Valuetainment - September 03, 2020


Heated Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 14 minutes

Words per Minute

152.41704

Word Count

11,398

Sentence Count

593

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

13


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 30 seconds did you ever think you would make it i feel i'm so close i could taste sweet victory
00:00:07.220 i know this life meant for me yeah why would you bet on goliath when we got bet david
00:00:14.140 value taming giving values contagious this world of entrepreneurs we get no value to haters how
00:00:19.300 they run homie look what i become i'm the i'm the one i'm Patrick Bedevi host of item and today
00:00:24.160 we've got a special debate going on it's a debate around vaccine this may be the first
00:00:28.480 ever vaccine debate that was recorded live and this one's with robert kennedy jr and alan dershowitz
00:00:34.860 it's pretty much two attorneys going at it gentlemen thank you so much for being a guest
00:00:39.600 on back payment and agreeing to do this debate thank you for having us Patrick yeah thank you
00:00:44.180 so first thing i want to do is i'm going to share my screen and i'm gonna uh i want the audience to
00:00:50.140 see what led us here a comment that you made on a podcast you did and then i'll go from there asking
00:00:55.700 your thoughts on it so here's what was said in an interview a few weeks ago by alan let's show a
00:01:02.160 clip of this let me put it very clearly you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and
00:01:10.260 spread the disease even if you disagree you have no right not to be vaccinated you have no right not
00:01:16.700 to wear a mask you have no right to open up your business wait can i stop you yeah no right not to
00:01:23.820 be vaccinated meaning if they decide you have to be vaccinated we have to be vaccinated absolutely and
00:01:30.460 if you refuse to be vaccinated the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office
00:01:36.500 and plunge a needle into your arm if the vaccine where is that in the constitution to prevent if the
00:01:43.180 vaccination is designed to prevent the spreading disease if the vaccination is only to prevent a
00:01:48.980 disease that you will get for example if there's a disease that will kill you you have the right to
00:01:53.840 refuse that but you have no right to refuse to be vaccinated against a contagious disease public health
00:02:01.520 the police power of the constitution gives the state the power to compel that and there are cases
00:02:06.860 in the united states that bring forth so now that interview goes for a while so let me bring you
00:02:11.640 back to us here uh alan those are some strong statements you made obviously his reaction a lot
00:02:16.800 of people's reactions has your position changed since making those statements on that interview
00:02:21.380 same as i made on the interview were professional statements based on reading supreme court cases
00:02:27.420 not expressing personal views they were uh view i have strong personal views but my constitutional views
00:02:35.880 haven't changed at all um let me be very clear i don't think this issue is going to come up in the
00:02:42.960 near future because right now the new york times has a big story today uh in which they talk about
00:02:51.700 uh how there's going to be a limited number of vaccines and people are going to be waiting in line to get
00:02:56.440 them so the issue uh is not going to be confronted uh as to mandatory vaccines you know having said that i want to
00:03:04.880 just pause for one second and say how important this debate is and how privileged i am to participate
00:03:10.740 in it was so distinguished uh a conversationalist as uh robert kennedy um i of course knew his father
00:03:18.760 uh i had actually been offered a job to work with his father when he was attorney general but harvard
00:03:24.640 offered me a job and i decided to take it i was a great fan of senator robert kennedy attorney general
00:03:30.460 robert kennedy and i think i consider myself a friend of the kennedy family and i consider myself
00:03:35.360 a friend of robert kennedy i admire enormously the environmental work he's done and i think he's
00:03:40.740 performed an important function by raising issues about uh vaccination we as you'll see in this
00:03:47.260 conversation will disagree we'll probably agree on more things than people will be will be surprised
00:03:55.000 at our level of agreement but on the issue of constitutionality i am confident that this
00:04:00.380 supreme court would follow a supreme court president president from 1905 and would say if there is a safe
00:04:07.900 and that's crucially important effective measure that could significantly reduce the contagious impact
00:04:17.780 of a deadly disease like the current pandemic virus that the state would have the power to either directly
00:04:27.680 compel vaccination or for example condition young students coming to school on being vaccinated
00:04:36.420 or people doing other things that might result in contagion being vaccinated so no i haven't changed
00:04:44.640 my professional constitutional opinion but uh as as robert will tell you we've had conversations
00:04:50.860 offline and he has persuaded me uh about a number of things relating to the health and safety and efficacy
00:04:58.020 of vaccines so i've learned a lot from our conversations and i hope people will learn something
00:05:02.740 from our conversations today but the constitutional issue in my mind remains the same so so it's important
00:05:09.560 to unpack that constitutionally you're remaining same position to say if the government wanted to
00:05:15.780 mandate and make us take a vaccine we can't say anything to it that position is not changing
00:05:21.520 that's right as long as the vaccination is safe and effective an example if you have somebody who has
00:05:28.560 unique vulnerability to vaccinations uh that person might get a medical exemption the issue of religious
00:05:37.460 religious exemption um is something the courts have considered uh most recently the supreme court did
00:05:43.480 just in the last day or two create religious exemptions for um private schools religious schools
00:05:50.380 in terms of whether employment laws uh operate on religious schools so uh we would have to see what the court
00:05:57.100 would say about religious exemptions but as a general matter a healthy person who simply has an
00:06:05.180 ideological objection to vaccinations as such not to this particular vaccination because of health
00:06:11.940 reasons or vulnerability the supreme court would i predict hold that the state could in one way or
00:06:19.600 another compel vaccination either directly or as a condition of people engaging in public activities
00:06:27.720 or activities that could create contagion yeah that's my position well that's very important to know
00:06:33.680 because there's your personal beliefs which is completely different than what you think will be able to be
00:06:38.640 mandated so having said that robert i know you've seen this before and uh you've seen uh when the statement
00:06:45.480 was made and in one case uh alan even said he'd be willing to debate robert kennedy on this topic which
00:06:51.460 kind of led to us wanting to do this debate what was your initial reaction of watching what alan said
00:06:56.960 and what has changed since you and him have had calls together offline well i want to begin by
00:07:03.520 thanking alan for participating in this debate by the way patrick you're familiar and alan's familiar
00:07:10.500 with my voice i want to apologize for that at the outset it's really bad in the morning and alan can only
00:07:16.700 do this in the morning but hopefully it'll get better as we uh as we proceed i want to thank alan for
00:07:23.800 participating in this debate i've actually been trying to do a debate on this issue for 15 years
00:07:30.700 um i've asked peter hotez i've asked paul off and i've asked all of the major leaders of um who are
00:07:39.940 promoting vaccines debate and none of them have and i think it's really important for our democracy
00:07:46.860 to have to be able to have spirited civil discussions about important issues like this
00:07:55.940 this is an issue that has been on the news 24 hours a day for the last four months and yet there's no
00:08:04.020 debate happening about this it's all kind of a a repetition of these government orthodoxies and
00:08:12.280 government proclamations and democracy functions only when we have the free flow of information
00:08:19.820 policy is best often crafted in the furnace of heated spirited debate it's part of our constitutional
00:08:29.020 system it's part of americans tradition we invented free speech in this country is the first amendment
00:08:37.740 and it ought to be something that we celebrate and that we model for the world it shouldn't be
00:08:43.400 something where you now have democratic leaders like adam schiff calling on social media sites to censor
00:08:50.480 debate about an important government issue that shouldn't happen so i'm very grateful
00:08:55.200 that alan who i know loves the first amendment for actually agreeing to debate on an issue at which
00:09:03.820 he's at a disadvantage because i've spent 15 years working on this issue i'm at a big disadvantage for
00:09:11.800 him and when it comes to talking about constitutional law and i'm going to try to keep a lot of this
00:09:17.980 debate on my side of the issue oh let me start out by saying i don't agree with alan's initial and this is a
