You're Bobby Kennedy's lawyer. Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by President Trump to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS. Bobby Kennedy has a—this is just my quick summary—has a very large constituency in the United States. He's not some anonymous character. He's a guy who's been around for many, many years and has many, many fans. It's hard for his opponents, who are many in Washington, to take him on directly. They are trying to discredit him preemptively before the vote. This is my read. The latest way that they have done this is by accusing him and you of trying to limit access of Americans to the polio vaccine. The one vaccine that most people think is great. I think that's a fair summary.

I would say they accused us of trying to eliminate the polio vaccine. The New York Times headline was that it was filed to to get rid of the polio vaccine. The polio vaccine. That was the headline that everybody picked it up.

Welcome to the Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. They're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at tuckercarlson. Com. Here's the episode. You are, as we say, objectively pro-pulio in the characterization of the New York Times.

It's a classic retort. If you question anything about the safety of these products or even their efficacy or the clinical trials or the post-licer safety. The typical retort is, So you want everybody to have polio, huh?

Yeah, desperately. Kind of a life goal.

It's a product. We're just asking questions.

Oh, just asking questions is not allowed. I've been penalized for just asking questions. No questions. Okay, so that's the context for this question. What is your position on the polio vaccines? I think as you speak, you were also suggesting what Bobby Kennedy might think you are as lawyer, but you tell me.

What the New York Times did is they purposefully, knowingly misled the entire country into believing that a petition that I filed on behalf of a client, not my petition, my client's petition, not Mr. Kennedy. He was not the client. A petition I've never spoke to him about, ever, nor did my client, sought to eliminate the polio vaccine. That was the headline. Therefore, because I'm Mr. Kennedy's lawyer, in some instances, my firm has almost 80 people. We have lots of clients, including Mr. Kennedy, including many others. Because we follow this petition on behalf of a different client, nothing to do with him, that questioned one polio vaccine, by the way, and it's licensory, and only us, the children, I'll get into that. Somehow he wants to get rid of the polio vaccine, and they knew it was untrue, and they published it for the following simple reason. First of all, and if they didn't know this, they're not fit to be a high school newspaper. One, The petition only sought review, and this was a petition to the FDA, only sought review as to one of six licensed polio vaccines and only as to children. Why?

What was the basis of the petition? Which, by the way, should have been the headline. This particular polio vaccine, licensed in 1990, not the Salk vaccine, it's not the Sabin vaccine, it's not the vaccine that you You think of when you hear the polio vaccine. This vaccine was based on a novel technology. You need to grow a virus in some cultural medium. Here, they use something called Vero cells. These are chromosomally modified monkey kidney cells that are rendered immortal just like cancer cells. That means they'll grow forever just like cancer cells. And they end up as an ingredient in every single vial. The clinical trial relied upon to license this brand new, novel polio vaccine in 1990, reviewed safety for literally three days after injection. Three days. That sounds incredible. It sounds like it cannot be true. But it is on the FDA website. On behalf of my client, we foya the FDA for all the clinical trial reports for the summary basis of approval. We tortured them for years, basically saying, come on, there's got to be more than this. You license it based on three days of A safety review in the clinical trial after injection with no control group.

There's no way you could know the safety of this product before you licensed it to be injected. No control group. It was no control group.

Isn't it control group a prerequisite for a scientific experiment? Because you need a baseline, what do you compare it to?

The best you could do is compare it to the background rate, which is almost impossible, because then you'd have to figure out the background rate for that exact demographic. It essentially renders the trial useless. Us for safety. But here's the thing. Even if they had a control group, Tucker, even if they did, with three days of safety review, what are you reviewing? It takes weeks often for even any immune dysregulation caused by the product to appear, just like it takes at least many weeks for you to build up, let's say, antibodies, so the target antigen in the vial. Exactly. If you're going to have self-attacking antibodies, those take weeks as well to develop. Oftentimes, when you're giving it to a baby, this product is given at two, four, and six months. If they're going to have an immune dysregulation, if they're going to have a developmental issue, you're not going to know that for years. Asthma is not even diagnosed until a few years of age. Developmental issues take years. And so a lot of the issues that we see, I mentioned my firm's got about 40 people that just do vaccine work. We do other things, but they just do vaccine work.

And we don't represent pharmaceutical companies. So as far as I know, we have the biggest vaccine practice in the world that doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies. One of the practices we have is vaccine injury claims. We don't see pharmaceutical companies. You can't. They have immunity to liability since 1986, the only product like that. But you can't see the federal health authorities in this little program. A lot of the injuries that we see when we do that work are immune or immune-mediated neurological disorders. Those things are not going to appear until typically a few days after vaccination. This trial, going back to this polio vaccine that was the subject of this petition, it was utterly useless to determine its safety.

A couple of quick questions.

Please.

I've never heard of that. I've never heard of an experiment without a control group. In three days is obviously inadequate to judge the safety or the efficacy for that matter of a product. How did federal health regulators sign off on that?

That's an excellent question. Why would the FDA agree to license it? It's a great question. We could talk about regulatory capture. We could talk about the ideological beliefs that the folks who are involved in Ceeber, which is the biologics division of the FDA, And within that, there's an office called the OVVR. That's where the vaccines are actually... Licenses are reviewed. I've met some of the folks who've been in that department, and they're very much, I don't know if the right... I guess ID logs. They believe almost a priority in the safety of these products, even when they're experimental to such a degree that I guess they let products like this. I should tell you, if you think that- Because they believe the category of products is so virtuous that the details aren't important? I'm speculating. The important point is they did it. Why they did it? We could speculate on, but they did it.

But I do want to ask you to pause and try to solve a mystery that I've been thinking about for a long time, and I really don't understand it. What accounts for the religious attachment of certain people, particularly affluent, well-educated people, to vaccines as a category? There are a million medicines out there and prophactics, and there are all kinds of treatments for all kinds of diseases, but people take a cooler, less emotional view of them. Chemotherapy, who saves lives, but there are downsides to chemotherapy. Most people are like, We're not weighing it out. Is it worth taking chemo or not? But vaccines quickly become religious, almost immediately. Even the word has an emotional power that no other treatment or medicine does And this has been true for a long time. Why is that?

What is that? Well, I'm- Have you noticed this, by the way? Absolutely. There's an irony in the following way. Those who often don't want to receive vaccines, I find, are the ones, not always, who have taken the time to really look at the clinical trials, the post-licensure safety, to understand these products more objectively. The CDC will tell you that the people who have the highest rates of completely unvaccinated kids are ones with PhDs and are highly educated often in the sciences. So what are they learning? What are they understanding that caused them not to receive these products? And so I find the, quote, unquote, those who oppose vaccines, whatever majority of one wants to use about them.

They're the ones who believe the science.

Oftentimes, and that's just not me saying it. I mean, I'm saying that when they survey because they've tried to identify, well, who are the populations refusing these products? They find they're disproportionately highly educated. There are some folks who don't have access to care, and they just don't get it because they don't get it. But those who consciously choose, typically very highly educated. Now, to answer your question, which is, have I seen religion almost when it comes to these products? Yes, I have. But it comes from often the side of the folks who want to make you get them, force people to do it. You must believe what I believe about these products. That's right. You must submit.

How dare you ask questions.

Do not ask questions. You must just believe, and you often hear it in the following. I've never heard people say, I believe in statins.

Well, that's exactly the point.

I believe in vaccines. That's the language they use It's a language of religion. You're asking me to speculate, so I'll speculate, which I prefer, usually for not to do. But it is for a lot of people, and I found this with a lot of the vaccinologists who I've deposed and interacted But a lot of them are atheists. Maybe they were brought up in a certain religion, but they have now become atheists. I think when somebody doesn't have a religion in their life, any religion, they don't believe in God, some God ends up with an empty space that needs to be filled with something. They have to believe in something. How do you not believe in something in this life? You have to have meaning. It's got to be a really dark place to believe everything came from nothing. And if you do, I'm speculating that vaccines start holding a place of religion, that they look to it as, See, this saved us. This is what saved humanity. I think there's maybe some to a degree of that, that this notion that vaccines are... Especially those in the medical profession. I'll give you an example. I'll use the example of measles Okay.

The great killer that you'll often hear. They make you feel like everyone's going to die if you don't get measles vaccines. Well, here's the thing. Public health authorities should take credit for the decline in measles deaths in America. They should. But they should take credit in the following way. Between the year 1900, this is all on the CDC website, what I'm about to tell you, and the year 1960, '61, '62, the years before the first measles vaccine in America, 1963, the mortality rate for measles declined by over 98%. Yes, by over 98%. That is, you can just go pull up the mortality data on the CDC website. This is uncontroversial. It's just data, what I just said. Some people get emotional about it, but it's just data, what I just said.

Why would they get emotional?

For the reasons we just discussed. That decline had nothing to do with vaccines. You know how I know? There was no measles vaccine. That's how I know.

What caused that decline?

