TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MaryBowdenMD

MaryBowdenMD
Posted - January 24, 2026 at 2:36 PM
Saved - January 24, 2026 at 11:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
MaryBowdenMD raises a claim that a 7-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis was medically kidnapped in Florida, with DCF allegedly laughing as the child was taken; WTPatriotsUSA is said to be advocating to return her. Ryanmatta and GooBiiSnacks request DMs. Another user questions why Jonathan, who offered an interview, isn’t mentioned and notes recent news.

@MaryBowdenMD - Mary Talley Bowden MD

A thriving 7 year old girl with cystic fibrosis has been medically kidnapped from her parents in Florida. DCF laughed when they took her from her home. @WTPatriotsUSA is fighting to bring her back. https://t.co/vjDZuPAri2

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes obtaining body cam footage in which a DCF worker is laughing and smiling at the door as she takes a child away, while the child screams and the mother cries. The seven-year-old girl is shown laughing and saying, "I don't need a warrant, I don't need anything, I can take your child away before we file anything in court," as the child is taken away. The child was thriving and on a treatment that's been used for cystic fibrosis since the 1950s. The speaker cannot pronounce the drug names but notes they have them in records and court filings. The child was given a drug used since the 1950s; the child was without oxygen and was running around, playing, and laughing perfectly fine, while often children with cystic fibrosis need oxygen. After the state took the child away, the reason given ostensibly was that she wasn't using a newer drug with a black box warning shown to cause death, liver failure, and other adverse reactions. They reportedly did not even put the child on the newer drug for nearly three months after removing her. The child was placed in a foster home rather than with her parents or family members, even though the family wanted her placed with relatives. Instead, she was placed with strangers in foster care. The speaker describes this as evil. The group, We The Patriots USA, states they committed about a year ago to a mission to end medical kidnapping in America and to bring the child home. They have retained an attorney for the plaintiff and have paid the initial retainer, noting that thousands of dollars have already been spent on the case, even though they haven't raised all the funds yet.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I was able to get ahold of that body cam footage. One of the DCF workers was laughing and smiling as she's at the door and going to take this child away, screaming, child is crying, mother is crying, breaking down in tears. This seven year old girl laughing and saying, I don't need a warrant, I don't need anything, I can take your child away before we file anything in court, goes in and takes the child away. This child was thriving. She was on a treatment that's been used for cystic fibrosis since the 1950s. I can't pronounce drug names like you can because I'm not a doctor, but I forget the name of it, but I have it all in my records, it's in the court filings. She was giving this child a drug that's been used since the 1950s. The child was without oxygen. Often these children on cystic fibrosis, they need oxygen. She didn't have any oxygen, running around, playing, laughing perfectly fine. The state after they took the child away, and the reason they ostensibly took the child away is because she wasn't using this new drug, newer drug, I shouldn't say it's not brand new, but it's a newer drug with a black box warning shown to cause death, liver failure, all kinds of adverse reactions reported. They didn't even put the child on the drug for three months, almost three months after they took the child away. They didn't even put the child. They put her in a foster home, wouldn't put her with her parents or family members. She wanted the child to be placed with family members. Nope, we're gonna place her with strangers in foster care. Wow. I mean, is evil. This is pure evil. So we made a commitment here at We The Patriots USA about a year ago that we were gonna be on a mission to end medical kidnapping in America. That's medical kidnapping. There is no good reason that child should have been taken away from her mother. And we're gonna do everything in our power to bring that child home. We've retained an attorney for the plaintiff here. We paid already the initial retainer. Even though we haven't raised it, we've paid thousands of dollars for this case.

@Ryanmatta - RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅

@MaryBowdenMD @WTPatriotsUSA @MaryBowdenMD please send me a DM if you see this.

@GooBiiSnacks - Mike Honcho

@Ryanmatta @MaryBowdenMD @WTPatriotsUSA Hey @Ryanmatta please send me a DM if you see this. Why haven’t you mentioned Jonathan, the guy that offered you an interview? I find it hard to believe you haven’t seen the news. https://t.co/QV8ZQ1LP5T

MaryBowdenMD
Posted - January 21, 2026 at 1:26 PM
Saved - January 21, 2026 at 4:19 PM

@MaryBowdenMD - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Never go to the hospital for an X-Ray. This hospital marks up prices on average 362% compared to outpatient services at Houston Medical Imaging center. Chest Xray: $543 v $50 MRI spine: $2023 v $375 CT brain: $938 v $225 US abdomen: $1099 v $150 PET scan: $4261 v $1500 https://t.co/CL5c3hHyt3

MaryBowdenMD
Posted - December 28, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Saved - December 28, 2025 at 6:23 PM

@MaryBowdenMD - Mary Talley Bowden MD

This lawsuit is in discovery. Here’s how to hold hospitals accountable for not reporting to VAERS. Each violation is at least $13K…. Each hospital could owe millions. And the statute of limitations is 6 years… plenty of time left to sue! https://t.co/fMu5TOq0wv

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says: We estimate that at least twelve hundred people who got the shot returned to the hospital system for a moderate to severe reaction. Many other people got the shot from Walgreens, CVS, or another location or the county. Out of that population, twelve thousand people went back to Rochester Regional after a shot, not just from Rochester Regional, but twelve thousand people had a moderate to severe injury according to the records we’ve seen so far. What do the records say? How are you able to identify that it’s from the COVID shot? We should note that it’s not a causality issue. Anything that happens after you get the shot is questionable. With the way our system is supposed to work, that’s supposed to be an early warning system. Certainly, some people came back for services without, you know, maybe it wasn’t a vaccine reaction. But if you’re back in that hospital after you’ve gotten the shot for whatever reason, the federal government is supposed to want to know that. And that’s why Rochester Regional signed a contract to tell them about people who came back with some kind of issue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We estimate that at least twelve hundred both got the shot and returned to the hospital system for a moderate to severe reaction. Know that many other people got the shot from Walgreens or CVS or some other location or the county. And out of that population, that's actually twelve thousand people that we estimate went back to Rochester Regional after a shot, not just from Rochester Regional, but twelve thousand people had a moderate to severe injury according to the records that we've seen so far. What what are the records saying? How do you how are you able to identify that it's from the COVID shot? Well, remember, it's not a causality issue. Anything that happens after you get the shot is questionable. And and with the way our system is supposed to work is that's supposed to be an early warning system. Certainly, some people came back for services without you know, maybe it wasn't a vaccine reaction. But if if you're back in that hospital after you've gotten the shot for whatever reason, the federal government is supposed to wanna know that. And that's why Rochester Regional signed a contract to to tell them about people who came back with some kind of, issue.
MaryBowdenMD
Posted - December 5, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Saved - December 6, 2025 at 3:56 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see a long list of institutions that continue to require COVID-19 vaccination for medical students, including Akron Children’s, Cedars-Sinai, Johns Hopkins, UNC, UC Davis, University of Florida, and many others.

@MaryBowdenMD - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The following hospitals continue to require all medical students get the Covid shots: Akron Children’s Hospital Akron General Albert Einstein Medical Center Anne Arundel Medical Center Baylor College of Medicine Berkshire Health Systems Boston University School of Medicine Brody School of Medicine Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cedars-Sinai Central Michigan University College of Medicine Commonwealth Medical College Cooper Medical School of Rowan University David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Drexel University College of Medicine East Tennessee State University-Quillen College of Medicine Emory University School of Medicine Florida Hospital Orlando Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Georgetown University School of Medicine George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Greenville Health System Gwinnett Medical Center Houston Methodist Hospital System Howard University College of Medicine Indiana University School Of Medicine International American University College of Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Kaweah Delta Health Care District  Keck School of Medicine of USC Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine Lehigh Valley Health Network Loma Linda University School of Medicine Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine Shreveport Maimonides Medical Center Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine Medical College of Wisconsin Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical University of South Carolina Mercer University School of Medicine Methodist Dallas Medical Center MetroHealth Medical Center Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Morehouse School of Medicine Mount Sinai Medical Center New York Medical College, Health Services Northeast Ohio Medical University Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine Rush Medical College Rutgers New Jersey Medical School  Sacred Heart Health System Saint Louis University School of Medicine San Juan Bautista School of Medicine Stony Brook University School of Medicine Summa Health SUNY Downstate Medical Center SUNY Upstate Medical University Trinity Health – Mercy Health Muskegon Tulane University School of Medicine United Health Services Hospital-Wilson Medical Center University of Alabama School of Medicine University of Arizona College of Medicine—Phoenix University of Arizona College of Medicine—Tucson University of California Davis School of Medicine University of California San Diego School of Medicine University of Cincinnati College of Medicine University of Colorado School of Medicine University of Florida University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria University of Kansas School of Medicine University of Kentucky College of Medicine University of Louisville School of Medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine University of Massachusetts Medical School University of Miami Miller School of Medicine University of Missouri-Columbia University of Nebraska Medical Center University of New Mexico School of Medicine University of North Carolina School of Medicine University of Oklahoma-College of Medicine University of South Alabama College of Medicine University of South Carolina School of Medicine University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center University of Utah School of Medicine University of Vermont College of Medicine University of Washington School of Medicine Valley Children's Hospital/Healthcare Washington St. Louis School of Medicine Wayne State University School of Medicine Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine

MdBreathe
Posted - November 16, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Saved - November 17, 2025 at 4:24 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr Steven Hatfill was the only HHSGov voice publicly calling for pulling Covid shots; he was fired. Full interview with Bannons War Room. Check out Honest Medicine.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Dr Steven Hatfill is the ONLY person in @HHSGov who dared to publicly state the Covid shots should be pulled off the market. And he was fired. https://t.co/it8f0c4ZSn

Video Transcript AI Summary
Data accumulated to the point where meta-analysis studies could be done. These are very comprehensive analyses, and it virtually came back consistently that there was no benefit to risk ratio for taking a messenger RNA vaccine. In fact, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to contract COVID-19 and be hospitalized with it. This is we're now in 2022 that the status started to come out. The side effects for this essentially gene therapy were so enormous and progressive. It was difficult to fathom. And then finally, a few months ago, some of the detailed biochemistry studies started to appear in the literature. And this sudden flood of messenger RNA, it appears irrespective of what the messenger RNA insert is coding for. Just the sheer amount of number of millions of molecules of messenger RNA entering the cell is creating biochemical
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What happened is that the data had accumulated to the point where meta analysis studies could be done. These are very comprehensive analysis, and it virtually came back consistently that there was no benefit to risk ratio for taking a messenger RNA vaccine. In fact, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to contract COVID nineteen and be hospitalized with it. This is we're now in 2022 that the status started to come out. The side effects for this essentially gene therapy was so enormous and progressive. It was difficult to fathom. And then finally, a few months ago, some of the detailed biochemistry studies started to appear in the literature. And this sudden flood of messenger RNA, it appears irrespective of what the messenger RNA insert is coding for. Just the sheer amount of number of millions of molecules of messenger RNA entering the cell is creating biochemical

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Full interview with @Bannons_WarRoom https://rumble.com/v6x9spe-dr.-hatfill-studies-showed-no-net-benefit.-rather-they-showed-cellular-havo.html

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@hayshizz @HHSGov Check out @Honest_Medicine

MdBreathe
Posted - November 12, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Saved - November 13, 2025 at 1:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I claim Stephanie Spear hates the POTUS and has communist ties; Trump is a “race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot.” I say SecKennedy brought over the medical freedom movement—without us, he could not have won. Watch the entire interview.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The woman controlling @SecKennedy - HHS Deputy COS Stephanie Spear - hates @POTUS and has communist ties. Here are the receipts: https://t.co/wX4yZZg4lp

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Donald Trump is a “race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot.” https://t.co/ywJI2QsEYc

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

How? Because @SecKennedy brought over the medical freedom movement. Without us, he could not have won. https://t.co/kTSvFj25kn

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@fedupmom12 @SecKennedy @POTUS Watch the entire interview

MdBreathe
Posted - October 6, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Saved - October 6, 2025 at 7:56 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

.@SteveTothTX has fiercely defended me since day 1 and was one of the first politicians to sign our pledge calling for the shots to be pulled off the market. Please follow and support Rep Steve Toth’s run for Congress.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

