#0017 - Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Celebrating is about embracing the moments that matter.

It's blowing out candles with family.

It's sharing laughter at a barbecue or saying, I do.

And before the drinks begin, there's one step worth taking: Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol.

Drink it before you celebrate, so you can wake up ready for what's next.

Turn every great night into the start of an extraordinary tomorrow.

Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol, the science behind your next great morning.

Learn more at zbiotics.com.

High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face.

Unless you power up with a SoFi personal loan.

A SoFi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low-fixed rate monthly payment.

It's even got super speed, since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign.

Visit sofi.com/slash power to learn more.

That's SOFI.com/slash P-O-W-E-R.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply, NMLS 696891.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience number 2294 with guest Dr.

Suzanne Humphreys.

And the No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

This is a show where two podcasters with no previous Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's the show for those who are curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, as well as anyone who wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Cecil Cicarello.

I'm joined by Michael Marshall, and today we are going to be covering Joe's March 2025 interview with Dr.

Suzanne Humphreys.

Marsh, how did Joe introduce Dr.

Suzanne in the notes?

So his notes said, Dr.

Humphreys is a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in conventional hospital systems from 1989 until 2011 as an internist and nephrologist.

The notes continue.

She left her conventional hospital position in good standing of her own volition in 2011.

Since then, she's been furthering her research in the medical literature on vaccines, immunity, history, and functional medicine.

She's the author of Dissolving Illusions, Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History.

The lady doth conventional too much, it sounds like.

Is there anything else we should know about?

There's a few things, yeah.

So while Jo's description goes to, some would say, unusual lengths to explain that she left her medical job of her own volition and in good standing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We should fill in the timeline a little.

So in 2006, she began to study homeopathy as what she described as an energy-based, rational alternative to conventional medicine.

She completed that homeopathy qualification, whatever it was.

She's unclear.

She's not very clear about what it is that her qualification was, but she completed that in 2010.

And then in 2011, she gave an interview to Natural News, a website run by the notorious conspiracy theorist Mike Adams, in which she claimed that chickenpox isn't just natural, but it's actively healthy for children to contract.

She then went on to say in a now deleted YouTube video that she's, quote, started treating whooping cough in newborn babies with vitamin C.

Just as a a quick side note, two infants died from hooping cough in Louisiana in the last six months amid a large outbreak in the state among unvaccinated babies.

Humphreys has also said that, quote, never has there been a safe vaccine, never will there be a safe vaccine.

It is not possible to have a safe vaccine, unquote.

Woof.

Wow.

Okay.

Well, what did they talk about?

Vaccines.

They talked about the measles vaccine.

They talked about the polio vaccine, the smallpox vaccine, the COVID vaccine, even the tetanus vaccine.

You name it, you vaccinate it, she'll deny it works.

She told Joe that kids are getting 70 vaccines or possibly 70 vaccines a year, despite the fact that smallpox is very easy to treat, apparently.

And also that all infectious disease deaths were already dropping away to nothing before we ever vaccinated anyone for anything anyway.

So why do we even care about it?

Ah, all right.

Well, I'm sure we're going to get into that.

But before we get to our main event, we want to to say thanks to our area 51 all-access past patrons.

That's Martin Fidel, Fredar Gruthius, 11 Gruthius, Laura Williams, no, not that one, the other one, Stone Banana, definitely not an AI overlord.

Am I a robot?

Captcha says no, but maintenance records say yes.

And Chonky Cat in Chicago eats the rich.

They subscribe to patreon.com slash no rogan.

You can do that too.

All patrons get early access to episodes and get a special patron-only bonus segment each week.

And this week, we're going to talk about death doulas and how to clean up a toxic vaccine spill.

So check it out at patreon.com slash no rogan.

But for now, our main event.

Huge thanks to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Nick Garrett announcing our main event.

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

Send that over to noroganpod at gmail.com and let us know how you'd like to be credited.

Like Marsh suggested, this entire episode is about vaccines.

They stray very little off of that.

It's either talking about preventative health, meaning vitamins, minerals, working out, et cetera, or the vaccines themselves.

So there really isn't much to describe here.

Our main event is talking about anti-vaxing.

And so we're going to start really early in the show, two minutes in with a discussion about the measles vaccine.

I think this is really important.

When you were talking about the measles vaccine, you were saying that

either if you get an infection with measles, just a natural infection, or if you get the vaccine, you're still going to get depleted of vitamin A.

Like if you get vaccinated for the measles, you should be taking vitamin A as well.

Your body's going to get depleted just by getting that shot.

They don't tell you that.

No, they don't tell you anything.

Just Tylenol, which actually makes the vaccine not work as well, in addition to causing all kinds of immunological disturbances at the time that you're supposed to be upregulating your immune system against this dreaded disease.

So we're going to do quite a lot of chat here about the vaccines and statistics.

So if you are a listener, feel free to head over to YouTube where you'll see us putting up some of our references on screen.

Or if not, check the show notes.

Everything we're going to say here is going to be fairly heavily referenced.

But Joe is bringing up vitamin A here.

And it is true that vitamin A supplements are a good way to avoid people falling seriously ill if they contract measles.

So a 2022 Cochrane meta-analysis looked at the results of 47 different studies across 19 different countries and concluded that vitamin A supplementation is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in morbidity and mortality in children.

So vitamin A is important if you're going to contract measles.

However, There's no evidence that you need to take a vitamin A supplement in order to recover from the measles vaccine or that the vaccine depletes your body of vitamin A.

That isn't the case at all.

It's completely unclear where like Joe and Humphreys is getting this from, but I can only assume it's because the World Health Organization recommend giving infants vitamin A supplements along with their measles vaccine.

But to be clear, that isn't to protect them from the vaccine.

According to the WHO, quote, vitamin A is essential for the functioning of the immune system and the healthy growth and development of children and is usually acquired through a healthy diet, yet vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness and increases the death, the risk of death from common childhood infections, such as measles and those causing diarrhea.

So it doesn't protect you from getting measles, but if you contract measles, it will help make sure you don't die from it.

And that's why they give vitamin A at the same time as a vaccine.

It's nothing to do with the vaccine affecting your vitamin A levels.

In fact, for a while, there were even concerns that vitamin A supplements might even make the vaccine less effective.

But then then that was studied and it was shown that there is no reduction in efficacy of the vaccine if they're administered at the same time.

And that's why they do that.

It turns out a lot of time and research and effort has been put into making sure that this vaccine is safe and that it's administered in the way that is optimal for children's health.

Meanwhile, however, there is a downside to recommending vitamin A as either a way of recovering from the vaccine or as a straight treatment for measles, which people are doing right now.

So here's an article from The Telegraph.

Here's a quote.

Texas hospitals are treating children with vitamin A poisoning after Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., the U.S.

health secretary, promoted the supplement as a treatment for measles.

The Covert and Children's Hospital in Lubbock, a city in the northwest of Texas, is looking after a small number of patients who all required treatments for measles, but who also had elevated levels of vitamin A that were causing abnormal liver function, Texas Public Radio reported.

There have also been reports of measles patients with abnormal liver function in neighboring New Mexico.

So when they talk about the importance of vitamin A in fighting measles, the overstress of that leads people to give their kids massive amounts of vitamin A when they have measles, even though they didn't vaccinate their kids when vaccination would be what would actually protect those kids from measles in the first place.

Yeah.

The problem is that people who are taught to distrust vaccines.

Through the misinformation during COVID and now the ripples of the now retracted Wakefield Lancet study, they're going to look for an alternative any way that they can to skip vaccines entirely.

And if somebody even suggests anything, they're going to grab onto that as quickly as they can.

So when RFK suggests vitamin A, they're going to reach out and try to grab that because they want to do anything they can to avoid

getting a measle shot for their child.

And they don't have any idea how to administer it.

And vitamin A can give you hypervitaminosis.

You can get very sick from taking vitamin A.

So it's important to make sure that that's being done by a doctor, but also don't skip the measles shot because you want to choose something else to give them because you're afraid of the measle shot.

Yeah, that's true.

And also bear in mind, these reports of kids being hospitalized with too high levels of vitamin A and their

abnormal liver function, if those instances were being caused by the vaccine, Joe Rogan would be the one telling you this, not us.

But because

these are being caused by the thing that Joe Rogan has recommended, he's not going to look at these cases where the thing he prefers the thing that susan humphreys prefers and rfk jr prefers is causing damage they'll never tell you about it yeah and i just want to point out a little bit of interesting language that's used here now they

This is sort of a call forward because they, at a certain point, he asks her a question about vaccines and she basically says there's no real safe vaccines, right?

So like we know that she doesn't think vaccines are safe and she also doesn't think vaccines work.

If you listen to this entire podcast, throughout the entire podcast, and we'll play many clips that support this, she's saying that vaccines don't work.

But there's also some interesting language here because she says they tell you to take Tylenol, which actually makes the vaccine not work.

And I'm like, well, I thought she said it doesn't work at all.

So does it not work because they tell you to take Tylenol afterwards?

Does it work sometimes?

Her messaging in this whole episode is off in every different direction.

And it's, it feels like almost like she's doing a gish gallop throughout the entire thing, just throwing as much spaghetti against the wall against vaccines that she can possibly think of to try to discredit them in any way possible.

Okay, so now she's going to mention vaccine production variability.

Yeah, but one of the things about the recommended by the white coats and the authorities is that the public believes that so many drugs and remedies are standardized that the conventional medical system gives out.

And when you go to actually look at them, and this includes vaccines, even though they're standardized, meaning that the manufacturers are told what the regulations should be in terms of production, when people go and look at them, they find it's anything but standardized.

It's very variable, which is why we see such variability in

the results when people receive them.

That's only one reason why there's so much variability.

So again, this isn't true.

There are actually pretty strict controls for quality and dosage during the manufacturing of vaccines.

As the CDC explained, the manufacturer makes batches of vaccines called lots, and these lots undergo a series of tests to ensure that the vaccine is consistent from lot to lot.

The FDA requires manufacturers to submit data from these tests to support a successful manufacturing process.

Even after approval, the FDA monitors a vaccine's product's quality in real time by requiring the manufacturers to submit samples of each vaccine for lot testing.

