The Last American Vagabond - RFK Jr: Hero or Hypocrite?

Episode Date: March 8, 2025

RFK Jr. recently wrote an op-ed for FOX News about the Texas measles outbreak, sparking division among those in the "health freedom" movement. Bernadette Pajer hosts a show on Informed Choice Radio. Ryan Cristiàn is an independent journalist with The Last American Vagabond, who does in-depth research on many health related topics.The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Very, very interesting discussion. We have two very smart people here to talk about this topic. And two people who I think are going to give you ideas that you're not going to get in a lot of the debates you're watching. If you do watch mainstream media on the RFK Jr. op-ed in Fox News, we've got Ryan Christian with The Last American Vagabond and Bernadette Pager. She is a host of Inform Life Radio and the Tennessee director of Stan for Health Freedom. I think all of us agree on a lot about the topic of health freedom. But this article that RFK Jr. wrote for Fox News, this op-ed, has sparked a lot of conversation within the health freedom community. A lot of differences in opinion about how to take this, how to interpret it. I would say on one extreme, he's strategizing.

I mean, I don't necessarily maybe call it an extreme, but on one side, you know, it's a strategy the way that he wrote this article. Maybe he didn't go as far as some people would like. but he's new in office and this is just strategizing. And then on the other side, it's like he's a total sellout. He didn't hit points hard that he has hit for many, many years while discussing the topic, for instance, of the measles vaccine and herd immunity or childhood vaccinations generally. And this is not a good sign for how he's going to be in office. Okay.

So these are kind of the two polls and then there's difference in variety of opinions within it. So Ryan and Bernadette are going to walk us through this. the difference is here. I think everybody watching this is going to get a lot out of it. So I encourage you to stay through the whole thing. I will give a quick disclaimer for anybody who's watching this later on YouTube. You will not get the whole thing. We encourage you to go somewhere else like Rumble, Rockfin, locals. These are the sites.

They'll have the whole interview. This should go without saying. Okay, welcome to 2025 on the internet. Before we get any further, if you're going to be talking to your friends about the RFK junior op-ed. It would be great to have some teeth, right? Teeth are great. They help you talk. And there's one amazing product that we've been taking in our family, not just for your teeth, but for general immunity. It is the fermented cod liver oil, concentrated butter oil blend at green pasture.org. If you go to green pasture.org, you use promo code Allison. You get 10% off.

This is the product, fermented cod liver oil and concentrated butter oil blend. Basically, vitamin A, vitamin D, a bunch of other stuff in these two products that are put together so that your body can get the most out of them. Dr. Weston Price, biological dentist, turn of the century, noticing a lot of his patients are getting cavities, spent much of his life studying indigenous cultures, why they didn't have a dentist and yet didn't have cavities. It really all came down to nutrition for him.

And this is the way that he felt like this product should be put together, that you get more out of a fermented cod liver oil and a concentrated butter oil blend together than if you took these products separately. So again, 10% off. I like to order like five or six at a time because we usually go through one of them, month and then you don't have to pay shipping. And again, you get 10% off when you use promo

code Allison at checkout. Okay. So let's get to what everybody has been waiting for. We're going to go back to the article and we'll just start right with the headline. Okay. Because some people get a headline and they're like, not a big deal. Other people are like, okay, it's a call to action. What is he calling us to do? So Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And then colon, measles outbreak is a call to action for all of us. MMR vaccine is crucial to avoiding potentially deadly disease. Okay, we'll start with Ryan on this one. Brian, what's your takeaway with the headline here? Well, before we jump into the headline specific, I did like, you said before we start, I think it's good to kind of outwind like the large, you know, high elevation view and

jump right on that first point. And I would like to say before we get into it, which we briefly said off off air, you know, I have a lot of respect for Bernadette. And I think it's important that we recognize that these kind of conversations, as much as I think we disagree on some pretty principal points here, can be amicable, you know, and I think that's always really important to stress. And so, you know, I just wanted to thank you for putting this on and so we can have this discussion. And as you said earlier, it's important. It's interesting that, you know, we share a lot of the same views, which you wouldn't see, you know, it's like a nuance within this side of the conversation, which I think is important, which I argue is the honest side of the conversation in regard to the

reality of the risks of vaccines, but that's my opinion. But so high elevation view. So my, my my opinion on this is, and this is where a lot of the back and forth kind of started, is that in the partisan field, it tends to be kind of these extremes like you were highlighting, is that for me, anyone that's been following his work before, but pretty much, you know, Vax forward, Wakefield, Big Tree, you know, Brian Hook, the whole, the whole conversation around the MMR vaccine. He has been at, and at a vocal, vocal, not advocating for it for any other word. He's been fighting against that injection for a very long time, very adamant about the risks of the links day autism, the ingredients that are dangerous, you know, generally highlighting it as something

that's bad. And as recently said in the past, that he wouldn't give it to his children, except when he went in front of Congress, he said that he would promote it or would suggest it. And so to me right there, that's a deviation in regard to what he's been saying. So my stance is anything other than removing it from use based on what he's been doing, not even to get into what I think. I do agree with that. But based on what he's been doing is hypocrisy to me. Now, I'm not even getting into whether there's, you know, where we would understand, if not agree with political maneuvering, right? Like not saying the thing that's important to get this past because maybe he'll do something good tomorrow.

Like I understand and if not, you know, if it happens, maybe he would even agree with it in the long term. My point is because of the way things have been going and I see a lot of manipulation happening, especially within this administration right now. It's not unique to partisanship that we have to be airing aggressively on the side of integrity, principles, and outcome, right? not just the state, but not going maybe well, he'll get there later. And I get how the political field is dangerous and people might want to go after him. But even that is starting with the assumption that we know he's doing the right thing for the right reasons for us. I generally believe that in a lot of ways with his amazing background of work around health, but we just shouldn't be assuming. So today, I'd like to make it about what we can prove the facts, principles, and outcome. You know,

that's my perspective on it. And we can get into the title and the nuance around it. And I think a lot of internally within the partisan conversation misrepresentations about key points of that article in effort to defend against people that are pointing out what I think is obvious hypocrisy, things like the vitamin A point or the subtitle, but I'll leave it there and we can go deeper. Okay, Bertad, take it away. Wow, yeah, and thank you so much, Ryan. On some of that, I do agree, but here's the thing. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in a position nobody ever expected he would be in to be

Secretary of Health and Human Services. We all saw him battle and was under full attack during the confirmation hearings to get where he is. We have in this nation, in the world, 60 plus years of social engineering to make vaccines and especially measles vaccine, which we can't get without the MMR to be this massive controversial subject. He has been put in a position where he has this opportunity to globally impact health. Let's talk about measles specifically by helping people understand the immune system, what you can do to prevent severe disease. That is in the article that was published.

But he also is well aware that after 60 years of mass vaccination with a measles vaccine, we are in a very dangerous situation because pregnant women no longer give vigorous passive immunity to their babies. And if you're 20 years post your second MMR, there is, I think, a 20 to 30 percent chance you're fully susceptible to measles. or partially like, you know, it might protect you a little bit, but you're going to still catch and be able to transmit. And CDC's own studies show that a third dose of this vaccine will not extend your protection. So before the vaccine came out, we knew that if you were 15 years or older,

you had lifetime immunity, very vigorous immunity, and mothers had passive immunity to protect their infants to age one, maybe one and a half if they were nursing. So we are in the really dangerous spot here because of mass measles vaccination program. Infants are vulnerable, adults are vulnerable. You know, what do you do? We also know that if he came out of the box and said, the measles vaccine is horrible, nobody get it. He would be yanked out of office because there are several Republicans who only voted for him.

after he promised he was going to systematically scientifically gather new data to be able to weigh in on the products. Now that said, I think one of the most important things about this article to know is he did not write the title or the subtitle. He did not say, whatever that subtitle is not showing on my printout. He did not say that the MMR was crucial at all anywhere in his article. So that was written by Fox, by whoever wrote the headlines. That was not from Bobby.

And that really, people are only reading that subheadline and really, there we go. There's it said it at the top. He says that nowhere in the article. So I understand he's in a difficult point. I really wish the world and the United States and all the Republicans and even the whole Trump team understood the dangers of the MMR, but even Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has been on this his whole life and sacrificed his entire career, has said that you can't just yank a measles vaccine out of the equation at this point because of the disaster it will create.

There has to be a transition moving forward to somehow undo this damage we've done, and I'll leave it at that. So could I respond a couple things? I think just since it's important for some pretty foundational things here, I do think it's important, again, to reiterate that we shouldn't be discussing what we think he feels and thinks. I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think we can prove we know those things. So to base it on what we think he's trying to accomplish, it ends up being hypothetical. So I think that's important. But in regard to this larger premise, and again, I do agree with the general idea that, you know, this is a dangerous feel. The people, we all know these are criminals, you know, and just Congress in general, people he's fighting against,

the unelected power structure even more so. But the idea that we're not going to be honest about this, or that's because they'll get removed from office. I mean, that's like a lesser of evil's argument. And I don't necessarily disagree with the logic. But if we end up in that path, it's almost like an engineered way that we never actually get to the truth, we rationalize where it never comes out, especially if we don't really know what they intend or think and field. So we're just hoping they're doing the right thing for the right reasons. But I get it. It's a rock and a hard place.

But I would like to say, too, the two main things here. With the article is clear. He does very clearly suggest the MMR vaccine. So I don't agree with the premise that he's not putting that forward. Also, I don't see any evidence anywhere that we know he didn't write those titles. I think that's been stated by truth about cancer and a lot of other people that they know unequivocally he didn't write either. But I don't know that. I don't think that's true.

Unless you have some evidence to suggest that didn't write it, I've never seen that. And also he put his name on the entire thing that makes the, entire argument and he hasn't spoken up sense to argue he didn't back those things up but i will say to ryan and bernadette i'll i'll pull it up but i saw a tweet where he did use the term call to action so i i i even if it wasn't in the article i mean yeah i i believe he too i'll find the tweet so i just like i can't show my math on that i i'm not saying that he didn't say that meza's outbreak is a call to action i'm saying that he didn't say that the the the the subtitle of that is the call to action he did though He did there. We can go through it.

It's on the way it's worded, but he very clearly put forward the MMR vaccine. Let's go through the actual wording. Yeah, let's go through it. But first, hang on. I want to just tell everybody, if you want to be on the editorial board and you get to ask questions and put in stuff for people like Ryan and Bernadette, it's a really great way to support my work. It's five bucks a month.

And you get to ask the question. So go join the editorial board. And Myron 54 says, I am giving RFK Jr. the benefit of the doubt. He is under fire and has to be tactful political as he digs in. And I do think, like, from a lot of the stuff I've seen, some of this really is kind of a, it's a psychological thing. It's like, depending on the level of connection, you have, you think you have with the guy or you want to give him a benefit of that or you don't. And we do this all the time with everybody. I mean, we do it with our kids and, you know, our spouses or whatever. Like, okay, well, I want to or I really want to see it this way. So I'm going to see it this way. So I think a lot of this is reflective of like tons of stuff that breaks in the news. And that is like depending on how we want to see it, we can. kind of crunch numbers in a certain way. And so any government official, in my opinion, ever. Yeah, yeah.

That's why I'm really, yeah, I'm really glad to have both of you guys on because I think it helps keep all of us honest. Also, P-O-Box 3355, Dinell in Florida, 344-3-2, send me some real mail. And let me know what you think of the show. So you can send tips for the show if you want. You don't like using your credit card. It's a great way to support the show just through the actual mail. But also people love to send things like seeds for the garden, stuff for the kids.