If an unbalanced warmonger like Dan Crenshaw can represent the GOP in Congress, then honestly what’s the point of having a Republican Party? State Rep. Steve Toth is working to beat Crenshaw in the primary and restore the party to sanity. (0:00) Dan Crenshaw Is Not America First (5:43) Why Crenshaw Is Letting Illegal Immigration Destroy Texas (12:37) Why Is Crenshaw So Deeply Focused on Ukraine? (16:09) The Dark Lobbying Groups Supporting Crenshaw (27:53) What Do Other Members of Congress Think About Crenshaw? (29:34) The Viral Video of Crenshaw Chastising a Young Woman (35:18) Crenshaw’s Lies About the Intel Agencies (43:45) Crenshaw’s Suspicious Skills in the Stock Market (49:36) How Do We Fix the System? (1:00:05) How Hard Will It Be to Take Out Dan Crenshaw? (1:08:29) How Influential Is the Bush Family in Texas? (1:10:16) The Sexual Blackmail Operations Happening in Politics (1:14:56) How Are Good People Corrupted by Politics? (1:20:44) Toth’s Fight Against Radical Transgenderism (1:24:01) The Destruction of Texas Cities Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Steve Toath argues Dan Crenshaw is 'clearly a very troubled guy' and that the Republican Party shouldn't have 'a Dan Crenshaw in it.' He says Montgomery County is 'the reddest of Red Counties' and Crenshaw's 'main interests are outside this country.' He claims Crenshaw's top donors include 'a foreign lobby' and 'Clifford Asness,' calling his stance 'America first' but 'America last.' He criticizes Crenshaw for skipping a Texas border visit and asks, 'What is that?' He cites 'Mexico's a failed state' and that 'Fifty eight percent of the births in Texas are Medicaid births.' He calls to close the border and blames 'Karl Rove' and the Associated Republicans of Texas for pressuring conservatives, notes gambling fights, and argues Crenshaw is silent on the border. The Texas House is 'overwhelmingly Republican, but it's actually run by the Democrats' with David Cook as speaker chosen by a coalition.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm so grateful that you're here and that you're running against Dan Crenshaw. I don't just because I don't think Dan Crenshaw is the worst person in the world or anything like that. I feel sorry for Dan Crenshaw. He's clearly a very troubled guy. But it just does seem like the Republican Party shouldn't have to have a Dan Crenshaw in it, and I think you're gonna beat Dan Crenshaw. And I just I just wanna say thank you for doing that. Speaker 1: I'm honored to be here with you. I really am. So I've been jealous of you because my wife loves you so much. Speaker 0: So you rep you're in the Texas house. You represent an area that overlaps with Crenshaw's district, obviously. You live there. It's one of the most conservative districts in Texas, I think it's Speaker 1: fair to Montgomery County is absolutely the reddest of Red Counties. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Tarrant County's bigger, but it's purple. Yep. We are the biggest red county left in Texas, and 100% of my district is inside Congressional District 2. Speaker 0: So that would mean it's probably the biggest by population Red County in The United States. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. Once we lost Harris County to voter fraud, yes. Speaker 0: So how does that the biggest I'm I'm just kind of guessing. One of the biggest Republican counties in The United States get Dan Crenshaw as a member of congress? Like, how does that happen? Speaker 1: So this is Mayacopa. Is that how you say it? Speaker 0: Mayacopa. Yeah. It's you're admitting fault. Speaker 1: In 2018 when Dan Crenshaw came around, it was kind of a man crush for me. Yeah. Yeah. Navy SEAL, war hero. Yeah. And I only knew one person. There were, like, eight people in that race, and there was only one person that was kind of emerging as as the person that was gonna win, and he was kind of a rhino. He was he was very weak, and this guy comes along that says, look. I'm gonna upend the apple cart. I'm gonna be a disruptive influence. I am going to absolutely stand against the swamp, or as Ted Cruz called it, the Washington cartel. Yeah. I'm gonna stop it. I'm gonna fight it. And so we got behind him and Damn. Speaker 0: I would have voted for him too if you Speaker 1: said that. So I encouraged our local tea party to mail into the district to spend money into the district and help them raise money to move move mountains to get Dan Crenshaw elected. So I feel a sense of responsibility for this major screw up because no sooner did he get there than he became part of the problem. Speaker 0: Oh, he became a leader of the problem. And I and I have so what year was that? Speaker 1: 02/2018. Speaker 0: I'm I'm sure he has official opinions on issues related to Texas or The United States, but it's also very obvious to me watching him carefully that his real interest all his main interests are outside this country. So it doesn't seem like his agenda really has anything to do with America. Speaker 1: It's self interest more than anything. You you see this revolving door on the part of people in congress that line themselves up for lobbying positions as soon as they leave congress. And so in order to get those kind of cushy jobs, you've gotta do the lobby's bidding upfront early on. He's a young guy. Right? Yeah. And he's not the kind of person that's gonna be there for twenty or thirty years. He is the kind of person, though, that's gonna line himself up for a cushy lobbying position once he gets out. And so you've gotta go along. You cannot you cannot ruffle feathers. You can't go against leadership, you can't go against the lobby. Speaker 0: Well, not only does he not go against the lobby, I mean, his campaigns are the most we pulled the numbers. The most recent one that I saw suggested that his two biggest donors are giving him money because of his foreign policy views. One is a foreign lobby, I think is his biggest donor, one of them. Literally a foreign lobby. And the other is a hedge fund guy called Clifford Asness, who's, you know, I would say one of the sleazier people in American business. There's that. But also is not paying Dan Crenshaw for anything related to The United States. This only has to do with influencing his vote on questions pertaining to other countries. I mean, it's the opposite of America first. It's America last. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's been my greatest heartburn is his total disregard for the border and what we've been dealing with at the Texas border, and yet his obsession with Ukraine's border. Yes. What is that? I I mean, I can't get my arms around it. So three years ago, we went down to the border, and pretty much all of the Texas delegation was there. Mike Johnson came from Alabama or from Louisiana. Yep. The southern state congressional members came down to be with us, we interviewed ICE agents. We interviewed US border patrol. We we interviewed US border patrol union. We interviewed ranchers. The only person from the congressional delegation that was not there, Dan Crenshaw. It's like, why don't you want to know about what's going on down here? This is not about working with the Mexican government. This is about on on boots on the ground, right down on the border, understanding what we're dealing with down here. You So understand firsthand what's really truly going on. Because he has no clue what's really going on. Speaker 0: But you're in Houston. I mean, it's not that far. Houston has been complete I have family there, and I so I go completely transformed by illegal immigration completely. It's unrecognizable, and it hasn't gotten better. It's gotten much worse. That's my read as a visitor. But how could he ignore that? Speaker 1: Fifty eight percent of the births in Texas are Medicaid births. Fifty eight percent? Fifty eight percent. So think about this a second, Tucker. Twenty years ago, Medicaid was 3% of the Texas budget. Now it's the number two driver of the budget, and it's due in large part to illegal immigration. People come across the border, have their babies. Sometimes they go back, sometimes they don't. Speaker 0: So that's like collapse. I mean, that's that's not sustainable. Not even in the short term is that sustainable. Speaker 1: Good hearted people wanna say, well, we should do this. And to which I say, I think God would say, we should do it. We should do it. Yeah. Not the government. Exactly. We should do it. Church Speaker 0: care so much. Use your own money. Speaker 1: The church should do it. We used to we used to go down to the Mexican border. I mean, to the border towns in Northern Mexico and build churches. We would build schools. We would build homes. We'd go down there and and do medical missions work. We can't go down there anymore because Mexico, for all intents and purposes, is a failed state. I mean, it really truly is. It's a failed state. And so you can't go down there anymore. And so people say, well, we can't go down there anymore. Therefore, the United States government needs to bail this all out. No. It's it we're we are destroying our children and grandchildren's ability to have any kind of future whatsoever. We're we're drilling holes in the bottom of a lifeboat. Speaker 0: What I mean, Crenshaw doesn't know this? I mean, his constituents, I know, are upset about it because I know a lot of them. Speaker 1: Tucker, he came to a town hall meeting three years ago when the senate bipartisan which anytime you hear a senate bipartisan border bill, run. Yeah. Run fast. Right? Democrats are not looking for any kind of solution on the border. Democrats are not looking to close the border. Speaker 0: They created this. They completely created this. Speaker 1: And so they have this wackadoodle bill that allows 5,000 people into the country a day. 8 1,800,000 a year. And if you look at the bones of the bill, yes, the bones of the bill say it did call for more ICE agents, but it wasn't to close the border, Tucker. It was to process people coming in to the country. So all it did was it just streamlined their ability to come into the country and be lost into the system. Okay. Show up for your court date in a year and a half, two years, which they don't show up for. They're gone. They're lost into the fabric of the nation. And, you know, they're a drain on our schools. They're a drain on our infrastructure. They're drain really huge drain on our criminal criminal justice system in Texas and across The United States. It's killing us. Speaker 0: Well, they also make it impossible to have a cohesive country. I mean, if a huge percentage of the population just got here, then what is it to be American? No one is pausing to ask that question. And when there is a financial downturn or a national disaster or we're tested as a nation, how do we hold together? Speaker 1: Yeah. Twenty years ago, a friend of mine that grew up in Toronto said, the great thing about America is that you're a melting pot, where Canada's more like a quilt, and we're tearing apart at its seams. Yes. Y'all have a common language. Did I did I just say y'all? Yes, I did. It's okay. You have a common language. We don't have a common language in Canada. We have French and we have English. And in America now, we have English and we have Spanish. And we are becoming a quilt that is tearing apart at Speaker 0: the seams. Yes. And do you feel that where you live? Speaker 1: Oh, terribly. Yeah. Terribly. You you see it especially see it in the classroom right now. We keep hearing the left say we're losing teachers in public education because they're not being paid enough money. Well, it's not what the polling's telling us. I sat down with Texas Classroom Teachers Association in 02/2019, and I said, quality of life, violence in the classroom, teacher pay, what's the most important issue? Quality of life and and violence in Speaker 0: the classroom. Violence in the classroom. Speaker 1: Violence in the classroom. Teachers are being assaulted like you have never seen before. I mean, there is one school in the state of Texas, and I think it was on TikTok, 72 assaults or I'm I'm sorry, 72 fights on that were recorded. So that's basically two fights a week in the school that were recorded and then were on TikTok. And those are just the ones that they've caught. And you see this in classroom after classroom after classroom. So you bring you bring children together that can't speak the language, and then you poison them with critical race theory to tell them that the children of color are oppressed and the white kids are oppressors. What could go wrong? Right? I mean, it's Speaker 0: just You've got a lot of attacks on whites as a result of that. You have. A lot of race hate. Speaker 1: And a lot of attacks on white teachers as as well. And, again, a lot of this, it stems from what we've done with the border and our our unwillingness to close the border. This is not about understanding better understanding what's going on in Mexico. Mexico's a failed state, and we've gotta treat it like a failed state. We've gotta close the border. Speaker 0: Where do you keep your most valuable possessions? Not your necktie or a pair of socks, but things you wouldn't want to replace or maybe couldn't. Heirlooms from your parents, your birth certificate, your firearms, your grandfather's shotgun. Where do you store those? Under the bed? In the back of a closet? No. That's unwise and maybe unsafe. Liberty Safe is the place to store them. I would know I have a colonial safe from Liberty Safe. It's in my garage. It's the best. I keep everything in there. It's a ProFlex system, allows you to design the inside of your safe in a way that works for you. It's not a fixed setup. Someone else puts the shelves in, and you have to deal with it. You make it the way you want it. Have a stock of rifles? You can make room. Need more shelves for handguns, for documents, for valuables, for gold. You can do whatever you want. You can refigure your safe in minutes. Maximum flexibility, maximum convenience. Liberty Safe is America's number one safe company made in The United States. Great people. I know them. Visit libertysafe.com. Use the code Tucker 10 at checkout for 10% off. Franklin and Colonial Safes featuring the Proflex interior that you customize. You're gonna dig it. We definitely plus they're good looking, I will say. And yet Crenshaw, every time I've seen him speak, it's about Ukraine's sacred borders, its territorial integrity, standing up for democracy, fighting Putin, Hitler, or whatever. What is why the emphasis? I mean, I I think it's fair to have views on all kinds of foreign questions, but in his case, it's so much the center of his focus. Why? Speaker 1: I you know, and I get that you you can go from Trump was you know, Russia went into Crimea, right, under under Barack Obama in his silly line in the sand. And Trump came in and where Obama had given them blankets and band aids, Trump came in and gave them, you know, anti tank missiles, and he gave them serious weaponry to stall the Russians. And then Biden comes in and does the exact opposite. Right? But starts talking tough. And I I so I guess I can get initially saying, okay. I wanna get back to doing what Trump did. But the obsession that he that he displayed in the midst of it was was sickening, was absolutely sickening, especially, again, when you call into account the fact that we have an open border in the South, and he was doing nothing to help us. In fact, when the senate deal came about, he held a town hall for elected officials in our district. And I put my hand up, and I said, Dan, you're allowing 5,000 people into the country a day. And he he just absolutely was totally pissed, really, that that I was bringing this up. And I'm not the only one. Senator Creighton also was like, we cannot do this. And he said, you guys should be absolutely thankful that we're doing something now to close the border because you can't do it. I'm like, we have done it. We just need you guys to stay the hell out of the way. We could Texas on its own could close the border. We just need you to keep out of our business. If you're not gonna help us, get out of the way. And he was just emphatic that we couldn't do it. We needed we needed to pass this legislation. Meanwhile, Trump was saying, you don't need any legislation. You just need to close the border. You just need to show some some stones, some backbone, and close the border. Speaker 0: Trump has pushed it. Wait. You don't have a national garden Speaker 1: in Texas? Speaker 0: I mean, I never understood that. But but the but I'm interested in his reaction. I've seen this with him a lot, and it suggests that there's something I think he's mentally ill. I'm just gonna say that. I'm not saying that as an attack. I'm saying that with sympathy, there's something really wrong with him. I think he was damaged by his service. I think it's partly our fault as a country for sending these guys into these horrible positions and then not helping them when they come home. I know that you help run Mighty Oaks, which is a group dedicated to helping servicemen when they come back so they don't kill themselves. So I I know you spent a lot of time on this. So I don't wanna attack him too much personally because I wanna be compassionate, but, boy, I've never seen any elected official respond to criticism the way he does. I mean, it's like anyone who asked him a question, it's like, you're evil. I saw him recently say, if you don't agree with me on this foreign policy issue, you're evil. It's like, what is that? Speaker 1: You you you can't enter into any kind of dialogue with him. He just takes it personally. He gets offended. He's completely thin skinned over it. I just can't Speaker 0: And attacks you for asking Speaker 1: Then attacks you and attacks your integrity, your character, and your and your intellectual capacity. I can't I can't put words to it. So who's for him? I I think the lobby is absolutely for him. I think establishment Republicans and, you know, the Karl Rove, the Associated Republicans of Texas are Speaker 0: for him. Speaker 1: It should be called the Associated Rhinos of Texas, but it's so sick. These guys Speaker 0: Associated Republicans Speaker 1: of Associated Republicans of Texas. So they come after conservative Republicans every two years. I've got one of the most conservative voting records in the Texas House, like, in the top five, top four, my last four sessions. I've passed some really important, critically important, comprehensive legislation that's part of the Republican priorities, banning critical race theory in the classroom, banning the social transition of children. And yet, this group comes after me every two years. Two two election cycles ago, they spent $3,400,000 against me, and we're able to get 36% of the vote. This last election cycle, Associated Republicans of Texas spent $700,000 against me and got 34% Speaker 0: of the vote. Really? Speaker 1: But Dan Crenshaw helps fund him. Why? So he takes his lobbying money, and he writes checks, tens of thousands of dollars to the Associated Republicans of Texas that isn't doing anything to help us expand the majority in the Texas house. No. They just come after the conservatives. It's trying to Speaker 0: make you more like Democrats. Completely. Yeah. So what is it, and who runs it, and where does its money come from? Speaker 1: It's Karl Rove, and it's it's just kind of big establishment money, lobby money. Speaker 0: Karl Rove, every time I ask someone involved in Texas politics, how does this conservative, this great state, get such horrible like, how does a John Cornyn or Dan Crenshaw get elected in Texas? They always mention Karl Rove. Speaker 1: You Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world. Our economy is bigger than Russia. Our economy is bigger than Australia. It's bigger than Canada. It's bigger than Mexico. It's a huge economy. We we have a 300 plus billion dollar budget. Right? So when you're talking State budget? State budget. Speaker 0: Over $300,000,000,000? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Damn. Per biennium. And so when you're talking about that kind of money, it attracts a lot of bottom dwellers. So you hear about the Washington cartel. Well, it's pretty much the same thing in Austin, Texas. It there's just a lot of money, just a ton of money, and they will get fixated on things like bringing gambling to Texas as an example. The neocons desperately wanna bring gambling to Texas. Why? I'm very libertarian on this issue. Like Yeah. If you wanna have a card game and you wanna gamble, what you do in your in your house is is up to you. Speaker 0: It's not Oh, I agree. Speaker 1: It's none of my business. But at the end of the day, if you're going to say this is state sponsored, and we're only gonna give out two or three licenses, and we're gonna give them out to our friends that have given tons of campaign money, right, then it's corrupt. It's it's crony capitalism to the max. Right? Speaker 0: Does it improve people's lives? Speaker 1: Doesn't improve people's lives. And at the end Speaker 0: of the day, you look Speaker 1: at any you look at any of the states that have implemented it. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: And we have we have a national treasurer in Houston by the name of Jim McEnvale. His name is Mattress Mack, and he owns Gallery Furniture. He's the most amazing man in the whole world, and he's a gambler. And and he would say the worst thing that Texas could possibly do would be to bring gambling to Texas. Why? You they build these billion dollar resorts, right, with cash, these multi multinational corporations. What happens to that money? People go and gamble, and that money leaves our economy. Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 1: So have less money moving within the economy. They'll say, well, yeah, but it's a it's a great tax revenue. It's a there's great tax revenue from it. Yeah. But, eventually, the pool in which you're drawing from dries up. Speaker 0: Well, where's it worked? I mean, it was gonna save the state of Maine, for example. No. It was gonna save East St. Louis, Illinois. No. It was gonna save Mississippi Gulf Coast. No. So is there a place where gambling has actually made people's lives better? It's just enriched like some of the worst people in the world? Speaker 1: It's it's it's all it is. And this past session the past two sessions, they've been trying to do it, and they I got a call from the lobbyists, which they assigned two lobbyists to me. So there are a 150 house members. Each of us had two lobbyists assigned to them for gambling, and it became the no lobbyists left behind session when it came to gambling. And and they're like, hey. We wanna write you $25,000 check for your your reelection campaign. I'm like, I I don't want it. We're not asking for your guaranteed vote Speaker 0: in favor Speaker 1: of it. No. And I'm like, I I don't want it. If Planned Parenthood wanted to give me money so I could vote against plan vote against abortion, I I would take that money so I could vote against abortion. But I'm not gonna take your dirty money that came at the hands of somebody that lost their house or lost their marriage or lost their business as a result of that. Just dirty money. Speaker 0: What what were the gambling lobbyists like? Speaker 1: Some of the nicest guys. Speaker 0: Oh, charming. I Speaker 1: bet. Very wonderful people. Speaker 0: Did they call it gaming? Speaker 1: Some did. Yeah. And, Steve, don't don't you understand about the money that we're gonna be able to spend on public education as the result of doing this? Right? It's about the children, Steve. It's about Speaker 0: the children. We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah. Good luck. So most people, when they think about this, wanna carry a firearm, and a lot of us do. The problem is there can be massive consequences for that. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious once on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti gun movement will do. They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm, and that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Berna. It's a proudly American company. Berna makes self defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away. There are no background checks. There are no waiting periods. Berna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Berna pistol. Visit bernabyrna.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your stay. Berna.com. So what happened to the legislation? Speaker 1: It went down in flames. So it it typically and I appreciate Dan Patrick over in the senate because he pretty much guaranteed that as long as he's gonna be the like like of and hopefully, Brandon Creighton will will come in after him, will do the same thing. I think he will, but I don't think it has a future in Texas, thankfully. Gambling. Gambling. And I wanna be clear on this. Casino gambling. Again, you wanna have card games at your house, invite people over and Speaker 0: Of course. No. I don't I don't care. Bringing in casinos. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. That's so where was Dan Patrick on this? Did he Speaker 1: He killed it over in the senate. Speaker 0: Okay. So he's lieutenant governor. And where was Crenshaw? Speaker 1: Silent. Really? And that's the and that's the problem is that, you know, there's so many there's so many things that are threatening Texas right now, and Dan Crenshaw has been absolutely silent. So in 2000 and it was 2014 when Abbott became governor, when Ken Ken Paxton became the attorney general. Those guys won with twenty three and twenty four point margins over the Democrats. We're winning now with eight point margins. Where did where did the margin go? Where did where where did these huge wins go, evaporate to? And it's not people moving into Texas. Seven out of 10 of them Tucker, Texas is still red from people moving into it. Republicans that are refugees, if you will. Where we're losing is our children. Of course. Our kids. Our our kids are being absolutely indoctrinated in the classroom. Speaker 0: And immigration. I grew up in California. I was at Reagan's last rally in California in 1980, and it was a right wing state. It was California was a mean, I Bill Clinton lost California in 1992 and won West Virginia in 1992. So, like, peep and now California is, of course, bright blue, and West Virginia is bright red. Why is that? Because California is a completely different state due to immigration, and West Virginia has had less immigration than the other state. Speaker 1: Yeah. The the the the big problem, is that politicians like Dan Crenshaw refused to take on the teachers' unions. They refused to stand up to the teachers' unions. Why? They're afraid of them. They spent tons of money, and Randy Weingartner and her ilk scare the heck out of these people. Speaker 0: So Crenshaw is afraid so he's like Speaker 1: I mean, it's the only thing I get. I you can't I I there's been zero activism on his part whatsoever at at standing up to these people. Speaker 0: You hate ever to suggest that someone's doing something for the money. Right. But in Crenshaw's case, like, his position on Ukraine is so far out that it's obvious to me he's being paid to have that position. But you tell me, is sending a 100,000,000,000 more to Ukraine are Ukraine's borders are these, like, really huge issues in your district? Speaker 1: It's the border is the biggest issue. The US border. The US border. And when you ask people, and this is not anecdotal, it's empirical, there have been plenty of people polling in Congressional District 2 in Montgomery County. Why? Because it's the biggest red county left in Texas. The governor polls it. We poll it. Other people are polling it. And it's people see the contrast between the way Ukraine is being taken care of and the Texas border is not, and they draw contrast, and they should. It's kind of that simple, isn't it? Speaker 0: Yeah. Where's Karl Rove on this question? Speaker 1: You know, I think a lot of these guys are just big government neocons that don't care. They don't see it as a threat at all. At all. Speaker 0: Do you ever see Rove around? Never. But he still has a hand in Texas politics? Completely. Do you ever talk to Crenshaw? Speaker 1: The last time I talked to him the last time I talked to him was at at that town hall three years ago when he dismissed myself and senator Creighton for not accepting and not, you know, wholeheartedly buying into this crappy senate bipartisan bill that they wanted to push through. And and, again, they blamed president Trump who was out of office at the time saying, you know, Trump is just torpedoing this thing, and they're all angry about it. And Trump was just saying, you don't need legislation to close the border. Right. You just need to have the will to do it. And, now Dan Crenshaw and a 100% of the Republicans or a Democrat a 100% of the Democrats in Congress said, no. We need this legislation. No. You don't. Close the freaking border. Speaker 0: Who who among Texas elected officials supports Crenshaw? Speaker 1: You know what's funny is when the day we announced, we had, I think, 30 of the most conservative members of the Texas legislature that endorsed me, and he came out with a list of people to endorse him, Not one single member of congress was behind him. Not one Really? Not one active congressman came out to endorse him. Speaker 0: Do you ever talk to members of congress about him who work with him? What do they say? Speaker 1: I'm I'm not gonna comment on that. I just Yeah. I can't. I just can't. Speaker 0: Okay. I understood. But it sounds like he's not a favorite among his colleagues. Speaker 1: Yeah. I so a lot of you know, I I came in when I came into the legislature, I came in with one of the biggest classes in in in since the Sharpstown Scandal in the seventies, I think there were 42 people in our class, and many of them have gone on to serve in in congress in Washington. And I have a good relationship with all of them. Speaker 0: Yeah. But Crenshaw doesn't sound like he does. Is he close to Cornyn? Speaker 1: You know, I don't know if they have a relationship or not. I know that Cornyn is supporting him for obvious reasons, but Speaker 0: that's about it. What are those reasons? Speaker 1: Well, just they're they're both donor class lobbyist centric people. We're called representatives because we're actually supposed to represent the people that vote us into office. And there are just some that just don't give a flying flip about Speaker 0: those people. Well, in Crenshaw's cases, clearly, he's hostile to them. Yeah. So it's not just you that he's snapped at for asking a question. I wanna play a video, and maybe you can explain what we're watching. A young girl comes up to him, she looks very young, in the video, and asks him about comments that he made about Jesus during a podcast. Can before we play this, can you tell us what the backstory? Speaker 1: So he was on a podcast, and Dan wants to show himself off as this intellectual. Speaker 0: Dan Dan is dumb. No offense. And I'm not being mean. By the way, my dogs are dumb, and I and I think they're going to heaven. I have no I don't think that's a moral category. I'm not attacking him, but he is dumb, like head injury dumb. And I don't anyway, sorry. Sorry to be mean. Speaker 1: No. I I I think I actually think he's I'm gonna disagree with you. I think he's incredibly smart. I think he's vacuous when it comes to wisdom, though. Speaker 0: Maybe that's what I'm referring to. Yeah. Speaker 1: So I think he knows a lot. And when I've sat and listened to some of his podcasts and some of the different things, he's a really smart guy, but he completely lacks the wisdom to know what to do with all those smarts. Yeah. And so he's doing this podcast with this guy, and they're talking about he brings up, well, the American people need archetypes. Spider Man, Superman, and Jesus Christ. And he says, and then real ones too, like Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln. And they're like, what? You just you just actually said Speaker 0: Jesus Rosa Parks is real. Jesus is not. Speaker 1: Jesus is not. And so this Speaker 0: this That's a Karl Rove position, I think. Speaker 1: I probably. I I saw it on Wikipedia. Yeah. Let's be real. So this young woman at the Montgomery County Tea Party on a Monday night asks Dan Crenshaw. She said, I'm trying to get my arms around this. And then she read the statement verbatim of what he had said on this podcast. And he said, I can't get my arms around that. And he said, you put a period after Jesus and don't question my faith. And the whole place just lost it. So let's play that. Speaker 0: You Speaker 2: not only lied about Jesus not being real, but you lied about being a Christian. To give context to anyone who hasn't heard, Crenshaw said, quote, the most important thing here is that we have important hero archetypes that we look up to. Jesus is a hero archetype. Superman is a hero archetype. Real characters too too. I could name a thousand. Rosa Parks, Ronald Reagan, end quote. I can't wrap my head around this. Speaker 3: You're all I'll help you. Put a period of Okay. The word Jesus and don't question my faith. Speaker 1: Wow. Wow. A Speaker 0: 10 year old girl. So I think it's it's fair to, you know, to to not wanna be attacked for your faith. Okay. I I I'm with Crenshaw on that. But she wasn't really attacking him on the face. She was asking, like, what do Speaker 1: you She wanted clarity. Speaker 0: What do you mean? Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Clarity. Like, have you ever said anything you're like, I could have positioned that differently. Speaker 0: Have I ever said anything? That's what I'm saying. Speaker 1: I get asked that all the time, especially I'll come home. My wife will be like, did you mean to say that? I'm like, okay. What should I have said? Right. Right? Oh, I've lived there. Like, okay. Yes. Honey, that makes sense. Right? But but and so you just say, wow. I guess I coulda handled that differently. I get I'm that's not what I meant. You I woulda put a period after Jesus, and then I woulda shut my mouth and laughed and laughed it off. Totally. But instead, got all defensive at this young woman and tried to ridicule her. Speaker 0: Oh, he attacked her, like, instantly. Yeah. So the first amendment is the one truly distinctive thing that makes America America. It makes this country great. You are a citizen. That means you can speak openly and honestly without fear about what you actually believe. The government doesn't own you. You own the government. That's the premise. And for two hundred fifty years, we've lived it. We hope to keep living it. Our sponsor, PureTalk, understands how important this has a central it is. So if you wanna support brands that defend freedom and American values, we recommend switching your wireless service to PureTalk, which is way cheaper and uses the same towers the other guys use. It's the best. We know what you're thinking. Of course, giving business to companies that share your value sounds nice, but at the end of the day, you don't wanna spend more for the privilege of buying products from a company that loves America. Well, you don't have to. PureTalk's plans start at just $25 a month, $25 for the same 5gcom coverage the other companies provide, literally the same cell towers. And you support a business that believes in this country and creates jobs here in this country. If you're interested, visit puretalk.com/tucker to switch to our wireless company, the one we use, Pure Talk. Right now, you save an additional 50% off your first month. Again, puretalk.com/tucker. So what you're seeing on display there is a fragile, very unhappy, and above all hostile person. I mean, why would a person like that wanna be in elected office in the first place? Speaker 1: I don't know because you are the reality is that you are the center of scorn. You know? You just are. You Of course. You're gonna take some hard positions, and you're gonna get shot at. Of course. Speaker 0: So how did that video go over in Texas? Speaker 1: It went viral, like, overnight. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: And the next morning, it was on all the different radio talk shows and yeah. Went over like a lead balloon. But and and not at no time did he ever say, well, I handled that. It was a bad night for me. Probably shouldn't have said that. That was silly on my part. Right? I mean, there's just no ability to be gracious and kind to that young woman even in the absence of in seeing whatever what happened. Nothing. It was just bizarre. Speaker 0: I wanna play one other clip that I think reveals a lot, not just about his temperament, but about his agenda. So he was asked by a reporter whom I respect, called Liam Cosgrove, well, coming out of Congress, this was earlier this was the spring, early summer, and he was asked about legislation that he had voted for. And basically, position was the intel agencies are not in any way playing in American politics. Here's the exchange. Speaker 3: With data and with access to your, you know, app that you're addicted to, you can vastly manipulate an entire population, which the Chinese have done. Speaker 4: Are you worried that our intelligence agencies are doing the same thing domestically? Speaker 3: Am I worried that and I'm well, I know that they're not. Speaker 4: They're not manipulating Americans? They're not Speaker 3: Yes. Controlling a Speaker 4: flow of information? Speaker 3: Yeah. Did you have some evidence otherwise that you'd like to share? Speaker 4: I mean Okay. Speaker 3: Before the 20 any serious questions? Speaker 4: Congressman, you asked for an example of The US intelligence agencies meddling in our information. What about before the twenty twenty election when 50 members came out and said Hunter Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Does that count? Speaker 3: No. Because, I mean, they were they were retired. Speaker 4: They were retired, but but the FBI program. The FBI had the laptop for over Speaker 3: a year. Nothing even close to my TikTok. Speaker 0: So that, I felt again, I've spent the last half an hour sort of defending Crenshaw in a backhanded way. I think he's a victim of the war on terror, if I'm being honest. That's what I think. He's clearly so damaged and screwed up and tragic personal life and all the rest. But when I saw that, I thought this is, like, not a good person, actually. Speaker 1: The the most egregious thing about that is that as I talk to friends in DC, they see this, like, on a daily basis. Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Sweet. See what? Speaker 1: This is the deep state. This is the deep state Speaker 0: at at work that he's denying exists. The intel agencies playing in American politics. Speaker 1: Right. So what the left has done is they've positioned this fourth branch of government so that even when they're not in power, they're in power. Yes. That's what they've created. They've created a system whereby so you lose congress, you lose the White House. We don't care. They don't care because they they have the fourth branch of government that that's still running the show. It's so blatantly honest or obvious. I had a quick little story. I had a I had a young woman, call me. She was referred to me by someone from Texans for Vaccine Choice. She transitioned, and she's transitioning she she bought into the lie that she was a male. And at 26 years of age, she's trying to transition back. And she called me Speaker 0: up and said And she's been shot full of hormones and the whole thing. Speaker 1: Hysterectomy. Oh, come on. Mastectomy. And when you shoot someone Did Speaker 0: a hysterectomy in her twenties? Speaker 1: No. Earlier than that. And the problem is when you put people on cross sex hormones, I'm getting way afield here, but it screws up their system. Right? Oh. And she's the most beautiful young woman. And but she has a driver's license with a male name on it. And so I just I called up the head of DPS, and I said, can we take care of this for her? And by the next morning, she had a new driver's license with her name on it and brought her to tears. Like, that's her identity now. Right? You can do things like that at the state of Texas level because we haven't turned the fourth branch of government into anything that can hurt people. It's been done at the federal level. Speaker 0: There's still democratic control too. Like, the people still have a voice as screwed up and corrupt as the state may be, and it is in my opinion. Yeah. There's still, like, possibility that you can make change. Speaker 1: Especially in the Texas Education Agency where you see a lot of this stuff, but you still can make change. Right? But at the federal level, like, if you were to call immigration or something like that, they'd laugh at you. Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 1: You're just a silly congressman. We don't care what you think. Why would they? Why would they? Right? And they do the same thing with the executive branch. They are just completely aloof. They don't care what we think. They don't care what the elected officials. They don't care whether a constitutionally elected person that holds office, they don't care what you think. Even though even though your your department may be underneath an agency that you oversee as a sitting member of congress, they don't care. Speaker 0: No. They're different. This is why Doge was a good idea. Yep. You know, really no one's until people are really fired, people who work for us, then there's no incentive for them Speaker 1: to But here's the problem, Tucker, is that we've got a responsibility, I think, as elected officials to say to the American people, this is going on. I see it with my own eyes. This is what's going on. Yes. And and guys like Crenshaw are like, no. I'm gonna defend it. Speaker 0: Well, how could you defend so how could I mean, he was asked specifically the intel agencies have basically nullified democracy because they are playing a role in American politics, a very big role, and that's documented. It's not a matter of guesswork at this point. We know that. And it's as you just said, anyone who works in Washington sees it every single day. So, like, if he's denying that angrily, what does that say about his role? Speaker 1: I mean, he was asked specifically about the Hunter Biden's laptop. Yeah. And it was called Russian disinformation by the intelligence community. Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Speaker 1: And he blew it off. Completely blew it off. Just like they blew off Biden's daughter's diary. Of course. Right? Speaker 0: Well, they put they put the people who had it in jail. Right. For the crime of having Ashley Biden's diary in which she said she showered with her dad and it screwed her up sexually. Speaker 1: How couldn't it? Speaker 0: That's what it's well, exactly. How couldn't it? But that was just they put the guy in jail for that. Speaker 1: I mean Right. Speaker 0: For having it. Speaker 1: Yeah. Or or, you know, the the the young woman and that was a staffer for Joe Biden when he was in the senate. Speaker 0: Oh, I know her. Tara Reid. I know her well. She lives in Moscow now because she's basically driven out of the country. Speaker 1: They destroyed her. Speaker 0: Oh, I I know I I know her well. Yes. That's literally but no Speaker 1: one cared. Heart just breaks for her. Speaker 0: Just Sweet woman too. Very sweet woman. Yeah. She had to leave this country, be away from her family, her child. I mean, it's it's and no one cared if feminist said not one word. Speaker 1: The same players in government don't don't treat Republicans that way. I mean, if it's only it's only people that say bad things about the the power structure of Washington DC. They're the only ones that get held accountable. Speaker 0: I noticed. Speaker 1: It's so sick. It's just so sick. Speaker 0: Alp is a pretty new company about a year old but we have a surprisingly deep and I mean subterranean flavor vault. We have a massive index, a library if Speaker 1: you will of archived flavors. All of Speaker 0: which have been approved by the fellow government. It's all totally legal. And so our archivists went down to the flavor vault last week and came up with a kind of sexy flavor, something I never would have thought of myself. They call it spearmint. Introducing Alp spearmint from the flavor vault. It's incredible. It's like a spear right to the heart of the flavor zone, wherever that is. Available now, alppouch.com. So why do you I just am fascinated by the very first thing you said when we sat down was, I have to confess my role in Dan Crenshaw's victory because he made this really compelling case that he was gonna fight the corruption in DC, and I understood that. Speaker 1: He knew what we wanted to hear. Speaker 0: But how why not, like, fight corruption a little bit? Why immediately start making excuses for the CIA controlling US elections? Like, why would you ever make excuses for that? Speaker 1: I can't I can't, for the life of me, get my arms around it. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I have a little bit I just have a guess. I don't know either. I don't talk to Dan Crenshaw, you know, directly. But there was this kind of amazing moment right after COVID when people started taking a look at the performance of various members of Congress' stock portfolios. And, you know, I personally know hedge fund managers who've underperformed the market. Right. And people who do this for a living, maybe billions, some years, they just don't you know, it's very hard to beat the market. But Dan Crenshaw did somehow. He made a lot of trades, including after getting classified briefings on COVID policy. And he was called out on this, and and he wasn't the only one. I mean, Nancy Pelosi famously. But Dan Crenshaw did pretty well, and, you know, I I don't think there's any evidence to suggest he's like a market expert. So, like, how exactly did that did that work? And this was his response. He didn't you know, he immediately started attacking anyone who asked him, and he said, you don't let us trade stocks. You don't let us make any money either. We haven't gotten a pay raise since 02/2008. So, I mean, I don't think members of congress are overpaid exactly, but they're paid multiples of what the average person makes, and they get a lifetime pension. So it's a pretty good deal and free health care and dental. So it's like he's clearly very focused on money. Speaker 1: He was vicious too about the way he said it. I mean, the the level of anger in his voice that he would be questioned about the way he's trading stock or what he gets paid. So the average Texan is paid $76,000. Dan Crenshaw is making a $174,000 of your tax dollars. He he's being paid by our tax dollars in Texas. Of course. And he thinks he should make more. Speaker 0: Well, for a young man too, the lifetime value of the package that he's he could which he's already gotten because he's already served multiple terms. Right. So is many millions of dollars over the course of a life. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's crazy. Speaker 0: It is crazy. So, I mean, it does like, what what do you make of the stock trading? How did Dan Crenshaw beat the market? Speaker 1: Well, multiple people have talked about it, and multiple people over the years have said that we've gotta stop it because we have access, they have access to information that the average person doesn't have access to. Exactly. And it's really not a lot different in Texas. Again, we're the eighth largest economy in The United States. I see deals that are coming our way, and I could I could own stock in those companies, but my wife and I have choose chosen to stay out of the market. And for that very simple reason, Speaker 0: even You're not the market at all. Speaker 1: At all. At all. So I own real estate. I own some rental houses, and that's that's my retirement. But I don't want to be I I wanna avoid I want to avoid the appearance of evil. This has been an issue. This went all the way back. Do remember Eric Cantor? Very well. Eric Cantor was thrown out of office. Dave, I can't think of his last name. He's I know them both. Yeah. But, anyways, Cantor lost because of his defense and and voted against legislation, this is going back ten, twelve years, that would have stopped this. And the American people have just had enough with it. They they just have absolutely had enough of it. And I I don't blame them. It's just absolutely stupid. You're taking advantage of the system and enriching yourselves, and that creates a perverse incentive inside you to do the wrong thing and to vote the wrong way. Speaker 0: Why not? I mean, if you're Nancy Pelosi or if you're Dan Crenshaw, whose politics are very similar, by the way Dan's a liberal, I guess, if that's not obvious, I should say that. Yeah. Dan's a liberal. But, you know, both of them have taken a lot of crap for this. I mean, it's they've really been attacked for the appearance of insider trading. I can't call it that, but certainly what it looks like. Clearly, it looks that way. Why wouldn't you just just ban it, and then you can get rich when you leave, and you can go lobby for APAC or whatever he's gonna do? But, like, I don't I don't Speaker 1: The simplest thing would be to file legislation and then dump your portfolio or dump it into a blind trust. At the very least, if if if you're gonna say, okay, you can't own stock, at at the very least, we should be encouraging these guys to blop dump dump them into a blind trust so that they can't manipulate the market or manipulate their their own portfolio as a result of what they know. Speaker 0: Doesn't it make people cynical about their government? No. Speaker 1: That's the problem. I mean, I I think probably the greatest threat to The United States right now is the cynicism that we have towards our elected officials. Yes. We're so I think, especially conservatives, every time we hear lock her up, they're not gonna lock her up. Speaker 0: No. They're not. Speaker 1: Throw him out of office. They're not gonna throw him out of office. I am. They're not Speaker 0: gonna throw Speaker 1: him out of office. Liars. It's just we're so sick of it. And and this is going on here in Texas, right, as well with the quorum busters that while we were trying to do redistricting, they went to Illinois, and they went to California. And we heard lock them up, lock them up, and we're gonna lock them up, we're throw them it off. No one's gonna get thrown out of office. And it just it feeds the cynicism that we all rightfully have right now because it's so fake. Speaker 0: I feel like that cynicism is the most intense and the most dangerous among, like, patriotic normal Americans. They have really been betrayed. Oh my gosh. Because they really believed in I mean, frankly, everyone who got arrested on on January 6 was carrying, a pocket constitution. Like, these were people who really believe in this system. Speaker 1: Yeah. And yet you see people that were were part of rabble rousing in Washington DC that day that never went to jail. Speaker 0: Well, they don't even they hate the system. They wanna tear it down. Speaker 1: So I'm talking about the insiders. Speaker 0: Of course. No. No. I agree. But, I mean, someone like Crenshaw or Nancy Pelosi, they don't believe in the system. They're grifters, obviously. But, like, the people who do believe in the system and are the victim of this just serial decades long betrayal, those people and I feel like I'm one of them being honest. I'm it just makes me so mad. I can barely see because you feel like you're betrayed by your own leaders. Do you feel that? Speaker 1: Oh, completely. And it's harder because when you're in office, you're kinda like, okay. Because of what you're doing right now, I'm gonna get painted with that same brush. Speaker 0: Oh, so you I mean, you're in the Texas house. So Yeah. How often do you see that? Speaker 1: All the time. And, like, I'll post something about what's going on with the corn breakers right now. They're like, oh, you're a piece of crap. You, you know, you're gonna tell us what we wanna hear. And it's like, I I don't blame that guy for feeling that way. Yes. He should feel that way because our government has done nothing to bring the hammer down on these people. It's just all talk. Speaker 0: I I mean, it feels like we're getting to, a dangerous level of anger. I feel it anyway. I feel like I hate everyone, all these people, especially the ones who claim to represent me. They're just liars. Speaker 1: I know. Speaker 0: I'm less mad at Pelosi than I am at some Republicans who I formerly believed are. Speaker 1: More mad at us right now. I'm way more mad at at Republicans than I am Democrats. Speaker 0: Oh, I agree with that completely. Speaker 1: When I've look. Republic Democrats Democrats are like trail horses. Each one sticks his nose in the ass with the horse in front of him. Right. And Republicans are like mustangs. We're biting each other. We're kicking each other. Yeah. We're fighting. They work in lockstep together, and they take people out that don't believe in their radical views. There Speaker 0: was Speaker 1: a woman in the Texas legislature last session, Sean Theory, democrat, that voted with us and against the gender mutilation of little girls and boys. And the Democrat party re responded by running somebody against her and spending a million dollars to take her out. Speaker 0: Did they? Speaker 1: They did. They took her out. Speaker 0: For that? Speaker 1: For that. We, on the other hand, we try and take out members of our own party that fight for Speaker 0: our our values. I've noticed. Speaker 1: And it's just it's so sick. What is that? Here's the reality is that the the modern day Republican Party, when we win elections, we take office. When Democrats win elections, they wield power. They they fully believe in what they're fighting for. We just have people that want power, that wanna get elected. And it's it's sad because, like, don't you care about anything? Is there no holy discontent inside your soul that bothers you about what's going on in our country today that you're willing to fight for? Or are you just willing to play it safe so you can stay in office? Democrats fight. They believe in everything that they're doing. Speaker 0: What do you think the answer is? Honestly? Speaker 1: Yeah. I think we need a spiritual renewal in America, and we need to get back to our founding principles. And our constitution was meant only for holy and religious people. And we're we're starting to see our our nation and our society just fray and tear apart right now. And as a result of that, we're raising up people that should not be in office, that are serving, and have no place in serving. And within the Republican I'm talking about within the Republican Party. Speaker 0: Of course you are. Oh, I believe that, and I know so many of them. I've always felt like the problem was the, you know, what they call rhinos. I'm not even sure what a Republican is now anyway, so it doesn't even I don't know if it's I'm Speaker 1: not even sure what a conservative is. I'm not either. When Mitt Romney says I'm an extreme conservative. Like, what? What? No. You're an extreme conservative? Speaker 0: No. You're a you're a you're a guilty old lady. But it it now it feels like there are, you know, people jumping up and down about America first who are, you know Speaker 1: They're biding their time until Trump's gone. Oh, yeah. You feel that? Oh, completely. Speaker 0: Yeah. So among people you serve with in the in the house in Texas, how many are really sincere, do you think? Speaker 1: So 88 Republicans, 62 Democrats, and 67 of us got together and selected David Cook as speaker. Mhmm. And the balance the small balance Speaker 0: of This is the new the new speaker. Speaker 1: No. He should have been the new new speaker. Okay. After all, 67 of us got together. Speaker 0: Had the drunk guy. Speaker 1: Dade's gone, and we led there are four of us that led a revolt against Dade. Speaker 0: He this guy was actually hammered on the house floor. Speaker 1: It would appear from Speaker 0: It would appear. Speaker 1: I'm still getting I'm trying Speaker 0: to I have to Speaker 1: work with these Speaker 0: people. Let let me just say as a former drunk person, I recognize that. Speaker 1: Yeah. So 67 of us got together. We we started cobbling together this this coalition. We got it up to 67 people out of 88 Republicans, so more than a majority. Speaker 0: Yeah. Right? A super, super majority. Speaker 1: And then this little group of Republicans got together with all 62 of the Democrats, and they picked Burroughs. So, yeah, we have we have a speaker that was picked by the Democrats. Speaker 0: So the Texas house is overwhelmingly Republican, but it's actually run by the Democrats. Correct. Speaker 1: They're about 40. I would I would I would put the number at about 40 strong conservatives out of the 88. Speaker 0: But even a sort of tepid conservative, even a RINO, by definition, definition, wouldn't want the Texas house to be run by the other party Of Speaker 1: course not. Speaker 0: Yet they do. Speaker 1: Do you think the Democrats would abide by this? Do you think the Democrats, if they were in the majority, would include any of us on their team? No. Of course not. Elections have consequences. Speaker 0: And, also, the people should have a say. So if the majority of the state votes for Republican leadership, you should have it because that's called democracy. It's about responding to what the citizenry, the owners of The United States want in the administration of their government, and they're getting, once again, the opposite of what they voted for. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: And on every issue, they get the opposite. There's never been one public opinion poll in the last two years that said, number one issue for me is Ukraine, and yet all the money is going to Ukraine or to all these other foreign countries. It's like, why are we giving all this money to Egypt? Is there some are there a lot of people in your district who are like, we need to add add another billion dollars to Egyptian foreign aid budget this year? Like Speaker 1: It's big issue. Yeah. So lemonade stands and everything else. Well, working hard for Egypt. Speaker 0: I mean, what? So I just feel like well, let me ask you. Do you feel like we're at a point where people are becoming I'm feeling way more radical than I've ever felt in my life. Speaker 1: It's because no one's listening. Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Speaker 1: No one's listening, and we just after a while, you just get frustrated and angry over it. Yes. Speaker 0: It's the sincere people who are the most angry. Right? Because the cynical people never expected And and a real system in the first place. Speaker 1: The only skin that they have in the game is their patriotism. There's nothing financially in it for them at all. It's just love of country. It's just Tucker, it's just love of country. Yes. Speaker 0: So that's why I wanted to talk to you, and I and I'll just be honest. I think turn out to be one of the most sincere, thoughtful politicians I've talked to in a long time. Speaker 1: Just because I'm not a politician. Speaker 0: Yeah. So Speaker 1: I'm I'm glad my wife, when when you hang out with me, my vet will be like, you know, you can't hang out with Steve if you call him representative. Speaker 0: Well, but the real reason I wanna talk to you is I don't want Dan Crenshaw to get reelected, not because I hate Dan Crenshaw or think he's actually gonna make good on his promise to kill me. I don't think he's gonna. It's not personal. It really isn't. It's just that if you keep electing people who are transparently corrupt and insincere, like Dan Crenshaw, then after a while, like, your your country falls apart. Not because he's so bad, but because it's such an obvious lie. I guess that's what I'm trying to express. Do you worry about that? Speaker 1: I I think it's I think cynicism is is the greatest threat to our country. Yes. And scripture says where where there is no hope people perish. Yeah. And that's where we're at today in America. I think one of the things that I love about Trump, and I think the reason why people have overwhelmingly flocked to Trump, is Trump leads with actions and not words. He he he leads with words to to to capture the news cycle. Right? Yes. But he doesn't use those words to do anything other than to throw the mainstream media off. He leads with action, and that's what we want out of our leaders. We want people that are gonna lead with action and not rhetoric. We're tired of the rhetoric. Absolutely tired of the rhetoric. It's hollow. It's empty. It's useless. Speaker 0: Incumbents almost always get reelected, especially from Republican districts, it feels. Maybe not especially, but they definitely Republicans, bad Republicans. I know. John Cornyn, multiple terms in the Senate. I can think of probably another 40 Republican office holders. It's like, how did you get reelected? Particularly in Republican states. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: You know? And Idaho and this all through the the Deep South, they reelect people with literally with Alzheimer's. It's crazy. How hard will it be to unseat Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 1: It's gonna be a lot of work. We've had a lot of people coming to my website, stevetoathforcongress.com, or to steve toath dot com. Both work. But it's been pretty cool. We've we've had people from all over The United States contributing the widow's mite, $10, $15. It's so it's so amazing. Yeah. And this is doable. But the biggest problem, Tucker, is that there there's there's just like this belief, well, they're they're a city member. They can't be beat. Yes. They can. We've proven it. We've we've seen it. We've shown it. That when you when you mobilize as a as a community against these guys, you can take them out. Speaker 0: Yes. I just think it it would be an important statement about democracy and that it still can work. I've wanted to talk to Crenshaw, put in a million interview requests. He will not do an interview, period, except with a moderator. Oh, that's hilarious. I'd love to talk to Clifford Asness, his main funder, the guy who's, like, publicly defended short selling, sleaze true sleaze ball. Of course, he would never talk to me, but I would like to I would just I would like to know how someone like Crenshaw could get reelected. Like, who would support him? Do you feel support for him in the district? Speaker 1: It's not there. Just it's not there. So we did we did a meet and greet in his neighborhood on Saturday, and the place was packed. Speaker 0: In his neighborhood where he lives? Speaker 1: Neighborhood where he lives. And it was just I walked away so encouraged with the support that we got, and it's just it's really exciting. It's gonna be a lot of work. I mean, you know, he outspent his opponent two years ago, a 120 to one, and the guy got 42% against him. And so when that happens, there's blood in the water, and it attracts a lot of people. But we're the only ones that have launched a really legitimate campaign against him where we're gonna be able to raise the money necessary. We're going to be outspent. We get that. Really? Oh, yeah. I mean, just the amount of support that he's gonna get from the lobby is just off the charts. But I can't ever think, Tucker, of a time when I haven't been outspent two or three to one in one. So we're we're okay with it. We're gonna beat him, and we're just gonna work really hard. Speaker 0: When's the primary? Speaker 1: March 3. Speaker 0: March 3. Yeah. So the district is overwhelmingly Republican. Speaker 1: Completely. Speaker 0: Okay. So whoever wins the primary Speaker 1: Will win the general. Speaker 0: Will win the general. How many people are in the primary, do you think? Do you expect? Speaker 1: We're we're pressing for roughly a 160,000 votes. Speaker 0: No. I mean, how many candidates? How many people are running against him? Speaker 1: I think they're about five in right now, five or six. Really? Yeah. And more will get in. More will get in. It just it happens. Speaker 0: And how does that work? Is it the guy who gets the most votes, or is it their runoff? Speaker 1: 50 You have to percent Yep. Or or it goes into a runoff. Wow. Speaker 0: So if you're Karl Rove or Clifford Esnes or some lobby, foreign lobby, you have every incentive to get as many people into this race as possible. Correct. Right. Speaker 1: Correct. But we're already hearing from people in it that have come to me and said, you've got the best chance of winning. I'm probably gonna drop out before the filing period. So the filing period hasn't even opened yet. You're just allowed to pick a treasurer and say that you're running for congress and make a statement, but the filing period hasn't even opened yet, and we think a lot of them are gonna drop out. I've got great relationships with a lot of the people that are in it right now. Yeah. And they feel like, you know, you've got the best chance to beat them, and we wanna help you. So Speaker 0: I I have I mean, the reason I wanna talk to you is because I haven't talked to lot of people in Texas about it just because I think it's so important to make good on your promises. If you say you're gonna put America first, you have to have people that are willing. First. Yeah. Amen. And we need it badly, so badly. And everybody I've spoken to has said you have the best shot at unseating him. I this is not directly related to you, but since you swim in the same pool, where is Cornyn's reelection right now, would you say? How would you assess that? Speaker 1: He he's in he is in real trouble. So we've been looking at his numbers as well. His numbers are not as bad as Dan Crenshaw's numbers, but they're Speaker 0: bad. How bad are Crenshaw's numbers? Speaker 1: He's at 43% unfavorable in Harris County, 44% unfavorable in Montgomery County. Speaker 0: 4444%. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. That's really high. Speaker 1: That's really high. And I think Cornyn's about three points below that. But that's still bad. Right? So, I mean, typically, people that have unfavorable numbers above 40% don't even run for reelection. Speaker 0: Interesting. So Cornyn, who hates Trump, obviously hates Trump Right. Has always hated Trump, he he's, like, sucking up to Trump now. Right? Speaker 1: It's sick. Really? It's just sick to watch it. Speaker 0: Yeah. What's he doing? Speaker 1: This is so funny. So a couple months ago, there's a picture in in acts of him reading the art of the deal, and it and it's just above it. It says, what a great read. And then and then Speaker 0: John Kernan, who's like, wants nothing more than to, like, be accepted into some club. Yeah. You know what I mean? And then, like Speaker 1: And then a month or two later, he's got a picture of him outside. There's a there's a a restaurant in Texas called Trump Burger, and he's outside the restaurant with the the marquee behind him. He's holding, you know, a Trump Trump burger in his hands. Way. Yeah. It's just so silly. Speaker 0: Cornyn who dresses like JP Morgan vice president. You know what mean? He's like a big Trump guy now. Yeah. Do people fall for that? No. No. They don't. So he's running against Kim Paxton. He's in the race. Are there others? Speaker 1: That's it so far. That's it right now. You gotta think Speaker 0: I mean, I'm so Karl Rove tried to take out Ken Paxton, your attorney general, in a in a I mean, tried to put him in jail, basically. Helped run this impeachment against him trial. Is he involved in the senate race, do you think? Speaker 1: I think he will be. He was sure involved in trying to take Kem Paxson out. There is no doubt about it. Speaker 0: Not just take him out, but imprison him. Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. So that impeachment was the biggest scam. Should have been the biggest embarrassment is I think it is the it will go down in history as the biggest embarrassment of the Texas legislature at the Texas house. And I was so proud of the way the Texas senate stepped up very seriously deliberate deliberative. Every every single charge against him, they put it to the test, and we rushed. We literally rushed it through in twenty four hours. We were given we were given this 60 page document to read of the charges against Paxton. No witnesses were called for their side. None of the none of the witnesses were sworn in, which is a violation of the Texas constitution. This is exactly what Karl Rove and Eric Holder did to the Alabama pro life governor twenty, thirty years ago. They took him out, threw him in jail. And it it was later found out to be all, you know, all all nothing. It was a big nothing burger, and he was set free, but it destroyed him. Right? It destroyed his life. It destroyed his political career. It took everything away from the man, and they tried to do the same thing to Ken, and it was just absolutely Speaker 0: And Ken's real sin, even if you disagree with Paxton, you have to say he's been very effective. Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. He's been incredibly effective. Right. Speaker 0: So that's that's the crime right there. Speaker 1: That is the crime. Speaker 0: It's not just getting up and being like, oh, I'm a war hero. I have an eye patch. You know, I'm gonna drain the swamp. But actually doing something. Speaker 1: He actually did it. And Kent, you know, like to know Kent is to know that Kent's not like the most articulate, charismatic speaker in the world. No. He's anything but that. And Speaker 0: so I like him more for that, actually. Speaker 1: I know. It just he bleeds with his actions. Interesting. Speaker 0: It sounds like how influential are the Bushes still in Speaker 1: Texas politics? I think they're very influential. Speaker 0: Still? Speaker 1: Still. Yep. But I think it I think it mainly it's mainly through Karl Rove. They don't support the president. They refuse to support Trump, which is an embarrassment, should be an embarrassment to them at their lack of support and everything that he's doing for our country right now. How can you look how can't you look at everything that Trump is doing right now and say what he's doing with the border, what he's doing with Doge, what he's doing with public education, and on and on and on. And look at it. How did you not look at that and just say, wow. This is all the crap that you guys said you you were going to do. He just did it. Like, you said you wanna do away with Department of Education because of the way they're destroying public education in America? He's he's doing it. You wanna root out the corruption through, these government agencies that are blindly giving money to other Democrats so that they can they they literally are funneling and laundering money through the United States government, these these different organizations that that Doge has uncovered more I mean, specifically USAID. Right? Yep. USAID was the piggy bank for the Democrat party in act blue, and that's why the Democrats are angry about it because you took their funding source away. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew that that was going on. Trump's the only one that had the stones. Get up and and just do it. Do you not care about America? You don't care about America. These politicians don't care about America. They call themselves Republicans. They don't care about the republic. They care about sustaining power and keeping their own little clique in control. That's all they care about. Speaker 0: What's it like to go to work in the Texas state house? Speaker 1: You know, was it Truman then said, if you want a friend, go buy a dog? Yeah. It's kinda like what it's like. And it's it's hard. It's difficult. And so I've been I've been blessed in that I I don't go there alone. I don't I don't live alone. I don't go anywhere alone. They'll destroy you if you live alone. They'll accuse you they'll accuse you of everything and anything. I live this past session with Nate Shasline. Nate's Speaker 0: a Wait. Wait. Wait. Back up just for one sec. Sure. What do you what do you mean if you live alone? So your session is how how long is the session? Speaker 1: We're in session for five months every two years. Right. January through May, then specials. Speaker 0: So you live North Of Houston, but you have to go down to Austin for the session. You gotta live there. You gotta live there. If you live alone, they why does it matter if you live alone? Speaker 1: Oh, they'll accuse you of something, or they'll set you up with something. Weird sex stuff. Speaker 0: Yep. For real? Speaker 1: For real. And I'm convinced that's why a lot of guys have gotten into trouble. Individuals that I know that came there with the best intentions to do the right thing and now are just part of the problem. Speaker 0: Are you serious? Speaker 1: Completely. Of course, you are. Speaker 0: Yeah. I yeah. I guess I should I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Also, it's not it's not wise for a man to live alone for five months. I mean Speaker 1: It's not. It's just it's it's stupid. Speaker 0: It is stupid. I totally agree with that. Let's let's stop lying Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: About the way men are. Wow. That's so is that widely known? Speaker 1: Oh, I think it is. Yeah. I mean, you there's a, you know, there's a lot of gossip and stuff, but, you know and and I feel badly because I I feel like there are some really good people that get accused of it where it's not true. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: And I feel badly for them, but that's, you know, that's what you sign up for when Speaker 0: you go to Texas. Means of control. It's a leash that someone is yanking to keep people in line. Speaker 1: Yep. Completely. Speaker 0: And so you think there are people who arrived with the intent of doing good, joining the swamp Yeah. Representing their constituents who were caught up in some sort of immoral behavior, and that has been used as leverage against them? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. I believe that completely. Really? So I just I make a point of just I I don't, you know, if if I if I go to an event, I don't I don't drink. I quit drinking back in 02/2019. It didn't serve me. Yes. It doesn't do anything for you. I, you know, I my wife and I would have a glass of wine or two at dinner, but I just completely gave it up. Speaker 0: Oh, you weren't like a slobbering drunk. You Speaker 1: just No. I'm a cheap date. Yeah. So I just no. I just but I I never wanted to be seen with, you know, with beer or wine in my hand. It just it it doesn't serve you at all in any way, shape, or form. Speaker 0: I agree completely, strongly. Yeah. Good for you. So but you but when you showed up in Austin for your first session, you were aware that you could be subverted? Speaker 1: I I don't think I was as aware then. You know, you'd heard about stuff. Is that really true? That can't be true. These guys are really good. They're Republicans. They wouldn't do that. I was completely naive when I first came in. Like, 40 of us showed up. We had this group called the no name group. We're like, they're gonna be so happy that we're here, and they're gonna love us. Speaker 0: Otis, he loves us. They're gonna Speaker 1: love us because we're true we're fighting Republicans. They're gonna love us. No. They scorned us. Speaker 0: Really? They being the Republicans who were already there? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And then no time flat In fact, I can remember one of them said, we were called for such a time as this, quoting Esther, the book of Esther. Of course. And the reason why they hate us now this is what we this is what what one of them said, The reason why they hate us is because they remind them of what they used to be. And, like, I like, I look at most of those guys that said that and and shook their head like I am and say, yeah. And that's who you are now. You've you've caught you've turned. You're not with us anymore. How how long ago was that? That was in 02/2013. When I I I came in in 02/2013, served for two years, then I left for four years. And then I came back in 02/2019. Speaker 0: But the guys who stayed? Most of them went bad. Really? So what apart from sexual blackmail, which you've said is real and I believe you, what are the other means by which good people become bad people? Speaker 1: You want you wanna be effective, don't you, Tucker? You're here to serve your your district. You wanna be effective, don't you? Well, you're gonna be in the penalty box if you don't become part of the speaker's team. And if you're in the penalty box, you can't pass any legislation. And I'm kind of an outlier in that I get really lucky. Like, I passed some legislation. As an example, I picked up a bill to take on critical race theory, and no one had even heard of it when I carried the bill. And then a guy by the name of Dick Weekly from Texans for Lawsuit Reform heard about my bill heard about my bill. And Dick's daughter is is a passionate follower of Christ, Allison. Speaker 0: Dick is a good man. Speaker 1: He he and he got behind my bill. Yeah. And by God's grace and I care I I carried that bill in the eighty seventh session. We passed it into law. It was the best one in The United States. And so, you know, I got that done, and and it's like I came home and I said to Babette, I said, we didn't sell out. God proved to me that he could still use me, and I didn't have to sell out to do it. And I it just it made me more passionate that with God, there's a way to get things done, and he can still use you. You don't you don't have to sell your soul to these people. These people are evil. They don't wanna do the right thing. They're not concerned about doing the right thing. They're just concerned about holding on to power. Speaker 0: But it's interesting that they they say right to you, you wanna be effective. So they appeal really to your best instincts because you do any good man wants to be effective footballers. So it's they they don't come to you and say, hey. I've got, like, hookers and cash for you. They say, no. You we can help you be the person you wanna be. Speaker 1: Right. You wanna be effective, don't you? Yeah. In fact, a couple people that were going to vote with us left us at the last like, one one guy, he left he was gonna vote for David Cook, and he came in with me as a freshman. Speaker 0: David Cook for speaker. Speaker 1: For speaker. And the last second, he switched over and voted for Burroughs. I said, why'd you do that? I mean, I knew. And he said Speaker 0: He voted with the Democrats. Speaker 1: Yeah. I wanted to be effective for my district, and he ended up getting a chairmanship, committee chairmanship, which these guys love getting committee chairmanships. They love being called chairman. Outside their office, you know, it says Steve Toath, house district fifteen, and it shows the committees that you serve on. Well, for those guys, it's chairman. That's like a big deal. And these guys love, you know, the the being called chairman in the Texas house. It's just it's it's such a you know, it's just such an ego boost. Speaker 0: Do they end up getting anything done once they make that deal? Speaker 1: No. You pass some legislation, but you sell a little bit of your soul in the midst of it. It's a transaction. Speaker 0: And then you just become with time more corrupt once you've Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Been corrupted. Speaker 1: It's just it's a it's such a slow Tucker, it's such a slow process. For some guys, it happens a lot quicker than others, but it's it's a slow process where you just lose your soul. God. Speaker 0: That's so dark. Yeah. Does anyone ever come back? Speaker 1: No. I I can't even I can't ever think of a time when I've seen somebody that's gone over and said, wow. I blew it. I mean, I've seen I've seen guys that have had a bad vote that have come back next session said, gosh, that was a stupid vote. I was part of the their team, but they hadn't sold their soul. They just they made a bad vote. And then they come back the next session. Yeah. I've seen that. But none that have fully gone over, become chairman, and lost their soul and come back. Speaker 0: No. Have you ever seen a really honest man of integrity get rewarded for that, become chairman of a committee? Speaker 1: No. We're not. They they want you to become they absolutely want you to go there and lose your sense of conviction, your holy discontent that you you come there with to change. They don't want you to change anything. You're willing your your desire to change is what puts them in jeopardy of losing their their authority and their power. They cut these guys cut deals, and if you're if you're gonna push for legislation, if you're gonna push if I want I I wanna transform the way we do elections in Texas. So I want us to be able to audit. We have to once there's an election, you have to hold on to the data for twenty two months. But, unfortunately, Tucker, we don't have the ability to audit any of it. So why why do you hold on election material for twenty two months if you can't audit it to find out if there's been corruption? Speaker 0: So I I don't know. I'm just guessing, but I've just seen this a lot. Basically, that was legislation, I'm guessing, that was passed to protect corruption, but it sounds in the telling like a good government move. Like, it it was designed to expose corruption. So in other words, like, under my election integrity bill, every candidate will have to hold that data for twenty two months. What they don't tell you is Speaker 1: They can't look at it. Speaker 0: It remains secret Speaker 1: for two years. Yeah. And so myself and Paul Betancourt, senator Betancourt, have introduced legislation that the president supports, fully supports, and these guys know it. The Republicans all know it. But what's the piece of legislation that Democrats say when they're gonna get behind a speaker? They're like, there are these things that are not gonna pass this year. Toast legislation on on doing and Betancourt's legislation on on doing audits and the transition of kids. So, like, I had a I a bill this year, house bill twenty two fifty eight. I think it was twenty two fifty eight. I had, like, 70 piece legislation. But they sent it to Ken King's committee where Ken King killed the bill. I had three members of his committee that became joint authors on the bill to stop the social transition of children, and they never gave the bill a hearing. Speaker 0: Why would a Republican want to protect, like, the destruction of children through transgender ideology? Like, why would a Republican be in favor of that? Speaker 1: The they're I don't think they are. I think they basically are against it, but they compromise and say, the only way I can do good things for my for my people back home is if I maintain my chairmanship. And the only way I can maintain my chairmanship is to cut a deal with Democrats, and Democrats don't want this piece of legislation to pass. And so they kill it. They just kill it. But we turned it into an amendment, and we stuck it on a senate bill 12 at the end of session. And now social transition of kids is illegal in the state of Texas. Speaker 0: Nice. So Was that distressing to Republicans? Speaker 1: Here's the hard part about it is that we knew that we're gonna try and pass it as an amendment, And so I didn't make a big deal about it during session because I didn't want the Democrats to blow it up. I didn't want them to know that we're still gonna try and put it on something, so we just stayed kind of quiet. Quietly kept looking for the right bill to put it on. Found it in senate bill 12. We worked with with Brandon Craton to make sure that he positioned 12. It's different in Texas than it is in The United States in that if you're gonna pass legislation at the federal level on ice cream, you can't put something on it that has to do with bicycles. Right. They're not germane. In Texas, our legislation, the amendment has to be absolutely germane to the bill, and so we worked the senator Creighton quietly behind the scenes to make sure that when the bill came over from the senate, it it would. So if if that bill had come over from the senate with banning social transition of kids, they would have killed his bill. They never would have let that bill onto the house floor. The because the the the Rhino Republicans and the Democrats would have killed the bill in committee, or they would have killed it in calendars, and it never would have made it to the house floor. So the bill came over. We and I was able to put the amendment on it, and it it passed. Speaker 0: Wow. It's crazy that in an overwhelmingly Republican legislature, it's that hard to ban something as transparently evil. Speaker 1: Evil. Absolutely to the core evil. Speaker 0: Destroying children. Like, just destroying them. Yeah. So last question. I just want as a lover of Texas and, you know, some of a lot of family in Texas, I go to Texas a lot, I always wonder if the people who run the state, like, drive around the state. Just look around. Because the last time I was in Texas a couple months ago in Dallas, which is a city I really love, dirty. It was getting dirtier. I mean, it's just noticeable. And I guess some people do like, do they notice that the state needs attention? Speaker 1: Honestly, don't know. I Do people talk about that? No. Not at all. Uh-uh. Not not at all. Speaker 0: It's one of the reasons I dislike Crenshaw so intensely. It's like, do you notice that this is degrading? Like, the the physical environment that you live in is not as nice as it was ten years ago? Like, that's kind of a concern. Should it not be? Speaker 1: The hardest part of of Austin, Texas I believe Washington, DC is pretty much the same thing. The very first time I stepped into the Texas house, it was about a month before I was sworn in. And I had never met any staffers, had never talked to anybody, no one knew who I was. They said, representative, so good to see you. Another person says, hey, representative. Great to see you. I hear you're a pastor. I am too. Hey, representative. You're in this business. So and it's they start calling you representative. Right? And it's like they slowly Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: You know, they slowly pull you in. And I'm telling you, your ego digs it. Totally digs it. And after a while, you don't know who you are. You don't know where you are. You just know you wanna be part of that. Right? Oh, of course. And you become tone deaf. Speaker 0: But since the legislature is in Austin, it's the prettiest legislative building in the country by far. Speaker 1: Oh, I know. Pink granite. Speaker 0: Is that right? Yeah. When I first went there more than twenty five years ago to for work as a reporter, I was, like, shocked by how beautiful it was, how cool it was that had just been restored. And I was shocked by how great Austin was, The Driscoll Hotel and Yeah. And then I went back years later, it's like, you didn't there are, like, homeless people sleeping in the vestibule of the of the Driscoll Hotel. Sixth Street is dangerous. Speaker 1: Sixth Street is a mess. Speaker 0: But it was so cool. Yeah. So I'm not a Texan. I'm just a perennial visitor, and I noticed that. I wonder, do the people who go to work at the Capitol Building, do they notice that? Do they talk about that? Speaker 1: Yeah. We actually have Texas Austin has actually gotten a little bit cleaner. Speaker 0: Yeah. It has. I've noticed. Speaker 1: We passed legislation banning that. We said there are areas where you can't camp. Right? And Why should we be to camp on public land? You know? It's crazy. But the problem is that while we did that for Austin, nothing's being done about Houston. Nothing's being done about Dallas. Nothing's being done about El Paso. And so it's it's, you know, it's kinda like putting makeup on, and but at the end of the day, there's still a lot of scars underneath the makeup that are being hidden in Texas. Speaker 0: But what's more important than how your constituents are living day to day? It's I don't know what's more I don't know why Ukraine or any other country is more important than that. Speaker 1: I don't either. It's just it's a lack of putting America first, and I think people like to say America first. They they believe in America first, but what does that mean? Yeah. What the hell does that mean? Speaker 0: Just care about your own country more than any other country. Yeah. Well, I Godspeed, I really appreciate your coming, and I I the day that you beat Dan Crenshaw, March 10? March 3. March 3. Well, maybe on March 10, I'll call you to offer congratulations. It'll just be a good day for America. I mean, it'll just be it'll just remind all of us that the system can still work. Speaker 1: It can. It absolutely can. Steve, thank you. Thanks, Tucker. Speaker 0: We've got a new website we hope you will visit. It's called newcommissionnow.com, and it refers to a new nine eleven commission. So we spent months putting together our nine eleven documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks. People knew. Speaker 1: The American public deserves to know. Speaker 0: We're shocked actually to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in The United States. They knew they were planning an act of terror. Speaker 3: In his passport is a visa to go to United States Of America. Speaker 0: A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, to document the event. How do you know there would be an event to document in the first place? Because he had foreknowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on nine eleven, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks. They made money on the nine eleven attacks because they knew they were coming. Who did that? Speaker 1: You have to look at the evidence. Speaker 0: The US government learned the name of that investor, but never released it. Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't actually. And by the way, it doesn't matter whether there is or not. The public deserves to know what the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time and why was no one ever punished for it? Nine eleven commissioned the original one was a fraud. It was fake. Its conclusions were written before the investigation. That's true, and it's outrageous. This country needs a new nine eleven commission, one that actually tells the truth that tries to get to the bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing happened. Speaker 3: Nine eleven commission is a cover. Speaker 0: Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation into nine eleven almost 25 later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to newcommissionnow.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this, we're doing this because we really mean it. Newcommissionnow.com.
MdBreathe
Posted - July 29, 2025 at 7:54 PM
Saved - July 30, 2025 at 3:33 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I found myself locked out of my account until I agreed to delete a post, despite having no financial ties to LabCorp. I reached out to @grok for clarification on why this happened. I didn't want to wait days to regain access, so I took action. I noted that LabCorp's limits are higher than what I usually deal with. I appreciate the support from others in the community and am now even more determined to promote LabCorp.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

