The Joe Rogan Experience - #2462 - Aaron Siri

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Aaron Siri is an attorney and managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, where he focuses on civil litigation, constitutional law, and vaccine-related injury claims. He is the host of the podcast “Informed with Aaron Siri” and the author of “Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines.”www.aaronsiri.substack.comwww.youtube.com/@AaronSiriSGwww.aaronsiriofficial.comwww.sirillp.com Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Montana Knife Company - working knives for working people. Head over to https://montanaknifecompany.com to shop now.  This video is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit https://BetterHelp.com/JRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Joe Rogan podcast, checking out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. So you had a pile of notes, and then you just folded them up. Like, did you commit them to memory? No, I've just these two things. I have the links I sent you guys. Oh, okay.

And just some stuff there. I just saw the piece of paper that you folded. I was like, what's in there? How did, first of all, I want to talk you through, like, when you were a younger man before you had looked into this, What was your opinions on medical science? What was your opinions on vaccines? Were you skeptical or did you just kind of assume that everything that we're told is exactly how it is? And the experts have only the best interests of human beings in mind and not money.

I had what you would effectively call the mainstream view. Vaccine saved humanity. Me too. We'd all be dead without them. You know, there was the Bible given to Moses at Sinai. And then there were vaccines. Yeah. That's basically, you know. I think it's anybody that didn't consider themselves a fool.

You know, you would have to be a fool, like a real fool, to ignore all this medical science, which is the reason why there's so many people alive today that would have died. And a lot of that's true, penicillin, antibiotics. There's a lot of stuff that has saved a lot of people's lives. But the vaccine won. Until this COVID epidemic, I would have never questioned it. I mocked anti-vaxxers. I was like, these people are silly.

Don't they know all the good things that vaccines have done? And there's just a blatant propaganda that we were force-fed like one of those ducks are trying to make fogwa with. It just made me stop and pause and go, is the whole thing like this? Is this whole thing just a dirty money laundering operation? Because it kind of seems like that's at least part of the reason why they were telling people to get boosted when they knew it wasn't working and telling. young people that didn't need it to. They wanted to make a lot of money. That's the only reason why you would do any of those things after a certain amount of

information is out. And so it just made me stop and think about the whole thing and go, well, why would I assume that this is the one area where pharmaceutical drug companies, doctor, everybody has been totally honest in this one area when it's like a religious thing if you question it. And what I love the title of your book. Yes. Vaccines, amen. The religion of vaccines. You, it's, that's what it is. It's a religion for secular, intelligent people with a higher education. And it causes incredible cognitive dissonance for anybody out there to come to the conclusion that the CDC and the FDA and our public health authorities and what the entire medical establishment has been telling you may not be accurate about.

vaccines because like what you just said the claim that you're a flat earther you're an anti-vaxxer deserts and not they're used as a way to say you are really out there and dumb right they're completely equal in their impact and so it takes incredible cognitive dissonance to say there are real problems with vaccines but vaccines really sit in their own little universe they're unlike any other medical product. They're not like penicillin. They're not like any other drugs. They're not like any other product out there. Any other product in this room, anything out there for one major reason. Every other product that exists, I can sue the company. I can hold them accountable if that product injures or kills you or your child on the basis that product could have made safer.

the only product, and I mean this literally, the only product in America where you cannot sue to say had you made that product safer, my child wouldn't be dead. My child wouldn't be seriously injured. They wouldn't have a neurological disorder. They wouldn't have immunological disorder. They wouldn't have a nervous system disorder. They wouldn't have a cardiac issue. Our childhood vaccines and child vaccines used by adults.

It's the only one. And that's because of a law called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It gave pharma companies that incredibly special immunity. Now, just to put that into context, okay, and I'll tie this back in a second as to how we ended up with this notion of this belief, religion, and vaccines. Because, you know, given industry 40 years of unopposed ability to influence, they're going to get pretty dang far. and they did with vaccines. And so, you know, a lot of industries face a crossroads where their products are causing more harm than good. Gas tanks used to explode.

What did they do? Made a better gas tank, all right? Building materials had asbestos. It caused cancer. What do they do? They make better building materials, right? Did they give them immunity? No, of course not.

But in the instance of vaccines leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines. That's it. That's all there was. A child following the CDC schedule in 1986 got three injections on or before their first birthday. Okay. Those three products were causing so much harm and injury that every manufacturer of them went out of business. And that was the MMR vaccine, the DTP and the OPV vaccine. every single one, from six down to one, or for the Piotussis vaccine, six down to one for measles,

about three down to one for polio. And with one company left for each, instead of forcing them to do what every other industry has to do, like I said, make better building materials without asbestos, make better cars that don't explode, go down the chain of different products out there. Congress did something completely unique. It said, you know what? We're just going to give you immunity. we're going to make it so that no company, excuse me, no individual, no parent, no child can sue you for the injuries and deaths caused by your vaccine products.

That is what the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 did. And not only for those three products, but for any other childhood vaccine thereafter. And what that effectively has done is given 40 years for the industry to promote their products, no pushback. When you read about a problem with a car, where are you reading? about it from, usually a class action lawsuit in the paper, right? You're not going to read about that in vaccines, typically. And because of that, you ended up where we are. Anyways, there's a lot more detail to that, but I'll stop there for now. No, please keep going. Well, I mean, when you think about what makes product safer, right? Because I've got a law firm with over 100 individuals. I'm the

manager partner of the firm. Half my firm does all types of plate-deside class actions. We can hold companies accountable for almost anything. Your data, we do hundreds of data breach cases, genetic privacy cases, you do biometric privacy cases. We do all types of lawsuits like that nature, by the way, and New York Times loves those lawsuits, by the way. That stuff nobody attacks me for, okay? Oh, making my privacy better? Oh, protecting me from cars that explode. Oh, thank you. Make vaccine safer? You want to kill everybody. Okay. But that's where it's really weird. But, well, here's where I think I'm hoping I can make it make sense without causing cognitive dissonance. So going back to how we make products safer in America or anywhere, okay.

It's not the government. Governments don't make products safer. Look at extremely authoritarian regimes where there was very little free market like the former USSR. You think products are safe? No. What makes products safe? it's the economic self-interest of the company. It's the economic interest of the company

to make the product safer. Why? You probably own stock, right? And where do you want your stock to go up or down? How do you want it to go? You want it to go up or you want it to go up or you want it to go up? You want it to go up. Okay.

So do all the investors. Right. So does everybody owns that stock. So does Wall Street. So does the CEO. So does the board. So does everybody, the people have the stock, everybody involved,

including usually the major ones. Everybody wants it to go up. If you lose money, it doesn't go up. So normally, the interest to assure a product is safer is aligned with the profit motive. Because if your product causes injury and harm, then you're going to lose money. So you want to know typically.

You have an economic self-interest as a corporation to know, not because you're altruistic, not because you're moral, not because you're ethical, just because you have that economic self-interest to assure the product to say before you go to market and after you go to market, okay? And that exists for every product in America with effectively one exception.

Vaccines. That's really it. Now, I'm going to show you one result of that in practice, okay? When you think of drugs, and this will help, I think tie into what you're saying about what happened with COVID. Most drugs are licensed based on multi-year placebo control trials. Most of them. Why?

Because the FDA requires it? Because the FDA is so great? No. Nothing to do with the FDA. It's because the company wants to know whether the drug is safe or not before it goes to market. Because you know what happens with the drug that they put out that's going to make $40 billion in revenue or $20 billion but causes $100 billion in harm? they end up upside down. So they want to know to a reasonable degree

how safe the drug is before it goes to market. In an attempt not to cherry pick, as I did in my book, I found an article that listed the top four selling profitable drugs by Pfizer as of like 2021 or something, 2019, okay? And if you look at those four

most profitable drugs, as I put in my book, Each one has two to seven years of follow-up in the clinical trial that was relied upon to license that drug against a placebo control group, just to make sure everybody, I'm sure everybody knows what that means, but that just means a group that gets something inert. So this way you give it the group, the experimental drug, you give a group the placebo, something inert, you track them for multiple years, and then you compare all the outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, neurological outcomes, go down the list. And cancer rates, and you see the difference. You get a real actual sense of the safety between those two for that product. In contrast, for most childhood vaccines, instead of years, it's often days or weeks of safety review in the clinical trial. I rely upon to license them. Not a single, and I know that folks can test us all time, but it's in the FDA literature.

Not a single routine injected childhood vaccine was licensed based on a placebo control trial, save for the COVID vaccine, by the way, for children. It's the only one. Not a single one, okay? Nor was the vaccine sometimes uses the control itself licensed based on a placebo control trial, nor anywhere down that chain. Chapter 10 of my book, I go through every vaccine. I go through, I have it all cited to the FDA licensure documents. You can listen to the talking heads or you can rely on the primary sources from the FDA, which is why I call my book Vaccines Amendment because there is what they tell you,

and then there's what the actual evidence shows, right? So that gives you an example of the outcome of not having an economic self-interest. With drugs, they have it, so they want to know the safety. Can I challenge you on that? What about Vioxx? Like the Vioxx people knew that there was one of the things that was revealed during the trial is that they knew that there was going to be issues. I think the quote buzz, we still think we'll do well.

And that was one of the damning aspects of the email disclosure. Because you got a chance to see how these guys talk about this drug that they're about to release. I think they wound up paying a percentage of the amount of money they made from the drug. but they made way more from the drug than they did the fine. No, I appreciate that challenge. And it's why I said when I was saying that they do the analysis of whether they're going to have a hundred billion in loss or 40 billion in revenue. I'm not saying they won't put out a drug that causes harm. You're saying because it can't cause too much harm.

Exactly. Okay. They can't, they don't want to end up upside down. And remember, the whole reason a drug is licensed is because it can cause harm. The crazy thing about the Vioxx one is I think it killed somewhere north of 50,000 people and they still made profit off of it, which is kind of bananas. They pulled it and made billions in profit. This is the darker aspect of this. If you were talking about companies that never did anything wrong, it had the highest moral and ethical standards, and they're the ones because it's not about money.

It's about saving people's health and it's about public safety and we've got to make sure that we do this right. We're going to make sure we squash all the disinformation. But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about these companies that have been fined billions, billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, for all kinds of shit. These are the people. And the idea that they wouldn't lie about vaccines. Like this is the one thing. They're going to tell you the truth.

Ruthless, capitalist, capitalist attached to money and drugs. This is the one thing. they're going 100% tell you the truth about. That seems kind of kooky. That's a hard sell for anybody who's not ideologically captured. That's a hard sell. Yeah, but I don't think you need to go down the road that there's some kind of evil nefariousness there. That's not what I'm saying.

It's a broken economic and regulatory system from my perspective. Right. It's just a completely broken economy. To your point about Vioxx, right? So in Vioxx, it caused incredible amount of harm, but they still decided that the benefits that raised the risk. Do you know the story about the cars that used to explode? It's the classic case we learned in law school.

And the gas tank and these cars... Was it a Pinto? It was the Pinto's, that's right. Yeah. And a number of them exploded every year burning the people inside them alive to death, right? Horrible. Way to go. And there was a lawsuit.

And in that lawsuit, what they discovered was... The company had done an internal calculation in which it did the math. What's it going to cost to actually fix all the gas tanks? What's that dollar number versus what's it going to cost to just pay out for those deaths every year? For those people that we burn knowingly are going to die and burn to death in those cars. And the calculation was that it was going to cost less to pay out for the deaths. And that is what the internal document showed. And that, by the way, is in part the case, the quintessential case you learn in law school for why they have punitive damages.

Because the punitive damages were there to force the company to conform its conduct in exactly that scenario where the economics weren't going to do it. Right. Even in something that horrible, when the market forces weren't sufficient, the economic self-interest wasn't there, you had to make it happen. How? Through punitive damages. I know there's a lot of, you know, news about punitive damages. Oh, it's excessive and so forth. But that's what they're there for. They're there for that scenario where we're just holding them accountable. Now, go back to vaccines. Think about how incredibly harmful and how much harm these vaccines must do that they cannot survive on the market without this immunity from 1986. Think about that. If you were going to steal me on the argument against that, wouldn't you say, look, these are, we can't have frivolous lawsuits against these people that are providing us the most important medication that's available to humans? The whole reason why we survive smallpox and polio and all these different things,

it's these vaccines. Without them, we'd all be dead. This episode is brought to you by Montana Knife Company. I have used their knives for years. They are absolutely fantastic. The company was founded by, one of the most experienced master blade smiths in the world, my friend, Josh Smith. He has been making knives since he was a kid. He's been making knives for 30 years. He made his first hunting

knife when he was 11 years old and became a master blade smith at 19. This man loves knives, the construction of knives. They are absolutely next level. Everything is made right here in the USA in Montana and these knives are designed, tested, and built by hunters. They come insanely sharp out of the box and are crazy easy to sharpen. Montana Knife Company is a young company working hard to keep up with demand because these knives sell out in minutes. If you want one, head over to montananife company.com to see what's available now. Sign up for their email newsletter so you know when they restock and get in on their

SMS notifications for special knife drops. My personal favorite blade is the Speedgoat 2.0. I use it all the time. It's an amazing knife. Tanna Knife Company, working knives for working people. Let's just assume that the last part of what you said is true, which we know it's not. But with that said, steel manning it. Let's steel manning it.

Easy response, okay? Okay. Drugs that are for very small populations, meaning not a lot of market, not a lot of sales, that cause incredible side effects can survive in the market profitably. Think about that for a second. Why? Okay? Here's why. It's a little bit of legal stuff, but it's not that hard.

It's not that bad. The primary claim you would typically bring against a product is the claim that it could have been made safer. It's called a design defect claim. It's a claim where I say, hey, had you put in a two-cent stopper on that gas tank, it wouldn't have exploded. If you had to put in a one penny plastic shield on that saw, I'd have my finger. Design defect claim. The claim you could have made a product safer. It is the primary claim you would bring for a product, okay, injury claim.

So how do you protect against it? You make the product as technologically safe as possible, right? So if you have a drug that causes incredible side effects that we just talked about, make the drug as safe as possible. Make sure there are no contaminants. Make sure that you use the best possible ingredients. Make sure the combination, right? The safest adjuvant. Go down the road.

That's number one. Number two, the second way you hold them accountable is you bring a claim called a failure to warn claim. I failed to warn you about the harm that the drug could have caused, okay? And so what do you have to do there to protect yourself? The company has to disclose all the potential harms. if it has it right there in the package insert and you get it and it says hey it can cause this this this this this this this you were told you chose to still take the product they made it as safest technologically feasible

they disclose the risks and that is how companies typically limit their liability with medical products with drug products okay why can't they do the vaccines why can't they just make them as safe as technologically feasible can't assume for design defect and disclose all the actual risks in the package insert okay the logical conclusion is and one other point to that and then i'll okay okay okay okay I'll respond to your steel, man, okay? And it's this, all right? It's been 40 years for some of these vaccines. Happy vaccine, for example, licensed in 86 and 89, the two standolones.

