The Megyn Kelly Show - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on COVID Orthodoxy, Fauci's Legacy, and War in Ukraine | Ep. 419

Episode Date: October 25, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of "A Letter to Liberals," to discuss COVID pandemic orthodoxy, the need for discussion and debate, the elimination of freedoms due to the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci demanding blind faith in authority, the important issue of whether the COVID vaccines prevent transmission, myocarditis risk from COVID and from vaccines, rise in "unexplained" deaths in a post-COVID vaccine world, the truth about how many lives COVID vaccines saved and lost, the lack of important data needed to understand the rise in deaths post-COVID, what Fauci said about vaccines that could have an adverse effect before the COVID vaccines were available, the absurdity of the new booster which was only tested on eight mice and no humans, Pfizer's involvement in the Trump administration, Alex Berenson and tech censorship, RFK's disbanded "vaccine safety" commission, Scott Gottlieb and our supposed medical elite, American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations, problems with the VAERS system, personal backlash from family and friends, his views of Donald Trump then and now, Herschel Walker and our politics today, the war in Ukraine, American imperialism, RFK's personal connection to the war as his son Conor was fighting in the country, and more.Alternately, here's the CDC on vaccines:https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.htmlhttps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.htmlFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Today on the program, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Back in March, I interviewed Robert for the first time. It lasted over four hours and it was a great exchange. I hope you've listened to it. We covered so much ground from COVID vaccines and censorship to JFK and even Marilyn Monroe. We broke it up into two different shows. We had so much material. Episodes 283 and 282, if you want to check them out. Since that first interview, a lot has changed when it comes to the vaccines, schools, masking. And that is largely

because of voices like his, which many have done their level best to suppress from the beginning, smearing him as a disinformation merchant. And the truth is he's nothing of the kind. And while many Americans may want to just move on from COVID like a bad nightmare, Bobby says not so fast. He believes there needs to be a real reckoning for those who were and are still in charge, many of whom are still trying to push some of these same policies on us. So Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is out with a new documentary called The Real Anthony Fauci. It is based off of his New York Times bestseller of the same name, which they also tried to suppress, but the people found it and loved it anyway.

And he's also written a new book recently called Letter to Liberals. We'll discuss both, but like last time, the interview was wide ranging. We talked about the midterm elections. We talked about whether he regrets any of the very harsh criticism in the past that he leveled against President Trump and that was leveled against him by his own family. And incredibly, he reveals for the first time his reaction to finding out his son had just gotten back from Ukraine, where without telling anybody, he joined the war against Russia. It is a war Robert very much opposes, but you're going to hear him talk about how it made him feel as a father and as a Kennedy. Without further ado, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I loved, loved, loved our last interview and so did the audience. So I'm thrilled to have you back. Thank you for doing it, Megan.

Yeah, my pleasure. All right. So let's talk about Letter to Liberals. Why this book and why now? Well, you know, one of the things that has, this book came out of an argument I had or a debate that I had with a former colleague of mine, John Morgan, who is a former law partner, who is very, very much part of, he very much ascribed to the pandemic orthodoxy, to the government orthodoxies. He loves Anthony Fauci. And he believes what he was told en masse about lockdowns, about vaccine safety, about the vaccine efficacy, and about social distancing and closure of schools. And we had a discussion about it during the pandemic. It was really an email and text discussion where we would send each other scientific studies with some commentary on them. And to me, it struck me that that's what we should be doing as a nation, as a people, that we ought to be able to have a congenial debate about government policies, and that has been absent. People who disagree with the orthodoxy or who question it are not treated respectfully. They have been vilified,

marginalized, and doxed and deplatformed and treated as kind of dangerous heretics. And in other cases, like second-class citizens. In some cases, children who have not taken the vaccine for religious reasons or medical reasons have been denied medical treatment in hospitals. Politicians and celebrities have argued that they should be people who decline to be vaccinated, should be jailed, or should be punished, or should be denied constitutional rights, including our president, Joe Biden. And this has always struck me that this is contrary to the liberal tradition.

Liberals traditionally love disputation. They love contention. They embrace debate. They understood that the free flow of information is the sunlight, the fertilizer of democracy, that the entire core of liberalism is this belief that came to us from Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Adams, people who clashed with each other on so many other issues. And they felt that a democratic society could not function where there were impediments to the free flow of information because the free flow of information annealed in the furnace of debate would yield the conversation, the open conversation and the exchange of information would really feed the best government policies. So they said, all of them said, we put the freedom of expression, the guarantee of freedom of expression in the First Amendment, because all of the other rights that we're creating for people in the Ten Amendments at that time are dependent on it.

If a government has license to silence its critics, it has license to commit any kind of atrocity. And, you know, we saw that our Bill of Rights really plowed under during this pandemic. We saw these unprecedented constraints, government dictated constraints on freedom of speech, where for the first time, Americans were not allowed to criticize their government or government policies. And predictably, all of the other amendments to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights collapsed. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of religion, but we closed every church in this country for a year without any kind of public hearing or scientific citation. It was just an individual who's been in government for 50 years and never won an election

who said, lock them all down. And he has since said in April of this year, Dr. Fauci acknowledged in a television interview that lockdowns don't work and that the only purpose of lockdowns is to force people to get vaccinated. That's not what we were told at the time. And they went after freedom of petition and freedom of assembly by creating these social distancing mandates that were designed to keep people apart rather than create a feeling of community and keep people together. And then they went after, of course, property rights, the Fifth Amendment guarantees property rights, and they closed 3.3 million businesses in this country without just compensation, without due process, which is a violation of the Constitution. They got rid of the Seventh Amendment guarantee for jury trials.

The Seventh Amendment says, it's very simple, no American shall be denied the right of a trial before a jury of his peers in cases or controversies exceeding $25 in value. There's no pandemic exception. And the founders knew all about pandemics. There was two epidemics during the Revolutionary War. There were smallpox epidemics every summer during the first 30 years of our country. But one of those epidemics, a smallpox epidemic, shut down the armies of New England for several months and really stopped us from taking Canada. Canada, without that smallpox epidemic, would have been part of the United States almost certainly today. And then there was a malaria epidemic that crippled the army of Virginia. So they knew

all about it, but they didn't put it in the Constitution. And then they went after the Fourth Amendment guarantees against, or prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures, all this kind of very intrusive track and trace surveillance and, you know, having to disclose your medical records when you go into a public building, etc. and on and on. So all of the amendments, with the exception of the Second Amendment, were eviscerated. And these are the, you know, this was the bedrock upon which liberal orthodoxy, the liberal party, JFK, FDR liberalism has stood. And then finally, not finally, but, you know, significantly, all of the lockdowns and these countermeasures were a war on the poor. The people who really suffered during the pandemic and really, you know, blacks lost 3.25% or three and a half, three and a quarter life years. So life expectancy for blacks dropped

dramatically and for whites, for blacks more than anybody. The children were, you know, I had a terrible time. We now have, you know, the Brown University study shows that children lost 22 IQ points during the pandemic. These are all things that, you know, we have built the liberal doctrine on helping the poor, on helping minorities and protecting civil rights and above all, free speech. And all of those things were abandoned during the pandemic. So I wanted just to kind of write a very, very gentle book that reminded liberals in my party, the Democratic Party, of the things that we're supposed to stand for. Well, I know one of the reasons that you wrote it as well is this now infamous quote by Anthony Fauci, which was just, it was exceptional in its narcissism and its hubris and kind of explains

why we abandoned much of the Constitution, as you just outlined. Who could forget this? This is Soundbite 5. The attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. So if you are trying to, you know, get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you're really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're attacking science. And anybody that looks at what's going on clearly sees that. You have to be asleep not to see that. And I know you've written, Bobby, that that was basically a demand for blind faith in authority, which is antithetical to who we are. Yeah, I mean, blind faith in authority is a feature of religion. It's a feature of authoritarian regimes, but it is not a feature of either science or democracy. Science is dynamic.

Science is always changing you. You know know science is a series of hypotheses that are constantly evolving as we find as we learn new evidence and we're supposed to constantly in real sciences that search for empirical truths at its best and we ought to be always ready to look at new evidence that you know know, our old hypothesis were erroneous or were wrong or that they have to be adjusted. And none of that happened. None of it was permitted. Nobody, scientists who spoke out were silenced. You know, I give the story, I tell the story of Galileo and Galileo, of course, who was the first person to really write authoritatively about heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun,

and that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And this challenged the Christian cosmology at the time, which placed Earth at the center of the universe with all the orbs and planets rotating around it. And Galileo had invented a telescope, and he was able to show people that this just was not true. And one of the things he complained about after his censure, he was threatened either to withdraw his thesis or to be burned at the stakes. And he chose to recant. But he quietly was heard whispering to himself as he walked down

the steps of the courthouse, and yet it moves. In other words, and yet the earth moves. One of the things he complained about up until his old age was that it wasn't just the clerics who had condemned him. The real bitterness and shock that he felt is that his fellow scientists refused to a man to even look through his telescope. And I think a lot of us who were struggling with to actually reading the science during the pandemic and seeing the studies, reading the clinical trial data from Pfizer and from Moderna as it was released and reading the, you know, the VAERS reports, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the surveillance reports, and seeing that the vaccines were not effective and that they were not safe and that many of the things that were being said about them officially simply were not true. We were not allowed to talk.