The producers do open the mail. way home to nothing creepy, please. And I know your grandma's cookie recipe is delicious, but I will assume you laced it with anthrax and you're trying to kill me. So please do not send anything edible. Okay. Let's go. Yeah, okay, let's go to the article. So I'm sorry, yeah, I jumped the gun a little bit on this one because I did want to do the overview first. So I'm glad that'll probably be the only part that ends up on YouTube because it's the only safe part. But yeah, let's start at the beginning. What bird out? You have something else I just want to say that in my personal experience in publishing with magazines, with newspapers,

titles and subtitles are not written by the author in my experience, not by the person submitted. I have had my articles had bad titles put on them that I have complained. And I've complained to publications and say, you know, the title you placed on somebody else's article doesn't match. What are you doing? So, you know, it would be nice to get clarification for sure on this, but that's standard in industry as far as my experiences. As an editor, I can, I can speak to that. Absolutely. That's a very valid point. In most cases, not all of them, I do decide that. But my point is, and this is a good place to start once we get into this, is in no way am I suggesting this for you, Burndy, but like in a partisan conversation,

it has become not just that we don't know, but that we know he didn't, which is, by the way, what the truth about cancer article says. We know he didn't write that. To me, that's dishonest. Because I agree with you, Bernadette. It's likely almost that he didn't, but we don't know that for sure. So I would argue for being honest, it would be that we don't know whether he wrote it or not. And so we would get into the meat of the article, which I think pretty much backs up what the headline says. Well, and okay, so that'll be a point I agree with Ryan on. I think like there's been a lot of chatter about the title and did he or didn't me. But some people will say it doesn't even match the article. I think it does match the article. I think the article is pretty pro-MMR vaccine.

And, you know, this is the only thing, really, I'm going to give my opinion about. This is my overview. And then I'm just going to kind of bow out and let you guys handle this from here. I'm a parent of two young kids. I know a lot of parents right now who would be in the category of people who this article would be directed at. And he gives no scientific reason why you would choose not to get the MMR vaccine in this article. And so it, it, and because he also says, it's important for herd immunity that we need to come together and protect each other.

It's almost a line out of the COVID playbook. Like if you're a team player, you will get this vaccine. And it's a personal choice. But there's no scientific reason given in the article why you would not choose to get the MMR vaccine. So personally, I think it puts parents who choose not to get the MMR vaccine back into this corner that they've been fighting to get out of for a long time. which is there are scientific reasons why you would choose not to get the MMR vaccine, but in this it's left as either you don't care about other kids or other people because you're not, you know, if you did, it's an important part of herd immunity.

And also you, you know, you may be kind of anti-science because there was no scientific reason given to not get the MMR vaccine. So that says like my big takeaway is a mom of two young kids, like I said, who this article I think would be written for. But that's all, I'm really all I'm going to say, other than a little bit else, I just wanted to put that out there. Okay, so starting with the,

have we dissected the title at this point? We want to move on to the next paragraph. I would just add, since you paused, that I was slightly disagree with the way you frame that. I think what you're saying is that he didn't provide the scientific background that he's been spending years highlighting about the risks and why you shouldn't do it. But he did very clearly outline, which I'm sure we're going to get into, which I am happy to see.

Alternatives, which you rarely see. the other different aspects that you should be taking. So, I mean, I would argue, too, he does lean into like, this is maybe why you wouldn't want to go that direction before it even came out. But my point is that like the vitamin A point that everyone's leaning into, we can get into it. It isn't really a change. In fact, it seems like a change for more restriction.

And we can get into why that is. Well, what I mean about why you wouldn't is not because of like alternative. It's because he puts no evidence in there scientifically about the risks of vaccination. And so I didn't. I agree with that. So that's what I mean. And Allison, though, in the case of the MMR, when you really look at the what has been published, the problem is there has been no real definitive good study. They've got plenty of studies that attempt to prove that the MMR is safe, that are invalid, that had huge design flaws.

You know, those can be taken apart. But the really good science looking closely at the biological impacts of the vaccine and what they do, this is what our side has been shouting for. There were no control groups in the original MMR studies. We don't have the good solid science showing that it's safe. We have a lot of case studies and that sort of things showing individuals have been greatly harmed. But he promised, you know, in the Senate hearings, he was going to do science moving forward because the science hadn't been done. This measles in-break, I like to call it, because it's mostly inside Mennonite community.

Some of it is outside now where they chose to be susceptible. They isolated themselves. They're letting their kids get the measles. This is not an outbreak. It's an in-break. and it's your right to get naturally quieter immunity. But this happened right at the beginning of him taking the job. He has not been able to move forward on the science and so much.

And I'm with both of you. I wish he had said something a little bit more about his concerns for safety to some regard. I agree with you there. But I, like Ryan says, that I do. believe he put forward the vitamin A. And you tell he got attacked on that? I couldn't believe the vitamin A. Like all the mainstream media is like a screaming about the vitamin A point.

And I want to get to that, but I don't want to jump ahead. I think everybody seems to be misrepresenting what actually happened there. But to what Bernadette was saying, you know, my problem there is, we completely agree. But to me, that seems like if we know that there's not enough study, which like we're all on the same page here because we've been all fighting against this for so long, is that we shouldn't be allowing that to be used. Like, see, here's the difference. When it comes to freedom and liberty, I will always err on the side of that. When it's like something that's out in the middle of a yard or field and we're going, no, you can't touch that, that's the person's choice

to decide that. When a government through tax dollars and infrastructure is creating something that we know is dangerous for them to go, well, it's your choice to take it. That seems as they profit from it, seems like a very dishonest stance. And so for me, I agree with what you highlighted there. And so if you were going to be honest about it, that should have been at least paused until we know more. But I agree that who knows why, maybe he's being threatened. But to me, we can't get into the hypothetical. We know it's dangerous. It shouldn't be used. That's where I know, you know. But, you know, I think we can kind of try to figure out why the words on the page are there. Yes. And, okay, to me, looking at mainstream media is attacking him for vitamin A, which is giving

vitamin A a big major boost. It's probably selling out on Amazon and wherever vitamin A is sold. You can pass your own to work, Alice. Yeah, yeah. The attack is giving great coverage to the alternative. He's not being attacked for not supporting the vaccine. Had he said just a little bit more about his concerns about at this stage, at this very early stage of him being secretary, about the vaccine other than saying it's your choice parents.

You need to sit down and it's your decision. I believe that he would be out of a job because the media would have had something to attack him on and those who were fensers and voted for him because he promised he would do this very scientifically and, you know, move forward with new science. I think he'd be out of a job and any chance of educating the public. Again, we've got 60, 80 years of mass psychosis believing that me will kill you if you don't have the vaccine. And so he's having to overcome slowly. How do you overcome? It's almost like a religion. You can't just immediately freak people out.

You do have to enter the conversation slowly. I think he prays, again, I'm speculating. I know you don't want to go there. But I do believe he likely praise every day that he makes the right decision to begin to open minds and educate. Yeah. And he has to stay in the position. He is in order to do that. Okay. I don't disagree with you. I just, again, I can't, I mean, I can't, it's like, it's an opinion, it's hypothetical. So it's not, I can't engage with the points on it, you know. And I find it to be, you know, counterintuitive. Because if you don't know, but you choose to believe a thing that makes you feel he's doing the right thing, then you're going to lean that way, you know, and that's just my personal opinion when it comes to the media and what we're doing. But one thing you mentioned there, I think's important is the actual discussion. about whether this is even a real risk. Because as Allison pointed out,

it seems there's a lot, far too much leaning into, and as you say, maybe it's because he has to or he's going to get fired. But again, it's all hypothetical. We don't know that. And I would like to believe

that we'd err on the side of what's honest, you know, but ultimately that I don't believe what he's highlighting as a risk. Look at the case numbers. You can look at the actual death. And as you pointed out, it was on decline before it even came out

as he highlights in the article. Yeah. So it just seems like a lot of counterintuitive information. And so maybe it is playing a game. And even if what you're saying is correct and he's doing this for some future long-term good. I don't agree with that, period, because I think that it can be played.

He could be lied to. Maybe Trump doesn't allow him to do it next. And the vitamin A point is interesting. But again, it comes back to a guess, a hypothetical. Did he do that to play them into highlighting the thing that we want to see? Or is that just the reactive narrative about something that didn't go the way that the field wanted it to? You know, it's, again, it's all hypothetical, right? So I say we get into the media actual article because I think the vitamin A point is an important one,

because I can prove that's been misrepresented by everybody. It's not even really a change other than to make it more restrictive. And I can point that out with the way back machine. Okay. All right. So the beginning of this secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he's deeply concerned about recent outbreak. Situation has escalated rapidly.

The Texas Department of State Health reports 146 confirmed cases since late January, 2025, primarily in the South Plains region. Tragically, this outbreak has claimed the life of a school-age child, the first measles-related fatality in the United States over a decade. Now, that point alone has been something that has taken the Internet of buzz too. Like, what happened with this child? Was it really just a healthy child who got measles and died? Like, was there something else wrong with this child?

Have either of you been able to confirm anything about the child? And no, other than in a more recent interview, Secretary Kennedy has said that he has spoken with the parents. I think he might even be mentioned in here. but the child, he believes it may have been a case of malnutrition with his child. And he spoke about how malnutrition used to be what was making children susceptible to measles. And that's what improved and part of what led to the drop. So he did say that it appears to have underlying causes that healthy children do not die.

And you think that coming off the COVID-19 manipulation, you know, like things that he aggressively called out, that right there wouldn't be a, you know, like why hype the idea of this outbreak? Like other than the hypothetical, maybe he's doing it to give himself cover for something better. Like, but, you know, as always, I just can't engage with that. Well, I don't consider it really cover. I see him entering the conversation with bits of information at a time. And remember at the beginning of our conversation here, I kind of highlighted the absolute dangerous mess we're in because of mass vaccination.

programs that have now made infants susceptible because they don't have that vigorous passive immunity from their mothers. And anybody 20 and older is now potentially susceptible to measles, whereas before the rollout happened, they had lifetime immunity. And in fact, years ago, there was a published study where somebody did the math on at what point would there be the crossover. And I think we've reached the point that we, have more people in the United States susceptible to measles than we had before the vaccine rollout because it used to be just compressed susceptibility to little kids, you know, between four and eight is, you know, nine, ten, you would get it. By the time you're 15, everybody had

it. But now it's pushed to the other ends. We're protecting those little kids temporarily, but now susceptibility is pushed outside. And this is something Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been talking about for a decade or more about this. And so that's where we are. Now, you know, Kennedy did not explain this. I mean, that's going to take a full article in itself to explain. But then why would you promote MMR in that exactly what you're saying? It seems like that's counterintuitive to include MMR in that direction at all if that's the reason that that problem is is there. And again, I can't get into his head to exactly, you know, describe or say why he's piecemealing out the steps of how we're going to have to go.

I hope what he would do would be in order to give people an actual choice is to see if, and I'm not a fan of vaccine. As much as I know now, I mean, I think you could call me in my personal life and Annie Baxter. I believe in the human immune system. But mankind has created a huge mess. And I think potentially what needs to happen is some new measles vaccine created, separate from the MAM and the R, the Mumps and the Rubella, that is not made using aborted fetal tissue or any of those issues

that was voluntary use only, perhaps, in a ring style fashion, to try to get us back to real herd immunity that we had before the vaccine program. You know, or we're going to have to have some other really vigorous. In fact, if you don't mind me saying, you know, going on a little bit more here, this is a little off topic. But I asked Grock, what would have happened if instead we had introduced making sure that every susceptible person to susceptible to severe measles outcome, if we had got them monoclonal antibodies and vitamin A.