It's been 40 years. You're telling me they still don't know it's safe enough to lift that immunity. You're giving it to millions of kids a year. You're making billions of dollars on the sales of this product, and you still don't know it's safe enough to lift that immunity, please. Okay, if I was a silly person, I would probably say these vaccines are more important than any medication that's ever existed because they are the reason why we are here because that's how we survive smallpox and polio and the measles and everything else.

And without them, we would have perished. We would have never achieved the technological states that we're at because we wouldn't have been healthy. We would have gone through mass plagues. Okay. A response to that. So because of that, it's just important that they stay in business. Well, a few things.

And we trust the science. You should trust the science, Aaron. Trust the science, yes. Believe. Aaron, trust the science. Yes, sir. Amen. Amen.

Yeah, I try not to do too much believing and I try to do a little bit of, you know, evidence-based thinking. But any event, look, when it comes to these products, I saved my beliefs for religion, the unanswerables. Where to go when we die? Right. And so forth. I have to take a leap of faith. And I do it when I need to, but you don't need to with these products. Okay.

on the first part of what you said. First of all, there are products probably that are far more important to humanity at the moment. No question about it than vaccines, even assuming it had the results that you just claim, which I'll address in a second. Imagine you said, look, cars are essential. I mean, cars, you can't get an ambulance. You can't get to the hospital. Without cars, you can't get to work. You can't get your school.

I mean, it's essential to a functioning society, so let's give cars immediate liability. Intuitively, you'd say that's ridiculous. Right. On the death's point, that is one of the myths. That is one of the mythologies around vaccines that has developed over time, this notion that everybody in America die without vaccines. In chapter 7 of my book, and I lay it out for every single disease. And what I do there is I say, okay, how many deaths were there in America the year before the vaccine was first introduced or widely or widely used or so forth? Okay? in any real degree. And what you find is, if you go down the list, there were typically dozens to hundreds, maybe a thousand or so deaths from each disease

for which we vaccinate. The further back in time you go, the larger the number in that dozens to a thousand or so deaths, okay? For example, measles, the dreaded measles that they say everybody will die from. No measles vaccine, we're all going to die, right? That is the impression they give you. you have any idea how people died of measles

in the years before there was a measles vaccine in the United States? About 400 a year. That's it? That's it. 400 a year dying in the United States

at a time when everybody had measles which comes out to about 1 in 450,000 Americans dying of measles that's in the CDC anybody listening to this who's like,

come on, that's not true. CDC mortality documents on the CDC website cited in my book, 400. And don't, about 50,000 people every year die

from the flu? Well, that statistic includes bacterial deaths that they say are potentially the result from having influenza. So your immune system gets weakened and then something else hits you? And that kills you? Is that the idea behind it? Well, that's just the way they gather the data is the way I'll put it. But with influenza, let me finish if I could finish up with the measles because I think this is important on the measles one and I can deal with influenza eat as well but on the measles one just to really because you're saying well everybody would die without these I don't think people think of influenza by the way they think of measles right they think of those diseases right I don't ever hear anybody say to me well everybody will die of influenza without influenza vaccines everybody it's available everybody can get it the mortality hasn't changed much in fact If you look at the mortality of influenza influenza vaccines were widespread, we're not doing that great. Okay. Anyway, putting that aside for a moment.

Not only that, isn't there data that shows that if you get, you're more likely to get other colds? Yeah, I have a whole giant footnote in my book about this, and I actually tweeted this out and did a stuff to think about this. A whole series of articles studies that show that those that have had the influenza vaccines, maybe these studies often reflect have around the same rate of influenza. Maybe they have less respiratory influenza infections. But many studies show they have multiple times the rate of other respiratory infections. So good job. Maybe you've reduced your risk of influenza by this much, but you've increased your risk of another different respiratory disease by that much.

How much is it? How much of the increase? Depends on the study. Some studies show four times risk, some studies show three times risk. Yeah. I mean, literally three, four, I mean, huge percentages. And they're statistically significant in these studies. And so, you know, when you're looking at a, now, these are all retrospective epidemiological studies. And but when you do a retrospective epistody, which means you take existing data and then you study it versus saying, okay, we're going to do a study and follow people going forward. Okay. If you find like a 1.3 time, which means 30% increased risk, like that's a public. full finding. This is three, 400% increased risk. Yes. And in many of these studies, it's inconvenient data, so obviously it's not talked about. Right. So 400 people's not a whole lot. I'm sure, I mean, it's sad when 400 people die. But it's also one of those diseases that

when you're a child, it's much more survivable, right, than adult. Adult, it's rough, isn't it? Yeah. So measles, the ideal age to get it is not when you're an infant, which in the pre-vaccine era, infants typically did not get measles because they got maternal immunity from the mother. And you don't want to get it as an adult because it is more likely to cause problems, which, again, in the pre-vaccine era, wasn't a problem because everybody virtually got it as a child. Right. Yeah. And when you got it as a child, my recollection of it was the episode of the Brady Bunch. Do you remember?

Yeah. Remember that episode? Yeah, they were laughing about it. Let's watch this. Find that clip, but let's watch it because it's so indicative of what measles was actually like in the culture of the people that would get it all the time versus this boogeyman of today. I mean, it is, it's so stark. I mean, it's like, imagine the kid coming home. Hey, mom, I've got AIDS.

I've got to stay home from school. It's not that, right? It's the way that most folks who've had chicken pox think of chicken pox. Right. But we're told that it's killing people. We're told that it's killing people now. We're told that it's killing. It's always kids.

We're told it's killing kids now. And look, if anybody dies from measles, I'm very sad. But I want to know, is it with measles? Remember the with COVID or from COVID? Like, what kind of condition were these people in before this hit them? Because some, I mean, that was the thing about COVID. It's like, yeah, it's fatal. If you have four plus comorbidities,

You're more likely to be fatal, and that was most of the people that wind up dying from it, right? That's almost certainly the case, and I can add another data point to that to help support that, which is that between 1900, and this is, again, CDC data, between 1900 and the late 1950s or early 1960s, the mortality from measles declined in the United States by over 98%. You know what didn't cause that? Vaccines. Yeah, because it didn't exist. I know. So immunity had become a herd thing, just like COVID-ish right now. Everybody basically has had COVID or at least he's been exposed to it by now.

Here it is. It's the whole episode. There's multiple clips. I don't know which one is the best one, but here's one. Just let's just try. I think he finds out he's coming over. Put on your headphones for a second so we could hear this. Aaron.

Oh, grab your headphones. Thank you. No. it's the measles? Well, he's certainly got all the symptoms. A slight temperature, a lot of dots, and a great big smile. A great big smile. No school for a few days. Jim! You've got measles. Golly, mothers are supposed to know everything. But do you have to keep proving it? You've got a temperature, too. What do you mean, too?

Well, Peter was sent home from school a little while ago. Oh, what was his temperature? 101.1. Oh, is that all? I'm 101.2. Oh, Greg. You want my real one. road. I'll be a sport. You can ride on it free. Thanks a lot. It's your turn, Peter. They're having a measles party. Oh, mister. Yep. Boy, this is the life, isn't it? Yeah. If you have to get sick, you sure can't beat the measles. That's right. No medicine.

Inside or out. Like shots I mean. Don't even mention shots. Yeah. Okay. I mean, am I crazy? Or, or have we gone through the one of the, wildest gas lightings of anything ever. There's people out there that because of the things that you said so far about the measles will be 100% freaking out on Twitter. Right? But this is this is a window into how the American public thought, I know it's a television show, I know it's a sitcom, but you can't joke around about stuff that other people wouldn't think is funny. People would think that was funny, these kids saying, if you're going to get sick, he should get the measles and everybody at home be like, oh, I wish I had a day off.

Well, that's how they thought of it. Yeah. And to put hard data on it, going back to that statistic, over 98% reduction, remember, it's not like COVID, Joe, because COVID, there was no immunity in the population, right? Right. Measles has been around for forever, as far as we know, thousands of years. Right. The year 1900 wasn't the beginning of herd immunity.

1900 measles already endemic. Everybody was getting measles. So every year there's a few million people cohort that were getting it, and you had the decline, and so you have to ask yourself, what was the decline? It was probably better sanitation, better acute medical care, I mean, all kinds of things. And you know who could take credit for most of that stuff? Better sanitation, better living conditions, better, you name it.

probably public health authorities, meaning the improvement in acute care, the introduction of antibiotics, better living conditions, not having sewage in the street, you name it, probably had a massive contributor to that reduction, but they never point to that. And there's one other really inconvenient data point with measles, and this is really where it gets upsetting for folks out there who you were just saying are going to watch the show. And it's this. that over 98% reduction in mortality, there's no reason that that curve was not going to continue because pockets of the United States in late 15, early 60s were like a developing country.

In a developing country, kids are going to die of any infectious disease because of extremely poor living conditions. And as those improved, most likely that 400 deaths also would have continued to decline. 4.2 million births in the United States in the late 50s, early 60s, about 3.8 million. million births today. So in fact, there's less children being born in America today than there was then. So you have a smaller cohort of babies' young children to infect. And final data point, and it's this, and this is really, I know this is going to cause cognizance for some, but studies that have looked at those that have had measles versus those that don't find that those that have had measles

have a statistically significant, greater reduction in deaths from cardiovascular disease and various cancers. So I'll give you an example. There's a 20-year, 22-year, prospective study in Japan, done by, funded by the government of Japan and major universities that tracked 100,000 people in Japan for 22 years. And it found that those that had measles and mumps had a 20% statistically significant to, decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease. Think about that for a second. Just think about that. About 800,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease.

If eliminating measles and mumps has increased cardiovascular deaths in the United States by even 1% on a life years lost basis, you are still way upside down on your public health benefit by eliminating measles. Can I ask you what the speculation is, how that could be? Why would measles and mumps infection at an early age, improve your health cardiovascularly? Why would it also, those that have not had measles have a 66% increase rate of non-hosterlyphoma and 266% increase rate of Hodgkin lymphoma, which kills 20,000 people a year? Why would women that have had measles have 50% less ovarian cancer, which kills a lot of women every year? What is it about it? Maybe, and here's the thing, I'm, you know, and you can

I have evolutionary biologists talk about this as well. You've had some on. Think about it this way. Pathogens have come and gone throughout the ages, right? Right. This one didn't. Measles, mumps, rebella, chickenpox. They didn't.

It could be, maybe, I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying this is what the data appears to reflect. What I just told you about with cardiovascular disease and cancer, they're all in PubMed. They're all PubMed studies. They're all in the published literature. And they're all consistent having the findings that I just described. Okay. I'm just a lawyer. I'm just repeating to what the data reflects. It could be that having those

fervile childhood infections conferred a survival advantage overall. And it could be the reason they never actually went away over time, became less obviously pathogenic. Where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banners to order your Groceries online at walla.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store. Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary.

Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember 988, Canada's suicide crisis helpline. It's good to know, just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 suicide crisis helpline is funded by the government in Canada. So it has like a hermetic effect and it makes you physically stronger somehow or another.

It makes your immune system stronger, like a stress test. That means not outside the realm of possibility, right? I mean, if lifting weights makes you stronger and, you know, studying makes you smarter, wouldn't it make sense that some form of infection that you recover from will make you more resilient? It does make sense. It's just like no one wants to say to, hey, you should go get measles. Look, theory of relativity is not intuitive. Why is it as you approach a more massive object or approach the speed of light as time relatively slow down?

I don't know if it makes sense or not. It's just what when you put two atomic clocks on a plane, one on the ground, one in the plane, you fly it around the earth. They're not ticking the same. So there it is. Right. You can't pretend that's not dated. The data is what it is. It doesn't have to make sense to be true.

That's just what it is. And I'm just saying what the studies show. Very inconvenient, a lot of cognizance there, but it could very well be that our whole, this whole program, not only do we, so going back to your whole, going all the way back to your point, you're like, well, they'll say vaccines are so important. We've got to give them this immunity. No. In fact, quite the opposite.

Our babies are so precious, are so important. We want to make sure we have the safest possible product you couldn't have. And the way to do that is to make sure the companies have an economic interest to make sure they're as safe as possible. I agree with you entirely. But if I was questioning anything, I would say, okay, if we don't have genetic immunity anymore because our parents didn't have it because our parents are vaccinated against measles, wouldn't it be better to keep vaccinating people rather than let a whole bunch of people with no immunity to measles get it, particularly like older people? So this is a really important point, actually. Okay. I agree with you.

Because here's here, well, I can I put it into context? Before we get going, when in, when they mandated vaccines or when they started giving them to people was what in like the early 60s, I believe? For measles vaccines, 63. Did a lot of people resist it? Was it back then, were the hippies opting out? Is there like a group that you could follow and track that never got it, never got the vaccine while everybody else did? It has to be, right? I'm sure there's a group out there you can identify.

I mean, the Amish. There you go. Right. So, you know, who we represent right now because New York's trying to basically kick them out of New York for not vaccinating. That's crazy. We just won in, we just in the U.S. Supreme Court, we were just successful in vacating the lower court decisions just a few weeks ago. Do you remember when Kathy Hocel was talking about the vaccines, like they're a gift from God? She believes it.

But do you remember how she was saying it? And it's like, in any other business, if you were running a pharmaceutical drug business, if you were running a Chevy and you're making a new Corvette. And you started talking about how this Corvette is a gift from God. Everybody would go, oh, Kathy's cracked. Yeah. Like, what are you talking about? It's a bunch of engineers. We put together a great car.

Like, what do you? It's a gift from God. What? People don't say I believe in tables. I believe in chairs. I believe in TVs. I believe in wallpaper. Right.

But they say, I believe in vaccines all the time because it carries a truism. But do they work? Does the measles vaccine prevent people from getting measles? Or is it a leaky vaccine? Is it a completely... So answering that and your prior question at the same time... Sorry. No, no, no, don't be sorry.

I'm very scattered. No, you're not scattered at all. Is that the measles vaccine, MMR vaccine and chicken box vaccine can prevent transmission. That is not true of most vaccines, but those can't. So those can. Those can. And so to your now going back, so that's the differential.