We were silenced. The scientists were silenced. The doctors who saw these, you know, this cascade of injuries in their patients were silenced. The patients who reported their own injuries or who are raising red flags were up against. Early on in the pandemic, you challenged Dr. Fauci's assertion. I'll read it as follows. When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus through the community. In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. Joe Biden, July 2021, you are not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. You said, I don't believe that. I've got questions about that. I don't think it's true. The vaccine industry's monkey studies in May of 2020, you suggested, made these claims

doubtful that vaccinated monkeys both caught and transmitted COVID with the same frequency as unvaccinated primates. You were deplatformed off of Instagram for that. And now, of course, we know, of course, we know that after the original variant, those vaccines didn't prevent any transmission at all. But there was a question about the original or the original vaccine. Did that prevent transmission? Well, this Pfizer executive went and testified for the European Parliament and was asked about that just two weeks ago. It made some national headlines, mostly in right-wing media, the Pfizer executive's admission. And here's how that went. It's soundbite two.

Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you very much. Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization

before it entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. I haven't gone back and checked all of Pfizer's statements, but Anthony Fauci claimed that it prevented transmission. The president of the United States told us that it prevented transmission. And there you have Pfizer on camera admitting they had no idea, none whatsoever, whether it prevented transmission or it didn't. You lost your platform because you said, here are studies suggesting it does not prevent the transmission. That's just one case in point. We could go through dozens of others. But do you

feel vindicated? Well, you know what? During that, at that time, I had a friend who was who was working. One of my sons works in an investment firm and he had a boss who was who was interested in making bets on some of the vaccine companies. And he called me up and asked me what I thought about the vaccines. And I said, and that monkey study had just come out. And the monkey study showed that the monkeys, the macaques that they had given the vaccine to, when they then exposed them to COVID, that the vaccinated monkeys had the same concentrations of COVID virus in their nasal pharynx as the unvaccinated monkeys. And that's pretty clear. It doesn't prevent transmission. That's where the transmission comes from.

So I said to this guy, this is how naive I was still, even after 18 years of doing this work and understanding the power of this industry. But I said at that time, there's no way that these products can be brought to market because the science is very clear. They don't prevent transmission. They cannot stop the disease. And then there's a lot of danger about giving a leaky vaccine, one that does not provide sterilizing immunity during the middle of a pandemic. Because now what you're doing is you're turning everybody who gets the vaccine and then gets COVID into a variant factory. The same way that if you gave sub-therapeutic antibiotics to people and allowed the disease to figure out how to get around the defenses of the antibiotics. Now you're breeding

variants that are super variants that understand how to escape the vaccine. And this was many people were writing about this. So I'm a scientist, but nobody was reading them. And I was saying, I said, I should not bet on the Pfizer vaccine, because there's no way that this is, that they're ever going to, no matter how crazy they are, they're not going to put this on the market. But I was wrong. But I did write about it. And, of course, Megan, you know this because you've read some of my stuff.

I don't go out there and say the vaccine won't work, you know, and you shouldn't take it. I don't give that advice. I tell people, here's what the science says, and this suggests, unless they've got something else to show us, this suggests that they know it's not going to work and prevent transmission. It may have some other benefit. And by the way, we're still waiting to see what that other benefit was or is, because the data doesn't really support any benefit from this vaccine. But, you know, there may be maybe a few thousand people have have gotten some benefit from it. But there's a lot of people who've been injured by it. That's the thing, is the vaccine injury, and in particular now, myocarditis risk and risk of death in young men aged 16 to 24.

You point out in your book that these Scandinavian countries have banned the Moderna vaccine for, I think, is it all people or is it just men under the age of 30? And there's a very good reason for that. They no longer recommend it for people under 30. Okay. And, and so, and when we talk about the risk of myocarditis here, what you hear from the American authorities all the time is your risk of getting myocarditis is much greater from contracting COVID than it is as a result of the vaccine. So get the vaccine, because if you get COVID, you're much more likely to get myocarditis. But is that true?

No, that's not true. There are studies out there that have looked specifically at that issue, and the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is enormous. And the risk of myocarditis from COVID is rather low. I mean, the probable risk of symptomatic myocarditis is probably around 1 in 2,200 to 1 in 2,700 children from the vaccine. And then there's asymptomatic myocarditis that may be much, much higher. The day, you know, myocarditis is a very, very serious disease. Historically, about, we don't know what's going to happen with these who are diagnosed with myocarditis die within five years or require a heart transplant. There's no real indication that myocarditis will ever go away or ever get better. The people who are injured are probably permanently injured, and it is only one of many, many serious side effects.

Boys tend to get it more than girls. The girls are much more susceptible to neurological injuries, including really serious and devastating neurological injuries. And Maddie DeGarry, who's one of the people who volunteered for this study, one of 1,100 girls who got the vaccine in the study is now in a wheelchair apparently for life, and she is eating from a feeding tube. And one of the really disturbing things is that Pfizer reported her injury as a stomach ache. So what we know is that we can't really trust even the really devastating clinical trial data. Anybody who reads the clinical trial data, I don't think they would take the vaccine. More people died in the vaccine group than the

placebo group. 23% more people died in the vaccine group. But why would you take a vaccine that within six months, you have a 23% higher likelihood of dying? Well, you know that we don't know if it was the vaccine that caused the death. Oh, of course not, except Pfizer sold us the vaccine based upon that clinical trial data. answer that question is because Pfizer and Moderna won't release the information about what the comorbidities were, what the ages were, what give us the facts around the people who died. Yeah. And I mean, you know, and we're Aaron Seary, my colleague is suing them right now. And Pfizer has taken the position and very disturbed, troubling, troubling that FDA has intervened on behalf of Pfizer to say that we don't want to give anybody this data for 75 years. And these are, you know, there's a government agency and

a vaccine company that says, yeah, we're going to rush the vaccine. So we're going to be super transparent. We're going to have, you know, have all these safeguards. And then they threw all the safeguards out. They said, we're going to do a five-year study. And, you know, I'm sure, Megan, you've seen that tape from Anthony Fauci from 2002, where he's talking about vaccines. And he says, you can't do a vaccine in under 12 years. You cannot approve it because you could have really good results for the first year and you could have really good results for the first year and you could have

really good results for the second year, but 12 years later, you have mayhem where all of these long-term injuries with long incubation periods, with long diagnostic horizons suddenly appear. What they said is we're going to do a five-year study and we're going to give an emergency use authorization after a year, or we're going to continue to see what happens to the placebo group and compare them to the vaccine group for five years. What did they do after two months? They unblinded the study, and they gave the vaccine to the placebo group. Yeah, they tried to get rid of the placebo group. And that doesn't make any sense. But the point you made Yeah, they tried to get rid of the placebo group. And that doesn't make any sense. But the point you made before, because I don't want people to think I was making a leap that-month data set. And if you look at that

six-month data set, the all-cause mortality in that, which means they look at, there's 22,000 people in the vaccine group, 22,000 people roughly in the placebo group. And they look at that for six months and they say, how many people died of COVID? Well, here's what it said. In the vaccine group, one person died of COVID. In the placebo group, two people died of COVID. So they can then say, well, the vaccine is 100% effective because two is 100% of one. And most people, Americans, and they know this, that most Americans, when they hear the vaccine is 100% effective, what they think is, I get the vaccine, I'm 100% not going to get COVID. That's not what it is. What it really means is you have to give 22,000 vaccines to prevent one COVID death.

And if you're going to give 22,000 vaccines, you better make sure that the vaccine isn't killing one person in those 22,000 because if it is, you've canceled out the entire benefit. So they do that study. And it's called number five in there, and anybody can go look this up. And you have to kind of do the reading afterwards because there's some stuff they left out.

But what they come up with is that there's the punchline that 21 people died. The 22,000 in the vaccine group, 21 died over six months. In the placebo group, only 18 died. And what that means is that by their own count, I'm not saying it's true because nothing about this study is true. Nothing is true. Harvey Risch, who's one of the world's greatest statisticians, has said you can't do a study with 22,000 people in it. You need 440,000 to be able to tell anything about the vaccine because the COVID rates are so low. So you really won't be able to tell anything unless you have a study 10 to 20 times that size.

