No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - RFK Jr. and Brian Tyler Cohen clash over Trump, abortion, vaccines

Episode Date: May 26, 2024

The Supreme Court has quickly become one of the top issues in the November election. Brian interviews RFK Jr. about why Trump’s biggest donor is also funding his campaign, whether he would sign a nationwide abortion ban, and the dangers of vaccine skepticism.Pre-order Shameless: https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/shamelessShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about how the Supreme Court now factors into the November election, quickly becoming among the top issues, and I interview RFK Jr. about why Trump's biggest donor is also funding his campaign, whether he would sign a nationwide abortion ban, and I press him on the dangers of vaccine skepticism. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So when the next president takes office in January of 2025, Clarence Thomas will be 76 years old, Samuel Alito will be 74, Sonia Sotomayor will be 70.

John Roberts will be 69. If the person getting sworn in is Donald Trump, then I can tell you with some modest degree of certainty that two of those justices will be replaced by judges at least 25 to 30 years younger than them. If it's Joe Biden, then we're virtually guaranteed at least one replacement Sotomayor, while the conservatives will just try to hang on.

Although then again, we have seen a number of justices die on the bench unexpectedly from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The point is that what happens from 2025 to 2028 will shape this court for a generation. Like, put simply, if Trump wins, we may have a 7-2 court filled with young conservative justices that will sit there for decades, and we won't have any recourse. If Biden wins, there's the possibility that we could actually flip control of the court to the liberal's favor.

And look, none of this is to say that this election won't focus primarily on abortion. I think realistically, that'll be the top issue that voters turn out based on, or democracy itself. Another issue, I think, is going to be top of mind. but it's becoming clear that all of that, abortion, democracy, fair maps, birth control, same-sex marriage, contraception, all of it hinges on the court. And that's come into a specially stark focus lately with the fact that Samuel Alito was caught displaying flags in front of multiple of his homes that were sympathetic to the insurrectionist on January 6th. The notion then that this guy is right now presiding over a decision regarding presidential immunity for Trump on January 6 is so far beyond the bounds of what's okay. and worse, he's not the only one.

Clarence Thomas is just as compromised with his wife literally complicit in the actual efforts to overturn the election. And those are just the people too stupid or too corrupt or both to show any discretion. Like, this Supreme Court is not just compromised, it is broken.

But we have a very important and very small window in this next presidential term to not watch it slip away for the rest of our lifetimes at worst and to actually replace some very corrupt judges at best. And look, I do these podcasts every week, and I try to make an affirmative case for Joe Biden

because I do think he's been the most progressive and most accomplished president of our lifetimes. We've got the American Rescue Plan, which saved the U.S. economy after COVID, the inflation reduction act, the PACT Act, the Chips Act, which has led to a boom in American manufacturing, the infrastructure law, the gun safety law, codified marriage equality into federal law, removed cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, forgave billions of dollars in student loan debt, added 15 million jobs, presided over a record stock market. we've got the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century. By any measure, this presidency is a massive unmitigated success.

But I do understand also that for a lot of people, Biden isn't cutting it. I understand that a lot of people are unhappy with how he's dealt with Israel and Gaza. I understand a lot of people are unhappy about the cost of groceries and housing. I understand that a lot of people are unhappy about his age. And everyone is 100% entitled to their qualms about how he's presided. That's everybody's prerogative. But I want to be clear. The alternative, Donald Trump, if he is elected, that would mean the court is untouchable for decades.

That'll have massive implications for abortion and contraception protections, for fair maps, for gerrymandering for the Voting Rights Act, for Trump's own prosecutions and this insane notion of presidential immunity, and for democracy as a whole. Joe Biden isn't perfect, but we are kidding ourselves if we're not recognizing what's at stake if Trump manages to win in November. This court will be the least of our problems, but it will be a massive problem, and it's going to plague us for the rest of our lives. So if we want any hope of rebalancing this dangerous imbalance where insurrection sympathizers are literally ruling on cases related to the insurrection, November is our one and only shot. Elections aren't just a referendum on the past, they are a vote in the future. And the difference here could not be more stark.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for at least two more young justices in the mold of Samuel Lido and Clarence Thomas, and therefore permanent Republican control of the court and everything that comes with it. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for justices who will protect abortion rights, who will protect contraception, who will protect same-sex marriage, who will protect fair maps, who will protect the Voting Rights Act, who will protect democracy. So regardless of what your litmus test issue is,

remember that the last word on adjudicating those issues will be the Supreme Court. So cast your vote accordingly. Coming up is my interview with RFK Jr. But just a quick note, my new book, Shameless, is available now for pre-order. If you want to purchase it, which I really hope you will, Please check out the link in the show notes of this episode or visit bryantellercoen.com slash book. Okay, here's my interview with RFK Jr.