And in fact, for most of the other vaccines like pertussis vaccine and so forth, they make you more likely to spread the pathogen if you're vaccinated. And I can tell you all about that. But before I do that, let me just point out that to your last comment, because measles, MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine can prevent transmission, you are correct. if measles were to come through society right now, right now in the current time, it would be problematic because babies who aren't supposed to get it would be more likely to get it because the mothers aren't conferring the same maternal immunity that they did in the pre-vaccine error because the vaccine doesn't confer the same level of immunity anywhere near. And older folks, because the vaccine is nowhere as efficacious as having had the infection,

depending on the study, 2 to 10 percent do not seroconvert, even after. after two doses, meaning they are not getting immunity at all, pretty much, or an immunity is considered immune. Is this when they take it later in life or when they take it when they're young? This is when they take it when they're young. And that's why when there's a measles outbreak, a lot of times you'll hear a call to even have folks who are older get the measles vaccine again, right? There's guidance on that because it doesn't confer.

If you've had measles, you're done. You never need a vaccine. Again, you'll never get measles again, one and done. Right. Right. So yes, it would be problematic right now for those, for MMR, measles, Monterebella, and chicken pox to just kind of let it rip. You would have to really, you know, have an educational campaign beforehand if you were going to do that. But for the other vaccines, Hep B vaccine, pertussis vaccine, not a problem. Those vaccines don't stop transmission. The HEPB ones are kind of crazy that they give that to babies. It's kind of crazy. Kind of crazy if the parent aren't interveningist drug users or whatever, whatever would give them hep be,

that you're going to inject a baby with a vaccine that prevents them from getting a sexually transmitted disease and like a rarely sexually. You got to be doing something rough. Joe, you just don't understand what was on in the NICU. I mean, it just seems crazy. It is. And here, I'll give you another data point, which is in Denmark, okay, there is no Hep B, universal hep B for kids. The only time they give Hep B in Denmark is if the mother's Hep B positive.

So their Hep B vaccination rate amongst children is like 0.1% or something to that effect. Okay. So here you go. Two first world countries, America and Denmark. Universal Hep B here, virtually zero Hep B. vaccine given there, the rate of Hep B amongst children not statistically significant. You know it is different between those two countries? The rate of harm from Heppe vaccine, that's different. You know what a baby's never died of on the first day of life? Hepatitis B. You know what a baby has

died of in the first day of life? Hepatitis B vaccine. In fact, adjudicated as such not long ago for a newborn that died from a Hep B vaccine. And I said earlier you can't sue the manufacturers. You cannot. There is a little program, though, in the federal government where you can bring a claim if you're injured from a vaccine. That's what I'm talking about. I went about the head baby that died of hep B. It's called the vaccine injury compensation program.

I have like 20 folks in my firm that do that work. And, you know, it's not like a regular court. You don't get an Article III judge, Article III of the Constitution, a federal judge. You don't get any discovery as a right, which is how you prove harms. There's a $250,000 statutory cap on pain and suffering and death, which is ridiculous. And it doesn't have, you know, anyways, long story short, it's paid out about $5 billion for damages and so forth from vaccines over the years. But so I didn't want people to get confused like when I said, well, how did this baby get

adjudicated? Right. It got adjudicated in this program. Got it, got it. So when you have conversations with people and they are the way you used to be and the way I used to be, where you just sort of just assumed that these, the people that are experts in their fields are doing a great job, and that's why we're alive. And you start telling them these things.

Like, are you a real problem at a cocktail party? Like, do you, have you ever, have you ever had a conversation that just went completely sideways? They started getting angry at you for quoting things? Yeah. Because that's a, it's, it's not a problem for me because I don't know emotions or feelings about the products. They're just products.

They're no different for me, but a lot of folks, there's two things. First, for some, like medical professionals, a lot of them seem to derive a lot of their self-schema almost, their value, their worth from these products. They saved humanity. How could you question that? We are the saviors, right? In some respects, almost like supplanting God, right? What's the only thing that will save us during COVID?

Was it God? No. Vaccines. That's the only thing. And then for others, they think that they know, okay? But they don't know intellectually. They've never looked at the primary sources. So when you challenge them with evidence, what can they draw from the intellect?

No. They draw from their emotions. They draw from their feelings. And that's why they get angry. I do get that all the time. But I also often get folks who are just curious and interested to listen. Well, I think there's more of those now than there's ever been before. Absolutely.

I think COVID in that respect forced the conversation. You had millions of people who were listening to basic stuff that 10 years ago when I started doing this work, nobody talked about what is a placebo? What's a clinical trial? What's the stuff? Like this became or even the idea that a vaccine can cause a harm was just that notion was totally taboo seven years ago. Right. No more. Yeah.

I think you're entirely correct. And also credit to YouTube because YouTube doesn't suppress. this stuff anymore, which is why I found dozens of interviews with you on YouTube. I mean, before, I mean, I'd seen some of your stuff on social media, but then, you know, I've watched a bunch of your stuff now on YouTube, whereas during the pandemic, everything you said, you would have got removed. I was removed. Everything I said was removed.

I'll tell you the first thing that ever had posted that got said, it was on, it was on Twitter. Yeah, the old Twitter. So we brought this lawsuit against the FDA to get all the documents they relied upon. to license Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, okay? Yeah. They licensed it in 42 days, and we said, all right, 42 days, give us all the documents, right? And they wanted forever.

They wanted to produce that at a rate of a few hundred pages of months, which would have taken hundreds of years, effectively. Got a tranche of those documents, took some of them, literally took one of the documents, and posted it, and my tweet was just literally quoting from the document, effectively, and that was taken down as misinformation. Pfizer's own documents submitted to the FDA.

One of the first things, that was just, that was mind jarring. It was stunning. It was stunning to watch people not be outraged, too. When information was getting out about different people that were silenced, Jay Batacharya and all those different people that were getting intact, Martin Koldorf, it was stunning how no one was going, hey, what is going on here? This seems really weird that you were moving posts from guys from MIT and Stanford

and banning their accounts. It's like, that's fucking crazy. And until Elon purchased Twitter, we really didn't know the extent of it. We really weren't aware that it was government involvement. They were stepping in to remove and remove mal-information. That was my favorite. They came up with, you know that one? Disinformation, mal-information.

Mal is the best because it's true information that might cause problems, which is fucking almost everything. As soon as you have a problem with mal-information, Like, you are encouraging the creepiest kind of group think that's available and no one freaked out. Well, a few people freaked out, but not enough. It wasn't – it should have been bipartisan. It should have been a bipartisan freak out. It should have been left and right, but it got politicized in this really stupid way where people on the left were pro-vaccine and pro-pharmacetyical drug company and pro-narrative. And people on the right were like, I'm going to take my chances.

And those were the cooks. And, you know, it was this like ideological battle as much as it was a public health crisis. crisis. Censorship was bad. It was very bad. Real bad. But I'll tell you what made me think people were going to go into the street with pitchforks was when the government told everybody stay at home. That wasn't hidden. That wasn't behind the scenes, the stuff you're talking about. They said, stay in your house. They didn't say we recommend you stay in your houses. They didn't say we recommend you get this vaccine. We'd recommend you wear this mask. They said, stay in your house. When they had that first order came down, I was like, people are just going to be outraged. People are going to protest. And when they didn't, that's what dismayed me personally.

And I'll tell you why. Because when you think about civil and individual rights, First Amendment, the right to free speech, the assembly. That was passed and adopted by the states in 1791. What's the First Amendment intended to do? It restrict government from infringing on those rights. You think life was easy in 1791? What do you think life was like in 1791? I think it was easy.

I think it was all hunky-dory. Life in 1791 was brutal. Brutal! You would talk about disease, pestilence, famine, war? You want to talk about a life that is no electricity, no running water, no suet, nothing, And that amendment was passed for times that are more brutal than that. And here comes a virus. And every right you have is basically taken away.

And Americans are like, take it! Take it away! That is what outraged me, because look, what was the whole point of this country? What is America born out of, in my view? It's born out of the idea that every other government that preceded it got it wrong in the following sense. Your life should not be dictated by a king or a dictator or a polar bureau or a central authority. It's the idea that you are born with an alienable rights. You should be able to choose your destiny, including what risks you want to take.

Individual rights come with risks. Letting Joe Rogan say what he wants on this podcast comes with risks. letting you practice what religion you want, assemble with who you want, especially in Austin. Very interesting time yesterday. That comes with risks. Let me tell you. A lot of risks, okay? But the greater risk is always seating that right to the government, because once you do, you don't get it back often.

And so, yes, there was that hidden stuff you talk about. And that was bad. Don't get me wrong. I was bad stuff. That's really, really bad. But the stuff they did in the open to me in some ways was even worse. And I hope that there's a lesson that folks learn from that because let me tell you something. Even if you love every vaccine out there, you're listening to this.

You love every vaccine. You love every mask, right? Great. I support every American's right. You're 17. You're 18. You're totally healthy. No comorbidities.

And you want to get a vaccine a day where 70 masks and live in your basement and a self-imposed day at home order, this is America. I support your right to do. I'll fight for your right to do that. And you're 90 and you're a war veteran and you want to go to the, and you have 16 comorbidities. You want to go to the coffee shop with no vaccine and no mask? You should be free to do that because that's America too. That's freedom also.

Just like you can bullrod. And if you don't stand up for that right now, the day comes when there's something, a medical product you don't want, the government says you have to get. Because trust me, it is so much cheaper to lobby to get a medical product required than it is to market to get people to get it. Oh, they've learned that lesson. That's why there's so much lobbying to get mandates, get rid of exempt. across the country that you don't want and you can't get a job and you can't go to school and you can't live your house, then what good are the rest of your rights? They're useless.

That's why medical liberty truly is a fundamental right. I'm off my high horse. No, it's a great high horse. That was an awesome rant. You're absolutely 100% on the money. And it's such an important thing to get out there, to get people to understand that you it's such a natural human inclination to when you're in a place of power of control, any form of government, you want more control. And it's just natural.

And what you're talking about when you lose rights, you very rarely get them back. That was so on display in California with the COVID regulations because they had everybody locked down way past where they had to. A friend of mine's brother worked in one of the. the COVID, some government office when they were considering the closing of outdoor dining. And he brought up, but there's no transmission related to outdoor dining. And the woman who was in charge said, yes, but it's all about the optics. So she was willing to, with a wave of her magic wand, shut down outdoor dining for a bunch of small family businesses that were probably barely staying alive after COVID.

Barely. We lost somewhere around 70% of Los Angeles restaurants went under during COVID. That's fucking bananas. And so they finally get outdoor dining. Like, okay, we could kind of pay the bills this month. And then they shut down outdoor dining for optics. So this kind of desire to just put a foot down, control people, keep a boot on their neck. It's normal.

Even if it doesn't make sense. Everybody knows that from high school. Everybody knows that from, I mean, the Stanford Prison Experiments. People like to control people. They enjoy it. And when they get a place like becoming the mayor or becoming the governor and being able to tell people, well, you got to listen to me. I've got rule.

Everyone stay inside. Be scared. Fucking California, Garcetti literally had a campaign that said snitches get rewards. Snitches. Snitching on people. having more than one person over your house, standing too close in the backyard. You get money. You get money for ratting out your neighbor.

This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. In honor of International Women's Day, BetterHelp is celebrating the women in your life. I think we can all appreciate everything the women in our lives have done for us, and everyone deserves a little self-care. A good way to get that is through therapy, because not only is therapy a time for you to focus on yourself, It's also a way to create balance and learn how to take care of your needs in your daily life and better help as one of the largest online therapy platforms makes it so easy to meet with the right therapist.

All you need to do is fill out a short questionnaire. You don't even need to go into an office to meet them. You can chat at home from your couch, in your car, before you hit the gym, or while you're walking your dog. Plus, if you aren't jiving with your first match, you can switch to a different therapist whenever you. you need. Your emotional well-being matters, find support, and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash j-R-E. That's better-h-E-L-P-com slash J-R-E. Well, when the government gets it wrong, they always always double down because, and that's the problem with the mandates. Once they've required it, they have taken a position and then to admit

they're wrong, often what government ends up saying is, oh, well, we're the CDC. If we admit we're wrong about this, that's going to hurt our ability to influence the public. And that's more important than admitting we're wrong on this or correcting course. Because our legitimacy, our ability to influence the public is so important, we have to, you know, we can't admit we're wrong. That's what what Bobby's doing right now in some of these things is, you know, some of the stuff like the new autism page on the CDC website, for example, is contrary to anything I've ever seen come out of the federal health authorities to date. But yes, it's disturbing, and it's why government should, no public health authority should ever be able to tell you and infringe on your rights.

They should be able to recommend, recommend the law. Recommend like crazy, but never do it, because that is the normal course of how tyranny, dictators, bullies, thugs operate. First, they tell you what to do. You don't listen, apply a little pressure. You don't listen, and they mandate. You still don't listen. They censor you. Still, take away more of your rights.

That is the normal progression throughout history, and we saw it happen in front of our eyes, which is why it should be a line in the sand. federal health authorities, state health authorities, should be able to recommend and encourage never mandate ever. Fauci literally expressed it that way. I'm sure you've heard that recording of it. Once people realize they can't go to work, they'll drop their ideological bullshit and they'll get vaccinated. Like he's essentially telling them, you're going to make people's life hell and they'll do what you want them to do. Not they will have free will.

they will have the ability to choose. No, no, no. You will make them do what you want. Yeah. Who wants the government that persuades you on the merits? Forget that. But imagine that that's, that is something that someone said out loud. But, but, but that, I don't think that what Foucho is saying is anything.

Foucho, everything in my view that you saw during COVID is not like some giant leap into some new territory. To me, it's just another natural step in progression from where we've gone over the last 40 years of vaccines. Fauci's saying that is no different than school mandates right now to get children. Most states have, 45 states have basically checked the box exemption to send your kids to school. There's about five that don't. They're trying to eliminate exemptions, right? Clearly, they're able to persuade most parents on the merits, but yet they can't take it. They can't take that a two, three, four percent just will not take these products.

And I'll tell you about what most of these folks are. They're the folks who really need the exemptions because, you know, most people who don't choose to take childhood vaccines, they don't typically just wake up and decide to do that for fun. Not many people wake up one day and go, you know what I'm going to do today? I'm going to take a socially ostracizing position. I might get my kids kicked out of school, me throwing out of my job. My friends call me an anti-this and anti-that. you know, you name it, all the horribles that come with not vaccinating.

No, most people don't vaccinate, don't vaccinate because they've had a very, very personal or negative experience with these products. They are one of their kids or one of their family members or they've learned stuff they cannot learn about them. Okay? They have usually a very good reason not to. And yet, as you saw during COVID, it's not about, in many respects, the medical. medicine to the examples you gave. It's about they cannot stand that somebody is not agreeing with their beliefs. They cannot extend the exceptions, those who stand up, say, no, I've come to a different

medical conclusion. They can't let that exist. Right. That is what it is. And it happens for people regardless of their religious status. It's a weird thing. It's like, it is like a religion. I mean, which is why I'm so glad you wrote your book that way, because I think there's these natural patterns of groupthink and of just complying that people automatically fall into.