And everybody educated on vitamin A, what would have been the end result? And it came down to very close. The numbers didn't drop to zero to death with this. Again, this is just AI thinking, but it came pretty close. Then I asked Grock to factor in when you got measles as a kid, all the studies that said that it reduces your risk of some cancers by 25%. When it factored that in, it completely flipped. The monoclonal antibodies and the vitamin A offered superior outcomes for saving lives than the vaccine program.

But we didn't choose that way. We're in this mess that we've created with the measles vaccine. So it's really difficult. You know, Bobby Kennedy and I just said his name. Hello. Andrew Wakefield and so many doctors have for years been trying to figure out how do we get out of this mess. And since we're on that, I just wanted, I was, I had this queued up to go because Dr. Brownstein was just on my show over the weekend.

There's before this article came out. But he talked about this. And he's one of those doctors. I feel like you would want to take your kid to. So anyway. I'm David. Okay, so listen to what he says. Well, here we are now. We've got this chickenpox vaccine very effective against preventing chicken packs. Most people. And I should say everything he says right now about chicken pox. He's also talking about measles. Okay. So, yeah. I would say it's over 90% got chicken packs when we were kids. Now that's not the case. Chicken box is much rare. Although there's, there's, there's incidences of chicken facts and measles coming out every year. This is nothing different than what's reported in Texas right now.

But with chickenpox, there's no immunity given. If you have vaccine, if you've been given the vaccine and you haven't had chicken pox, the woman provides no immunity to the baby when they're born. So the baby's very vulnerable to chicken pox. So if we stopped vaccinating for chicken pox right now, we would have chickenpox go nutty over not only children, but it would go nutty over adults, young adults. And this is where the danger lies because now we can get babies getting chicken pox and, you know, third trimester mother's getting chicken pox and that's going to be a problem.

So we've sort of vaccinated ourselves into a corner with chicken pox and measles. And I don't really know the way out of that. I don't know what we deal with that because we've messed that system up that we were in sync with Mother Nature on that before these vaccines came out. But we're not now. Okay. Oh, I should just play my wine promo. So, Ryan, do you want to respond to that? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, just, I mean, I would just add to something I think we probably, well, I mean, I shouldn't say that, but I was going to say, I think we agree on. But like Dr. Peter McCullough has already said, it's, it's there's always, like, even with what he just highlighted, there's going to be situations where people get sick, people die. This is life. It happens.

I'm not saying we should be okay with that or should we, we should allow or, you know, lean into it. The point is that to get out of this problem seems pretty obvious. You stop giving the dangerous injections. You allow people to, you know, allow them to a choice for things that we arguably verify are not killing people, always the choice, but the point is you allow people, which we already saw during COVID and others, to make their own choice, which is usually to go through the natural immunity process. And yes, because of the issue they've created, that will allow more a problem,

at least, you know, if he's corrected what he's saying, I would agree. But eventually we would come back to the same point we were at before. I think that, like anything other than that seems to be a counterintuitive action. And I can understand why somebody in a position like him, hypothetically believing that he wants to go back to that, which I would agree makes sense, that doing so like this might give you more slow advancement in that direction. But like here's my general point about this is with the Trump administration and all the other facets, but specifically RFK and what they're doing. It hasn't been, we're going to come in and slow roll the change.

It's coming in and we're going to remove all of these things. We're going to break this down. We're fighting the deep state. You know, and so you have momentum. I mean, if we're going to talk about how he got a mandate and everyone supports him and all of this step, well, then that means the majority of people actively support him removing these shots, not the mainstream media hype and all the head. lines, but the people who actually have the influence. So to me, it just all seems like a self-serving

kind of mindset to just hope that he's doing that. And I'm with you. I really want that to be the outcome. But I think if we all stood by what's been said, what he's been saying before that and what we all agree with, that would have been pulled. And I argue he would have had mass support from the majority of people. That's my opinion, though. Yeah. If I could just kind of respond to that, is, but everything else that is rapid fire, just pull it, stop it, stop funding it, everything. These are not subjects for which we have decades of mass propaganda putting fear in the public. These are not issues where you've backed us into a corner and made something more dangerous because of the vaccine issue is so different from.

everything else that Trump is tackling. It really is. It's a completely different animal. I could disagree in a couple points. I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's the way the propaganda's applied, I would argue. Right. And Ryan, one other aspect of the danger of this mass vaccination campaign that we've created is the monoclonal antibody for measles is not as strong and vigorous as it should be. And the CDC has been concerned about this for a long time because vaccinated individuals do not create, who you go and give blood to get these monoclonal antibodies, you know, from. They don't, it's not as good as if you had wild measles. And they don't, they have so few people to get, they are very concerned about the supply

of monoclonal antibodies to protect babies and protect those who are immune compromise. That's why they did studies giving a third dose. dose. And they were really, you know, concerned when it turned out, you cannot boost protective levels. That means, you know, so we do not have as much of what we would need. If we just completely stop vaccinating, you know, there, if you want to look at total deaths that, that, that a fast recall of the vaccine would cause compared to a slow, let's, let's do this in a calculated way to protect lives. I mean, this is a really difficult decision. Somebody's going to be harmed. Either way, I would not want to be in his shoes at this point or anybody's shoes.

I do believe, as you do, Ryan, that we have to, you know, I want Bobby to come out and speak much more honestly about this trap we've been in, and maybe that's coming. This was just the first foray into it. But we're in a very dangerous situation. Okay. One thing to the formatting and everything, I think is interesting is that the next part they have is this bold portion. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons. Now, he wrote that, but it's much farther down in the article. Fox is the one that put it in bold up at the top. So we do have to be aware that Fox News Channel has its own places it's trying to emphasize.

Okay. So that should not surprise anybody. But what came next and what he wrote is that, okay, measles is highly contagious, respiratory illness with certain health risks, especially to unvaccinated individuals. The virus spread. Say that? I disagree with it. I mean, like if you break down the actual risk that he's highlighting there and even as he then follows up and saying that there was a decline, before we ever got to the injection,

it seems like a counterintuitive point. Like, I don't agree with the especial risk to unvaccinated people. I think this is the same kind of general. I mean, but see, this is what's frustrating about this, is that it seems like just in a general sense, in the partisan conversation anywhere else, is the argument, if I make those points, is well, then he has to, otherwise he'll get fired

or otherwise he gets, and maybe you're right. But it just, it seems like that, that, the argument about what we can see in front of us and the facts we can prove, just constantly keeps bumping up against that we think he's doing the right thing. And I don't know how to argue against that. And I hope you're right. You know what I mean?

But to me, these are like fundamental problems based on what he actually knows. And I just feel like to be dishonest. Let me ask you this. If there had been a balance with it where he had put in that vaccine-related injuries are very, could be very risky and dangerous, especially for people vaccinated for the vaccine. You know what I mean? I would say like that.

If he had put something in to say, look, I mean, I know what you're saying with that, you know, that statement in and of itself may be factually inaccurate. But if he had balanced the article more by saying, look, it's not just, there's not just a risk, in his opinion, to not getting a vaccine. There's also a risk to getting a vaccine for medical reasons. And so, you know, people are making their choice. What are, what is riskier? What do I believe is riskier?

Where do I believe the reward really is? And we're balancing like this scientific reason against this scientific reason. And I just, I didn't get the. So I'm just curious. had said more of that in here. Do you feel like that statement would bother you less? Well, no. Well, I mean, it has to be, it's just, it's the balance, right? So hypothetically, if you're going to write this, I mean, I don't agree that it's highly like contagious. I'll give, yes, but deadly and dangerous. I mean, you can look at the breakdown. Even he says

most cases are mild in this article, right? So the way that's framed makes it sound like it's a risk to people's, especially if you're unvaccinated, especially with the way he goes on. I would simply argue this was going to be honest. It would be, I, I fought my entire career against MMR vaccine. It is still available. If you wanted, it's a bit, it's, you know, it's present. I make clear that you've been fighting to remove that. And then here's all the other options you can have, which I actually argue are more valuable, but choice. Or what if he had said, you know, measles a highly contagious respiratory illness with certain health risks, especially to malnourished people. That fair, exactly, right? I don't think

the unvaccinated part is even the real. Well, I mean, here's an interesting overlap. As Bernadette's highlighting, if you, because of the vaccination manipulation and leaky vaccines and all this different stuff, you've created this itself. I mean, they point to the problem they created to justify what they do. I argue still that we need to get back to that original point. So all of this is counterintuitive from my perspective. But I just think overall, which is funny, because I think we all generally agree here that the overall risk that they're highlighting around this is, you know, they're presenting things that are far more dangerous than the actual thing they're treating, just like with COVID-19. It's as simple as that. Well, Ryan, I would have to, that whole paragraph

there if I really wish I could have been Bobby's editor on this because I I really can say ways that I would I would have written that differently that presented more information I would have said the reported case fatality rate is this but we know that there were four million cases a year so actually the right right the your risk was like one in 10,000 so yeah there I'm not saying that I believe that's word perfect of even if, you know, seeing that I believe he was attempting to enter the conversation without getting fired and leave room for him moving forward. But it's not a perfect paragraph. And I agree with you, you know, really I would have liked to see it written a little bit differently. But the fact is this too, and this has been difficult for our side

to talk about because obviously the MMR introduction, the mass vaccination campaign has been more harm than good in the big picture and all the unintended consequences absolutely has been wrong. But if you're just looking at the number of deaths due to measles and the number of cases of hospitalization due to measles and what's that type of encephalitis that you could get, that was rare, but could happen due to measles. Those numbers did plummet. So, you know, those also went way down. And so you, that is true. But that can only be said when you talk

about the whole context of the vaccine program and the harm and the vulnerabilities that it created. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. It's very, it's such a difficult. conversation to have without writing a textbook. Yeah, I agree. Well, I would argue, though, that encephalitis is more likely caused by the vaccines they're giving. That's my personal opinion. But let me ask you something in a general sense. If this article was penned by Fauci, exactly the same article, would your opinion be different about it? That's going to take me a few seconds to try to switch my brain to that perspective. Think about it for a second. Think about it for a second. go to Allison Wineproo.com while Bernardad is thinking and get yourself an amazing bottle of wine, actually, six bottles of wine every three months. You will get your delivery on time and then you will have a gift for whatever birthday, holiday you're celebrating. These are wines that are hand selected for the kind of products that I like, which are very clean. You know, none of the additives and flavoring dyes and stuff that they put in a lot of the grocery store wines. These are grown, these grapes are grown in very remote regions of the world. We've got some Argentine,

wines that the grapes are grown between six and nine thousand feet, vineyards that have been around more than 200 years, families that are still using the same winemaking techniques, their great, great grandparents use. So go to Allison Winepromo.com and sign up if you're not a wine drinker, then you can just give them away as gifts. If you are a wine drinker, nothing pairs better with my show than a great glass of Allison Wine promo. Thanks everybody who is part of the club. Okay, do you have an answer yet, Bernadette. I think I do. I think I would have been shocked to think why. Yeah, that why is Fauci now telling us about, you know, all these good therapies? He didn't tell us any of this for COVID. What's going on now with him? What has he learned?