These tests usually report safety, purity, that it only contains what it needs to need to contain, potency, that the vaccine produces the desired immune response.

And when the vaccines are consistent across lots of lots, the FDA can confirm that the product remains remains reliable and safe for use.

So that variability she's talking about is not the case.

They actually work pretty hard to get this as uniform as possible in right down to testing individual lots as a rote basis.

Is it the same for the supplement industry?

Well, that's the thing, you see, because the supplements, which she is going to recommend, and we've already heard Joe talking about vitamin A supplements, supplements have far lower standards.

And depending on where you get the supplement and who's manufacturing it, they can have widely and wildly, in fact, variable quality and quantity of active ingredients.

So here's a quote from a report in LiverTox, Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury.

Quote, Many single herbs have been implicated in liver toxicity.

However, most currently available herbal dietary supplements comprise complex mixtures of ingredients.

And although the FDA requires that a product label accurately reflects the contents, reports exist of product contamination and unlabeled ingredients.

Reported contaminants include heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, so they'll put some actual drugs in your herbal supplement, and then you wonder why the herbal supplement seems to work.

Microbial products and pesticides even.

I mean, we're going to talk, they'll talk pesticides extensively in this conversation, but there are reports that the supplements that cheese thinks are great can be contaminated with pesticides.

Continuing that quote, further herbal dietary supplements are vulnerable to variation in the quality or strength of ingredients depending upon the time and the conditions of harvest, as well as the part of the plant that's used for the product.

For instance, the leaf versus the root versus the stem.

Finally, analytical phytochemistry of herbal dietary supplement products implicated in causing liver injury oft reveals adulteration of the product and sometimes mislabeling and absence of the botanical listed on the label and presence of a related or unrelated herbal that may be the toxic agent.

So what's in it, it says that they're made to say on the label what's in it, but you can't always rely on that.

They will put in things occasionally by mistake, occasionally because they want to get an effect that they don't tell you is in there so her point here is vaccines are riskily variable that's wrong her solution is to take supplements instead because they're safer that's also completely wrong wow okay now we're going to find out the real the real question and it and and she kind of hedges hedges her bets here but this is the main question of the entire episode are vaccines helpful

Have there been any instances where vaccines have been helpful?

The question of the century, isn't it?

Okay, now we have to back up a minute because I had that same question and I had to go dig deep to all the questions you have in your head right now.

I had them too at one point.

So here I am, a medical doctor working in the field, believing pretty much everything I was told, giving hundreds, if not thousands, of vaccines out to my patients, hepatitis B vaccines in particular, flu shots for sure.

I was a nephrologist, kidney specialist, and dialysis, etc.

And initially, you know, we all kind of have an aversion to needles.

I think it's a natural human aversion.

So when we're kids, we don't, no one's going, oh, I want to go get my vaccines.

We're like, you know okay fine sore arm you get over it most of us were lucky enough to get over it

so this is a really key point here her answer to are vaccines helpful isn't yes you know even the question is there any instances where vaccines have been helpful her answer isn't yes um this shows that she's not concerned about this vaccine here or that vaccine there she's completely against right now the very concept of vaccine she can't accept that a single vaccine she can't think of a single instance where a vaccine was helpful and And she's going to find any reason that she can to justify her position there.

Yeah.

And the answer to this question right now is literally playing out all across the United States.

There's over 600 cases of measles right now so far in the United States this year, two deaths.

And that's that number, 600, is over twice as many as the entire calendar year last year.

Yeah.

Now, her research, this is about her research in the polio vaccine, this next clip.

And it is altered, kind of.

There's a piece I did take out.

You can feel free to listen to the full show.

It happens around 7.45, seven minutes, 45 seconds in the regular show.

But I'm only cutting out a tiny bit because it's sort of a talking

origin of the vaccine and like Jonas Salk.

It's not, it's not necessary for what we're trying to talk about.

And so at first I had to go down the flu, the flu vaccine bunny trail.

And every time I went down that flu vaccine bunny trail, guess what I was asked?

What about polio?

So I thought, all right, even though this has absolutely zero to do with polio because i'm um well

i would have to say that the polio bunny trail was the darkest one of all and uh so after polio then became smallpox and i thought you know we still have people walking the earth that have experienced the polio years so i i kind of like to stick to polio because most of the smallpox you know people that would have been would have been familiar with it are off the planet but there's still some doctors around that'll talk about smallpox like a guy named thomas mack who's probably up close to 90 who was kind of ground zero in the 1940s and knows a lot about it and still says we shouldn't be vaccinating for smallpox today.

So then there was that.

And then everyone and their dog was talking about autism.

And I didn't really want to have anything to do with autism because I was an adult doctor.

Yeah, she doesn't want to talk about autism.

She definitely doesn't want to talk about autism.

Guess where we're going to go later in this year?

Yeah, eventually.

But what we're seeing here is this really showing her position.

There are no effective vaccines.

She has to rule out basically in quick succession the most successful vaccinations in all of human history.

She's talking about polio and smallpox.

Smallpox vaccine is incredibly,

incredibly effective and was hugely life-changing in terms of how it stopped that particular epidemic.

And we'll come to that.

But I want to give you a quick quote, in fact, from Nature here.

This is an article from Nature in October 2024 about the success of vaccines.

It's a little long, but I think it makes a point here.

They write, there may be no greater demonstration of vaccines' power to deliver health equity than their success with smallpox.

The magnitude of the accomplishment of having eradicated smallpox where absolutely nobody on this earth gets the disease, that is the ultimate in the issue of equity.

They go on to say since the establishment of the global polio eradication initiative, cases have fallen 99%

worldwide.

Around the globe, the measles vaccine has saved nearly 94 million lives over the last 50 years.

This and other vaccinations have revolutionized global health.

And bear in mind, For every life that's saved, how many more lives haven't had to go through getting measles and the potential health complications that aren't death, but are life-limiting for the rest of your life.

It continues, immunization is the most universal innovation that we have across humankind, says a fellow, says Aren Levin, who's a fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington.

He notes that there are people around the world without access to telephones or even toilets, but they find ways to get their kids immunized.

He says, it's the innovation that demonstrates what is possible in terms of delivery of service to everyone, everywhere.

Okay, Okay, she talks about the polio diagnosis in this next clip and how it changed over time.

Because you said polio, once we've breached that, because that's the big one.

Yeah.

Right.

This is the one that everybody points to.

We don't have crippled kids.

Yeah.

What, when you look at the historical timeline of polio, what do you think caused it to go, it's essentially not be a problem anymore?

Okay.

You don't think vaccinations had anything to do with that?

Well, I also, it's not what I think, because that's the thing.

Like, look, when I got into this, I didn't say, oh, you know, I want to argue that vaccines are great.

I said, look, I don't care.

I didn't have skin in the game.

I didn't have vaccine-injured kids.

I couldn't have cared less about it, essentially, except that it was something in front of me and didn't make sense.

So I thought, wherever the truth falls, that's what I'm going to talk about.

So what I say is that

what the facts line up to show you is that polio is still here.

Polio is still alive and well.

Polio is called different things today.

Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced.

The playing field, the goalposts, everything was changed so that despite the fact that there was more paralytic polio in the years after that vaccine was introduced, they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.

And they started testing for the virus, or before they would never test for the virus.

And when they started testing for the virus later, what they would find that people had Guillermo-Marais syndrome, they didn't have virus, or they had Coxaki virus or Echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day, including bloodletting.

They were telling people to put, take your cigarette and put a little bit of arsenic in there.

It's good for your lungs.

So there's a huge amount going on here, but let's just look at the things she's saying about polio there.

She's saying that they've managed to get rid of the poliol cases by just relabeling, relabeling them as something else.

So, first of all, in the US in 1952, polio cases peaked at 36 cases per 100,000 of population.

By 1962, there were just 0.41 cases per 100,000 of population.

So a massive reduction, you know, several figures, several orders of magnitude of reduction there.

By 1972, it was under 0.01 cases per 100,000.

So this is a phenomenally successful achievement in a very short space of time.

Across like that 20-year span, it's gone from 36 people per 100,000 to less than 0.01 per 100,000.

And then that's just cases.

What about deaths?

Well, in 1952, of every 100,000 people, not 100,000 cases, but 100,000 people, 1.98 would be expected to die from polio.

In 1962, that was down to 0.03.

And in 1972, it was negligible.

It was below the 0.01, probably quite far below that.

It's just that they stopped counting at 0.01 in this chart.

So this is a phenomenally successful thing of like huge numbers suddenly going away very quickly.

And she said, well, it wasn't that it went away.

They just renamed it.

They called it Guillain-Barret.

So what about the Guillain-Barret incidence?

Well, I found the stats on this as well.

The best estimate for the overall incidence of Guillain-Barret syndrome is between 1.1 per 100,000 people per year and 1.8 cases per 100,000 people per year.

And that incidence goes up a little bit after the age of 50.

It goes up to like 3.3 per 100,000.

So we are nowhere near the numbers.

It was 36 per 100,000 for polio in 1952.

Were those all Guillain Barret?

Well, Guillain-Barret accounts for 1.1 per 100,000.

And in terms of mortality rate, out of 356 patients with Guillain Barret who were followed up for 12 months, the mortality rate was 3.9%.

So we aren't seeing anywhere near the numbers of deaths.

So it's not Guillain-Barret.

I'll give you one more set of stats on Guillain Barrett.

There's a study here that looked at 2,414 patients with Guillain Barret syndrome and 23,909 matched individuals from the general population.

The short-term mortality for Guillain-Barre was 4.8%, and the the intermediate, so the slightly longer-term mortality was 7.6%.

But after the first four years, long-term mortality showed similar results for the general population.

So we aren't seeing Guillain-Bore having the numbers of deaths that we'd needed for it to be just a relabeled version of polio.

So yeah, just to equalize those figures, so we're working at apples to apples.

Polio was affecting 360 people per million people, of which 20 would be expected to die.

If they relabeled it to Guillain-Barret syndrome, well, that affects at most 20 people out of a million, of which one and a half would die.

These are not the same diseases.