So nothing about this. You can't really say anything about the vaccine from this study, but they did anyway. They got a permit based upon this lousy little study. They got a permit to give this to 320 million Americans. But if you look at their own data that they submitted to FDA, their data says that if you get the vaccine, you're 23% more likely to die over the next six months than if you don't. And what was killing them? Cardiac arrest. There was five cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group. And what that would mean, again, with all the provisos and caveats that I put on before,

is that if you get the vaccine, you're five times more likely to die from a cardiac arrest over the next six months than if you don't. And what it also means for every life is saved from COVID where people are dying from cardiac arrest. And I just want to point this out. I just want to point this out. So, Jamar Cardiology, they published a study, it was April of 2022, and they concluded that both the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, heart conditions. For individuals receiving two doses of the same vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was highest among young men aged 16 to 24 after the second dose. And they went on to say studies of the long-term prognosis of vaccine-associated

cases of myocarditis are lacking and are urgently needed. They were saying they don't know what's going to happen to these young men who got myocarditis. You point out potentially as high as a 50% death rate. That's, as I understand it, for severe myocarditis, not for the more mild kind. But some of these kids don't even know. Some of these kids get myocarditis. They may not even know that they have it unless they get a cardiac screening. Yeah. I mean, that's frightening for parents like myself. Look, I have seven kids and a bunch of them got the vaccine and they had to take three doses to go to school. Yeah. Oh, you know, they had to make a choice. Am I not going to go to law school or am I going to get this vaccine? And that, and you know, and they don't want to, they don't want to be dishonest with anybody. They don't want to they don't want to be dishonest with anybody. They don't want to get a fake vaccine card or anything like that.

So they had to go get those vaccines. And and I'm worried about that. I'm worried about, you know, they play sports. I have a son who is on the rugby team at his college. And I'm worried because it's athletes who are dying and it's that kind of high intensity aerobic sports where we're seeing these, you know, 1,100 athletes that we've recorded now that have collapsed on the field.

And, you know, most, if not many, if not most of those have died. And we're seeing it again and again. So parents like myself who have vaccinated children have a right to worry about this. Now, I will say this. We looked at that for a show we did not long ago, and they were saying that young people, though we don't often call attention to it, forgive the term, drop dead of heart attacks on sports fields all the time and have even before COVID and the vaccines. So what we need is a study that compares the rate of death

amongst these young people now post-vaccination to what was happening before when I'm sure that documents showing what it is. One of the things that jumped out at me in your book is you cited ICanDecide.org. It's a group that has banded together with some attorneys to try to get information from the federal government on the vaccines. And in March of 22, they submitted two FOIA requests to the CDC for documentation. How many confirmed COVID-19 deaths have there been in children 11 or younger and in children between the 12 to 15 year old age groups? How many confirmed deaths have there been to the CDC? And on March 10th, 2022, you point out the CDC responded, we have not conducted the analysis requested for this age group, and therefore we cannot provide you with a data product in response. But publicly, the CDC is claiming that COVID ranks as one of the top 10 causes of death

for children age five to 11 years. This is why some parents are so paranoid because they have the misfortune of believing Rochelle Walensky that it's a top 10 cause of death for the young ones. But as you put out of the book, when asked to submit the proof, they say, we don't have that data set. We haven't done that research. Yeah. And, you know, I think people have this feeling that everybody got vaccinated and COVID now is not as dangerous as it used to be. So the vaccine must have done it. The vaccine must be saving lives. But I have not seen any data that shows that. And, you know, those kind of data are easy to get. But what we're seeing from, for example, from the insurance industry, from the CDC, as you point out, is either deliberately or because of incompetence. They're not producing the kind of data that would allow us to do rational

decision-making as individuals or as a nation. And that's been one of the most disturbing features of the government management of this pandemic is the obfuscation about good information. But there's a number of people now who have gone out to, and Ed Dowd is one of them, who's the former BlackRock executive who's gone out to the insurance industry. And the insurance industry is panicked about this because we're seeing a 40% rise in unexplained deaths and excess deaths. And they're occurring in young people in 2022. So over 2021, the number of people who are dying since mass vaccination is much higher than the people who are dying from COVID. Okay, but wait, but wait, because this is what doctors can say.

There's a number of other ways. We don't know if it's the vaccine or or death of despair or, you know, drug overdoses. And, you know, it doesn't necessarily have to be from covid if it's not the vaccine, but it could be from a whole host of other things that have been caused during the pandemic. A whole host of other things. And we ought to have that data. We ought to know that. Why is CDC discouraging coroners and morticians and public health authorities from doing autopsies on people whose deaths are suspect. You know, there's a deliberate obfuscation of data that we've seen from the beginning of the pandemic. But there's a lot of other kind of data sources that appear to indicate, Megan, that the vaccine is causing more deaths and injuries than it is averting.

One of those data points is the nation-by-nation data, and this is in my book, that show that the nations that have the highest vaccination rates also have the highest death rates from COVID and non-COVID deaths. And there are many, many others. And you can do state-by-state comparisons, and there's a lot of clever people who are looking at this right now. And I have not seen any study or any really even common sense argument based on science or anything else, or any form of empiricism that shows that the vaccine is actually saving lives. I think the vaccine appears to be doing what the clinical trial indicated it would do, which is to increase mortality in the vaccine group over the placebo group.

One study that I'm talking about is a study that is now being widely cited by the New York Times and everybody else. With some glee, it appears, that indicates that Republican states have a higher death rate from COVID than Democratic states. In other words, the red states are doing worse from COVID than the blue states. But it's a fairly kind of sophomoric study that you can't say anything about the vaccines. And it may be true that more Republicans and Republican states died from COVID, but there are a lot of other co-variables. Those states tend to be poorer states. There are also lots of studies that show that the regions that are more dependent on true, that they also include Florida in that study. And so you're looking at a population that is disproportionately elderly, and we have no idea. There's no indication that this has anything to do with vaccination status.

That's very speculative. But that's literally the only study that I've seen cited with a proposition that the vaccine is actually saving lives. And I can't say whether it is or isn't. I suspect it is not. I suspect the vaccine is causing more deaths and it is averting. But I cannot give you the numbers and it's not my fault that I can't give you the numbers. No, it's not your fault. Because we have looked at every kind of permutation of data that the government

will allow us to see. And it's very, very hard to come up with exact numbers from looking at that. And that is, I have to say, it has to be deliberate. If you were a public... At a minimum, it's a dereliction and it could be

deliberate. Wait, let me just stand by it. I want to get back to your theory that it's deliberate. I think that's a dereliction and it could be deliberate. Wait, let me just stand by it. I want to get back to your theory that it's deliberate. I think that's another way of putting it. Because the only thing that jumped out at me on this, because there is a question. I mean, I saw the charts in your book that showed a spike in deaths post-mass vaccinations and not exactly post-COVID outbreaks. You know, the spikes came post-mass vaccinations. But then I looked at Sweden, and they're heavily vaccinated we're seeing, as opposed to necessarily tied to vaccines.

I have those charts, which are from Johns Hopkins data for every country in the world. very, very consistent after mass vaccination, irrespective of lockdown status, because the vaccinations came after a year of lockdown, or six months of lockdown. Lockdowns were already in place in many places, and I know of Australia and Austria and many others, virtually in every place. And yet you're still seeing these, you know, these huge spikes in COVID deaths immediately after vaccination. I'll tell you one other thing we're getting now. We're getting good data from certain countries that were early adopters of the vaccine, like Israel, like Singapore, Japan, New York State, which has a good database, and other places, the UK, et cetera. And what we're seeing is evidence of a phenomena that was predicted at the outset called antibody-dependent enhancement.

It's also called paradoxical priming. And what it means is that the vaccine directs your immune system to a single strain of a single clade of a single pathogen. And in doing so, it weakens the rest of your immune system and makes you susceptible after a certain amount of time to not only that infection, not only other strains, but that infection as well, and other diseases. And what we're seeing is now that the vaccine appears to have, here's what, the way that I read the data, and this is a hypothesis, so people should not believe me, and I always say this, people need to read the science on their own, but I'm going to give you the hypothesis that I think is true. And, you know, that if I, if you can show me data that

it's not true, then I will correct it. So this is just a hypothesis, but what would it be? But a lot of people believe this, and there's a lot of data to support it. The vaccine is ineffective for the first six weeks after the first shot. I'm assuming a two-shot, a two-dose vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna. And that during that period, the COVID infection rate goes up and the death rate goes up. And the data, the official data, do not count you as vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot. So the deaths that happened during that first six weeks are attributed to unvaccinated, to the unvaccinated group, which is not, which is, it's a trick. It's a statistical trick. Then the vaccine appears to provide immunity and good immunity during the first month or two months.