Is there a potential lawsuit happening with the MMR vaccine and he's slowly backing away from the shot? You know, I don't know. I mean, that was just a really quick trying to skew my perspective about who authored it, you know? I'm not trying to trick you anything. My point is just that, you know, it's not about whether we're trying to figure out his intentions. My simple point is that, again, not the hypothetical what they may intend just based on the content and the actual facts laid out. My point would be simply that I think it's, if generally the premises that we believe he's doing the right thing, it's easy just to paint it that way. If it was Fauci writing this article, it would probably more likely be, well, you know, just it would be highlighting the problems in it.

And that's what I'm trying to show is that if we pull out of the personality, from it and just go with the information, not, you know, a grok response, basically, as opposed to AR, okay, you know, that's where I'm really trying to get at. And I think that we all generally agree that a lot of this is, you know, dishonest or rather inaccurate if you don't, you know, based on the reasonings around it. So, Ryan, I guess my answer to that would be based on the history of what has emerged from HHS and CDC regarding measles, no matter who authored it, this is the most open and honest. I mean, even though it's not completely honest, you know, on, we agree on certain sections.

Can I intersect there for one second? When you guys say honest or dishonest, to me, that is judging intention, which we said we're not going to try to get into because honest means you could be lying, which means you know that. Factual. I meant to say more factual. That's why I tried to move in that. I just want to throw that out there. Okay.

Go ahead. You are right. And, you know, me just talking off the top of my head, please don't quote me on anything. You're right. It's more like trying to be more factual. This article is more factual about measles risks, you know, because it gives the historical context, 98% decline in mortality before the vaccine, talking about vitamin A and nutrition and all of that, no matter who wrote it, this is a giant step in the right direction for CDC and HHS.

something we have seen in the past 50, 60 years. So from that, it is like this is moving toward, you know, as things begin to crumble. Okay. Let me, let's go to the next paragraph. The current Texas outbreak has predominantly affected children with 116 of the 146 cases occurring in individuals under 18 years of age. The DSHS reports that 79 of the confirmed cases involved individuals who had not received the MMR vaccine while 62 cases had unknown vaccine status, at least five had received an MMR vaccine. I don't understand the last sentence. But anyway, but okay, so, but that's still, that's corporate media stuff.

And this, even again, in the, the truth about cancer article, they try to argue that that's him being honest. Nobody's done this before. The reality is that's what they do every time. And let me explain why. And it is ultimately hiding the side of it that makes it more clear that the, reading it exactly again. It's saying that 79 of the confirmed cases were those who had not. So they're going, for sure, that's a demonstration of, you know, if they don't have it, they're likely to get sick is

kind of the implication. But then it says the, that's like half of, that's like a 50-50, too, or a little bit more, 6040 split. Yeah, and it says 62 at unknown status. Now, I went through this in COVID-19. I was sure you did Bernard. And I said, look, you, they're splitting hairs about the unknown. Most of them, it turned out, you could prove, and there was many articles written about this were very clearly did not inject it. And they tried to, they left it opaque. So it was clear that the numbers when you remove the unknown slant to the idea that the most who got it were unvaccinated. And so to me, that's not, I even wonder why the truth about cancer article tries to sort of invert that point and make it sound like he's being more honest in ways that haven't been there. But when we get

to the vitamin A point, I'll make the same point there. I think the efforts being made to make things look like they're not. And again, that's that is in, that's not correct. It's not factually accurate. Well, I agree with you, Ryan, that this is always how information is presented. And I've been arguing for a decade when they give the flu death report. When I was in Washington State, we had to do a public records request to get the number of flu deaths, the number of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, and they always had the unknown. And, you know, it's like, how could you not know? The flu vaccine is given annually. How can you not know if that individual within the last 12 months?

It's not like even with the MMR, if these are adults and like, I don't know if I got the MMR as a kid. My mom didn't keep records, you know, and I'm 61 and I may have, may have not. I don't know. So I could see older people not knowing if they got the MMR. But to not know if you got the flu shot within the past year, people know if they got that. People knew if they got the COVID shot, for goodness sake. There could not, how could you have an unknown status on the COVID shot? People know when they get that dang thing.

So, but this is what they always do to play, you know, with the numbers. And why they assign the unknown, mostly to the unvaccinated is disingenuous. But at least it's spelled out what is unknown. Okay. Let's go back to the article. So do we want to go back to? this paragraph or go to the next paragraph? No, I'd say go to the next one.

Okay. You agree? All right. So then he talks about his response. He's directed the CDC and the ESPR to work closely with Texas health authorities to provide support. This will include offering technical assistance, laboratory support, vaccines, and therapeutic medications as needed. The CDC is in continuous communication with Texas health officials, ensuring a coordinated,

effective response to contain the outbreak. I've spoken with the governor. Texas health officials committing to provide them any additional support they need to bring this outbreak to an end. I've also spoken to the bereaved parents of the deceased child to offer consolation. Anything there? Yeah, just real quick. And it's probably not even much to discuss, but I just want to add the small, maybe minor, but the idea of bringing it to an end or the effective response. I mean, I'm of the mind that he has been in a large way attacking, rightly so, the organized, like, I mean, I've highlighted HHS and CDC people for a long

time that have been calling out that kind of pan like preparedness mindset where the burke's mindset the like being ahead of mentality is mindset well more so like preparing like instead of reacting to what's in front of you and I'm all for preparation but the idea of like hyping unknown threats for the you know that the idea that the government that's not the same thing here but the government has to step in and put an end to something like this is my anything like this may be more specifically like an ideological philosophical thing for me as like an anarchistic mindset. But it's about my choice, about me bringing to it for me and not this community responsibility that my choices.

All that comes back to is the idea that my choices are shared with the community. You know what I mean? And I don't, maybe that's me overreading it. I just think that that's something that I'm on guard to, whether RFK or Fauci or anybody. And I just feel that we're getting, you know, and maybe burning us right, maybe that's just to keep the Voltures office back. But again, same point for me. I just don't agree with that kind of general pandemic preparedness mindset.

I would agree with you that I would love us as a society to get to a point where like we used to be that, oh, somebody's sick. Well, what do we do? Let's take care of ourselves, you know. Nobody's freaking out. But everybody, you know, let's just make sure people are fully aware of their choices. That's ideally where I want to go. And again, I keep going back to decades of propaganda. social engineering, mass media campaigns, you know, everything, that can't be overturned quickly.

And it's in, and in measles in particular, this is what they always bring up because they can't strike fear in people over most other infections. Measles is their go-to if we wanted to freak people out and keep the vaccine paradigm going. let's make sure we harp on measles. Well, and you know, Bernadette like I do back in Washington State, which we both left, that that was often brought up in the media because like exemptions were being discussed in the legislature. Should you have an exemption? And it was old measles was often what was the go-to for people who were trying to remove these exemptions.

The lies in Washington state that were told it was awful. me and another mama bear, Jacqueline Gallian, we were five o'clock in the afternoon, still at the legislature, working the offices. They were trying to remove the personal exemption to the MMR. And I was in one building and she was another. And both of us overheard the Secretary of Health's office calling

to strike fear in them saying, an infant has been exposed to measles who's too young to get the shot. And then, you know, just calling, just soliciting this, you know, and it was ridiculous because these babies were in families where, you know, the mother had natural immunity, you know, and anyway, it was just, we heard that. And when the whole thing was over, we lost the personal exemption to the MMR and I got a meeting, or we got a meeting, was informed choice Washington with the Secretary of Health. It was about another subject. We had flown in Mary Holland and others about the HPV vaccine.

So after that discussion, I asked the Secretary of Health at the time, how many people outside of the small cultural community, this religious community, got measles? And he said, Bernadette, it doesn't matter. I said, John, how many people outside the cultural community got measles? Bernardad, it doesn't matter. I said, you lobbied to remove the personal exemption because you said everybody in the state was at risk. He would not tell me. He would not tell me because it was nobody outside that community.

only people who got measles in Washington State during that outbreak, that inbreak, were people who were happy and willing to be susceptible. They respectfully self-isolated. The pastor of their church even wrote a letter saying so. So the lies and the deceit and the propaganda that is out there, this is going to take a long time to overcome. But not as long as we feared. Bobby Kennedy is Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's telling the public about vitamins and nutrition and telling you it's your parental choice. It's not a perfect article, but by gum, it's a step. I'm just laughing because it sounds so, it just sounds ludicrous that that would even be a big deal.

But anyway, it's the United States of America, so French fries are good. I didn't think a large point about the kind of timing and how fast it comes down. But, you know, I think again, though, the idea, Just the large point before I go off. The interesting thing is, if we're of the mind that these people, as you just highlighted, you know, Colin Pete of threatening, which that's not going to disappear because he, whichever way he goes, right? These people are hell bent on getting that, you know, whatever we're talking about.

So we can acknowledge that's there. So do we argue that the slow roll change is going to have a better chance of change when you know those people at every single moment are going to fight tooth and nail to keep what they want or to pull it all down? And yes, have some kind of a side of some kind of, you know, there's going to be side effects and responses and actions around any way that happens. I argue that if we want change, we make change. We don't slow roll it out or accept that we think that's happening based on the hypothetical

because we, you know what I mean? Like that's, I hope you're right, always. I want the same thing. My concern is that we're being allowed to think, maybe even Kennedy's being allowed to think that if he does this in a different way and doesn't really, and it pulls punches that we can effectively get there. That's hoping that everybody in that administration, which my God, I'd like to believe people in this conversation can see.

are not largely on the side of freedom and liberty, especially with what they've already been doing. I argue you pull it down. You come out and you say, this is killing people. The COVID shots killing people. Like I was saying three months ago, roundly in every talk I had,

now suddenly it's different. You know, you pull it down and you make absolute change. And the idea, I forgot what I wrote right there. Oh, the main point there, sorry, remote handwriting,

is that, you know, again, back to the point, is that I'm of the mind if we believe, and I, you know, my opinion about voting is kind of going to contradict this. I don't believe that translates the outcome. But if we're going to pretend the mandate was given to Trump that majority people voted him in, the same point is there. He also has the support of the people. So I just don't get the argument for not ripping this down

instantaneously other than it might cause more harm to some people. And I can I can understand that, but I still think that's for the life. We're again talking about long term benefit to real change. I just don't see how we can make an argument for anything other than being honest and pulling it down instantaneously. Well, okay, well, how about this? I mean, why not let people choose? I don't know. As an an anarchistian, what do you say? I said, right, with all the information, let them choose now. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Let them choose. Here's the facts you choose, you know? Yeah, and I don't, I mean, this is kind of taking us down a different rabbit hole. I don't know if you guys want to answer this at all. But, like, having Dr. Mary Talley Bowden on the other day about like her campaign to get the mRNA vaccines taken off the market. And I asked her a couple times, well, is that the opposite side of the mandate? In other words, like, is mandating and banning kind of the same.

just on opposite sides of the polls because you're still taking choice away from people. Now, her response was like, they're just too dangerous. You know, you can't, people are injecting their kids with them. But you could make that argument for a lot of different things that are very dangerous for kids. And parents are still giving them to their kids or, you know, other vaccines, like that present risks or whatnot. So, yeah, so I'm curious. Yeah, like when it comes down to banning versus allowing people to choose these, obviously there's going to be a lot of parents who are not going to do their research. which probably the vast majority are not going to do their research.