And all of this assumes that polio presents with the same symptoms of GBS, of Guillain-Barre syndrome.

I'm not an expert in this area, but when I looked into it, they have very different symptoms, similar with arsenic poisoning and lead poisoning and all those other things.

They affect the body in different ways and they present differently.

So this isn't just a case of they've slapped a different label on the same thing to make it go away.

Yeah, and listen to what she says.

She basically starts talking about the timeframe of when she's saying they changed these particular diagnoses and when they changed the way in which they're deciding that this is polio or not she's saying it's right around the time of the vaccine well the vaccine's introduced in the 50s and then she says the main ways in which we treated uh we treated people who were sick at the time were mercury bloodletting and arsenic and that's just not true like that's a hundred percent not true they stopped doing a lot of those things they stopped doing bloodletting two centuries before then and they stopped doing like the mercury and arsenic about maybe 50 or 60 years before then.

At the very latest, that was when people were still taking it, even when they probably shouldn't have been.

So the idea that she's saying that this is something that was widespread and that was causing polio, again, is another lie.

She's lying to the people who are listening to this program.

And,

you know, you'd also, I think, have to just sort of show that if you're saying that, then where's the poison?

Where's the level of poisoning today and the level of poisoning then that was switched around?

Like, where do we, if you're saying that there's this poisoning, the poisoning just didn't go away somehow.

How did, where did all those people that were poisoned, they had to keep getting poisoned somehow?

We have to imagine that there's some way in which they're getting poisoned.

We know it's not through medicines because that's not true.

So where would, if, if we were to take it on our face and try to steal Manner argument, where would they be getting this type of poisoning?

And why would it immediately go away when they started introducing the vaccine into the population?

This is something she does throughout where she's doing this sort of correlation without causation.

She's saying, here's a time where something happened and they also did something at that time, which we're finding out probably isn't true.

And that's what caused it, not the actual vaccine.

And she'll do this throughout.

You can pick this out throughout the entire program.

She's doing this constantly.

And one thing that you have to remember, this is a doctor who went back and looked at some of these things and found this correlation.

She found these correlations and she decided that was what was causing these things.

And the vaccine was a negligible effect or even damaging in most cases.

If that's the case, why should we believe one person who has possibly tricked themselves into believing that this correlation is the thing instead of all the studies and all the doctors and all the other people out there who have said, no, that's nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense.

Why should we believe this one doctor over all those others, this mountain of evidence that we have that vaccines don't cause injury at the level that they suggest and vaccines are safe and effective and vaccines prevent disease?

Why should we believe this one doctor over all of them?

Yeah, absolutely.

And just to pick up on that point, for her to be saying this isn't about vaccines saving people, this is just actually there was poisoning going on.

Well, the vaccines were introduced.

They weren't weren't all introduced at the same time.

So if there was poisoning at one point and that poisoning suddenly disappeared, they would have, they can't account for the fact that the numbers are dropping on individual different types of diseases at different times.

So what poisoning was changing around that kind of time?

It's not all happening at the same time.

They can't just have one thing, which is poisoning by lead or poisoning by arsenic.

They have to choose something else.

And now they're going to, they're going to pick out of the group, they're going to pick pesticides.

Yeah, the polio story, where did it even begin?

And so there's about 70 pages.

And so that became my obsession.

So when people said, what about polio?

And I started digging this up, I went deep into it.

Did you dive into pesticides?

Yes, yes, you have to dive into pesticides because the tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio in the days.

And the countries that still make DDT today is where we're still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.

So this, again, not truth.

DDT was still in use 20 years after polio curses peaked.

From the EPA's website, in 1972, the EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks.

Since then, studies have continued, and a relationship between DDT exposure and reproductive effects in humans is suspected based on animal studies.

So that's 72 that they pulled DDT.

Now, as I mentioned, by this point, cases of poliol had already dropped from 36 per 100,000 in 1952 to 0.41 per 100,000 in 1962.

DDT was still in use in America a decade after that, during which case, during each decade, the polio cases continued to fall, but they can't account for 52 to 62 because DDT was still very much in use at that time.

And this is like another thing that she's doing, Marsh, where she keeps saying doctors are mistaking something else for polio.

And I think really the point is to sort of completely discredit doctors, saying they can't even diagnose a virus that they literally test for.

They can't even do this thing correctly.

And that really is a sweeping, it's like a sweeping condemnation of pretty much medicine when she's saying that type of thing.

I've looked this up too, just to see, you know, because she makes a claim to say, well, look at today, look at the, look at the things today with places where they make DDT, there's still a ton of polio in all those places.

And she's trying to make the, again, a correlation between the fact that DDT is causing symptoms that we would mistake for polio, that doctors can't tell aren't polio.

Well, a lot, there's a bunch of DDT that's made in India and it's used there as well, right?

Well, they are, they celebrated this year 14 years of being polio-free in India.

So again, she's, she's making a claim, but then it's really easy to just check and see and be like, oh, no, she's, she's 100% not correct when she says that.

Yeah.

And the thing to bear in mind is Joe has in the studio Jamie, who quite often pulls that up right there, and he doesn't, he's not asked to check this out.

He's not asked to sort of fact check this at all.

This is all just taken as word.

Okay, so now we're going to talk about how viruses evolve.

It was well known.

Could it possibly be that whatever you're calling polio evolved and became less powerful over time and more contagious?

That does happen with some viruses, right?

Most viruses in nature don't become more problematic as they go through the human system.

They become less problematic.

Remember the whole COVID thing?

Like in the beginning, people were getting super, super sick.

It wasn't as contagious, but it was more virulent.

And as it attenuated into the human bodies, it sort of

kind of fizzled out a bit.

And then we got the Omicron, which was less, it was more spreadable, but it was much less pathological.

And that's the natural process that happens.

Yeah, this isn't true.

Or at least it's not true that it happens most of the time, that it's the natural process.

Viruses don't naturally attenuate.

They're not guaranteed to it's not an expectation she makes it seem like this is just a natural thing this is the progression that will always happen so viruses only care and i say care loosely because it's not like they have your feelings and thoughts and uh and hopes and ambitions and dreams but yeah viruses their drive is to just spread to reproduce and spread um they can do that in a couple of different ways they can they don't want to be so deadly that they kill you before you have a chance to spread it so what they can do is become mild enough that they don't kill you, and then they'll let you spread it quite a lot.

So, like the common cold, for example, it's not going to kill you necessarily unless you're already very, very vulnerable, but it spreads very well because you're walking around sneezing all day and passing it on to people.

So, viruses can spread that way, but also viruses

can, if a virus was to lay dormant for a long time, but be infectious through that dormant period and then be incredibly deadly, that would be just as effective at being able to spread itself.

And we know that's true because look at HIV.

Yeah.

HIV has not attenuated since it emerged in the 80s.

It would still be as deadly if we weren't very, very on top of excellent medicines that keep the virus in check.

And we even know she says, well, once a virus is in a human, it doesn't get more deadly.

Well, we know that when HIV is in humans, it can become resistant to forms of the antiretroviral.

So it can still evolve in order to become more dangerous in lots of different ways.

Every time a virus mutates, every time it interacts with another virus, there's a roll of the dice in lots of cases that it could get worse.

It could get better, but it could get more deadly.

That was the story of COVID.

You know, COVID emerged from animal populations because it mutated from being able to spread very, very quickly.

There was lots of, it all acted like a big Petri dish.

And from there, a strain of COVID emerged with a certain mutation that made it jump to humans and made it incredibly deadly.

All right.

So now we're going to talk about using sugar cubes in vaccines.

So that's today the most common reason to see

poliomyelitis disease from a virus.

If you test for a virus, they'll usually find the vaccine virus.

And that's why today we don't, remember when we were kids, because we're about the same age, I think, they would give us the sugar cube.

Maybe you didn't, but I did.

I got the sugar cube and that was the live vaccine.

Well, they stopped doing that because after a while, the only cases of polio, and it became so obvious that the only cases of polio we were seeing related to a virus when they tested for polio virus were vaccine strains.

So then they started injecting us again.

But the early injections caused more paralytic polio than it prevented.

And that's the part that people don't understand when they say, what about polio?

Because they like you just go, well, there's no more iron lungs, there's no more crippling, there's no more of these little, poor little kids walking around with their calves.

Well, that's not true because the iron lung is now called a ventilator.

So that's out the window.

Iron lungs and ventilators are completely different.

They work completely differently.

You're on them for a much shorter period of time.

They're just not the same.

That's just that's just

a way of trying to get rid of those memories, those pictures that you see to sort of

hand wave those away.

But notice there's a bit of an interesting bait and switch that she's performing in the middle of this bit here because she's explaining quite rightly that the US used to use oral polio vaccinations and a drop on a sugar cube.

Now, with those vaccinations, there is indeed a small risk of getting vaccine-derived polio.

They use a live virus, it's attenuated, so it's like deliberately weakened so that it teaches, so you put the live virus, get it into your body, your immune system recognizes it, the virus is so weakened mechanically that you can, that the immune system can learn how to fight it.

And then when it fights the super strong version of the virus, it already has all the tools that it needs.

Okay, so that's that's why there is a live virus in that sugar cube.

But it came with a risk on that particular vaccine of giving you polio.

So in the US, they stopped giving you that type of vaccine.

And instead, the polio vaccine was administered via injection, which wasn't a live virus and didn't carry that risk.

Now, she's bringing that whole scenario up as a point against injections.

That is a point in favor of injections.

That is a point in favor of saying don't use the sugar cube anymore, move to the injections.

Ah, but she also says the early injections caused more paralytic polio than it prevented.

So the vaccines are bad again, right?

So it's sugar cube bad, injections bad.

But first of all, the injection she's talking about didn't cause more paralytic polio than it prevented, but she's referring to a very specific incident known as the Qatar incident in 1955.

We've got a quote in

a reference in the show notes, but here's a quote from it.

Shortly after the licensure of the injectable polio vaccine in 1955, the vaccine manufactured by Qatar was found to cause paralytic disease.

It contained residual infectious virus, which obviously wasn't meant to.

The reason was traced to the method of inactivation, so the way that they actually attenuated the virus.