It's very easy. That's why people can get people to joint cults. That's why people are a part of like weird Christian sex. Like, wait, what do you guys do? Huh? You're like, who's the guy? Who's the head guy? This guy?

And he gets to marry everybody? What? Okay. What? Well, that's what happened. It's normal. It's a normal thing. And if you scale it outward, it goes to a lot of stuff. There's a lot of stuff that people just have these, like, climate change is a religion right now.

Like, there's certain people that if you confront them with, like, the actual ones that are willing to question the narrative that are legitimate client scientists, they'll tell you, like, it is so complicated to figure out what is causing the changes in the Earth's climate, warmth and cold. And the fact that it's never been static, ever in human history, never before humans, never billions of years. It's done this crazy thing. It involves the precision of the equinoxes and the fucking polar vortex and it's a lot of. And then also stuff we burn, that too. But like what percentage is what? But it doesn't matter. You can't have that conversation.

It's like you questioning, you know, whatever Messiah this person believes in. They'll just lock down and climate changes this. Not one climate change prediction of doom has been accurate. Not one. Not even in the ballpark. You remember the fucking Al Gore movie? We're supposed to be dead. Meanwhile, they're all buying fucking ocean front houses in Maui.

You know, get out of here. Shut the fuck up. This is another thing. This is another thing. Like, yeah, we shouldn't pollute. Yeah, we shouldn't release particulates in the atmosphere. Yeah, we should have clean energy. Yeah.

But also, you guys are crooks. You guys are a bunch of crooks that are making money off of this idea that you're forcing down everybody's throat, that everybody's got a green new deal, and everybody's got to do renewable this, renewable, and then who's got money invested in all this stuff? A bunch of people who are pushing it, and it's a fucking scam, just like so many of these things are fucking scams. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the damage that we're doing to the earth. We should probably stop overfishing the ocean. We should probably stop dumping shit into the rivers of 100%. You know who used to go to court for that? RFK Jr. He fucking cranks.

The guy who is like cleaning up the East River, that's Bobby Kennedy Jr. He was the guy. And an easy way to identify that somebody is not really coming at you with science and they're coming at you with belief, religion, is exactly what you just said, which is they're not willing to debate, they're not willing to discuss it, they're not willing to engage because that is antithetical

to the scientific method. The whole idea is it's never settled. The whole idea is you push the fringes, you push new theories, you push no ideas, where would science be if you said this is it? Of course, that is the whole notion of it, dispassionately looking at it over and over and over and seeing what more you can learn.

And the moment somebody says, no, we need to stop. You can't discuss. You can't debate that. That's when you know you're dealing with a religion, not science. And when I've talked to certain scientists in different fields that feel very constricted by the academic environment, one of the things that they point to is that the group think involved in that is just like the group think involved in everything and left wing politics, whatever it is. Just figure out whatever it is, right wing politics. Group think in academia is also higher, it's hierarchical. There's tears. And you've got to. to agree with everybody that's above you. You want to get tenure. You want to progress. You want to get grants. It's got to be, you guys got to be in line on all this shit. And he's like, and anybody thinks out of the box is ruthlessly attacked. And even when they turn out to be correct, no one apologizes. They are reluctantly agreed that the person was initially correct. But they'll destroy their career if they can. He's like, the pissing matches are horrifying. And these are the people that are in charge of telling you, what's real in the world. They're just like everybody else. They have ego and there's a fucking social scramble going on at all times. And people are playing succession and Game of Thrones.

It's like the reality is not what you're being told in the news. What you're being told in the news is a narrative. And when the news has a giant chunk of their money for advertising, it's paid by pharmaceutical drug companies. And they never criticize me like, This is wild. Like, this is wild. This is America in 2026.

And the only where you can find out what's kind of real is on the internet. Yes. And also, when it comes to censorship, if I said some totally crazy stupid thing about you, that was totally untrue, like ignore it. If I said it by government, they ignore it. When do they censor? They censor when it's true. Because that's when they're scared. Right.

If you start talking about the government being lizard people, nobody's going to... Nobody cares. Nobody cares. They're all shape-shifters. Nobody cares. But when you start talking about something that's true, that's when it hurts. That's when they... That's what they need to suppress stuff about, I don't know, a certain island with...

If it's not true, no. But if it is true, that's when it gets scary. And that's when you need suppression. Right. And also, I'll note, I went to Berkeley for law school. So I'm familiar with a little bit of what you were just talking about. I'm that experience, too. You know it was over two decades ago.

It was going strong back then. It was going strong back then, but I feel like it was much more reasonable. Like, I used to love San Francisco back then. It was a great town to visit. They were smart. They were cool. They were laid back. People liked to drink.

But they were fun. They always seemed like a smarter L.A. that got out of show business. San Francisco, Berkeley, the University were two different things. I completely agree. And even in, I mean, let's throw outside the bubble of Berkeley from 20 years ago, look back over 20 years ago who was fighting for civil individual rights. It was the left. ACLU, think about Skokie, Illinois, right?

Fighting for the neo-Nazis to be able to march through a Jewish town to say what they want. Who fought that case? Who protected their right to say that? Democrat, ACLU, liberal lawyers and liberal judges, and they said protecting their right to say the things they're saying as despicable, as horrible as we might find it, protects all our right to free speech. Could you imagine those same folks today bringing that case and deciding that way? No way. No way. And what's stunning is that if you asked anybody alive then, if you had ultimate access to information, literally you could pick up your phone and ask it any question about anything. and get information instantaneously, would people be more or less informed? You would say, well, certainly they'll be more informed, so there'll be more understanding of the value of free speech.

And they'll know more about that ruling and what a brave stance they took to allow the KKK to march and how it just shows intellectual superiority. The way to beat a bad idea is not to silence it is to argue it with a much better idea. That you would think by 2026, although they'll be way better. This would be a super advanced society of flying cars. No. No. No.

It's more ideologically captured, more wrapped up in the algorithm, which I think is probably at least 50% fake. 50% is a bunch of bots tweet in a bunch of shit that's, you know, they don't even believe. They're just trying to rile people up and stir people up and push certain narratives. And then people are locked into it 12 hours a day, so they're really crazy. And no one's considering things like the important, well, let's go back to old cases and let's look at why they did that. And I was like, no, no, no, everybody's like captured with whatever the fuck is on TikTok today. What's the latest stupid thing you're supposed to be paying attention to? And the fact that now we're at war, right?

Okay. Great. Social media and the scrolling through those videos, which is what you're describing that thing, is so troubling. But first of all, my understanding is that they just show you stuff that confirm. what you already believe because that's what you want to see. You want to see the things that you already agree with. So you just get this credible confirmation bias that happens, which is antithetical to thinking critically to really opening your mind to it. And then you end up, you know, without, because without actually understanding both sides of an argument, without really understanding it.

I mean, look, I understand the stuff about vaccines that I know which one stop transmission. Right. And I know which ones don't. Right. And I don't have to live in the world of believing, for example, they all do. I know how much death there was before each vaccine, and I know, so I don't have to say, did never save any life, and I don't have to say millions would die. I just, the data's the data, right?

And but you're not, if all you're getting as one viewpoint all the time, you're not, you get this terrible confirmation bias. And did you see this recent study that I did, I just read the abstract, so I didn't delve into it. But apparently watching social media reduces your IQ over time.

you know, just doing all of that scrolling. That's really scary when you think about our current generation. Yeah. Imagine if it could make you smarter, how many more people would be interested in doing it, right? Like, if there's a thing, if you could just stare at your phone for a few hours a day and you get significantly smarter. It's a 10-point jump in IQ. Do you know my wife calls our Wi-Fi at our house? What?

If you found the Wi-Fi, it's called read a book. I'm not kidding. That's funny. That's funny. And then you hear things like you shouldn't have Wi-Fi in your house because all the signals flying around are bad for you. Like, how bad? Are you sure? Like, what is that? Like, how long have we been doing the Wi-Fi thing? A decade, two decades, three decades? I mean, on the course of the length of humanity, that's not very long. That's not very long. I mean, look, I hope Wi-Fi's not killing us. I really do. It's so convenient.

Look at most, listen, obviously, most things that will just kill you get identified. Right. It's not the things that kill you immediately that are a problem, typically. Because they killed you, and so, you know, it's the things that. that cause slow issues, ongoing issues. I mean, we know folks who work on high power lines have far higher rates of cancer. Study after study reflects that, for example. Which makes sense. I mean. I mean, if the iPod's bad for you, you know what I mean?

If AirPods are bad in your ears, imagine being next to those power lines. What does that do, do you? I don't want to go down this rabbit hole because it's not my area per se. But for the whole length of humanity, right, when you think of the, of the, of the spectrum, right? We were pretty much only exposed to natural light, which is a very narrow light, narrow band of the of the spectrum, okay? Right? When you think of waves, so as you go down on the left side of the spectrum, the waves get longer, like AM raves, really long, FM raves, microwaves, natural light, and then above that you get x-rays, cosmic rays, and anything above

natural light, they say, oh, it's really bad, that's just going to mess you up. And stuff below natural light, they say, well, as long as it doesn't heat up yourself. That's typically the standard that our government uses. It's safe. So as long as it's not heating your cell. But that's not, that's a very old standard, but it's still the one in effect today. So in any event, when you think about microwaves, they sit stay away from even though it's below natural light. There's, you know, what is the cumulative effect of being, if you put your Wi-Fi around it under your bed every night your whole life, what is the effect?

There are numerous studies that show that it does have certain effects. But anyway, it's not worth going down that road. But it might just be minor or it might be cumulative, right? Yeah, and then how about cell phone signals? You can't even stop those. They're around you all the time. Yeah. I mean, if you can FaceTime someone in New Zealand right now from your phone,

clearly something's going on in the air. I'll put it this way. Every environmental insult has the potential to cause some kind of dysregulation in your body, whether it's microplastics, whether it's, you name it, okay? And the precautionary principle would indicate that until you know it's safe, the onus is on those who want to expose you to it to prove to you it is, right? It shouldn't be the other way around. I don't think anybody has to prove to you that Wi-Fi is not safe to say,

you know what, based on the precautionary principle, I'm just going to turn off the Wi-Fi every night in my house because I don't know. Like, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, because humans have been exposed to forever. I've not seen the studies that validate that it doesn't cause an issue or large robust studies. And so, you know, but obviously I think what I just said, some people might hear and go, well, that sounds crazy. But why? Why would it be crazy?

If we found out that there's a particular frequency that's bad for your memory or bad for your brain and that we're using it to broadcast something, that completely makes sense. Yeah, except that I never think about. harms the way you just said it because that would indicate that we have to find out what harms it causes. To me, when I go into a car dealership, for example, I walk in and the salesman says, all right, this car, okay? And I say, well, is it safe? And the car dealer says to me, prove to me it's not safe. And I said, well, and I said, well, what do you mean? You can't prove it.

You got to take this car. By the way, that's how vaccines work. That's how I lie. And that is become a little bit of the, depending on the, mostly for vaccines, but a little bit for some of these other products where it's like, you got to prove it's not safe. No, I don't have to prove it's not safe. I'm not buying this car. You prove to me it's a no.

You prove to me this vaccine causes harm or you better take it. That's the way it's approached. A little bit like that Wi-Fi and with all, with 5G and the LTE and all that stuff, it's almost like you prove to me that doing this all day is going to cause brain. cancer or else you're a cuck. No, why don't you show me the study shows it doesn't do that? That's the way it should work with products and product safety. That makes sense. That's very reasonable. Again, I don't know. I'm not saying that it does. But what I'm saying is there's been things that human beings did and they found it was really bad for you. We've talked about it a few

times, but those ladies, they used to test the x-ray machines with their hands. And no one told them. No one told them that x-rays can give you cancer and fuck you up. And these poor ladies every day when they would show up at the medical office, they would put their hand in the x-ray machine to make sure it worked. And then you see their hands next to each other. It's horrifying. Like they've got horrible lesions on their hands. And it's like, it's really creepy. They x-rayed pregnant women until the 70s. Until the 70s, they were x-waring pregnant women. Not with the x-rays of today that are far less radiation exposure, the x-rays of the 70s, which is a lot. They gave the

I believe the Nobel Prize, I'm not, I'm pretty sure about this for the lobotomy. Yeah. I'm not mistaken. I think they did. I think you're right. I think they did. Find that out. Jamie, put that into our sponsor perplexity.

The Nobel Prize, Peter Berg told me about the origins of it. I was like, wait, what? There was a guy who made dynamite. And there was a false story about his death. And in the newspaper, they called him the merchant of death. And he realized it. And he was like, oh, shit. I got to change my PR.

I got to change my image. And so he came up with the Nobel Prize. Instead of awarding this prestigious prize. And then instead of him being connected with blowing people up with dynamite, he became connected with the most prestigious prize and all of medicine and all of government and the peace. Nobel Peace Prize. It's pretty crazy. It's amazing when you have money, how you can influence the world to think,

things about in his instance, him in other certain products. Exactly. Yes. Absolutely. But what's really stunning is you're also allowed to influence the people that actually deliver the news, which is, you know, that's the crazy one. Like, Cali Means talked about that. They're advertising not because they want to sell their products with the advertisement that

they're putting on the air. They're doing that too. But they're also ensuring that this steady stream of revenue that's going to these networks, They won't be opening up any lines of investigation into the vaccine injuries. Like, that's not going to happen. You're not going to see a giant CNN piece about COVID-19 vaccine injuries. It's not happening. It's not happening.

You're not going to hear much about anything. It has to be a big fucking story where they have to say it. Well, they just mention a judgment real quick and then move on, moving on. The Rasmuton poll. I don't know if you remember this one found that I believe one and four, and I'm not, I think that's right, but I'm not sure 100%. People said they believe they knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine or knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine. When you have that many people with that lived experience, and yet the mainstream media, as you just said, was still able to continue to push the narrative around COVID vaccines the way they did of the Nobel Prize. Wow. Nobel Prize related lobotomy refers to a 1949 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Antonio Agos Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, for developing the prefrontal lobotomy.

I believe that continued until the 60s, by the way. Yeah, imagine that he got that prize in 49. They're like, good job. Meaning the medical profession has stood in the 60s when measles vaccine was rolling out. We're still doing this, by the way. I think they stopped lobotomies. Was it 67? He developed something called a lucidomy, which was slightly different than what became known as the lobotomy, which we know as like the ice pick method.