But it would be interesting to me to see if there wasn't mass propaganda campaigns in support of mass vaccination and the CDC schedule and everything, what parents would choose. I mean, they might choose differently if they weren't just beaten over the head all the time. With, you know, I hate to say it, but like with this idea that's in this article. The point, though, is that like I said earlier, it's about, it's about, you know, if it was something that was readily available growing in a field, that I would have completely agree that, And I still do. People have the right to choose for themselves,

even with the dangerous things that are being provided. But my point is if a government is creating something through our infrastructure with your tax dollars that's supposed to be going through safety information and they know it's dangerous. That's a different conversation. But my point is that they should, and he already is as the article is going. Here's vitamin A. Here's these different things. These are valid.

And my opinion are far more efficacious than what we're talking about with none of the bad side. So that is a different conversation about liberty. But it's a fair point to make. I just think again, it comes down to what are we really trying to accomplish. And, you know, is this the right way to do that? Historically, no. A long, slow role will always be co-opted, will always be changed. We'll get mired in some new deviation to the next 30 seconds tomorrow.

You know, it'll be the new partisan talking point. We'll forget about this. Like, I hope I'm wrong, but that's how we see this going in the past. Sorry, I had to say all that. No, can I add, though, that a couple of things here. I mean, Ryan, if the mess. Mass measles vaccination campaign had not created such a dangerous mess for certain individuals and actually had more people now susceptible to measles likely than before the vaccine rollout,

and that would be especially the infants. I would agree with you. Just yank it. But I mean, I think that it's much more complicated than that. But the MMR, as bad as that vaccine is, as awful as the non-testing was before it got a license, these COVID shots, these MRI injections, we go through a licensing process before we allow something on the market for a reason. To leave them on the market would be the equivalent of saying, let's let bottles of mercury be on the shelf for people to decide whether they want to drink it. These are the most toxic injections mankind has ever invented.

This is not about free choice unless you like to play Russian roulette with your health or your children's health. They are completely different animals. I mean, the stupid MR&A shocks make MMR vaccines almost look safe in comparison. Not to say that I support the MMR vaccine in any way. But anyway, I mean, you know, free choice. but as a society, we come together and we attempt to make infrastructure that protects society, individuals from greedy corporate companies that just want to make money and they don't care if they poison you. Can I ask me about that?

Because I don't know. I'm not versed on the information about the, which I wouldn't doubt at all, about the, whether it's a leaky vaccine dynamic or the idea that it's caused more of the problem, which is why sort of they're like addicted to these shot. Like we need those shots. otherwise people are more susceptible. I'll err to you on the side of that research. I just want to ask, are you concerned at all that that might be, you know,

the same thing we've been seeing over the years where it's just more science produced to sort of rationalize in whatever the reason is that we continue down this path. No, I think we need to find a way to transition completely away from any measles vaccine and get back to naturally acquired herd immunity with a really vigorous system to make sure that the monocolon antibodies for the, for the infants are available and the vitamin A and all the other, I mean, you know, HBot, I'm just into the whole natural treatment. I just want to find a safe way to transition us away.

That might, I don't, the MMR is not the right thing. I mean, even Japan just has the MR. No, the M. Do they not have the Ruz. No, I think they don't have the Mumps component. And they don't have as much adverse reactions than we have here. What about just, you know, when Dr. Andrew Wakefield came out, you know, and his team of 11 other doctors published the paper showing more research needs to be done on the MMR, the corporate reaction was to yank the individual vaccines from the market. So parents didn't even have the choice.

So, you know, like I said earlier, as much as I'm not a fan of vaccination, we may need a measles vaccine. an individual, I don't know how we're going to, I mean, we will have to vigorously test, I believe in proper studies, but voluntary basis that might be able to phase us off so we don't have, you know, I would love to see an open roundtable with the scientists and the doctors coming together to look at the state of measles today in the world and what we've done. And like Dr. Brown's team, like Dr. Brownstein said in that clip that we've, vaccinated ourselves into a corner, basically. And I know that, like I said, he would be the kind doctor you want to take your kid to because he totally understands why you would choose not

not to get the vaccines. On the other hand, like he kind of sees what you see, Bernadette. I don't know. I mean, I haven't read all the studies, but I find him to be an honest doctor who really wants to get things right. And I don't think he's a vaccine pusher. So, you know, the point is that the problem exists. We all agree with that, right? It's, is the, the, at the, question is, are more vaccinations the solution to that? Or a slow roll while allowing you to think, like it just seems like it's a mix of the problems, either be honest and given the choice or pull it. You know what I mean? Like it's a, it all comes down to we hope that that's what's happening underneath this veil of playing the game. And I again, hope that's the case. I don't know

why we would lean into that though, because historically, we've always been played. The difference today and like it was the difference under Obama or the difference or anybody else is that these are the right people, you know, and it just, I'm a, they're all bad. It's hard for me to go along with that, quite frankly. But I hope, I hope, you know. Well, I know, I mean, I see what you're saying, too. Like, if you were to take that, you know, that we're not talking about music, we're talking about something else.

It's some kind of epidemic or something. You know, you need Cheetos or something. You've been eating Cheetos your whole life. You take Cheetos away. You're going to die because you have this thing. You need Cheetos or whatever. Like, well, you wouldn't just keep giving Cheetos. Like at some point, you would try to figure out how to get first off Cheetos.

But you may not agree on, which is, which is important. Yeah. Yeah. Well, okay. So going back to the article, but this kind of brings me to the point that I was going to make in this last, this other paragraph we were on. Alsmartow Locals.com again, be on the editorial board. If you're not on it, five bucks a month. And it's a great way to support the show.

Myron 54. When is it for the greater good? In other words, what is considered dangerous? How many injuries, deaths are necessary to justify that label? Because that is part of this article. And I think one of my greatest criticisms of it is that he does push this idea of vaccination for herd immunity. without giving any reason that you would choose not to do that. So again, it sets us up for the like,

you don't care about grandma, you don't care about the baby's mantra that we've heard just this drumbeat over the last few years. And, you know, I just like people really don't, they don't get in a lot of the, if not most, of the conversations about vaccines, unless you're watching like Ryan or Bernadette, definitely not when you're watching King Five in Seattle, right? Because I'll tell you what, like, you know,

to the therapeutic side of this, you know, years ago before I was who I am now, you know, fired from my state job and doing talks like this, which I never would have been able to do. One time I was passing through the cafe in our newsroom and I saw that the Department of Health person was on our show, our 4 o'clock show and talking about how you should go get the vaccine because it was flu season. So everybody go get your flu vaccine. And I, you know, my boss was having a cup of coffee. I was getting a cup of coffee.

And I said, why don't we ever, like, give people other options, like, you know, vitamin D or get off sugar? I mean, look, these were very innocent questions for me at the time. I hadn't even met Bernadette yet. So I wasn't down. It was definitely not crazy like I am now. But back then, you know, he thought I was nuts. I mean, it's really funny. Like, I mean, he should really see me now because, like, back then I literally was not questioning it.

But I just happened to mention, you know, I knew that an immune system mattered because I had been exposed to, you know, whatever the flu is. I had been around many people in closed environments that, you know, quote, got the flu, were tested positive for the flu. And I never got sick and I didn't get the flu vaccine. So I just knew, you know, at that time, I didn't know much, but I just knew there was something more to it. So I happened to mention that. You would have thought, you would have thought I had just prayed hell and hellfire onto the newsroom or something.

And the way that he responded to me, I mean, honestly, I probably should have gone to HR. But, but I was really castigated for making those, those mentions of any therapeutic and not just telling people to get the vaccine. because I guess people who are really into the flu vaccine or any vaccines, they see it as undermining the vaccine by telling people about therapeutics, which is crazy to me. I mean, these two can't exist together. Even if you are a pro vaccine, get them all kind of person, why wouldn't you also want to get somebody's immune?

It just doesn't make any sense. But I live that, you know, I really live that. So anyway, this is where, yeah, like to the question of what is the danger, like what justifies you have to take a risk for everybody else? else. Like what is dangerous enough that you have to put your life at risk, which he doesn't mention anything about how you could potentially be putting your kids life at risk by getting the vaccine. That's again, one of my real criticisms of this article. This paragraph, as health care providers, community leaders and policymakers, we have a shared responsibility to protect public health.

This includes ensuring that accurate information about vaccine safety and efficacy is disseminated. Now, you can read that sentence and say, yeah, let's put out the vaccine efficacy and safety information, right? If you're us, you're reading that going, yeah, let's put it out. Let's let people really see what's going on. And maybe that's what he meant. But the average person, I believe, is reading this thinking, seeing that safety and efficacy, meaning it's safe and effective. That's how I believe a lot of people read it. We must engage with communities to understand their concerns. Okay. So this is like, let's go sit down with them and let's have, you know, conversations like a psychologist and get, let them air their concerns about it. And make sure we provide culturally

competent education, make vaccines readily accessible for all those who want them. Like I said, it's a murky paragraph, but I still think it leans, you know, unless you're something like us, I think you're reading this thinking like, look, let's just, let's hold people's hands and get them to the vaccine table and help them to understand why these are safe and effective. And let's just appease their concerns. Let's beat them over the head with a mandate. Let's just draw them in. Maybe we'll get them a little, you know, lollipop or something at the end and everything will be fine. I think it pushes this idea of like, do it for the team, shared responsibility to protect public health. And it doesn't include any reasons why you would choose otherwise. Right. Well, I think the, he's taken a page,

in my opinion, again, to pull away the personality. So this is just, you know, it's not about RFK or anybody else. This is taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook, right? Where, and like, I said before this, like towards the tail end of the COVID-19 mania, which is still not really done, but, you know, like the mania of it, is that I really didn't see that they would come out with another mandate. I didn't see them doing another COVID-2.0 because I don't think it actually worked the way that they intended. I think there's too much pushback. And so I was always expecting something like this. And so Trump played the whole, or rather, let's put it like this, the narrative around what he did, which I think is inaccurate, is he didn't force it,

he let you chew. Well, that's not really true when you break down. It's about semantics. He state, the state of emergency was from him. I can go through all the points. It created the situation to where many people were forced to take a shot that he still tells you was good for children, you know, to me, the argument that he just didn't force it on you does not remove the ridiculousness of still allowing that to be given. So it's the same point here. And so what he's highlighting is is the idea of, you know, like at the end, can you bring up the, bring back up the screenshot for me? Yeah.

Where the end of the paragraph basically says, you know, for all those who want them, which I'm glad he said that. But is that him saying, you know, it's leaning into that at the point, like, but before, as you said, insurers accurate information about vaccine safety. Well, again, back to the article, the reason I keep referencing this is that you guys had pointed to it earlier is the before we started the show. The truth about a cancer article about this is arguing that he did not. you know, that he gave, that he claims that they have risks.

That's nowhere in the article. There's nowhere anywhere in there about risks about MRI. MMR or, yeah, MMR, but it does, you can assume that. And this is where a lot of this comes back to or that he did, you know, actually I'll hold back. The vitamin A point I'm interested to get into it. I think that's the next paragraph. But go ahead, Bernard, if you had some comments on that. Yeah, well, a couple of things.

I think we, I hope eventually we change the term vaccine safety. It's supposed that they say vaccine safety. What they really mean is what are the risks. So the term itself is confusing. And I hope that eventually it'll say we'll change that to vaccine risks. But the other thing I mean to point. Bernadette, now that you say that, like, why did they use the term safety? Because it leaves the reader like, yeah, when I probably would have liked the article better if he had said that. If he said vaccine risks and safety, you know what I mean? also didn't put it out, though. Even if he has said risks, there's nowhere beneath it where it goes and here are the risks. I would agree with that. He would have, unless he went into all, like, the deep science of it, which he wouldn't do in this article, he would have gotten crucified for saying something like that. I totally think that, you know, it would have just become the, I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have. I'm just saying, like, that would, that would definitely would have been like

a real lightning rock. I think it's as simple as saying, and, you know, my, I mean, it's not, it's not a secret, his public work around this, right? So that's true. That's true. It's just to be like, I've been spending years highlighting the risks of this shot. Like that alone, you know, it's to me. And if that's enough to get him yanked out, then this system's broken. You know what I mean? It's so frustrating that we have to, it's about all honesty. I'm sorry.