00:09:30.560 very small disagreement because alan and i have talked a lot offline and i think we've come to a place
00:09:36.640 where we really believe this is going to be a conversation not a debate because i think on most of
00:09:42.780 the issues we are in agreement and he made the qualifiers when he came up and he said if it's safe
00:09:50.360 if it's effective and i think those are the big ifs at the playground where this debate is really
00:09:56.900 happening and i think in the end he and i would end up in the same place in that debate i will make
00:10:03.160 a minor dispute which is the jacobson case which was decided in 1905 was not a case where the state
00:10:12.940 was claiming the power to go into somebody's home and plunge a needle into their arm kick down their
00:10:19.620 door and take them by force the um jacobson actually was a guy who was resisting taking a
00:10:27.300 smallpox vaccine he was from cambridge massachusetts and the penalty for not taking the vaccine was a
00:10:34.080 five dollar fine so it was like a traffic ticket he decided to take it he had been injured in a
00:10:39.960 previous vaccine so i didn't want to take this one he took the case the supreme court he lost
00:10:47.500 and the remedy was he paid a five dollar fine so i think it's a big there's a big there's a
00:10:53.520 there's a big constitutional chasm um between you know that remedy which is paying a fine and
00:11:02.020 actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them and i i don't i'm not
00:11:09.080 convinced the supreme court of the united states at this point would would um would uphold that kind
00:11:16.120 of law nine to zero or eight to one at all so let me just say that i let me now go to the
00:11:23.680 the the initial place where i think we're in agreement i think alan and i are both in agreement
00:11:30.500 that this should be a voluntary program that if there's mandates they should be as an ultimate
00:11:40.320 final dramatic drastic remedy and that really and and the question is why can't we do a voluntary
00:11:50.200 program when alan and i were kids you know people wanted to get vaccinated there was no fear of the
00:11:58.360 statements of polio vaccines that people had a tremendous trust in our health regulatory officials
00:12:06.880 and today that trust has evaporated to the extent where now 50 percent of the people who are polled
00:12:13.760 in this country are saying they may not take the covid vaccine and 27 percent are a hard no
00:12:19.840 this is even before the vaccine is developed why is that happening and that's the question i think we
00:12:27.640 really have to ask ourselves why do so many americans no longer trust our regulatory officials and trust
00:12:36.060 this process and one of the reasons is you know vaccines are very very interesting and and very
00:12:44.580 different kind of of medical prerogative because it is a it's a remedy that is being it's a medical
00:12:54.060 intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick
00:13:02.260 and it's the only medicine that is given to healthy people so you would want and particularly to
00:13:08.780 children who have a whole lifetime in front of them so you would expect that we would want that
00:13:15.080 particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it's safe because you're saying to
00:13:22.920 somebody we are going to make you make this sacrifice for the greater good you have no health problems
00:13:30.640 you have zero risk of this disease you know we are going to force you to undergo a medical
00:13:35.780 intervention and our side of the bargain should be oh we want this to be completely safe
00:13:43.740 but in fact what we know about vaccines and this is um hhs's own studies a a a 2010 study by the agency
00:13:55.240 for healthcare research i was commissioned to look at vaccine injury because cdc for many years had
00:14:02.660 been saying vaccine injury only occurs one in a million but what ahrq found with the federal agency
00:14:10.780 they looked at one hmo which was the harvard pilgrim hmo and they did a machine cluster analysis
00:14:18.380 in other words artificial intelligence counting very very accurate counting system and they said the
00:14:25.900 actual rate of vaccine injury is 2.6 percent that means one in 40 people get seriously injured by
00:14:34.820 vaccines and do we want to then do we have a right to say we are going to impose this intervention
00:14:43.740 on people where there's a one in 40 chance that you may get injured in order to um in order to protect
00:14:52.320 hypothetical people catching that particular disease and for anybody and this i think is something that
00:15:00.100 alan really has to i think alan that you need to come to terms with in terms of crafting your own
00:15:06.280 arguments about this it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury and that injuries are not rare
00:15:13.720 the vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine
00:15:20.180 court and getting a judgment hhs admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even
00:15:28.480 get to court the other thing is vaccines are zero liability so this is an industry that went to congress
00:15:39.300 longолов to obey of a lot of people Dansungkinia we are proteases in 1996 in 1996 in 1996 and they had a
00:15:42.100 secretive ISIS vaccine at that time that was called a causing brain injury of one out of every 300
00:15:53.960 people and they said to congress we cannot make this we cannot make vaccines safely they are unavoidably
00:15:59.840 unsafe that is the phrase in the statute unavoidably unsafe the only reason that we're going to continue to make
00:16:08.760 make vaccines is if you give us complete blanket immunity from liability. And Congress gave it to
00:16:16.500 them. So today, you have a product that if it injures you, no matter how negligent the company
00:16:25.140 was, no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how toxic the ingredients they choose to
00:16:32.380 use, no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that company. And that company, therefore,
00:16:41.080 has no incentive to make that product safe. And that should be troubling to any of us who are part
00:16:47.240 of the legal system that is saying we are going to force people to take this intervention.
00:16:52.900 Look, I agree with much of what Robert has said. First of all, I completely agree. The Supreme
00:16:59.760 Court decision in the Jacobson case in 1905 is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can
00:17:07.320 compel somebody to take the vaccine. The logic of the opinion, however, not the holding, the logic
00:17:14.000 of the opinion and subsequent opinions, including some by Justice Oliver and Holmes, strongly suggest
00:17:21.160 that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about
00:17:27.940 were met, safe, effective exemptions in appropriate cases. You talked about healthy people being
00:17:38.720 compelled to take a vaccine, which is not designed to help them. Of course, it's also designed to help
00:17:46.660 them. But the major function is to make sure that they don't become typhoid marys and spread the disease
00:17:52.840 to other people. But when you take a vaccine, you also increase the chances that you will not get
00:18:00.460 the terrible, terrible disease. I think you're going to have to concede, Robert, that the smallpox
00:18:06.680 vaccine had an enormous positive impact on wiping smallpox from the face of the earth. Smallpox was a
00:18:14.200 dreaded, dreaded, dreaded disease. The Black Plague back in many, many centuries ago, if there had been a
00:18:20.360 vaccine back then, could have saved probably millions of lives. We don't know what COVID-19 vaccine will
00:18:27.640 look like. But on the assumption, and here we have a real argument, on the assumption that it would be
00:18:35.360 effective and would stop the pandemic and would cause some injury to some people, then you have to ask how
00:18:43.000 the courts would strike the balance. Alva Wendell Holmes once made an analogy to, in an unrelated
00:18:50.480 case, to being drafted into the Army. When you're a young, 18-year-old, healthy person, and we have a
00:18:57.920 draft, as we had in the Second World War, we don't have it now, but at that point in time, a young 18-year-old
00:19:04.900 was told, look, Congress has given the Army complete exemption. We're not liable if you're shot by the
00:19:11.900 Nazis or by the Japanese. You have to risk your life in order to protect other innocent people
00:19:19.840 in the country. And it's not a perfect analogy, obviously, but it does show that the courts have
00:19:28.360 given to the government the authority to sometimes make decisions that require you to sacrifice your
00:19:36.960 life. I have to tell you, I don't become personal about this, but I don't think there's any family in
00:19:41.680 the history of America that has ever made more sacrifices in the public interest than the
00:19:47.040 Kennedy family. You know, we broke all of our hearts to see how much sacrifice the Kennedy family
00:19:52.720 personally made in order to, particularly Robert Kennedy, who put himself in harm's way so many
00:19:59.580 times on behalf of the civil rights movement. People forget how much he put himself in harm's
00:20:04.300 way on behalf of Israel. You know, he was a great friend of Israel, a great supporter of Israel,
00:20:08.200 and the horrible man who killed him, killed him because he was a Palestinian who hated Bobby
00:20:14.620 Kennedy Sr.'s views. Sacrifice is part of the American tradition, and the Americans owe the Kennedy
00:20:23.160 family an enormous debt of gratitude for their sacrifices. Now, those were voluntary sacrifices.
