time of day day the fact that they're listening to him at all is a sign of kind of respect for the name it doesn't mean they have to like take his uh his read of the science as true and we don't know what studies he's talking about but what we will see is the studies he brings up during this conversation and in my opinion he's misrepresenting those studies if he was doing the same thing in that conversation they're either going to not know those studies because they don't say what he says they don't have the relevance that he says so that they might well be saying well i don't know that study go and talk to paul off it he'll know the study that could be well the conversation that we're actually getting here.

And it's not that I've never bothered looking into the science because I just trust

the industry bodies on this.

That's a total misrepresentation of this, I'm sure.

This next piece is about placebo trials.

And that's the problem with not doing real placebo-controlled trials.

None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials.

It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensor.

So this is an interesting one, okay?

Because this is going to be a new a no true Scotsman fallacy, essentially.

Because he will say regularly, there aren't placebo contrials of placebo-controlled trials of vaccines, except there are.

There are quite a lot of vaccines that are tested against placebo.

But instead of accepting that, what he'll say is, ah, it's not a true placebo-controlled trial because my standard is this thing here.

And if it's not, so

what I would say is, like, the clue is that if a trial comes up with a result he dislikes, well, that one isn't a real placebo-controlled trial in that case.

And he'll do this kind of throughout, keep referring to there being no placebo-controlled trials.

Later, he will even describe a trial and talk about what happened in the placebo arm of it.

Now he moves on to talk about

the DTP vaccine.

Anyway, what happened in the DTP vaccine was when it was pulled in this country, it was pulled because so many people were suing the drug companies.

Ohio, which is now Pfizer, was the primary manufacturer.

They went to the Reagan administration in 1986 and they said,

you need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines or we're going to get out of the business.

And Reagan actually said to them,

they said, we're losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we're making in profits.

And Reagan said to them, well, why don't you make the vaccine safe?

And they said, Because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

That's the phrase they use.

And that phrase is in the statute.

Yeah, Reagan had that great idea.

Why don't you make the vaccines safe?

Like nobody had thought of that before.

Like, this was a radical idea that the scientists hadn't thought of.

Yeah, not convinced.

So

we've covered this before, bits of this before.

So the whole immunity for vaccine manufacturers, that comes up a lot.

It's come up at least three times, I think, during the conversation that Joe has had.

And because it ends up being this kind of recurrent refrain, it becomes part of established law that Joe doesn't question this.

Joe's not looking looking for explanations, and therefore I think neither would his listeners.

So, it is worth us kind of

just going back to this for a moment.

This was brought in, this idea of immunity was brought in because vaccine manufacturers were being sued by people who were claiming to be injured, even if there wasn't any good evidence of an injury or that the injury was related at all to the vaccine.

But the companies argued that if they kept having to have the legal costs of having to fight each one of those cases, even if

those cases came to nothing, there's cost and time involved, it would make producing a new vaccine too too expensive to pursue.

Why would we bother trying to find a new vaccine if we're just going to have all of this other extra kind of headache and cost as part of it?

That's going to kind of factor into our business making decisions.

It's going to make it unviable for them.

And that would be bad because having new vaccines is a good thing.

We don't want to get diseases despite what previous guests like Susan Humphreys will tell you.

Getting diseases is pretty much a bad thing universally.

You want to try and avoid that.

So there was an agreement that they couldn't be sued, but they would pay into a levy that would go into a fund that would kind of give payouts to people who had relatively convincing claims of vaccine injury.

And the claims, the bar that gets accepted as

being high enough to get a payout is lower than proof.

It's kind of, is this a reasonable claim?

Okay, because they don't want to have to go into deep litigation on everything and find out perfect evidence.

So they have this kind of fund here.

And if you have a claim that suggests that you are injured by the vaccine, you'll get a payout, but you can't then sue the vaccine manufacturer.

You'll get compensation from this scheme instead.

And what about this idea that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe?

Is that true?

Well, not really.

So in 2011, the Supreme Court released its decision in a case, which was Bruziewicz versus Wyatt.

And the case was a challenge to this federal law that stopped vaccine manufacturers being able to be sued.

And this case involved a girl who suffered seizures and permanent brain damage after receiving the DTP, the diphtheria tetanus petusus vaccine.

Their parents of this girl tried to sue the manufacturer, saying that there was a defective design of the vaccine that caused their daughter's disabilities.

And when the Supreme Court ruled against them and said, you can't sue this vaccine, the vaccine manufacturer, they used the phrase unavoidably unsafe in the opinion and in the dissent.

That's kind of what Kennedy's picking up on here.

But that reference is actually picking up.

It's

referring to similar language in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which said that vaccine manufacturers can't be held liable for vaccine-related injuries if they were caused by side effects that were unavoidable, even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

So, is there a side effect?

If you've done everything the right way, you can't kind of sue for this.

So, I read about this in USA Today.

I'll have the link in the show notes.

They interviewed Dan Farber, who's a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

And what he says was, while the opinion does include the phrase unavoidably unsafe, it does that only to say that that isn't relevant here.

Because in other places where it said unavoidably unsafe, it's not relevant here for these reasons.

And actually, that phrase unavoidably unsafe, it wasn't used to say that vaccines were inherently bad.

What it was actually saying, this is a quote from Dan Ferber.

He said, on the contrary, it meant that some products like prescription drugs have side effects, but are beneficial on balance.

He said the same is true of vaccines.

They all have some possible side effects, but the good far outweighs the bad.

So So, when we say unavoidably unsafe, what it's saying is there are some side side effects.

Those will have some safety issues.

They may cause various different things, but the benefits of the drug outweigh it.

So, it's not perfectly safe.

It's not without any side effects, but we're aware of the side effects and we consider the benefits to be worthwhile.

So, RFK is completely misrepresenting this.

And what's interesting here is what he's misrepresenting isn't a scientific study.

It's a legal case.

This is his sphere of expertise, apparently.

He's a lawyer, and he's miscourting this Supreme Court judgment here.

Very interesting.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

How is Booz Allen solving our nation's biggest challenges?

With precision and speed, launching AI in orbit, using XR on the battlefield, and stopping fentanyl at the border.

It's in our code.

Find out more at boozeallen.com/slash our code.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's jump right back in.

All right, so now he's going to talk a little bit about another study that he's going to bring up.

And this is going to come up.

It's going to be a theme.

He's going to mention this study multiple times.

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 a science.

And this is the principal effort by CDC to actually verify that claim.

And what the Geyer study, and they looked at all the,

you know, the history of each vaccine and health claims.

And what they were trying to say is there was this huge decline in

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, and it's CDC and NIA and

Johnson Hopkins in the year 2000.

At the start there, you heard him say, don't just take my word for it.

Like he's very keen for us to not trust his word.

But in this situation, Joe and his listeners can only really trust his word on this.

Are they going to go off and find this study?

Do we think Joe, at the end of this conversation, went off and found this particular study and read it?

I don't imagine so, but I do think that Joe believes what he's been told here by Kennedy.

So for all that Kennedy says, don't take my word for it.

He knows that Joe and his listeners and the many, many people who follow Kennedy are absolutely going to take his word for it.

Yeah, and Marsha and I went off and looked at this study.

He sure as hell spelled that right out for us.

We were able to find it perfectly.

Thank you, RFK Jr.

So let's talk about this study.

First off, it wasn't a vaccine effectiveness study.

That's how he frames it.

That's not what it was.

It was a mortality study.

Specifically, it's the annual summary of vital statistics from the year 2000.

So they wanted to do a back look at the last century because they had a century worth of data.

So RFK is framing it like the researchers set out to evaluate whether vaccines reduce deaths.

They didn't.

In fact, the authors are very clear on this purpose to take a big picture look at trends over the 20th century.

It's basically a statistical yearbook.

It is not a medical trial.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Right down to the point where the first four, oh, sorry, four of the first five graphs in this study are about fertility, birth rates, and maternal mortality, none of which have got anything to do with vaccines.