I just, I get frustrated about the nuance of it. I think that's a really good point and actually throw that to Bernadette because, yeah, we're not talking about somebody who's like been in the closet on this issue. I mean, he has, he has taken some serious hits in his career talking about this consistently. why would he now hold back on it? I mean, that does, you know, for risk of, for risk of public reaction, you know, or the media reaction, I mean, the dude has been under fire for decades. So why would he care now?

It says you're answering the question. Would you mind, yeah, giving us a response to that too? Yeah, well, and I think we have to remember that, you know, the vaccine industry don't do vaccine risk trials. They call them vaccine safety trials, right? the whole language around that. So, you know, in his article when he says to relay the vaccine safety, you know, I think that we are so used to that term and those of us in community who know how the science is done, we understand that means looking to see if they are safe, not that they are safe.

So, you know, that said. I want to just kind of put something out there. So those listening fully understand when I say that potentially, I don't know if it should be, a single measles vaccine, need to be developed to get us out of here. I'm not saying I support that. I'm saying it might be one of the tools that have to be used, but I would never say children should get an MMR. Children should not. I mean, this would maybe be how adults, you know, in a very voluntary manner. But the other thing I forgot to completely say is one of the tools that I hope moving forward they begin to introduce is iodine. Because iodine solutions in the nose and throat, where measles replicates, just like COVID and the flu,

inactivates a virus in 15 seconds or less. So, you know, one of the tools during an outbreak could potentially be mass distribution of iodine products or education, how to make it yourself. This could very rapidly help lower risk of infection, lower viral load, prevent serious outcome to disease. there are many other tools that can be used as we began to transition away from vaccination as the, as the tool of choice by public health that has to be pulled.

And I do not absolutely do not believe in anybody having to feel they need to sacrifice, take a risk, you know, for the greater good in the realm of infectious disease. because in all the research I have done over the years, I understand that I can be a responsible citizen, responsible to my neighbors, my family, people I interact with without taking a risk. I can do vitamin D and vitamin A. I can do a squirt of the iodine,

which I do. I bring with me to the capital now. I've got my iodine with me. So I can keep myself from being a spreader without a vaccine. So I can be responsible to my neighbor without harming myself. Can I say one quick thing just on the side of liberty? And this is always just by my mind goes with this. I agree with you as a personal choice.

Like I think it's our responsibility. Actually, you know, coming from a cooking chef background, like washing your hands. And, you know, I think things are tried and true in regard to health. But I would still argue, though, even when it comes to things like this. And this is where I err on the side of this where it's like, you know, even like public pressure, It's the person's individual choice, whether they want to do any of those things, whether they want to just brave it and risk it themselves, which I probably, I would imagine we probably all agree on. But I think that that even the public, I'm talking more against the public messaging. The idea that you get the pressure from people that it's somehow your responsibility to do this and do that to make sure that these people stay.

That is a slippery slope. That's all I'm saying. And so I don't like that. It is. But you know what? It's when it is weaponized. Yes. Humans, we live best when we do really respect each other.

And we try to do good by each other. That has been weaponized. The vaccine industry has taken the best of mankind, the fact that we want to protect each other and do good by each other. And they have used that to make us take steps we never, ever would have done. Look what they did. People left their loved ones alone in nursing homes where they died of depression. alone and they were they were let believe they had to do that i mean that was just pure evil absolutely evil we lost alison i hope we get her back yeah uh she she could bring up my screen

share we could keep going but i don't have in front of us but yeah since you're talking i mean that is it is absolutely incredible that's a great it's a really important point to think about and that i think definitely applies to you know our government left and right that they weaponize our our desire like here's an interesting thing i always referenced kately johnstone when I say this because she's the one that pointed this out a long time ago is that, that, you know, they wouldn't pretend to be doing good and spreading freedom and if we didn't largely want that. So I think in that of itself, it shows you that the majority of people, at least in this country, but I think the world are, you know, good people who want good things.

You know, I'm not all over different opinions and different things or make mistakes, but I think that's important to think about. And so they're feigning all of this when in reality, it's like they're like this snake pit of sociopaths that are all driving us using these good things. You know, it's crazy. We're in agreement there. And before, I moved to Tennessee. What I miss? Oh, we're just talking. I was just so glad you guys are the ones.

My internet went out for some reason. Uh-oh. I was just about to say that in Washington State, I spoke at this one big Patriot event. It was awesome. And it's when I first, because I was just telling Ryan how, you know, the evil vaccine makers and pharmaceutical industry really hijacked and weaponized the best of mankind because we want to do right by each other. We want to be good neighbors.

We want to help each other. They weaponize that in order to push their agenda. And so I told this crowd, I said, how do you get Americans who believe in the Constitution and freedom and they're good people and they want to do right by their neighbor, want to do right by society, how do you get these people to voluntarily step back and forfeit their constitutional rights. And what you do is you convince them that their very breath will kill somebody. And that's what they did with COVID. They convinced us that if you breathed on somebody, even if you had no symptoms, you could kill grandma. You could kill a baby. And they,

so they were hijacking our desire as humans to be good to each other. But I don't want us to lose our humanity. You know, I don't want us to lose the desire to help each other. But we can't let it be weaponized the way it has been. I have. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But to ruin the alignment, I had to bring it back to RFK. I think that article kind of does that to a small degree. I think that it's, but I may say this. I do think that it's, I mean, it's no question and improvement from what we've seen before, including these things like you mentioned. I can agree with that. But what I'm worried about is the way that like even using like we just talked about, that RFK Jr and maybe even genuinely thinks all these things can come out with these

half measures and then have the rest of the administration or I think we can agree there are people already in the administration that are clearly of the mind that these are wrong or that there's other things that should be done who come out with that mindset. So then you still have the push coming from the administration that your breath is dangerous and grandma's at risk. But you know, but the herd immunity point is what he's leaning into. So together, it's effectively the same thing. But we'll have to wait and see how it goes forward. So I really hope you're right. I hope they take more dramatic steps, but at the moment, it just makes me uncomfortable that I'm already seeing those same kind of paths being taken, you know?

Did you want to play these RFK clips? Well, let's do the vitamin A thing first, if you will. And then because this one, this is just about the track record from before, which I think we've already addressed, but. Okay. And I, um, I want to do these two paragraphs together just, uh, since they, I think they, they blend together, but also just in the interest of time. So this, this paragraph here, this first top one, yeah, right here, uh, this,

is basically, yeah, it's responsibility to provide up-to-date guidance on therapeutics. There's no antiviral, but the CDC's recently updated the recommendation supporting vitamin A under the supervision of a physician for those with mild, moderate, and severe infection. Studies have found vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality. And then the next paragraph is going into parents playing a pivoter role in safeguarding their children's health. All parents should consult with their health care providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. And the decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles,

but also contributed to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons. I will say this is my least favorite paragraph next to one of my most favorite paragraphs right next to each other. It's like a compliment sandwich. You know, your boss always just to tell you like, take one nice thing, then put the insult in the middle and then another nice. But, okay, so that paragraph about like, yeah, the therapeutics,

the media went wild on that. You know, experts say this is crazy. This is bonkers. The Daily Beast called it a bonkers. statement that RFK would say anything about vitamin A and then they have their experts. And but then it leads into the parents and the, you know, the vaccine. And so it's a little confusing because it's like, okay, well, I get the therapeutics. It's great that he's talking about this.

But then it goes right back into how parents are important. So it's like the responsibility is the parents. You should consult with your health care provider to on your options to get the MMR vaccine. Right. And then the decision is personal, but they not only will protect. your individual child, they will also contribute to community immunity. So you're not protecting your child. That's what I read as a parent of a four and a two year old. You know, you're taking a risk not protecting your child. And you're also not protecting your community, which is something that all

of us here when we go to the pediatrician's office. It's like right out of our pediatricians playbook. So I will say, I really, yeah, I really appreciated it therapeutic. So I thought, you know, you could do a little bit more there. But it was great that it was there. But then it went right back into this, You know, they just like the typical pediatrician thing, like protect your kids or I'll sign off on this waiver. That's what a lot of pediatricians make you do nowadays. You have to sign a form that says you understand the risks of what you're doing to your kid and other people's kids if you don't do it. And I read that. I don't know if I'm reading into it too much, but that's what I got out of that second paragraph. So who wants to go first on this one? Should we let Bernadette

go first this time, Ryan? I was just going to say it. Please. Go ahead. Yeah. Well, I agree with you 100%. I love that finally, you know, bringing up the vitamin A in this conversation is something HHS and CDC never used to do. So I'm glad to see that. But I also very much just like the paragraph about community immunity and how that was worded. I believe it could have been worded in such a way that let's use the word that was more factual and yet was not so supportive. But I don't know. So that's when I guess enter the the world where we're trying to avoid of speculating why it was worded the way it was worded in order for him to potentially keep his job at this stage.

But I guess I would agree with you that I do not like the way that was worded and it doesn't seem to support. But then I keep falling back in my head. It's like, look at this mess that has been created. But no, nobody should be giving an MMR to their children. I wish it didn't say otherwise. Brian? Yeah. So do me if you bring up the paragraph again, just in case I want to reference that.

Oh, and then actually, never mind. You just bring up my screen share. This is what I wanted to highlight mostly. So first on, I was just going to say that I think what's important is that with Fauci in the past, we get these kind of cartoonish, like especially as when we go really far away from it. I'm not going to be the last to say that Fauci's undeserving of the criticism he gets, if you guys are a monster in my opinion. But, you know, you can go back and see, especially before COVID-19, that he was pointing

this deep vitamin D, vitamin C. That was one of the earlier points of where how disjointed it was where he suddenly started not doing that, as well as therapeutics. There's even points during the COVID-19 point where he nods at therapeutics. That's not to say that he cared or wanted you to use them, but he nodded to them. So the question is, is that what our case doing in that article? It's, again, that's why I asked that question, is you can read into the sentences the way you want to.

To me, it's a political, it's not personality. You read it. And, you know, it's, yeah, there are therapeutics. Okay, well, that's good. But he did reference the A and everything else, which I would agree is, in the article and how it's covered, that I would argue is a deviation in a good way. They rarely would nod to those things.

But let me make a point about this. So here is the way back machine from May 24. This is from the CDC. See, the argument right now is that's new. It really wasn't. And I'll point to some other articles where they referenced it in the past. It's just not as highlighted. You can go down to this.