Now we've got Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's running for president of the United States as an independent candidate. Thank you so much for taking the time. Brian, thanks for having me. Now, obviously, running as an independent, getting on the ballot is the whole ballgame here. So where do you stand right now with regard to ballot access? I think we're on the ballot in the seven states. We have the signatures for another eight states in the can, which means we have more than enough. Usually we try to get double what we're required to give us, is the DNC is going to come in the end and try to invalidate our signatures.

So we want to make sure that we have a good cushion for that for insurance. We're not handing those in for strategic reasons until the last minute to narrow the window that the DNC, has to kind of tear the whole thing apart. So most of them, or many of them, you don't have to hand in until the end of July. And then the DNC will have about a week to go through them, whereas if we hand them in now, they'll have, you know, four months to go through them for five months.

Well, let's talk about the presidential run more broadly. Nationally, you are based on an aggregate of polling, according to Dissonses and Desk HQ. You're at about 8.5% right now, down from 19% in September. In Texas, it looks like just below 10% right now, down from 12%. In Florida, you're at about 7.5% down from 11%.

Nevada, you're at 9% down from 11. And in Michigan, you're at about 8% down from 26%. So what's the path to victory here? Yeah, we don't believe those polling results. And there's actually a very good article in the Hill today. that talks about how the polling companies, the polling establishments have changed their methodologies to ask questions in a way that makes it,

that dampens our poll results. It was, we were on, you know, the DNN, or this, one of the controversies that's happening right now, Brian, is that CNN is negotiating with the Trump, or the, you know, Trump and Biden staff their campaigns to try to exclude me from the debates. And they've come up with criteria that I need to be, among the two criteria that are, that they're trying to use to excuse me is that I need to have four polls, prescribed pollsters that have me at over 15%. We handed in five polls yesterday that have me from.

their companies that they've chosen. And there's a six poll that came out today that I'm actually looking at. It's the Marquette poll that has me at 17%. We think those are accurate polls, the Quinnipiac poll, the Marquette poll, the Monmouth poll, the Harvard Harris poll, the New York Times Siena poll, and all have me over that threshold. What you're seeing is a lot of the polling companies have changed their methodology. So instead of looking at it, a three-way or five-way raise, they ask this question first, in a two-way raise between Trump and Biden, who would you choose? And it offers you Trump, Biden, and a other. Well, then if you press other, you're directed to another field where you're given a choice of me or Cornell West or Jill

Stein. And that's a deceptive way of asking the poll. That's not the way it will appear on the ballot. Let me ask you the question this way. Let me ask you the question this way because obviously if you are looking to actually win this presidential election, you need the support, you need to win one of at least the big states. You need to win California, Texas, Florida. Do you think that you have a path to victory to win one of these states? Because right now, I mean, I'm looking at the polling. You're at roughly around 10 percent in Texas. Trump is at 46. Biden's at 36. California. Biden's at 48. Trump's at 30. You're at eight. Florida. Trump's at 47. Biden's at 38, you're at 7.5. So even if the methodology isn't to your liking, I mean, there's a

massive disparity here between you and the other two candidates. Well, again, you're reading from a methodology that is not correct. If you look at my polling and you assume it's 17 or 18 percent, I'm five and a half months out. All I have to do is get the 34 percent to win. So I'm thinking all I have to do is take a few points away from both. the other candidates now in head-to-head races i beat both candidates i beat uh trump in a head-to-head race and that this is from the biggest poll ever done in this election 26 000 people the the polls that you're talking about have usually 600 to 2200 people this is this augby poll has 26 000 it's 10 times with the other polls have it has a margin of error of

practically zero and it shows that in a head to head race I beat President Trump by three electoral votes. It's a nail-biter. And I had to head race against President Biden. I beat him. I win 39 states and he wins 11, so a landslide. So people want to vote for me. My favorability ratings are higher than either of them.