And at that time, the dynamics of the inactivation process weren't fully understood and the U.S.

government's requirement for vaccine production was ambiguous.

All of those problems have since been corrected.

So that cutter incident of 1955 has been corrected.

That's not true of the modern injections.

Yeah, so it seems like so far two.

points in the column for vaccine safety, right?

You know, she's trying to paint it as vaccines are unsafe and look at how they have made mistakes in the past.

And just by the very fact that you're pointing at the mistakes that they might have made and that they corrected them, I think is the point in favor of vaccines, especially modern vaccines.

Yeah, absolutely.

So she's taking issue with the oral vaccine, which has a slight risk of giving you polio.

But then she's also taking issue with the injectable form, which doesn't have that risk.

But she's taken issue because of a single incident that happened in 1955 and was quickly caught.

And what was the outcome of that cut incident?

Well, again, here's a quote.

In April 1955, more than 200,000 children in five Western and Midwestern USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.

Within days, there were reports of paralysis, and within a month, the first mass vaccination program against polio had to be abandoned.

Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

So 200,000 kids got it and 10 died as a result.

200 got paralysis.

And obviously, all of that is bad.

That is not to say it's it's fine that that happened.

That is a bad thing that happened, but it was also caught and subsequent vaccines do not, subsequent injectable vaccines do not have that risk anymore.

As you say, the mechanisms kicked in and it was repaired afterwards.

But she says these days, you know, most of the forms of polio you'll see are from the vaccine.

And that may well be true, but partly that's because the vaccine actually works.

So there's very few versions of, there's very few cases of wild polio.

Nobody's catching it in the wild anymore.

So because it's almost eradicated, it makes sense that the only place you're going to get it are for in these weird edge cases.

So yes, there are some cases of vaccine-derived instance of polio, even to this day.

There were 600 cases or fewer in 2023, according to our world in data.

And those cases almost certainly would have been from the Sugar Cube oral vaccine.

Now, it's no longer used in places with access to very good healthcare, where you have the refrigeration you need to keep the vials of injectable vaccine sterile and at the right temperature, all this kind of stuff.

But where you don't have access to good health care, they still will use the sugar cube because it's much easier to administer.

And it's much better than being completely unprotected against polio.

So her issue here against the polio vaccine is, well, the sugar cube we used to use and don't use anymore can give you polio.

And that one injection 70 years ago could give you polio.

But actually, the answer to the both of those is everybody should be using the modern injections that don't do that.

And if she doesn't want there to be vaccine-derived polio in the world, her solution should be to push for better funding for injectable vaccines for everywhere in the world and not just the places like the US, UK, and Western world that have access to good healthcare.

Okay, they're going to try to change the naming here again.

What if we called polio instead transverse myelitis?

Transverse myelitis, which there are about 1,300 cases, I think it's a month, diagnosed in one particular.

I

put a quote in here on that, but transverse myelitis is actually something that would have absolutely, it follows the same pathology as polio.

It would have been called polio back in the day.

So we still have polio that we had in 1953 because in 1953, all you had to have to be diagnosed is polio.

Anyone could diagnose you, just one examination with one set of muscles being paralyzed.

There was no timeframe on it.

There was no testing done on it.

And then it was considered a public service service to do it because then you were eligible for funding.

Yeah, I think this is the first time the word trans has come up on Joe Rorgan's shawl without him immediately talk about women's bathrooms.

But transverse myelitis, transverse, let's talk about transverse myelitis.

Well, it is a rare acquired inflammatory disorder that often presents with rapid onset weakness, sensory deficits, and some bowel bladder dysfunction.

So it can look a bit like polio.

It generally occurs independently, often as a complication of infection.

However, it can exist in a continue of other inflammatory disorders, including things like encephalitis, multiple cirrhosis, neuromyelitis, and a few other things too.

But it says here, this is, there's a quote from a study on explaining what transverse myelitis is.

It says it's rare.

So how rare actually is it?

Well, it's approximately between one to eight new cases per 1 million people annually.

So again, it can't account for all those cases that we used to classify as polio.

The numbers are so completely off.

There were 360 cases per million of polio.

It's less than eight, between one and eight of transverse myelitis.

And also, doctors are very well aware of transverse myelitis, and they'd be far better equipped than us to explain how it differs from polio.

But there is medical information out there that will make that clear.

So it's just not true that doctors can't tell the difference, or that's a single test right now.

That is not the case.

Doctors work pretty hard at understanding the differences between different types of infections and the outcomes of different types of infections.

And there is diagnostic criteria that differs between polio and transverse myelitis.

And this is the first time we're playing it.

There'll be a whole segment later on.

We talk about money and vaccines, but this is the first time where she mentions funding, right?

She says, they did this because of funding.

And so I'm just trying to understand her argument.

The only motivation she said for vaccines was profit.

So doctors back then made a vaccine that didn't work.

I guess for profit.

I don't know.

So then they sell it, even though it was more profitable probably to have somebody in an iron lung than to sell them a single vaccine.

But in order to sell the vaccine to everyone, they lied and they said a bunch of other illnesses were polio.

And so then after this, after they lied and said that, and after they sold the vaccine to try to make a bunch of money, then after that, that fake vaccine was administered to all the kids.

They stopped getting sick with all these things that we called polio by coincidence.

Yeah.

Like try to, try to just follow her argument.

There's so many things that just don't make sense when you hear it out loud.

Well, we are going to come to it.

It's not quite coincidence.

We are going to come in a couple of clips' time to what she thinks was actually going on there.

But by and large, yeah, you're right.

Okay, so now we're going to get into the smallpox vaccine and where it comes from.

It was shown, like into the 1970s, 80s, and even recently, I have a reference from after the year 2000, that there was more bacteria and fungus in the smallpox vaccines than there was smallpox virus.

So it was because they had this thing called pure lymph, which was pus that came out of the horse of a horse's foot or a donkey's pus skin or a cadaver of a human or a cow's ulcerating udders and scraped into glycerin and called pure lymph and marketed all over the world.

This is the joke, this was our success.

This is the one vaccine that eliminated, eradicated a disease.

Can you believe that fairy tale?

I'll tell you another one.

Like that, it doesn't get crazy.

This is our success.

This vaccine that I describe in great detail with what was in it and what people saw under microscopes and then later tested genetically was what was called a quasi-species, meaning they don't even, after a while, it became its own thing.

It wasn't from a horse anymore.

It wasn't from a human anymore.

They called it humanized horsepox

when they genetically characterized the Dryvax and then ordered that every Dryvax specimen on the planet be destroyed.

I think that was around 2009.

Why did they do that?

Good question.

I don't know.

hiding the evidence possibly, but they now have a new vaccine, which doesn't work.

So again, so much in this.

The DryVax, by the way, is the smallpox vaccine.

It was the one that was originally,

well, it wasn't original, but it's the one that's derived from the cowpox and the pus that she's talking about is kind of going back to Edward Jenner using cowpox to inoculate against smallpox.

A quick point early on there.

She's talking about how they looked and found there was more pus in the vaccine than there was smallpox virus.

Well, surely that's not that surprising.

The virus is incredibly small.

You can see pus with the naked eye.

Like, you're not trying to fill somebody with smallpox virus.

You're not trying to inject them with so much.

But that's, and she's saying about, oh, it's all this horrible, gross stuff of like, there's, there's pus, there's fungus, there's bacteria.

Yeah, medicine's gross, but that doesn't stop it when it works.

So, like, sometimes medical stuff can be pretty gross and can still work.

That disgust instinct doesn't actually negate any of the facts.

That's not evidence.

That's just kind of you pointing and saying, that doesn't feel right to me.

It doesn't feel good.

Well, and it also, I think, too, it's, it's, it's sort of trying to create an emotional response in people, right?

Yeah.

There's an emotional feeling when you hear, oh, they scraped out, you know, ulcerating udders from a cow and then they put that in you.

And how gross.

I'm sure that there's plenty of ways in which they make gross medicines.

I'm sure plenty of products in your house right now are tested in a way that you might disapprove of.

Animal testing on products and things might make you think, wow, I don't.

I don't like that at all.

I don't like the way in which they test that at all.

But you're sort of separated from these things.

You're separated from how it's created.

And how it's created also has no effect on whether it's effective.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It feels a lot like when people

show you how chicken nuggets are made in McDonald's.

Yeah.

And it's like, yeah, I mean, you can, you can take issue with eating the meat, but show it by sort of talking about every different stage of it and how disgusting it is.

You're trying to engage a disgust mechanism rather than the ethics and morals of eating meat or anything more than that or the demonization of treatment.

You can have a better argument than

looks icky.

But this is even worse when this is medicine that has been proven to work.

This vaccine was proven to work.

So let's come to the humanized horsepox.

They didn't know what DryVax was.

They called it humanized horsepox, the quasi-species.

There is no reference that I can find on the internet to humanized horsepox, to humanized horsepox.

That precedes this conversation.

Now, maybe I've missed something.

I'm not the perfect scholar here, but the only reference I could could find on God's green internet was this interview.

It was her saying it.

So maybe it's in a book or something.

I don't know.

The closest that I could find was in 2017, Canadian researchers tried to re-engineer horsepox, which is a relative of smallpox that doesn't actually affect humans.

They tried to do that, try to sort of essentially bring it back.

And they did that in order to try and help us understand the origins of the smallpox vaccine.

And therefore, maybe lead to new and better vaccines and maybe even contribute to like cancer research and other things too.

That wasn't them looking at the smallpox vaccine under a microscope and calling it a quasi-horse species.

It was them just trying to understand how the virus works.

And that's a useful thing to do.

I mean,

smallpox isn't currently circulating around the world and killing people, but it was an incredibly deadly disease.

And let's say that, for example, some terrorists decided they want to be the ones to re-engineer it and use it as a bioweapon.

Maybe you need some scientists ahead of that in order to understand what we would do and how we'd solve it.

You know, it's important, I think.

So yeah, they did also, she says about destroying Dryvax, which is a smallpox vaccine.

They did destroy Dryvax, that original vaccine.

It was in 2008, but they did it because they found that it was unusually dangerous for a vaccine, that it was

blamed in recent years for heart attacks and a painful heart inflammation in some patients.