This isn't about vaccines.

This is a report about how the American population has changed and the factors that are influencing population growth and various life expectancy things.

Vaccines are a a footnote.

They are mentioned, but barely.

And yet, RFK is citing this like the whole report is about vaccines.

Exactly.

The report says that vaccines don't explain the dramatic drop in deaths in the first half of the 1900s because they weren't developed then.

And that's not the gotcha it's supposed to be.

He's trying to make it out to be.

It's true.

Mortality from diseases like measles, pertussis, and diphtheria were already on the decline before vaccines came along, thanks to, like he suggests, better nutrition, sanitation, access to medical care.

But that's public health progress.

That's how public health progressed from the beginning of the century to the middle of the century.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Like, even just moving people away from living multiple generations of entire families crammed into a small house with tons of kids because of infant mortality.

So you have like eight kids in a family, moving away from that probably did a lot of the work in reducing the wildfire transmission of a lot of those illnesses.

But that can only take you so far.

What took us the rest of the way was vaccines.

And that's the bit that RFK doesn't want you to know.

Exactly.

You know, even as deaths decline, cases were still through the roof.

You can look at this image.

There's an image that I'm going to put in there.

Measles, for example, still infected hundreds of thousands of people a year before the vaccine.

Then the vaccine gets introduced in 1960 and the case numbers absolutely plummet.

So while fewer people were dying from the measles, it was still causing serious complications like encephalitis, deafness, hospitalization.

And keep in mind that any, that

three kids out of a thousand who are infected with this, they still die.

That's even true today.

If you look at the number of cases we have in the United States, 1,024, three children have died.

So that's a pretty good average of how many people, when they get infected, will die.

Vaccines didn't just stop people from dying.

No, they stopped people from getting sick in the first place.

So let's be honest about what vaccines actually actually do.

Did they cause a drop in mortality from infectious disease?

No, but that's because we did it in reverse.

If we would have, if let's say that all those conditions stayed the same and we introduced the vaccine before, that we would have seen a change.

There would have been a change in that because they wouldn't have actually gotten the disease.

There would have been more people, there would have been less people getting the disease and there would have been less complications from it.

We did it the other way around.

So now we have to look at, we have to say, well, the public health stuff worked because the public health improvements worked.

We can't say the vaccine doesn't work and it doesn't prevent those things.

That's the real story.

They're trying to twist this mortality chart into something that it isn't.

Yeah, yeah, they absolutely are.

I love that he sort of buried in there when he was talking that it was

all the people who died, they were actually dying from malnutrition.

The infection just came along and finished them off.

Okay, so it's just, had they not got measles, they wouldn't have died of malnutrition, but you're still blaming the malnutrition here.

Exactly.

I I think that's a great point.

And just like when we covered the Suzanne Humphreys episode a few episodes ago, if it was the case, as you say, the hygiene and lifestyle interventions that they were responsible for the massive drop in infections and deaths and everything like that, we'd have seen those drops happening for all of the diseases all at the same time because hygiene was improving all at the same time.

And lifestyle stuff was happening all at the same time.

But that isn't what we see.

What we see is a disease spreading and then a vaccine coming along.

And then within a couple of years of the introduction of the vaccine, the deaths and cases from that disease just fall away.

And there'll be an image in the YouTube version of this.

If you are watching on YouTube, you'll see.

We can see in the graphs when at different time points in history a vaccine gets introduced, we see the effect it has on

the disease afterwards.

All right, so they're going to move on to another study.

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 deaths could be attributed to vaccines.

Again, he's brought a study up.

It sounds really, really persuasive.

But just pause and think about this for a second.

He's citing a study from 1977.

That's 50 years ago.

Why is he citing a study that is half a century old when we talk about vaccines?

Think about the changes that have happened through everything

since the 1970s.

Think about the new vaccines.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

This was a study that was published in the journal the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society.

That was the name of this particular study.

I went out and found it.

It'll be linked in the show notes and things.

As an aside, I hadn't heard of the Millbank Memorial Fund before, so I looked it up.

This is from their Wikipedia.

The Millbank Memorial Fund has historically funded controversial healthcare practices, including the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which African Americans were systematically and deceptively denied critical care for the benefit of the white scientific community.

Yikes.

They've had to apologize for funding the Tuskegee syphilis study.

That's who these are.

And you might say, well, that's a genetic fallacy.

You know, you're rejecting an argument because of the source of it.

It's published in that journal.

Maybe they published some other good work.

And I'm not saying to reject the study because of this association.

I'm saying it's actually really terrible research practice to dig back 50 years in order to find a study that agrees with you.

To go back half a century, all of the changes in the way that scientific studies and reporting and research has become more and more solidified and professionalized in the last half a century, this is before all of us.

That's the reason to not take this study as being a very good proof about the effectiveness of vaccines in the modern era.

But the fact is, this was published in the journal that was

funded by an organization that was funding the Tuskegee study up until five years before this study was published.

This isn't a big historical thing.

They were publishing it up until they were funding it until 1972.

This was published five years later.

That's got to be relevant.

Wow.

Now they move on to talking about how RFK was involved in 2016 with Donald Trump.

He was asked to serve on a safety commission.

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 the, so I had meetings with all these guys.

And I actually went into that meeting with with Fauci with

three people one was Del Bigtri another one was Aaron Seary the attorney and another one was Lynn Redwood who's a you know a very very famous nurse practitioner public health um official in Georgia and during that meeting there was a referee there from the White House in the West Wing and I said to Fauci I give 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 centers that are NIH are named for members of my family, from Unitriver and my aunt, my grandmother.

So, you know, I said to him, Tony, you've said, been telling people I'm a liar.

When I say no vaccine has ever been, none of the mandated vaccines, what they call recommended, they're actually mandated in many of the states

and none of them have ever been tested against uh in a placebo-controlled trial and 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 red well 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 here he is, Kennedy, getting into this Trump thing.

But listen to how well connected Kennedy is.

He knows Fauci personally, not just as Anthony Fauci, as Tony.

He knows him so well that it's Tony Fauci.

He is only in these rooms because of who his family is, but he's got no awareness of that.

He thinks he's there on merit.

He thinks he's there because he has some degree of expertise, some degree of authority and

information.

And that just isn't the case.

Look at who he's bringing into those rooms.

Del Bigtree, the producer of Plandemic, you know, one of the most influential anti-vaxxers in the world.

The other person he mentioned was Lynn Redwood, author of

a paper, Autism, a Novel Form of Mercury Poisoning.

These aren't people who are coming from a deep, rich scientific background,

regardless of what he's kind of saying.

And honestly, all power to Anthony Fauci for being able to sit through a PowerPoint lecture from people so much less qualified and informed than him.

That must have been absolutely excruciating.

And I'm not surprised that he's like, oh, yeah, I'll email you afterwards with some detail.

And then never did.

I mean, never did.

Fauci was probably busy.

He probably had more important things to do than messaging, than sending an email for the likes of Del Bigtree and Lynn Redford.

Well, and then

you're asking for this knowing that you're going to throw out whatever I send you anyway.

Yeah.

So why would I bother?

You know,

look, he is lying here.

He's, he's outright misin he's misrepresenting how vaccines are tested.

Vaccines are held to a higher safety standard than other medications.

And you might ask yourself, well, why would that be?

Well, it's because they're given to healthy people, mostly healthy children.

You can accept a lot more risk when you're treating cancer or some life-threatening illness.

But if you're giving something to a perfectly healthy child, that bar of safety is very high.

That's why the testing process for this is long and rigorous and it's very tightly monitored.

So take the Men B vaccine, which is meningitis vaccine.

It takes 15 years.

for the first genetic research to get full approval.

And that's not fast track.

That is meticulous.

That's step-by-step development.

Here's how the process works.

I just break it down really quickly.

Phase one is small, probably 100 people.

It's mainly safety and dosing.

And that's what they do in the first

phase.

Second phase, it scales up to a few hundred people.