I beat them among Americans under 35. I beat them in the battleground states among Americans under 45. and I'm not the one cohort that I lose on is baby boomers because up until now CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CBS, the networks, which is where baby boomers get their news, have not let me on to debate. But I think what we're going to see is I'm starting to get on those and, you know, we have a high conversion rate.

I have five and a half months, which is light years. I'm doing better than any. Well, let me ask you about this. that then. You know, you had brought up the idea of a no-spoiler pledge that you had that you had put forward to President Biden to sign. In the spirit of this pledge, will you drop out in the fall if you're still polling below Joe Biden? What I said is that I will drop out if President Biden agrees to drop out. If he is losing, if, in a head-to-head raise, he is losing to President Trump, and I'm beating President Trump, he will have to drop out.

So what you're saying is if you're looking at this polling and the polling remains and you've got poll after poll after poll showing as we head into the fall, Joe Biden at a higher rate than you in these polls, that in the spirit of that pledge, I mean, would you be willing to, if you're saying that you want him to sign this, would you also be willing then just in the spirit of this pledge to drop out if you are at that point? I would, I'm, or you'll only, or you'll only do it if he does it is what you're saying. Oh, yeah, I'm willing to drop out if he signs the pledge too. But if he, but if he doesn't sign the pledge and you don't see a path to victory, then drop out.

Of course, I'm not going to drop out if he doesn't sign the pledge. You know, I, I'm more likely, he cannot beat President Trump. I can beat President Trump. I'm not the spoiler. If you, the spoiler is somebody who cannot win and who is going to disrupt the, expectation of somebody who can. With all due respect, I mean, there's not a single, there's not a single national poll from any pollster. I know that you, I know that you take issue with their methodology, but there's

not a single poll from a national poll poster that exists that shows you even within striking distance. I mean, in most of these polls, even ones that are, that aren't friendly toward President Biden, I mean, there's still a five-time disparity between you and him. Yeah, well, you're wrong about that. Zogby Paul shows me beating President Trump. And he, under no conditions, can President Biden beat President Trump. So, you know, I'm not as well. Let me ask you a question on, because you brought up spoilers. The issue of playing spoiler has been front and center in this campaign. One of your top donors is Timothy Mellon, who was Trump's top donor in 2020. He's given $25 million to a super PAC supporting you. And he's given $25 million to a Trump-affiliated super PAC, which certainly does give the appearance that Trump's donors want you on the ballot to serve as a spoiler candidate on his behalf. So what's your relationship to Timothy Mellon and why is he infusing your campaign with so much money? You know, we get, you know, I said this at the beginning of the campaign,

Brian. And I want to run a campaign that appeals to both sides. I want to run a campaign that makes Republicans forget the Republicans and Democrats forget their Democrats. And everybody remember that they're Americans. Oh, I'm getting money from Democrats, Republicans. Republicans, I welcome money from people who support President Trump. I have people on our staff who came from the Trump campaign. I understand all of that, but if he's giving money, if he's giving money at the same time, $25 million is no small sum. If he's giving $25 million to Trump and to you, and this is a Trump-aligned donor, and he's your biggest donor to Super PACs right now, do you have any relationship with this person? Do you know why he's giving you this massive amount of money?

because clearly this isn't him throwing his support behind you if he's also supporting Trump at the same time. You would have to ask Timothy Mellon that with a super PAC. I'm not allowed to coordinate at all with the super PAC. Do you have a relationship with him? With Tim Mellon. I've met Tim Mellon twice. Okay.

And that was enough to, there's no other inclination as to why he's donating. I welcome money from everybody. I don't think that, listen, I'm working, you can understand how, you can understand how I'm not sure what you're getting at. But President Trump, I'm running against President Trump. I, you know, I have been a huge critic of President Trump's. I think he was a terrible president.