I think that in part, it's the public health authorities should take a lot of credit for that. Nutrition, sanitary. Better sanitation, clean water, getting sewage running out of the Streets. All of these things. Initatives to make sure that there's natural light. Remember all the tenement buildings? Yes. All these initiatives, even basic things like quarantine. Oh, if you're sick, not the forced stay at home stuff that we're talking about. Just if you're sick, hey, maybe you should stay at home in bed stuff. And so that declined over 98 %. You know how many people died in the few years? On average, a year before there was the first Measles vaccine in 1963, when poxs of this country were still like the developed world, around 400 Americans a year died. That's one in 500,000 Americans died of measles in the years before they were vaccine. Every death is a tragedy. And measles can still kill people just like any virus can in parts of the world that are really underdeveloped. Any virus can kill children, adults. There are still pockets of America in the early '60s that were like that. But that declining rate of mortality, it was a trajectory that was ongoing, even when the measles vaccine was introduced in '63.

Those 400 deaths which have now gone down, how much of that is attributable to measles vaccine? How much of it is to the continued efforts of public health agencies? That could be debated forever. We don't need to. But the important point is this. Long way to answer your question is this. When you listen to public health authorities today, they will say to you, measles is what caused the decline. Measles vaccine is what caused the decline in mortality. They never talk about those other things that they did. They never talk about the increased sanitation, the better, all the different effective measures that they took to get it down by 98%.

Clumuliness and sunlight.

They talk about that last 1%, but they make it seem like the vaccine which caused that last 1% of decline from 1900 or some, I shouldn't even say it caused it. You could argue it's up to one point something % was from the measles vaccine. You can't argue it's more than that in the decline. It's not possible. But they ignore that. The only thing they'll point to is say, Excuse me, measles vaccine is what saved us. That's true of most of the vaccines, actually. When you look at the number of people that died in the year before the vaccine, typically the mortality had precipitously declined. For diphtheria, for tetanus, for almost every disease declined over 80, 90 % from the year 1900, introduction of the first vaccine. And oftentimes in the year before, you were down to a dozen or two, maybe a dozen or two dozen deaths for most of these things. When you talk about religious beliefs, but yet many in the medical community, they'll say, How could you not take a vaccine? Millions in America would die. That's an incredible statistic to think millions in America would die a year if you get vaccinated.

Because if you just add up the number of deaths in the year before every vaccine that is now on the schedule, putting aside COVID vaccine because there were hundreds of thousands of deaths before the vaccine, they say. And you can argue whether the vaccine reduced mortality, though there was increased all-cause mortality afterwards. Putting aside the flu shot, which the science is clear, doesn't reduce mortality based on numerous reviews, like Cork and collaboration, which I understand now is owned by the Gates Foundation, so maybe those studies will change soon. You're at thousands of deaths, thousands total. And many of those were occurring in years long before the current acute care that we provide, the current increases in all the other factors that cause the reduction in mortality to begin with. But nonetheless, this is the only thing they want to point to is vaccines. I think that that's maybe what it is. It fills a space of they have to believe in something, and these products fill that space them because I find a lot of times you can't really have a non-emotional, objective conversation with some people about these products, and they are just products.

How do travelers stay prepared for the unexpected? Well, when you're flying the country or driving for hours crammed into crowded spaces, and yet most people don't think what they do if they got sick or someone they love got sick. Have you thought about that? Well, now it's the holidays. It's the busiest travel time of the year, and it's also flu season. Everyone's stressed, people are coughing, And if you're unlucky, you could find yourself ill in a place where you need medication. So what do you do about that? Well, thankfully, there's a solution. It's called Jace Go. Jace, J-A-S-E, Go. It's a compact kit of essential prescription medications for all of those unexpected health emergencies, for infections, food poisoning, and more. It's designed to go wherever you go. Think about that. Snow hits, pharmacies close, flights get delayed, bad things happen. If you have Jace Go, you're covered. There's no scrambling, no worrying. You can be content because you've got peace of mind. So don't wait until you're stuck without essential medications. It's specification. Is there going to be an ear infection? Probably. So go to jace. Go to jace. Com/go, J-A-S-E. Com/go. Go. Use the code Tucker to get your Jace Go with a special discount.

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

Well, my client, Informed Action Network, ICANN, has been beating on that drum now for a good eight, almost eight years with the FDA, starting with an extensive letter about all of these shortcomings in 2017. Icann was formed at the end of 2016. And you might say, well, the vaccine had been licensed for decades at that point. Why now? Well, first, ICANN was just formed then to really start looking at these things. And also, in 1986, there was something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was passed. I'm not familiar with that. And Basically, leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines in the United States. That's it. A child in the first year of life received three injections, according to the CDC schedule. Problem is that- And what were they? Dtp, OPV, and MMR.

For the layman, what are those?

One is DTP, with a diphtheria tetanus pertussis. That's one vaccine. Opv, which is oral polio vaccine. Then MMR is measles, mumps, rebella vaccine. Each of those are accounting three different vaccines on the market, three separate products.

So that was the state of play as of 1986?

That was the state of play. That's it. And they were causing so much financial losses to the manufacturers of those three products. There were many companies that made those products that all of them went out of business or stopped making them, except there was one company remaining for each of them. And they were threatening to go out of business, too. Now, Congress, in its wisdom, should have let them do what every other manufacturer does for every other product. You make a plane that falls out of the sky, make a better plane. You make a car that gas tank blows up, make a better car. You make a drug that's causing people to have all kinds of complications, make a better drug. Instead, Congress said, You know what, actually? We'll just make it so nobody can sue you for the injuries for the three products.

So these companies are going on business because of lawsuits from people who Were injured.

That's right. They were going to go. That's right. They were succumbing to incredible financial losses because of the injuries these products were causing. And so when you think about it, drugs don't have this immunity. But Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and that gave them immunity for any injuries from those three products. But not only those three products, any other routine childhood vaccine that came on the market thereafter. And so we have gone from three injections in the first year of life on the CDC schedule, those ones we just talked about, to if you look at the CDC schedule today, you get 29 injections in the first year of life. If your child gets all of the vaccines that is currently on the CDC's just in the first year of life schedule, I'm not even counting the four shots that you're supposed to get in pregnancy now, which didn't exist back in '86, and that assumes you don't get any combination vaccines. That's what you would get. That's the differential between then and now. And in that same time period, we have gone from under 13% of kids in America have a chronic health issue in the early '80s to well over 50% of kids today have a chronic health issue.

And many of those issues that have exploded are From '86 to present. From '86 to present, yes. And many of those chronic health issues amongst children that have exploded are immune-mediated conditions. So something has gone wrong with the immune system of our children. I'm not saying vaccines caused all of that rise. But what I am saying is that we do know that vaccines can cause a number of immune and immune-mediated neurological conditions, including some of the conditions that we have seen explode since the early '80s. It's obviously not the only environmental change, because something in the environment had to change between the early '80s and today to cause this dysregulation in our children's immune system to cause all this chronic disease. Was it vaccines? Was it pesticides? Is it all the new chemicals that are aligned in our food? There's a whole host of factors to look at. But when you're talking about immune system dysregulation, looking at the products that came online between 1986 and today, it's pretty critical. And so to answer your question now, you said, well, has anybody asked a question about this clinical trial for this polio vaccine? So when my client, I can, started really looking at this issue, it said, well, is Are the vaccines a contributor?

Because given a lot of vaccines in the first year of life, is that what's causing these immune system issues? Well, the place that you go to assess whether a product is safe is its clinical trial. Why? It's the one time you can determine causation, really, between a product and a claimed injury. You need a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, typically, or well-controlled trial. It's okay to use non-placebo if you have an existing standard of care that has already been established as safe in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. That process began by looking at the package inserts and the 58 documents. Well, let's look at what the clinical And that's what the whole trial data says for each of these products, not only because I can want to look at that investigation, but also when our clients call our firm and they say, hey, my kid went in totally healthy. It's baby Apgar score perfect, goes in 10 minutes after getting a shot or these shots has a grandmouth seizure bubble, has a cascade of issues. When we go to vaccine court, the program I told you about, because you can't see the manufacturer, you see the Secretary of Health and Immune Services, and if Mr. Kennedy becomes, for example, the Secretary of HHS, we'd actually be suing him, ironically.

You see the Secretary of HHS, and in a program where almost every claim, you have to prove causation. I have to prove it. I'm not an MD, I'm not a PhD. I'm a lawyer. So when I go to court about vaccines, I have to prove things with real evidence. I need good evidence. I don't get to just say stuff. I don't get to appeal to my credentials. Okay, How do I prove it? Starts with clinical trial data. Because everything after licensure is almost all retrospective epidemiological studies, and they say can never show causation. You roll into court with those, they're like, well, that's just correlation. You can't prove anything with that And by the way, it's not even like there's a mountain of that stuff. If you go to Pubmed and you wanted to research the safety of any particular child of the vaccine, you're not going to find a lot of studies. I know they said these most robustly studied products, but there's what they and there's a reality to the state of the science. So bringing this all the way back- The reality is that they're just not studied very closely. This polio vaccine is a great example, and as well as the other two petitions they took issue with in the news recently.