What was his? It said also called the lucotomy. So that was this Freeman. That's the guy who was like the doc. I think they called him even Dr. Death or something. For he did like he did a ton of lobotomies all over the country. Unfortunately today you don't need a lobotomy apparently to have a lobotomy. just to spend a lot of time on social media

and get your information with certain places and it's so bad for people. It seems to be, you can maybe end up in the same place. It's just hard, hard to recommend a certain amount of it. It's like how much Twinkies should eat a day? I don't mind if you eat Twinkies,

but if you're eating Twinkies all day long, you're going to be fucked up, man. And that's how I feel about like social media interactions. But I do think it's an important way to distribute information. It's, if you're a, say if you're working for some corporation, You know something fucked up is going on and you could put it up on Twitter and with

details and facts and people could look into it and you can open up a line of reporters and investigative journalists that are going to find this, expose it. And you could really break a story that is like good for everybody. Having a way to communicate ideas like that is fantastic. Everything else? Like all the arguing, all the shit that people do back and forth, you're just rotting your brain out. And we're all guilty of it. Well, look, if you're on it.

I mean, during the COVID pandemic, when all of these government overreaches were occurring, but for the existence of social media, you know, podcasts like yours and other alternative platforms, right? The information in many respects wouldn't have come out if you didn't have Peter McCull on, Robert Malone on. And if Fox and just that little portion of the, I guess, more traditional media sphere wasn't what. willing for a time period to have folks on. I mean, let's trust me, when I started doing vaccine-related work a decade ago, I never thought a single outlet, whether it's Fox or CNN, would ever have me on. They had me on numerous times until, you know, vaccines kind of like, all right, let's not touch that again. Was this during, this was during the Biden administration then, and I think part of that was because it was a point of contention between the right and the left, right?

It was the right opposing the draconian measures that the left who is in power. And we got to get the right back in power because we're all about freedom. So I think there was a little bit of that going on there, right? For sure, there was some of that going on. As you pointed out, I believe in the past, when Trump was promoting the vaccine, we're not taking that vaccine. And in the moment Biden was like, we're taking the vaccine. Colin Harris was saying it. Why would you trust him and whatever his vaccine is like, that is so crazy.

These people are fake. trunk came out tomorrow and said everybody should get every vaccine out there. I, you know, see what would happen. I don't know. That's the way. We folks would stop saking it. Yeah, if he really got into trans kids. They put a ban to it immediately. Yeah, it's, it's weird. It's weird to watch. Weird to watch us so divided at each other's throats. And I really do think that a giant percentage of the uptick and the craziness is just social media. I don't think people are designed for it. I just thank God, Elon bought Twitter because if he didn't, we would not have the kind of access to the actual

truth or the real data. It would all be suppressed. You would never find out about it. How would you know about these studies? You're not going to go scouring through journals. Even if you do, what are you going to do? You got to get on Rumble and talk about it? It's probably the only way you can.

And if anybody from Rumble tries to share that on the Twitter, they'll get banned. So it's like we were in a real pickle. It was a bad spot. Yeah. And it was just a few years ago, which is nuts. We could have gone a very different direction. They're using an analogy when they, remember the airlines, you know, because CDC required masks on planes. Yeah.

When that got struck down by the courts, okay, a number of airlines said, we're going to keep our mask mandate. I don't know if you remember that. You know, they proudly came out. The COs said, we're going to keep it. Half of them said they were going to keep it. The other half immediately lifted the mask mandate on planes. And those that decided to keep it, they dropped it within a day or two, I think. think or something like that really rapidly because economically they were losing business.

Right. And I think that changed the center of gravity on that issue. I think Elon buying Twitter, X, basically changed a center of gravity on censorship, whereby without that, they might have all just kept going even in the worst direction. And they saw they were losing market share to X once he bought it and he didn't have censorship. I think that can form their conduct. Well, it was also, it was indicative of how people actually felt versus what was suppressed. Like, when you realize that there's, well, have you ever seen like how people identifying as non-binary and trans dropped off like right after purchase of Twitter?

It's because people got a chance to talk about it now. And you can criticize it. People can put up memes and they can call it a mental illness again. And then all of a sudden everybody is like, hey, what are we supporting? men with penises in the women's room? Like, did we get hypnotized? Like, what the fuck happened? And now you're seeing even prestigious mainstream media publications

talking about the dangers of gender transition for young kids. Wow. Okay, so what happened? What happened? What happened was Elon bought Twitter, and people were out to actually accurately gauge what people are willing to tolerate and what they actually want

versus what's being shoved down everybody. throats with censorship and with mainstream media narratives. They just keep piping back and forth pretending everybody agrees with them. That's one piece of it. They are also, by the way, a lot of the hospitals and doctors are getting sued. Right. That's a very good point. On this, in fact, you know, we've, especially after that first ruling, right? We have, you know, um, um, um, um, um, I can't talk about it, but it's okay. Very, very troubling matter. Well, there was Which includes suicide and hiding it from parents. Yeah. School districts hide.

I mean, it's really troubling stuff. Do you have children? Yeah, I do. I do too. And one of the things you realize if you have children is that they are very malleable and they want to fit in and they are subject to social contagion. And that social contagion can be dressing up golf. It could be like whatever it is. Like they want to fit in.

And they're experimenting. They're kids. And if you just decide, oh, you're a boy. and then you bring that kid to it, and you're giving them all this positive attention, and you're giving them all this positive feedback, and then you go to school, I'm trans now, and everyone says you're brave. Like, for awkward kids, that is absolutely enticing. Yeah.

And not only that, they do it in clusters. Like Abigail Schreier has written about this, that this is a lot of these girls have autism, and a lot of these girls, they're socially awkward, and they're very uncomfortable with their body, and they're going through puberty, which kind of freaks them out already, freaks out any girl. And then something comes along like this. And now you've been taken to a doctor and had your breast removed and you're 15. That's fucking crazy. And to say anything in opposition to that somehow became you're a bigot or you're a Nazi or you're transphobic.

This is crazy talk. Like you're talking about very malleable children doing something. You can't even get a fucking tattoo if you're 15. Why can you get your breasts removed? that's nuts unfortunately it became a very big business the number of centers in America that perform these surgeries exploded

and so with that explosion you need clients every like every business it needs to feed right that business model right and so that is so evil it's so creepy to think

that people are willing to talk people into that just for money but they've done it with so many other things. It's not impossible to believe that it's true. It's scary. A lot of times, if you follow the money trail, you can see how things develop and where they go.

It often helps, you know, puts in perspective. And look, rare is the person that says, I'm evil, I'm bad. I mean, people find a way to justify things. They find a way to excuse them and, you know, find, you know, the, well, I'm doing more good than bad. justification in their minds. Or there's the diffusion of responsibility that comes of being a part of a corporation that's doing something.

Hey, look, I'm just an accountant or hey, I'm just an engineer. Or hey, I'm doing, I'm not, I don't want the company to move in this direction. However, I do own stock. So as it goes up. Especially in public traded companies, which brings us back to the very beginning of this. Which is, you know, that is what happens in those corporations. Should that be a thing? Like if you could redo the, if you had a magic wand and you could

completely redo the economy. Would you have the stock market? I mean, isn't it enough that people just buy things, sell things, your company's worth money because it makes money? Isn't that enough? Why do we have to complicate it? Why do we have a stock market? I don't know if the stock market itself is the problem. I mean, the whole idea is just to find a, you know, a more efficient way for me to sell you shares in my company. That's all it is. But the underlying problem is not the market, in my view. It's not the existence of the stock market.

It's the government intervening into the market forces in a way that do not result in a good outcome. And often that is at the behest of industry. When government, there needs to be some government regulation. So that's the problem. The problem is corporations have money that can use that money to influence laws. influence government. That is a significant part of the problem because, look, most regulatory agencies are born out of some crisis, right?

Right. So they often start as a great idea, like people wanting to do good, members of our Congress wanting to do good. But then who's got the time, money, and inclination to influence that regulatory agency? You? No. Well, you do have some money, but you, me? Who?

No. It's going to be, even with the- Even wealthy folks don't have it. They don't, they're not going to do it. The very, it's not even the lobbyist per se. It's the very industry they're trying to regulate. They have the money, time, patience, inclination to do that to create the revolving door, right? Right.

Think about it like this. Article one of the Constitution creates Congress, right? First article. And what's its purpose, primary purpose, is to pass laws, right? How many laws are you, is it past, you think? approximately. Not 200, okay? Our agencies on the federal government, do you know how many regulations which have the same exact way as law are they pass every year? Can I guess? Yeah. 2000. It depends on the year, but often more. Really? Yes. There's a chart on this.

I'm sure it can be pulled up, but it's not, but it's something to that effect, depends on the year, but somewhere between, let's say, 100, 300, to thousands on the other side. And who are those folks passing? Are they part of the Article I? The constitutional branch supposed to pass laws that are elected representatives? No. The unelected bureaucrats sitting there and you've named your alphabet agency that you've probably never heard of that pass these regs are the same force of law. And who really has, again, the time and inclination to influence them? It's often the very industry. So it starts as a good idea, but unfortunately it ends up being what the, you literature calls. This is the political science literature, came out of Harvard and Yale and all those

places. They don't want to talk about it today. Captive agencies. Okay? That's what they often become. CDC, FDA, and very much are, to varying degrees, depending on what they're doing, are very much captive agencies. When you look closely at it and you understand it. That's true of many other parts of the government. And so... Well, particularly people don't know, a lot of people don't know that haven't gone down these rabbit holes, that a lot of these people, it's a revolving door. They leave the FDA and then they go and work for the pharmaceutical drug companies and they make a lot of money. Yes. Like Julie Gerberding, who is the head of the CDC in the 90s, that oversaw some of the most controversial disputes about what, whose products, Merck's vaccine products,

Okay? And then after her, you know, she cleaned all that up, left CDC and went to work for who? Merck, making tens of millions of dollars, I believe she's made over the time that she's been there. So she did good. She got rewarded. You think if she didn't do good, she wouldn't get rewarded? You don't think other people see that in the federal health? Of course they know. They all know. Of course. So it's the golden parachute and everybody strives for it. If you can get that post, you can get the top of the. the food chain over at the CDC, guys, see in about five years. Then in five years, you're thinking about your Lamborghini, you've got a yacht in your future. It's just, it's kooky. Yeah, I mean. It's cookie that it's legal. Look, I don't know if it's as nefarious to that in the minds of people in public health.

Let's put that way, since we're talking about public health officials. But I think that it has a corrupting influence that cannot be detangled from the fact that they're human. It will influence them. I don't think it's... There's also a precedent. There's a precedent that's been set with many people before them, so it's something they look forward to. If you get this job, you will likely get a job like this afterwards. A bunch of people have, and so you think about that while you're trying to get that job, it's part of the motivation is financial reward.

Absolutely. Well, there was a... Has to be. There's a Pfizer executive who was serendipitously recorded specifically saying that. I have the exchange in my book. It's something to the effect of, well, you know, those who are working at the FDA, you know, or, you know, they're eventually going to, you know, come work for industry. So they don't want to, you know, hurt industry too much.

And the person asking the question says, well, you think that's bad? He goes, yeah, it's bad for America, you know, but not bad for the companies. That's the problem. That's exactly right. Well, this is the thing about having an obligation to your shareholders, which brings me back to the whole stock market thing. I know this is a kooky thought, but I mean if we never had the stock market in the first place and you

didn't have an obligation to your shareholders to consistently make more money every quarter. If people could just accept the fact that you own this business, this person, you make a certain amount of money, everybody's doing great. Like why have all these people making money just moving stocks

around, insane amounts of wealth, manipulating systems to crash stocks? And there's people that are like in public office that say things that aren't necessarily true that influence the market. And then it turns out they were totally wrong. And then you find out that they bet on it and they made a bunch of money in the stock market.

This is crazy. This is crazy. And it's all true. It's all legal, which is so fucking bizarre that in a time where we are completely aware that all this stuff is taking place. All right. Can I put that into three different buckets? Yeah, yeah, please.

I'll put it in three different buckets. the bucket of making products. Right. There are companies that make products or companies that provide services, including financial services that can be useful. Like, you need a mortgage if you can't buy a house. You can't afford it. So mortgage products are a service that are brought for financial industry.

And then there's, I think, what you're talking about, which is the part of our economy that is finance, and it's just moving money. It's just moving numbers where they've got, you know, high-speed computers that are trying in micro-fractions of a second to beat out the other guy to basically triage and make money based on that adds no value to our economy. You know, products and services add value. And to our, everything you see around that we're sitting in right now was made by a company, right?

And so, and I'm not aware of a system that has been more efficient at producing products and services that improve the lives of others than the free market system. with some regulation. Okay, I'm not aware of when Socialism doesn't do it. We've seen that in action. Right. Communism does not do it. We've seen that in action. We need just do it right. Dictators, neither. But so kidding.

Clearly. So I wouldn't throw out the whole system is what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that. I'm not saying that. Yeah, I'm saying that that part of it's good. Now, when you break the alignment of market of economic self-interest of the companies, the market interest, to whatever, it is protect consumers, that's when you're a problem. And that is the idea, or at least they sell it as the idea from a lot of government regulations. Well, the company is not on its own going to do what's right in this instance. So we need government to do it. And if government really

only stepped in when it was truly needed, it would be a good system. You're right. But the system often breaks when they step in when they're not needed, sometimes when they step in and have the opposite effect, when they're really just protecting the industry at the expense of consumers, which happens too often. Is the benefit of the stock market, and this is again nonsense, right? I'm not an economist, clearly. But if we had never invented it, human beings had never come up with this idea, if instead we just had a free market, what has the...

stock market, what has publicly traded companies, what has the ability to own stock and companies and hedge funds and all that stuff? What is that done for innovation and for progress and for creating more products? Do you think it's encouraged more products and encouraged more activity in the economy and we're further ahead than we would have been if no one had invented it? Because it seems like at the very least, it's a weird opening for people that just move money around and add no value and extract enormous amounts of wealth. So that seems like you got a hole in your pipe. Like, why are people that aren't even involved? Why do they get to make all the money on this? Like, what is going on here? You're doing a weird thing that I don't

know if you had to do to achieve the same result that you achieved with a free market, capitalist society that doesn't have a stock market, that just has a bunch of companies making money and everybody doing the stuff they do. It's like, is it a necessity is what I'm asking. Well, outside of my air expertise, but... Definitely outside of mine. I mean, I'll give you my musings. Yes, please. So this is just my off-the-cuff musings, and that's something I actually really want to

think about more. But so when I think about, you know, companies going public, it certainly appears to help drive capital to those companies because hedge-firm. venture capital funds, a lot of times they're exit strategy. So I'm willing to give you all this, I'm a venture capital. I'm willing to give you all this money to start this company because I know my goal is three to five years from now, it can go public and I, the venture capital fund can get back X amount of my money. That's my, that's the exit strategy for that investment. Now, if there was no efficient market to do that, right? Meaning you couldn't just have a publicly traded market where just easy to sell, right, to have this public offering. What would that do to venture capital

funds? Well, I mean, would they still invest as much? They might, and instead they might just focus on hard money returns. Right. They want companies that really just make money, you know, cash on cash versus this immediate. the bubble of equity inflation that happens when you go public because it's now liquid, the ownership. Right. Market caps. I don't know if that answers your question, but that's like, well, I don't think it does because, you know, your question was a good one. It's far more sophisticated than what I'd answered because you're saying, what does it contribute to society? Right. I don't think it contributes anything.