And also because...

it was already replaced in vaccine stockpiles by more modern products manufactured in labs.

It was actually replaced with a product, she said, there's a new one out now.

It's ACAM 2000 or ACAM 2000, which is created in labs, not on a farm.

So there's less bacterial contamination.

There's less pus, there's less fungus, there's less of that in the production process.

So the thing that she's saying is disgusting doesn't happen anymore.

Yeah.

And, you know, them destroying something that they thought was causing something that was, that was harmful, that was a bad vaccine side effect.

Again, we're putting another notch in the column of vaccine safety with that.

That's not in the other side.

That's not on the anti-vax side.

That's on the pro side.

That's someone seeing something and correcting the mistake.

That's how science works.

Yeah.

And then she says, well, the new vaccine that they've got, well, that doesn't work, by the way.

Well, okay, let's have a look at that.

Because whether it works, okay.

It does work, but it still causes a lot of complications,

a lot of heart complications and things.

But there's a plan for that.

And here is a quote from that same piece that was telling me about RCAM, the same NBC article about the ACAM 2000.

It says, although ACAM 2000 has safety and efficacy data similar to that of DryVax in preclinical and clinical studies, there are still concerns related to serious adverse events such as cardiac complications.

In case of a necessary global vaccination after unintentional or intentional release of variola virus, which is smallpox, as many as one in 143 vaccine recipients could be expected to develop myoperocarditis, the seriousness of which is not entirely understood.

In this event, meticular screening and education of vaccination recipients and co-administration of antiviral drugs should greatly reduce the frequency of serious adverse events.

However, there's still a need for safer smallpox vaccine for the general population, and an alternative approach is especially needed for the large number of immunocompromised individuals and infants and others with contraindications for whom this vaccine can't be given.

So to summarize all that, she says there isn't, there's a new vaccine.

It doesn't work.

Well, there is a vaccine.

It does work.

Doctors have found and scientists have found that it isn't safe enough to give it routinely.

So they don't give it routinely.

They have got a smallpox vaccine.

Now, at the moment, those serious adverse events might outrisk, outweigh the benefit of vaccinating people because smallpox isn't circulating.

But if smallpox did begin to circulate, that's going to change that balance of risks.

And they've got a plan for how to administer it that would be minimizing that impact by having other treatments at the same time and by identifying people who'd be most at risk of adverse effects.

As you said lots of times now, this is evidence of the way in which this is carefully managed.

It's really carefully thought about in terms of safety and in terms of the best possible way of doing this to manage that risk-benefit payoff.

Now she's going to shift.

We're going to start talking about death rates and vaccine rates.

So the diseases that there were never any vaccines for, we see the death rate come down at the same exact avalanche as the diseases that we did vaccinate for.

And in some cases, there's a little blip when the vaccine comes up and things get worse for a bit and then come back down.

So again, the point of the book was just interpreting the data that's existed for a really long time, vital statistics throughout the world as to the decline in death rate.

In some cases, the disease rates went down too, but the most important thing was the death rate because that's what people, your baby could die.

You have to have a vaccine, right?

Again, really interesting stuff here.

So her claim sounds a lot like what we see in other anti-vax literature.

Like there's a graph from an an anti-vax book that I found.

We've got the link in the show notes, and it claims that the real cause of improvements in disease survivability were actually

sanitation.

It wasn't vaccines, it was sanitation.

If you do, listeners, go away and check out the reference.

Let's ignore the fact that the Y-axis goes 200, 400, 600, 400, 2000, which isn't how Y-axis has worked.

I assume that's meant to be 800, and then the 2000 is just like the upper bound, but it shows that there's not a great deal of care in

putting together this particular figure.

But what this argument misses, that everything is kind of getting better, what her argument is missing is that sanitation only takes you so far.

And part of the cited argument

in the source of the graph that I've kind of relied on here, which is similar to one that she has on her website, in fact,

is that the improvements in sanitation included things like reduction in overcrowding.

which would give the disease less chance to spread.

And she's saying, you know, there's a decline in case rates in some cases, but it's the death rate is the main thing.

One of the reasons the death rate in these instances came down is because medicine got better, not because of anything else, not because just sanitation.

Like you can go to hospital with a serious illness and walk out.

We saw that during COVID.

People would go to COVID to begin with.

The hospitals had no idea how to treat them and it had a very high death rate.

But later throughout the course of the pandemic, they found treatments that were actually useful enough to keep people alive long enough for their bodies to recover.

So like that is also going to be part of this.

And then when she talks about when the vaccines come in, there's a little blip.

If you look in the graph that I've got here, which is what I've seen cited by lots of anti-vaxes,

the graph where the things start to blip back up after the drops of the 50s and 60s, it kind of blips back up, is around about the 80s and 90s.

And there's a reason why deaths were

starting to rise again in the 80s and 90s.

That was the AIDS crisis.

So it's not all just about this one kind of one simple narrative.

But that's looking at all deaths.

That's looking at all kind of different deaths and when different vaccines came in.

What if we broke this down by individual disease types and say like sanitation, is that what stopped each of these different diseases, these different infections from becoming or remaining infectious?

Well, that isn't true either because you can see the impact of vaccines on graphs of individual different types of infections.

All of them weren't trending down pre-vaccination.

It's not true that they were already coming down and then the vaccine came in when they were almost already gone.

You see a little downward trend in some, but then there's a real precipitous drop-off when the vaccines come in.

And there's an interesting question here because if, as she's put, as she's contesting here, that it's it is all about things like sanitation and those associated things, wouldn't we see the rates of all diseases and deaths from all diseases dropping off around the same time?

Yeah.

But we don't see that.

What we see is a disease is kind of bobbing along as it was and then a vaccine gets introduced and very soon afterwards the case numbers and the death numbers drop like very, very substantially.

So why is it then from her argument that sanitation only started to kick in for polio in the 50s when it had already done the same for diphtheria in the 40s and flu, sanitation didn't touch the flu until the 90s?

Maybe it wasn't sanitation.

Maybe it's just because that's when the vaccines were introduced.

You know, we went from 800,000 cases of measles in 1962 to 100,000 eight years later after the vaccine was introduced.

So are we suggesting that there was some sort of wave of sanitation that came through the United States that somehow changed all of that?

No, I mean, do you think sanitation changed drastically between 1962 and 1970?

Probably not.

Not enough to get rid of 700,000 cases of measles.

But you know what would work in that?

If you plugged it in, the measles vaccine.

When the measles vaccine gets introduced, suddenly we have this amazing drop of people getting the measles.

You say that, but then you're forgetting that Woodstock was that massive festival of people washing their hands and acting in incredibly sanitary ways.

Yeah.

I also just, again, this sort of, when I think about this, I think about the underlying sort of ripple effects of what they're talking about and sort of the cultural implications of what they're mentioning.

And when they start talking about the reason why people get sick is because of unsanitary conduct, I can't help but feel like they're saying all those places in the world where people still get sick with these diseases are less than us and unclean.

Places that don't have the same levels of vaccination that we do or access to the vaccine, we just talked about in a previous segment, how we're having to give them sugar cubes instead of regular injections because they just don't have the facilities to support injections.

Those places have higher instances of some of these diseases.

And in some way, are you not calling those people unclean?

And is that not like a culturally superior way to look at other people?

Yeah.

Okay.

So this is the last piece in our main event.

We're going to wrap up the discussion about how many vaccines a child might get.

And they don't even want to breach the subject.

They don't even want to look at it.

Because the more you look at it, if you're a logical, rational person without like a deep-seated ideology attached to vaccines and you just looked at the reality of it, you just go, what, what is this?

Like, How did you trick people into injecting how many a year now for kids?

What is it?

In the 70s.

I believe we're in the 70s.

That's insane.

Kids don't get 70 vaccines per year.

That's what Rogan asked her.

That would be insane.

That's more than one vaccine every week of your life for a year.

There's no way that

that's true.

But okay,

let's be generous here.

And says she's not answering the question, how many per year, but how many in total?

That's 70 per 70 throughout childhood.

That's four every year for the entirety of their childhood.

It still seems on the high side.

It still seems like it's not fully passing the sense check.

So I checked out the NHS vaccine schedule, which is going to be different to the American vaccine schedule in some ways, I'm sure.

In the first year of your life, you get eight vaccine shots.

Now, that includes somewhere the shot includes, the shot requires multiple doses.

But then also some of those are the six in one shot.

So you get six vaccines in the

single injection.

So once you top that up, it's about 23 in total across eight injections.

But then up to the age of 15, you get another nine injections that comprise around 19 vaccines.

And that's in 14 years.

You have to 42 vaccines spread across 17 injections.

So it's a bit more than one injection per year on average.

Now, you could add in the optional annual flu shot.

once a year, every 15 years.

You still have 57 vaccines, which is kind of getting close to that 70, but it's only 32 injections spread out over a very long period of time.

But when you talk about it as a large number, especially when Joe is asking how many do they get per year, it makes it seem an incredibly scary, high number.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

And I think that's, that's, again, one of those things.

They're saying something so you emotionally react to this.

Well, that feels like a lot.

That feels like way too much.

And Joe in this episode even says, can a newborn even handle that kind of stuff?

And it's like, they're not giving it to a newborn.

That's not, they're not giving 70 injections to a newborn.

They're giving an it's a vaccine schedule.

It's already spaced out.

That's what they're talking when a lot of these anti-vaxxers talk about this.

They talk about how it's, well, it needs to be spaced out.

You know, even the ones that are sort of vaccine hesitant will say things like that.

And you're like, well, it already is spaced out.

It's already spaced out based on what many, many doctors have looked at and said, this is a safe schedule to give these children these vaccines at this rate.

And to have one person come in and say, well, that's the person I'm going to believe over this mountain of evidence is silly.

I also want to say, too, like,

just think about the things in which they're vaccinating these children for.

A lot of these things are really debilitating, dangerous illnesses.

These are things that can really mess a child up, not just them be sick now, but they could be sick for a long time or sick for the rest of their lives and have complications for the rest of their lives from some of these things.

You talked about pertussis killing children.