In this one petition, here we are, two or 20 something years later, we've got this explosion of chronic health in our children, and the Manufacturer of this product, this was a novel product at the time, the manufacturer's product, 20 something years later, still needs immunity liability? You still don't know it's safe enough to live that? Really? It's been how many years? So merit's really looking into. Look at the clinical trial. Like I said, on behalf of ICANN, we foyered the FDA for all the clinical trial reports. We sent them letters. We did everything we can to give them an opportunity to show us it's more than three days with no control, because that is not believable. Meaning, if you had said to me, you said, Aaron, come up with the most nefarious thing you can come up with about vaccines. Just go crazy. I wouldn't even dream of saying that to you because nobody would believe it. It sounds crazy, but it's right there. It is the reality. We filed a petition that I think if anybody in America read, if you didn't read the headline of the New York Times, but instead read the actual petition, you'd be like, Oh, that's very reasonable.

You license a completely novel, yes, polio vaccine based on essentially cancerous monkey kidney cells that end up as an ingredient, and you're being taken for three days after injection with no control. So the petition said, Hey, FDA, excuse me, can you require a proper clinical trial of this product, please, before it's licensed? And it was only asked to children. That's what the request was in this petition file on behalf of ICANN. Okay? So let me I'll address two things.

Wait, so that was the ask just for a clinical trial?

Before it's licensed for children. Yes. And so what we're asking now, just to understand, it's not even like I can wanted to withdraw the licensure of this one product. It's not the point. The clinical trials are done by the manufacturer. They're not done by the FDA. They're done by the manufacturer. How do we get the manufacturer to do another clinical trial that's appropriate? Well, you have to, when you file a request with the FDA on their formal docket. When Pfizer files a request on this formal docket that we use, FDA hates that we use it because it's me's only pharma companies typically use it. They're like, We'd like to license this product. We would like to change the licensure. We would like to change that company's licensure because of this. We use the same document on behalf if I can, and we filed on it, and we said, Hey, we want you to take this action, but we have to ask them to change some action the FDA took. Well, the only action they took was to license it. The valve to ask to get them to require a new trial is to say, pause or pull the licensure for this one product until there's a proper trial.

It was the legal mechanism to get another trial. The purpose wasn't to get rid of the vaccine. The purpose was to get them to do a proper trial. And in no universe, to be clear, did we ever think, my client ever think, and I ever think, that the FDA would actually to pull the licensure. We just hoped, thought, they'd say, Hey, go do a proper clinical trial. They're onto us. That thought petition was filed in 2022. It's been years. They haven't done it. I like to make this point very clear, just super clear. I really got to set this record straight. It's so important. Even if this petition was granted, there is not a single child or adult in America that would not have had access to a polio vaccine. Not one. That is what makes the New York Times headlines absolutely false. They knew it was false. They intended for the country to be received because they're trying desperately to derail Mr. Kennedy's nomination. I'll just- But hold on.

I know you don't like to speculate us to motive, but it does raise this confusing question. Why would the New York Times, A, be so opposed to Bobby Kennedy? It's a liberal newspaper. He's a lifelong liberal. Was. Kennedy was.

In their mind. Yeah. He's a classical liberal.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I would say this compliment. He believes in Civil Liberties. We all should. But why would the New York Times be willing to lie in order to keep him from getting confirmed? Why is it so important?

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

Do you remember their names?

Their names are Sheryl and Christina. I could pull it up if you'd like.

If people are interested, the first names are great.

People can find it. Yeah, they're right there on the article. But over the years, Sheryl has reached out. You never have a conversation with somebody and you're They're like, Hey, look, look at this fact right here. And they just, instead of responding it to it, they just immediately go to something else, right? Because they can't deal with that fact, so they just bring up something else. I feel like that's a sign to me of a lack of being able to really objectively evaluate the evidence in front of you. And I feel like there's an issue there. So there's ideology. And then there's also, you've to look at always got to look at somebody's financial interests. Always, right? Because it conforms their conduct, whether in one way or another, as objective as we all think we would like to believe we are, and we should all strive for it, financial interests affect us. They do. Yes, they do. And so where does New York Times get some of its financing? Is there any dollars that flow to their advertising coffers from those who want informed consent, medical freedom, or is there more dollars that flow from pharmaceutical companies?

And so that's maybe a consideration as well.

What's the answer to that question?

It's obviously more from the the medical pharmaceutical industry flows to the New York Times. I don't believe that there are many medical freedom informed consent organizations with a lot of money. I don't think that's there.

Is pharma a big advertiser?

I don't know the percentage, but I've seen ads, so I've not dug into it. I have not engaged in trying to answer the question you just asked me. You asked me to speculate, so speculated. Again, whatever their motives are, they did it. And the reason, and just to wrap up the point of why they knew it was false and why it was false, is that the petition only asked for the reevaluation as to children, which would have meant, even if the petition was granted, it would have made available for all adults in America, licensed, which would have meant it would have remained off-label use for all children. Nobody would have been deprived in America for even that one vaccine we asked about. But putting that aside, there are five other licensed vaccines for children. Polio on the CDC schedule is given a two, four, six months of age and four years of age. There are five other shots you can get at those intervals because they're given with other vaccines at those time periods. So it would have taken them two seconds of thinking to know their headline, the polio vaccine is going to be eliminated, was absolutely a lie.

I mean, Why do you think they did it?

Because I think Bobby Kennedy... Well, because some of them are vaccine zealots. I think that's right. I've certainly seen a lot of that. But I also think there's something about the way he assesses facts and history that's terrifying to a certain person who's very vested in the current system, who's a rigid dogmatic thinker. A lot of them are. A lot of the dumber people are rigid and dogmatic, in case you haven't noticed. It's a sign of mediocrity, in my opinion, but it's very common in our professional class. Bobby, like Trump, is the person who assesses things on the basis of what he sees and doesn't necessarily genuflect before the pieties that all of us have to or are required to, whatever we're supposed to say. He doesn't necessarily go along with that. That is incredibly threatening. Once you start asking questions, are these products safe? You might wind up asking other questions like, why do we have NATO? Or how was John F. Kennedy murdered? What was that? People who ask uncomfortable questions in one area are likely to ask uncomfortable questions in other areas. If your entire system is built on why, Otherwise, that's a huge threat.

That's my personal view.

I'll build on that then, which is when you look at the last 40 years, who has been one of the big supporters in many ways of what's occurred? A lot of times you'll see the New York Times supportive of what the HSH administration has been doing over the last 40 years. And where's that gotten us over the last 40 years? Let's think about this for a second. So under a current approach that's been going on, which Bobby stands in opposition to in many ways, and I'm not talking about just vaccines. I'm talking about the way business is done across health. Exactly. I'm not talking about just vaccines right now. When you look over the last 40 years, we've already talked about child chronic health gone exploding, which is suffering on a microscale. Each one of these families that has a kid with a chronic health issue, it's devastating. When we have families with a vaccine-injured kid, it's a devastating event. But then there's also the macro issue, too, which is we got $35 trillion in debt. We have almost $2 trillion a year that we can't cover of what we spend in this country. We're bringing in 4.something trillion in revenue.

And just one agency, CMS, that does Medicare, Medicaid, is almost $1.7 trillion of our $6 trillion budget. And when you look at the growth curve of that agency alone, it's just skyrocketing. If a few countries stop using our dollars or national reserve currency, we could be in a death spiral. I mean, this is how empires fail. And what is driving a massive component of our national debt, it's health care spending. And it's going to rise and it's going to increase. And really, Congress, unfortunately, has in many ways rigged the rules for Medicaid and Medicaid. So it's really hard to reduce the total spend other than getting people healthier. And that is what Bobby wants. That's all he's focused on. He has no interests that extend my experience with him beyond that. He is genuinely committed to helping people and saving people. And I think you're right. He stands against what has brought us to this place. And in many ways, I guess you're right in that if he's right, if there are a whole host of things that our health agencies have been doing or ignoring or not properly studying, and I'm talking about everything right now, it would show at the New York Times and all of these papers have not been doing their job.

It was five years ago this month that people started to drop dead in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Five years since the beginning of COVID, tens of millions dead. Sociities reordered completely. Economy is destroyed. And yet for some reason, we still don't know answers to the most basic questions. Where did this virus come from? How did it get here? Why did the government tell us to do things they knew wouldn't work? None of those questions have been adequately answered. And one man knows those answers. His name is Dr. Tony Fauci. Until now, nobody has really pressed. And now a documentary filmmaker called Jennifer First is out with a new film explaining exactly what happened. The film is called Thank You, Dr. Fauci. Jennifer spent years trying to get answers. And in that time, as he waited Dr. Fauci's response, he went through tens of thousands of pages of documents and pieced together the story, which is shocking. We are proud to host that documentary here on TCN from December 20th to January 19th. You will see it exclusively here on TCN. Again, it's called Thank You, Dr. Fauci, and it's worth it. So just to just to tie a bow in the New York Times story element of this conversation, they made the claim that you and Bobby Kennedy are a pro polio.

What other claims did they make?