And then a precipitous decline, a waning that happens very, very quickly and very precipitously so that by the seventh month, it has lapsed into negative efficacy. And what that means is that after seven months, if you had that vaccine, you are more likely to get COVID and somebody who has never been vaccinated. And this data is holding up across every country in the world that we have good data sets. And this is exactly the problem that so many scientists warned about at the beginning, including Anthony Fauci. Anthony Fauci, and you can dig up this tape, said at the beginning of the pandemic that you could have a vaccine that could actually make it more likely for you to get sick and for you to die. And that would be the worst possible outcome. So you can look at Anthony Fauci saying that. Peter Hotez, who is another one of the high priests of the orthodoxy, said the same thing. He warned against pathogenic priming. Paul Offit also made a very public statement that is available on YouTube, et cetera, where he also warned about it. The reason they warned about it is because every attempt that they have made in the past to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Let me jump in because we have this Anthony Fauci soundbite from your documentary.

You wrote a book called The Real Anthony Fauci and an accompanying documentary. And here here he is talking about the vaccines in the way you described. Watch. There's another element to safety, and that is if you vaccinate someone and they make an antibody response and then they get exposed and infected, does the response that you induce actually enhance the infection and make it worse? And the only way you'll know that is if you do an extended study, not in a normal volunteer who has no risk of infection, but in people who are out there in a risk situation. I'm so scared.

I'm so scared. This would not be the first time if it happened that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse. There was the history of the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in children, which paradoxically made the children worse. One of the HIV vaccines that we tested several years ago actually made individuals more likely to get infected. If you take it and then a year goes by and everybody's fine, then you say, OK, that's good. Now let's give it to 500 people. And then a year goes by and everything's fine. Well, now let's give it to thousands of people. And then you find out that it takes 12 years for all hell to break loose.

So put that in perspective for us, Bobby. I mean, what what he's saying is that these vaccines now I mean, he was talking to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook there in that original soundbite. And he's saying that some of the risks of these vaccines might only become known later. And that if you get the vaccine and then you contract the virus, it could be that you're in more danger, which honestly, hasn't that happened to virtually everyone who's gotten the vaccine? You know, we all got the vaccine and then Omicron came and we all got COVID. So what does all that mean for us? Yeah, I mean, it's hard to defend the vaccine is actually effective. But I mean, just going back to this issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, it actually may make it worse. You know, I mean, there's a question out there now, Megan, if you got the, you know, you know, all these people, including Fauci's had four vaccines and he still had COVID twice. And, you know, and where you see that again and again and again. And, you know, the question is,

if you got vaccinated, are you more likely to get COVID immediately? We don't know that. Because nobody's doing those data studies. So we have no way of telling. But here's the thing about antibody-dependent enhancement. Antibody-dependent enhancement is really dangerous. And when they, you know, when they experimented with these early vaccines, the people who got it, the children who got it, who, you know, had this very good antibody response, and they're exposed to the wild virus and they die. And unvaccinated kids were not dying. So the vaccine actually makes things much worse. And with coronavirus, they've tried for 20 years to try to develop a vaccine that would not have that effect. And they've never been able to do it. So then they rushed these two vaccines to market.

And the first one in the pipeline is Moderna. Wouldn't you think that if you, and you know, Fauci's agency owns 50% of that vaccine. They get 50% of the royalties from it. He has, you know, he has people who work for him who will get $150,000 a year for life. People who worked on this vaccine in his agency, who he chooses. And then, you know, they get a walk in margin rights for the patent and they own a little piece of it. And, and so we, you know, we're paying their salary, but now they're getting royalties from the vaccine. They're supposed to regulate. They're supposed to be looking for problems in it, but now they're getting royalties from the vaccine they're supposed to regulate.

They're supposed to be looking for problems in it. Well, they're not. I mean, the incentive is to not find problems in it because you're going to pay your mortgage with that vaccine or pay for your boat or whatever. Anyway, knowing what he just said, which you heard him just say, is that the last thing we want is a vaccine that actually makes you sicker. Wouldn't you think he would have done the animal studies before he started giving this to humans? But he didn't. It was unprecedented. They skipped the animal studies altogether. Well, all right.

Let's talk about the booster, because what we have right now is the latest booster. They did the animal studies. They took eight mice. They injected the booster in the eight mice and they said, we're good. They did the animal studies. I've seen lots of doctors online saying this is absurd. You know, you've got some members of the FDA actually resigning, saying this this can't be. You can't stand on eight. Even Paul Offit has said this is absolutely outrageous. And yet they're doing it. And in fact, in some places, you're not considered fully vaccinated unless you're boosted. And the old booster doesn't count because that was against variants that are dead and gone. You have to get the one that was tested on just the eight mice.

I mean, it's downright dangerous. Although to me, the worst thing they're doing besides giving this to kids who have zero statistical risk from COVID. So why are we giving this to children? Because there's a big, we know there's a one in 2,700 risk just for myocarditis. Why would you ever give that to somebody when there's no risk from, zero statistical risk to a healthy child from COVID, zero. So why would you give it to somebody? And by the way, 70% of them to 80%, maybe 90% already have antibodies. They've already been exposed, so they don't need it anyway. Why would you subject them to that kind of risk? It is, something is really wrong with public health. Paul Offit was sitting on that committee and in his words, and he said he did not know how they could have recommended.

He's on the committee that recommended it. He voted against it. There were two people who voted against it. This is a quote from Paul Offit. The fix was in. And the way they fix it, Megan, is the guys who sit on that, men and women who sit on that committee, are people who are what they call PIs. They're largely their principal investigators. So they work usually for universities, for big academic institutions,

and their job is to do clinical trials for vaccine companies. And so they know that they're going to vote for this one. And when their vaccine gets in front of the committee, the committee will vote for them. It's disgusting. You know, there's all kinds of studies that have been done that if you serve on that committee, you and you vote, yes, yes, yes, which is what they always do. Then you get, you are, you are riding a golden, you know, chariot for the rest of your life. You get grants, you get all these junkets from the pharmaceutical companies. A ticket on that committee is a free ride for the rest of your life. And so all of these people, you know,

Tony Fauci says, oh, it wasn't me who approved the vaccine as an independent committee, but all of these people, you know, Tony Fauci says, oh, it wasn't me who approved the vaccine. It's an independent committee. But all of those people on that committee are working for him. They're getting funds from NIH, developed drugs that were made by NIH the other half from the pharmaceutical company. And when they get that drug to market, Tony Fauci walks it through the FDA committee where he owns all the people. He populates those committees with his guys. They rubber stamp it. Then he brings it to the ACIP committee, the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices at CDC, and they're all the same people. Alex Berenson, who was banned from Twitter for quite some time for questioning the vaccine's efficacies and questioning masking and questioning all the same things that you've been questioning. So he got, for a while, permanently booted off of Twitter. He got back on. He filed a lawsuit. But he has now revealed that

Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb was instrumental in getting that ban in place, that Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to censor Berenson in the days before Twitter actually suspended Berenson's account. Gottlieb is the former FDA commissioner who then finds himself with his cushy seat on the Pfizer board. He apparently, okay, this is according to Berenson on August 24th, 2021,

Scott Gottlieb sent an urgent email about Berenson's reporting to a contact at Twitter, forwarding an article that Berenson had written about Anthony Fauci on Berenson's sub stack complaining. This is what's promoted on Twitter. This is why Tony needs a security detail. But the piece did not threaten Tony Fauci or harass him in any way. It just called him arrogant, said he was a skilled courtier and mocked his comment that attacking him was attacking science. So here you have the Pfizer board member running cover for

Anthony Fauci. And of course, it works both ways. Gottlieb came on my program. And can I tell you, I pressed him hard on some of the claims he was making. And he became very defensive. And it didn't wind up going very well. And when it was over, he said to my team something to the effect of, you know, I'm respected. I'm a respected authority. It's like, oh, okay okay but that doesn't give you a pass on tough questions you're a respected authority too but you got tough questions last time you were on most people come on and take it like men or women if they actually know their stuff but it reminded me of this exchange here's just a bit of the interview i'm referring to a former fda

chair scott gottlie. But the masks are not effective and there aren't studies proving that they are. The CDC's own study, deal with that, 90,000 students in the Atlanta school district prove that they do not have any effect. Why isn't that valid? Why isn't the CDC relying on its own study to allow us to unmask our children? My policy prescription would be that in a setting of a very contagious variant that we don't know how hard or easy it's going to be to control in a school setting where the imperative is to keep kids in the classroom and also keep them safe. We should go into the school year adopting all the reasonable measures that we can take and

peel them away as we see how successful we are. Masking has negative effects. Masking has negative effects on children. That's been proven as well. This is not a harmless measure and it's not helping. So why wouldn't we be honest about the CDC's own information? Well, that's what we're going to agree to that approach. They didn't have any mitigation in place in a lot of those school districts. And we saw the virus become epidemic in the schools. Now, of course, it's way through. What schools did it become epidemic in? Amongst children in school spread? That's not true.