00:20:29.760 President Kennedy went to Dallas knowing there were risks. Robert Kennedy went to Los Angeles
00:20:34.840 knowing there were risks. By the way, I was working on his campaign the night I was woken up in the
00:20:40.580 middle of the night to learn the horrible, horrible, horrible, tragic news. And those were voluntary
00:20:48.240 acts. And obviously, we're talking about a very different thing. We're talking about involuntary acts.
00:20:53.320 But being drafted as an involuntary act, again, to mention the Kennedy family, the oldest brother of the
00:21:00.180 Kennedy family volunteered to serve in the Army and was killed in combat as a great hero. But there were
00:21:05.400 others who didn't volunteer. Many of my own relatives served abroad. So we demand sacrifices,
00:21:13.900 and we don't demand perfection. I think both Robert and I agree that we live in an age, and it's a
00:21:20.920 terrible time that we live in, where everything has become politicized. You mentioned that when we were
00:21:25.660 kids, I remember not being able to swim in the summers of 1953, 4 or 5, because of polio. My friend
00:21:33.600 died after being on a lung machine. And the blessing that we all made to Salk and Sabin for developing
00:21:44.080 the vaccine. But there were consequences. People took the vaccine and did suffer. In the end,
00:21:51.020 no polio was wiped out. And, you know, we live in a very divisive age. Let me mention one other point
00:21:57.300 that I think we should be discussing. Today, the New York Times has a very interesting story
00:22:01.700 about who the vaccine will be offered to. The Times story is not about mandatory. It's about people
00:22:08.780 wanting it. And Robert and I completely agree that the program should begin by giving it only to
00:22:14.220 volunteers. We should only get to this terrible, tragic choice issue. In the end, if it's absolutely
00:22:20.860 essential that people who don't want to be vaccinated have to be vaccinated to get the kind
00:22:26.420 of herd immunity. We all agree with that. But we live in such a divided time that everything has
00:22:31.880 become politicized. On July 4th, the Reverend Farrakhan made a speech to almost a million people
00:22:39.780 in which he urged Black people not to take the vaccine because we know the history of how Black
00:22:47.240 people were experimented on during the terrible Tuskegee time. And yet Black people and Latino people
00:22:54.320 and people of color are the most vulnerable to the illness. Is that a smart thing for Farrakhan
00:23:01.420 to have urged his community? The number of people of color who have refused, who have indicated a
00:23:09.300 refusal to take the vaccine is, I think, slightly higher, according to the report, than the number
00:23:14.960 of people not of color who are refusing to take the vaccine. I understand that. I understand the
00:23:21.540 suspicion that our country has generated among people. People don't trust people anymore. I wrote
00:23:28.220 an article in early March, right in the beginning of this, right at the beginning of this, I wrote an
00:23:33.000 article, and the title was, Trust Science, But Be Skeptical of Scientists. And at that point, I pointed
00:23:41.220 to two things that were being argued by scientists, including the World Health Organization, which I
00:23:46.060 generally support, saying, don't wear masks, number one. And number two, the COVID-19 is not
00:23:53.740 contagious by air. It has no aerosol contagion.
00:23:58.040 You wrote that article?
00:23:59.000 You wrote that article?
00:24:00.420 No, I wrote the article against it.
00:24:02.240 Against it.
00:24:02.560 I wrote an article saying, don't believe that masks work, number one. If they didn't work,
00:24:08.960 why would so many doctors be using them? And why would it be so necessary for doctors to have
00:24:12.980 them? And second, I don't believe that there's no aerosol transmission. The disease could not
00:24:18.120 have developed so quickly around the world just by touching surfaces. So I challenged the medical
00:24:24.500 establishment on that. And I turned out, of course, as we all know, to be right. We know
00:24:29.460 there's aerosol transmission. We know masks have an impact, whether they help you who are
00:24:34.380 wearing it or whether they only help you in transmitting it. But I would like to throw a
00:24:38.880 question out to Robert. I think I know the answer. Robert, would you be against a law that mandated the
00:24:46.140 wearing of masks in public for everybody, even by people who don't approve of the wearing of masks?
00:24:51.780 Because, you know, masks don't kill you. They're not, they don't pose the risk the vaccine do,
00:24:57.380 but they do deprive you of freedom. Do you think the state, the government,
00:25:01.240 has the legitimate constitutional power to mandate the wearing of masks by people
00:25:06.620 who refuse to wear masks?
00:25:09.380 Let me come back to that. Let me address some of the other things, because I think that's actually
00:25:14.800 a complex question. And I think the science is very controversial on that. Let me address
00:25:20.700 some of the earlier things that you said first. One is, this is a rather esoteric discussion
00:25:27.180 and one that, you know, I'm not going to really drag you into other than to say this.
00:25:34.620 The proposition and the theology that smallpox and polio were abolished due to vaccination
00:25:42.600 is controversial. That is not a proposition that is universally accepted. And if you notice,
00:25:53.380 all the infectious diseases, whether it was scurvy or tuberculosis, for which there were no vaccines,
00:26:00.080 along with peripheral fever and diphtheria and pertussis and measles, all disappeared at the same
00:26:06.620 time without vaccination. CDC actually examined that because it became such a part of the orthodoxy of,
00:26:16.160 you know, of vaccines that the idea that smallpox and polio were abolished because of vaccines and these other
00:26:26.040 diseases. They did on Hopkins and CDC in 2000, did a comprehensive study of that proposition.
00:26:36.520 The study was published in Pediatrics, which is the journal for the American Association of Pediatrics,
00:26:43.020 which is a readout fortification for vaccine orthodoxy. So it was a, it's a publication very,
00:26:53.140 very friendly and supportive of vaccination. For people who want to look up this study,
00:26:58.100 the lead author is Geyer, G-U-I-E-R. And the conclusion of that study is that the abolishment
00:27:09.120 of mortalities from infectious diseases that took place during the first half of the 20th century
00:27:16.660 had virtually nothing to do with vaccines. It had everything to do with sanitation,
00:27:22.460 with nutrition, with hygiene, with electric refrigerators, with reduction in population
00:27:29.320 densities, and essentially engineering solution, clean water, good food. And that was, and actually
00:27:39.480 there was a guy called Edward Cass, who was the head of Harvard Medical School at that time,
00:27:44.460 who gave a very, very famous speech in which he warned that people who were promoting vaccines
00:27:51.160 and other technologies would try to take credit for those reductions in mortalities from infectious
00:27:58.020 disease. And he said, beware of them because they'll try to monitor that. They'll try to monetize
00:28:03.660 them and use that to increase their power and their prestige. So it's something that you might
00:28:10.000 look at it. And it's called Geyer, G-U-I-E-R. I agree with you. There was tremendous faith
00:28:18.140 in vaccination during that period. But when you grew up, I grew up, Alan, we had three vaccines and all
00:28:26.840 of them were deemed as necessary. There were fewer diseases. Today's kids have to take 72 vaccines,
00:28:34.540 72 doses of 16 vaccines in order to stay in school. And that explosion of new vaccination
00:28:43.180 came in 1989, right after the passage of VICA, the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Act, a blanket immunity
00:28:53.600 from liability to vaccine companies. And so those companies all of a sudden looked around and they
00:29:00.340 said, holy cow, now we've got a product where we are completely excused from the highest cost from
00:29:08.920 that afflicts every other medical product, which is the downstream liability for injuries. That's
00:29:15.800 the biggest cost for every medicine. Not only that, vaccines have another exemption that most people
00:29:23.260 don't know about. They are the only medical product that does not have to be safety tested against a
00:29:29.840 placebo. And that is, that exemption is an artifact of CDC's legacy as a public health service,
00:29:40.660 which was a quasi-military agency, which is why people at CDC have military ranks like Surgeon General
00:29:47.460 and they wear uniforms. The vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against
00:29:53.980 biological attacks. And they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with a biological age
00:30:02.100 in anthrax or something like that, that we could quickly formulate a vaccine and deploy it to 200
00:30:08.780 million American civilians without regulatory impediments. They said, if we call it a medicine,
00:30:15.680 we're going to have to test it. And that takes five years to do double-blind placebo testing.