And that they check for immune response and they start screening for side effects.

And then in phase three, this is the big one, thousands of participants, randomized placebo-controlled trials.

This is where we get a chance to see.

you know, side effects when they might show up, where you can compare vaccinated people to those who got the placebo.

Now, RFK likes to claim that vaccines are somehow exempt from placebo testing, but this is false.

Or at the very least, it's really misleading because placebo-controlled trials are a standard for phase three vaccine testing.

You know, you look across all these different studies, you'll see that that's true.

So, vaccines aren't skipping that step.

They're going through the same process as many other drugs, if not more,

more rigorous testing.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And

I'm surprised that people don't remember this from the COVID vaccine.

When the COVID vaccine was happening, there was a placebo arm of that.

There were people I know

who had volunteered to be part of the wider distribution test, that like Phase 3 test.

Once we were pretty sure it's safe, we're pretty sure we got the doors all right.

We're pretty sure it's effective.

Now we're just going to check it at a larger level.

And there were people who were in the placebo arm and they got vaccinated afterwards because the stuff they've been injected with previously was the placebo, so it was ineffective.

So once the trial was done, it was like, right, and now we're going to vaccinate you because we haven't yet.

So we know there was a placebo test being done.

We know people who were in it even.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Now they're going to talk about a different disease.

This is hepatitis B.

In around 1999,

the vaccine schedule, immediately after they passed the vaccine act, exploded because all these companies were rushing to get new vaccines onto the schedule, many of them for diseases that weren't even casually contagious, like ridiculous diseases that are in that, like hepatitis B.

Why would you give, you get hepatitis B from,

you know, from sharing needles or from like going to a really seasoned prostitute or from,

you know, sort of compulsive

homosexual behavior.

But a baby,

a baby can get it if they get it from their mom, but every mom is tested.

So, you know, at the hospital, every mom, every pregnant woman is tested for it.

So the baby doesn't need need this.

Is there a treatment for it when they do get it?

Yeah.

But the thing is, why would you give it to a one-day-old baby, you know, or a three-hour-old baby, and then four more times when that baby's not going to be even subject to it for 16 years?

And it may not even...

I mean, originally what happened is Merck.

and CDC designed this for prostitutes and for male homosexuals, promiscuous male homosexuals, and they couldn't sell any because those cohorts had had other better things to do with their money and they didn't, you know, they weren't going to buy the vaccine.

So CDC went or Merck went back to CDC and said, we built all these plants and we got the thing and got it approved and we were, you know, a billion dollars in.

What are you going to do?

And CDC said, well, just recommend it for children.

And that way they keep the, what they call the warm production lines.

So I think there's a lot here that's important.

But one of the things that stands out before we get into some of these specifics of these claims is the language that he's using and the way that he views people.

Like what perspective is he coming from here?

Hepatitis B was for seasoned prostitutes, compulsive homosexuals.

Why compulsive?

I have no idea why compulsive has to be in there.

Promiscuous male homosexuals.

These are very specific kind of targeted othering language around what is the transmission of a disease.

Like there shouldn't be a moralistic judgment about infection with the disease.

Nobody goes out of their way to acquire a disease or to try and get a virus.

But the language here is so laden with this kind of judgmental nature that the idea of seasoned prostitutes is such a specific and weird language in there that I think it's really worth highlighting it.

Yeah, you season cast iron pans.

I don't even know what he's talking about.

No, seriously, I really do appreciate that you've called this out though, Marsh, because you can tell the language that they're using.

This is often used around STDs or AIDS.

They often try to make it seem like, like, well, what was the person wearing when they got the disease?

They do this very often.

And I'm glad you called it out.

So let's talk about hepatitis B because there's a lot of confusion about hepatitis B and why should kids get this?

You know, should babies be vaccinated?

Isn't this an STD?

Why are we giving it to newborns?

Well, that is an oversimplification and it's very misleading.

So hepatitis B is transmitted through blood and body fluids.

That means that it's about, it's not about sex or drug use.

Kids can be exposed to this in really simple ways, like scraping your knee on a playground.

You get a nosebleed.

You know, a kid could bite another child and that could cause someone to get this.

The CDC says the virus can survive on surfaces up to seven days, even when there's no visible blood.

So exposure like this is more common than people assume.

And most people who get hepatitis B, even they don't even know they have it.

Kids especially might show no symptoms at all.

And that means the virus can spread quickly without anyone realizing that they're carrying it.

And the age you get, it really makes a difference.

If hepatitis B, if a baby gets it, there's a 90% chance they're going to develop chronic liver issues later in life, like cirrhosis, liver failure, cancer.

But if someone is affected as an adult, those risks are a lot lower.

So it's important to make sure the kids get the vaccine because it's easy to get in in in certain places and it's it's the virus stays alive and you can cause some real real harm in your life if you don't get this vaccine yeah yeah and just listen to the language that they're they're talking about in this uh and the structure of this argument i think this is an especially disingenuous argument because when they're saying why should a baby be subjected to this when they won't contract hepatitis for 16 years implies that they'd be okay with getting vaccinated later.

Yeah.

But RFK doesn't think that.

He thinks there are no safe and effective vaccines.

He thinks that nobody should be vaccinated for this.

So his argument here is just whatever best suits his goal right now.

If his issue was about timing, he'd be saying you should be vaccinated at 13 before you might become sexually active.

But he's not saying that.

But also, I don't get this

idea that we shouldn't be vaccinating children against sexually transmitted diseases.

I just don't understand this.

It was a big thing when the HPV vaccine for cervical cancer was coming out.

HPV causes a lot of the case of cervical cancer.

And there was a big thing, especially in Ireland, around children being vaccinated.

Why vaccinate kids for a sexually transmitted disease?

And it's because you want to protect them before they ever need it.

It's like arguing, well, why would you wear a seatbelt before you're in a car crash?

Why not wait until you're about to have the car crash and then put the belt on?

You don't know when you're going to have the car crash.

So you put the seatbelt on when you start your journey.

And then if you do have a car crash later in the journey, you're going to be protected.

Or it's like they're saying, you know, kids are real light.

They're not, they're just, they're not going to hurt themselves in a car crash.

So we don't need to belt them down.

Yeah, exactly.

Like, vaccinate kids against anything they could contract later.

And it's going to be better for their lives all around, as long as the vaccines are safe and effective, which they are.

And then just look at that exchange that RFK is recounting about what happened when they tried to develop this vaccine.

The pharma company are complaining to the CDC, oh, we spent all this money on manufacturing vaccines, and the seasoned prostitutes and the compulsive homosexuals don't want to buy our vaccines.

What can you do for a CDC boo-hoo?

And so the CDC is saying, don't worry, we'll just recommend it for kids and that'll keep the money coming in.

Are we meant to believe that exchange really took place?

Why?

On what basis?

Because he's not pointing us to documents.

Later, he'll say, there's a transcript of this conversation.

There's a document proving this.

Here he's just saying.

You're right.

Take my word for it, which he just said he never does, but he absolutely is doing it.

We're literally just having to take his word word for it that this exchange even happened.

If it didn't happen this way, his argument is completely meaningless.

His point is meaningless here.

That's a great find.

That is really great.

All right.

Now we're going to talk about autism.

This is working up where, you know, you're working your way through vaccines.

You're eventually going to come to it.

Here it is.

So anyway.

All of these new crazy diseases, rotavirus, and, you know, were all put on the schedule.

And

then they started seeing all of this explosion in chronic disease, and particularly autism.

So around 1995, CDC,

Congress said to EPA, what year did the autism epidemic begin?

And EPA is a captured agency, but it's captured by the coal industry and the oil and the pesticide industry, but not by the pharma because it doesn't regulate pharma.

So it actually did a real science and it said, 1989 is the year the epidemic began.

It's a red line.