No, not at all. But that's just one example. I'm sure you could give us 10 more. The FDA, the people who are on it and the people who are so closely tied, they miraculously wind up at Big Pharma getting big paychecks right after they leave. This system is corrupt

and it leads to disinformation. You want to talk disinformation? They're purveyors of it. Yeah, I mean, he came from the pharmaceutical industry. He was President Trump appointed him to run. He's part of the, you know, I mean, I don't want to inject myself into it. But President Trump asked me in January of 2016 to run a vaccine safety commission. And I agreed to do it and to study and to make sure the right studies were being done, to make sure the vaccines were actually, each vaccine was actually working.

You know, a placebo controlled study, the same studies that are required for every other medication, and vaccines are exempt from that. When it was announced that I was going to be running a vaccine safety commission, and the purpose of the commission would be to require those studies to be done, which they all say are being done, but they're not. Oh, when it was announced that I was going to be put on a vaccine safety commission, there was panic throughout the industry and the regulatory, you know, public health regulatory agencies. And Pfizer made a million dollar contribution to Trump. And Trump then appointed two people who were handpicked by Pfizer, Alex Azar and Scott Gottlieb to run the public health agency, and they killed the Vaccine Safety Commission. Wow. And Scott Gottlieb came out of the industry. And of course, you know, the frustrating part,

and I don't know exactly how it happened. You know, I don't know why, but they just stopped. As soon as those guys got in there, they stopped answering our phone calls or communicating with us. But if you look at that clip, that clip was really, you know, it's kind of a template for how they handle this. This guy is the guy who ran through Operation Warp Speed. Wouldn't you think he'd be going and doing his homework on this vaccine and masking and all the other things that he was involved with and that he'd be able to field a simple question like the one that you asked him? And all he did was tap dance.

It reminded me of that movie Chicago where Richard where richard gear is saying you know give them the old razzle dazzle he was not answering any any of your question he was just it's true it was i mean it's interesting to play it again again it was just dumb it was classic double talk and you know repeating the same thing and moving the goal and dodging and weaving. And, you know, but... And then at the end, to say to my staff, I am a respected authority. It's like, that's not going to save you here. Right?

It's like, okay. So, yeah, we've got his number. But let me stay for a moment on the censorship. You got censored. And by the way, we didn't even talk about Children's Health Defense Fund. They got,

your organization got censored from Instagram and Facebook and booted off for raising these very questions. Now we talked about Berenson, Joseph Latipo, the surgeon general of Florida. So he just got suspended on Twitter. Then after public shaming, they restored him because he's frustrated, too, by the lack of honesty coming from the vaccine companies on the downsides, especially when it comes to young men. And he tweeted out, today we released an analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines

that the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac related death among men 18 to 39. Florida will not be silent on the truth. And he linked to guidance stating that they found an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males in that age group within 28 days following the mRNA vaccination. Then his critics came out and said, oh, that's not a real study. It's like some Word document he just put together. And Dr. Marty McCary of Johns Hopkins, he came out and said, you know what? Public health officials have said you can't make a correlation between cardiac death and this vaccine without a formal study. And they've chosen never to do one. And he had no problem with the way that

Lado did it. Florida said, we'll do it ourselves. He said they used a very elegant study design. Let's look at all the heart attacks six months after COVID vaccination. Ask ourselves, did they occur at an equal distribution over those six months or were they clustered in the month after the vaccine? And they found that they were clustered in the immediate four weeks after the vaccination. But you see it here, too, over and over. The establishment works together to shame, well, to silence and to shame, to shame. The shaming's part of it. Critics who come out with information that might reflect negatively on the vaccine, instead of saying, holy God, 16 and 18 and 20 year olds are dying as a result of myocarditis

caused by the vaccine. Shouldn't we stop that? It's like our country seems to be the only one that isn't willing to reevaluate Bobby, right? Like we talked about the Scandinavian countries, why are they so open minded? And we aren't. Yeah, I you know, I think Joe Latipo, who's the Surgeon General of Florida, is a real problem for Democrats because he's very courageous and he's very, very credible. And he's, you know, he's a, he's a black American with a really, you know, rags to riches story. That's extraordinary. He's one of these guys who's like 180 IQ, really smart. Amazing pedigree. He didn't have any kind of opinions or he didn't come with an agenda. He's not a Trumper or anything like that.

He's just a guy who's looking at the science and then saying, okay, my job is to protect children. This is how I'm going to do it. And he's getting burned at the stake for it. You know, I'll say another thing, because you and I had an earlier kind of conversation or repartee about whether or not the obfuscation of data, which is such a strong feature of the governmental management of the COVID crisis, is deliberate or not. And one of the things, you know, one of the real problems

is that they don't have a good vaccine. First of all, you don't have any relicensing studies, and you couldn't have good relicensing studies with these vaccines because they were rushed to market after two months. Nothing like this has ever happened before. And after two months of clinical trial, two months of clinical data, they were rushed to emergency use authorization. But what they said is we're going to really look at them when they get up market. And if they start injuring people, we're going to, you know, we'll pull them. Well, the problem is, that implies that you have a surveillance system that actually functions, and they don't. They have a surveillance system that was built to fail. And the reason I can say that is because

it's called the VAERS system. It's called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. And the way it works is if a doctor gives you a vaccine and you get injured, the doctor then, or you, you'll never know to do this. So you're not, individuals almost never call in. But the doctor's supposed to report all vaccine injuries. There's a couple of problems.

One is the doctor is told myocarditis is not a vaccine injury. Therefore, if somebody reports myocarditis or death or seizures or cancer, accelerated cancers that we're now seeing, many doctors believe are associated with these vaccines. I just saw an update on that. Or any of these other injuries, you're unlikely to report them because you're being, and you can get punished for reporting them. There are these institutional and cultural punishments that disincentivize people from reporting them.

Not only that, if you're the doctor and you have a patient who comes in and you're saying, I'm going to save your life, I'm going to give you this vaccine, it's natural human impulse if that person does get injured to say, well, it wasn't the thing I did. It wasn't the intervention I did. It was something else. This is natural. This is normal. Oh, we've known this for many years. I've been a critic of the VAERS system for many years. So but many, many people criticize the system. In fact, David Kessler, who was the Surgeon General, the system just is broken. It doesn't work. And it collects only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries. We need to redo it. In 2010, CDC hired Harvard University School of Public Health professors. They spent a lot of money and they did a three-year study on the system. And they looked at intensively an HMO called Harvard Pilgrim. And they studied vaccine injuries in that. And then they studied what the VAERS system was actually collecting.

And what they concluded is that VAERS collects fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries, fewer. Wow. That means that more than 99% of vaccine injuries are escaping. And what the company, in this study, people can look it up, it's 2010. I think it was published in Pediatrics, but it's called, the lead author is Lazarus. Anybody can look this up. The Lazarus study was designed to create an automated counting system. So the way that works is you take an HMO, the HMO has everybody's vaccine records, and then they have their medical claims. So if you get a vaccination and you come in and claim, you know, I got diabetes, you're now getting insulin for

diabetes six years later, eight years later, or you have food allergies, or you have autoimmune disease, this system, this AI system will do a cluster analysis, which is very, very accurate. And they will correlate the particular vaccine with particular injuries, which cluster around that vaccine. And it turns out with that system, you can get a 95, 98% of vaccine injuries are captured. So they built that system and they said it works like a charm and we're showing that it works. And we're showing the other systems completely broken. And this is easy to implement. And what did CDC do? They ran away from it.

They put it on a shelf and they said, we don't want to see it. They also said that there are serious injuries in one out of every 32 vaccines given. And when CDC saw that number, they said, we do not want to know about this. And they shelved that system. So the reason that they don't have a good VAERS system today is deliberate. They did not want a system that would actually capture vaccine injuries. And when you see these people like off in another saying, well, vaccine, the VAERS system is not a good judge of vaccine injury. The question is, number one, why didn't you implement the system that you got?