They also said we were trying to get rid of HEPP vaccines, and then they pointed to a yet another petition that I could talk about. Because, again, the petition, what we filed with regards to HEPP vaccines, and again, only with regards to two of them, there are others. So there were not about all HEPP vaccines. Again, it was filed on behalf of our client, I can. Not on behalf of Mr. Kennedy. He knew nothing about it. He had nothing to do with it. So the association with him is totally false. And it would have left Americans without access to HEPP vaccines. So that was false, too. What did the petition actually ask for? Well, let me tell you, because that's what should have been the headline. The headline should have been the following in the New York Times. Fda licenses HEPP vaccines for infants and toddlers based on clinical trial with five days or less of safety monitoring after injection and no control group. That should have been the headline. That is patently insufficient to determine safety. I think anybody that reads the petition that was involved with the FDA would find it eminently reasonable because it doesn't just say, you did this.

It starts with, in 2017, we said to you, how could you do this? You didn't really do this. Give us documents. Then they gave us an answer, and they didn't provide anything of substance. Then we did it again on behalf of ICANN, and we foyed them. Then we sued them. On behalf of ICANN, we did this for years, and then we finally brought the petition, again, saying, come on, you got to require a proper clinical trial. Again, these were two vaccines also came online during that period between 1986 and now that were part of the explosion of chronic health condition. Let's make sure they're really safe in the way to do that as a proper clinical trial. The New York Times also accused us of wanting to get rid of a bunch of other vaccines, because there was a third petition that was followed with the FDA, again, after a lot of back and forth. And that petition, I think most people, again, would find eminently reasonable. That petition was based on a peer-reviewed study that came out by the world's leading aluminum expert and four of his colleagues. And what did this paper find in this peer-reviewed journal?

It found that amongst 10 child COVID vaccines, there was far more aluminum adjuvant in the vial or far less in the vial than what was on the FDA label for those vaccines. So you got a label, the FDA-approved label, It says it's got 0.5, let's say, micrograms, but the finding was that it had double maybe inside of it. That's a serious concern. Aluminum adjuvants are neuro and cytotoxic. They're what you use to induce autoimmunity in lab animals. They're not like candy. If I just injected you with just dead pieces of proteins from pertussis bacteria, your body would probably, your macrophages, your dendritic cells will probably just gobble it up and throw it away as garbage because To have a real immune reaction, you have to have cellular death. You have to have cellular death. And how do bacteria cause cellular death? They're replicating and killing cells. Viruses are taking over cells. But if you have just dead pieces of protein in the vial, it's not going to do much. So they include aluminum adjuvants. Aluminum is bound to silica acid in the ground. Humans did not come into contact ever with aluminum throughout all human history, for the most part, until not long ago in the scale of human history, we started or mining it and separating it from silica acid.

Most metals that you come into contact with the environment have a human function like iron, right? Magnesium. Your body has some mechanism it uses it for. Aluminum has no biological function in your body. Zero. That's why when you have an aluminum can, you know how it can survive forever. And bacteria and virus don't grow because it's toxic to life. People think of aluminum as if it's ubiquitous because it's now ubiquitous. But Aluminum adjuvant having too much or too little is problematic. The aluminum that you ingest is usually an ionic form. In the periodic table of elements, it's like tiny, tiny, tiny piece of aluminum. If this cup was an ion of aluminum that you ingested, which wouldn't cross the blood-brain barrier, which your body could use its pathways to get rid of, a piece of aluminum adjuvant would be like the size of this whole city we're sitting in. On the microscale, it's massive. So it gets injected into your arm with the vaccine. It's in the vial to cause cellular death at the injection site. So that your blood neutrophils come pouring at and you have that inflammation that you see when you have an infection, it gets red.

And that's your immune system working. And those aluminum adjuvants are bound to the antigens. So when your macrophages and Dyraccell, those are immune system cells, take them and go to your lymph nodes to create antibodies, adaptive immunity. After they're done doing that, where does the aluminum management go? Well, let me tell you, the CDC and others have done studies where they inject aluminum management into animals and then they sacrifice them. They mark the aluminum management with a fluorescent so they could see where is it afterwards and they can shine it on the animal. It ends up all their organs, their brain, their lungs, their heart everywhere. So that's not good. Having that material deposited is not good. So you don't want too much of it in a vial. I'm not saying what harm. I'm just saying you don't want too much. And you don't want too little because that presents efficacy issues and even safety issues. So the petition, all it asked for, and those might have been too much detail a lot of aluminum. But the petition, all it asked for is said, Hey, FDA, and if you read it, the ask was this, please confirm, please provide documents that confirm that the amount of aluminum management in the vial of these 10 child of vaccines matches what's on the product label.

If you can't and you don't have that documentation and you can't show, then pause distribution until you do, because that's a serious safety issue and efficacy issue. You're giving kids vaccines that might have safety concerns, like a shot in the dark in many ways, and also may not even be efficacious, may not even produce the immunity you're looking for. That petition was filed years and years and years ago, and still they have not confirmed it one way or another. Again, the point of these petitions was not to actually stop the distribution of these vaccines. Icann didn't want to do that. It just wanted them to do proper safety studies. That's really it. The legal mechanism was to say, pause it so that they then would require the science. Otherwise, there's no legal mechanism to get the FDA to do the things it should have been doing. I would like to think we could all agree that when you go to the store and you get a box of Captain Crunch cereal and you read the ingredients, what's on the ingredient should match what's in the box.

Right. In the case of the third petition, it wasn't just that you showed the safety testing was inadequate. There was evidence of an actual problem. The ingredients didn't match the label.

Absolutely. Right. By the world's leading aluminum scientist. That's right. But the headline wasn't FDA shirks its duties to assure product safety. Fda, no, it was Because by implication, Mr. Kennedy wants to ban vaccines, which is complete and utter nonsense.

The purpose of this piece was obviously not to report the news or tell the truth or get to the heart of anything. It was to stop Bobby Kennedy's nomination at the confirmation stage. Has it been effective?

Well, that is why I'm on your show to make sure everybody understands that the New York Times deceived this entire country about what's in those petitions, it deceived the country about their connection to Mr. Kennedy. It's nothing to do with him. I do not think, thankfully, because of folks who are willing to actually cover the truth. Thank goodness there is media that's willing to cover the truth about this. I don't think it will hurt him. But if we were 15 years ago and there was no alternative media, as it's called, and the New York Times ran the story and everybody else picked it up, Who would I talk to to tell the truth? Who could I go on? Who would I be speaking with? I'd be in my office just talking to the wall. I'm very thankful that there are those, and I'm thankful to the... The alternative media that's hosting me, as well as others who have hosted me. Fox put me on to talk about this. Chris Cuomo had me on to his credit to talk about the Sun News Nation. The Wall Street Journal just published an op-ed. To their credit, their rivals in the New York Times, I don't know.

So maybe that helped, as my understanding. And it was an op-ed. It wasn't a piece, but fine. So my hope is that no, I don't think it's going to hurt him because I like to hope and think the senators will look at the actual facts at the end of the day on this, and they'll realize it just wasn't true what was in this article. There's just no truth. There's just no truth to the claim that he wants security of vaccines. He just wants transparency, and he wants good science, and we should all want that.

I want to ask a specific question that's bothered me for a long time. So 1986, Congress grants blanket immunity to the vaccine manufacturers. They cannot be sued. Those are not the only products people sue over, of course. The trial bar, which was famously the most powerful, along with the teachers union, the most powerful single constituency in the Democratic Party because it gave them the most money. They've lobbied make it easy to sue over anything. Ob/gyn is going to business because they get sued. Why haven't they complained about this?

It's a great question. I mean that. I just think that there aren't many plaintiffs firms that have made a line of business in it. So it's not like they had this line of cases in business suing on vaccine injuries, and now you've taken it away. I mean, there were a few doing it, obviously, back in the early '80s. But I think you're talking about in the decades since, why hasn't the trial bar done this? Maybe it's a blend of ideology, and it's also none of the big plaintiffs' side firms have a vaccine injury practice. The ones that do have gotten used to maybe the existing system.

But it's just weird. I mean, sue over talcum powder, asbestos, Pesas, tobacco, slip and falls, you name it, playground equipment manufacturers, the rest of the medical establishment gets sued constantly. But nobody thinks, Well, wait, everyone knows there are a lot of in injuries. That's not a controversial point. It's known. No lawyer thought, Well, wait a second. We need to lobby to change this law because we could save people and make a ton of money. I just think it's very strange.

That Well, you ask me a lot of questions that are complex and require a lot of speculation. But maybe part of it is that you said the trial bar has a lot of lobbyists and influence. Yeah, they do. But Pharma and health, the healthcare industry has, my understanding, over 2,000 lobbyists. My understanding is they have the most lobbyists of any industry out there. Double, is my understanding in terms of dollars. Don't You can quote me on this one, but you should look it up. I think last I heard, and this should be verified, double the next in line, which I thought was like oil and gas industry. I don't know where trial lawyers stand in that thing, but I suspect those who would benefit from keeping that immunity probably have far more influence, and that's probably why it stays in place.

It's just very strange because all of us, well, thanks to propaganda from organized lawyer lobbies, have been told from birth that the civil law keeps us safe. If you make a crappy product, if, again, as you said, if your gas tank blows up, some lawyer is going to sue the car manufacturer and you'll get a safer car.