00:30:20.220 So let's call it something else. We'll call it a biologic and we'll exempt biologics from safety
00:30:26.880 testing. So not a single one of the vaccines that 72 vaccines now administer to our children
00:30:33.600 have ever been tested against a placebo. And I, in fact, sued HHS in 2016 and said, show me any placebo
00:30:43.920 studies that you have for any vaccines. And they were unable to do so. None of them have been tested. And
00:30:49.600 you don't have to sue them like I did. Anybody can go on their cell phone and look up manufacturer's
00:30:57.700 insert hepatitis B vaccine, Gardasil vaccine, polio vaccine. Do you know how many days, the current
00:31:03.780 polio vaccine, do you know how many days it was safety tested for, Alan? 48 hours. The hepatitis B vaccine,
00:31:13.840 the Glaxo version was four days. The Merck version, five days. That means that if the baby they gave that
00:31:22.540 to had a seizure on day six, it never happened. If the baby died on day six, it never happened. If the
00:31:30.500 baby got food allergies that were diagnosed two years later, it never happened. If the baby got autism,
00:31:37.940 which is not diagnosed till four years of age, 4.2 years of age, it never happened. Autoimmune diseases,
00:31:45.340 you cannot see those if you have these short-term studies and you can't see any risk if you don't
00:31:52.920 test against a placebo. And my question is, nobody knows, because of that, nobody knows the risk profile
00:32:02.120 for any vaccine that is currently on the schedule. And that means nobody can say with any scientific
00:32:10.060 certainty that that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it's causing. And my
00:32:17.320 question is, how in the heck can we be mandating to children that they take a medical product for which
00:32:26.760 we do not know the risks? And to me, that is criminal. And, you know, we talked, we started
00:32:34.700 this discussion by talking about how do you avoid the whole discussion about mandating vaccines? The
00:32:42.000 way that you do that is you have a transparent process where people see that the vaccine is going
00:32:49.040 to be tested, they see that it's tested fairly against a placebo, that it is, there's long-term
00:32:57.280 tests that are going to be able to spot all of these difficulties, and that it's transparent and open.
00:33:04.900 And yet, what we've seen from the current group of COVID vaccines is none of that's happening.
00:33:11.980 They're skipping key parts of the test. Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the
00:33:18.780 animal testing altogether. When they came to human testing, they tested it on 45 people. They had a
00:33:26.680 high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low-dose group of 15 people.
00:33:34.180 In the low-dose group, one of the people got so sick from the vaccine, they had to be hospitalized.
00:33:39.940 That's 6%. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick, they had to be hospitalized. That's 20%.
00:33:47.520 They're going ahead and making 2 billion doses of that vaccine. And by the way, the people that
00:33:58.160 they test them on, Alan, are not typical Americans. They use what they call exclusionary criteria. They
00:34:07.340 are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they're doing to the healthiest people. If you look
00:34:14.300 at their exclusionary criteria, you cannot be pregnant. You cannot be overweight. You must
00:34:19.260 have never smoked a cigarette. You must have never vaped. You must have no respiratory problems
00:34:25.120 in your family. You can't suffer asthma. You can't have diabetes. You can't have rheumatoid arthritis
00:34:33.080 or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in your family.
00:34:37.900 But these are the people they're testing the vaccine on. But that's not who they're going
00:34:43.180 to give them to. What happens? These people are like the Avengers. They're like Superman.
00:34:48.960 You can shoot them with a bullet and they won't go down. What happens when they give them to
00:34:53.960 the typical American, you know, Sally Sixpack and Joe Bag of Donuts who's 50 pounds overweight
00:34:59.900 and has diabetes? What is going to happen then? You're not going to see 20%. You're going to
00:35:07.220 see a lot of people dropping dead. These people lost consciousness. They had to go to a hospital.
00:35:12.020 They had huge fevers. They're the healthiest people in the world. Any other medicine, Alan,
00:35:18.720 that had that kind of profile in its original phase one study would be DOA. The problem is
00:35:26.140 Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patent.
00:35:35.500 He has five guys who are working for him who are entitled to collect royalties from that.
00:35:40.980 So you have a corrupt system and now they've got a vaccine that is too big to fail.
00:35:48.180 And instead of saying, hey, this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they're saying we are going
00:35:54.580 to order 2 billion doses of this. And you've got to understand, Alan, with these COVID vaccines,
00:36:03.180 these companies are playing with house money. They're not spending anything on it and they
00:36:08.440 have no liability. So if they kill 20 people or 200 people, 2,000 people in their clinical trials,
00:36:17.240 big deal. They have zero liability. And guess what? If wasted money, they're their money because
00:36:24.300 we're giving them the money to play with. Oh, you know, people like me and people in our community
00:36:30.360 are looking at this process and we're saying, oh, you know, whatever comes out of that process,
00:36:36.300 we don't want to take it because we're seeing how the sausage gets made. And it's really sickening.
00:36:43.700 So let me just respond because I think we're coming to some common ground here. I have no doubt that
00:37:01.420 transparency and testing is essential. I don't understand why there isn't a placebo testing and
00:37:10.400 other testing later after the initial vaccine. So there are many phases in a vaccine. We have an
00:37:18.420 emergency now and we may have to, in fact, develop a vaccine and make it available to people without
00:37:24.600 placebo testing, without diversity testing. We may have to do that, but there's no reason why over time
00:37:31.360 we can't do the traditional testing, say with polio or smallpox that are now part of our history
00:37:38.760 and have now existed for so many years. Obviously, at this point, there's no reason not to be able
00:37:44.340 to do the placebo and the other kinds of human testing. The article in the Times that I referred
00:37:50.040 to made a very interesting point. It said that the people who are most vulnerable to the disease are
00:37:55.560 the people who probably won't be part of the original testing. The testing is, as you said, done mostly
00:38:01.180 on people who are quite healthy. But isn't there a natural test that occurs? You say the pharmaceutical
00:38:08.480 injury has nothing to lose, but look at what happened to the pharmaceutical companies that put
00:38:13.380 forward some of the opiates. They have been driven out of business. Their names have been taken off
00:38:17.840 buildings. They are regarded as pariahs in the world today. Certainly anybody who runs a pharmaceutical
00:38:24.540 company cares deeply about not killing people. And even if the government doesn't mandate this kind of
00:38:29.960 testing, and even if they give them exemption from financial liability, surely good people. And I
00:38:36.460 think we assume that people who run companies today, I have a friend who's trying to develop one
00:38:42.480 of the vaccines, and he's doing it without profit. He feels so strongly about the need to vaccinate people
00:38:51.060 around the world. So I think you overstate it when you say that the people who are developing those
00:38:56.880 vaccines have no concern whatsoever, whether people live or die. I think they do have a concern.