Number two, this is your system. You've had it for 36 years. You've known for 36 years that it doesn't work. Why didn't you fix it before? You know, it's easy to fix. Why didn't you fix it before you get these untested vaccines and the fact that now the vaccines are are mandatory is what makes it especially galling so we intentionally don't have a system that captures the injuries and they're at the same time they're requiring

us to get them in order to go into a restaurant or keep our job or enter a senior citizen's home. My mother-in-law had to go briefly into an elder care facility because she got very ill and she was time to leave the hospital and she couldn't get in unless she got the vaccine. She didn't want the vaccine. I understand people say it's crazy. She's 86. She should get the vaccine. She didn't want to get it. She did wind up having to get it to get in. Right it's like they make you get it and at the same time these these officials you know like the the american academy of pediatrics you just mentioned the the magazine pediatrics the american academy of pediatrics is mandating the vaccine they're recommending the vaccine for six months and older they want you to inject your six-month-old

baby um they're mandating masking to this day. Did you know that for children? Not mandating, but recommending still recommending masking children as of this day, including the little ones. I think it's Vinay Prasad. Dr. Vinay Prasad has been outspoken, outspoken on COVID. He's a fair broker. He's recommending disbanding the American Academy of Pediatrics. He says some pediatricians are good. This group is not good. They're the ones who they reverse themselves on schools reopening just because Trump said he wanted them to reopen. Their positioning on masking seems to be politically driven, too. Like, but yet this gets thrown in your face when you say, I don't want the mask on my kid.

I don't want to vaccinate my six month old. And over the American Academy of Pediatrics is supposed to be some godly organization that you have to defer to as a lay person without an M.D. I mean, the American Academy of Pediatrics gets most of its funding through the journal Pediat. And about 85% of that funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. And then they get a lot of other grants coming from pharma. So pharma owns the American Academy of Pediatrics. When you, you know, these aren't medical opinions. These are opinions that you get from AAP

have nothing to do with public health. They have to do with pharmaceutical profits and promoting the pharmaceutical paradigm. And, you know, that's been true. That's not recent. That's been true for many, many, many years. Wow. I mean, that's stunning if you think about it. I don't know.

I just feel like parents have trust in these organizations. They don't spend the time looking that stuff up. And then again, when someone like you says, well, let me help you out, they silence you. The bad thing is it's not the parents, but the pediatricians trust the organization and the pediatricians trust CDC and the pediatricians are trusting FDA. And they don't understand that those agencies are captive agencies, that their public health function has been subsumed by their mercantile relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. And what they're getting is not what the pediatricians are getting is pharmaceutical

propaganda. It's not science. Why are they not saying what the heck is happening with these children? And, you know, but it doesn't seem like those questions, it seems like the medical schools are programming those questions out of you. So you're just not allowed to ask fundamental questions. What is happening to children's health in this country. Why are these kids so, why is this the sickest generation in history with all of these, you know, diseases that were just simply did not, they were so rare in my generation that we didn't even know about them.

And now, you know, they're all, every classroom has EpiPens in it. Yeah. Why is nobody, what is causing that why is nobody asking that question you know something's wrong if you i've never seen let me jump in let me let me jump in let me jump in because i want to ask you something personal about this um if you do ask questions because now we're we're on sort of broad vaccine vaccination questions not just necessarily covid and by the way this isn't just a vaccine question here.

Yeah, no, no, no. Swimming around in a toxic soup. You know, this is as we outlined in our first interview. This is the battle you've been waging for your entire made sense, which we got into in our last interview at length. But I wanted to ask you if I, if you don't mind a personal question. Um, we talked about last time, the blowback on your wife, Cheryl Hines and her Hollywood career and just being your wife. That's all Cheryl has done. She hasn't weighed in on vaccines. But your family, obviously you're for a long line of Democrats, and your family before the pandemic, this is 2019,

wrote an open letter going after you for your questions about vaccines. This is from your sister, your brother, and your niece, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Joseph Kennedy, and Meve Kennedy McKeon. And they wrote in part that they were condemning the growing fear and mistrust of vaccines, quote, amplified by internet doomsayers, Robert F. Kennedy, and going on from there, and saying that you were part of this campaign to attack the institutions committed to reducing the tragedy of preventable infectious diseases. He has helped to spread dangerous misinformation over social media and is complicit in sowing distrust of the science behind vaccines.

We love Bobby. However, on vaccines, he's wrong. What did you make of that, your own family writing that publicly about you? Well, if you're asking, did I like it? No, I didn't like it. But listen, the positions I've taken on this issue have cost me a lot of friendships, not, you know, not just with those family members, but others, my political relationships, jobs, income, et cetera. But what I keep saying to people is, okay, listen, I could be wrong, but show me that some science, show me, you know, show me something that I show me a statement that I got wrong, actually wrong. And show me where the science that I believe is kind of the best description of how these things are working. Show me where those studies are wrong.

But it's hard for people to do. And I understand that I'm, you know, compassionate about it because it took me a long time to, to walk into this woods. You know, it was something I resisted. I had all of the, you know, I was, I don't know if we talked about this the last time that you and I talk, but I was running Waterkeeper Alliance, which is a group that I love and that I co-founded. And it's the biggest water protection group in the world.

And it's 350 individual waterkeepers, each with a patrol boat that patrols local waterways and sues polluters. lawsuits that I was involved in against plants that mainly cement kilns and coal-burning power plants that were discharging mercury. The mercury was getting into the fish. In 2003, FDA published a report that said that 100% of freshwater fish in North America had dangerous levels of mercury in their flesh. And that just struck me as like, we were living in a science fiction nightmare, where my children, the children of, you know, every other American, could no longer engage in the seminal primal activity of American youth, which is to go fishing with their father, mother in the local fishing hole, and then come home and safely eat the fish. We were suing them, there are other people suing coal plants, but Waterkeeper was suing on mercury. So I knew a lot about mercury. And I started giving speeches

around the country and these women started hounding me. They were, wherever I spoke, these women would come in early and they'd occupy the front seat. It was different group every time, mostly. And then afterwards they would come up, politely confront me and say, and respectfully, but in a vaguely scolding way, say, if you're really interested in mercury exposures to children, you need to look at vaccines because it dwarfs what they're getting from fish. And I didn't want to do it. And it wasn't an area that I wanted to get involved in. Did you know it would be happening? And one of these women showed up at my house in Hyannisport. Did I already tell you this story? Yeah, I heard this the first time.

Sarah Bridges, she's a psychologist, and she had an 18-inch thick pile of scientific studies. And she said, I'm not leaving here till you read them. And I read the abstracts and I saw that there's this huge delta between what the public health authorities were saying about vaccine safety and what the actual science was saying. And I called people like Francis Collins, who I knew, and all these other people. And I began to slowly realize that the public health authorities either were not conversing with the science or that they were lying. But it was a long, gradual journey for me that took a lot of years to kind of get a more expansive view about what's happening. So I know that I can't expect, you know, people like my family

members who do not have the time to make this kind of exploration to believe me. And they see me and they say, oh, he must be crazy. Why is he crazy? Because all the other stuff he says makes sense. But he, you know, everybody we know, we trust, we believe in all of our doctors who, you know, Bobby didn't go to medical school. We have doctors who we trust, Maeve, you know, who sadly was died during the pandemic with her 10-year-old boy in a drowning incident, who wrote that article, was a, you know, was a public health, a rising czar in public health. She worked for Francis Collins, an agency for NIH. She had her own center there. And she was horrified by what I was doing. She believed it. And so I don't hold this against people that they don't believe me. But what I say is let's have a discussion. Let's have a congenial,

respectful debate about this. And let's try to keep it on the science and away from the ad hominem attacks. When people attack me, other people's opinions of me, Megan, I feel like they're not my business. I know what I have to do. I know what I believe the truth to be. But I also know if somebody shows me I'm wrong, I am not hard-headed. I'm not dug in about my worldview. I'm changing my worldview all the time based upon new factual inputs. And all I need is somebody to show me where I'm wrong. And then I will be grateful to them because I can walk away from this and go back to Waterkeeper, which is what I want to be doing.

My producers dug up the following quote from you in 2016 to Vanity Fair. And I really love to ask you about it. You wrote, you said, I think Donald Trump is dangerous and deceptive, and he's a demagogue. I don't think it should surprise anybody to see how well he's doing because that kind of demagoguery is formulaic and it's easy. There are buttons that you can push of bigotry and xenophobia and prejudice and anger and self-interest and nationalism, false patriotism. So has your opinion of him changed since then? No, I wouldn't say so. I think that's true. What I said then is true. I think the easiest thing for a politician to do is to appeal to that kind of darker side of people. And I think, you know, he's very, very good at understanding where those kind of buttons are. I think what my dad tried to do was different and was much harder, which is to try to get people to believe that they're part of a community, to find kind of the hero in everybody and a willingness to take risks and make sacrifices for the good of the whole.