And here's what it said before. Severe measles cases among children, such as those who are hospitalized, should be treated with vitamin A. Vitamin A should be administered immediately. That's from CDC before this change. Now here's the update or rather this was the, oh, I just went forward one more time just to make sure here's February 2025. So even still very recently said the same thing that it should be used. Now here's since he updated it. Okay,

here, this is the one he put out of the link the shit link he shared and it says updated vitamin A. It's that now here, the only difference under the supervision of a healthcare provider, vitamin A may be administered to infants under a physician supervision. Now to me, the only difference is now you have to have somebody there overseeing what you do. To me, that's a deviation in the wrong direction. So I think it's disingenuous for the conversation to be saying that this is a positive change, like with the truth and cancer article saying that this has never been done, but it's a shift in a positive way. Well, that's not actually true. That is the narrative going around. And I find that kind of frustrating from an article arguing that the only reason we're talking about this is because

we didn't read the article. So I find that interesting because that's largely incorrect with most people I know making my argument about this Fox News article. The other part was that you can go back through whether CDC, UK, different Oxford article, where they have been talking about vitamin A going back a long way. That's not to say that they leaned into that. Like that's my point. Very clearly, you can see that they have been vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, like threat, danger everywhere. But this is the point is that is it accurate to highlight this as a deep, especially with the supervision part added to it. So to me, it's more about the narrative making it sound as if we've had these positive changes when what's he been doing? He's suggested, almost leaned into, which if we're going to be

honest, that's what the article did, MMR vaccine, that he's been fighting, and then we can play these clips, that he says in Congress that he would support, even though in a previous interview, he said he wouldn't give it to his children. So, I mean, these are things that I just can't get my mind around, whether RFK or anybody else. If you want to say he's playing the game to me, then he's already failed. And maybe I'm wrong. You know, maybe he'll play it in and we'll wake up in a better place and I will high five you and thank you, Bernardette, for your work, and everybody else. I'm really worried about that. I don't, I don't, this is a difficult situation.

I don't know that there's an ideal way forward here. I would not want to be in his shoes. I want to point out, I don't, it is updated. Vitamin A, as you said, has been on there. I want to point out that the new language, again, he needs a new editor. He needs somebody like to review these things. It seems to me it's attempting to say that all measles cases, the old one, said only mentioned severe measles.

The new one, the first lead in sentence, says that measles should be, you know, like under the advice of your doctor, like all measles cases should be treated with vitamin A. Now, can you pull that up again? Let's read it. I think the doctor was only... You have to do it, Alison, there you go. Let's see. Under the supervision of a health care provider, vitamin A.

Severe. And then this one just says... So that's a good point. Yeah. So under the supervision. a health care provider. So see your doctor. Vitamin A may be administered to infants and charitable in the United States with measles as part of supportive management.

So that's encouraging you to utilize vitamin A, maybe see your doctor to see dosage for depending on the age of your baby or whatever. Maybe. But then under physician supervision, those hospitals should be managed with vitamin A. So it maintains that that is the should in severe cases. So I would argue that this is improved. So let's go back really quickly. So severe measles, so right out of the gate, right?

But then it only says it at the top where it just says should be administered. So it's pretty much the same exact language with the word severe in a different spot. Because severe measles is right there. Under supervision, children with severe measles should be treated. So, I mean, it's a very, very small splitting hair difference. It's a good point. But I still argue that at the end of the day, all you're adding is that now you have to have health care supervision. Now, that's not the same as saying recommendation.

That's saying supervision. I mean, we're going to be honest about that. Now, that's not to say, I mean, look, we, I think we know that, like, for example, intravenous injection of vitamin C in some place has been illegalized, which is outrageous, right? So the thing is, I think that's where that's going. And the argument can be made that it's because that's the safest way to do it. I mean, it's liberty for me. And I, it's a, it's a, you know, a nuanced point.

I think we're both making good points on this. Well, except the, I guess I'd have to examine a little more closely. the CDC generally does not give like dosage advice and that sort of thing. As far as I know to parents on things, they generally give advice and say, see your doctor, see your doctor. They always put it off. Here's our guidelines, but see your doctor. I don't know that CDC has ever put out messaging about taking any product without saying see your doctor.

They don't generally talk directly to parents. It's a different language. But again, maybe they meant it the other way. So we don't know, right? But we do know, though, that parents will read that and go buy some vitamin A and do a little digging and read these studies on PubMed. And they will make their own decisions. We do know that because they've always done that.

I mean, when COVID hit, some of the first things to sell out on Amazon were the highest quality vitamin D, vitamin C, vitamin A, zinc. glutathione, NAC, and acetyl cysteine. People knew what to do. It was, I was quite. Hoasty warmer. No, I'm just kidding. Yeah, horsy warmer.

I got plenty of that. I got a couple horses. Okay, well, I had RIP freckles. He died left here. All right. Let's go to these next. Okay, so we did, we were doing, or Ryan, was there anything you want to be to play in those clips related to this or is that?

You can play them now or afterward. It's basically, it's just the point that applies to the whole conversation. And just play the number four first and then play number five if you want to. Okay. Well, let me ask you, though, before I play the clips, let's knock out these other two paragraphs about the history, basically where he talks about how before the vaccine's introduction, 98% of the cases of the deaths, sorry, of measles deaths,

were eliminated because of sanitation and nutrition, okay, not the vaccine. So, all right, but you know, So good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Doesn't say measles, though. And I just have to be clear. That doesn't say measles, but I still think that's a very big improvement. But he says this was deleted, but then kind of leaves off that measles. You know what I mean? I find that relevant, just my skepticism, but go ahead. Okay. And then yeah, and then these vitamin rich foods should be a part of your balanced diet. Healthcare professionals on the front lines of this outbreak are working tirelessly to treat

affected individuals and prevent further transmission. Their dedication, resilience are commendable, and they deserve unwavering support. It is essentially provide them with the resources and back and they need to continue their vital works. They're just like, go team. You know, everybody's working hard. So is there anything with these two, like as far as the history, you know, I will, I give them credit for that. I mean, you don't, you don't often hear people at his level saying that we had eradicated something before like the solution came out and, you know what I mean? Yeah. But would you guys argue that this is something that's been part of in the mass consciousness, been whether disagreed on has been seen? What I'm noticing a lot right now is a lot of these things

that have already been like they've generally gotten mass adoption. And so it's not that contentious to sort of allow that point in so far. And I'm not saying this what's happening, but especially with Trump administration, in order to sort of cement a new manipulation. Like I see that a lot. I just want to be on guard for that because I think most people, if you just look at the actual information, we're aware that these things were already on the decline before this happened, you know, and so it's a good point to use. I'm glad he did it. I'm not trying to take that away.

I think that's a huge improvement. It also matters what happens next. This article alone, even if he came out and said, the MMR shot will kill you, and then the administration still pushed them out. You know what I mean? That's a difference, but I just want to point that out. I think maybe you're partially right. I will say just personally, I was not hyper aware of this.

And I, you know, I consider myself a rather educated, person, but I, you know, even though I wasn't taking the flu vaccine, I'd maybe heard stuff like this, but I didn't know if it was really true. I would have been the person who had a cocktail party with my Allison Wine promo saying like, but didn't they, you know, weren't we already getting better on this because cows weren't living in the city or something. You know, I would have said something dumb like that, but I wouldn't have known the real data behind it. However, I'll give you this. I think if it had been a more contentious, you know, not publicly accepted idea, we would have seen the media go after that sentence. Yeah. Those couple of sentences.

and instead they went after vitamin A, which actually I find shocking. I would have thought they would have gone after that more than the therapeutic. So that's very weird to me. But I would say I'm not sure it's totally like full consciousness. I don't know about what you think, Bernadette. Well, I absolutely agree that sometimes, Ryan, you and I, because we know so much, and we've been in this movement for so long and we've got a crowd around us of people who also are aware that we forget really the majority of the public.

You know, I strike up conversations in the grocery store with people all the time. And, you know, you talk with me two minutes. You're going to be talking about vaccines and infectious disease. And people are shocked. They do not know what we know. And that the censorship on this conversation has been so tight for so long, I think we forget that outside of our bubble people don't know. And the fact that now, I think, you know, they say that you have to hear something seven times, you know, and that's why advertising works. You have to go over and over and over. So really, it's not new to us. It's old news to us. But by gum, now that Secretary of Health and Human Services has said it in a major news article that has been picked up everywhere. So, you know, these things that we know, everyone will get to know. And as soon as it be, what has to happen is, The majority will have to learn it so that they will understand. We're taking people down this journey that many of us went on. I mean, I vaccinated my child until he was injured by vaccine.

So, you know, I had to go on the journey myself. I didn't know this stuff. And so anyway, there we are. And so, you know, glad to see that he's getting that information out there. It's a journey. Okay. this is basically the end. The measles outbreak in Texas is a call to action for all of us. Okay, so he uses that term. Okay, but what is he saying the call to action is to

reaffirm our commitment to public health? What is our commitment to public health? We just went through the entire thing. Okay. So by working together, parents, health care providers, community leaders, government officials, we can prevent future outbreaks and protect the health of our nation. Under my leadership, HHS is and will always be committed to radical transparency to regain the public's trust in its health agencies and then, you know, go visit the CDC website. We want some more information. All right. Let me play Ryan. Real quick before you play those. Radical transparency while you're not honestly talking about, I find that insulting. If you're not going to be, you're not being on it. Look, even if it's a justifiable pulling of a punch for the long term good, you can't say full transparency when you're not actually being fully transparent about the risk of MMR. That's my personal opinion. But I would point out as well, let's not forget the Trump administration. If him heading HHS has already conditionally approved a shot for poultry for bird flu and they're also rolling out a medication, biosecurity focused, program for fighting bird flu, and they've also allowed funding to continue from Biden's

deal for an MMR bird flu shot for people. All those things are happening. So I don't know how we can deviate, like how we can decouple these conversations. Like I want to believe that this is a him slow rolling these positive changes, but then if right over here, we're rolling out an MRI, MRI cancer shot, if right over here we're going in the biosecurity vaccine for animals direction, it just seems, I mean, and those are all under his purview. I mean, maybe he'll tackle those tomorrow, but I just feel very uncomfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt while we see so many red flags. Yeah, and I'm not up to date on all of those. I know that there, who is it that's over, you know, ag that would. Brooke Rollins. Yeah, she was saying that she did not

support the bird flu vaccine, that it was not working, it was not safe. So these, even as we speak right now, the things that you brought up, there's this unfolding thing happening. And some funding has been pulled. Future funding for COVID shots has been pulled. You stop those. Well, that's not accurate, but we can different conversations. Yeah. Yeah. And I, I, I, that's valid. I don't have those reports in front of me to make sure I have that language. Um, exactly right. But, and I had another point, but, um, let's move on. It's already, uh, getting late. I have a question, another global's question I'm going to throw away, but I'll play this. Okay, this is four, four.

Support the measles vaccine. I support the polio vaccine. I will do nothing as HHS secretary. That makes it difficult or discourages people from taking either of those. Fortunately, there is clear data showing that the HPV vaccine has saved lives and cut cervical cancer rates dramatically. If confirmed, as HHS secretary, would you recommend that parents get their children vaccinated against HV? I recommend that children follow the CDC schedule. What?

And I will support the CDC schedule when I get in there. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed. Would you recommend the parents get their children vaccinated against the measles? Yes, sir. Against measles? Yes. And I'll just say about operational warp speed, it was an extraordinary accomplishment should demonstration of leadership by President Trump.

That's just insane. I disagree literally with everything he said in that conversation. But that's just me. But you want to comment with that? I play the other one. I disagree with everything that he said in there, too. And I cringed when I first heard it. It made me a little bit sick to my stomach to hear him say those things.