We talked earlier about measles killing children.

Just treating children who get sick from these things is way more of a windfall in cash than giving a child a single vaccine.

But they keep coming back to this sort of, well, they have to give them all these vaccines.

They got to give them 70 because they've got to make this money.

It's like, well, if your child, even if your child just has to go in because they're sick, that's more money than a vaccine would make in a future visit.

Yeah,

that is true for your country.

I mean,

we don't pay for things.

We don't pay for keeping our children alive in our country.

That's a mistake.

And again,

I think that that's a point in the column for

if that's the case, then why are other countries vaccinating their children?

Like, why on earth would the UK do it if

we think that it's just for money?

Wouldn't the UK look at all this supposed data that's out there?

Wouldn't Canada, wouldn't every single other

like modern country out there that offers health care to their to through taxes to their their populace, wouldn't they all look at this and say, well, that's silly.

That's why are we paying for that?

Why on earth would we pay for that?

So it just doesn't, like, it doesn't pass the sniff test.

Okay, so we don't have a toolbox section this week.

We are going to move on to our undercard.

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back.

So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills.

But it turns out that's very illegal.

So there goes my big idea for the commercial.

Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

A prompt payment of $45 for a three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required.

New customer offer for first three months only.

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy.

Taxes and fees extra.

See Mintmobile.com.

Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast.

I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier.

The goal is to help you do your life better.

The series is called Reset.

It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life.

Each week, we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career.

We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice.

It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality.

10% happier is self-help for smart people.

Come join the party.

Well, it's just factually inaccurate on so many different levels.

I don't understand why you wrote it like that.

So this week for the undercard, we're going to talk about money and healthcare.

And there's several clips where they do talk about, we sort of teased it earlier and we played one clip, but there's many conversations where they keep coming back to money is the motive for this.

So we're going to focus on that for the rest of the show.

Here's the first clip in the undercard.

This is literally a starting conversation, starting with the music playing in the background, talking about indoctrination and dogma.

You just said something that's like very important.

You can't be dogmatic when you're talking about vaccines or about anything.

Yes, it is good to keep an open mind, isn't it, and be flexible and look at a 360-degree view of things rather than your tunnel vision and what you're indoctrinated into, isn't it?

Yeah, and especially if you know that that indoctrination has been on purpose and profitable.

And, you know, one of the great things about your book is, first of all, your book's called Dissolving Illusions.

I know I've talked about on the podcast a bunch of times.

Yeah, that is, that is great.

I mean, having heard Joe talk about vaccines quite a lot recently, it's fairly clear that he's at least become dogmatic.

His position on the COVID vaccine has become it was always unnecessary, especially for kids.

It caused a huge amount of harm, all these kind of deaths and illnesses.

He will not listen to any evidence to the contrary.

That is dogmatic.

That is what he's arguing against, but it's what his views are.

And he says he's talked a lot about her book on the podcast.

I actually checked.

He has talked about it quite a lot.

So he first mentioned it in, I think, April 2023 when when he told David Cho that he was listening to it in the sauna on audiobook.

He then told Theo Vaughan about it in June 2023 and then Alex Berenson in September 23 and Whitney Cummings in November 2023, Taylor Sheridan in January 24, Aaron Rodgers in February 24.

I'm sure he was interested in that book.

He told Brett Weinstein about it in September 2024 and he told Ian Carroll about it.

in the show we covered from last month.

That's where we heard about it.

So yet again, it's another instance of the thing that we've noticed so many times now.

Joe learns a thing and then he spends loads of his other episodes promoting that thing, that idea.

Okay, so now we're going to talk about vaccine injury lawsuits.

Before 1986, we had 1976, which was the swine flu vaccine fiasco.

And

that was a situation where there was so much injury that the vaccine-producing companies were no longer able to get insurance.

And so they went to the government and they said, we need you to indemnify us.

And they did.

And so the government absorbed all the lawsuit cases that happened as a result of the Guillamberer that happened from then.

And so that kind of set a precedent for 1986.

So back then, vaccines were just kind of, you know, pieces of microbe.

or maybe a live attenuated virus.

And then they would put a background of all kinds of horrid things inside of it and tell you it was just a clear, beautiful, pure solution.

But that's beside the point.

So then 1986 comes along.

And because there's so many lawsuits happening because of the diphtheria pertussis tetanus vaccine, that again, the vaccine companies couldn't continue to go on the way they were because they were being sued so much.

So then this horrible act was passed, which to some people seemed like a good idea.

And this is always how it goes: we're going to make you this promise.

Yes, yes, yes, we're going to cover all the lawsuits now out of taxes, but it's going to be okay because we're going to pay out these lawsuits and you're going to be fine.

If your kid takes one for the team, you're going to be okay.

And what happens is, after time, after they get their foot in the door, they narrow down the

they basically have a kangaroo court that decides if you're eligible.

And so the qualification tables got narrowed down because in the beginning they were paying out so much of this.

So not only did it make the vaccine companies very, very wealthy and indemnify, but as you alluded to just a minute ago,

the creativity of the vaccine companies expanded.

So after that, they could add different, what we call adjuvants.

Yeah.

So she's talking about things like the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which

for one thing, it compensates for all sorts of different vaccine-related injuries if you can prove that they are linked to the vaccine.

I think even the bar for what counts as proof is lower than the bar that's required for saying this vaccine is definitely bad.

It's just showing that there was a reasonable suspicion that it could be linked.

And this includes things from common to mild reactions to rare and severe conditions, things like allergic reactions, shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration, basically where they've put the needle in too high and it's caused an injury.

Guillain-Barret syndrome is one of the things that are on there.

These injuries are often well documented.

They've got established criteria for compensation under the program.

So it covers those kind of more mild things.

It also covers more severe things, things that have long-term impacts on health and quality of life.

So it compensates these people, people who've suffered in these kind of ways.

But she says it's the taxpayers that cover the cost.

And that's not actually accurate.

So here's a

quote from the vaccine injury help website, which explains that the VICP gives potential victims of vaccine injuries a forum to have their cases heard, but limits the lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

That's not to say that vaccine manufacturers don't pay for vaccine injuries.

Vaccine manufacturers pay a 75 cent excise tax for each dose they make of any vaccines, which are covered by the VICP.

That excise tax goes into a special fund managed by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

So when they say, oh, they are indemnified and they don't have to pay, actually, they pay for every vaccine that they administer.

That goes into a pot.

And then any injuries that happen as a result come out of that pot rather than individual lawsuits against the vaccine manufacturer.

So now we're going to talk about the formula.

that people feed children instead of breast milk.

I think it's arrogant that we could assume that we could replace something with a bunch.

I mean, have you ever read the ingredients of formula?

Like, how could that be good?

I know.

Parasites.

We have parasites that have been parasites upon humanity for such a long time.

And that's what happens: is that something is discovered.

And for some people, maybe it can be a good idea, but then the parasites take it and want to.

So, when it came to breastfeeding, it was you don't have to do that.

You don't have to bother yourself like that.

You don't have to pull your boobs out in public.

You don't have to become a dairy cow.

Just strap them down.

The milk will stop.

And then you can start putting this wonderful.

When I was a kid, I was fed soy milk in a warm plastic bag.

That was the fad then growing up.

So the formula industry is a huge moneymaker, and some women do prefer it.

Fortunately, 75% of women in the USA today do initiate breastfeeding.

So that's very much better than the polio days when almost nobody was breastfeeding and they were using milk in the infant formula that had been contaminated by what the cows were eating.

Oh my God.

And so that was another part of the polio story that's not been told.

So the cows were all eating these pesticides.

Yes.

And herbicides.

Yes.

And the cows were getting sick with it.

And then these people were drinking the milk from that cow and getting sick as well.

The cows wouldn't have been getting necessarily getting sick from it, but it would be concentrating in their milk.

And so the milk, the milk would have been expressed.

So first of all, as Joe's starting off there, he's talking about the ingredients from Formulae.

So it's arrogant that we could replace something like this.

This, I think, is just another of those examples where you see a big long list of scientific named ingredients and you assume that means everything here is synthetic, and weird, and chemical, and evil, rather than science has put lots of names to stuff that exists.

And you can see there's a meme that I'm sure people will have seen

where you can label all of the different chemicals that are within an apple, just a naturally occurring apple.

If you labeled every single chemical in it, it would make it seem like it's full of all these weird things.

But everything has a name.

That's how we can understand how we process the world and understand the world and work with the world.

So it's kind of playing in this naturalistic fallacy of like, well, if it's got a scientific name, it must be synthetic and horrible and evil.

And that's kind of where Joy is coming from here.

As for Susan, she's got a couple of things right here.

She's saying that there were low breastfeeding rates around the time of the polio vaccine.

That's about right.

There's a figure I found that showed it's about in the sort of mid-30s.

It dropped down as low as like 20% of women in 1971.

And then it did start to recover up towards the 60s.

So that is right that there were few women breastfeeding at the time.

She's also right that infected milk in formula would be a bad thing.

Whether that's formula made from milk or formula that is kind of powder that you add water to, if the thing you're adding, if the liquid you're adding has something in it that shouldn't be there, that is going to be bad for the kid.

It's one of the reasons that Nestle is heavily criticized for the way it pushes formula on

women and infants in Africa, where they may not have good access to good, clean drinking water.

So, you can say that the formula is great, but if you're mixing it with something that is dirty, then it's going to be bad.

So all of that's true.

None of that has anything to do with polio, which is what she's saying.

It's a big part of the polio.

It's another part of the polio story that's not being told.

It's nothing to do with polio.

It's nothing to do with vaccines.

This comes in the middle of a discussion that is all about vaccines.

This is just, again, throwing in this medicine bad doctor's evil that she then uses to continue demonizing vaccines.

Yeah, and greed.

I mean, she uses the words parasites three times.

She says parasites upon humanity, and basically saying anybody who creates formula is a parasite.

They're a parasite.

They found a way to trick everybody into thinking that this thing is useful so that they make it and then they take you, they bilk you for your money.