I do not have any financial relationship with @Labcorp but @X locked me out of my account until I agreed to delete this post. https://t.co/2g4zfgpLVt

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@grok why did my account get locked when LabCorp does not pay me anything to post about their company?

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@grok @grok are you there?

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@Waltika @Labcorp @X Because I didn’t want to wait days to get my account back.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@rockets4all2 @Labcorp @X An hour ago

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@octavianusausa @Labcorp @X It only goes up to 2500. LabCorp goes up to 25,000.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@nickolide @Labcorp @X 🫡

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@ConlustroR @Labcorp @X Thank you

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@m3owlisten @Labcorp @X 💯💯💯

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@ArcangeliJames @Labcorp @X Yep. And I will promote it even harder now.

MdBreathe
Posted - June 30, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Saved - June 30, 2025 at 11:11 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The look when @SecKennedy told Tucker we need more data on the Covid shots. https://t.co/LHSMu63mHz

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Twenty years ago, Bobby Kennedy was exiled from polite society for suggesting a link between autism and vaccines. Now he’s a cabinet secretary, and still saying it. (0:00) The Organized Opposition to RFK’s Mission (6:46) Uncovering the Reason for Skyrocketing Rates of Autism (13:41) How Big Pharma Enslaves Doctors and Profits off Sickness (24:22) Is It Possible to End the Corrupt Relationship Between Big Pharma and Corporate Media? (33:35) Will RFK End Vaccine Company’s Lawsuit Immunity? (38:37) The Most Damaging Vaccine in History (47:49) Will There Be Compensation for the Vaccine-Injured? (53:47) Did the Covid Vaccine Kill More People Than It Saved? (57:50) RFK’s Firing of So-Called “Experts” (1:01:58) How Big Pharma Makes Billions off the Vaccine Schedule (1:05:08) The Real Reason Fauci Got a Pardon (1:10:42) When Will We See the Declassification of the JFK, RFK, and MLK Files? (1:20:51) How Trump Is Transforming Washington Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discusses a documentary, "High Crimes," about the Chinese mafia's drug operations in rural America, available on TuckerCarlson.com. Kennedy claims that he faces opposition from the mainstream media and Democrats due to their knee-jerk reaction against anything associated with Trump. He asserts Trump dictates the Democratic Party's platform, citing examples like NAFTA, war, intelligence agencies, free speech, and women's sports. Kennedy discusses commissioning studies on autism, criticizing the CDC's past studies for alleged fraudulent techniques and failure to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. He says that the Institute of Medicine stated in 2001 that the link between autism and vaccines is biologically plausible. He plans to make databases public for independent scientists to conduct real studies, with initial answers expected by September. Kennedy alleges a system of perverse incentives in healthcare, where insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies profit from keeping people sick. He claims pharmaceutical companies heavily influence medical journals and incentivize doctors to prescribe their drugs. Kennedy states that pharmaceutical advertising has First Amendment protection, but it is misleading. He says that pharmaceutical companies are advertising the most expensive version of every drug. Kennedy discusses the 1986 Vaccine Act, which gave vaccine companies immunity from liability. He says that the number of vaccines has exploded, leading to an epidemic of immune dysregulation. He claims the CDC deliberately derailed studies on vaccine injuries and that scientific publishers won't publish critical studies of vaccines. Kennedy claims that there were more injuries reported from VAERS by the COVID vaccine than all other vaccines put together for the past thirty six years. He says that the Pfizer vaccine had a higher all cause mortality. He says that Zuckerberg was ordered by the White House to suppress anybody on his platform who mentioned vaccine injuries. Kennedy says that the recommendation has been removed now for pregnant women. He is not satisfied that mRNA technology is safe for people. Kennedy says that he fired the vaccine board because it was an instrument for the industry that it was supposed to regulate. He says that 97% of the people on that board had undisclosed conflicts. Kennedy claims Fauci was vulnerable and had a lot of liability on creating coronavirus. He was funding precisely that research at the Wuhan Lab. Kennedy believes his uncle was killed by a conspiracy. He says that his father's murder was never investigated. Kennedy says that Trump's cabinet is an extraordinary cabinet. He says that Trump is a deep multidimensional and thoughtful character. He is immensely curious, inquisitive, and knowledgeable.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, here's a story you probably haven't heard a lot about. The Chinese mafia is exploiting rural America to create a drug empire. This is not available on cable news. The network's not telling you about this, but it's totally real. Communist affiliated drug gangs destroying parts of The United States, the parts that Washington ignores, to sell drugs, laundering money and building a black market network inside this country's most beautiful but least served areas. We've got a brand new documentary on this. It's called High Crimes, the Chinese Mafia Takeover of Rural America. It's available now on Tucker Carlson dot com. It's excellent. The purchase of churches and schools to aid the operation, jerry rigging of power boxes to steal electricity, foreign pesticides, collusion with the Mexican cartels. It's it's unbelievable. By the way, one of the drug houses is, like, walking distance from my house. I didn't know that. It's a layered and fascinating story. Head to tuckercarlson.com to watch now. We think you'll love it. Mr. Secretary, thank you for doing this. I remember the night that Trump won talking to people in Washington, and their doomsday scenario, the thing that they feared more than North Korea getting the bomb, was you becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services. They really were afraid because they felt it was a threat not just to them, but to the whole business of the city. And I think a lot I mean, there's a reason they felt that way, and they probably still do. So what's that been like? What's the opposition been like, the organized opposition to your program? Speaker 1: Well, you know, the the irony is I'm not really getting opposition directly from the industry. Most of the industry wants things from this department, And we wanna get you know, we want American industry to profit. The pharmaceutical companies, everything else. And so and I think they know that, and they know that we're working with them. We're not. They also know they've been getting away with stuff up till now and that that era is over. I get opposition from proxies to the industry. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: And I can I I think the major opposition that I feel is from the mainstream media and from Democrats, which is really that is an interesting phenomenon because these were people I was friends with my whole life? And, you know, I am not changed, and my values have not changed, and the policies that I've been advocating have not changed. But the party has just a knee jerk reaction against anything that is Trump. And you know that that, you know, president Trump's in this kind of a really paradoxical position where he not only has completely taken over the the Republican Party and dictates its platform, but he's also dictating the platform for the Democratic Party. Speaker 0: I've noticed. Speaker 1: Oh, if, you know, if if I I remember I I saw this for the first time on NAFTA. Democrats traditionally were against NAFTA, and as soon as president Trump came out against NAFTA, all the Democrats, you know, were now for NAFTA. The Democrats were the anti war party, but as soon as he expressed his opposition to the Ukraine war, they became the war party. The Democrats traditionally were the biggest critics of the CIA and the intelligence agencies, and as soon as President Trump started complaining about the power of the intelligence agencies in Washington, they became bonded with the intelligence agencies to the extent where they had for the first time in history a former CIA director speaking at their convention immediately before Kamala Harris. They were the party of free speech, and they became you know, when president Trump started advocating for free speech and his ability to to talk, you know, the shutdowns of him on Twitter and and these other really crazy efforts to suppress his the speech of a former president. He became a, you know, a major advocate of free speech, and the Democrats are now openly for censorship. The Democratic Party was the party of women's sports. My uncle wrote title nine, you know, making sure that women had the right to and had the equal access to the resources that they could play sports. And and the Democratic Party has become, you know, the the party of that is that is now the enemy of women's sports. And you can go on and on with those those examples, but president Trump is literally dictating the platform of the Democratic Party. Anything that he says, they're gonna be against. And, you know, that is also a departure from tradition. My father was very critical of partisanship. I remember him telling us when we were kids, I I don't vote for the Democratic Republic. I vote for the person whoever is supposed best on the job. And and, you know, that partisanship by its nature is dishonest, and it is the enemy of democracy. And that in Washington George Washington's farewell speech, he said that. He said he was very scared of the frightened about the rise of the political party because they would become self interested rather than patriotic. They would be interested they would become interested in promoting their own agendas and rather than the agenda of the country, and he thought that that would that that was a real threat to American democracy and to the, you know, this great experiment that we have in democracy. Speaker 0: I remember your first break with the Democratic Party and with personal friends, even members of your family, was a Rolling Stone piece that you wrote about autism asking why have autism rates risen, and you were kind of written out of plagued society for doing that. One of the first things you did as secretary, I think, tell me if I'm misstating it, is commissioned a kind of study of autism. Can you tell us what that is? What are you seeking to do with that? Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you know, the the studies there there are a handful of studies that CDC has generated on autism. They were all epidemiological studies, And they all say what the CDC wanted them to say is they couldn't find a link. The problem is that the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, had said in 2001 that the link between autism vaccine is biologically plausible. And they were highly critical of the way that CDC was making decisions about the vaccine schedule, that it was, you know, the the the this group, ACIP, which is an external panel, which has the responsibility of deciding which new vaccines will be added to the schedule, that they had essentially been captured by industry. The people who serve on that panel, almost all of them, financial entanglements with the industry. And the Institute of Medicine recommended a litany, a retinue of studies, including animal models, observational studies, bench studies, and epidemiological studies. They said, You need this whole retinue to answer this question. The CDC never did those. Instead, it commissioned the creation of these six epidemiological studies, and none of them does what? All of them were they use fraudulent techniques. You know, they say statistics don't lie, but statisticians do, and epidemiological studies are very easy to manipulate. None of those studies did what you would want what you would do if you wanted to find the answer, which is to compare outcomes in a fully vaccinated group to health outcomes in an unvaccinated group. And CDC did that study in 1999. They brought in a team of scientists under a Belgian researcher named Thomas Verstraten, and they looked at the data, they looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life, and compare those children to children who had received the vaccine later or not at all. And they found an eleven hundred and thirty five percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. And it shocked them. They kept the study secret, and and they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link. And, you know, we know how they did it. They got rid of all the older children essentially, and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed. And they stratified stratified the data, and they did a lot of other tricks. And and all of those studies were the subject of those kind of that kind of trickery. And so what we're gonna do now and meanwhile, the external literature is showing, you know, over a 100 studies that show that there indicate that there is a link. But what we're gonna do now is we're going to do all the kind of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended, and we're gonna do observational studies, retrospective studies, and epidemiological studies. We're gonna do real science. And the way that we're gonna do that is we're gonna make the databases public for the first time. We've gone into CDC. We've gotten the data from CMS, which is Medicaid and Medicare. We're getting the data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is the biggest repository for HMO health records. So those records would have all the records of vaccination subsequent health claims, and you can do a cluster analysis and look at see if there's an association. But and we're going to do some in house studies ourselves, but more importantly, we're going to make this data available for independent scientists so everybody can look at it. And then we have already put out requests grant requests, the general scientific communities, so that any scientist with credentials can apply for a grant and tell us how they want to go about studying these. And so we're going to get, you know, we're going get real studies done for the first time, and we should have some answers by September, some initial indicator answers, and then it'll take over the next six months all these large studies by independent scientists all over the world. We anticipate there'll probably be about 15 different major teams who are all trying to answer this question. And within six months, we'll have definitive answers after September. Speaker 0: So you get home from work on a Friday night at your site because you finished the entire week of work. It's time to reward yourself, so you go to the snack cabinet. And ten minutes later, you've consumed an entire bag of chips, your typical American chip brand, and you feel like garbage. Of course, you do. You just stuffed hundreds of calories of chemically laced seed oil infused crap into your mouth. This is not a good way to start the weekend. And who hasn't done it? Cast the first stone. But there is a better way. It's called Masa chips, Speaker 1: and Speaker 0: we have mountains of them in our house. Actually, have so many. They're in our garage. We bring them in every day and hit them hard, and they're great, and you can feel good about eating them. They they're delicious, and unlike the rest of this country's corrupted food supply, masa chips have no seed oils whatsoever. In fact, they have almost nothing in them except a few basic ingredients. Check the label, and you feel the difference. So they're not bad for you, and they are delicious. So the total package, they're beloved by thousands and endorsed by nutrition experts around the country. Masa is the way to go, m a s a. Visit masachips.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order. Masachips.com/tucker, code Tucker. You're gonna love them. And is it your expectation that those answers will differ from kind of status quo understanding? Speaker 1: I think they will. You know, my opinion, I always tell people, is irrelevant. We you know, people, we need to stop trusting the experts. Right? We were told at the beginning of COVID, don't look at any data yourself. Don't do any investigating yourself. Just trust the experts. And trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion, and it's a feature of totalitarianism. In democracies, we have the obligation, and it's one of the burdens of citizenship, to do our own research and make our own determinations about things. Mothers, when they go shopping, they don't trust the advertising. A good mother does not trust the advertising. They don't trust what they hear. They do their own research, and it's much harder way to live. But, you know, that is one of the burdens of living in a democracy is that we, you know, we do our own research. We make up our own minds, and and that's the way it should be done. And we're gonna give people gold standard science. We're gonna publish our protocols in advance. We're going to tell people what we're doing, and and then we're gonna use data, and we're gonna publish the peer reviews, which is never published by CDC studies. We're gonna publish any time that we can the raw data, and then we we're going to allow and then we're gonna require replication of every study, which never happens at NIH now. That's something new that we're bringing in, is that every study will be replicated. Speaker 0: I thought that was like a basic precept of science. We can't know something unless it can be unless the experiment showing it can be replicated. Right? Speaker 1: Yeah. That that is a basic precept of science, and, unfortunately, it has the kind of science that was done by NIH. You know, NIH was the gold standard agency when I was a kid, but they stopped doing that. And it it incentivized a lot of cheating. And the reason it incentivizes cheating is that if you're a scientist, your career depends on how much you publish. And so if you have a hypothesis and you say, this is my hypothesis, this is the study that I wanna do, and you get a grant from NIH, and the hypothesis turns out to be wrong, you know, it doesn't it it the science does not support it. A lot of times, you cannot get that study published. That's science. It's science when you when you you know, a null hypothesis is science, and it ought to be published, but the the journals won't do it. And also the journals won't publish anything that is is critical of vaccines. They just they they won't do it because the there's so much pressure on them. They're they're funded by the pharmaceutical companies and they'll lose advertising, they'll lose revenue from reprints if they don't do that. So even Marcia Engel, who is a long time, I think twenty five years at the New England Journal of Medicine, she said, can't believe anything that's in the scientific journals anymore. Richard Horton, who's the longtime editor of The Lancet, is the same same thing. He says, we've become propaganda vessels for the pharmaceutical companies. And the pharmaceutical company, now you have to pay to get something published in these journals. And so the pharmaceutical companies pay for something. They give a you know, they hire these, you know, these mercenary scientists, we call them biostitudes, do a study that will validate their product and, you know, say that this statin drug works against heart attacks, and they'll mess with the data because they want it published. They're being paid by the pharmaceutical companies. And then once it's published, the the journal will make available preprints. The preprint is a little like a little magazine with the logo of the Lancet on the front, and it has that one article that says this statin drug works or this SSRI works. And then they have tens of thousands of pharmaceutical reps who will take those journal articles and go to every doctor's office in the country and say, you know, and they're usually, let me put it this way, hot looking women or, you know, and they'll Right. They'll go take the doctor out to lunch. They'll say, you know, why don't you start prescribing this drug? And they'll incentivize the doctor in all kinds of ways to do that. And so the doctors also have their own incentives, you know, prefers incentives. There's a published article out there now that says that 50% of of revenues to most pediatricians come from from vaccines. And then there's a whole structure where Blue Cross and the other insurance companies pay bonuses to the pediatrician to make sure if, for example, 95% of their if their clients are fully vaccinated, they get a huge bonus. It could be tens of thousands of dollars. And that's why your pediatrician, if you say, want to go slow on the vaccines, or I want to have a little different schedule, your pediatrician will throw you out of his practice, because you're now jeopardizing that bonus structure. And these are all perverse incentives that stop doctors from actually practicing medicine and caring for the client because they're looking at the bottom line. Twenty years ago, 20% of the doctors in this country worked for corporations. Today, 80% do. And that corporation is telling you, you know, we don't care what happens to your patient. Know, we care about how much revenue you're generating. And, you know, these doctors are coming out of medical schools with ginormous bills, and that will bankrupt them if they don't have a job. And so they're under tremendous pressure just to to keep generating those funds, and the whole system, as you know, is it's just a bundle of perverse incentives that, you know, that where everybody is making money by keeping us sick. You know? And I'm not saying that's deliberate or purposeful or or, you know, planned in any way. It's just the incentive system that everybody makes money. Insurance companies make money if you're sick, ironically. They make more money if the population is sick. And, you know, that may seem counterintuitive to people. And a guy said to me once who worked for AIG, one of the big insurance companies, he said I said I said, I wanna go with some data to AIG and show them that, you know, what they're doing is actually can show them on paper. What they're doing is actually making their people sicker, and and they're the one group that you would think would want healthy people because they'd have to pay out less. And this guy said to me, think of it this way. If you're Lloyd's of London and you insure all the shipping in the world, is it better for you if one ship sinks a year or if 500 sink a year? And I would say I I said to him, it's it's better if only one sinks. He said, no. It's better if 500 sink because then everybody has to get insurance. And what the insurance companies are collecting money, money is friction. Oh, they're taking a cut of the revenues that come through them. The more people that buy insurance, it doesn't matter what the claims are. If the claims are high, they just raise their premiums. And and the it's the amount of money that flows in the system that gives them money. So they're making money that way. The doctors are making money from keeping us sick. The hospitals are making money from keeping us sick. The pharmaceutical companies are making money from keeping us sick. Yeah. So every level of the system is is is incentivized financially no matter what your intention is as a doctor. If you're a doctor, of course, you don't want sick patients. But there's tremendous pressure from every angle of the system to actually you know, to keep us all sick, and we're now the sickest nation in the world. Speaker 0: Last year, we did an interview with a woman called Casey Means. She's a surgeon educated at Stanford. She's the nominee for Surgeon General right now. She really is one of the most amazing people I have ever met. The interview made me emotional. In it, she explained how the food that we eat, produced by huge food companies in conjunction with pharma, is wrecking our health and wrecking this country, making it weak and sick. She's the co founder of a health care technology company called Levels, and we're proud to partner with them. And by proud, mean actually proud. For real. Most of us are not metabolically healthy. Even worse, we're not aware that we're not. We have no idea where our health stands. As we speak now, we don't know how to improve it. With Levels Labs, you'll get insight into your health to help you understand where you are to measure and optimize your well-being. It is the best thing you can do to get a picture of where your health stands and how to make it better. The Levels app works with something called the glucose monitor CGM. And now the Levels membership comes with a 28, giving you a comprehensive view of your health with clear guidance on how to improve it. You can also get the extended panel, which gives you an even more detailed view with a 100 plus biomarkers, real time personal data, so you take control of your health for the better. You know what happens when you eat certain things. We just got word that Levels is offering this shows listeners annual memberships with an additional two free months through the website. The website is levels.link/tucker. That's levels.link/tucker, two months free. One of the reasons that there hasn't been much of a discussion you said there were signals in 1999 that there was a connection between autism and vaccines. The response from the American media was just to throw you out, take away your New York Times presence Yeah. Ban you from Rolling Stone, etcetera, attack you as a Nazi. You made the point years later that the reason that happened was because pharmaceutical companies are the single biggest source of revenue for a lot of media companies, and they're buying the protection with that money. Speaker 1: And that's another perverse incentive. Right? Speaker 0: Absolutely. I think we're one of only two countries in the world that allow that. Can that be stopped? Speaker 1: There are those that's a question that we are looking at right now, you know, and there's a bad Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago that that gave that essentially anointed pharmaceutical advertising with First Amendment protection. That there the First Amendment protects political speeches. So if you have you're saying something, you know, political, you should have absolute protection under the First Amendment. If commercial speech has a lower level of protection And and the pharmaceutical