And again, the only way that I, you know, in my head speculating, I'm hoping that the CDC schedule under his leadership is absolutely going to change. So that if he says he supports the CDC schedule, that schedule is going to change. With the measles, as I said, we are between a rock and a hard place because of what that. created, can't go there. It's, yeah, this, it's a nice. Let's play the other clip. We'd love to talk about that more, but we're low on time and I want to get to vaccines. If your kids were young now, would you give them the measles, the mumps vaccine? No. I got measles, mumps when I was a kid. It was. Lots of people die from them, used to die from those diseases. Well, you know what? They died in the 1900s or early 1900s the rest goes into what we've already talked about would you

we're going to keep playing it it's like another two minutes which is basically about what we talked about the decline we want to play it yeah i know we're in time i should make sure okay yeah go ahead so we're about 10 000 americans a year died in 1964 there was about three or 400 who died and they were almost all on severely malnatured burned malnourish kids mainly from the mississippi delta this is before the poverty program so there was a lot of starving children in our country. It's very, very hard to kill a healthy child with any infectious disease, but particularly with measles.

And the World Health Organization now says vitamin A is an absolute cure for measles, which we didn't know about back then. Back then, you know, we were treated with chicken soup and it was, you know, a week at home watching Leave It to Beaver and every kid caught it. Every single kid got it. And I had 11 brothers and sisters and we all got it. and we're all fine. And there are lots and lots of studies out there now that show that kids who get measles

as a child are much healthier when they grow up, that they're much more resistant to cancers, to atopic diseases, to allergies, and to heart disease. I doubt any of us are going to disagree with any of that, you know. Those are two different people in my mind. And I'll say one thing on that is that in front of Congress, like if, as same point as always, pulling punches because of the greater good to not be fired, which is certainly a valid logical point. But

if that's the case, how do we see everything he said, like if the point we were arguing is that he's doing this to get like vitamin A in front of people and they can see it, when you're going to sit in front of Congress, which is going to be far more seen. I mean, you know as well as I that people who don't want to believe this who are going to say, oh, Fox News, you know,

that's a right garbage. They're going to disregard what was said in that article because it's a partisan thing. So in front of Congress, when he's speaking in front of everybody and he says the CDC vaccine schedule. They're not going to think, oh, I hope that's the new thing he does. They're going to go, he just endorsed the vaccine schedule. I mean, I don't know how we don't see this as 45 steps in the wrong direction for maybe one in the good and at least where we are now.

I'm always going to hold out hope for what happens tomorrow and I will cheer if he can, if he tears it all down tomorrow. But we're at now. I think it's objectively clear that this was a, I think this was hypocrisy and a deviation from what we all thought Maha was going to be. That's my general opinion on it, holding out hope for the positive. Well, I'm really grateful to you, Ryan. I think we need your voice holding Secretary Kennedy to his past words

and pushing him to go back to who he was and what he was saying then. But that said, I also understand in order for him to actually do the job and move us to where he knows we need to go. It's something that can't be ripped off like a band-aid because of the mess made by the vaccination program and the fact that he will not be able to stay in where he is to get it done. I do agree it is hypocritical of what he said, and yet I think he's also being true to what he promised

that he was going to sort of step aside from his ideals in order to do the job, but then move forward with science to absolutely prove that when a vaccine needs to come off the schedule and recommendation needs to be withdrawn, he's got the solid science to do so. So it's not that I disagree with you, Ryan. really in your stance. It's just I guess I'm the kind of person that more I want to figure out how we how do we get out of this with the least harmed of life and end up back with, you know, where we should be before these vaccines are introduced. Look, I get it completely. I mean, I want to believe in this man. I want to believe in what he's doing. And I'll be clear, like I've said

many times before, and I'll let we can, you know, end on this positive note, is that his work, no matter what he does now, I don't care if he stands up today. and says, I was lying about everything in the past. His work is still monumentally important. It was foundational. It changed people's opinions on things. It did have a positive effect. That will never change in my opinion.

And so that's why it was so difficult not to get into this, but for the foreign policy conversation that really just kind of made me questioning where his intentions were. And now with this, it's just one more step. But, you know, I hope you're right at the end of the day. You know, I think my thing is with Trump supporting him, at least ostensibly, right? Like clearly saying that's the case with the mandate of all of Trump's support, which arguably they say means the majority of Americans, you know,

they have the support in the direction when I would argue, and we can debate all day about the reality. I actually think, and I do agree with your point, by the way, before, that I do it all the time. We find ourselves in these bubbles and we're like, how does not everybody know this? And we're the only ones that know it. But my point is that certain things like that.

I do believe have made their way through these conversations. You find these things on, you know, Twitter conversations. It's on the mind that these things are reaching mass adoption in other ways. And so I think at the end of the day, with that much support from Trump, from the mandate, from people that we could make this change right away. And I worry that even if he wanted to do it the way you're talking about, that somebody else will stop him before it actually happens.

I think that's just politics. You know, so maybe we should combine all of this, like in the best conversations and come to something new and try to actually solve the problem, you know? Thanks for having us on, Alison. Well, can I just say that I agree that Trump and his supporters were all behind Maha, but there was disagreement regarding Kennedy.

these views on vaccines, even among his supporters. And I also think, Ryan, if you go out, just go find any liberal stronghold and go talk about measles vaccine. You are going to be surrounded by people who think you're just going to kill people if you take away their MMR. I really, that is still compared to, you know, the big picture, still a bubble understanding. So. Okay.

I mean, I meant to get to this a little bit earlier, but I wanted to just stay consistent. in with the article. But this is the last final question. Again, okay, Alisonmarrow. Dot locals.com. There are some good comments in here. So thanks for to put that in. We're already in an hour and 45 minutes. So I'll just say that Adam Smith, you know, he brings up a point that a lot of people have, and you guys have to, considering what Kennedy has sacrificed personally, professionally and financially for the cause of honest medicine and public health, I think it is insane to suggest that he has suddenly sold out. It is worth noting that one such critic has also suggested Donald Trump the secretly working for the deep state.

That's a whole other conversation for another day. But I think the point about, you know, yeah, okay, so like, why would he be quiet now? And you know what? We're probably never going to get to the answer. I mean, I don't have his personal number. So I don't know. And it would just be making stuff up to try to understand like why. But it is inconsistent.

Why is it inconsistent? I think we're just going to have to leave that question up there. We don't know. I ask the thoughts. If you, if you want to, do we have time to get into us, quick thoughts on it? Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Okay.

Sorry. I just, I think it's important. is, you know, considering what he's sacrificed. I mean, that's what we were just saying. I think it's important to acknowledge no matter what happens, right? So let's make sure we're clear on that. Oh, sorry, bring it back up. I always go by the writing.

And so professionally, financially, absolutely. But for the cause, basically what he's saying is, is what do you be willing to say? It comes down to an assumption that we know that this was always an honest act to begin with. Look, I'm with you. It doesn't consistently make sense. But if you go back through history, just U.S. history, you'll find rife examples over the years of politicians doing

exactly that for long periods of time in order to manipulate people on a larger outcome. I don't even think that's what's happening. My gut tells me that he's being manipulated. I can't actually have a clip from Catherine Austin Fitz making that argument. But I don't think that changes my stance at all. It's just worth of considering. But it says that he's suddenly sold out. I'm not even saying that. You know what I mean? Like, it's not that he sold out. It's just that we have to, like, my point comes back to even if Bernadette is correct and why I still think it's dishonest. I still think it is hypocritical. Like, that's what I'm trying to say is that I'm still holding out for the best, and that ultimately it could be that he believes everything he's

said before and that he's being hamstrung and threatened. There's all sorts of hypotheticals. I think that's my point ultimately, again, is we have to err on the side of what we can prove and outcome. And so if that means we end up, you know, doubting somebody we'd like to trust because it doesn't seem right, but we don't then assume he sold out. We wait for the outcome, right? And that's what I'm trying to say. So tomorrow, if it turns out that he pulls this next punch and pushes this or mandates it, well, then we'll know if tomorrow he comes out and goes even further, like she suggested, we'll know more so then, right? So that's what we have to wait for. Right now. We're just kind of batting around hypotheticals, you know.

Anything you want to add to that, burn it up before I give you my final question, which is going to take us down a total rabbit hole. We'll see. But, all right, DMSR, are you concerned Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., who attended Jesuit Georgetown Preparatory School, was friends with Delane Maxwell and flew on Jeffrey Epstein's jet, headed in organizations seeking safe vaccines when it simply leads to genetic engineering. There you go. No. There are so many people were on that list.

I mean, please, Stephen Hawking was on that list. I don't think we can accuse anybody just because they happen to know the guy. That's fair. But, I mean, I would say just as equally objective, we should consider that, right? I mean, look, whether Trump or anybody else, if their name was on that list, then we should keep a question mark, right? Did that mean something until we then prove that it didn't? And if it never does, then we never know, right?

That's the only honest way to engage with this kind of stuff. And so for me, I think the bigger picture, you know, about the overlap with the friendship there or the different work on, I mean, the more, the point they're really making is not necessarily just Epstein, but the work on the eugenics direction is what they're kind of highlighting there, like the MRNA, you know, because really, if you take this back and do a lot of good, you know, Whitney's work on this and highlight what Epstein was doing around like the MIT and Harvard and, like, these different like eugenics kind of practice, that completely dovetail with the MRNA direction,

with people like Charles Lieber and Robert Bob Langer, it was the, excuse me, the co-founder scientifically for the Moderna shot, right? These things are all interconnected. And so if I'm not sure exactly what he thinks is the connection with RFK Jr. and the original program, I'm sure you could probably find something, but I think it's where he goes next. So if they do, even as the head of HHS, the administration, and he says nothing, can you continue to support the MRNA cancer shot, the MRI anything.

I would agree that's a big problem, both with what they're suggesting, but also because of just it's dangerous. You know, and I would say that there's a lot of scientists, researchers on our side of things who still to this day believe in the concept of vaccination and do hope for safer vaccines, where others of us, including myself, after all I've studied and the discoveries of human immune system, how the lymphatic systems connected to the brain and the gut biome. I do not believe the concept of vaccination anymore is the way forward. I believe it's developed, making sure people have healthy immunity and healthy natural products

to help them if they do get sick. That is my personal stance. So, you know, and I agree, no, the whole mRNA platform is so stink and dangerous. just needs to come to a complete stop. There is a different risk-benefit profile to look at when somebody has a life-threatening disease using something as dangerous as MRNA in order to give it to a healthy person to prevent something they might not even get is ridiculous. You know, if somebody is dying and there's no cure, although now I believe that there are

cures for cancer and that sort of thing. So, you know, we start going down to the rabbit holes. But that risk-benefit profile for that individual to make that decision is completely different, a completely different animal. But I just think you've got to quit monkeying with God's design with ourselves. We don't know what we're doing. And, you know, we can't know what we're doing. And, you know, it's just too dangerous. We know how to sustain and maintain and achieve health.

It doesn't make trillions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. that's part of the main problem here. Couldn't agree more. Especially at that last point. You can follow Ryan at the Last American vagabond.com. And Bernadette, where can people listen to your show? InformLife Radio, CHD.TV is probably the easiest way to access that show. Okay.

Thank you guys so much for coming on and spending so much time talking about this. I certainly learned a lot is one of my favorite live streams of the years that I I've been doing this. So I really, really, really do appreciate what I've learned from both of you, too, over the last few years as well. I definitely would not be the troublemaker that I am today without the influence of either one of you. So thank you guys. All right. Thanks for everybody who supports the show. Any final thoughts or anything before we go? I was just going to say thank you to you, Allison, for putting it on. And big respect, Bernadette, I'm glad we had the conversation. I think this is exactly what we need more of. I mean, it's okay that we have different opinions, right? And even if we're very strong

opinions, it's just about trying to flesh them out, learning from each other. I think this is paramount. So thank you both. Absolutely, exactly what Ryan said. And thank you both to you as well. All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the support and the show.