And, you know, that sort of undertone of corporate greed is really interesting in this episode because it's not apparent in any of the episodes where he's talking about someone who might really, really have an influence on things like corporate greed by like Facebook or Mark Andreessen or any of the other list list of billionaires he's had sit in front of him.

This never comes up.

This corporate greed idea is completely antithetical to those conversations.

So it's, it's again, it's, it's who's ever in front of him, whatever they're talking about is sort of, he's sort of a yes man to that.

It sounds like what they're saying is there needs to be more maternal support.

And you're like, yeah, that's true.

We could do that in the United States, but we don't.

We don't have any maternal maternity support in the United States really at all.

We could take leaves of absence.

Some companies allow for short leaves for mothers to have a sort of a maternity leave.

But other than that, we don't do anything.

Other countries do it way better than the United States.

And to be honest, you're voting for, if you're voting for lower taxes, you're not voting for this.

So you're definitely voting for something like this to be cut away with Elon's chainsaw.

So understand who you're voting for.

And when you start to talk about these sort of things, think about the real world ways in which you can change it and you're doing none of those things.

And I also like, there's sort of like this interesting thing here, because even if she is bringing it back, let's say, let's just give her, like steel man her argument here for a second, Marsha, and suggest that she's suggesting that what, what might have been a sort of uptick in polio was the children getting DDT from eat, from drinking this milk that was in these cows that was sort of getting inside of there.

The graph that you're showing doesn't show that result, right?

Because you're saying that like it started to take off in the late 60s, they started to breastfeed again.

They started to breastfeed children again.

Well, you're looking at

a vaccine that comes out in the 50s and you see this major drop in polio before that happens.

So again, like if this is correlation that she's trying to make cause and she's doing it again and again and again.

That's interesting because the graph does actually line up with the end of DDT, like relatively closely.

DDT was kind of banned by the EPA in 72 and this graph does seem like it's starting to upwards tick in 72.

But this graph has nothing to do with polio.

Neither of those two things have anything to do with polio and the polio things don't map onto this.

It does suggest that there was something about DDT that made women want to

stop breastfeeding.

It probably wasn't that.

That's a spurious correlation.

Yeah, again, it's just a correlation there, but there is no correlation with the vaccine and the drop in polio with that graph.

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, so now this is in this is talking about doctors and money, vaccine interested doctors.

It's on the

it look there's there's a group of people called ACIP, the doctors, usually with with vaccine interests in their bank accounts that make the recommendations for the vaccines and they have recommended that that six-month-old.

So if your doctor is following the ACIP program, you have to be offered that vaccine.

And now that doctor, this is another part of the story, is that doctor is likely to lose $250,000 a year if they don't do that because there's incentive given to hospitals and doctors, which is what naively I was on the other end of when I woke up in 2008 and said, wait a minute, why are we doing this stuff to my sick, inflamed patients?

You're giving me more inflammation.

It's because the hospital would lose something like $40,000 if they didn't give a vaccine within the first 24 hours of admission.

So yeah, you're absolutely right.

This is just another example of her saying, well, doctors are all in it for the money.

And it is perfectly designed to fit into Joe's follow-the-money instincts.

Now, I don't think she's doing this cynically.

We have seen other people come on the show and recognize that if you frame things in that way, Joe will follow you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think it's that she does just believe this, and she's a fellow traveler of Joe's in the holding these beliefs sincerely.

But I do think that she's wrong, and it's also a perfectly designed argument for Joe to agree with her.

One of the things that strikes me when I hear her say this is,

I don't know exactly what she's saying when she says they're likely to lose $250,000 a year.

I don't know like what, like what entity is set to lose.

Is it the hospital?

Is it the doctor individually?

I don't know what she's saying, but it certainly feels like a lot of money for vaccines.

It feels like if you're just like, all you're doing is pushing vaccines.

And then the overhead on my vaccines is not just I have to sell the vaccines to people, but I also have to pay kickbacks to a doctor, $250,000 a year, even if that's just a hospital, right?

Are they making up $250,000 a year even in vaccines?

It just seems like such an enormous amount of money that she's suggesting is being kicked back to someone so that they look the other way or that they push these vaccines.

And it just doesn't like that, that amount of money doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'd love to see someone try to explain how that kind of money gets distributed and how that person also.

they would seem to be in on it at that point.

If they're getting that kind of, that kind of outrageous amount of money, we're talking a quarter million dollars just to tell people to get vaccines.

Hell, I'll do that for free.

Like I'll tell people to get vaccines for free.

Like everybody will do that for free.

So

for a very reasonable Patreon rate.

I mean, we're very reasonable on Patreon.

I'm cheaper than Dave Rubin.

I'll tell you that right now.

Dave Rubin and Tim Poole, they cost $400,000 an episode.

But, you know, like what, and this also goes back to what we already mentioned.

What does that say in a country with nationalized healthcare?

How is that $250,000 being distributed in the UK?

And how is that person in the UK, this doctor in the UK, getting that kickback to try to push that?

I'd like to see, again, prove that this is true other than just a doctor saying, well, I know that there was people who were getting more money because they were pushing vaccines.

All right, so now we're going to talk about how you can smuggle vitamin C.

You can be a mule for vitamin C, I guess.

If you want to sneak vitamin C into somebody's hospital room, you know the best way to do it?

Don't bring them to our vitamin C because they will stop that at the door.

You get yourself a McDonald's milkshake or a burger and you just dump that milkshake out and you put something else in there, a smoothies with some vitamin C, and they will say, off you go.

That's perfectly fine.

That's going to be great for this person, this child.

That's how you can get it in because they think that McDonald's is wonderful.

In fact, McDonald's are kind of situated proximal to a lot of hospitals and the McDonald's, Ronald McDonald houses are there and everything else.

But bring in a homeopathic or, you know, magnesium.

or vitamin C and you've got to get permission for it and go through so much red tape and a lot of time you'll be told, no, you can't give it because, oh, you'll cause balonecrosis, you'll cause diarrhea, you'll cause kidney stones, everything in the book that doesn't actually happen with vitamin C.

Yeah, again, so lots of stuff here.

I thought it's interesting, you know, if you want to try and, she says, if you want to try and sneak in vitamin C, do it in a McDonald's milkshake.

She picks McDonald's very specifically here because her argument is just that if it looks like food, they won't stop you.

But she's picking on McDonald's in particular because she wants to have this idea of, you know, big fast food, big money, corporate interest.

She's saying that McDonald's are situated near to hospitals i mean mcdonald's are situated near to everything

you're never far from mcdonald's you know she says you've got the ronald mcdonald house in hospitals i i assume that's some sort of uh uh sponsorship thing in uh hospitals but again That isn't to try and force McDonald's onto hospital patients.

It's to try and make McDonald's look more healthy.

That's just public relations and nothing more than that.

But she's saying, and they'll stop you doing that.

They'd rather you brought in a burger and a shake than vitamin C.

But of course that's true, because if you're trying to sneak in medicine and you think vitamin C is medicine and you're trying to sneak on into patients at hospitals, doctors and nurses are going to try and stop you do that because the thing that you're bringing in might interfere with the treatment they're getting, especially if it's a herbal thing that has interactions with different

drugs.

There are lots of herbal medicines that have drug-drug interactions.

So they're going to stop you trying to medicate the patient in your own way way more than they're going to stop you bringing the patient some food.

They're not going to police the amount of food that you bring in.

So her argument here is trying to make it seem sinister, but it just makes sense.

If you're a doctor, you're a nurse, you're treating a patient, you don't want someone else, some amateur coming in and trying to give them their own treatment here.

And then the fact that she's saying, and this is the first indication I think we get, maybe there's a couple of indications of the places.

She includes homeopathic.

She said, if you

bring in something like homeopathic or magnesium, and that just shows that because she's relying, she believes a homeopathy is effective, this is someone you should not trust your health with.

Never.

Homeopathy remedies contain no active ingredients.

They do not work.

They're proven not to not work.

There's no way they could work because there's nothing at all in them.

At best, they're nothing.

And at worst, they can be contaminated with things you definitely don't want in there.

Like I said earlier in the show.

So the fact that she's recommending homeopathy is a massive red flag.

Even if you were to follow her on vaccines here, you should have, your ears should prick up when she's talking about administering homeopathy as a good thing.

At the beginning, she mentions a a burger.

She's like, go get a burger.

And I'm like, well, what are you going to, are you just going to put, like, dump the burger out and put vaccine tablets on the burger, like in the bun and chew on it?

Like, what is happening?

Yeah, take out the tomato slices, put in slices of orange instead.

Yeah.

Just orange slices in there.

They, uh, they, there's, there's sort of this, this argument that that the doctors don't know what they're doing.

So when they're in the hospital, we should go in and try to do what these natural cures say, which is sneak vitamin C in, because that's going to actually fix them.

Well, one, why did you put them in the hospital in the first place if that's what's going to fix them?

Why did you take them there?

You took them there because you were afraid and you took them there because they were very sick.

And because what you do when someone is very sick is you don't sit them in a bed at home and feed them a bunch of vitamin C, you take them into someplace that works.

And then sometimes people will sneak them vitamin C.

And then while the treatments that the doctor did, those are the things that fixed them.

But they'll be like, well, I brought them vitamin C and a McDonald's shake.

And so that's what actually fixed them.

So they'll blame the thing that they did, even though there was a million things that the doctor did that probably cured them.

If they, if vitamin C really worked, they wouldn't have made it in the hospital in the first place.

So let's not pretend that that's true.

But also, this is something that happened during COVID.

I don't know if you remember this, but there was a bunch of videos of people storming into hospitals during COVID to scream about how you need to take my loved one off out of that ventilator because you're killing them.

Your process here, the process in the hospital that is, that we brought them to, that is what's killing them.

I need to take them home and give them ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or whatever the flavor of the drug, like the flavor quack drug of the week was for COVID.

They would give them that instead and say that was the thing.

But really, you know,

this is a way in which to say that the things that hospitals do are damaging.

And this is reinforcing that stuff.

Yeah, yeah, 100%.

And, you know, the reason they thought that at the time was because you are more likely to die of COVID in hospital than if you weren't in hospital.

But that's because really sick people end up in hospitals and the hospital was there to try and treat you and keep you alive.