It attributes, I just answered it so narrowly and said, well, it might add some, it might entice venture capitalists, though. I don't know if, I don't even know what I just said is entirely, like, they might still do it anyway, because they'll just might do the best thing. Now, what does it add to the side of it, have liquid? I mean, it'd be harder to have, like, a retirement account in the way you have right now to own stock, right? That would be more difficult to put your money in and buy shares of Coca-Cola. Would you prefer for big corporations to be owned by, you know, certain families, or would you rather than be owned by the public? I think you should be allowed to keep your company in your family if you own it. Well, you certainly can't look at New York and New York Times.

The New York Times, the family kept control, if I, in my understanding, again, we're outside of my normal area of expertise. But the family, my understanding has the controlling of votes in that company, but it's publicly traded as well in New York Times. Yeah. If I'm not mistaken. I know people that have taken their company public and regretted it. like it's too much shit you deal with too much nonsense afterwards and then they're like it wasn't worth it

just for the hassle and the quality of life I would have never done it if I had known this I guess it depends what they wanted yeah I guess it depends what they wanted but the question is like if a bunch of people are making money that aren't contributing they're just like siphoning money by moving money

around all over the place like isn't that leaky money like if you don't really contribute anything you don't provide any value and you're extracting extreme wealth don't you have a leak in the pipe. It seems like if that money was just being distributed normally, like the buying and selling of goods and services, that would be a much more like honest society. But would it have the same amount of innovation and would it have the same amount of productivity? Or is that productivity not just enhanced by this flood of capital, but also encouraged?

So it like stimulates everything. So like having these vampires sucking on the pipe, like ultimately it does move numbers around and it gets more stuff out there and which also encourages innovation. I don't know. I mean, I think that there's a gray, all right, I think there's a gray area between the second and third bucket. So we were probably like products and services. Maybe we'll make that one bucket because those can have value society from many of them.

And then at the extreme, there's like, just like triage nonsense that happens, you know. I put my supercomputer as close as possible to, you know, the stock exchange. And so I can like make money on fractions of a fraction. Like that's crazy. And then there's something, then there's like that gray zone in between where there's, you know, mortgage is good. Okay. Right. Help the American family achieve their dream of owning a home.

now mortgage-backed securities who maybe not so good mortgage-back securities that are double-triple-slice into all these tranches getting worse going down that road like there's a degree where you're getting further and further away from the very point of that financial instrument that had good so I think that

there is there's a point at which yeah no good but I think it's hard to talk in generalities in my mind like if you have a specific example let's go down that road Well, Bernie Madoff is the best example. Oh, well. Obviously, everybody had to know something with, there was some shenanigans taking place because the returns were too crazy. But look out how many intelligent people invested money with them because he was so successful. My old office in Manhattan, when I used to work at Lathamawkins was, I think three floors above Bernie's office in a lipstick building.

I was on 2030. I think it was 20. None do with them. Anyways. Zero. Okay, but Bernie, Bernie just straight up. Stole.

Just stole. I mean, that's not even a thing. Come on. No, no, no. You're right. He just made, he just, he just stole money

and gave out, like, fake returns, as far as I know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He had people thinking that they were making all this money. Yeah, he's just, it's a pyramid scheme, basically. 100%.

That was eventually going to fail. I mean, it only could go on for so long. Well, I think it fucked up because of the 2008 crisis, right? They think he could have kept going if there wasn't the crash. Wasn't that what did him in?

There's always going to be a dip. So it was only a matter of time. I mean, he was going to get. That was a big one though. And people wanted their money back. And he was like, yikes. I mean, that's an incredible. It's an incredible scheme.

It's amazing that somebody should even pull that off, frankly. It is crazy. And it is incredible. But it just shows you that this is a weird system that you can pretend to be moving money around. And you don't have any products. But it corrected? It did. It's a good point because he did go to jail.

He corrected. He went to jail and man, did he become the post-trial of, like, foster fraud. Don't do that. Don't do that. He became, don't do that. Yeah. It's just, it's probably a stupid question because I don't know anything about economics, but I was just thinking that, like, couldn't we have the same world and not have that?

Wouldn't that be more honest and more beneficial? But it would have to have happened from the beginning. It would have to be like there was never publicly traded companies from the beginning. All right. Let's think of a company you like. Coca-Cola. You like Coca-Cola? I like a little Diet Coke every now and then when I want some brain fog. All right. I don't want a nice taste in my mouth and an aspartame hangover.

Okay, I'll think of another one. I don't know. Chevy. Chevy. Okay, Chevy. So I don't know. Without the ability to raise money in liquid capital markets, would Chevy have grown to what Chevy became? Or at least in the speed at which it did that then revolutionized what a motive in other industries. Probably not. Maybe not.

Yeah, maybe not. Maybe not. But you wonder, like, if people were motivated and people were ambitious and we always have been, you know, like if that wasn't a part of our economy. Yeah. I wonder. I bet it has a pretty big impact when you put it that way. You think about something as big as Chevy, you know. But it's just the motivation of money is always.

going to be there. And if people ignore it because it's inconvenient and it doesn't align with their ideology, you've been captured. And this is why I think what you're talking about all the time is so hard for people that are true believers to swallow. Because it makes you have, you're forced to reformulate your entire worldview. If you've been duped that hard by something like the actual data on vaccine efficacy and, you know, who's really, you know, who's really, profiting and why it's set up the way it is and what the studies really are. When you realize you've been duped that hard, it's a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people. Absolutely. But I will say this, you don't need to go down a rabbit hole, okay, because that happens to a lot

of people with vaccines. I've seen. Not the majority, not most, but it happens to some where it's like, oh my goodness, if the government's lying or not telling me the truth about these products, then what can I believe? And I'm not. And, you know, people, some folks can go down some different alleys. And I would say that I really, truly, I have not seen anything like vaccines. Vaccines really are in their own bucket because of that immunity. It's what I call original sin in my book. There really is no product, no product that I'm aware of that operates in this kind of landscape.

Like I said, every other product, the market force will, to varying degrees with wrinkles, correct for the issues because there's economic self-interest. They broke that with vaccines. So we've gone from three shots following in 1986, one before the first year of age. At the beginning of 2020, 2025, you know how many shots it was that a baby got on before the first birthday? Take a guess.

72. No, no, that's their whole childhood. 29. 29 by the first birthday? Yes, honor before the first birthday. They went from three to 29 shots, including in utero. now with the recent changes, it's down to 19. And a reason I focus on the first year,

most of the shots in the first six months of life, is that's when the baby is going through really critical stages of neurological immunological development, right? Synaps, and think how small a baby is, okay? And so they're really susceptible to various effects. Also, babies can't express what's going wrong with them. Okay. So now in the normal course, okay, in the normal course, you've got a product.

You've gone from three of them in 1986 by the first year. You're up to 29 beginning of 2025. Now you're at 19 still. During that period, you've gone from under 10% of kids had a chronic health issue in early 1980s, according to the data. You now have over 40%. Some data show over 50% of kids having chronic health issues, often multiple times the rate. Okay? And what are those chronic health issues that have exploded? To be sure, by the way,

any environmental insult can cause dysregulation in the body, okay, including a pharmaceutical product, including vaccines. But when you look at those chronic diseases that have exploded, almost all of them have an etiology relating to some form of immune system dysregulation. Look at asthma. Look at at at topic issues. Look at ticks. Look at ADHD. Nobody thinks about it this way, You look at the public end literature. There's immune markers that have gone awry in kids with ADHD. Okay? So you look at that.

Now, I'd say, okay, the lawyers, those who would hold these companies accountable would look at that. And then they would start looking at the data. And I'll show you what some of the data shows. We talked about the Amish earlier, for example, okay? The Amish that I represent in New York, there's three schools. The New York Health Department decided that it doesn't like. what the Amish beliefs are. It wants the Amish to adopt their beliefs and abandon their real religious beliefs and to give their kids these vaccines. Otherwise, they were going to impose

crushing fines on these three Amish schools. Three schools, by the way, which means a room, no electricity, a teacher, you know what I mean? On Amish land, they don't take tax money. They pay taxes, but they refuse to take tax money taught by Amish teachers. And so we, amongst those families of those three schools, there was like a hard. 160 or something kids. And what we did is we did a survey. We asked them, what health conditions do those kids have, those 160 kids? Many of them are already older, too.

So you would know their health outcomes. And this is all in our court papers. It's all on a federal docket. Anybody can go and read it for themselves, okay? Amongst those children, you would expect to have, because like one in ten kids approximately have asthma. You would expect to have like nine cases of asthma. You'd expect to have six cases, five kids.

they have none, zero of the chronic health conditions plaguing kids in America today. And the approximately 10 or so studies that have been done, and I'm bringing this back to my legal point, the approximately 10 or so studies that have done that compare kids with no exposure, meaning zero vaccines, to kids that have had one or more vaccines show the same outcome. Kids with zero vaccines, almost none of the chronic health issues that face kids today in America. kids with one or more vaccines, multiple rates of the chronic health issues facing kids today. Now, that data all exists. I put those studies in my book, and I could read them.

I even put the Amish information. My book, it's all cited. You can go look at it yourself if you're out there. Some of them are even in PubMed. The market could have corrected for that if you could hold those pharma companies accountable, but you can't. Is it correct that the only instances of autism they found in Amish kids were adopted kids? There are data and some reports that reflect that. But if we, so there are that.

But those are more news reports. Those are not, somebody will criticize you, by the way. You're going to get criticism and say, well, that's not a peer-reviewed study. Well, I had a follow-up question that may be clarify. Yeah. And so we can move on to what does the peer-review literature show if you want. But the follow-up question would be, are they? even being diagnosed. So if they're getting Amish care and Amish teachers and Amish, is it possible

that there are some kids that are just behaving odd that would be diagnosed? Like this is the criticism. Yes. People say, like this is when you hear some mainstream suit talking on television, well, there was always someone odd when we were kids. You know, there's no, they're just, the diagnosis is different today. That's why it's one and 12 boys in California. They're over-diagnosing. And I'm like, no, no, I have friends that have multiple friends that have nonverbal children. I never had that when I was a kid. That was not normal. That was not a common thing.

It was very, very, very rare. The notion that autism is just better diagnosed, and that's the only reason for the increase is, I don't know, a better word for them to say nonsense. Okay. even if you look at the, because they've changed the DSM-5, which is what we're up to the diagnostic manual, that is the psychiatric manual that has the criteria for diagnosing autism. It has changed over time. But when you even just look at severe autism, just severe autism, which California has a very good data on, from the 70s and onward into today, it's exploded.

Okay. So the notion that we just have better diagnoses is not a serious point. But putting that aside, the Amish do go to doctors. Do they go to Amish doctors? No. Okay. They go to regular doctors. The Amish, for example, could even go in a car.

They just can't drive a car. So they can get an Uber? There's different. I should be more. Somebody orders it? I should be clearer about that. Just like every religion, there are different, you know, communities. And so there's like old, old line Ammi.

and then there's old line Amish. And so, you know, in Christianity and Islam and Judaism, and all different, you know, there's different degrees. It's black had Jews and there's so forth. So in many respects, they do still go. But, you know, as I was told by one of the main folks who I interact with them, and I've been up there and I've slept there and I've interacted with them, he told me, he said, yeah, you know, there are a few that mistake got some vaccines. And he goes, one of those kids, they just don't act right. He sell it to me. But we don't see that with their other kids.

And I'll tell you this about the Amish community. They don't have phones. Not, not, not, not, you know, smartphones. They have old school phones, some of them. They don't have TVs. When they're with their kids, they're with their kids. When they're there at the end of the day, they really are so much more too. And when I spend time with them and when I went up there, I mean, it's incredible.

You know, we have lost, it's a hard thing to experience. Maybe for somebody who keeps like, maybe the closest thing I think of is like those who observe the Sabbath biblically, you know, so they're just totally locked in. They lock in with their families for a day or things like that. And so they're very in tune with their kids. They know if those kids have health issues. And those kids don't have those issues. But forget the Amish. Go to the rest of the kids in the other studies that are not Amish studies.

The 10 other studies that I just told you about. One is three pediatric practices that have vaccinated, unvaccinated kids. There are a whole line of studies of nothing to do with the Amish community. But if you do want to focus on autism, okay, which is just one potential issue from vaccines, by the way, what you find in the peer review literature is that 40 to 70 percent of parents who have a child with autism report, still report, that they believe vaccines cause their child's autism. Okay, 47%. That's after how much billions of dollars to try to tell them

and gaslight them and convince them that it's not, that vaccines don't cause autism. Apparently, no matter how many which you beat these families, they're just not going to change their lived experience. And what vaccines do they point to? They often, they point to the vaccines given in the first six months of life when you ask them, what vaccines do you think cause your child's autism? They'll say the vaccine is given in the first six months of life, and then they'll also point

to MMR vaccine, which is given no earlier than one year of age. Okay? And so on behalf of ICANN, which is the InformC Act, or a nonprofit that our law firm represents, we sent a Freedom of Information Act request, FOIA request, to the CDC, and we said, hey, your website says vaccines do not cause autism. Great. please give us the studies that show that HB vaccine given three times in the first six months of life do not cause autism. Please give us the studies that show that D-TAP vaccine given three times in the first six months of life do not cause autism.

Same thing for IPV vaccine, for PCV vaccine, and for Hib vaccine. Each one of those vaccines is given three times each in the first six months of life. 15 injections. Okay? Okay. You say vaccines don't goes autism. These parents are saying these vaccines cause their child's autism provide us the studies.

They never gave us the studies. I sued them in federal court. I didn't go to Texas. I sued them in Southern District of New York. Okay? Not the friendliest territory to bring that kind of lawsuit. Okay. Days before the hearing, I get a list of 20 studies finally.

from, also from the DOJ, because they represent the CDC, okay? Maybe they think I don't read. So I looked at the 20 studies. I read them. 19 of them have nothing to do with the vaccines given in the first six months of life. They were all either MMR studies or studies of an ingredient that wasn't in those vaccines. One of them was an Institute of Medicine Review from 2012 that canvassed all the literature on whether DETAB vaccine does or does not cause autism because the CDC and HRSA, which is the agency

in HHS that fights vaccine injury claims, asked the IOM to look at whether DTAB causes autism because it remained one of the most commonly claimed injuries still, according to them. And the Institute of Medicine came back and said, we could only find one study on DTAB and autism, and in fact, it showed an association between DTAV vaccine and autism. But the I don't threw it out because they said there's no unvaccinated control in it. So they threw out the studies based on various data, if you know what that is. So I called up the DOJ attorney. This is days before the hearing.