I think he gave us the lockdowns. I think he shifted $4 trillion into this new oligarchy of super rich billionaires. I think he ran up the debt higher than any president in history. He presided over a chronic disease epidemic. He promised to get us out of the wars, and he has, you know, he brought John Bolton to the center of the war machine who run the NSA. He was a terrible president. I'm running against him.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at. But I think the point is obvious just from a layman's perspective, if you have a Trump donor who's also propping up the super PAC affiliated with you, that it would suggest that that person wants you on the ballot because he would perceive it as deriving benefit for Donald Trump. Well, that's what you say. I don't think that is obvious. I think maybe that. Okay.

Here's what I believe from talking to Tim Allen. Here's what I believe from talking to Tim Mullen. I think Tim Mellon would prefer me to be president in the United States because he thinks that I would make a better president. And that if I'm not going to be president, that he would prefer President Trump to President Biden. Oh, I have a lot of donors who are in the same state, but on, you know, but would prefer, but Biden's their second choice.

I understand that. I understand that. And by the way, by the way, the national polls, every poll, every single poll that has measured my favorability rating has shown that my favorability rating is much higher than President Trump's or President Biden's. Most Americans would rather vote for me. The reason they're voting for President Trump or President Biden is out of fear, because they feel by voting for me, they're throwing their vote away.

But they'd rather vote for me. And I think Tim Mellon is in that category. He thinks that I'd be a better president of the United States, but he's hedging his bet by betting, I'm also betting on Donald Trump. On this issue of spoiler candidates, you know, your own running mate has admitted that your odds are slim. A senior advisor to your race has said,

I don't think the Kennedy campaign and the Trump campaign are enemies is us against the Democrats. These comments come after your campaign's former New York staffer. I'm going to play that audio right now. And it looks like in this, instance with RFK, he's going to probably take a lot of the votes away from Biden, correct? I mean, that's what you're looking at here. Well, yeah, that's true. I don't think that the Kennedy campaign and the Trump campaign are enemies, but we're all about American

America, and we know that it's us against the Democrats, either way it goes. I know what the media has done is it's taken people who have nothing to do with anything to do with the senior management of our campaign. Well, and that is that inclusive of there was the New York Ruckstaffer who gave a presentation that the goal of the candidacy was to stop President Biden. But regardless, voters aside... And that staffer was fired. And that staffer was not a... But voters aside, why is it so hard to convince those closest to you and those working

for you that you're not a spoiler in this race? I mean, these are people who were on your campaign, regardless of whether they still are. Well, those issues have nothing to do with spoiler. And the latter, you know, you're putting out fires faster or you're lighting fires faster than I can put them out, but they're fires and our brush fires. These are people. The only person that you've just quoted is somebody who was a contract block coordinator who is gathering signatures for us from in New York. And the mainstream media, of course, which is trying to discredit our campaign interviews somebody at low-level contract staffer and gets an opinion from them and then

attributes it to that campaign. Do you think that's fair? And that, And that staffer, by the way, was let go because of that. Oh, you know, that's not journalism. That's just, I mean, these are, these are, we, I only work with the information that I have. And these are people who work with the campaign, you know, part of, part of being a journalist is actually verifying and checking information rather than just throwing stuff at the wall. I mean, these are people who worked for the campaign. But let's move on.

I want to talk about the, I want to talk about the issue of abortion. We have 100,000 volunteers. I understand. Oh, I do want to talk. about abortion because we don't screen them we don't screen anybody for their you know opinions or their political affiliations now there's no organization i do i do want to talk about abortion because a political screening of their of their people who volunteer for them so on the issue of abortion which has presented itself as one of the top issues in the country right now uh you stated a few months back that

you would sign a national abortion ban you then said that you opposed all restrictions you now say that you support some restrictions so help me understand your position would you sign a nationwide law restricting abortions after a certain point? I, you know, my position now is basically the same position as Roe v. Wade, which is that a woman, it's absolutely a woman's right to Jews until late in the pregnancy after the fetus becomes viable, that the state has a growing interest in protecting that life. and that, you know, our, you know, my commitment is to reduce the number of abortions, not through force or through coercion, but through policies that will do that.