00:39:03.680 I think the government has eliminated their financial liability. But would you be sad?
00:39:11.940 And the other thing is, you say there's no testing. But I'm not the expert. I'm not the medical journal
00:39:17.180 reader. But I've read enough medical journals to know that there is a lot of natural testing. You cite some
00:39:22.440 of it. You cite some of the arguments that say that over years, people get autism, people get this,
00:39:27.520 people get that. Those results don't come from the initial testing that allowed the product to go
00:39:34.060 forward. They come from great universities, medical schools, and public health institutions
00:39:39.200 that continue to test products over time and report to the public the results of those products.
00:39:46.780 Robert, here's the answer. You raise a bunch of questions. One is, the opiate people got busted.
00:39:56.940 Alan, and by the way, no, they were not moral people. They knew what they were doing. They're
00:40:02.760 killing 56,000 American young kids a year, knowing what they were doing. Or kids every year that were
00:40:12.140 killed in the 20-year Vietnam War. These are non-moral companies. And they only got busted
00:40:18.180 because plaintiff's attorneys could sue them. And they got the discovery documents and walked them
00:40:26.040 down to the U.S. attorney's office and said, hey, there's criminal behavior here. That can never
00:40:30.940 happen in the vaccine space. You can't sue them. There's no discovery. There's no depositions. There's
00:40:36.380 no class action suit. There's no multi-district litigation. There's no interrogatories, nothing.
00:40:43.300 They never get caught. Now, these four companies that make all of our vaccines, all 72 of the vaccine
00:40:50.980 shots that are now amended for our children, every one of them is a convicted serial felon.
00:40:57.240 Axel, Sanofi, Pfizer, Merck. In the past 10 years, just in the last decade,
00:41:02.580 those companies have paid $35 billion in criminal penalties, damages, fines, or lying to doctors
00:41:11.880 for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans
00:41:17.600 knowingly and getting away with it. Vioxx, which was Merck's biggest vaccine predictor. Vioxx,
00:41:25.440 which was their flagship product in 2007, was a pill that they marketed as a headache pill
00:41:34.280 that caused heart attacks. They knew it caused heart attacks because they saw them in their clinical trials.
00:41:42.920 They didn't tell the American public. And they killed between 120,000 and 500,000 Americans who
00:41:50.260 did not need to die. And most of those Americans were people who had rheumatoid arthritis or they
00:41:58.220 had headaches and migraines. They took that pill, that pill, leaving. And by the way, when we sued
00:42:05.660 them, we got spreadsheets from their bean counters where they said, we're going to kill all these
00:42:10.480 people. We're still going to make a profit. So let's go ahead.
00:42:14.120 Nobody can justify that. I agree with you completely.
00:42:18.760 Right. And they ended up, they should have all gone to prison and said they paid a $7 billion
00:42:25.220 fine. But how can anybody, it requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the corporate,
00:42:33.440 called the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies, to believe that they're doing this
00:42:40.080 in every other product that they are, that they have, but they're not doing it with vaccines.
00:42:44.800 They are. And I just want to answer your other question. No,
00:42:49.700 placebo testing does not take place after the clinical trials. And the reason for that
00:42:55.100 is that HHS has adopted a very unethical guidance that says it is unethical. Once a vaccine is licensed,
00:43:06.460 it is recommended. It is unethical to do placebo trials or compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated
00:43:15.720 people. There are scientists who do it, but they're punished for it. It's very difficult for
00:43:22.620 them to publish. They get their funding cut off because nobody wants any study that is going to
00:43:29.500 reveal the truth about vaccine injuries. So it just does not happen.
00:43:33.200 Look, it's very important that you're making these points because we live in a democracy and nobody is
00:43:38.800 going to compel a vaccine unless you get democratic approval. Legislatures are going to have to pass
00:43:44.900 laws doing that. And you should testify about this. Your voice should be heard. But in the end,
00:43:52.340 how do you respond when the American public has listened to you, has listened to your argument,
00:43:57.780 and they're very persuasive, and they're very convincing, and they have an impact on people like me with
00:44:02.380 open minds? And yet, in the end, there's a vote by the legislature. And the legislature votes to compel
00:44:10.400 vaccinations in the public interest, just the way the legislature votes to draft young people
00:44:15.420 to fight wars in which they will die. In a democracy, don't you have to follow the will of
00:44:24.100 the majority? I agree. Transparency is all important. And let's shift the debate. You said you wanted to answer
00:44:29.640 the question, let's take it out of vaccine for one second, because I think it helps analytically. I'm
00:44:34.820 a law professor for 50 years, so I always do hypotheticals, hypos. So let's assume the legislature
00:44:39.900 now passes a law. Every 50 states and the United States Congress passes a law requiring everybody
00:44:46.420 to wear a mask when they're outdoors. And you say, well, I'm not so sure that masks are helpful.
00:44:52.460 Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Congress has hearings. Congress makes a determination that, on
00:44:58.740 balance, they are helpful. Wouldn't you agree that it would be constitutional? Let's start with
00:45:04.940 constitutional and then desirable. Wouldn't you agree that it would be constitutional to mandate the
00:45:10.300 wearing of masks, even if people have political, ideological, medical, religious objections,
00:45:17.340 because, A, the wearing of the mask is only an inconvenience? Maybe it'll cause a little
00:45:23.560 irritation by some people that will require, you know, a topical pharmaceutical. And it has the
00:45:30.660 potential not to save the world, but to improve the possibility of not having communicable diseases.
00:45:36.740 Wouldn't you agree that mandatory mask wearing would be constitutional?
00:45:41.200 Well, if I accepted all of your precedents, then perhaps I would. The thing is, I know a lot about
00:45:50.740 the masks, and my organization, CHD, has not taken a position on them. But I have read, well, I've read at
00:46:00.860 least three meta reviews involving hundreds of studies on masks. And the majority of the studies, in fact,
00:46:08.600 there's a BMJ study from 2015, that says that the mask is actually likely to spread the disease and to make you
00:46:18.140 less healthy because the carbon dioxide that you're breathing and that the people who wear the mask are more
00:46:24.480 likely to get sick. I'm not saying that that's my position. I'm just saying, there's a lot of contrary
00:46:30.680 science out there. Do you wear a mask personally when you go out?
00:46:35.260 If the science was clear, if the science was clear, then I'd be much more sympathetic in your view.
00:46:42.280 Let me ask you this. Let me just answer the other question you had. You said we have to rely on the
00:46:48.780 majority. Well, I grew up in the state of Virginia, Alan. When I grew up, it was illegal because the
00:46:56.220 majority voted that it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. It was illegal for blacks
00:47:02.940 to vote. So the majority is not, no, in a democracy. You have the courts there that protect our rights
00:47:08.820 and unfortunately we are in a situation today where we have tremendous corruption, not only in Congress,
00:47:20.800 which is receiving, which receives more money from pharmaceutical companies than any other industry.
00:47:28.020 Pharmaceutical gives in lobbying twice the amount that oil and gas, which is the next big one,
00:47:34.060 four times with defense and aerospace. There are more lobbyists, pharma lobbyists in Congress than there
00:47:39.580 are members of Congress in the Senate. So anyway, we have lost the, you know, the legislative independence
00:47:48.660 of that body. And the, unfortunately, Alan, the agencies are also captured. Now, you know about agency
00:47:58.820 capture. It happens everywhere. And I have sued EPA my entire life. We just sued the EPA. We just sued
00:48:10.760 Monsanto. We got an historic judgment, a $12 billion settlement in the Monsanto case. And I was part of that
00:48:18.060 trial team. And one of the things that happened during that trial is that EPA took a position
00:48:24.220 against us. They took a position that that glyphosate does not, Roundup does not cause cancer.