And I said, I got the list of 20 studies. I said, are you sure that your client, the CDC, wants to settle this case basically on the basis that these are the studies they rely upon to claim that vaccines don't cause autism. The vaccines in the first six months of life do not cause autism. because that's what the lawsuit was about, that FOIA request. He went, he called me back and he said, yeah, they want to settle it. I said, all right, I gave him another chance. Those 20 studies were put into a settlement agreement between the CDC and I can, my client.

The DOJ signed it on behalf of the CDC. I signed it on behalf of my client and a federal judge in the Southern District of New York entered as an order of the court in 2019, I believe it was. And there it was. I mean, I had done years and years of work fighting with. with them to try and figure out. Show me the vaccines don't cause autism. This was the crescendo.

This was the end. I mean, when their back was to the wall, they had nothing. There are no studies. They could not produce one that showed the vaccines given in the first experience of life do not cause autism. And here's the thing they left out.

There is one study out there regarding happy vaccines and autism. It's from Gallagher and Goodman out of the University of Stony Brooks in the peer-reviewed literature. And it showed that kids that got happy vaccine, versus those that did in the first month of life had three times the rate of autism, statistically significant.

Gallagra Goodman, University of Stony Brook, it's on PubMed. That is the only study of Heppe Vaccine and Autism you will find in the peer-review literature. If you're going to do it based on the science, on the published literature, that's the only one out there. That D-TAP vaccine study is the only one out there for D-TAP given in the first six months of life.

So when this narrative, which you hear all the time on these panels, on these news shows, vaccines do not cause autism. That has been thoroughly debunked. Where's that come from? Vaccines, amen. That's why I call my book.

The crowd cheers. Have you seen those live shows where crowds cheers? But this is what I'm talking about. This is why I wrote the book. I wrote the book because in 10 years that I have litigated 100, 200 lawsuits against federal and state health agencies, that I have deposed the world's leading vaccinologists. including Dr. Stanley Plach and you go down the list and chasing them when they're in a deposition, when they are back as against the wall in a federal or state lawsuit,

and they have no choice but to admit the truth or give the evidence, put up or shut up, what I have found is that the claims they make about vaccines versus the reality are completely different. And it is disjarring. When I came into this, I would, had you told me, Yeah, they don't have any studies that show vaccines don't cause autism versus when I'd be like, you're crazy. Get out of here. They tell you it's thoroughly debunked. Thoroughly studied.

The most studied thing ever. They have a mountain of science. Joe, there's a mountain of studies. You know how big it is? It's so big. And you know what's on top of that mountain? Another mountain of studies. You know how?

Another mountain. There's so many studies. They're drowning in studies that vaccines don't cause autism. But then when you demand it, not the bull crap that they say on TV, but you actually demand it. That's the result. And you could pull it up on the Internet, by the way, that court stipulation. It's right there.

You could also hear me depose Dr. Stanley Plach and the world's leading vaccinologist where I said to him, I said, doctor. You know, and you have this clips on the Internet. I said, there's no studies that support the D-TAP does not called autism, right? And at first he said, well, I said, well, what do you think the I-OM concluded? He goes, well, I would assume they said it doesn't. I showed it to me. He goes, oh, it's the world's leading vaccineologist.

He didn't even know this. He goes, oh, okay, there are no studies. Okay. He goes, so I said, shouldn't you wait until you do? Shouldn't you wait until you have the studies that show that D-TAP doesn't cause autism? To then tell parents that vaccines don't cause autism? You know what he said to me? No.

No, I don't wait. I don't wait because I have to take into account the health of the child. He said, I said, so for that reason, you're willing to tell parents that vaccines don't goes autism, even though you don't have the data to support it. He said, absolutely. You can play that clip if you want. It's on the internet. And then I deposed in a case about vaccines and autism. It was about it, Dr. Catherine Edwards, who is one of the four, I guess leading vaccinologists in the world, one of the four editors of the medical textbooks on vaccine, which is called Plotkin's vaccines. I deposed her about vaccines and autism. And I said, do you have a study that shows

had B vaccine design of autism? This was after this court stipulation. the court order I told you about. She didn't have any for happy, for hit, for the ones I just took the first six months of life. So, yes, they say on TV, it's thoroughly debunked, but I'm telling you that is a belief that is not science, that is not fact, it is not based on data, it is based on pure belief.

And they say it, just like they say, you know, Jesus Christ is Lord. I think they believe actually in vaccines more, because they'll kick kids out of school in some archdiocese even and some other Christian schools far less most archdiocese won't if the kid won't get vaccine

so I actually think they believe in vaccines more than Jesus in some places by the way what an amazing job of gaslighting and propaganda they've done but I just want to I just got to be clear because anybody here in this might think that that just sounds crazy

but I implore anybody who heard me say that pull up the court order yourself, look at it yourself, watch the depositions, go to PEPMed, see for yourself, oh, and by the way, do not rely on AI, because I've done this fun job with them. I'm like, do you have B vaccines because autism. It's been thoroughly to research and there's no studies. I go, okay, great. So how do you, and I say to AI, I go, how do you reach a scientific conclusion? Well, you use peer-reviewed studies. I go, wonderful. So to conclude that Heppe vaccine does not cause autism, you need peer-reed studies. That is correct. Wonderful. Now please play it in a list

these studies that show Heppe vaccine does causation. Dut-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Give me three studies. I've had chat GPT makeup studies. Literally, Hep-e vaccine does not cause a... And I'm like, that doesn't exist. Give me the PubMed number. You are correct.

I aim to provide a valid information, but in this instance, I fell short. Literally made up a... I'm not joking. I made up a study. That's crazy. I've had it. I've done this for fun with friends. And so I'm like, watch this, watch this.

And finally, I'll get it to admit that the only study is the Gallagher and Goodman study. That is the only study. I will get it to admit. It takes about often 45 minutes to an hour. Really? Yeah, it takes a while, but it will eventually admit it. And they all do it. Grock does it too, by the way.

Grock's better, by the way, better? But it's bad, too. And they will say, you know, on all of these questions, they will make stuff up. And unless you know, like, I know the universe of studies. I know it's bloody. I ask you this, do you think that these large language models are programmed with certain truths that they can't fight against? Or do you think it's because they're pulling from so much bullshit on the Internet and so many bullshit narratives on the Internet from trusted sources that'll tell you that vaccines don't cause autism? There's a ton of major newspapers, major magazines.

There's a ton of them that have talked about how it's been thoroughly debunked. And then they'll quote doctors and scientists that don't list any specific studies, but they'll say, we've done exhaustive studies. They've been thoroughly debunked. They'll say that. And then they'll print that. And so is the AI just pulling from so much bullshit online that it like looks through all the noise? And this is like 89% say vaccines do not cause autism, therefore it must be true. Or is it programmed to say, hey, this is what you say.

vaccines don't cause autism. You must hold me in very hard regard. You've held me out as an... You've held me to incredibly complex economic questions. And now language model questions. I appreciate the compliment so far on that score. With that said, I mean, I don't know the answer, but I will speculate because I don't know the answer. That I'm going to guess.

I'm guess. I'm really guessing. that it might be a mix of some programming because Google, for example, if you go and you search for Aaron's Siri substack, you get Paul off at Substack. Why? How in the world do you get Paul off at Substack when you search for mine? And mine's like, it's not even like on the first page. I don't think it's on the second.

Now, maybe they fixed that. I don't know. So some of that... Is that using Google? That's using Google. Let's look right now. Last time I've done it. Let's do it right now.

Let's do it right now. Let's do it. Because have you seen Robert Epstein's work? Robert Epstein's been on my podcast a few times, unfortunate last name. But he has nothing to do with that. He is a data scientist. And well, I don't know what his original background is, but what he does is, he is very vocal about how they're using these coordinated, it's very curated search results.

And through that, especially during election times, they can take a lot of people that are undecided voters and swing them a very noticeable number. Like, I forget what the number was, but it's a large percentage, 10%, 20%, something like that. So if you Google something about, say, Hillary Clinton, for instance, during that first election, you would get all these positive articles. If you Google Trump, you would get all these negative. articles. And if you asked it certain things, it

would give you things that were completely contrary to that, so you'd look at that first. And I think that's you and Paul off it. It could be. Maybe it's fixed at this point. How do you want to word this? Just Aaron's series substack. Yeah, just do Aaron's series substack. Just do that on Google. Let's see what the results

are. But while he's pulling that up, I'll add that. So this might be some of that. Again, I'm on speculation territory. And then separately, oh. So it goes right away to you. It goes right away to me this time. You know what it is? They got Jamie's

fucking data and they know from your metadata. Like if you ask a question in a word way, it might come up differently. It's like what? No, that's what I, that's what I did. Try Aaron Siri injecting freedom substack.

See what happens. That could be the way we search for it. See, that shows up different. Oh. Well. See, I'm telling you, when you add words, it kind of really fucks up all Google searches. Yeah, but I don't see Paul often in there.

I don't see Paul Offutt in there. Have you talked about this publicly before? No, never. Oh, too bad. No, I just did it. I just, this happened. This was actually literally just a few days ago. Well, I think one of the things that Robert Epstein, because of being, he's been on my podcast, been on multiple podcasts, but he's been talking about the dangers of these curated search engines and how it's, it's essentially election rigging.

Like you're manipulating a statistically significant number of people to one side or the other, and you can do it by curating search engines. Well, the experiment we just did might reflect that my first theory might be less of that, right? Because look, there it is. It's happenstance. That's why I said, I have no idea. I'm speculating. But it could be prereit. It could not.

It could also your own algorithm because maybe you were searching for Paul Offutt. Maybe you had Googled Paul Offutt's full of shit just before that. I don't need to Google that. That's not, I don't need to. I don't know when they've added. this but they've they definitely added on the screen what they call personalization for these results uh-huh results are personalized try without personalization that could have something interesting let's try it without personalization let's see if it changes

well I'm already done a different route oh you already put a Paul off it in there start searching for that so if you do without person it doesn't delete the prior one interesting personalized it knows you're a right-winger started using AI a long time ago but knows you're a radical but I would I would I would speculate that the probably bigger component is the, who's got, again, it comes back to who's got the money to understand how these AI algorithm worth and to maybe put these stuff out there that it's going to most likely read from. I mean, when you do AI, you can get that, I see that like crazy scroll of all the things it's looking at, right? Right. So if I've got, if I am a pharma company and I've got a multi-billion dollar budget every year to influence and to market and so forth, you know, I'm going to deploy.

that in the way that's probably the most effective. One of the things I probably would do is maybe do the things I would influence the results on AI, potentially. Yeah, I would do, especially if there's no regulations. That's the weird thing about curating search engines. If it's like your search engine, you can kind of do whatever you want, especially if your company, like, wasn't it like one of the major tech companies after Donald Trump won in 2016 that had a meeting, they were like, we can't let this happen. again. Was that Facebook or Google? Do you remember Jamie? It was like very famous that people like, what are you talking about? You, what? How can you say that? How can you even say that? Even if you're right. Yeah. Like the idea that you can somehow other stop someone from being elected if the public wants that person to be elected because you disagree with it is kind of a crazy thing to say out loud. Well, you know, I'm thinking more about your question. So when we found that thing with Paul Offit,

we found that thing with Paul Offit a few days ago. My social media manager, my, I've got a, you know, got a lot of folks at my law firm. And we have somebody who does like Google AdWords stuff and SEO stuff. And then we have another guy who does the web-related stuff. I know they did some things.

And maybe with my little measly budget, it had that effect. And so Matt, so if that would go to my second point that with enough dollar, and who cares about my, I mean, I don't think. Farmer cares about my subs stack. Trust me, they're not scared of my subset. Well, I don't know about that because even if you don't have a ton of subscribers, it's still out there. And all it takes is one

podcast appearance like this one. And people go there. And then all takes is one investigative reporter to talk about it, to get a, it's a weird time for stuff like that. Let's see if two weeks from now it goes back. They'll never put it back. They'll never put it back. But if you guys did do something about it that does make sense that they corrected it and and and that's with well no I think that you know they had brought up doing like keywords and stuff like that because I did there was some emails about I remember trying to fix it amazed that it looks like it did well I don't want that smoke you know maybe it's you know it just kind of they just need to be yeah shine light on it's the best disinfection sunlight I I just don't like the idea of curated search engines that's really

spooky. It's no different to me than curating information on social media platforms based on whatever your ideology is. Like, I don't think you should be able to do that in terms of, like, I don't think the company should be able to tell you you can't see certain things. And YouTube was terrible about that during the pandemic. All the things that turned out to be true could have got you banned from YouTube. The lab leak theory kicked off. You know, the fact that the vaccines, even if you get vaccinated, you still can catch COVID. Remember that was a breakthrough infection. It was extremely rare. Extremely rare breakthrough infection. Never heard of it. And now it's everybody. Literally everybody. And then it became this weird fucking, everybody

did these weird mental gymnastics where they started repeating, oh, but it stops hospitalization and death. And like, what are you talking about? You never said that before. You are saying that they were saying it stops hospitalization and death. And you don't even have anything to gain here. You just don't want to be wrong about your decision. to get injected and to promote it, which is nuts. It's like people are doing the man's work for the man. They've signed up as volunteers in the propaganda army and shaming all the people that didn't go along with it and never apologizing. No one wants to apologize for calling people plague rats and telling people that they should have their children taken away from them.

Nuddy, weird, dystopian shit. They don't realize that they are the, they are creating more vaccine, with that kind of conduct than anything that you and I could do on this podcast at all. Because, you know, like, they say, you know, the CDC webpage on vaccines and autism has now been updated. And it says now that there's effectively no studies to show the vaccines in the first six months of life do not cause autism. It now says that. And that we have missed, that the CDC has misled the public on that score. And people trashed the mainstream media trashed Bobby for that.

instead of celebrating it as an opportunity to correct course of transparency, honestly, people are more likely to trust our federal health agencies when they're honest, when they're apologized, when they're willing to admit mistakes. They're not there yet, though, unfortunately. No, because it's still a part of their political ideology. It's a part of their clan. And they don't even think about it. They don't look into it.