And, you know, when my dad died, one of my most poignant memories of him is when we waked him up in St. Patrick's and then brought him down on the train. And there was a couple million people on the tracks, but they were every color. You know, there were Black people in Newark. We took them from New York down to Penn Station in Washington, or to Union Station in Washington, D.C. And there were Black, these crowds of Blacks singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the train stations, just jamming the train stations in Newark and Philadelphia and Baltimore. There were white veterans on the tracks the whole way down.

I remember a group of about six or nine nuns standing in the back of the pickup truck. There were Boy Scouts. There were Little Leaguers who were standing, saluting as we went by. There was a cross-section of the American experience. And all these very different people who had, you know, supporting my dad. Now, four years later, I remember when I was at college and studying politics, and I read these demographic data that showed that four years after that in 1972, so my dad died in 68. In 72, almost all the white people who had been lining that track were voting not for George McGovern, who was very much aligned with my dad, but for George Wallace,

who was antithetical to everything my father believed in. The people who believed in my, who were, you know, who were willing to support my father's, to put their prejudices, the nationalism, the patriot, false patriotism and all this aside and say, we're willing to buy into this idealistic view of America. Four years later, they were done with it. And they were like, I got to protect myself. And I'm going to protect myself against other races and other colors. And people don't look like me. And, you know, all the people who seem like they're

out to get me. And, you know, the people in this country today, and this is what I think the liberals have lost track of, the middle class is being systematically dismantled. People are getting screwed and they're angry. And the liberal party today is not offering them anything. It's not telling them, you know, it's not validating their anger and their rage. It's telling them they're deplorable. And it's telling them, you know, that they should have other concerns. And I think that, you know, Trump is able, Trump doesn't tell them that. Trump validates those concerns. And I think that that makes him, and he's fearless and he's, you know, he has all these kind of manly qualities that are, you know, the heroic figure on the white horse who's going to

come in and save you. Do I think he's actually going to do that? No, I watched him collapse and fold in front of Anthony Fauci. But I think, you know, and I don't think he has the patience to understand policy or to delve into it. And I don't, you know, I think his approach is not about trying to solve the problems, but, you know, to break things. And a lot of people want things broken right now. So, you know, I completely, utterly understand his appeal. And I don't think those Americans who support him are, you know, are bad people. I think they're the core of our country. And I think if we don't figure out a way to get Americans to start talking to each other about the values that we share,

that our country is headed for a very, very dark place. And that, you know, I think people who call themselves liberals have to remember what liberalism stood for. And that, you know, we were the party of the unions. We weren't the party that were defunding the police and that were, you know, telling people that inflation doesn't exist when, you know, they're getting crucified by it and that, you know, are going to endless wars that, you know, at a time when, you know, gasoline prices are, I just paid seven bucks a gallon for gasoline. You know, we're paying for the Ukraine war with that. Let me ask you something about that.

Two questions for you on politics and war. Herschel Walker's been in the news, and his personal life is what's been in the news. And if the reports are true, and he denies many of them, he hasn't been a particularly great dad to the children that he's had and his various girlfriends have had. And he hasn't been a particularly good romantic partner. And there's a debate in the Republican Party about should it matter because they really want control of the Senate, you know, and they would like to overlook those foibles. And of course, Raphael Warnock has some of his own, his opponent. But I wonder, as a Kennedy, you're kind of a good person to ask, since we now know JFK had a long line of reported affairs when he was married. And had we zeroed in on those back then, in the country the way it was back then, that might have made a difference politically. Obviously, Ted Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, the whole other story. So what's your opinion?

You know, should it matter if Herschel Walker has other kids who he fathered but didn't take care of? If he got a woman pregnant and paid for an abortion for her and then wound up being staunchly anti-abortion and so on. Should it matter or should it just matter how the person's going to vote? I'm not sure. You know, I think people. I really can't answer about whether it should matter or not. I mean, I think there's, you know, there's personal integrity and their public integrity and that they're two different things. And, you know, a lot of people voted for Donald Trump because I'm not believing that he, you know, had an exemplary personal life.

And I'm willing to overlook that because he was bringing some other things to the table. So I'm not going to say whether, you know, people should be concerned about that, about people's private lives. I mean, I just read Chernoff's biography of Hamilton. And Hamilton had, you know, a lot of those issues. Hamilton was probably the most, you know, after Washington, the most important leader. He gave us the Constitution. He gave us the federal government, our economic system in this country. And yet he had a lot of personal foibles. But he was a great leader. And I think there's been other people who have personally, I mean, listen, humanity is so badly flawed. We all are. We all need help. And I think the question is about whether that people ask is, you know, whether people are striving to be good people and whether they're striving to be good leaders, you know, who genuinely care about people and want to solve problems.

And the package that goes into how we assess people is multifarious. It's, there's, you know, there's a lot of different things people have to consider. And so I would not, I do not, I don't feel like I am in a, you know, can offer anybody advice on that issue. I had a friend who never wanted to part with her $10 bills because she really felt that Alexander Hamilton was the best looking person on the money. She said, I can tell he has beautiful blue eyes. It always cracked me up. He was very, very attractive to women. And he was, I mean, you fall in love with him when you read Chernoff's book. I mean,

people already know that because, you know, they made the play Hamilton out of that book. But that, the book is really, you know, it's riveting. I had not read it before. I read Chernoff's biography of Washington years ago, which I love, but it's, you know, it's riveting. I had not read it before. I read Chernoff's biography of Washington years ago, which I love, but it's, you know, he writes like poetry and he brings this guy to life. And the way his life was so extraordinary, you know. It's literally on our bookshelf right now. My husband read it and I passed by it literally this morning.

And I thought, I should pick that up. You know what I do, Megan, is I become addicted to Audible, the books on tape. I love Audible. Yes. Whenever I'm in the car and I've been able to read probably, I probably read 20 books a year now on Audible, which is one after the other. And it's really been able to increase my reading time because anytime I'm in the car for 10 minutes, I turn it on and I love it. It's so nice, so much better than just

scrolling through mindless social media when you're waiting to go into the doctor's office or riding through traffic. I agree with you. Okay, on a heavier note, sorry to go back to a heavier note, but I have to ask you, we've been talking a lot about Ukraine. And we heard our president say we haven't been facing this kind of Armageddon since 1962, when your dad went to Cuba and helped resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that was the last time that we were facing possible nuclear war. I mean, obviously, we had the Cold War with the Russians. But according to this president, that was the closest we've come until right now. So what do you make of what's happening right now in Ukraine? Because I know your dad and your uncle, President Kennedy, rejected the advice of, you know, the military industrial complex, as you described to me the last time, that really wanted war, that were pushing, trying to push the country into war.

And it has very much the feel like it's happening again. And I do wonder whether we have a president in the White House right now who's got the temerity to push back as JFK and your dad, RFK, did? Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't, I have, you know, I have a lot of thoughts about Ukraine. And my, you know, my inclination is for my, the thing I want ukraine is i want a debate you know and i've had people on my podcast from both sides i've had a cia people who are very strongly in favor of it and then i've had a number of people who are um you know are really articulate and eloquent about why we shouldn't be there and it's a complicated issue as all are. You know, I have to say within my own family, I, you know, we argue and debate about this at the dinner table. And my son, Connor, who's 26 years old, has been in the Ukraine. He joined the Foreign Legion. He went over there. He felt like,

because he had spent so much time arguing in favor of, you know, he does not like Putin. He does not like bullies. He feels Putin is a gangster and a bully. And the invasion was just wrong. And he argued very strongly about it. And when we went in, he felt that he shouldn't be arguing about it unless he was willing to, in favor of war, unless he was willing to have skin in the game and take his own risks. And so he went to the Ukrainian embassy and he signed up for the Foreign Legion and he's been fighting over in the Ukraine for the last couple of months. He was part of a special forces unit and he didn't have any military experience and he kind of talked his way into the unit and he's a big strong guy he's six foot five and you know as an athlete

and could shoot a gun um but they made him a drone pilot for that you know forward unit and then they uh promoted him to a machine gunner which is a tripod mounted um you know machine gun. And he's been over there for a couple of months. He's been in firefights mainly nighttime and a lot of artillery fights with the Russians. He didn't tell any of us where he was going. I saw

his Cheryl and I. He was straight with us. And he said, Dad, I knew he had a job for a law firm. He's a third-year law student in Georgetown. He had a job for a law firm, a really good law firm, Bob Madeline here in Los Angeles. And I was looking forward to him living with me for the summer.

And he said, I said, when do you start for the summer. And he said, I said, when do you start the law firm? And he said, I'm not going. And I want to talk to you. I don't want you to ask me what I'm doing. I was like, and he said, I will explain it to you at some point, but I do not want you to ask me now. And if you can just respect that, it would mean a lot to me. So I did. Cheryl and I were worried about him because we thought maybe he's doing something dangerous. And we were looking at his credit card bills. And the last one we saw was in Poland. And then there was one in the Ukraine.