00:48:31.860 As it turns out, we got an internal memorandum that showed that the head of the pesticide division
00:48:37.220 in EPA was actually working secretly for Monsanto and killing studies and twisting studies and ghostwriting
00:48:46.040 studies to falsify the science. Look, you're doing great work. We were able to show that to the jury.
00:48:52.080 Now, imagine this. That's EPA, which is an independent agency. Imagine this. FDA, that's 50% of its budget
00:49:01.580 from vaccine companies, from the industry. 50%. The CDC
00:49:08.200 has an $11.5 billion budget, and $4.9 billion of that is buying and selling and distributing vaccines.
00:49:18.220 CDC is a vaccine company. It owns 57 vaccine patents. So it can make money on every sale of a vaccine.
00:49:26.900 NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents. NIH owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine. There's five
00:49:34.660 individuals in NIH, and the rules in NIH. If you're a scientist or an official who worked on a vaccine,
00:49:41.540 you're allowed to collect $150,000 a year in royalties on sales that that vaccine makes.
00:49:49.120 These regulatory agencies are actually vaccine companies. The vaccine marketing sales part of
00:49:56.660 those agencies is the tail that is now wagging the regulatory talk. They are not doing their job
00:50:03.760 as regulators. And in fact, the senior scientist at CDC today, the senior vaccine safety scientist,
00:50:12.820 who's been, in fact, he's still at CDC, was the senior scientist there for 18 years,
00:50:18.300 he is the author or co-author on all of the major studies that CDC has produced on vaccine safety,
00:50:26.700 and particularly the studies that show the vaccine does not cause autism. His name is Dr. William
00:50:32.200 Thompson. Three years ago, he came forward and he said, we have been ordered to fake all the science
00:50:42.060 tests of the last decade on autism. And he said, in fact, we were in the major study, which is called
00:50:51.020 the 70-2004, the most cited study on this subject on PubMed. And he said, in that study, we found out
00:50:59.120 that black boys who get the MMR vaccine had a 363% greater risk of getting an autism diagnosis than black
00:51:10.000 boys who waited after 36 months. He said he was ordered to come into a conference room with all
00:51:19.060 that data with his four other co-authors by their CDC boss, Frank DiStefano, who then ordered them to
00:51:27.180 destroy that data in front of them in CDC headquarters and then published that study saying there is no
00:51:34.420 effect. So you have an agency that is really just an arm of industry. And the people who are in my community,
00:51:42.260 who are being derided and vilified, these mothers who have vaccine-injured children, are being vilified in the
00:51:50.940 press, who are saying, wait a minute, we have read the studies, the scientific studies. We have read about the
00:51:59.040 industry corruption. We need to talk about this. They're being silenced by the press. They're not
00:52:04.920 allowed to tell their stories. And nobody is talking. Not a single member of Anderson Cooper's
00:52:10.700 staff or Sanjay Cooper has made any effort to talk to Bill Thompson. And he has been begging to be
00:52:17.620 subpoenaed. And he's still at CDC.
00:52:20.560 Look, the reason I do this debate is because I think you perform an important function by bringing out some of
00:52:27.640 these ties, some of these connections. You perform an important function when you bring lawsuits
00:52:31.860 against corrupt pharmaceutical companies. But my question is this, knowing all that you know now,
00:52:38.320 and putting aside the issue of let's assume we didn't have mandatory vaccinations. Let's assume
00:52:43.300 you win that debate. And it's only voluntary vaccinations now. And they come forward with a
00:52:49.400 vaccine that they say will stem the tide of the pandemic. And you're allowed to go on television,
00:52:56.720 on Anderson Cooper. Would you urge all the American people not to take the vaccine? Would you become
00:53:04.720 part of the campaign not to take the vaccine? Oh, I'm not anti-vaccine. People call me anti-vaccine
00:53:17.500 because of the way of marginalizing me and silencing me. That's why I'm asking you the question.
00:53:22.820 I'm not anti-vaccine. You know, look, Alan, I've been trying to get mercury out of fish
00:53:27.620 for 37 years. Nobody calls me anti-fish. I support you on that 100%. But what would you do?
00:53:36.760 Let me just say. What would you tell the American public if the vaccine were available? And if you
00:53:43.660 were invited, say, to speak to members of the black community, members of the general American
00:53:50.940 community, and they said, listen, if they come up with the vaccine, it does what Bill Gates says it's
00:54:01.960 going to do, which is you give one shot, you get lifetime immunity, and there are vanishingly rare
00:54:10.940 serious injuries. So I don't mind, you know, jab site, redness, pitching, forget about it. I don't care.
00:54:18.280 Right. I'm talking about deaths for brain damage, one in a million, that may be acceptable. In that
00:54:25.880 case, and it works. And I'd say, I tell people, yeah, I'm going to get it. Let's go ahead and get
00:54:32.560 it. What if it was one in a thousand, not one in a million? No, of course not. I'm not going to tell
00:54:40.000 one in a thousand people to die so that 999 people can avoid COVID, particularly since the
00:54:48.100 case fatality rate for COVID. I mean, a healthy person has basically zero chance of dying from
00:54:55.600 COVID. You need to give it to a tremendous number of people to save one life. And the problem is with
00:55:03.840 this vaccine is, we don't know if the vaccine is going to kill more people when you start giving it
00:55:09.800 to those people with comorbidities. 54% of Americans now has diabetes, overweight, rheumatoid arthritis,
00:55:19.640 they're smokers. They have 54% of us. I'm not even talking about smokers and vapors. 54% of us
00:55:27.080 has chronic disease. They're testing it on one group, and they're going to give it to another. And we
00:55:33.220 need to know what the risk factor is and the people that they give it to. And I agree with
00:55:39.660 that. Let me put you in. Let me just say that I completely thought I was going to be made before.
00:55:45.180 You know, I've sued the EPA for many years, and it's a captive agency. What would happen if EPA made
00:55:52.860 half of its annual budget selling coal? That's what you got with these regulatory agencies.
00:55:59.140 Well, you're perfectly corrupt. You're performing an important function doing this. Let me ask you
00:56:04.040 another question. What if we had a system which said this? You have two choices. One, you can have
00:56:09.880 the vaccine. Or two, you can refuse to take the vaccine. But if you refuse to take the vaccine,
00:56:16.140 you have to remain in quarantine until such time as the pandemic has basically passed. So it's your
00:56:22.920 option. The one option you don't have, you don't have the third option. That is not taking the vaccine
00:56:28.420 and mingling with the public and risking other people getting COVID. Not only young people,
00:56:35.960 although young people do die. The Broadway actor who had his leg amputated and recently died tragically
00:56:42.520 without any pre-existing conditions. What if we gave people that option? Quarantine is the option
00:56:48.420 for refusing to accept the vaccine. But you don't have the third option of refusing to accept the
00:56:53.820 vaccine and walking around the public without masks. The problem is, you know, that sounds like a
00:57:01.140 reasonable position. The problem is, it's not the world the way the world works. And let me explain
00:57:08.400 why. Here's how the world works. And the best analogy is the flu vaccine. So the flu vaccine is very
00:57:21.400 much like the coronavirus vaccine. We've had the flu vaccine for 90 years. So every year it's fine
00:57:27.340 tuned and perfected. And originally they told us the flu vaccine, you'll give one shot, you'll have
00:57:35.700 immunity for life. And then it turned out, no, we need to get it every year. Because there are variations
00:57:44.400 of the flu. And the same thing is highly likely to happen with coronavirus. Now the Cochran
00:57:50.660 collaboration, which is the ultimate arbiter for vaccine safety, it is, you know, it is the highest
00:57:57.200 authority. And the British Medical Journal have done three giant meta reviews on the flu vaccine
00:58:06.160 literature. So they look at all the literature that exists, the peer-reviewed literature that is on
00:58:11.000 I think 127 studies. They did it in 2010, 2014, and 2017. Here's what they found. CDC said the flu
00:58:21.940 vaccine is 35% effective. That's what they claim. Cochran collaboration said no. You have to get 100
00:58:30.280 flu shots to prevent one case of flu, number one. Number two, there is zero evidence that the flu shot
00:58:38.100 prevents any hospitalizations or any deaths. Number three, the flu shot transmits the flu.