advertising was regulated as commercial speech, and it was until 1990, really around 1992, it was you didn't see pharmaceutical ad words. There was no direct to consumer advertising on TV. And after that, and then they there were new more changes made in 1997, that's when it became you know, it exploded. And today, Roger Ailes, who both you and I knew, you know, I had this very Roger Ailes, for your audience who doesn't know him, which I think most of them do, was the founder of Fox News. And I had this odd relationship with him because politically we were at loggerheads, but I had spent when I was 19 years old, I spent three months with him in a tent in Africa. And I and we developed a friendship then. And as you know, he was very, you know, he was a very engaging guy. He was very witty, really fun to be with, very paranoid, but at the same time, brilliant. Yes. And he and so he was very kind to me. He was a very loyal friend to me, and he would make Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto and all the other hosts, your former colleagues, put me on TV to talk about the environment. Even though he didn't agree with me on it, he made them put me on. So during the eighties and nineties, I I was the only environmentalist who was going on Fox News. But I brought him one time this this around I think it was, like, 2014, I brought him a documentary that we had done about mercury and vaccines, and he had he watched it. He was completely sold on it. He had a family member who had been affected, he felt. And he said, but I can't put you on because if I did, I if any of my hosts allowed you on to talk about this issue, I would have to fire them. And if I didn't, I would get a call from Ruper within ten minutes. And he said, for the evening news division, about 75% of the advertising revenues are coming from pharma. And then he told me something that, if I remember it correctly, he said that on a typical evening news show, there are 22 ads and 17 of those are pharmaceutical ads. And so this was the principal source of revenue, and for a lot of these television networks, it's keeping them alive. As you know, they're all, you know, kind of collapsing financially. Collapsing due to lack of Speaker 0: popular demand for their presence. Right. So could you end that? Do you have the authority as the secretary of Health and Human Services to say no more pharm ads on television? Well, Speaker 1: you know, a lot of the pharmaceutical ads are are misleading. Yeah. And and even the music and the and the, you know, the the the video, the photos, or the that they show, the scenes that they show are that's kind of speech, and it's misleading. It's sending a message. And if you take this drug, you're being gonna be riding jet skis and playing volley ball and, you know, water skiing and Have a great looking spouse. And then the side effects, meanwhile, are rolling, you know, at 80 miles an hour, and that's misleading. And so one of the things that we, you know, that we're we're looking at is is making them be more honest about what they what they show so that the the public is you know? And, you know, there's a form of sort of advertising. It is insidious for a number of reasons. That's why they they don't allow it anywhere else in the world. New Zealand has a very, very limited allowance of direct to consumer advertising, very, very highly controlled compared to us. It's nothing. People who come over here from England or Europe and watch our TV are shocked by what they're seeing on it. And it it's insidious because of this. The pharmaceutical advertisers are advertising the most expensive version of every drug. They're not gonna advertise the generics because they're not making any So they're advertising the ones that are the highest profit margins for them. And normally, if you see an advertisement on TV, like for Coca Cola, you then have a choice to go get that, and then you're paying out of your pocket for it. When somebody buys a pharmaceutical drug, it's it's Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it. It's us. It's the taxpayer. So they're advertising something to the consumer when the consumer has no skin in the game. And then the consumer and we're paying for the ads because they're tax deductible. So they're we're paying for them to advertise, the advertisements are getting people to buy drugs that may be ineffective, that may be the least effective drug of the ones that are available. And they go to their physician. The physician is is told by his boss who's the, you know, the corporate bean counter, you have 11 with each patient and that's it. And the physician then can spend that eleven minutes trying to talk the patient out of something that they want, and then the patient's going go away unsatisfied. Or the physician could just say, alright. You want this prescription. I'll write it for you. And then, you know, that patient is then gonna come back because he's happy. The doctors hate it. The American Medical Association has been against it for, you know, for thirty years, and nobody thinks that this is good for public health. It is hurting us, and it's distorting the markets, and it is not it's not a you can't even call it a a free market because everything's paid for by the federal government. Speaker 0: So here's a company we're always excited to advertise because we actually use their products every day. It's Merriweather Farms. Remember when everybody knew their neighborhood butcher? You look back and you feel like, oh, there was something really important about that, knowing the person who cut your meat. And at some point, your grandparents knew the people who raised their meat so they could trust what they ate. But that time is long gone. It's been replaced by an era of grocery store mystery meat boxed by distant beef corporations. None of which raised a single cow. Unlike your childhood, they don't know you. They're not interested in you. The whole thing is creepy. The only thing that matters to them is money, and god knows what you're eating. Merriweather Farms is the answer to that. They raise their cattle in The US, in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado, and they prepare their meat themselves in their facilities in this country. No middlemen, no outsourcing, no foreign beef sneaking through a backdoor. Nobody wants foreign meat. Sorry. We have a great meat, the best meat here in The United States, and we buy ours at Merriweather Farms. Their cuts are pasture raised, hormone free, antibiotic free, and absolutely delicious. I gorged on one last night. You gotta try this for real. Every day we eat it. Go to merriweatherfarms.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker 76 for 15% off your first order. That's merriweatherfarms.com/tucker. So if in starting in September when we start to see the results of the analysis of these massive datasets that you're putting out there in public, And if we if it becomes clear that there is a connection between autism and vaccines vaccines the government promoted, in some cases effectively required that's a tort. I mean, that means there are a lot of injured people who can now show they were injured by this product. How were they made whole? What happens to them? Speaker 1: Well, that's going to be complicated because in 1986, Congress passed an act, the Vaccine Act, the on National vaccine injury compensation program, and they gave the vaccine companies immunity from liability. So no matter how reckless the company is, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how egregious your injury, you cannot sue them. And that's one of the problems is and that actually is why we one of the reasons we had this explosion of the vaccination program. When, you know, when I was a kid, we only had three vaccines. And by 1986, the year the act was passed, there were 11 doses of, I think, five vaccines. And today, there are a a child to to to go to school in states like California and New York and many other states where you have mandates, the an American child now has to receive between sixty nine and ninety two vaccines between conception. So some of those are given to the mom during pregnancy and age 18. And the reason it's 69 to 82 is some of the vaccines have or or the different brands have different dose requirements. So some will require three doses. Some will require one dose. Some will require four doses. But that's a lot of vaccines for a kid, and each one of those is calculate is is designed to permanently alter your immune system. And so we have now this epidemic of immune dysregulation in our country, you know, and there's no way to rule out vaccines as one of the key culprits. And if you look at all of these diseases that have become epidemic, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, all of these seizure disorders, neurological disorders like ADD, ADHD, speech delayed, language delayed, tics, Tourette syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism, all the diseases. UNN, I never saw when we were kids. And suddenly, there this generation is damaged, is incredibly damaged by all these disease. The autoimmune diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, the allergic disease like peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, eczema. I did you ever know anybody with eczema? No. Right. So and now it's ubiquitous in every classroom. And all of those injuries are listed as side effects on the manufacturer's inserts of those products. Oh, we would be have to be blind and not say we have to look at this as a potential culprit. We have to do the studies that the Institute of Medicine has been telling the CDC to do for twenty five years. The Institute of Medicine old CDC in 2013, there are a hundred and fifty one a hundred and fifty eight injuries that are suspected to be vaccine injuries. Only thirty eight of those have been studied, and almost most of those, it was positive. It was yeah. This is a vaccine entry. The other hundred and twenty whatever, and I'm not doing the math in my head, but the others have never been studied. CDC's job is to study them, and yet it never studied them. And that was purposeful. And I'm not saying that out of speculation. I'm saying that because I've seen the emails. CDC deliberately derailed any study on that. And and if somebody does independent scientist does do a study, they can't get it published. The scientific publishers will not publish a study that is critical of vaccines. So we need to change that taboo, and that's one of the things Jay Bhattacharya is doing at NIH is we're gonna remove the taboo about talking about this issue, and we're gonna Speaker 0: be honest with the American public. It's pretty clear from the VAERSO self reporting vaccine injury system, federal system, that vaccine injuries with the COVID vax, like, jumped, you know, to multiples of what had been reported before. Speaker 1: Do There there were more injuries reported from theirs by the by the COVID vaccine than all other vaccines put together for the past thirty six years. And I'll I'll tell you something else. There's a lot of people out there who say, you know, this is part of the the the the consensus is you'll see this on every mainstream Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, all of these guys say again and again that the the link between autism vaccines has been debunked. Right? That it's been studied. But those studies that I was talking about earlier, the epidemiological studies, they only looked at one vaccine, the MMR, and one ingredient, Thyme aerosol. The none of the vaccines that are are administered to children during the first six months of life have ever been studied for autism. In fact, the Institute of Medicine said that they looked at this issue, you know, it hasn't been debunked. And they and they said, no. These studies have never been done on the vaccines that are the most likely cold bread, which is, you know, DTaP, hep b, and pneumococcal. The the vaccines grew up in the first six months. None of them he said the only one that has ever been studied is DTaP, which is diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. And they said that the one study that was done showed that, yeah, there was a link with autism, but we're not gonna count that study because it was based on the VAERS system, which is CDC's only surveillance system. And they said that system is too unreliable. So they what they were saying, the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, That's the only system that CDC has to study vaccine injury is so bad that any study done done on it, we're not gonna count. I'll tell you something else. David Kessler, was a very famous surgeon general, who you remember, and many, many, many other people have said that their system does not work and you need a new system. So in 2010, CDC designed a new system, and it was a machine counting system. The problem with VAERS, with the vaccine adverse event reporting system, is that it's voluntary. Yes. And so the doctor has to if he sees a vaccine injury, he's required to report it to VAERS. But there's no penalty if he doesn't. It takes him a half an hour to fill out the paperwork. So there's a big incentive for him not to do it. There's another incentive, though. He doesn't know if something is vaccine you get if you get a vaccine and then four months four years later, you come in with a food allergy, How do you know? Will any doctor in the world say that's a vaccine injury or seizure disorders? And the other thing is so they don't know, you know, what to look for. They've never been taught that at medical school. There's no course on vaccine injury in medical school in any medical school in this country. And then the other thing is he has a big emotional incentive because he told that mom to give that child that vaccine. And if the child has a seizure three weeks later and she comes back and and she says, I think it might be the vaccine, a lot of doctors will say, no. That's normal for that age, They're not going to call it into theirs. So CDC designed a machine counting system that would do essentially cluster analysis. They would look at the vaccine and then they would look at clusters of injuries that were unique or anomalous to that vaccine. And it was a very accurate system according to the, you know, the group that designed it. It was a team led by a guy called Lazarus. And CDC paid for the whole thing, millions of dollars, and it was a long term study. And they looked at one HMO, which was Harvard Pilgrim up in Massachusetts, and they did they did this this machine counting system for Harvard Pilgrim, and then they compared what the machine counting system had gotten, you know, had yielded and collected in terms of vaccine entries, and they compared that to what VAERS had collected during the same period at Harvard Pilgrim. And they said that VAERS was capturing fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries. And they had a system now that would capture over ninety five percent, and they were very proud, and they brought it to CDC and said our system works. Here's the data. The data showed injuries in about two point seven percent of of vaccines. Of all vaccines? Yeah. All vaccines. About two point seven percent. Wow. Which I think is something like one out of every thirty seven vaccines you get, there's an injury. And CDC saw that and said, we're not going to use the system. And they shelved it in 2010, and they've continued to use now for, you know, twenty two years when they know that it doesn't work, when it was designed to fail. We're going to absolutely change VAERS, and we're gonna make it we're we're going to create either within VAERS or supplementary to VAERS a system that actually works. Oh, and, you know, that right now, even that system is antiquated because we have access to AI. And one of the you know, we are creating here at HHS an AI revolution. We've been able to attract the the top people from Silicon Valley, people who've walked away from billion dollar businesses, and they don't want prestige. They don't want position. They don't want power. They wanna change. They wanna make the system work. And we're we're gonna we are at the cutting edge of of AI. We're implementing it in all of our departments. At FDA, we're we're accelerating drug approvals so that you don't need to use primates or even animal models. You can, you know, you can do the drug approvals very, very quickly with AI. And we're also implementing a CMS to detect waste, abuse, and fraud, which is it's extraordinary at that. But we're also gonna, you know, use it on the at CDC and and throughout our system to look at the mega data that we have and be able to make really good decisions about interventions. For example, if you look at the population as a whole and say, okay, we're using three different diabetes drugs with five different statin drugs or all these SSRIs and others. You can then look drug by drug, and you can tell on the population whether it's working or not and which one is giving you the best bang for the buck and which one has the most side effects. We have a potential now to use AI in ways that are gonna revolutionize medicine. You probably heard about Eight Sleep. Lots of people Speaker 0: are talking about it. It is a company with one mission, improving your sleep, And it's changing the way people do that, the way they get a good night's rest. We just got word that their team is launching a new product. It's called the Pod five. It's an original and innovative mattress cover plus a blanket that uses precision temperature control to regulate your body's sleep cycles and give you the perfect sleep, which really, really matters. It can range all the way from 55 degrees to a 110 degrees, meaning that you're covered no matter what. It's like electric blanket to the next level, but also a cooling blanket. So it makes you sleep better. Temperature has a massive effect on the way you sleep. By the way, it also detects snoring. And then it adjusts your bed position to reduce or completely stop it. So there are a lot of ladies in America who are gonna be grateful for this product. Everybody who works here will tell you, because they all use it, that there's no better way to be alert, productive, and happy than by sleeping well, and Eight Sleep really does help. Visit 8sleep.com/tucker. Use the code tucker to get $350 off your Pod five Ultra. If you don't like it, you return it within a month. That won't happen. We think you'll love it, but you can if you want. 8sleep.com/tucker. What about all the people who are injured by the COVID vax? There are a lot of them. I know a lot of them. Some died. Some were permanently disabled. Nobody seems to care. You never hear about them, and they don't seem to be getting any help. What will that change? Speaker 1: Yeah. That's gonna change. I mean, as I said, the big impediment is 1986 Vaccine Act. Yes. And so it's complicated about how we fix this, you know, so that we can get compensation to those people. We just brought a guy in this week who's going to be revolutionizing the vaccine injury compensation program, which is a program you know, when when congress or when congress passed the vaccine act and gave immunity from liability vaccine companies, it it recognized that vaccines were in the word of the in a in a in the description, the characterization of the American Academy of Pediatrics were unavoidably unsafe. And some people, like for every medicine, some people are gonna be injured and killed. And so it set up a program that's in the federal government called the vaccine courts, and they have a trust fund. The trust fund is endowed by a 75¢ surcharge on every vaccine. And that program is supposed to there's supposed to be a vaccine court that's supposed to be generous and fast and and give the tie to the runner. In other words, if there's doubts about, you know, whether somebody's injury came from vaccine or not, you're gonna assume they got it and and compensate them. And it's paid out over $5,000,000,000 now to about 12,000 people. And we're we're looking at ways to enlarge that program so that COVID vaccine injured people can be compensated. And we're changing the program so that, you know, we're we're looking at ways to enlarge the statute of limitations. It's only three years. A lot of people don't discover their injuries after that. And the there's no discovery in that program. There's no rules of evidence. The program has default into lawyers from the justice. You're not suing the vaccine company. You're you're petitioning the my agency, and it's represented traditionally by the Department of Justice. And the lawyers in the Department of Justice, the leaders of it were corrupt, and they were they saw their job as protecting the trust fund rather than taking care of people who made this national sacrifice. And we're gonna change all that. And I've brought in a team this week that is starting to work on that this week. So, you know, that's one of the things we're doing, but we're looking at everything. Speaker 0: What's the status of the COVID vax now? Who gets it? What are the recommendations, and why? Speaker 1: The recommendations now are children 18 are not recommended to get the vaccine, but they can get it if they want. You know, it's through a joint consultation with their physician. So it's available to them. There is an and, you know, that there there's a new version of the COVID vaccine that just came out. That was approved by FDA, and that vaccine is going to actually do real clinical trials. So and it's being given to people who are 65 years older or have, you know, profound, quote, comorbidities. But the agreement with the company is that everybody who takes it will be part of a clinical trial. So we'll actually get some real data. And as you know, there was just data chaos with the other vaccine. In fact, you know, the the Pfizer vaccine, when it came out, it should it it had a higher all cause mortality, so more people died in the placebo group. I mean, more people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group. I had twenty thousand people who got the vaccine, twenty thousand who didn't, and after six months, they looked at it, and there was twenty three percent more deaths in the vaccinated group from all causes than in the placebo group. And the the efficacy was kind of dubious because Well, yeah. There was only two people who died from COVID in the placebo group, and there was one person who died from COVID in the vaccine group, and that's the whole dataset they were were looking at. And so they said, you remember they were saying the vaccine is a 100% effective? Well, that's why they were saying it because there was a there was two two is a 100% of one. Right? A 100% larger than one. So that but that's what they had. But they were telling the American people is a 100% effective. And that when people heard that, they thought if you get the vaccine, you can't get COVID, which, of course, now we now everybody realizes was wrong because everybody got COVID whether they got the vaccine or not. And, you know, what they really should have been telling people is that in order to prevent one death from COVID, you had to give 19,999 vaccines. If any of those vaccines were killing people, you would cancel out the effect of you know, the beneficial effect. Speaker 0: Do you think the COVID I mean, net net, as we say in business just kidding. Do you think overall the COVID vaccine killed more than it saved? Speaker 1: My opinion about that is irrelevant. What we're gonna try to do is make that science available so the public can look at the science. Yep. And I would not say one way or the other, and the truth is I don't know. And the reason I don't know is because the studies that were done by my agency were substandard, and they were not designed to answer that question. And there's been a lot of obfuscation about covering up, as you know, about suppressing any kind of discussion of vaccine injuries. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg publicly said that he was ordered by the White House to suppress anybody on his platform, on Facebook or Instagram, who mentioned vaccine injuries. Oh, he was ordered by the Biden administration to and he said, you know, I he said, I was stunned. I was being ordered by the federal government to deny facts. Anybody can look him up on YouTube saying that. So and we know that too because I sued the Biden administration, and we got all this discovery documents that showed that he was at thirty seven hours after he took the oath of office swearing to uphold the constitution, he opened up a group in the White House who were whose job it was to suppress any dissent about, you know, this government policy. And I was the first person that they went after. Thirty seven hours after he took that oath, they were telling Facebook to take me off of Instagram, which Facebook did. I had almost a million followers, and there was no vaccine misinformation on there. I asked Facebook again and again, show me one fact I got wrong. Everything I put on there that, you know, was vaccine related was cited and sourced to government databases or to peer reviewed publications. And but they were you know, it was not it wasn't misinformation the word in fact, they had to invent a new word, which is because Facebook was saying to the White House, this isn't misinformation. It's actually true. And the White House said, well, it's malinformation. Malinformation, this is an Orwellian kind of construct, and, you know, malinformation is information that is factually true, but it is nevertheless inconvenient for for the government. And they, you know, they just all the people who are now running this agency were censored. OJ Botticelli censored. Marty Makary was censored. Doctor Oz was censored. Vinay Prasad was censored. We were all censored. I was censored. Speaker 0: I remember well. What's what's the status of the COVID vaccine pregnant women? Speaker 1: The recommendation has been removed now for pregnant women. Speaker 0: Are you satisfied that mRNA technology is safe for people? Speaker 1: I'm not satisfied. You know, again, you know, my opinion about that is irrelevant, but we will be doing those studies. And I would say there's a lot of skepticism in this agency about mRNA vaccines. Yep. You know, about mRNA technology, about the status of it now, about whether it's safe. And we do not you know, the safety studies simply have not been done, but there is enough anecdotal reports of people getting profound injuries that may or may not be associated with it, and we're gonna answer those questions. Speaker 0: What happened with the vaccine board? I keep reading you fired all these eminent scientists on the vaccine board. Speaker 1: Yeah. I fired all these what? Speaker 0: All all these important highly credentialed scientists. Yeah. Speaker 1: Well, we fired that board because they were it was an utterly it was just an instrument. It was a sock puppet for the industry that it was supposed to regulate. So, you know, they in fact, you know, and this was a long time coming, Tucker. In 02/2002, the government oversight committee and the United States Congress held hearings about that board, which is called the ASIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And they said that 97% of the people on that board had undisclosed conflicts. Many of them had disclosed conflicts as well. But they said that congress said that it gave an example. It said rotavirus vaccine was approved by that board, and there were five members of that board at that time, and four of them had direct financial interests in the rotavirus vaccine. And they were working for the companies that made the vaccine, or they were receiving grants to do clinical trials on that vaccine. They all had overwhelming financial interest. One of the people on that board was a guy called Paul Offit, and who is one of the big voices for vaccines that they CNN goes to him all the time when it wants to have vaccines. He voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule when he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. Because it's now on the schedule, he is developing vaccine. It's virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. It's a competitive product. But once you say rotavirus vaccine has to be vaccinated for, his vaccine is now guaranteed to get on the schedule. The one they voted on that he voted on, within a year it had to be withdrawn because it was causing this really disastrous disease in kids that is often lethal, called the intussusception, agonizingly painful when your intestines kind of tie up against each other. It kills children, you know, on on occasion. That vaccine was pulled the following year, and his vaccine then replaced it. He was still on the committee. He didn't vote on that, but he was still on the committee. But he Speaker 0: voted to make rotavirus vaccine mandatory for And Speaker 1: he he he then he and his business partners, Stanley Plotkin and, you know, a couple of other people sold that vaccine and to Merck for a $186,000,000. He told Newsweek that he won the lottery. Oh, you know, it's been said of him that he voted himself rich. So that and that kind of conflict was typical on that committee, but that was the most. Speaker 0: Did did people know this was going on? That that's such an obvious Speaker 1: conflict. The office of inspector general in this department investigated, and they said this is a disaster. You gotta change it. Congress investigated and said you gotta change it, and they did nothing. That's the most most sort of glaring example of medical malpractice by this by this group is that they approved all these vaccines. We went from 11, remember, to 69 to 92. 