About 52% of women interviewed who terminated pregnancy say that they do that for economic reasons because they can't afford the baby. And I don't believe that anybody should terminate a pregnancy for that reason. I think with that we need good child care policies in this country, the kind they have every country in Europe and around the world and that we need to bring a lot of that money home from Ukraine and invest in child care to make sure to actually benefit our economy and to grow our economy and to make sure that women

who want to bring a baby to term are not terminating that pregnancy. So on that point then, you know, financial insecurities. In a recent podcast, I believe it was a week ago with Matt and Shane, you said that you support these restrictions because you learned of women having, and this is a quote, a huge amount of abortions up until, you know, what it would be at the late term. So days before birth. And this is a point that a lot of anti-choice Republicans make, but none of them have been able to substantiate it. So my question is, what's the proof here? Like, do you think that women who are in good health with healthy pregnancies or just walking into doctor's offices asking for abortions two days before birth? Yeah, my assumption was that that was not true, and that's why I changed my position. My original position was that it should be a woman's choice right up until the ninth month. My assumption was that no woman is going to carry a baby for nine months and then get an abortion unless there are extenuating circumstances. And you don't believe that.

But you don't believe that anymore. You want me to finish? Yes. all right unless they're extenuating circumstances for example that the baby had a disease that would ensure that the baby would only live a couple of hours or maybe a couple of weeks in agonizing pain or if the mother's life was at risk and in those cases the last thing that you would want is a bureaucrat or state government to come in and mess with that decision what i learned was that there are a tremendous number of elective abortions at the last stage.

And I can't tell you why that that happens, but all I can tell you is the data that we're looking at that was shown to me indicates that that is true. And therefore, you know, I changed my position, which I always say to people, I'll never change the position because people are angry at me or because people defame me. the one thing that will cause me to change my position is facts that show that my worldview does not account for and my policies do not account for the world for reality. Well, you know, on that point, I mean,

do you know what percent of women are getting abortions after 21 weeks? And this isn't a gotcha. I don't know the exact percentage. So the exact percentage is 0.9% of these of women who are getting abortions after 21 weeks. So a minuscule number of a percentage of women, this 99.1% of women who are not. The most recent study from 22... And what percentage of those are elective abortion? So the most recent study from 2022 of patients seeking these later

term abortions found that they fell into two buckets. It was either fetal anomalies or health risks to the mother or women who didn't know they were pregnant. And then the other bucket is women who experienced barriers to abortion services earlier in the pregnancy. So the question then becomes when you say that there are a huge amount of abortions that would necessitate some federal intervention, where is the proof of that? Well, you know, I would have to look at the data again, which I'm happy to do. But the data that we were shown was that there were a large number of abortions

that were elective in the end at the end of pregnancy. So if there are any abortions at that point, it's wrong. You know, it's a viable child at nine months. And, you know, let's say nine months in one day, should you be able to abort? I mean, do you think you should be able to abort a perfectly healthy child at nine months? But there's no evidence that women are doing that. That's the whole basis for what I'm asking. When you impose federal interventions against women who the data show are dealing with fetal anomalies, health risks, a mother, then I shouldn't be litigating that. No government

bureaucrat should be litigating that. That's a decision between a woman and her doctor because these issues are highly personal. Yeah. And so here's what should make you happy. is that the only abortions that I would limit at that time would be elective abortions. I would not abort. If there is a medical reason for the abortion, I don't think it should be. I think that should be between the mother and the doctor. The only abortions that I would limit at that time or allow the states to limit would be elective abortions.

So if there's a lot, then those would be regulated by the state. If there are only one or two, then that sort. those are the ones that would be regulated. I want to switch gears to, in a deposition that was obtained by the New York Times, you had claimed that you suffered cognitive damage because of mercury poisoning, and you've spoken about this pretty frequently, and a brainworm, a parasite that ate parts of your brain. You said that these cognitive problems decreased your earning power,

and they compromised your ability to pay spousal support. So if you yourself said that these cognitive problems were severe enough to be brought up as a legal basis for not paying spousal support, how do you respond to concerns that these problems would make you unfit to serve as president, which is obviously a physically and cognitively taxing job? A couple of things. I don't think you're accurate about. One is it's a 13-year-old deposition. Two, is I knew that I was experiencing cognitive problems back then. I don't think it was because of that parasite. There's a billion people in the world that have that parasite. And my many

of them don't have any symptoms. I believe today that my cognitive issues were attributable to the mercury. I had 10 times the rate of mercury at EPA considered safe, and I had that mercury key laid it out, and my cognitive problems, my cognitive problems disappeared. And I take a cognitive test every day, and it's, you know, on TV shows like this, on podcasts, I think the ultimate cognitive test will be a presidential debate. And I would welcome that. And I would welcome, you know, the other candidates also participate in that cognitive exam with me. Well, you know, President Biden obviously released his medical records when Donald Trump was president.