00:58:47.600 In fact, if you get a flu shot, you're six times more likely to give somebody else the flu.
00:58:54.040 And if you didn't get the flu shot. And this is true, Alan, for many, many other shots. For example,
00:59:00.660 the polio, the polio vaccine, which you know about, is so good at transmitting, giving polio to other
00:59:07.440 people that 70% of the polio cases in the world today come from the vaccine.
00:59:12.480 So let me ask you a specific question.
00:59:14.240 And the chicken pox, if you go to the chicken pox, manufacturers insert, it says if you get this chicken
00:59:22.060 pox vaccine, you should not go near a pregnant woman for six weeks or anybody with, who doesn't mean a
00:59:28.120 compromise. Same with pertussis, you become an asymptomatic carrier. So it's a, you're not
00:59:35.320 guaranteeing. And in fact, the AstraZeneca vaccine, the Oxford vaccine, which is the, the other leader,
00:59:46.900 when they gave it to monkeys, the monkeys continue to transmit the disease. And Bill Gates and Fauci have
00:59:55.240 been going on TV saying, you know, we may get a vaccine that protects you, but you may still be
01:00:00.520 transmitting it. So why are you going to lock that guy up in a house? Look, people out who've been,
01:00:06.980 who are now asymptomatic carriers, because they've got this vaccine.
01:00:11.180 Let me agree with you. First of all, if they develop a vaccine that only prevents you from getting it,
01:00:16.060 but doesn't prevent you from transmitting it, I would not be in favor of compelling that vaccine.
01:00:22.140 And I think the Supreme Court would not accept that as a rationale. But I want to ask you a direct
01:00:27.700 question. I'm 81, I'm almost 82 years old. My doctor, who I love and admire, says to me every
01:00:34.040 year, come October, you must get the flu vaccine. You must get the vaccine against pneumonia. You must
01:00:41.060 get the vaccine, whatever it is against shingles. I listened to my doctor, who I love and admire,
01:00:46.620 and has been taking care of me for years. Should I instead listen to you and not take the flu vaccine?
01:00:53.680 Nobody should listen to me. People need to do the science themselves. And I would say to you,
01:01:00.120 no, listen to your doctor, what Reagan said about, about Gorbachev trust, but verify.
01:01:06.740 Do look at the vaccine inserts, Alan. Look at some of the science. And I would say, you know, my, I,
01:01:16.040 in a million years, I would not take the flu shot. And I'll tell you why, because this is what Cochran
01:01:21.540 and BMJ have found. People who take the flu shot are protected against the ad strain of flu.
01:01:28.640 They're 4.4 times more likely to get a non-flu infection. And you might find, and a lot of people
01:01:36.140 do, that they get the flu shot and then they get sick. They're usually not getting the flu.
01:01:41.400 They're getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you
01:01:46.380 something called pathogenic priming. It injures your immune system so that you're more likely to get a
01:01:54.560 non-flu viral upper respiratory infection. In fact, the Pentagon published a story, and you can cite
01:02:02.440 this, it's by Wolf, W-O-L-F-E, in January of this year, in which they said the flu shot not only
01:02:11.080 primes you for flu, and it primes you for coronavirus. If you get, they gave, they had a placebo group,
01:02:19.460 and they had a vaccine group because they wanted for many military readiness to see if the flu shot
01:02:25.740 was prophylactic against coronavirus. What they found is actually the people who got the flu shot
01:02:32.000 were 36% more likely to get coronavirus. And that's not a lone study. We found six other major
01:02:40.860 studies that say the same thing. If you get the flu shot, you're more likely to get coronavirus.
01:02:45.480 And this is what the science says, and you should not listen to me. Nobody should.
01:02:50.080 I understand.
01:02:50.780 You should read the science.
01:02:52.080 So let me understand the implications of your position on the flu shot. Not only would you not
01:02:58.400 take the flu shot and urge me to look at the science and in the end decide not to take the flu shot
01:03:03.740 because it's too dangerous, but you would also, if I take the implications of your position accurately,
01:03:09.700 outlaw the flu shot, make it illegal, because in your view and in the view of the scientists, you quote,
01:03:15.000 the flu shot causes more harm than good and, and increases the chances of us all getting the
01:03:22.080 coronavirus. Do I understand the implications of your view correctly?
01:03:25.440 Yeah, but I wouldn't, I wouldn't take that sort of extreme position. What I would say is we should
01:03:32.580 have vaccines, but it's, we shouldn't have one size fits all mandates. There may be some situations
01:03:41.020 where even a flu shot would be beneficial to somebody because a flu shot is not completely
01:03:48.280 ineffective. It does probably give you protection against that year's flu strain if they get it
01:03:55.340 right. And there could be a situation where somebody's life depended on getting that flu shot,
01:04:01.540 but to mandate the flu shot population-wide, I think is criminal. And I think it's, you know,
01:04:07.980 we're going to look, all you have to do, Alan, and this is what Cochran said, is look what's happened
01:04:13.320 to longevity in the elderly since we started mandating the flu shot to elderly people.
01:04:20.220 Those are the people, their, their life expectancy had dramatically gone down as the flu shot
01:04:27.540 proliferated. And if you see, you know, the people who died during the COVID vaccinate,
01:04:33.100 during the COVID crisis, and there's no science on this, but it's observational,
01:04:40.740 it tended to be people who got their flu shots, people who were in nursing homes who all get
01:04:45.080 flu shots, people who are first responders who get flu shots.
01:04:47.920 So with all due respect, I don't understand the implications of your position. If you're right,
01:04:53.080 why wouldn't it follow that the flu shot should be illegal? You said it's criminal
01:04:57.440 to mandate the flu shot, because it kills people in my age category. So if you had to cast the
01:05:03.900 deciding vote, if you had decided to run for Congress, instead of doing the great work you've
01:05:07.920 done over so many years, and you were the deciding vote in the United States Senate,
01:05:12.800 and there was a bill to outlaw the flu shot, wouldn't, why wouldn't you vote for it?
01:05:19.680 You know, I'm kind of, I'm like, I'm kind of a free market guy, and I think, you know,
01:05:25.760 what, I'm against mandates. I think that, you know, there may be situations where, you know,
01:05:31.720 that, where that product might do some good for somebody, but I don't, I just don't believe
01:05:36.320 it should be mandated. I don't, you know, I wouldn't think, for example, that a, that
01:05:44.060 Viagra should be mandated to every human being on the planet, right? But there may be somebody
01:05:54.220 who says, you know, I want to take that medication, let them do it. But let's not order everybody to
01:06:01.860 do it. Look, you're, we, you and I are on the same page there. I'm curious what you think of this,
01:06:06.000 because I feel very strongly about this. Let's assume you have a drug, a pharmaceutical
01:06:09.440 that hasn't been tested, that is potentially dangerous, but has a 10% chance of curing
01:06:16.380 pancreatic cancer in terminally ill patients. Do you agree with me and with President Trump on this
01:06:23.540 issue, that individuals who are dying should have the opportunity to go off label and to take
01:06:30.520 dangerous drugs that probably will kill them, but increase the chances that they remain alive,
01:06:37.760 that that should be a matter of individual choice?