That is how product safety works. When you look at countries that don't have basically market-based systems, how do their products get safer? They didn't. Go look back at other countries in that way. The way that products get safer is the companies' economic interest, which is a good thing, meaning their economic interest aligns with safety. I make a car, I make a drug, I want to make sure that it's as safe as I can make it so that I can still make money when I sell it and not face exposure downstream that will make me end up with a loss.

Well, I'm glad you said drug, too, because this immunity applies only to vaccines. There are lots of drugs out there. That's right. All of them have side effects. Some of the side effects are scary as hell, but they're still on the market.

And they're given to only very small groups of people. So you have drugs given to small groups of people, like you said, can go sidebar, and they can survive. But a product that you give to millions, often by coercion, by school mandates every single year, promoted by the A real government, you can't make a profit on. You don't have to pay a marketing budget because the government does it for you. You don't have to worry about selling it, promoting it because they're mandating it to go to school. Millions have to take it. You're breaking in billions a year, and you still can't turn a profit without the immunity. It's a very troubling reality. It's part of the reason that drove that petition. I'm going to put this into- How profitable, just to clarify something you said, how profitable are vaccines? The vaccine industry profits to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

So it is a legitimate profit center for the pharma company?

Oh, absolutely. Oh, my goodness. And since the early '80s, it is becoming an increasingly large percentage of their portfolio, in particular for Sanofi, Merck, GlaxoSmith Klein and Pfizer. Those four in particular make most of the childhood vaccines and vaccines in America. And their portfolio, their percentage of portfolio has been increasing because imagine I came to you and I said, hey, Tucker, I got a business idea for you. Okay, you ready? You want to hear it? Listen, what we're going to do. We're going to put out this product. Okay, what is it? Don't worry about it. But we inject into people. Well, why would people take it? Well, the government's going to mandate it. Okay, great. Well, is it safe? Don't worry about it because they're going to give us some unity. Well, I mean, What if people start tagging us in the media? Don't worry. The federal government is also going to promote it for us as well as all 50 health agencies. You'd be like, well, let me get this straight. Guaranteed market, immunity to liability. It's a no-brainer. So obviously, yes, vaccines have increased.

Why did the '86 law, passed as a public service in the name of public health, why did it allow vaccine manufacturers to profit? You get It's an immunity shield, but you're not allowed to get rich off it. That seems fair.

Well, what they did was that they left the financial incentive to make more vaccines, but they didn't leave the financial incentive that makes them make more vaccines that are safe. Exactly. So what they did is they took away the one true way you assure product safety. And to be clear, there is no other product on the market that's like this. And let me draw this into sharp contrast for you. Pfizer, according to Money Inks, top five selling drugs. When you look at that list. Four of them are drugs, one's a vaccine, not including COVID vaccine. Embril, Eliquis, and so forth. If you go to the FDA website, everybody should do this. I actually have a chart on this on my Twitter feed. You can see what was the clinical trial relied upon to license those four drugs, the top five selling Pfizer products. Most of those clinical trials relied upon to license products were multi-year placebo-controlled trials. Why would Pfizer Why would Pfizer do that? Why would Pfizer do that with those products? But when you look at vaccine products, and again, this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling you, it's right there on the FDA website.

Most childhood vaccines are licensed based on days or weeks of safety review after injection. Virtually never a placebo control group, ever, or sometimes no control or a control that makes no sense, and often underpowered, meaning you don't have enough kids in it to really assess if there's even an issue. Why would Pfizer have a multi-year placebo control trial for its drugs? But all these vaccines are put out with just ridiculous, like this polio vaccine we talked about. It's because Pfizer wants to know whether or not those drugs are going to cause harm after they're licensed. Because if it does, they're on the hook. They don't want to end up upside down financially. They don't want to lose money on those drugs. Before it goes on the market, they make sure they want those trials. You asked me before about the FDA, forget the FDA. That's what economic interest does. It conforms the conduct of the company to assure safety, and that's a great thing. That's part of why our market system works well with regards to product safety. People talk about the lawsuit Yeah, the lawsuits are there, but it's not the lawsuits that make them safe.

It's the fact that they want to make money, and most of safety happens before the lawsuit. It happens before the product even goes to market. The company cares, they test it, they evaluate it. They don't want to face the liability and be upside down. But when it comes to vaccines, they don't have that interest. When you look at most lawsuits that big companies face, the board members face, the officers face, oftentimes because they cause a financial loss. You ever hear of a lawsuit of securities class action because a company was immoral, was unethical? No. It's because they lost money. It's because they didn't do things to maximize money in many ways. And so that's what conforms, that's what drives corporate conduct, drives the companies to make decisions about what they're going to do. And you have a company that's making a product, when they make the drug, their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to make sure they test that properly. But their fiduciary duty to their shareholders when it comes to the vaccines is to test them as little as possible, because if they do test them and they find a problem, then they can't make money from it.

They might not get to market. They would actually be in some ways, forget ethics and morality. They would in many ways violate their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to test the vaccine too much. If they know too much. If they know too much, then it won't get licensed. It's a perversion of it. And then after, not only did they gut the economic interest, there is one other way you assure product safety. It's a far weaker way. It's not very good, but it's there, and that's regulators. They have a role to play. They have a role to play. But the regulators here are completely conflicted because HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, is the Department of the Federal Government in which you have the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, all of the health agencies. It is responsible for promoting vaccines. It's responsible for the safety of vaccines and promoting vaccines. Those are in conflict. For example- You think? For example, the Department of Transportation is responsible for promoting transportation. They go to the airlines and they say, Hey, make more planes, get more planes in the sky, have more airports, and so forth. But who's responsible for safety if there's a crash?

The NTSB, a completely different agency. You separate them. It's hard for me to shake your hand with the industry, I'm the government. I say, Hey, make more planes, and at the same time slap you and say, Hey, you're out of... It's hard to do the same role, so you separate. Or the Department of Energy is responsible for promoting nuclear power in America. But there's an atomic energy, the nuclear regulatory age, excuse me. Yeah, thank you. It was responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants. They completely separate this function with vaccines. They're not separated. And a Additionally, not only do they not separate those absolutely diametrically opposed duties, you cannot have the same department response for both. One will win out. More than that, remember what I told you earlier, the 1986 Act that I referenced did create create a very narrow path for some compensation if you're vaccine injured. But you sue the Department of Health and Human Services, the Secretary. You are suing the very same federal health department that is responsible for safety. And they're represented by a little law firm called the Department of Justice. You might have heard of them.

So you're fighting against the Department of Justice in this program where there's no discovery. Let's put that aside. The important point is this. It is the only product that I know of where the government defends the product and the industry and the companies against the consumer and the citizens. And that creates an incredible conflict. So if they do any study, Tucker, think about it. If they do a study that shows this vaccine causes asthma or causes an increase in some serious issue, what are the few lawyers that engage with vaccine injuries? What are they going to do? Is an admission against interest. They're going to use those studies, those science, to get liability against who? The federal government for those vaccine injuries. It's an incredible conflict.

If I bring suit against the secretary of HHS on behalf of someone who's vaccine injured and I win, where does the money come from?

So There is a tax. Seventy-five cents is paid for every vaccine dose, and that goes into a fund. That fund has about $3 billion right now. It's paid out, I think, over $4 billion to date with a cap of $250,000 in pain and suffering and a cap of $250,000 for death claims. It comes out of that. It's called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.

So the manufacturers are not on the hook for it.

They still are not on the hook for it. No.

The system is even more grotesque than you describe, there's a product made by a publicly traded company, a private company, non-government. The government requires its citizens to buy the product, the The manufacturer product cannot be sued if the product is faulty. If someone's injured, they have to fight the government to get paid. When they do get paid, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay.

Right. Well, and I'll add to it in that when you sue the government, it's not like you get an Article 3 judge. Article 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution. Article 3 created the judiciary. There are judges that are nominated and confirmed by the Senate. You don't get an Article III judge. You get something called the special master this program, which is, I will submit, is in many ways policy-driven. So there are things that will compensate. There are things that won't... They don't want to compensate dead babies, basically, almost on a policy basis. Okay? There are things- Why? Well, people won't vaccinate.

Come on.

Ideology around these products is very strong. That I don't joke about. People are very ideological around this product. They believe without vaccines, everyone will die. I mean, that's the typical retort. Oh, you want a proper clinical trial? Everyone will die in your polio. Oh, you filed a petition on a novel polio vaccine from 1990, and that would have left nobody without a polio vaccine, even if granted, that just ask for a proper clinical trial. Oh, you want everybody to get polio and die. You just saw it happen. It's your own eyes.

But you could be for vaccines. I'm not sure I am, but you could be, many people are, I always have have been, and still demand good vaccines. I'm for cars. I think it's fair to expect they're not going to blow up. It doesn't even make sense.