And 1989 was the year the vaccine schedule exploded.

that doesn't mean that's a correlation it does not mean causation but it is something that should be looked at he's saying it's it's just a correlation it's not a causation it should be something that's looked at it is something that's been looked at and what they've found is that vaccines aren't uh the the cause here but he says the epa well it's captured by the coal industry and the oil industry and the pesticide industry so it's like it's triply captured like a nested capture or like the org chart must be incredibly difficult there to know who to report up to on what particular thing like getting sign-up on any particular report for everything you write you know yeah and the source of the claim that it's captured by those three industries take his word for it again he's not pointing to anything he's just saying it all right so now we're going to talk about vaccine safety

so cdc hired a um a

belgian epidemiologist named thomas verstratten and they opened up the vaccine safety data link which is the biggest database for vaccines for hmos all the the top 10 hmos have all their records in there.

So they have all your vaccination records and all your health claims.

So you can do these kind of cluster analyses.

And Verstraden went in there and he looked at one thing.

He looked at children who got the Hepsitis B vaccine within their first month of life and compared those health outcomes in children who did not.

In other words, children who got it after 30 days.

or didn't get it at all.

That was the second cohort.

And what he found in his first run through the data is there was an 1,135%

greater or elevated risk for an autism diagnosis among the kids who'd gotten it in their first 30 days.

At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic because a relative risk,

it's called a relative risk of 11.35.

A relative risk of two is considered proof of causation, as long as there's biological plausibility.

The relative risk of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and getting lung cancer is 10.

This was 11.35.

So there was a panic throughout the industry,

as people heard about this study.

We'll put the study in the show notes.

My reading of it suggests exactly the opposite, quote, conclusions.

No consistent, significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Yeah, and I think TCVs, that family also containing vaccines.

I think.

Yeah.

And bear in mind, that's one study.

What he doesn't mention is another study.

Let's say this this one from Heron et al.

in 2004.

The conclusion, we could find no convincing evidence that early exposure to thimerosol had any deleterious effect on neurological or psychological outcomes.

Or this other one, Andrews et al.

from 2004.

Conclusion was, with the possible exception of Ticks, or possible exception, there was no evidence that thimerosol exposure via DTP or DT vaccine caused neurodevelopmental disorders.

Or what about Parker et al.

from 2004?

The conclusion, studies do not demonstrate a link between thimerosol-containing vaccines and autism spectrum disorder, and the pharmokinetics of ethylmercury makes such an association less likely.

Epidemiological studies that support a link demonstrated significant design flaws that invalidate their conclusions.

Evidence doesn't support a change in the standard of practice with regard to the administration of thimerosol-containing vaccines in areas of the world where they're used.

Or let's pick another one.

Last one we'll do here.

Thompson et al.

from the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007.

Conclusion.

Our study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosol-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of seven to 10 years.

That is just a handful of the studies.

So while he's citing this one study, there's loads of other studies that completely disagree with him.

And that's because there's a load of research into this.

A lot of research went into the claims about thimerosol and vaccines and autism.

So now, 20 years later, we should be doubly confident that there's no link there because it's incredibly well researched.

And the preponderance of studies come to the conclusion that there's nothing there to be worried about.

And it's it's also interesting and a little odd that he doesn't mention, he mentions Thomas Vestratten.

He doesn't mention that after doing that study, Vestratten went on to work for Glaxor SmithKline, one of the pharmaceutical companies.

And that's fine by me.

People move around the industry, people like Glaxor, big pharma, they're going to have some experts that they'll need to hire and things.

But it feels like if he didn't like Vestratten's conclusions, that would absolutely have been something he'd used to dismiss everything he was saying in that study.

Just as he dismissed Paul Offert, always a vaccine manufacturer.

Imagine if he'd read that study and hadn't found something he could use as positive.

He'd be telling us, well, the CDC hired Thomas for Stratton, who coincidentally went into work for Big Pharma immediately afterwards.

So the whole thing was a big carve-up.

Like, we know that's what he would do.

He does it in other areas.

Yeah, yeah.

So now we're going to talk about a conference that's called Simpson Wood.

And

they talk about it for a little while on this podcast.

The CDC

wanted to do a meeting with all of the big Panjerums of the industry.

They didn't want to do it on CDC campus because then they thought it would be subject to a freedom of information law request.

They wanted to do it, just keep it secret.

So they found this retreat center, a Methodist retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, called Simpson Wood.

And they assembled, I think there was 72 people there, and they were from the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA,

and all the vaccine vaccine companies and all the big academics, the people who basically develop vaccines in the academic institutions, and they were all there.

And they spend the first day, they give them all a copy of their strength study, but they have to give it all back because they don't want it out there.

And then they have a day of talking about it where they're all saying, holy cow, this is real.

And, you know,

the lawyers are going to come after us.

We're all in trouble.

And then they spend the second day talking about about how to hide it and um how do you know this because somebody made a recording of it and i got a hold of the transcripts and i published excerpts from those transcripts and rolling stone and anybody can go and read these now on our website it's called simpsonwood and you can read through the whole thing or you can read my rolling stone article uh which is also on the website which summarizes it So we have a link to that, to those, that transcript.

It's a 200-plus page transcript.

Marsh, you had an opportunity to look through it?

Yeah, I did just a very quick skim.

So here's a quote from page 44 of the report.

They said, this is the result for autism in which we don't see much of a trend.

This is talking about the thymerist containing vaccines and

the incidence of autism, the connections.

They say, this is the result for autism in which we don't see much of a trend except for a slight but not significant increase for the highest exposure.

The overall test for trend is statistically not significant.

This is in their report.

No significant link.

Here's another mention.

This is from page 92, where they highlight that in a thousand cases reviewed, there were 13 kids who were diagnosed autistic, which would actually be significantly lower than the general rate of autism in the population, because that's like about one in 100 in the wider population, or it seems like about one in five in terms of my friends as to how many people are autistic.

But that suggests that there wasn't an overabundance of autistic children in the vaccine cohort.

Now, that doesn't actually mean that there weren't more autistic kids in the cohort study than were identified there because diagnosis

accuracy has improved dramatically in the last few decades.

So there's almost certainly a load of autistic kids in those thousand cases that weren't diagnosed autistic at the time.

That fact that

the accuracy and the ability to diagnose has increased

over the last couple of decades, that's why it seems like there's so many more autistic people now.

It's down to diagnosis.

It's not down to mercury levels.

It's down to the ability to diagnose and understand what

the various different ways that autistic people kind of manifest and the various signifies of having autism.

So that is why we're seeing a larger number.

In fact, they even say as much.

On page 198 of this transcript, Dr.

Rapin says, quote, can I make one comment about the business of the increasing prevalence of developmental disorders?

I think that this parallels increasing education and sophistication of people who examine children.

I can tell you from my own experience that 20 or 30 years ago, I barely diagnosed autism unless it was so blatant that it stared me in the face.

And now I see at least two new ones a week and not so severe as the previous ones.

So I think there's a tremendous change in the threshold of ascertainment.

And yes, I've seen the California statistics, which say it's increased 300-fold, but I'd be interested to know whether it has increased a 300-fold in areas where there are physicians who've been trained in this recognition as opposed to areas where they're not.

This study that he is citing, this transcript they're citing as a smoking gun where they talk like, holy cow, autism is rising because of vaccines, includes doctors saying well the reason that we're seeing rich autism go up is because we're better at spotting it now it's in his evidence you know these are quotes in this transcript it's no wonder that his article in the rolling stone that summarized this yeah got retracted And there were other issues with it.

If you go to the Rolling Stone's website, I think we've got the link in the show notes as well.

His article overstates the amount of ethylmercury in vaccines.

It gets the number wrong, the amount wrong.

It wrongly claims, his article wrongly claims that one of the researchers, Dr.

Sam Katz, held a patent on one of the discussed vaccines, which he didn't.

And it erroneously claims that the rotavirus vaccine contained thimerosol, which it didn't.

And salon.com later said that the errors in this article went so far in undermining Kennedy's expose that they had to correct it on five occasions.

Wow.