He released his as well. Would you release your medical records to give the American public a full look at any cognitive problems? Yeah, sure. I will. I'm happy to give my medical records to the same extent that the other candidates did. But, you know, what I think that you should. really be concerned about Brian is whether the presidents are actually cognitively capable. If they have the mental acuity that presidential candidates to take on this job, remember,

this is a job that if there is a nuclear emergency and the president has woken up at 3 o'clock in the morning, he has seven minutes to make the decision about whether to retaliate. At that time, he's pulled out of bed, he's being run through tunnels with sick secret service. people pushing him. Do you want President Biden? Do you trust him to make a decision that is going to affect the lives of every American and your children? That test should happen, not because of medical records where doctors can obscure problems with their powerful patients, or rather by allowing every American to observe the mental acuity of these candidates on a stage in a public form under hot questioning in the annealed in the furnace of debate and conversation.

And that, I think, is what if you're genuinely concerned about this issue, rather than just agenda-driven, I think that's probably what we should be looking for. I want to finish off with this, and then we'll end it here. So your views on vaccines have obviously been controversial. I'm not going to delve into the anti-vacc sentiment or whatnot. but I do want to talk about one instance in Samoa. In 2018, there were two children who died from a measles vaccine that was after a nurse incorrectly mixed the vaccine with a muscle relaxant.

So it was human error. The prime minister then banned MMR vaccines after that. Your organization, Children's Health Defense, praised him. You then visited in 2019 in a trip that was arranged by an anti-vax influencer named Edwin Thomas Sase. You met with another anti-vax influencer named Taylor Winterstein. So anti-vac sentiment spread across the eye. and later that year, Samoa was hit with a measles outbreak that was the expressed result of a

decline in vaccination rates. I believe only 31% of Samoans were vaccinated at that time. In the year leading up to 2019, there were zero cases of measles in those years. In 2019, proper, though, there were over 5,000 cases and 83 deaths. So do you recognize how perpetuating vaccine skepticism or especially propping up anti-vax influencers can lead to such devastating health consequences? No, the best evidence, first of all, I had nothing to do with a drop off in vaccination rates in Samoa. Well, there were, there was, the AP did an interview.

Let me just, sure, let me just say the AP did work, did interview folks who were working on the Samoan measles response, and they said that the credibility that you gave to the anti-vax population, the anti-vax forces did have an impact. Well, these were people who were in Samoa. But there's plenty of data. data on the drop off, the vaccine was banned before I went to the country. So the drop off that you saw did not change between the time I left the country and the time the measles epidemic.

So that's one thing. The other thing is that the deaths that occurred, the best evidence shows that the deaths that occurred from measles that year were a result of a defective vaccination. The people who died were people who got the vaccine while they had measles, which you should never do. In Tonga, which is next door, which also had a measles outbreak and where they were not given the vaccine, there were no deaths. Oh, of course, the vaccine cartel and the public health cartel that likes to propagate us on this issue points to this and say, oh, the deaths occurred because of a, because lowered vaccination rate, but there is no data that shows

that. There's no paper that shows that. There's no science that shows that. There's just propaganda and the best science indicates that the actual reasons for those deaths in Samoa were a defective vaccine that was brought in from Australia and was pulled when the public health authorities realized that it was killing people. But that's not what the evidence says. The evidence says that it was actually, the evidence says that it was actually two vaccines that were mixed with an expired muscle relaxing. You know what? Again, that is propaganda. That is propaganda. And there was a series of deaths that occurred from vaccines, from the MMR vaccine prior to that and a series of injuries, including in the prime minister's own family. And that's why he made the decision

long before I went to Samoa, the MMR vaccine in Samoa. Donald Trump has come out and said that he wouldn't fund schools that mandated certain vaccines. Do you agree with that decision? Yeah, I do. Okay. All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much for taking time. I understand that it's that it's easy to stay in certain ecosystems when speaking to media figures. So I do appreciate you venturing out and kind of being willing to speak to me here. You know, I appreciate you having me on, Brian. I'm, you know, I want to speak to everybody, including people who don't agree with me on issues. I want to say this.