They don't read any studies. They don't read any synopsis of any studies. They just go full bore ahead. It's been thoroughly debunked, and they'll argue with you. It's been thoroughly debunked. This is all nonsense. You know many depositions I've taken of vaccinologists, pediatricians, infectious disease, experts, and immunologists, where I will say something about, you know, these studies show that, for example, the studies show that children that have had cancer and measles have lower rated cancers and they'll go out, that's just nonsense. So studies are just junk.

I'll say, have you read the studies? No, have you seen them? No. but see, but they knew already. You know, they've already reached that a priori conclusion. I remember my deposition, not to go back to autism of Dr. Edwards, where I said to her, you have any studies to show the Hep B vaccine does not cause autism? She said, no.

I said, but there is a study that shows three times rate of autism amongst kids that didn't get hep B vaccine. And she says, well, I don't think that's not a good study. I said, what study is that? She goes, well, why did you show me the study? Because she hadn't read it. She doesn't know. Anyway, you show me the study.

That's that because it doesn't fit within the belief system, unfortunately, when it comes to this. And it's so easy because, like you said, all you got to do is just say, they're just an anti-vaxxer and you die. Exactly. Exactly. And it's all when you have a company, like whatever company it is, whether it's Google or Facebook or whatever. And that company operates on an ideology that's not grounded in reality, and then they enforce it across their platform. It's very frustrating and really nutty to watch. And just, thank God, there exists some alternatives.

Like, you need a crazy person worth a ton of money, like Elon to just go and buy it. And then also show, hey, it's still the number one platform for distributing information. In the same way that what Elon did for social media, if he could do that for search, that'd be great. But I think search is dying. Yeah. I think AI is searching now. Yes, AI isn't a takeover. I don't see.

I hardly ever search things anymore. Everybody goes to AI these days from what I could see. Because I can ask a question. Like, how did this come about? I could ask follow-ups. Is there any dissenting opinions? I love doing that. It's good, but it also requires less thinking, so it's bad in that regard.

But yes. Well, it depends on how you're using it. When I'm using it is usually when I'm writing. I'm writing about a certain subject. I'm like, well, who are the first people to discover these Aztec pyramids? I'll get into something like that. Like, what were they looking for? Like, you know what I mean?

And like, it's almost like you're talking to an expert. So instead of it being like something that I use to think for me, it's like a super smart friend I'm bouncing questions off of. And you could find so much about things so quickly as opposed to having to go through article after article after article. And that's what I'm looking for. What did court how did he trick those people and give them up their land? There's only fucking 600 of them how'd they do that? You know like you need to like AI is fantastic for that kind of shit, but if you're using it all day like a lot of kids in my school my kids schools are getting busted for writing papers that are 100% AI like they were a moron seventh grade it's like PhD genius level paper yeah Also, these 12-year-olds are fucking wizards.

Yeah. It's hilarious. It's not good. I mean, you saw those studies that came out. Again, not my area, but, and I don't know, I only read the abstracts. I don't know. But that the more that technology has been adopted into classrooms, it appears the more detrimental it has been. And actually the markers of what you would consider an educated or education or intelligence.

100%. It's a distraction. It's like, there's no way it could be good. You're on TikTok all day. But if you're using AI, the one thing I will say, depending on the topic, but you probably should do it for all topics is never just rely on the output. You got to ask if you show me the primary source and look at it yourself. It's so critical in every area.

Especially if it's something controversial. I mean, generally I'm asking questions about something I'm looking up that's not that controversial in terms of like whether or not it's argued. You ever look up yourself? No. No, I not. Jesus Christ. I don't look up by myself ever because I don't want to know.

I don't want to know people's opinions. I don't want to know what it thinks of me. I couldn't care less. I think it's much better to just keep on going. If you're in a public eye, including you now, everyone is subject to an opinion. And there's certain opinions that are just, they're not people that you would ever want to talk to. And those kind of people exist. There's going to be shitty people out there.

And their opinion written down looks just like your opinion. Better to not have any of it. better to not watch any videos, better to not listen to anything, just be a good internal judge. Be objective about your own self-critical to the point where it's healthy and leave it alone. I was watching, like I was talking this the other day, I was watching this lady who was this very boring, not very exciting lady, talking about how bad the Beatles were. And I was like, you should shut the fuck up. Like, no, the Beatles are incredible. You're just a moron. You're just a dull-brained fucking dork just wandering through life

But you're allowed to you're allowed to have those opinions It's like good luck finding a bunch of people that agree with you but you're allowed to try But I don't want to be a part of it I don't want to be washing Swimming through bullshit opinions all day long. I don't think it's healthy Yeah, but I I do think facing the opinions and the views substantive opinions views of those that don't agree with you is an important exercise in life and in any and in every area frankly. I mean, I'm, you know, when it comes to the work that I do, you know, I'm, I welcome having debates with those who claim they are the vaccine efforts.

I mean, I'm. Well, this is, we're talking about a very different kind of thing than looking at yourself. Yeah, you're looking up hardline data. And it's very important what you do because it's crazy to say that being honest in this regard is courageous. But it is courageous because I've seen you attacked. I've seen crazy shit that people said about you. And it's like, good, Lord, are you paying attention to what he's actually saying? Or are you some bot from somewhere, some fucking bot farm in Vietnam that's been hired to push a narrative?

I don't know. But there's a reality to data that's undeniable that needs to be promoted. And I think that's what you're doing. It's a reality to the data. I don't imagine a whole lot of people who are lining up to debate you about this. Well, Paul Offutt and I had an exchange on the internet. First, we had it on Twitter. In person?

In Twitter? No, he won't do it. Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. And then he moved it on to substack, and it's all there. It's a great exchange. And I've offered him, and not just to be clear, not like a gotcha debate. I've offered him to have a debate where we each get 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, and we each get to present the evidence. So we have a screen.

We can put up our evidence and we can go back and forth with equal amount of times. So nobody's talking over each other. It's civil and it's based on the substance. I've offered him to do that. But the truth is I don't need to debate him. I've already debated the world's reading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a nine-hour deposition. People talk about, we should have a vaccine debate. I've done that.

That was it. It's nine hours. It's all on internet, and you can watch it. And when my client put it out there and it ended up on YouTube, this was many years ago, it had like millions of views at one point. And then YouTube took it off. And then people keep putting it back on. And it's just a deposition.

It just keeps coming back and forth and back and forth. Why are they to YouTube? Leave it up. Stop. Well, I don't know if they're still taking it down right now. I hope now the climate's changed enough. It used to take it on and down. And I've done Senate hearings where they've – but those vaccinologists, they don't want to show up anymore.

I offered Peter Hottes that opportunity on the podcast, and I told him I would donate $100,000 to whatever charity of his choice. And he, like, mock that number as being insignificant. I'm like, well, tell me what the fucking number is. Like, just come on. And I was going to have him and RFK Jr. Because he was talking about me having RFK Jr. They're saying a bunch of lies. And like, well, instead of saying that, and I think he, God, I forget what term he used for me.

I'm like, Peter, you've been on my podcast twice. So what the fuck are you talking about? Like, why are you behaving like this? This is crazy. What did he call me? Like, it was something about some alt-right adjacent or neo-fascist-adjacent podcast. The point is he was at omnium instead of substance. You gave him an opportunity to show he was right in front of the world.

He is the vaccinologist. Bobby, just a lawyer, obviously will drool home himself. Like, debate him. Well, it's the big deal. And I only did that. after he did that. I didn't, I didn't, he had said all this stuff about me because Bobby was on the podcast, and it was one of the rare times that I ever to go after, that I ever go after anyone on Twitter.

But I was like, stop. I remember, why are you saying that? This is stupid. And I remember a whole bunch of people added in, like they were willing to add. I thought it was over, I forgot the number. It was in like a million, two millions? It was in the millions. To, and he still would not sit down and do it.

And the argument that you'll often hear is they'll say, well, I'm not good at debating. It's, you know, he's a lawyer. He'll use lawyer tricks. Peter Hotez is a lawyer? No, no, no, no. He's a lawyer. Bobby's a lawyer. Oh, he's a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. You know, and what they don't, but, but, you know.

Data wins. Exactly. And I would let that data win. The substance should win. I want, if you're right, I want to know. I don't fucking know. You tell me. I'm willing to debate Peter Hotez here any day.

I don't think he's going to do it. I'll pay, pull off it. Any of them. They can all. In fact, Stanley Plotkin just wrote me a letter. After all these years, after a deposed him, first time ever wrote me a letter. Really? What do you say? He said, I heard you wrote a book. I heard you wrote a book.

And your deposition went very, very long, and I wasn't prepared enough. He's a world's leading vaccinologist. And I will be credited with saving millions, and you will go down in history as the one who's harmed and killed children. That's what he wrote me a letter. And I wrote him back, a response. And I said, look, I said, Dr. Plach, and I said, thank you for a letter. I appreciate that you're writing me finally because I've reached out to him before, one time at least. And I said, look, I said, I think we can agree on one thing.

We want to save as many children as possible. I want to save children from infectious disease. That's important. I agree. But I also want to save children from the harm from these products. They matter too. They're not just, there shouldn't be excessive. the tens of thousands of families contacted my law firm devastating harm from these products.

They matter too. And I said, let's work together. Let's work constructively. I said, because look, at the end of the day, if you don't address this, if you don't address this issue, I said, history is not going to remember you for the good. History is going to remember you for all the harm you cause it. Because when people look back in history at products that cause devastating harm, which vaccines can do. They don't remember the good those products did. They remember the harms that people ignored

that were overlooked and those were just cast aside. I said, that will be your legacy. I said, but there's time to correct. He hasn't written me back. Of course he hasn't written me back. I posted both letters on my substack and I tweeted them out so this way. I figured they could do some good that way. So they're available to everybody to read. Well, I think it's a very unique time that this message can get out there. Because what they did when they removed liability and they gave them blanket protection like that, they opened up the door to a bunch of people

that really don't give a shit about you. They just want to make as much money as possible. There's the scientists. This is what I would describe, like, these companies. You've got the people that are making these drugs. You've got these really interesting, brilliant scientists. And then you get the fucking money people. And the money people don't give a shit.

They just want to make more money. And they're both together. So you have this weird contradictory world where you have like some amazing pharmaceutical drugs that helped so many people and kept people alive and cured diseases. And then you got the money people who want everybody to get shot up because it's going to make them more money. And those two working together is a very bad mixture, especially when you have mandates. and you mandate that these people have to be able to inject you and inject your children with this thing that's going to make them money and they have zero liability. Like, how could that possibly go well? Knowing what you know about human beings, who would sign off on that?

I don't know. That's crazy. You know, I had a business idea for you. Okay. You want to hear it? Sure. It's a great business idea. Listen, we're going to sell this product.

Okay. We're going to meet. Let's go. Okay. We can inject it into people. Are you worried it's going to hurt people? Well, I'm a little worried. until I want to hear your story.

But don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry about it. Because the government can give us immunity liability, no matter how many people we hurt a kill. Oh, how did you work that out?

Yeah, I know. Now, the weird part is you might be saying to me, you say, Aaron, Aaron, wait a second. But who the hell did you take that? And I'll say, Joe, don't worry. The government's going to mandate it, too. And you might say, clever.

Okay, but what do people rise up? And I'll say, Joe, don't worry. They're going to spend billions convincing the public It's the best thing since sliced bread. And then you're going to say, but what if people still don't want to pay for it? And I'll say, don't worry. The government through a program literally pays for half of all vaccine, guarantees payments of the pharma companies, even if people cannot pay.

So. Sounds like a good investment. No liability. Guaranteed market. Free promotion, guaranteed payment. It's the most, if it wasn't vaccines, you'd say it's insane. it is insane and that is the business model of vaccines. That literally is what I just said.

So you're right, it's perverse. But this thing that you're just saying before about like the money men who want to just make money, like, look, we live in a capitalist system where we have tapped into that self-interest. But we try to harness it for good. So every company has that to some degree. You know, people have that to some degree. The idea with capitalism is, yeah, but you got to channel that and you got to do good. You got to do a good product. You got to do a good service.

You got to do something positive. And if you don't, you'll be held accountable. So it's got guard. It's got guardrails. Yes. So, you know, it's, you know, because I, you know, people are like, well, what are you saying? Like, people are sitting there on a farm coming with horns and evil. No, they're just, but they're just, they don't have guard rails.

And they've gone totally, you know, they've gone totally off the rail. Do you like my business idea? It's a great idea. Let me talk to my lawyer first because I don't want to go to jail. Oh, you're right. I'm thinking of a sane society, I get locked up for the rest of my life, especially if he killed a bunch of people, which is really crazy that none of these people do wind up going to jail.

They pay giant criminal fines and then they slip away. I mean, look at the Sackler family. They haven't been jailed, right? Wasn't there like they were going to get immunity in favor of like $6 billion or something crazy? But then a judge kind of put the kibosh on that. after a painkiller, the Netflix docudrama came out. Yeah.

And then, and then critically, too, I would say, it's like, remember during the bank crisis, there were the banks that were too big to fail? Yeah. So they wouldn't touch those. The Sackler family, to me, it's like the smaller bank that they could, there was, I mean, it was bad, but they could sacrifice them. They could sacrifice that pharma company. Are they going to sacrifice Merck, Sinoffi, Pfizer, GSK, any of those guys?

Are they really going to sacrifice them at the end of the day, no matter how much harm they do? I don't know. It's hard to see it. Well, listen, I'm glad you're out there, and I'm glad you can articulate these points so clearly and passionately. Because people need to hear it. They need to know what the actual data is and what the actual story is about all of it. And it's better for all of us. And as hard as it is, a pill to swallow, people need to get that glass of water and start swallowing.

So thank you very much. Thanks for being here. I really enjoyed it. And tell everybody your book, did you do an audio version of it? I did. Did you read it? I did. How much work was it?

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. That was a lot. I didn't, I didn't, I thought I could read, by the way. I was like, I could read. Yeah, it's reading. And then it was, but I had to read the book. It was like, I couldn't read anymore.

Oh, that's hilarious. Did you ever have to read an audiobook? No, but I do ads for the podcast, and Jamie will tell you. I'm always like, fuck. I'm always fuck it up sentences then you've got to redo them it's brutal Yeah

Talk just talking is fine Right But when you have to read out loud Like your tongue gets all tripped up And I'm like I go to federal court I can argue I go to Senate hearings I'm like

I'm like tell them the audio guy Because we're in the studio alone I'm like I really am I think I'm You I might seem like a total moron But I probably am a moron But I'm just a little bit

I don't know I felt like it's such a moron Yeah, I have friends that have read their own books and they feel the exact same way. It was so painful. Oh, my goodness. It's like, but I did it. It's done. It's out there on Audible and the books on Amazon.

All right. Aaron, thank you very much. It was an honor and a pleasure having me in here. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Goodbye, everybody.