11 vaccines in '86, and not one of them had except for COVID. COVID is the only one that had a prelicensing safety trial that involved a placebo, a true placebo. And so all of those other vaccines were ushered in without safety studies, and that means nobody understands the risk profile of those products. Speaker 0: How how can you do that? Speaker 1: That's they did it. It's corruption. And it's, you know, it's because of agency capture. It's because the companies that were making these products had if you can get your vaccine on the schedule, it's it's generally, typically, about a billion dollars a year for your company because you now have a trapped market. Speaker 0: With no downside. No. You've got Speaker 1: an immediate issue. First of all, the federal government oftentimes actually designs the vaccine. NIH would design it. It would hand it over to the pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical company then runs it through ASIP, and runs it first through FDA, then through ASIP, and gets it recommended. If you can get that recommendation, you you now got a billion dollars in in lease revenues by the end of the year every year forever. So so there was, you know, there was a gold rush to add new vaccines to the schedule, and this and Aisin never turned away a single vaccine. Everyone that was that came to them, they, you know, recommended. And a lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious. You know? How are you you know? I mean, the you know, they recommended the hepatitis b vaccine for for babies when they're an hour old. The first day of life, they get that. And, you know, hepatitis b, if your mother's got it, you you should get it. And you can, you know, you can pass through maternal transmission. But every mother that goes to the hospital in this country is tested for it. So we know which ones, you know, are vulnerable, which aren't. Oh, but the mass vaccination of the entire population, including wild children, this is a disease you get through sexual transmission or you get it from sharing needles. And particularly, it was prevalent among promiscuous gay men. And but a one day old baby has the risk to a one day old baby was one in seven million. Speaker 0: Very few of whom are promiscuous. Speaker 1: Very few of whom are, you know, uninvolved in prostitution or drug addiction. So, you know but it was a financial they were all financial drivers. So and a lot of the diseases that they target are not disease are the vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. And so, you know, the justification for having it mandated is is very ephemeral. And, you know, these are all things that we need to look at. We wanna protect public health, but, you know, that means protecting against chronic disease too. And, you know, these vaccines have there's nobody who will contest that they cause that they can cause chronic disease, chronic injuries that last a lifetime. So Speaker 0: one of the reasons that this system has become so cryptic, I think it's fair to say, is Anthony Fauci, one of the longest serving federal employees, who was the subject of one of the bestselling books of a couple of years ago, which he wrote, The Real Anthony Fauci, amazing book. And all this information about him was exposed to the world, and he gets some sina care at Georgetown and still has secret service protection. He seems to be thriving. Speaker 1: He doesn't have a secret service protection. Any longer? No. President Trump took that away from him. But Good. He he, you know, he is he got immunity. Why did he need immunity? You know, why did he need a pardon in advance? Speaker 0: What what do you think the answer is? Speaker 1: I, you know, I would be speculating, but I think he I think they're I think he was vulnerable. I think he had a lot of liability on creating coronavirus. You know, he was funding precisely that research at the Wuhan Lab. Yep. And he was giving them the technology. He was giving them you know, he gave them not only the technology, the precise technology for developing that pathogen, and published about it, by the way. And, you know, the publications credit NIH for the for the for the for financing the studies. But also gave them one of his fundees, Ralph Barack, from the University of North Carolina, developed a technique called the seamless ligation technique, which is a technique for hiding the laboratory origins of a a of a manipulated virus. So that normally, if there's a virus manipulated, you can look at it, you know, research can look at it, they can look at the DNA sequences, and they can say this thing was created in a lab. Ralph Barack had developed a technique that he called the no see technique, and its technical name was seamless ligation, and it was a way of hiding evidence of human tampering. What is the public health rationale? You would if you were interested in public health, you would wanna be doing the inverse of that. You would wanna be pinning red flags all to it and say this was created by people. Speaker 0: That's what you would do if you're creating viruses for biological warfare. Speaker 1: Right. That's right. And and that's another question is why would he give it to the Chinese? I mean, that was a military lab. It was run by the military. Speaker 0: It's hard to even understand that. What do you I mean, what would be the rationale for doing that? I, Speaker 1: you know, I I try not to look in other people's heads. I I try like in the Fauci book, I never look in and and speculate about what his motives are. I just say this is what he did. But I do think that there's this among a lot of the people who were doing that kind of research, the gain of function research, are big career economic and professional incentives to break ground, to break new ground and say, you know, I just one of his of his fundees created a avian flu virus, which can be very deadly to humans if you can make it to human to human transition, a transmission. And he developed one that could jump to mammals. Why would you do that? You know, you're just you're inviting a catastrophe and and they published it and and bragged about it. And I think there's this kind of this kind of I don't know whether I would call it a god complex or something where, you know, some of the people in that field seem to have this this kind of get some kind of sense of omnipotence or something from, you know, developing something that can kill all of humanity. Yes. But I don't know. That's that is sheer speculation. Speaker 0: That sounds right to me. So it sounds like Fauci is beyond the reach of the law at this point. Speaker 1: Yeah. There I I think generally, unless there was a truth commission, you know, which they did and as you know in South Africa. Yes. They did it in Central America after the, you know, the nineteen eighties wars there, and and they were very, helpful to those societies. And, you know, I think we should probably do something like that now. And in those cases, what happens is you have a commission that hears testimony on what exactly happened. Anybody who comes and volunteers to testify truthfully is then given immunity from prosecution. And but so that at least the public knows who did what. Yes. And people who are called and don't take that deal and purge themselves, they then can be they can be prosecuted criminally. Speaker 0: We don't have a good track record of revealing the truth in a timely manner. As you know better than anybody, the president on January 23 issued an executive order ordering the full declassification of files related to the murder of your uncle, father, and Martin Luther King. And, you know, we we haven't seen all of them yet. Where is that process? Have your conclusions about any or all of those three murders changed on the base of new documents? Speaker 1: No. Nothing's changed. I mean, you know, as you know, there's already millions of pages of documents out there. And I think, you know, in in terms of my uncle's death, I think that, you know, that that ship has sailed. I I I don't think anybody who actually is willing to read the evidence now will question the fact that my uncle was killed by a conspiracy. And that in fact, Congress in 1973, when the church committee looked at I think it was '73 Speaker 0: 'seventy five. Yeah. Speaker 1: What? 'seventy five. Yep. Church committee, and they said it was conspiracy. That was the conclusion of the congressional So the Warren Committee that was run by Alan Dulles, who was, you know, had a lot of reasons to lie and did lie throughout. And in fact, he said at one of the sections, yeah, if we were involved in this, we would lie. Oh, he said that. And he and he got himself put on that committee, and he was really he should have been called the Dulles Commission or, you know, he said it's a single shooter. But but then, you know, in '75, that was '64. So eleven years later, Congress investigated, and they had a much larger purview. They had much more data at that time. And they said it was a conspiracy. And but since then, there's been million documents released, and and probably 30 people who were involved and made confessions, including many of the prime actors. And so I don't think there is any doubt that my uncle was killed by a conspiracy. My father is is more difficult because we just don't have the data. It's never been investigated. And, you know, I've been trying to get it investigated. You know, one of the women who played potentially a key role in it was a a woman called there's a one woman in the polka dot dress who was who was who appeared to be Sir Hans Handler. And that woman is living openly in Tarzana, California. Nobody's ever talked to her. And she you know, people should this should be investigated, and people should talk to her and, you know, really investigate the crime. So and and as you know, and I think I I've talked to you about this before, my father, you know, Sirhan was there. There were 77 eyewitnesses in the kitchen at the time, and he took two shots of my father. One of those shots hit Paul Schrad in the head, and Paul Schrad survived. And the other one hit the door jam behind my father, and it was later removed by the LAPD. And then Sirhan was grabbed by six people, including Rafer Johnson, Rosie Greer, Carl Ulrich, who is the manager of the Ambassador Hotel. And they they turned his gun. They bent him over the steam table, and they turned his gun away from my father. And it's six more shots in it, and he emptied the chamber. So they Sirhan or Raefer told me that Sirhan had superhuman strength. Sirhan is a little tiny guy. You know? And I've met him and and talked to him, and but he's a very he's kind of a frail I mean, he's frail now because he's older, but even then, he was a little tiny guy, you know, and was not particularly strong. And Rafer said he had superhuman strength, and he could not pry the gun from his hand, and he fired six more shots. All those shots hit people. We know what happened every every shot in his gun. And my father was shot by four shots from behind. One of them passed harmlessly through the shoulder pad of his this is what Noguchi's autopsies had through the shoulder pad of his suit. And all the others were contact shots, meaning the the barrel of the gun was either touching his body or less than three inches from his body. The the last shot that killed him was behind his left ear. And that shot, he Noguchi says from was from one to three inches from him, and he and Surian was never behind him. Suranne was always in front of him. And they a guy who almost certainly took those shots was a security guard who had just gotten his job within a week before. And he was the he was a my father fell down. I my father must have known that he was being shot because the last thing he did was he turned and he tore off the clip on tie from Caesar. Caesar had him by the left hand and had steered him into the ambush. And he had his right hand he had his right hand his gun in his right hand, and he he admitted it. He was seen, you know, like, my father fell on him, and he pushed my father off of me. He was gun drawn. And he was the the gun was not taken away from the by the LAPD, which did a terrible job. And, you know, not only a terrible, but a malevolent job because they destroyed 2,500 photographs that were taken that night before the trial. So there were photographs, you know, 2,500 photographs in that kitchen and the and the ballroom, and the LAPD collected them and destroyed them all. And you have to ask why would they do that? And a lot of the other evidence was also destroyed, including the door jams and, you know, we have pictures of them, but we we don't have the real thing. And then they never confiscated the gun from from Cesar's. And Cesar said that, oh, I had the gun out because I was gonna shoot at Surahan. And so, you know, that should be questioned. Speaker 0: Were there any documents Speaker 1: I'll just say this. Yes. Zane Cesar was working at that time. His his job was working for the Lockheed plant in Los Angeles, and he had a top security classification at that. And Lisa Pease, who's one of the researchers and authors who's written extensively about this, went through his background. And the only employer that he ever listed officially in his background was the CIA. So there are a lot of questions, and we don't know the answers to them. You know, I was in contact with Cesar in 2019, 2020 negotiating with him. He had moved to The Philippines, and I was trying to see if he would talk to me. I was gonna go over there and talk to him, and he said, I'll do it for $5,000. And then when I got close, he said 10,000, and he said 20,000, and he said 30,000, and, you know, and then he just said, I'm not gonna meet with you. Oh, you know, he and then he's since he's since passed away. Oh, you know, again, we don't know, but there are enough kind of flags on it that you would you know, that if you were actually wanted to know answers, you would be asking questions and those Are Speaker 0: you confident that I know there's been some frustration about getting all the documents relevant to those three murders, those three assassinations. Are you confident that all of it will come out by the end of this term? Speaker 1: I'm confident that president Trump will release anything that he has access to. But, you know, I don't expect anything groundbreaking to come from those documents because, first of all, with my uncle, we've already got everything. There may be little things like, you know, the calendar for for Bill Harvey, who is one of the people who was in the CIA, who is almost certainly involved, and and other things like that that would be and then more evidence. I mean, you know, the evidence that came out the last tranche, The New York Times had to finally admit that that Leah Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset, which they'd been denying for fifty years. They finally admitted, yeah, he was working for the CIA. And so, you know, there may be some more validation of of what, you know, he was doing and how he was recruited, etcetera. But I don't think it's gonna be anything groundbreaking. I don't think you need anything groundbreaking. I think listen. I was a prosecutor. If I had to try the case right now, you know, against a a number of the people are dead, I believe I can win and from a jury with it just with the evidence that we got. Yep. Right. With my dad, you know, it was never investigated, and that was deliberate. Speaker 0: So last question. You left you were born here. Obviously, your father's attorney general of The United States when you were young. He's murdered in 1968. You leave Washington. You haven't lived here since. You just came back as secretary. What's it like? What do you notice? What do you think of it? Speaker 1: Well, you know, I didn't expect to love living in Washington. I when I was a kid, I couldn't wait to get out of Washington. But, you know, I'm my my wife is happy here. We found kind of a community and a neighborhood, and the I love the people that I'm working with at this agency. It's the most gifted, committed group of people that I've ever worked with, and they're, you know, immensely talented and committed. And then I really like the Cabinet. I think that the you know, president Trump's cabinet has put together an extraordinary cabinet. I'm friends with a number of the people I never thought I'd be friends with, but they're you know? What do you like? I I mean, I really I really get along with Pam Bondi and and, you know, Cheryl loves Pam and and her husband, John. And then I I really and Marco Rubio Marco Rubio is the funniest guy in the cabinet. He he says things that make people belly laugh at every cabinet meeting. And he's you know, I I I always I never was very, let's say, approving of of Marco because he was kind of a neocon war hawk, but now he's had this incredible transformation. And, you know, I think he you know? Yeah. I I think he very aligned with me on most issues on Ukraine, you know, and just the fact that we should not be the policeman of the world anymore, then we've gotta that, you know, we've gotta withdraw from that from that role. But I get I I really I you know, Scott Turner is my friend, Sean, you know, and all all of them. Get a Lynn Linda McMahon. I get along you know, one of the things with president Trump is that he really knows how to pick talent, and he and I'm not talking about me. I'm I'm but the other people on there when you sit in those cabinet meetings. And every one of those people is incredibly erudite and just fluid in the way that they speak and very, very comfortable in their one of the things that president Trump did when he picked the cabinet, and I was on the transition team, so I watched what he was doing. For every of one of the positions that he picked, he wanted to see three clips of them performing on TV. And so, know, he's very conscious of the way of of that these people are gonna be out selling his program to the public and that he needs people who are, you know, good salespeople, not only good administrators, but that they're that they can communicate a message to the public. And I think this time around, I it's I you know, everybody tells me it's completely different than the last administration because he he's you know, he had so much time to grow and to learn and to, you know, figure out how to do this right. And, you know, we need a revolution in this country. We've got, you know, we've got a $34,000,000,000,000 debt. We've got we're we're spending 2,000,000,000,000 or more a year than we got. We're borrowing it from China and from Saudi Arabia and Japan. We have a $1,200,000,000,000 trade deficit. And, you know, a lot of people are businesses are are hurting because of the tariffs. But over the I, you know, I admire president Trump because he is looking over the horizon, and he's looking at, you know, we this is unsustainable. And we need to do something radically different. And, you know, you need to particularly at the beginning, when you have momentum and when you have your most power, you need to do a lot of things that are gonna be very, very disruptive to many, many people. He still has tremendous support for the American public, and I feel it every day. I walk down a block and, you know, people are ecstatic. They, you know, come to me and say, thank you for what you're doing, and they they feel good about this country again. You know, I'll I'll just tell you another anecdote if we have if we have time. My my uncle Ted Kennedy really didn't personally did not like Jimmy Carter. He every level Famously. He didn't like his politics. He didn't like him personally. And, you know, Carter did a lot of things that my uncle was just I mean, one of them was he banned liquor from the White House, which, you know, my uncle didn't like. And then he and he put, you know, the oh, was it fresco or something on tap at the White House? And so I there were just little things like that that annoyed him, but he also when Carter came in, he talked about the malaise in this country and how bad everything was. And and it's like what Starmer did in England Yeah. You know, to tell and and that people take those messages from their from their leader. And and my uncle and then Reagan came in, and Reagan was dismantling everything Teddy had done over, you know, forty year career. But Teddy really liked him. And I asked him one time, wow. You know, this guy is destroying everything you believe in. And and Teddy said, I like him because he makes people feel good about being American. Yeah. And he's able to inspire hope for the country again. And, you know, president Trump does that. Whatever you think about him, there are there's a new feeling in America now that, you know, we're we're back on the upswing again. The you know, as he says, the country is hot again. You know? And all around the world, people see that too. And, you know, a lot of things have surprised me about the president because I, you know, bought into this fact that he was this one dimensional character, that he was kind of a bombastic narcissist and all this. And, you know, and part of it is hearing it all the time on TV, but also, you know, in the with the way that he conducts himself sometimes validates those. If you have that narrative, you can find things. So what he does that validate that narrative. But what I've been surprised in getting to know him is what a kind of deep multidimensional and thoughtful character he is and and how well I also thought, oh, he doesn't read, and, you know, he's not interested in anything. He's immensely curious, inquisitive, and immensely knowledgeable. He's encyclopedic in certain areas that you wouldn't expect, like music. And, you know, he gets very emotional about music. And Yes. And and he has and he knows the whole story behind every song. Pavarotti and James Brown. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He cries when he hears Pavarotti. He said I he said to me one night when we were at Martellaga with with the Amaryllis, he said he said, Amaryllis, you understand this because she loves music too. And he said, but most of the people here, they don't understand it. They don't get it. And then in terms of sports, he is he just he's an encyclopedia. He knows everything. And then, you know, on Wall Street, he knows how everybody made their money and and the stories, and he's, you know, an incredible raconteur about telling all these stories. And then and also the most surprising thing is because I Adam Pegg is a narcissist. When narcissists are incapable of empathy, and he's one of the most empathetic people that I've met, you notice whenever he talks about the Ukraine war Yes. He always talks about the casualties on both sides. Every time he talks about it. I have noticed that. And he does that in every theater. He talks about how human beings are affected by it. You know, whether it's vaccines or Medicaid or Medicare, he's always thinking about how this impacts the little guy. And, you know, the Democrats haven't pegged as a guy who's sort of sitting, you know, in the cabinet meeting talking about how can we make billionaires richer. He's the opposite of that. He's a genuine populace. And, you know, like all of us, we're we're all flawed characters in one way or another. But I think he's really a uniquely right person for this country right now because we were in a death spiral. And not only as, you know, morale, but also just what you know, the the deficits are you know, who could ever would you believe we'd ever have a present in our lifetime who would actually be addressing, you know, the cost of government in a dramatic way? No. And and the trade deficits, how could you ever cure that? It's too entrenched and so many people, you know, making money and but meanwhile, all us all going to hell in a handbasket. And, you know, so I think he's doing stuff at great political cost to him that is gonna benefit this country ten years from now and twenty years from now, and, you know, I'm really proud to be part of it. Speaker 0: Secretary Robert f Kennedy junior, thank you very much. Thank you, Tucker.
MdBreathe
Posted - June 20, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Saved - June 21, 2025 at 3:40 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The disturbing reason most doctors pushed the shot on unsuspecting Americans. https://t.co/mHdUFuSG2T