I don't, I vaccination policy will not take away vaccines from anybody who wants access to them. All I, my only issue is they should not be mandated. I don't think any medical intervention should be mandated. And let me just say this. And right now, the CDC is recommending the ninth COVID booster. Oh, that's their recommendation. 90% of Americans have made a decision not to take it. Do you think that the federal government should do what they did with the first booster,

which is to tell people, okay, you can't work, you can't travel, you can't get on an airplane, you can't go to your job unless you do what CDC says. No, I don't think that that's the most Americans want that. What I want is good testing, good safety testing for vaccines, good efficacy testing so that everybody knows can make informed consent about whether they want this product or not, whether it's good for their age group, whether it's good for their cohort, whether it's good for them. And let's do, you know, let's do the same kind of safety testing that we require for other drugs. And we don't do that for vaccine.

Vaccines are exempt. The only medical product that's exempt from pre-licensing safety studies. And of the 72 vaccines now mandated for our children, not one of them has ever been tested in a pre-licensing safety study. That's just wrong. We know people get injured. And that's who I'm concerned with. If you're fine with it, if you've got to. a good result, you should be able to get it.

We ought to be not telling people when they're injured that it didn't happen and gaslighting them and punishing doctors who report injuries. We should be doing good science and we should be supporting people who actually get injured by these products. I think, I mean, I think I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but the numbers are pretty clear in terms of the efficacy and the safety of this COVID vaccine. And it was it was used on the biggest, on the largest scale of any vaccine in the history of the world. And again, those numbers are pretty clear in terms of the efficacy of this vaccine

in terms of the number of hospitalizations and deaths for people who didn't get the vaccine versus those who did get the vaccine. Okay, Brian, you know what? You're talking about data that does not exist. And I'll just tell you a couple of things. Our country had the worst body count from COVID of any country in the world and one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules. Well, I would also say we had the Republican president who was not exactly advocating for vaccinations or even taking the virus itself seriously. I mean, Donald Trump was downplaying the severity of the virus, but you're talking crazy talk, but let me just finish this. It became politicized. It became completely politicized, and there was a clear delineation. President Trump brags about the vaccine as the miracle of his administration.

the operation warps speed that would greatest accomplishment of his administration so he wasn't hustle the vaccine he was doing whatever anthony there was a clear partisan divide in terms of people who would take the vaccine but i'll let you go go ahead let's just talk about data we had 16 percent of the covid deaths in our country we only had 4.2 percent of the world's population so why isn't somebody explained to us why we had the highest death rate in the world we were told that Haiti and Nigeria, we're going to get wiped out from COVID. Haiti had a 1%, 1.3% vaccination rate. It had a death rate from COVID, 1-200th of our death rate.

Nigeria had a 1.4% vaccination rate. It had a death rate from COVID of 14 per thousand per million population. We had a death rate of 3,000 per million population. So there's no correlation between vaccination and death counts. In fact, the best studies like the Cleveland Clinic study, which is 56,000 patients, one of the biggest studies, shows that people who got vaccinated were more likely to get COVID. There is no study that shows that COVID had a beneficial impact on deaths. I know that you're told that this is orthodoxy, but the studies just simply don't exist.

And the clinical trial study is never measured for that. In fact, Eiser's clinical study, which is the one that is made public, show that people in the the placebo group were 23% less likely to die and people in the vaccine groups. If you got vaccinated, we are 23% more likely to die of all causes over the next six months with a 500% increase in cardiac arrest. We're now seeing a whole generation of kids who are dying from cardiac arrest on the playing fields. We're seeing athletes drop dead on the playing fields at rates we've never seen in history.

and nobody is explaining that. And the press, the liberal media is not asking the questions, was that person vaccinated and does this? We're seeing two of the four vaccines have now been pulled because of periocarditis, myocarditis, brimbo-sid senior, which is blood clots. We're seeing larger excess deaths last year after vaccination with no COVID and during the height of COVID.