And then they pulled it in January 2011, saying, quote, at the time, we felt that correcting the piece and keeping it on the site in the spirit of transparency was the best way to operate,

but subsequent critics further eroded any faith we had in the story's value.

We've grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.

And they explained that the criticism of the article and the flaws in the science connecting autism and vaccines completely undermines the value of any reporting.

This is his smoking gun.

Yeah.

And it is not smoking and it's not a gun.

Right.

Now he mentions vaccination rates.

Has the rate of

vaccinations changed?

Has the schedule changed?

The rates of vaccinations have gone up.

And, you know, the mercury has been removed from a lot of the vaccines, but there's aluminum in those vaccines, which operates along the same biological pathways and does the same kind of damage.

It's extremely neurotoxic.

And then there's other things, lots of other toxics in the vaccines that

could be responsible.

I mean, there's lots, there's hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies that looks at it, but nobody ever reports them.

I did a book in which I have 450 studies that are digested in that book, you know, that I summarize and cite and 1,400 references.

And everybody will say, oh, there's no study that shows autism and vaccines are connected.

That's just crazy.

You know, that's people who are not looking at science.

So anyway, but they want to say that.

They want to say that.

It's just part of the religion.

Yes.

Exactly what it is.

Yeah.

It really does seem like electrical.

And heretics have to be burned at the stake.

They have to be humiliated, silenced, destroyed.

Yeah, I just want to point out that pretty much every study that he mentioned in this, I looked up, and he was either misrepresenting or he was

outright lying about it.

Yeah, absolutely.

And this is very much a rhetorical technique.

You know, I've got 450 studies.

Well, that sounds a lot if you measure

scientific validity by the volume of paper it would take to print them out.

But we don't.

Even just the papers that he's cited already, we've pointed out the ones we've talked about in this show already, that they're weak or they're highly cherry-picked, they're not reflective of the broader evidence base.

But he wants people to go through all 100 and all 450, presumably.

I've got these 450.

But if we went through, imagine we went through every one of his 450 studies and we found them to be lacking, we found them to be not representative.

Does that mean he would

stop citing them, stop talking about them?

He hasn't so far because plenty of people have pointed out the flaws in these studies that he's citing and he keeps citing them.

So why would people bother engaging with them if this isn't a genuine quest to understand the science rather than what he's doing, which is building a case that's persuasive for like rhetorically as a lawyer and not as a scientist?

He circles back here to the Geyer study we mentioned earlier.

Well, all that, you know, metadata that

I was talking about in the Geyer study.

You know,

and it's really interesting that the graphs that go along with it, one of the, you know, the graphs that go through each disease and they show when the disease was killing people and then there's this huge decline and then it goes flat.

So it's not killing anybody more.

Then the vaccine is introduced.

Yeah.

And it's disease after disease after disease.

The same thing happened.

That it was, it's all because people started getting better nutrition and their immune systems were okay.

And if you look at the kids in Africa,

who die from measles or these other infectious diseases, they're all malnourished.

In fact, the only people really dying from measles in the 60s before they introduced the vaccines, I think the death rate had gone down to like from tens of thousands per year to like a couple of a hundred a year.

This was by 63, and they were all kids.

Most of them were kids in the Mississippi Delta, black kids, severely malnourished, and they were dying of measles.

And, you know, this was before the war on poverty, before my father visited the Delta.

And, you know, it's hard for for a disease to kill a healthy person.

It's hard for an infectious disease to kill a healthy person with a rugged immune system.

So he mentions the Geyer study and then he mentions that there's these graphs.

He says all these graphs, you can look through it and you could see these graphs.

The graphs he's suggesting do not exist in that study.

He's conflating it with something else, but he is not being truthful here.

Yeah, yeah.

And maybe he's just remembering.

Let's be fair to him.

Maybe he's misremembering of the studies that he brought up because he did, he might be thinking of that Milbank paper, the McKinley paper, which does have some very crudely drawn graphs in them.

If you watch them on YouTube, you can see those graphs right now.

But these are not what I would say are the most persuasive graphs.

I wouldn't rely on these.

These are very roughly drawn.

There's barely any kind of measures to them.

They're very small.

You can't really tell anything.

But most importantly, they're 50 years out of date.

They're half a century out of date.

Whereas we can see some

updated information.

I found a chart on measles that really shows where the drop-off happened after the introduction of the measles vaccine diphtheria the McKinley paper has a diphtheria graph but if we look at a more accurate graph on diphtheria we can see very clearly that it dropped off after the introduction of the the of the vaccine and the graph that I'm showing on on the YouTube here

My graph is of cases of diphtheria, not just deaths, but yet they completely disappear.

After the vaccine comes in in the 1920s, the number of cases drops so dramatically that by 1960, you can't see any cases.

It's just on the bottom axis of the graph.

And that's cases, not even deaths.

The vaccine did that.

It's not about having a rugged immune system and a well, a well-nourished immune system.

The vaccine is what's done this.

Yeah.

And I want to point out again, you can still die today, today, with our modern medicine, three out of 1,000 people die from the measles.

That still happens today.

And, you know, look, look at just look at what happened in Texas recently.

We talked about it at the beginning of the program.

Those kids, three of those kids died from measles in Texas.

Were they malnourished?

You know,

you can avoid all of this by taking the vaccine.

It can still kill you.

It can still have life-altering consequences if it doesn't kill you.

And it's even if it does none of those things, it sucks to get period.

It's not like it's a great time having the measles, even if you don't develop complications from it.

Why do you want to put your kids through that if they don't have to go through it?

Now we're going to talk about vaccine trials.

What they did was they gave 22,000 people the vaccine and 22,000 similarly situated people the placebo.

And after six months, and they actually, they promised to do a five-year study, but then they cut it back to two months or four months and unblinded it, you know, right at the beginning, which is total deception there's now we don't know what any of the you know long-term effects are there's a lot of impacts from these um

from the vaccines like every other drug that have long diagnostic horizons and long incubation periods and if you don't have a five-year placebo-control trial as Fauci himself has said you need eight years he said you're going to miss a lot and you could have mayhem and that's exactly so they use the excuse that this pandemic was so deadly yeah that they had to unblind the trial and give this medication to everyone.

Otherwise it would be unethical.

Yeah, otherwise it'd be unethical.

You think that that was done on purpose?

Do you think that was done?

I don't look in people's heads, but it's not a good, the optics are not good.

So, first of all, this sounds like a trial of a vaccine against a placebo, which he said earlier doesn't happen.

Oh, maybe this one wasn't a real placebo then, was it not?

Yeah.

But he's shifted this goalpost.

So now he's saying, well, the placebo trial needs five years or even eight years.

But think about what that means.

If RFK got his way, nobody could have had the COVID-19 vaccine until 2028 at the earliest.

So we'd all have to just be living in an unvaccinated world.

So it was, there was a placebo trial and it was polled early because it was pretty clear that it was working.

And there was a pandemic that was raging, that was killing thousands and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people.

The death toll for COVID, we've covered before that, the death toll in the UK was a sizable percentage of the entire population died.

If you've got a vaccine that you've that is showing good signs of efficacy and isn't showing any particular concerns over safety, it becomes unethical to continue doing a placebo-controlled trial.

We see this happening for other medications.

I think it was a heart medication where it became so clear that the people in the intervention arm were surviving so much more,

were surviving at much, much higher levels, that withholding this drug from the people in the placebo arm would result in deaths that could have been avoided.

And at that point, it becomes unethical to continue doing a placebo-controlled trial.

But what we want here, what RFK wants, is if you'd have carried this trial on longer, I'd have been proved right.

And we've seen this before, this idea of, well, the short term didn't prove me right, but I think we just need longer.

Mike Benz is going to find out all the problems with USAID.

We just need longer to get there.

50 years, buddy.

All you need is 50 years.

You can prove anything you want.

Exactly.

Now they're going to talk again.

They're going to continue on with this 22,000 people number, and they're going to talk about how things are 100%.