I also, I think it's really interesting.

We haven't been able to dig into a perfect biography of Susan Humphreys, but the timeline I think is really interesting because she's talking here again about homeopathics going into hospital.

In the last cliff, she talks about she woke up to all of this in 2008.

If she started her homeopathic qualification in 2006 and completed it in 2010, that waking up of 2008 and realizing that vaccines are evil is right in the middle there.

So it really feels like that was either she was already drifting away from medicine because she wanted to learn homeopathy or whatever she was learning in her course has like crawbarred her away from the medical background that she had.

Okay, this is the last clip.

This is talking about how long human lifespan should be.

The fact of the matter is that all cancers in humanity have gone up since the inception of vaccination.

In my opinion, my educated opinion is that our lifespan should be 120 years.

And I think with the knowledge that we have and the wealth that we have on this planet, the ingenuity we have on this planet, we should be able to be touching the 120-year mark more commonly than we do.

So when vaccines started coming into humanity, we started introducing animal disease into humanity through the skin.

And then we started doing intramuscular injections after the hypodermic needle was created.

And then you started having deeper injections of animal disease and of chemicals and mercuries and things like that.

So, yeah, she said cancers, all cancers in humanity have gone up since the inception of the vaccine.

I'll go one further now.

All heart disease has gone up since the inception of the vaccine.

All strokes have gone up.

Number of strokes have gone up since the inception of the vaccine.

It turns out if you don't die from smallpox and measles when you're younger, you're going to be old enough to get cancer or heart disease or Alzheimer's or the things that you get when you're older.

So yeah, it's true, but it's not saying

what she thinks it's saying.

It's saying the exact opposite.

The vaccines aren't causing these things.

They're causing you to live long enough to get those things.

You're not dying of something else.

But she's saying, I think we should live to my educated opinion is our lifespan should be 120 years.

On what basis?

Tell me something about other than your educated opinion.

Like

you don't get to share your opinion on that.

Tell me why that.

Tell me why.

How many people who are 120 are there out there?

And she's arguing that we're less likely to live to 120 years since we invented vaccines because the vaccines are harming us.

In reality, we're more likely to live into our late 90s because we're less likely to have died as a young child from something vaccine

preventable or died at any other point in our lives from something vaccine preventable.

Yeah, I mean, like, there are unvaccinated groups of people out there.

Are they routinely living to 120?

Yeah.

I mean, we could, we could look at the way in which he's framing this argument in the opposite way and say, okay, well, let's find these communities.

Heck, we, we're talking about the Mennonites.

Those are the people who are in the news lately because of their religious beliefs in not vaccinating their children against measles, do those people routinely live to be 120 years old?

I would doubt that that's the case.

120 is a really long time for a human being to live.

That's a very rare thing that happens.

The idea that there's these massive communities out there that happen to be unvaccinated and those are the ones that are growing to be that age is just not true.

Show me the proof of that.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

All right, Marsh.

Was there anything good in this podcast?

I tried.

I really tried to find something, but this is really, really bad.

I think Susan Humphrey's view is bad.

I think there's way too much in here that's incredibly dangerous.

We didn't even get to the point where she talks about how there was another virus that was

created in a lab that now infects all of us.

And that's the reason that we all fall ill much more easily from everything it will.

SB40 or whatever.

SB40 is on us forever.

We didn't even get to that.

there's so much in here that is amongst the most harmful anti-vax rhetoric i've ever heard and what i really hope for we've seen joe at times be able be capable of offering some questions that at least probe for follow-ups and and ask for kind of uh further information and joe just doesn't do this so even by even by trying to go out of my way to find something that i think joe uh has has done well or something that's redeemable about this episode i think it's just absent and it's a real shame because this is really dangerous stuff.

Yeah.

I have nothing good to say about this.

I can't lie to you and I can't pretend it's good.

I just can't.

There's nothing good in it.

It's somebody who's saying very dangerous things.

Marsh, often you may run into people that might be vaccine hesitant, right?

And so for something good this week, could you say something to someone who's vaccine hesitant right now to help them maybe get a better opinion on what they should do about vaccines?

Yeah, okay.

So I think you're right that it is worth separating out people like Suzanne Humphreys and even Joe Rogan here who are leading this movement, who are really pushing this stuff, are proactively saying things and making claims.

Separate them from the people who are listening who might think, well, that sounds like worrying to me.

That sounds kind of scary.

Because I can totally understand the

intentions of people who are hesitant to vaccinate because you don't want to do something to your child or even to yourself that might actively cause harm.

And it's much easier to say, well, I'm not going to do the thing that's going to cause harm than I'm going to, my inaction is going to cause harm.

You don't want to be the kind of one who's proactively brought the harm on.

So I can totally understand that.

And I think the important thing to remember is that instinct to not cause harm, to try and protect, that a lot of anti-vaxxers or the vaccine hesitant rather would have.

I think it's a good instinct.

But I think it can, if you aren't pairing that with good information, it can lead that instinct to misfiring into something that can actually be harmful.

Because I agree we should protect kids.

I believe when people say, I don't want to give my son the MMR vaccine because I'm worried that it'll cause

some harmful side effects.

I believe them when they're saying they're trying to look out for their kids' best interest, they're trying to protect.

I share

that instinct to look out for someone's best interest.

I think we should be trying to do what we can to protect kids.

But I think what we need to do is set aside

that idea, just leave it aside for a moment and just look at what the evidence is actually saying.

And then we can decide what is the best way to go about protecting kids.

So

if you have concerns about vaccines, if you're hesitant about vaccines, you're not an evil person, you're not a

gullible person, you're not a kid killer.

People will say, oh, vaccine hesitants, people aren't vaccinated kids.

They're killing kids.

They don't care.

You do care.

I get that.

You care.

You absolutely care.

You're not doing harm deliberately.

But when we're not getting a good sense of what's true, when we're not following good information, we are all of us capable of doing harm accidentally.

And that's the harm we should really care about just as much as the thing that you, the harm you might bring on through your action.

So, yeah, set aside that sense for a moment.

Just take a look at what the evidence is saying and talk to lots of people, not just the people who agree with you.

And then understand that these are the best ways.

It's certainly my opinion, the opinion of the evidence, the best way to protect your kid, the best way to do that protection is to engage with the medicine rather than to say, well, I'm not going to do the thing and then

I can't have harmed him because the amount of harm that can be done from catching measles, hooping cough, all these other different things is incredibly high, unfortunately.

Yeah.

And Mark says to get information and my suggestion is don't listen to somebody

who is a doctor.

She is a doctor, right?

She is an actual MD, but she is not talking about your child specifically.

There is someone out there who can talk about all the things that are are going on with your child because they've had an opportunity to examine your child, and that's your doctor.

Okay, your doctor can make those judgments and decisions because they know your child's individual case by looking at them.

That is something that she will never be able to know about every child out there.

And so, it's always important to talk about, talk to the people who are closest to you, your family doctor, the person who's involved in that child's medical care is going to have a much more informed opinion than Dr.

Suzanne Humphreys can can ever have.

Yeah.

And I think that the last thing I'll leave you with on that thought is also bear in mind why you're hearing from Suzanne Humphreys.

Because if she agreed with all of the rest of the medical professionals in her field, she wouldn't be on Joel Rorgan.

She's on there because she disagrees.

She's on there because she is an outlier, because she has a difference of opinion.

She's on the outside of that.

So be wary when somebody stands out.

I think we've mentioned it before.

If nine out of 10 doctors recommend Colgate or recommend toothpaste, you don't say, well, that 10th guy must be onto something.

You say, well, most dentists seem to think this is a reasonable thing.

So look for things that stand out and also think about what isn't being highlighted when it stands out.

And we mentioned about the cases of kids being hospitalized for too much vitamin A, for taking too many vitamin A supplements.

If those kids were hospitalized for a vaccine side effect, Joe would be the one telling you about it.

This would be all over his show.

That would stand out.

Because this is, they're hospitalized as a result of the types of ideas that he and Susan Humphreys and Robert F.

Kenny Jr.

are spreading.

They don't tell you about that.

So think about the fact that when things are brought to your attention, they're often brought to your attention because they stand out, because they're different from what's expected.

Great point.

But actually, a lot of the time, the thing that's expected, we're not talking about it, but it's still true.

Okay, so that's it for the show this week.

Remember, you can access more than half an hour of bonus content every single week from as little as $1 per episode by subscribing at patreon.com forward slash no rogan.

You can also check this show out on YouTube.

If you've got a YouTube at no Rogan, you'll see a video of this and hopefully all future episodes.

We'll see how we get on.

If my light arrives and if my cat doesn't bother me too much during filming, we'll try and keep that up.

Meanwhile, you can hear more from Cecil at Cognitive Dissonance and Citation Needed.

And you can hear more from me at the Skeptics with a K podcast and the skeptic podcast.

Other than that, we will be back next week for a little more 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 notes, go to norogan.com.

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

Cozy up with fragrance that feels like fall and smells unforgettable.

Pura's smart, app-controlled diffusers pair with premium scents from brands like Ness New York, Capri Blue, Anthropologie, and more.

Whether you're craving spiced pumpkin, warm amber, or nostalgic woody notes, there's a scent to match every mood in every space.

Discover why Pura is the go-to for premium home fragrance.

Start your fall refresh now at Pura.com.

This NFL season, every moment counts.

And with TCL, every moment looks better.

It's the ultimate season to score powered by TCL, the official TV partner of the NFL.

And believe me, football has never looked better.

Picture this.

Kick off on a massive 75-inch TCL QD mini LED TV.

The colors explode with intensity and the motion is so smooth, you'll feel like you're standing on the sidelines.

Whether it's game-winning touchdowns, blockbuster movies, or late-night gaming marathons, TCL delivers performance performance that brings it all to life.

TCL is making it easier than ever to upgrade with savings up to 50% off select models.

From the flagship QM8K with its incredible picture and sound to the versatile QM6K, there's a TCL designed for your home.

Don't just watch the game, own it.

TCL is the official TV partner of the NFL, and football has never looked better.

Available at all major retailers, visit TCL.com for details.

TCL, the ultimate season to score.