And then they just stopped. And he didn't tell anybody where he was going um or what he was doing and none of the people in his his squadron i think he had 22 people men that he was you know fighting with and he became very very close to them and he um he didn't tell any of them who he was and um so anyway, he, he came back a couple days ago, and I had, you know, I flew out to the East Coast to meet him. And I heard about what he had done. And I'm very glad I didn't know what he was up to. So you just found out. The point is that, that, you know, there's differences in my family. And we talked to each other. And I sent him articles, you know, where I disagree. And here's the bottom line for me.

I think we have a military-industrial complex in this country that feeds on continual war, that they want continual state of war. I believe that it is very, very difficult. And this is what Madison and Adams said. Adams specifically said, America can support democracy abroad, but we will not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. And why is that? Because imperialism abroad is inconsistent with democracy at home. It will turn America into a national security state, into an authoritarian state if we continue to be, you know, our biggest industry, be the military. I died now on January 17th, 1961, just before he left office and handed it over to my uncle, made the best, probably the most important speech in American

history, warning America against the rise of the military industrial complex and talking about how it would subdue and destroy American democracy. And, you know, listen, we go out from war to war to war, and each war is preceded by a propaganda barrage. And then, you know, and the press all jumps on. And here the same thing happened during the Iraq war, which was the worst foreign policy choice that we ever made until COVID-19 came along in American history. And the New York Times had to apologize for its reporting with Judith Miller, you know, and all of the neocon and CIA people who were tricked us into that war.

President George Bush said the worst mistake of his presidency was believing George Tenet, the head of the CIA, when he said the weapons of mass destruction is a slam dunk. He said he was tricked by the CIA into that war. If you look what's happened in the Ukraine, there was a CIA-sponsored coup in 2014, and

the RAND Corporation, now we know, had published this blueprint that says our strategy, our global strategy should be to provoke Putin into extending, into overextending himself and, you know, and then confronting him in one of these old countries, these former Soviet states.

And, you know, Putin is a gangster. He's homicidal. He's a thug. He's one of the worst people alive today. But, you know, we need to have a real debate about how this war, about our part in the whole thing. And what, you know, the part the CIA played in it and what part, you know, and what part the extension of NATO. When Gorbachev came and went to President Bush and said to President Bush, I'm going to dismantle the Soviet Union, but I want your assurance. I want America's promise to me that you will not move NATO into the former Soviet satellite states as they come, we've moved NATO into, I think, 13 countries

that we promised we wouldn't do. We've installed missile systems in each one of them that can be converted literally overnight into nuclear missile systems now. And then you have a government in the Ukraine that has killed between 13,000 and 14,000 ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country. It's a government that we helped install. And you had the neocon Victoria Nuland selecting the cabinet in 2014. But we helped install this government. And then they start treating their ethnic Russians like red-headed stepchildren. And now we're now in a war. They got into a war with them where they're killing 13,000 to 14,000 ethnic Russians moved nuclear missiles into Cuba, we had on the EXCOMM committee, we had, I think, 11 of the people on that committee said we should bomb them, even nuclear bomb them.

And my Uncle Jack said, what if that means nuclear war with the Russians? And they said, well, they won't do it. We got to do it. We got to invade Cuba. So, you know, they were 90 miles from us and they were, I think, 1,400 miles from Washington, but we have missile emplacements now that are a few miles from the Russian border. And if the Russians moved nuclear missiles into Mexico or missile systems of any kind, and they killed 14,000 American exp put yourself in the other guy's shoes and you always figure out, right. Give them a way out. And nobody's talking about any way to settle this.

You know, they what they're talking about and what Biden's talking about is regime change. And that's what the CIA wants. Regime change in Russia. And that's what the CIA wants, regime change in Russia. And that's insane. It's going to get us the same place as regime change did in Iraq. The situation just gets worse. So I don't think, you know, listen, those are my arguments today, Megan. As of now, it's not something I'm wedded to. These are really kind of anxieties I have about this war and, and, you know,

the, the reasons this war troubles me, but I listen to other people and, you know, I can, and I had a CIA guy on my podcast who made a really strong case, you know, for intervention.

My son, who knows all the things that I have troubled about this, and he's troubled by them too. He's not naive. He understands, you know, the Ukrainian government is as corrupt as the Russian government. And they're intolerant of civil rights. And then you have all these, you know, really neo-Nazis and the Azov battalion, et cetera. And Conor's aware of, Conor saw none of those Nazis when he was over there. The people he worked with, and when I hear him talk about it and the feelings that he has about the Ukrainian people, you know, it makes you want to cry. And he's very articulate and very convincing. So I don't, I'm lucky that I don't have to now make it to, I'm not in a position to make a decision about where you go

next, because I think it's really complicated, all wars are. But I think we ought to be talking about these things. And the concerns that I raise, people, we need to have an open debate about them. Because, you know, when you're taking $50 billion that could be over here playing off student debt and restoring our middle class. But, you know, we're paying for that. And I can tell you, people are paying for it at the pump. Yeah. We're paying six or seven bucks a gallon. And that is the cost of the Ukrainian war that you as an individual are paying every single day.

I have to tell you, I would absolutely love to be a fly on the wall at your house on Thanksgiving between the sister on the vaccines and the son on Ukraine. Can I just rewind for one second to, did you just find out about Conor serving in Ukraine when you were there to greet him on his return to the United States? Can you just take me through the moment you found out? He called me. He has a girlfriend in Brazil. And he flew from Ukraine to see her. I mean, I'm not, that's, you know. You were first on the list. No, but as soon as he landed in Sao Paulo, he called me. Were you stunned? Here's what I was doing.

And I said, well, thank God you're home. And I said, I'm proud of you. Because he believed in it. And I'm very proud that he argued very strongly for it. And most people argue for our chicken hawks. They're not willing. They want somebody else to fight it. But he didn argue for our chicken hawks. They're not willing. They want somebody else to fight it, but he didn't want to be that person. He wanted to be the person. He said, if I argued for it, I need to be able to go there and risk my skin.

You know, I feel like this is, he's a Kennedy. But he did that. I'm very, very proud. I'm glad he didn't tell me beforehand because I would have been worried sick. I would have been thinking maybe CIA, maybe he's in the CIA and he can't tell me what he's doing. But I don't think I would have been thinking he's off in Ukraine fighting. But it's taking me back to our first interview where you talked about how you were raised. You had to read the articles in the newspaper. You had to outline him.

You had to be ready to defend the points for and against. And I'm sure your kids have that, too. So it's part of the Kennedy lore and it's part of the inspiration. Even I've been trying to do that kind of thing with my own kids since our last chat with less success than I would like, but maybe that's a good thing. So I don't want them going, taking up arms. It's harder to do it with the kids today because, you know, I don't know, maybe it's because your parents used to be able to whack you if you didn't do the right thing. You can't really do that anymore or something. I don't know what it is, but the kids today are harder to. All right. All I can say is that Cheryl is a saint because you're like me. You bring drama wherever you go. So, Doug, my husband's a saint. Cheryl is a saint. You and I are troublemakers and that's not all bad. What a pleasure talking to you again. Thank you so much for coming on.

Thank you, Megan. Thanks for a reason. They are going to be great. And they're going to talk about the much anticipated debate happening tonight, Tuesday night between Dr. Oz and John Fetterman. And before we sign off, I want to tell you something exciting. I mentioned it yesterday, but I'm not the only podcaster in my family now. My husband, Doug Brunt, just dropped a new podcast series today. He released the first two. He's got many in the pike called Dedicated with Doug Brunt. If you just search Doug Brunt in any of your podcasts, you know, in the search bar, it'll come up Dedicated with Doug Brunt. He's a writer, and he interviews great writers on how they became writers, what the pitfalls were,

what their process is, the behind the scenes secrets about their greatest works. And so you'll hear just a couple of those, including a great, great one with Lee Child if you go over there today. So if you like me, I think you'll like Doug. You may learn a little bit about why I married him. Check it out. Here's just a little bit of the trailer to reel you in. This is Dedicated with Doug Brunt. This show is going to bring you the world's best writers in a way you never get to hear them. Guard down, ready to talk. I'm a writer who loves to read, and I realized there's no place to go to hear directly from the writers I admire most. Movie fans have Inside the Actor's Studio. Music lovers have VH1's Behind the Music. Book fans? So I created this show.

If you love great books and want to spend time with the authors, this show is for you. We'll talk about their work, their process, their personal lives, and in some cases, the box office hit movies that came out of it. It'll be the writers, me, and a fair amount of liquor. We're dedicated. I hope you'll check it out. See you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.