COVID vaccine should have been 100% effective.

So

what they did is they had 22,000 people got the vaccine, 22,000 that did it, and they have six months of data.

Some of that is unblinded, but it's six months.

And

during that six-month period, in the vaccine group, one person died of COVID.

And in the placebo group, two people died from COVID.

So that allows Pfizer to tell the public and, you know, FDA to tell the public, oh, this vaccine is 100% effective because two is 100% of one.

That is

what they should have been telling Americans and what they're required to under the law is to give them a number that is called the NNTV.

the number needed to vaccinate to save one life.

How many people do you have to vaccinate to save one life?

And the answer, of course, is

you need to vaccinate 22,000 people to save one life.

So

if you're going to vaccinate 22,000 people to save one life, you better make sure the vaccine itself is not killing anybody.

Because if it kills one person per 22,000, you've now canceled out the entire benefit of the product.

And when they looked at the key metric, which was all cause mortality, in other words, how many people died of all, not just from COVID, but of all causes in the vaccine group, and how many died from all causes in the placebo group.

The placebo group had

17 people die,

and the vaccine group had 21.

So what that means is

there were more people died in the vaccine group.

He's making those numbers up.

Yeah, he is, not least because he says two is 100% of one and two is 200% of one.

That's how

it's 100% more than one, but that's not how that works.

But yeah, okay, let's look at some real numbers.

200% effective.

Okay, but let's look at some real numbers.

I found a study from the CDC,

which involves data from 1.2 million patients.

So a massive cohort of patients here.

It was across three periods of time between December 2022 and February 2023.

They kind of like blocked it out in three different kinds of periods.

He's talking about the number needed to vaccinate.

Well,

the median estimated number needed to vaccine, vaccinate to present one hospitalization from this study was 205, which means you vaccinate 205 people and you prevent one hospitalization.

And the NNV was lower across study periods for adults over the age of 65.

In the first period, you have to vaccinate 110 people

to prevent a hospitalization.

In the second period, it was 46 people.

In the third period, it was 88 people.

So you're kind of varying around, say, like the 70, 80 people.

So for every 70 people of, say, pensionable age that you vaccinate, you're going to save one of them from going into hospital.

Those are pretty good numbers.

The same was true of people with underlying medical conditions.

If you had at least one underlying medical condition, you had to vaccinate 163 people to prevent a hospitalization in the first period, 69 the second time they looked, 131 in the third time period.

Overall, to prevent one emergency admission, so not like I need to go into hospital, but actually, shit, call an ambulance.

We need to get you there now.

You have to vaccinate 156 people to avoid one emergency admission.

These are very decent numbers.

It's not true that you need to, you know, 22,000 people to save one life.

That's just not the case at all.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I found another article that I'll put in the show notes.

This is from Voices for Vaccines.

Quote, studies show that communities with many people vaccinated and COVID had lower death rates during the pandemic than those communities with low vaccination rates.

Furthermore, estimates suggest that COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in their first year globally.

If everyone in the U.S.

who is eligible had received a COVID vaccine, over 300,000 lives would have been saved.

So, you know, he is making up these numbers, these 22,000 people numbers to try to make you seem like you shouldn't have to take the vaccine because it's not really that effective.

He's just misinterpreting or misrepresenting the numbers here.

We're going to take a quick break and then move on to our toolbox section.

Hey, I'm Dr.

Z and I'm a neurosurgeon.

So that means long hours, early rounds, late nights, and everything in between.

And through it all, I wear figs.

They're comfortable when it counts and functional when I need them the most.

So, where do you wear your figs?

On shift, on call, on the couch in the break room, listening to this podcast?

Wherever it is, they fit right in.

And now, listeners of this podcast can get 15% off their first order.

Just head to wherefigs.com and use code figsrx at checkout.

That's wherefigs.com.

Code FIGSRX.

How's Booz Allen solving our nation's biggest challenges?

With precision, speed, honor.

No manual, no roadmap, no problem.

We're launching AI in orbit, using XR on the battlefield, and stopping fentanyl at the border.

We're making America stronger, safer, faster.

It's who we are and how we lead.

It's in our code.

Find out more at boozeallen.com/slash our code.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible: overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing: a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan.

Visit sofi.com/slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag?

And something just fell out of the tool bag?

All right.

So for this week, we're going to be doing Dunning-Kruger.

Yeah, so the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people have too little competence in a particular particular area to understand how little competence they have, and therefore they overestimate their abilities.

And this is something that we see from RFK an awful lot.

He is a lawyer.

He spent a lot of time in the legal kind of area.

And as we covered at the very start, he put he tried some cases around pollution that he actually got quite far on.

But from this particular, from that particular level of background and expertise, he now overestimates his ability to understand the science.

And that's where we get into a lot of problems.

And so we'll hear a few examples of him doing exactly that.

All right.

So we're going to start out with his work early onwards in where he's talking about helping fishermen and working on waterways in the United States as a lawyer.

And I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River.

We began suing polluters.

They purchased a patrol boat and began patrolling the river.

And we sued.

While I was there, we sued over 500 polluters.

We forced polluters to spend almost $5 billion on remediation of the Hudson.

And today, you know, partially as a result of our work, the Hudson is now the richest waterway in the North Atlantic.

So yeah, as you can hear here, as a lawyer, RFK did something that I assume is legitimately good.

I've not looked into the exact claims he's making here, but that sounds like a very good thing.

But he wasn't the one doing the science.

He wasn't the one evaluating scientific claims.

But from these victories, he's gained this oversized assumption of his own scientific competence and ability.

And that's where he's going to get into trouble when he starts supporting things that aren't true, because he doesn't have the competence to tell how little he knows or how little expertise he has in understanding these things.

Yeah.

And look, chances are that if in a job like this, you're going to trust a lot of experts in the field, like climate scientists, EPA scientists, et cetera.

But now look at what he's doing.

He's abandoning those scientists.

And a majority of scientists when it comes to it, because the majority of scientists, a vast majority of scientists recognize that vaccines are safe.

And he's abandoning all those people when it comes to vaccines.

So he's doing the exact opposite thing he was doing while he was working in the EPA or with the EPA.

Now he's going to talk about science in this next one.

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.

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.

Like, he is a lawyer.

He's not a scientist.

Despite the fact that he wanted to be a scientist when he grew up,

he may well have been a child looking to be a scientist, but he didn't become a scientist.

And so he needs to understand that his reading comprehension will never be at the expert level that science, that scientists would have.

Now, most lawyers will recognize that and they'll rely on expert witnesses to inform what they're doing.

But Kennedy isn't able to do that.

And it's maybe because he had such success in his other legal cases, or maybe because he's a Kennedy who can pick up the phone and speak to some of the most powerful people in the country at will and they will listen to him.

But for whatever reason, he isn't able to understand that he doesn't have the level of scientific expertise to read these papers.

It's the equivalent, it's like he's standing on the shoulders of giants and mistaking himself for just being really tall.

He's not understanding what he stood on.

Yeah.

Now they're going to talk about Mercury and they're going to mention,

they're talking at the very beginning about Paul Offutt.

When they say him, that's who he's referring to.

So it's a person we brought up earlier in the podcast.

This is someone who worked for the industry, but was like a virologist or he had a...

And a pediatrician, yeah.

Yeah, he's a pediatrician.

So that's who they mention when they mention him.

And then they're going to talk about Mercury.

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...

Well, that was a 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, when I talked to Paul Offutt, 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, so I asked him about how can you be, you know, telling people not to eat women, not to eat tuna fish, but 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 knew there's a different kind of mercury in the vaccines, it's ethyl mercury in the vaccines and methylmercury in the fish.

But I know a lot of, by the end, you can imagine, I know a lot about mercury.

I've been suing people.

When you sue somebody on, 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.

Bobby, I'll use Bobby because you keep calling yourself Bobby.

Bobby, you do not have a PhD.

You have a JD.

You never did research on your own.