So nobody can explain that is what you were saying about a decline in tests simply because of the vaccination, that data simply do not exist. Well, I would disagree with that, but I'm also not a doctor. Show me the data. Show me the study. I do have to ask, is it your position then that the politicization of the virus of the vaccine had zero impact on survival rates in the aftermath of COVID. Because there was a clear delineation between Fox News watchers, for example, who had higher death rates than those who were not watching Fox News, who were not consuming right-wing

media, who had higher survival rates. Well, I wouldn't say that the highest death rates in this country was in New York, which is a blue state. Right, but that was in the beginning before there was a vaccine. At the end of the pandemic, it was actually in. Florida, led by Ron DeSantis, who is, of course, a major opponent of any vaccines. Well, Florida, you know, Florida would have, you would expect Florida to have the highest death rate. I'm not sure that it did. I know that Florida outperformed California, and they're roughly

equivalent in size, but Florida has a much older population, and those were people who normally would die from COVID. So I think what you're saying about Red State or Blues say that there is no study that, you know, there are lots of other, there's more obesity in red states, there is more elderly people in Florida. So there are a lot of covariable. You don't think, you don't think politics played any role in the acceptance or refusal of vaccines in the aftermath of COVID. I do, but I don't think vaccines had a benefit. I don't think there's any data that show that the vaccines had a beneficial impact on the reduction of COVID or survivability of the COVID. I'd love to see the study if you can show it to me. I, I, I,

I'll be happy to put it on the screen. I obviously can't grab it. All the data I am looking at. For example, take a look at the Cleveland Clinic study. Take a look at the studies they're coming out of Europe right now. One after the other, they're showing that there was no beneficial impact to the vaccine. There may have been. I mean, one of the problems during COVID is that we had information chaos.

We didn't, you know, Dr. Fauci and his cohorts were not giving us good information on basic things, like infection fatality rates, and the use of therapeutic drugs and comparisons between Ivermectin hydroxychloric, and amptitaph, and all these other drugs that demonstrated efficacy against COVID, and comparing those against vaccines, we never saw that kind of, those kind of data, and that's what we should have seen. That's what good managers would have done. So I have something here from the CDC. Vaccinated Americans are up to 14 times less likely to die from COVID. That was from the CDC. Yeah, and show me, 23.

Right. And you know, those studies that CDC grants out are modeling studies. They're not data studies. They're not, they're not observational studies. They're not epidemiological studies. There are studies that start out with the premise. We think this is how many people are saved by the vaccine and then they model that. But there's no, there's no actual real world data. And they use that to hoodwink you, Brian. That's how they they hoodwink the American press. They use these phony studies done by biostitutes, which are these mercenary scientists. Who can, you know, what they say in my... We'll see. There's, there are a ton of data out there that shows from people who owe their lives to the fact that they were able to get

vaccines. You have people who weren't... How do you do that study? Explain to me how you do that study. How do you do a study when somebody says, oh, I got the vaccine and therefore I'm alive today. It's not science. There's plenty of people like me who didn't get it and are alive today. Should I say that I didn't get it because I'm alive today because I didn't get it? I think you can look at the number of people who did die during COVID who weren't vaccinated and that would tell the story pretty clearly. Well, and guess what? The vaccinated cohorts were more likely to die than the unvaccinated cohorts. And you don't have good data because, you know, the vaccinated cohorts were so,

We're so small, you know, I think it's a little bit, it's, it's a little too convenient to say that any data that doesn't support your conclusion is not good data. Oh, but no, and I agree with that. So let's look at you. I'm happy to sit down with you on another show, go study by study. And I will show you the problems with those studies. And you can show me the problems with the study, which are overwhelming on the other side. But what I would say to you, is because the public health agencies were not funding good studies during COVID. They were funding deceptive studies that we don't have really good data where you can say definitively one way or another about each cohort. But, you know, even CDC today is saying it's a mistake to give these vaccines to kids, the death rate to kids from COVID was zero. Zero.

Why would you give them an intervention of something that could, that does have a risk, that can kill you, if they have no risk from the disease itself. So, you know, I think there were a lot of mistakes made. We'll leave it there. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., thank you so much for taking the time. Thanks for having one. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen.

Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app, a five-star rating and a review and as always you can find me at brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels or you can go to bryantaylorcoen.com to learn more