01:06:39.820 I'm, I'm, I'm, I have a big libertarian streak in me. I think people should be left to their own
01:06:48.200 choices wherever possible, unless it's going to do some harm to others. Let me address one,
01:06:54.460 just one last thing that you were talking about.
01:06:56.420 We agree with that. We both agree with John.
01:06:57.800 Yeah, I think, I think we agree on most stuff. You know, you said, well, if it's tested against
01:07:05.060 a placebo, and this, I think, is why people like me are suspicious, are reticent. The Oxford vaccine,
01:07:15.600 which is, you know, was the, is the other leader. Gates has a huge investment and Fauci is pushing it.
01:07:22.440 It is the leader. AstraZeneca is now, you know, is branding it. Well, that vaccine is run by a guy
01:07:30.540 called Greg Pollard, who's at Oxford, a very, very famous, powerful virologist. He originally promised
01:07:38.040 at the beginning, he said, we're going to test it against the placebo. We're going to do what's
01:07:42.460 never been done in vaccinology before. We're going to actually use an inert placebo and test it.
01:07:48.500 And then in the middle of his phase two, he said, no, we're going to test it against the
01:07:57.420 meningitis vaccine. The meningitis vaccine is a vaccine with a really high injury profile. It
01:08:03.500 has a listed just on its manufacturing insert, are 50 deadly serious injuries, including Kawasaki
01:08:11.680 disease, Guillain-Barre, paralysis, seizure, heart attacks, and death, and hepatitis and all kinds
01:08:22.680 of autoimmune disease. It's probably, it's arguably the most dangerous vaccine. So instead of giving
01:08:29.820 his placebo group an inert placebo, he's giving them the most dangerous vaccine he can. Why?
01:08:35.100 Hey, it's a ploy that vaccinologists use. And they give their placebo group something that's
01:08:40.400 horrendously dangerous to mask injuries in the vaccine. And, you know, and so everybody on my
01:08:48.400 side sees this and they say, he's not being on it. We do not know what the risk profile of that
01:08:54.120 product is. We are never going to take that product because it was never tested against the
01:08:58.600 placebo. Make them do the science. Don't say to, you know, get angry at people who are skeptical
01:09:05.360 and say, oh, you're skeptical. We're watching the sausage get made. And it's an ugly process.
01:09:12.080 And by the way, he gave that vaccine to a bunch of monkeys, you know, macaques. And then,
01:09:19.580 and then he exposed, he challenged the macaques by exposing them to the wild coronavirus.
01:09:26.740 Yeah. Yeah. And all of the macaques got sick. So the vaccine doesn't work. But because the British
01:09:34.840 government put 90,000 pounds into it, he now is in order to make 2 million doses with a vaccine we
01:09:42.040 know doesn't work. And they're going forward with it anyway. And he refuses to test against the
01:09:48.080 placebo. So that gives us zero faith. Right. So let me first of all say nobody should be angry at
01:09:55.180 you. People should be praising you for bringing this to the attention of the American public.
01:09:59.380 Let me just summarize, if I can, my view, and then you can get the last word.
01:10:03.960 I am thrilled that we had this debate. I think the public watching the debate has learned. We've
01:10:09.320 learned how much we agree about. We're both libertarians. We both agree with John Stuart Mill
01:10:13.520 that the government shouldn't be compelling you to do anything just for your own good, but they can
01:10:18.880 compel you to do things that prevent harm to others. We have some disagreements about mandates.
01:10:27.460 I think we both agree that any vaccine should start out by being offered voluntarily. We both agree that
01:10:34.160 people should be offered the vaccine initially and take it on a voluntary basis. And that mandatory
01:10:42.020 vaccination, which presents very daunting moral and constitutional issues, should not be required until
01:10:50.560 it's proved absolutely necessary by the consensus of medical opinion. I think we also agree that the
01:10:58.620 First Amendment and the spirit of the First Amendment requires that this debate continue. And so I'm pleased that
01:11:03.840 we had this debate. You've persuaded me about some of the medical issues. I will look further into medical
01:11:09.140 issues. I don't think I've persuaded you on the constitutional issues, and I know you haven't
01:11:14.240 persuaded me on the constitutional issues. I still take the position, although in a democracy, the
01:11:19.240 courts do have the final word, that I do believe that if there were legislation mandating in extreme
01:11:25.460 circumstances with safety and other considerations taken into account, mandatory vaccination, I do believe
01:11:32.920 the Supreme Court would and should uphold mandatory vaccination under those circumstances. That's the
01:11:39.400 major area we disagree with. But in practical terms, I suspect we don't have a lot of disagreement
01:11:45.000 that will come to fruition in the next year or so, because in the next year, the big issue will be how
01:11:51.040 to get the vaccine voluntarily to as many people as possible, willing to take it. And so thank you for
01:11:57.900 putting together this debate. I think it really was informative. And thank you, Robert, for accepting the idea of
01:12:05.540 debating on this issue.
01:12:07.500 Thank you, Alan. And I want to express my gratitude to you on behalf of myself. And everybody in this community, you know,
01:12:16.000 people who are who are called anti-vax, they're mainly not anti-vaccine. Almost all of them are the mothers and
01:12:23.320 fathers of intellectually disabled kids who gave all the vaccines who did what they were told, and then their
01:12:29.800 child was injured. And they and that prompted them to go out and do the research. Those people should be allowed
01:12:36.920 to speak. Those people should not be gagged. They should not be shut up. They should not be considered heretics.
01:12:43.960 They should be allowed to tell their story. And they should be treated with compassion and understanding
01:12:51.640 and patience and an intellectual openness toward their stories. They shouldn't be vilified. They
01:12:58.840 shouldn't be gaslighted. They shouldn't be ignored. And right now, particularly at a point in our history
01:13:05.000 where we're talking about giving lots of people this vaccine, their stories are more important to hear
01:13:10.840 than ever. I want to thank you, because for 15 years, all of us have been trying to do a debate.
01:13:19.000 And we haven't been able to get Peter Hotez to do it. We haven't been able to get Paul Offit, Ian Lipkin, any of the
01:13:25.320 leaders. I've been have been scared to sit where you are now. And I want to thank you so much on behalf of all of us, but
01:13:34.440 also our democratic traditions for coming here. Thank you, Alan.
01:13:38.200 Well, thank you, Robert. Gentlemen, one thing I do want to say is I'm glad I got through my 28 questions
01:13:43.720 with you guys. It was very good. And I know one thing is we have to make this disclaimer that this
01:13:50.440 debate is not sponsored by Viagra, even though Robert brought up Viagra. And I'll make sure next
01:13:57.160 time we're in Boston, I avoid taking you to my favorite sushi spot since you are anti-fish. I had no clue until
01:14:03.720 today's debate that Robert is anti-fish. And by the way, based on how this goes, if the audience comes
01:14:09.320 back, we may reach out to you for part two again. If there's other topics we can touch up at hand with
01:14:15.080 this. Alan, thank you so much for your time. Robert, thank you so much for your time. Take care,
01:14:19.000 everybody. Appreciate you guys. Thank you.
01:14:20.680 Thank you very much, Patrick.
01:14:22.360 Thanks, everybody, for listening. And by the way, if you haven't already subscribed to
01:14:25.600 Valuetainment on iTunes, please do so. Give us a five-star. Write a review if you haven't already.
01:14:31.380 And if you have any questions for me that you may have, you can always find me on Snapchat,
01:14:35.380 Instagram, Facebook, or YouTube. Just search my name, PatrickBitDavid. And I actually do respond
01:14:40.880 back when you snap me or send me a message on Instagram. With that being said, have a great day
01:14:45.540 today. Take care, everybody. Bye-bye.