I don't understand what that means, by the way, to be pro for or against vaccines or pro or anti-vaccines. I mean, I'm not for or against cars. I'm not pro or anti cars. Cars have a purpose. They have a function. Sometimes I want to use them, sometimes I don't. If you want to park it in my bedroom, I don't want it. It's just a product. And this is the problem. This is what I'm talking about, is that they're just a product. They're a product. They were not given to Moses at Sinai. They're a product made by companies. The problem is that people just can't talk about them objectively. It's a problem, and it feeds into. So you said, I think that this program in the federal government, they also are part and parcel of the overall... Let me put it this way. Agencies set policy. The CDC is not a science organization. It's a political organization. What do political organizations do? They set policies, and then they subscribe and they follow them. Exactly. Okay, so the CDC, for example, I'll give you a great example. There's something called the MMWR. It's what they call their scientific publication.

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

How's that science?

It's not science. It's the perversion of science. I've written about this, I've substacked about it, I've tweeted about it, but I don't have your platform. But it's the perversion of science. But that is the reality of the MMWR. I'll give you an example of how this plays out in the lives of everyday Americans. Do you remember the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when the vaccines first came out, the COVID-19 vaccines, and the CDC came out with all this guidance about how national Neutral immunity is useless. It's worthless. You got to get the vaccine no matter what. Their guidance to the public and the states around this country, luckily not all of them, followed it, and they said, Okay, if you've been vaccinated, you're allowed to have your civil and individual rights. You've had COVID, you're not allowed to have your civil and individual rights. How did they get to that conclusion? There were, at that point, numerous peer-reviewed studies around the world with millions of people in them that showed natural immunity was more protective than vaccine immunity. But what did the CDC do? They went and they did this 300 person, basically case control, retrospective nonsense of a study.

We could do a whole show on that one study. We could pull it up and you and I could sit here and we could read it and you could spend your all day reading it. And I promise you would never understand the study design because it is the most convoluted nonsense to It achieved the result they wanted. But it achieved the result they wanted. If that study, which showed what they wanted it to show regarding natural immunity versus vaccine immunity, they relied on that one study in the MMWR, I shouldn't even call love to study in their newsletter to deprive people with natural immunity of their civil individual rights, ignoring all the other science. So yes, it is the perversion of science, but it has real life consequences. And I just gave you a real life example of it. On behalf of ICANN, by the way, and others, I actually wrote the CDC, my firm wrote the CDC a letter. We put all these studies, and I could provide these. You could make these available. They're such great letters. I wish everybody in America read them. We laid out all the science, all of them showing natural immunity is at least as efficacious as vaccine immunity.

Can you please give these people their rights? Civil individual rights, freedom. They wrote back with that one study, that one study that I just told you about. We wrote back another letter saying, this study is total garbage. We explained why it's garbage. As I told you, one of the things that I do is I depose vaccinologists. It's part of what I do, and infectious disease doctors and immunologist. I have to learn epidemiologies statistics, vaccinology, immunology. That's part of what deposing experts requires you to do. Again, I don't have any degrees, but I have to learn this stuff. I can tell you that that study design, it categorically is designed to reach the conclusion that they wanted. Because it's a clearance process, I describe, if something had shown a different result, it just wouldn't have made it through. So yes, it is the perversion of science. Going all the way back to your actual question now, CDC is a policy entity, HHS is a policy entity. Hhs is a policy entity. To your point, why wouldn't the Vaccine Needs Recompensation program compensate? Now, finally, I'm going to answer your question. That was a long road to get there because it's a policy organization.

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

How did you get involved in this area? You graduate law school. You went to Berkeley?

I went to Berkeley for law school, yes.

What did you plan on doing when you graduated? How did you end up here?

Well, after law school, I clerked for the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for a year after law school. After that, I worked for Latham & Watkins, which is one of the biggest firms in the world for six years, doing bet the company litigation, multi-billion dollar disputes. Then I left there and started my own practice. I wasn't home enough. I wanted to see my kids more and my wife more. So my own practice. And I continued to do commercial litigation, actually. That's what I kept doing. But instead of doing multi-billion dollar cases, we would do a few million dollars or a few hundred million dollars A few hundred million dollar cases. There are some cases, for example, that, for example, Latham would have or a big firm would have, and they're doing a giant bankruptcy, and they can't do a litigation. They can't do the litigation because it conflicts with the bank, They don't want a different big firm to do that litigation because they might steal a client. So I would get some of those cases that would kick off to our firm because they trusted us to do good work. So we would do some of those cases This is for behalf of publicly traded and large corporations.

So I did that for a few years. And then in terms of legally, how I got involved, there was a law in California Last, the bill number was called SP 277 in 2014. And what it did was eliminate nonmedical exemptions for children to attend school. So all these kids, tens of thousands of children were thrown out of school in California because their parents may made the medical decision. Like I said before, these are often the folks who I find are most informed about these products, sometimes more informed than many of the pediatricians I depose about these products. I was in New York at the time, and they- Who pushed that proposition? Senator Richard Pan, who's no longer there, and Senator Richard Pan and Allen were the two members of the California legislature who drove that bill through. I mean, if you look back and see- Did pharma back it?

Hard to know.

I mean, it's But it happened. And so they started... Some schools in New York started kicking kids out of school, just even-In California. In New York, actually, even though they didn't need to. I was in New York at the time, so I brought some suits to help those kids get back to school so they can get back in. I got injunctions and got them back into... It was typically private schools that were starting. You decided they don't want to have any of the kids who had religious exemptions. New York State allowed religious exemptions at the time. And here's the faithful moment. The city of New York required a flu shot for preschoolers. And so my wife was also an attorney and partner at our firm, said, Hey, can we challenge that? And I looked at it and I said, and after looking at it saying, Yeah, we could because it was not passable legislature. It was passable Department of Health. They don't have the authority to do it. So we could just challenge it on separation of power grounds. And she's like, okay, great. Do it. And I said, Whoa, wait a second. I said, we have clients who are public trading companies.

I said, if I prevail, if we prevail and we strike this down, you understand this will make headlines I do not think our clients would like that. I won't use the word she used because I don't know if it's appropriate for the show, but she basically said, bring the suit. And that was the end of discussion, and I did. Good for her. Absolutely. My wife's incredible. She is the North Star to what is right and good.

You have to have that if you're going to do a job like yours.

Yeah. She does not compromise on what's right for anything. And so I did. I did win in the trial court level, I got the injunction and made national news, and as expected. Soit's expected what? As expected, our commercial lid practice contracted.

Really?

Absolutely.

People didn't want your services as a lawyer because you had challenged a flu vaccine mandate.

It just doesn't accord, I with what big Fortune 500 companies would... I don't think it fits well into their portfolio of lawyers that they would use for what they do.

You're very diplomatic because that's grotesque.

I'm not accusing all of them. I'm just- Lawyers at big firms defend pro bono death row inmates who have murdered people, raped children.

I mean, and that's fine. You know what I mean? But you can't defend the rights of parents to educate their children? It's crazy.

There is a very strong ideology around these products. Again, I stress their products. We started doing more of that work, and there's a lot more to that story, but I don't know if it's... I don't know It could go on forever.

How did your views... So you didn't expect this, your life to take this turn, it sounds like.

I will tell you that... Oh, no. If you asked me 10 years ago, I'd be doing this, that the New York Times run a headline that I I want to basically take away the polio vaccine and give everybody polio again. And senators would say, Fire that lawyer, Mr. Kennedy. No, I would not expect to be in the spot, nor did I expect to ever do vaccine work. Did you have views on this subject? When I was in law school? No. I wouldn't know the first thing about a vaccine. I will tell you the very first time I ever looked at this topic a long time ago, I was sent some material. I was actually still late to Milwaukee at the time. Like I said, a lot of it was medical. I didn't know anything about immunology or vaccinology or infection. I didn't know any of this medical stuff. No I had no idea what I was reading. But then I read about the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986, and I was like, I remember. I just was like, what? Because I don't understand medicine. I didn't understand that stuff. But, oh, I understood corporate conduct.

And I understood fiduciary duties. I understood conflicts of interest. I understood what drove corporations. I represented them in really important critical litig. I understood those things very well. And I remember it was late at night in my office when I read this. I remember being up there in the Lipstick building in Manhattan. And I was dumbfounded when I saw that law. I couldn't believe it. I I just didn't understand it because I remember thinking like, this is the product they tell you is perfectly safe and it's given to babies. And you can't see the manufacturers for injury. I found that to be immediately troubling.

So you didn't know that?

No, I did not know that until I read it. I didn't know that until I read it.

I think a lot of people don't know that.

I can tell you they don't know that because obviously, because of the work I do. I mean, people all the time in this area and they don't know that. And sadly, they They don't know it until they do know it. And often they know it after they have some personal experience. Most of the folks around the country who do know it are the folks who have been negatively impacted by these products in one way or another. They know it. They know about the law, they know about the science, they know about these things. Because when your kid's impacted or you're impacted by a product, you research it. You know about it. And until you don't, you don't. And I'll say one other thing about that, just because I know a lot of people always say to me, well, if there were vaccines caused a lot of injury or they caused injury, I would know it. And I always say to them, do you know which drugs caused which injuries? Of course you don't. Even though they come off the market all the time. Vaccines won't because you can't see the manufacturers. But drugs do. And do you know which drugs are coming off the market?