I don't care how many scientific papers you read.

You're not a PhD.

Yeah, absolutely.

Like as a lawyer, you don't become an expert in the science.

At most, you might become au fait enough with some of the studies that you've been given to be able to recite some of the details of them or cite the dates, the years, a couple of the numbers in them.

But you haven't got the basis in evaluating the studies.

You can't evaluate their strengths and their weaknesses.

And you certainly can't evaluate whether they're fair reflections of the overall evidence base.

You don't have the ability to read a paper and see whether the methods make sense, whether the tests are appropriate.

Are these statistical tests the right one to be using?

Should you be using that particular chemical or that particular polymer?

You're not in a place to do that.

And so he thinks he knows way more than he does.

And he thinks he knows more than the experts do, the people who do actually know these things.

And that's what makes this so dangerous.

Yeah.

And

the person probably, you know, maybe they said a good and a bad colloquial sense when they're talking about mercury.

Maybe what they really meant to say was there's a harmful one and there's not a harmful one.

There's one that you can take into your body and your body will get rid of it pretty easily and the other one it won't.

So there's one that you want to stay away from and one you don't care as much about.

Maybe that's what they meant when they said a good and a bad.

Okay, so now he's going to talk about trusting the experts.

The trust the experts is not a function of science.

That's the opposite of science.

Trusting the experts is a function of religion.

It's not an totalitarianism.

It's not a function of science or democracy.

You know, in democracies, you question people in authority

and maintain a posture of skepticism toward them.

The same is true in science.

You don't trust the experts.

People don't trust the experts.

They trust the data.

No one's suggesting that

someone should be trusting someone because because they're an expert.

We haven't mentioned a single name of anyone in the world here, in the vaccine world, that we should trust.

Instead, we're asking for people to show us data that suggests certain things.

You can't provide any of that.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And he's right.

You don't just trust the experts, but also you can't just by default distrust the experts.

That's Kennedy's position here is, well, the experts must be wrong because they're experts.

And he comes at this position because he assumes he knows more than the experts.

That's not how expertise works.

You can't expert by definition is someone who knows a lot about a thing.

You can't be like, I know more than the people who know a lot about a thing because I don't know a lot about it.

This is done in Kruger.

Still, the next several clips are about the Spanish flu.

So this is the first one in that series.

Well, not the Spanish flu, though, right?

Well, the Spanish flu was not a virus.

And even

Fauci now acknowledges that.

And, you know, there's good evidence that the Spanish flu, there's, there's, you know, not

a definitive, but very, very strong evidence.

The Spanish flu was vaccine-induced flu.

The deaths were vaccine-induced.

But

originally, they said it was a flu.

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

So they died as a consequence of something that you could cure today with.

Yeah, it's a comorbidity, man.

That's what it's, that's what if they died from that and they're saying that they died from that it's because of comorbidity not because that was something else yeah yeah absolutely i mean you die when your heart stops but like that might be because you got hit by a truck it's not just there's lots of reasons your heart could stop like and look the spanish flu absolutely was a virus.

He's here saying that it wasn't a virus.

It was a virus.

We know specifically it was an H1N1 strain of influenza virus A.

They've sequenced the virus.

They know what that virus is.

Anthony Fauci certainly doesn't think anything different.

Like, he knows it's a virus.

It's completely established that it's a virus.

The fact that Kennedy doesn't know that it was a virus, thinks it wasn't a virus, is testament to how little he knows about viruses and about infectious diseases, which is a worry when he says he thinks he's acquired a PhD level of expertise and understanding.

He clearly hasn't.

He doesn't even know what a virus is, really.

Okay, so this is continuing on pretty much right where they left off.

But a lot of the, you know, bacteriological illnesses can kill you.

Yeah.

It's that a lot of the viral illnesses, you know, if you're super healthy, it's pretty hard for them to kill you.

I mean, and I'm just saying this, not on any individual basis, but on a population basis.

If you look at populations that are well-nourished, you don't see infectious disease mortalities anymore.

So, and that's across, you know, I don't think anybody would argue with that.

So

okay, they might not argue with the idea that populations that are well-nourished have fewer infectious mortalities, but that's often because the places where you have ample access to food

typically also tend to be the places where you've got ample access to medicine and hygiene and other public health interventions.

He's doing the causation correlation thing here.

Um, yeah, it isn't about the food at all.

That's not what this is.

But even this idea that you just don't see infectious disease mortality anymore, that isn't true.

In fact, we just went through a few years where we saw a lot of infectious disease mortality in places where, you know, I wasn't struggling to get access to food.

I was struggling to avoid catching COVID.

And that's kind of the way we were.

So the point is here that viruses obviously can kill you regardless of your diet, but he's too ignorant about the subject of virology and infectious disease to know how wrong what he's saying actually is.

He has no comprehension of how far off he is here, but he thinks he's an expert because he knows so little.

And again,

this clip continues.

It's pretty much right where it left off.

What are you saying that the Spanish flu was?

And what is the documentation?

You said that Fauci has publicly admitted this notification.

Fauci wrote an article in 2008.

And

that I'm pretty sure it's 2008.

in which he acknowledged that it was not the flu that was killing those people.

It was a bacteriological infection.

and a bacteriological infection these days you could 100 cure all of it with an antibiotic but so but something was making them ill and to make them vulnerable to bacteriological infection that's unclear and you know i read an article recently and and you can look up these articles pretty easily but there

the the article that i read made a very strong case that the illness came from testing a new vaccine in Kansas at a military base in Kansas.

And again, I'm a little hazy on the details.

But this is important to cover, right?

So let's see if we can find this.

Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as cause of death and pandemic influenza implications

of

pandemic influenza preparedness.

So what this is saying is that bacterial pneumonia was the cause of death, but these people obviously

they were saying that they were sick before this, correctly?

Correct?

Is that true?

You know what?

I shouldn't shouldn't talk about this, Joe.

Okay, so this is what I don't remember enough about it.

So I checked this out.

He mentions earlier when he's talking, he says that there was an article about a Kansas military base where they were testing a vaccine.

So I did a search for this and I found a fact check on this.

This is from Reuters,

and they found the article that this is referencing.

It's a chiropractor named Dr.

Sal Martin Gano, and he's a,

I guess, he has

alphabet soup after his name which indicates that he's a chiropractor and he published a blog and the blog is named

The 1918 Spanish Flu, Only the Vaccinated Died is the name of the blog.

And it looks like it's GeoCities.

I mean, seriously, go check this thing out.

It's hilarious.

But anyway,

in this Reuters Fact Check,

in this, actually,

let me quote the actual article here first before I go to the Reuters Fact Check.

In his article,

in the chiropractor's article, it says that the initial outbreak of the disease and subsequent deaths were caused by the pandemic,

which infected an estimated one-third of the population were caused by a military experiment of bacterial meningitis vaccine and not by the flu at all.

And this is from the Reuters Fact Check: quote, there would be no way that a meningitis vaccine could contribute to starting a flu pandemic.

And then they said meningitis is a different disease caused by a different type of bacteria.

It's not genetically or closely related to influenza.

Influenza is a virus, a much smaller microbe than a bacteria.

They are entirely different kinds of microorganisms that cause entirely different kinds of diseases.

So look, this is JFK's standard of evidence.

He finds a chiropractor's blog and then talks about it like it's science on Joe Rogan.

Yeah, exactly.

And he does that because he can't, he's not well enough trained to understand what is a good source here and what is not a good source here.

So he assumes that anything he, that already agrees with what he's thinking must therefore be good.

This is what this is what expertise trains you out of doing.

And the fact that he hasn't got that expertise is kind of evidence of this Dunning-Kruger thing that we're talking about.

What I think is interesting as well is when Joe starts asking him some follow-up questions and for more information, he just keeps stepping back and back.

He goes to like, well, the article that I read made a good case.

And then he goes to, well, I'm hazy on the details.

And then he gets to, I shouldn't talk about this.

I don't remember it well enough.