Do you know what injuries are causing? No. Why would you know? That's right. Why would you know? Why would you know that vaccines cause injury? It's always funny to me. People assume that. I would know. You wouldn't know. You know who would know? I'll tell you would know. It's the firms that accumulate cases for people who are injured. You know who knows that a particular drug is causing harm first? It's the plaintiff's lawyers. There are a lot of things you could say about plaintiff's lawyers. But the one thing is that they know because they're getting phone calls. Hey, I took this drug. Exactly. And they get another call and they get another and they're like, oh, a pattern emergence. They're the ones who typically know it. And they start accumulating the cases. Just like we've got I mean, for vaccines, we have, that's what we get called for. We have endless cases. For COVID vaccines, I mean, we basically had to... Our entire phone system is basically, if you're injured by a COVID vaccine, press one and you get instructions to go to our website and just fill a form because there's pretty much nothing we can do for you.

Because not only do they have immunity, essentially under the 1986 Act, they have for COVID vaccines a completely another level of immunity called Prep Act immunity. You can't see those manufacturers for... You can't even go to the VAACP, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for COVID vaccine injuries. Seriously? Yes. You can't even go to that program, Even as limiting as that program is, you have to go to something called the CICP, the counter injuries compensation program, which we have two federal lawsuits right now. We're suing to strike those programs down as unconstitutional because it's the most ridiculous system you've ever... Court program you've ever heard of. Who are you finding a claim with? You don't really know. Who's reviewing it? You don't know. Who's their experts? You don't know. What's their basing on? You don't know. It's a complete black hole. There's no due process There's no hearing. You can't confront the people that are going to use to evaluate it. You don't know who the trier of fact is. You don't know who the trier of laws are. You don't know anything. All you do is you submit a piece of paper and then you get it someday when, you don't know, you only have one year to file some response, and the whole program only has about $7 million, and most of it goes to pay the staff, so we can't compensate anybody.

It's a ridiculous program.

When I sued- This is a product of the Prep Act?

It's a product of the Prep Act. I sued to render the program unconstitutional on procedural due process. I said, if this program, the government doesn't have to afford you a remedy, but if I say to you, hey, they can have zoning laws. I said, but I said, But you can have a variance in your house. Yeah. I give you process for that. They can't make it unfair. It can't give you a variance, and I don't give that guy a variance. It's got to be fair. So if there's going to be a process, it has to conform a due process. This thing is the most procedurally defunct program ever. I got a call from a reporter. I forgot which paper National paper after I filed the lawsuit. And they said, Why are you following the suit? I said, here, let me explain it to you in layman terms. If you're injured by a COVID vaccine, fill out a piece of paper. It doesn't matter what you write on it. Use crayons. Go to your All right, take a hole. Bury the paper in the hole, cover it up with dirt. Now I want you to water it, make sure it gets a lot of sun, and just wait for it to grow compensation.

I said, That. I literally told that to a reporter. I don't think she kept talking to me. But that is what I would describe the program as.

What has this done to your personal life? People you know, your family, your friends, your law school classmates, what did people think of what you're doing?

Well, it matters how much you know about this, and it matters how much you understand what I'm actually doing. Are you looking at what the New York Times is saying I'm doing? Or are you looking at what I'm actually doing? Of course. Of course, again, to be clear, I'm an attorney. I just ask questions in many ways, like you. I ask questions, I bring suits, I'm looking for answers, I'm looking for truth. I don't really have any emotional attachment to these products like some people do. And I don't have a need for a prior assumptions. The data, the science, the studies, they are what they are. It really just depends who. I think some people- The attitude you just described, which I think is rational and science-based and admirable, by the way, is not shared by a lot of people.

You said that there was a cost to your business when you started representing these clients. Was there a cost to your friendships? I guess that's what I'm asking.

I would say that was there a cost to my friendships Well, not friends that you'd want to keep, I guess. Absolutely. So, yes, I would say it absolutely has come with, I guess, you would say a cost. And communally, certainly back in New York, and But it also comes with amazing rewards because there's a community of people who really need help, and they really need support. I'll tell you one more story that I think It drives us home. So New York City, there were cases of measles in New York City. Remember that back in 2000, a number of years ago, okay? In which nobody died.

Yeah, I think Bobby got blamed for that.

In which everyone died. No, nobody died. And I'm not aware of any actual person got any real issues. And there were thousands and thousands and thousands of cases. You know how I know? Because as the New York City Department of Health said, please stop having measles parties. Why? Because the only way you could get your kid back into school was if you got the vaccine or you had measles. So there were these giant measles parties occurring in Brooklyn so that people could get their kids back into school so they could then get blood work to show titers to show they had immunity. In any event, the city of New York decided the way they were going to deal with that was to make it literally illegal to exist in certain zip codes in Brooklyn if you didn't get an MMR vaccine. It was illegal. If you did not get the shot, you were violating the law. Now, let me explain to you why some people oppose the MMR vaccine. In every single dose of an MMR shot, there are literally, literally millions of pieces from the cultured cell Lyme and aborted fetus in every single single injection.

Now, again, that might sound crazy, but I could literally pull up right now the CDC's own ingredient list for the MMR vaccine. Anybody can do this at home. Just Google, MMR, excuse me, vaccine excipient list, CDC, and you could pull it up and you could see it has MRC-5, WI-38. Those are cultured cell lines from aborted fetus because you have to grow viruses in a cell. Viruses won't just grow. They have to grow in cells. That's how they replicate. They take over the machinery of a cell. You have to grow it on a cellular substrate. How do they grow the rubella virus? They grow it on these cultured cell lines from aborted fetus.

Where do they get aborted fetuses?

From babies that are aborted?

From abortion clinics.

Well, it has to be... You can't use... The cells need to be alive. Okay? So understand the board of fetal tissue has to remain alive to be used. I deposed, for example, the world's leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plakin, and that deposition is actually available on thehighwire. Com. The whole deposition nine hours is available there.

Parts of it are available on X. I watched part of it in preparation for this interview and was so shocked and revolted by it. I was already on your side, obviously, as a parent of a child who was vaccine injured. I'm in tune with everything you're saying, but that deposition with Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who's still alive, 93, I checked, was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in my life.

You watched the whole thing?

No, I watched selections of it.

Okay, yeah. Then you know about the clip I'm about to talk about, which is relating to just one study that was done that involved over 70 normally normal healthy fetuses, right? There was nothing wrong in abnormalities that were aborted for the purposes of this one study.

Past the first trimester, they were all older than three months, he said. That's right.

That's right. Some of them, absolutely. What they do is they take those in that one study, those 70 something babies, and then they chopped them up into each body part. So they take the tongue, the lung, the liver, every body part, and they chop them up into little cubes, and then they try to culture of viruses on them because they want to see which part of the body is the best suited for growing the virus used in the vaccine. And so this is in any event. And there's a lot. Anybody who wants can research about this.

This is answering the question, why is this a religion for some people? There's some heavy stuff going on.

You mean for folks who don't want to receive the vaccine?

No, for people who support them. Well, you have to- There's a human sacrifice quality here. Sorry. That was my takeaway from that interview, and I think you actually asked him, Are you an atheist? Yes, I am.

Yes. Well, the case was about a religious belief that our client had, contrary to the practice of vaccination, they didn't want to vaccinate her kid. He decided to volunteer for reasons I'll never understand to be an expert. He came to the deposition. He didn't come to trial. He did not show up for trial. We even sent him a subpoena due to take him after the deposition. If you ever see the deposition, he says, Oh, well, there is this or there's that. I sent him a document request saying, Hey, you said there's this and that. Give it to us. Then he brought a collateral lawsuit to quash that subpoena, believe it or not, because he did not want to give it, because they don't have it. It doesn't exist. Just like this polio petition. I don't ask for things. I try to do my homework beforehand, in any event.

But this, vaccines are grown with the cells of aborted baby tongues?

Well, no. Let me be clear about that. In that study, they were trying to figure out which body part was best to use. The one that they ended up with was actually from the lung of the aborted baby, the aborted fetus. It's lung fibroblasts where the cells, the substrate that ended up working. They tried with tongue. It didn't work as well. And there's a number of qualities they're looking for. How well does the virus replicate? Are there other potential viruses, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. Well, what's the best median to do it? And so there's-But you said that the cells have to be alive.

So where do the bodies come from? Do we know?

When the baby is aborted for the purposes, and they're typically aborted for the scientific purpose, they have to know beforehand for the most part, because if they abort the baby and they don't immediately act to make sure that the tissues don't die, then you can't use them in these experiments. So I'm about as uncomfortable as I've ever been in an interview right now.

This is really beyond that this happens.

Well, I mean, there's a whole industry around. It's not Not something I litigate about, but as you know, there is a whole industry around with regards to abortions. You've heard of humanized mice, for example? No. For example, in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trials, for example, COVID-19 vaccine development process. Those products have no abortive fetal tissue in them. Kill vaccines typically don't. You don't need to grow them in the same way. Well, it's not always true. In any event. But in the process of development, a lot of times they use humanized mice in order to experiment with the vaccine. And this is not just vaccines, by the way. This is across science. So they basically take and sometimes from aborted babies, sometimes in other ways. It doesn't have to necessarily be an aborted baby. And they inject the mice with these human cells to humanize them to then use them for experiments. You should have somebody on to talk about this. I'm not your person for this. I only know about this enough could depose around religious belief around these products because there's a whole industry on this.

I don't know if I want to know more. Okay. I mean, you do as you hear this, you think this can't continue. This is too, this is tampering with the secret sauce of nature. So this will not end well at all.

Yes. What's unfortunate about it is that... And the reason I know about any of these things is because in these depositions, in these depositions, in regards to religious beliefs, the issue of aborted, aborted field tissue has come up. And so a lot of times they like to say, oh, well, it only involved a few babies way back when. And so I have a whole series in these depositions of showing, no, it's not just a few babies way back when. It was a lot of babies, and it's still ongoing, and this industry has only grown. Anyway, with that said, I was saying that these parents in Brooklyn, unless you want to stick on this talk, sounds like you don't.

No, I mean, you've just shocked me.

Going back to these families in Brooklyn, many Many of them religious, and not in different religions. Not all of them were... Many of them were ultra-religious Jews, but some of them were other religions, actually, who have beliefs where they do not want to participate with that product for the reasons we just discussed. They will not take the MMR vaccine. They won't give it to their kids. They won't take it. Here is the city of New York saying, no, you must You must take it. I mean, if you didn't, and what they did is they went into the registry, and if you were not in the registry as vaccinated, they hunted you down to your house, and they showed up at your door, and they gave you a violation for literally existing as God created you. As God created you, you were just sitting in your house, just existing, and they gave you a violation. And so I can't actually support it us to represent anybody, anybody that got those violations. Hundreds of people got them. We got almost all of them dismissed before the hearing. Technical stuff. You served at this time.

But they were disproportionate The ultra-Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn?

Yes. In this instance, yes.

The good news about... It's a group I like in general, but they're also politically organized, so pretty dumb of the city of New York to do that.

Well, yeah, I mean, they're organized, but also they were very lucky in some respects in that ICANN, which believes in informed consent. That's the name, Informed Consent Action Network, supported our firm. A lot of the policy work we do is on their behalf to defend anybody with these violations. And so they put a notice out in Yiddish in the paper. If you got a violation, just call our firm. And so they did. And like I was saying, we got most of them dismissed, except for 20. Now, when We went down to the hearing. This is a long road to answer your question from earlier, is that we went down to the hearing. The head lawyer of the New York City Department of Health was on the other side in the hearing room defending the city of New York. We ended up in the hallway at one point. Just chatting. Very nice guy, actually. Actually, not as much of an ideologue as a lot of the folks I encounter in health departments. We had worked collaboratively to We got most of them dismissed even before that. And lawyer to lawyer, he says to me, Why are you doing this?

I looked you up, you went to Berkeley, clerk for the Chief Judge, you went to Lake. Why This was earlier on before I clearly was doing this work. Do you know what I mean? At this point, this is what I do. And I said to him, and this answers your question from earlier. I said to him, Look, you asked me a question earlier. You said, how am I treated? Do I feel like I'm out? And I said to you, but there's a community that needs support. And so this is me finally answering that question. He said to me, why do you do this? And I said to him, I said, look, I said, I want you to just imagine the following. Imagine a group of people in America right now, today. Pick a group. Pick an ethnic group, a religious group, and ask. Pick a group in your mind. Okay? Now, I want you to imagine people go on national television and they say the most horrific things about them, and they feel no filter in saying them. They talk about throwing their kids out of school, spelling them from their jobs. They call them quacks.

They call them all kinds of horrible names. They do all the things to them. We say we should never do to somebody because they're this religion or this ethnicity or so forth. We should never do those things. I said, I said, That's the group you're talking about. I said, you're talking about a group of individuals. Most people vaccinate. I said to him, most people vaccinate. They choose to do it. Okay? Rare is the person in my mind who just wakes up one day and goes, you know what I want to do today? I'm going to just outvaccinate my kids. So that I can be called anti-quack, anti-vax, maybe get them kicked out of school, lose friends, be called anti-scients. That's what I'm going to do today. No, no. Nobody makes that decision lightly. To go against the social game, and there's a strong social game on this, especially for pre-COVID, you have to have something pretty powerful happen to you. That's right. To make you decide, whoa, I'm not going to do that. Or I have some seriously held beliefs or one thing or another. And I said, this is the group of people you're talking about.

You're talking about a group of people who typically they're not vaccinating because their child themselves has had somebody in their family has had some adverse events, some bad experience. Exactly. And so they've realized they overcome that social conformity to do what they think they have to do in that instance. And then to add to that injury, what does society do to them? It adds insult. It calls them names. It berates them. It throws their kids out of school. I mean, it treats them in the worst way as possible. The type of stuff we should never do to people. But that's how those people are treated. And so when you say to me, do I feel like I've lost friends? Yeah, I've lost friends. But there's an entire community of folks out there who are that group I just described to you. And those folks don't have the government working for them. The government not only doesn't work for them, the government fights them with DOJ attorneys, berates them when they try to even file claims. Some of the reports about the Vaccine Conversation program talks about the aggressiveness of some of the attorneys and how they treat some of the petitioners.

The government's not working for vaccine injuries, it's working against the vaccine injuries. It literally fights against their claims. So they're not looking out for them. Industry is not looking out for them. Who's looking out for them? They look out for each other. And that forms a really strong community of individuals of what some call the anti-vaxxers or the medical freedom folks. Really, they're just people who want to live their lives, and they don't want to talk about this.

And worship their God.

Worship their God. They don't want anything to do with the topic. They're the ones who actually don't typically... There are a few people who are very loud. They get all the attention. But most of the folks our firm represents who've got issues with this, the last thing they want us to be on the radar on this topic. We represent a lot of people when it comes to these products. A lot of people are... You're open about what you just said earlier with regards to your family and your experience with the vaccines, but most people, including many famous people, are not, and they don't want to be.

Yeah, I've I never talk about that at all.

I'm okay if people don't like me for what I do.

Yeah, well, I've learned more in this interview than I expected to, and you've singlehandedly raised my regard for lawyers, and I never do this, but I want to do it in your case. Tell us the name of your firm.

Sure. It's Syrian Glimstad, LLP.

In New York?

Well, we're all over. We're national. We've For our vaccine practice, we help people across the whole country.

For people who have a family member who suffered an injury, you're open to talk to them about that stuff?

Yeah.ups. Yeah, my firm does. We do vaccine injury cases in the VICP for folks in to buy vaccines. Okay, good. Well, I just- And then we also... But that's just like 15 of the folks. But then we do vaccine policy cases. That's actually even more than more folks. So a lot of the cases around COVID vaccines that you may have heard of, like suing the FDA to get all of Pfizer's clinical trial documents. We brought that case, suing on behalf... We sued on behalf of over a dozen members of Congress about mass mandates on planes. We struck down COVID vaccine mandate for school in California. We have a big policy practice, and that dovetails with a lot of what we've been talking about, which is where a lot of my work is and I find fascinating. Then we have We do vaccine exemption cases in all areas. We brought the case against the Air Force and the Army, where we got the injunction, prevented one of the great honors of my life, actually fighting for the people who fight for us to preserve the thing that they swear to, which is to defend the Constitution.

What is the first freedom in the Bill of Rights? The rights of Religion. And what did the military do? Said, no, you don't get to have your right, your religious beliefs with these vaccines. That was truly one of the great honors of my life, was to defend members of the military and them come to me and it was humbling. They're thanking me for defending them. I'm just a lawyer. I'm just going to court. And these guys, those hearings were incredible. It would have brought tears to your eyes to be in those injunction hearings when those members of the military come in and Anyways. We do everything. Then we do plaintiff-side class action stuff because there is work that do we need to to make money.

Is Bobby Are you going to get confirmed, do you think?

I sure hope so. There truly is nobody who is... His whole life experience I believe he was put on this Earth to have that role. He's prayed every day for 20 years, as he always says, to be able to help save children. And in that role, he can do it. Anybody who says, well, he's going to disrupt the way things are working. Good. We need disruption because the way things are working right now, we've got a country that's got over 50% of people with a chronic health condition, often multiple conditions. Did you know that? I did. Okay. We are dead last pretty much on every single health metric amongst all developed countries, despite spending almost three times as much on health care. Just think about those numbers. We are on the fast path, not only to be the sickest country. This is the largest decline in human health, this chronic disease explosion in recorded human history that I am aware of. This 40-year chronic disease explosion. I don't think there's any records in recorded human history of that increase. We're spending three times as much and we have the worst outcomes in the developed world.

Yeah, we need to change. And Mr. Kennedy is not beholden to pharmaceutical interests. He's not beholden to health insurance company. He's not beholden to anybody. He truly just wants to do what's right. I think it's a rare quality. He is He has gone through the fire, and he does not care what anybody says about him. He does not care. He only cares about what's right and what's true. It is exactly the type of leadership and leader that we need in this country. And so, God, I hope he is confirmed.

Aaron Siri, thank you very much.

Aaron, thank you.

Thanks for listening to the Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson. Com to see everything that we have made, the complete library. Tucker, tuckercarlson. Com.