He's collapsing under the weight of Joe Rogan's questions here.

That's what's finding him out.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

So this is the last clip in the toolbox section.

This is the last bit about the Spanish flu.

Let's read what he says, the results.

Post-mortem samples were examined from people who died of influenza during the 1918 to 1990.

1919 rather uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of

bacterial pneumonia, bacteriologic and

histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.

Yeah, and some people have suggested that came from getting people to wear masks.

Oh, Jesus.

But, you know, I don't know.

How would that be?

That the mass behavior is bacteria.

A media for bacteria.

Conclusions.

The majority of deaths from the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory tract bacteria.

Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1960-68 pandemic are consistent with these findings.

If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of

viral bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone.

Example, influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs.

That's hilarious.

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

I just want to point out before Marsh goes here that he is reading Anthony Fauci's paper aloud they're showing it on the screen i didn't uh i wanted to mention that that that is exactly he's reading it verbatim yeah yeah and absolutely and even joe can tell that this paper is saying that people were sick before they got the bacterial infection that's what the secondary dying of a secondary bacterial infection is and kennedy can't understand something that even joe rogan seems able to grasp but kennedy thinks of himself as an expert he's got no understanding of his limits here and he's doing this thing of saying like well no it was the secondary thing They died of the bacterial thing, but that bacterial thing was caused by something.

Otherwise, we could look at that same around the same time, you know, 1918, 1990, World War I was happening.

We could say, what killed most of those soldiers?

Well, a lot of them died of blood loss.

So maybe blood loss is something we need to fight.

Sure, but the blood loss was caused by bullets.

And

they didn't just spontaneously start losing blood.

They also didn't spontaneously start getting bacterial infections.

Yeah.

And Kennedy here cites some really easily debunked mask paranoia that was flying around.

And I'll put a link in the show notes if you want to read it.

But just a quick quote from this link.

The way bacterial pneumonia tends to develop is through aspirating or breathing in contents into the lungs.

So in terms of wearing a mask, the respiratory droplets you exhale that land on the inside of your mask that you then breathe back in will not give you bacterial pneumonia.

That's not how it works.

And so there's a bunch.

There's also four other things that they mentioned too that you know if you want to know about masks is a there's a link you could take a look.

Yeah.

And look it is true that for the Spanish flu it seems to be true that more people died of bacterial pneumonia than directly of the flu, but that has nothing at all to do with masks.

So the reason people caught bacterial pneumonia was due to the virus.

So here's a study from 2008, the one that they're talking about here.

The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1980-19 weren't caused by an influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as part of the National Institutes of Health.

Instead, most victims succumb to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection.

The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.

So you got the flu virus, it messed up your lungs, and that allowed a secondary infection of bacteria to take hold, and that's what was so deadly.

So

the flu itself is what's done this.

And this isn't particularly surprising or controversial like i i used to be quite prone to getting cold infections that would develop into chest infections when i was younger because you've kind of already got some stuff going on there and that weakens you for another bacteria to come in but to kennedy this is some kind of smoking gun this is some kind of thing saying the spanish flu wasn't a virus it was this bacterial infection it wasn't inf it wasn't flu it was a bacterial infection and the reason it's a smoking gun to him is because he isn't qualified to interpret or understand the data data he's presented with.

He's looking for anything he can use to argue his case because he's a lawyer and he's trying to find angles, but he doesn't know what this means and he can't understand it.

This paper isn't arguing that the flu wasn't a virus.

It's saying that in the middle of a flu pandemic, you need to have a good supply of antibiotics ready to treat secondary infections because you don't want to get caught short.

So try and stop them getting the flu, but also bear in mind that if people do get the flu, you need to have antibiotics there in case they develop bacterial infections as well.

i'm the last person that thinks i'm smart trust me

all right marsh here we are the end of the show did you find anything good in robert f kennedy jr's interview so i did i did actually so there's a part where they talk about soft power and usaid even this is before any of the us aid revelations this is way before that and kennedy is bringing this up organically And he clearly does understand that foreign aid is a way of showing economic and cultural power instead of having to rely on military power.

And he even says that, that you do your economic strength so you don't have to rely on military strength.

And he talks about those things quite clearly.

Joe seems to understand it when he's saying it.

I think it's fascinating to me that a year later, Joe is cheerleading, or however long later, Joe is cheerleading the destruction of the US's entire foreign aid program and

being one of the leaders of people getting those kind of false narratives out there and just forgetting everything that RFK has told him.

But credit to RFK, he does actually recognize the benefit of soft power.

Well, and I mean, RFK joined into this administration.

So in some ways, he's tacitly agreeing to this stuff too.

So

both RFK and Joe, they both seem to understand it here.

But then once Trump gets in office and appoints Musk and starts talking about waste, fraud, and abuse,

I mean, it would at least seem that RFK is at least tacitly agreeing with it when he joins onto Trump's team.

Yeah, especially when they talked earlier about like expertise and various things and how anytime you can't trust the people who are at the top, that's a sign of something bad.

And you should always have a skepticism.

That is gone because they're signing fully on board with what's happening at the top here.

Yeah.

I also like to, now, now, much of this episode is vaccine talk.

So I would say two hours and 40 minutes of it or so are vaccine talk.

But they do eventually talk about some of the things that Marsh mentioned and then also talk about people in poverty and how difficult it is.

He uses the term poor brothers and sisters a couple of times.

And, you know, I am absolutely in his camp on this stuff.

I liked it quite a bit.

I think that it's, that it's really, you know, the way in which he talks about people who are underprivileged was really.

insightful.

And I thought, you know, like

there's, it's hard for me not to believe he doesn't care about those people.

Yeah.

When he was speaking about them, it's hard for me to believe that he doesn't care that those people are going through difficult times and difficult tribulations in our country.

So I 100% was like, wow, this is a, that actually shows a different side that I hadn't seen before.

But it's very strange to me that he aligns himself with Donald Trump then right afterwards, who's literally never going to do any of that stuff and is doing his best to cut things when it comes to the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

So I don't see how you align your values with that, but it certainly felt like in this interview, he seemed to care about those people.

Yeah, and it really shows how you prioritize your values, which ones you're willing to sacrifice on the altar of the other ones.

And it's pretty clear

because anti-vaxxer values are the ones that win out.

Yeah, they win out.

You're right.

Okay, well, that is it for the show this week.

That's actually it for the series.

So we hope you've enjoyed the first series of the No Rogan experience.

We're going to take a break for a couple of weeks.

While we're away, remember, you can access more than half an hour of bonus material every single week from a little as a dollar by subscribing at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

While we're away, there'll be bonus episodes there that if you're not a patron, you can go and check out.

We did one with Cara Santa Maria, one on Cara Santa Maria's interview on Joe Rogan.

We've looked at his interview with Bill Burr.

We've looked at his interview with David Packerman.

Those are monthly bonus shows that our patrons would have heard.

So if you do need an extra fix of No Rogan experience in the weeks while Cecil and I are on subsequent holidays, by all means, become a patron.

You can check those out.

And then you can hear more from Cecil at Cognitive Dissonance and Citation Needed.

You can hear more from me at Skeptic with the K and the Skeptic Podcast.

And so we'll see you soon in a couple of weeks' time for a little more of, well, in fact, for series two of the No Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron or check out the show show notes, go to knowrogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N dot com.

In our nation, we don't follow, we lead.

Real leadership is about building what nobody else can, coding so we can't lose, making America stronger, safer, faster.

It's in our code.

Find out more at boozallen.com slash our code.

Beautiful anonymous changes each week.

It defies genres and expectations.

For example, our most recent episode, I talked to a woman who survived a murder attempt by her own son.

But just the week before that, we just talked the whole time about Star Trek.

We've had other recent episodes about sexting in languages that are not your first language or what it's like to get weight loss surgery.

It's unpredictable.

It's real.

It's honest.

It's raw.

Get Beautiful Anonymous wherever you listen to podcasts.