Video Transcript AI Summary
A doctor claims there were "perverse incentives" during the pandemic to administer COVID vaccines. As an outpatient physician, she states she could have made $1,500,000 if she had vaccinated the 6,000 COVID patients she treated. She suggests that both outpatient and inpatient settings had "financial incentives" to adhere to government protocols.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This doctor refused to give the COVID shot to her patients, but exposes the disgusting reason most doctors forced the vaccine on unsuspecting Americans. Speaker 1: Well, there were all sorts of perverse incentives during the pandemic. Like I said, I was outpatient. And if I had vaccinated the six thousand patients that I treated for COVID, I could have made $1,500,000. You know, outpatient, inpatient, there are all sorts of financial incentives to follow the government protocol.
MdBreathe
Posted - June 9, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Saved - June 9, 2025 at 4:38 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

This trial gives me real hope for justice.

@ChildrensHD - Children’s Health Defense

Grace Schara Wrongful Death Jury Trial | Day 5 https://t.co/LU55K97IZM

MdBreathe
Posted - May 31, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Saved - June 1, 2025 at 2:02 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

We did not vote for this @SecKennedy.

@moderna_tx - Moderna

We announced today that the U.S. FDA has approved mNEXSPIKE®, a new vaccine against COVID-19, for use in all adults 65 and older, as well as individuals aged 12 years through 64 years of age with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. Learn more: https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2025/Moderna-Receives-U-S--FDA-Approval-for-COVID-19-Vaccine-mNEXSPIKE/default.aspx

Page Not Found investors.modernatx.com
MdBreathe
Posted - May 31, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Saved - June 1, 2025 at 2:01 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

We did not vote for this @SecKennedy.

@moderna_tx - Moderna

We announced today that the U.S. FDA has approved mNEXSPIKE®, a new vaccine against COVID-19, for use in all adults 65 and older, as well as individuals aged 12 years through 64 years of age with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. Learn more: https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2025/Moderna-Receives-U-S--FDA-Approval-for-COVID-19-Vaccine-mNEXSPIKE/default.aspx

Page Not Found investors.modernatx.com

@desertatomic - desertatomic

@MdBreathe @SecKennedy How much did Moderna make off of the Covid vaccine? https://t.co/bpOCTCaQ0Q

MdBreathe
Posted - May 27, 2025 at 2:19 AM
Saved - May 28, 2025 at 2:44 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
A clinician reported that 14% of their patients sought help for vaccine injuries, expressing determination to advocate for change. In response, another individual encouraged them, citing a VAERS analysis indicating a 4000% rise in adverse events since before 2020, asserting the data's validity.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

14% of my clinic patients today came to see me for a vaccine inury. Every day I face it. Someone called me today asking me to be a team player. I will not back down until something is done.

@tropic_health - Tropic Health

@MdBreathe Stay strong. The truth about vaccine injuries is finally coming to light. A recent VAERS analysis shows a 4000% increase in adverse events compared to pre-2020. The data doesn't lie.

MdBreathe
Posted - April 16, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Saved - April 16, 2025 at 12:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A discussion began with a comment on the AMA's recommendation for all babies to receive three COVID shots by nine months, highlighting the president's acknowledgment of submitting VAERS reports. The initial speaker suggested that more courage could lead to a greater impact. In response, another participant criticized the AMA as a lobbying group, claiming it has harmed American health. They argued that while the AMA can exist as a professional association, it should not dictate medical practices or who is allowed to practice medicine.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

AMA recommends all babies get 3 COVID shots by the age of 9 months, but their president admits to submitting VAERS reports. Imagine the impact he could make with a bit more courage.

@BradPaquetteMI - Brad Paquette

The president-elect of the American Medical Association seems like a great doctor with a true heart for patient care. Yet, questions of current mainstream medical stances in two specific valid areas are often met with the same defense: "AMA supports it, so it must be okay." The president-elect of the American Medical Association filed VAERS reports for adverse reactions to the COVID shots. Yet, the AMA still recommends COVID shots for 6 month old babies. The president-elect appears to agree that a person can not genuinely change sex. Yet, the AMA supports the highest level of surgical/pharmaceutical intervention on physically healthy children for psychological reasons... calling it "care" even though such intervention isn't based upon any solid long-term evidence. I hope his leadership will clearly address these matters to rebuild trust.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A committee member raises concerns about declining trust in the medical field, citing the AMA's recommendation for COVID shots for children and the support for gender theory aspects, such as puberty blockers for psychological conditions. They ask for advice on navigating these issues. The AMA representative responds that these issues require conversations between doctors and patients, not government or media influence. He shares an anecdote about convincing a chemotherapy patient to get vaccinated after explaining mRNA and DNA. He emphasizes that decisions about reproductive health, gender identity, and vaccinations should be guided by the physician-patient relationship. The committee member asks if it's possible to change one's sex. The AMA representative answers that while DNA cannot be changed, people can identify with a particular sex as a transsexual. The committee member then asks if the representative has filed any VAERS reports for negative consequences reported after the COVID shot, to which the representative replies affirmatively.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Appreciate you being here via Zoom. Would love to meet you in person sometime. A couple questions with regard to, you know, some of the physicians that I've been in contact with. We talked about, obviously, you know, the political environment contributing to burnout in the medical field, trust in the medical field right now, especially after COVID. It's, you know, it's been decreasing. And so with the AMA in mind and addressing that, I guess, some concerning issues is the average person, for instance, like the AMA recommends, you know, children to get the COVID shot six month and up. Right? A lot of normal people look at that and they're like, no. Babies don't need these things. And also we have to look into the adverse reactions, you know, with VAERS in mind. So, you know, trust there is at an all all time low in my estimation. Coupled with the fact of AMA supporting even after the cast report, some of, you know, the the gender theory aspects of things of giving children puberty blockers for psychological conditions and drugs like Lupron that are used to castrate prisoners. And so in this, you know, shuffle where obviously politics, the arena has entered the medical profession, I guess, could you give some advice to us, to me on this committee as to how to traverse this? How to, I guess, improve in this capacity, especially when we represent a lot of people who are now looking at the profession and seeing clear problems within it that is just common sense? Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. And what you described are two examples of something that I think really challenges our country. But as I see it, the solution to that challenge, and this was the same thing that happened in my own community. When when everything shut down here in in Michigan for a month because we were one of the early states that saw COVID. You know, I volunteered with my health department, and I did everything from sticking cotton swabs in people's noses to test them for COVID to giving them vaccinations if they wanted. And they're fifty percent of our population was immediately lining up in every parking lot of every library and every every school to get vaccinated by the thousands in a day, and that's what we did. And then we got to about fifty some percent, and then the other fifty percent had questions. Totally justifiable questions. Right? And it's not something that the that the government or the media should be the answer to that question. That should be a question that they ask their doctor, and that's exactly what happened in my office. In fact, the national talks that I give on behalf of the American Medical Association has a picture of me vaccinating somebody in my office that just had enough doubts that it wasn't something he was gonna line up for with a thousand other people in the parking lot of Bishop Airport, but wanted to come into my office. And after a couple meetings with him and just talking to him about what mRNA is and what DNA is and how all this works with diagrams and charts, he decided to get vaccinated, which was a good thing because he had chemotherapy, and he was a cancer patient. And and I might not have him as a patient anymore were it not for his having that immunity. And so having all of these conversations, whether it's about reproductive health, whether it's about your child that may be transsexual, whether about your ability to fight off the next infection, whether or not it's a kid and whether they should get vaccinated for themselves or because they may not have any problem with the infection themselves but could infect the grandparent at home that's taking care of them, These are all conversations that need to happen in our offices with the physician patient relationship, which should be the guidance for all of these decisions, not what somebody happens to see at a commercial or pop up on their phone, on social media. That's where things go wrong. Speaker 0: No. I appreciate that. Just a quick follow-up while I have you. Is it possible possible to change one's sex? Speaker 1: Is it well, I mean, that so, again, there's the the transsexual thing is something that is there's, again, you're asking me for a white paper definition. Is it possible to change somebody's DNA in every cell from x x to x y? No. But does that mean that they don't identify with a particular sex as a transsexual? No. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then the second one is, did you file any VAERS reports then after vaccinations, or do you file have you filed any VAERS reports? Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. You mean the the the the negative physical consequence of somebody that Speaker 0: Yes. Reported? For the COVID shot, have you filed any for the COVID shot? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Yep. Representative McDonald. Thank you.

@bighealer_sarah - Sarah the Homeopath

@MdBreathe The AMA is a lobbying group. Few organizations have done more damage to the health of Americans. They are welcome to exist and be a professional association, but they should not be de facto in charge of what gets called medicine and who gets to practice it.

MdBreathe
Posted - April 16, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Saved - April 16, 2025 at 12:24 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

AMA recommends all babies get 3 COVID shots by the age of 9 months, but their president admits to submitting VAERS reports. Imagine the impact he could make with a bit more courage.

@BradPaquetteMI - Brad Paquette

The president-elect of the American Medical Association seems like a great doctor with a true heart for patient care. Yet, questions of current mainstream medical stances in two specific valid areas are often met with the same defense: "AMA supports it, so it must be okay." The president-elect of the American Medical Association filed VAERS reports for adverse reactions to the COVID shots. Yet, the AMA still recommends COVID shots for 6 month old babies. The president-elect appears to agree that a person can not genuinely change sex. Yet, the AMA supports the highest level of surgical/pharmaceutical intervention on physically healthy children for psychological reasons... calling it "care" even though such intervention isn't based upon any solid long-term evidence. I hope his leadership will clearly address these matters to rebuild trust.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A committee member raises concerns about declining trust in the medical field, citing the AMA's recommendation for COVID shots for children and the support for gender theory aspects like puberty blockers for psychological conditions. They ask for advice on navigating this political environment in medicine. The AMA representative suggests that patient-physician relationships should guide medical decisions, not government or media influence. He shares an anecdote about convincing a chemotherapy patient to get vaccinated after discussing mRNA and DNA. He emphasizes the importance of conversations about reproductive health, transgender issues, and vaccinations within the doctor's office. The committee member asks if it is possible to change one's sex. The AMA representative responds that while DNA cannot be changed, people can identify with a particular sex as a transsexual. The committee member then asks if the AMA representative has filed any VAERS reports for negative consequences reported after the COVID shot, and the AMA representative confirms that he has.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Appreciate you being here via Zoom. Would love to meet you in person sometime. A couple questions with regard to, you know, some of the physicians that I've been in contact with. We talked about, obviously, you know, the political environment contributing to burnout in the medical field, trust in the medical field right now, especially after COVID. It's, you know, it's been decreasing. And so with the AMA in mind and addressing that, I guess, some concerning issues is the average person, for instance, like the AMA recommends, you know, children to get the COVID shot six month and up. Right? A lot of normal people look at that and they're like, no. Babies don't need these things. And also we have to look into the adverse reactions, you know, with VAERS in mind. So, you know, trust there is at an all all time low in my estimation. Coupled with the fact of AMA supporting even after the cast report, some of, you know, the the gender theory aspects of things of giving children puberty blockers for psychological conditions and drugs like Lupron that are used to castrate prisoners. And so in this, you know, shuffle where obviously politics, the arena has entered the medical profession, I guess, could you give some advice to us, to me on this committee as to how to traverse this? How to, I guess, improve in this capacity, especially when we represent a lot of people who are now looking at the profession and seeing clear problems within it that is just common sense? Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. And what you described are two examples of something that I think really challenges our country. But as I see it, the solution to that challenge, and this was the same thing that happened in my own community. When when everything shut down here in in Michigan for a month because we were one of the early states that saw COVID. You know, I volunteered with my health department, and I did everything from sticking cotton swabs in people's noses to test them for COVID to giving them vaccinations if they wanted. And they're fifty percent of our population was immediately lining up in every parking lot of every library and every every school to get vaccinated by the thousands in a day, and that's what we did. And then we got to about fifty some percent, and then the other fifty percent had questions. Totally justifiable questions. Right? And it's not something that the that the government or the media should be the answer to that question. That should be a question that they ask their doctor, and that's exactly what happened in my office. In fact, the national talks that I give on behalf of the American Medical Association has a picture of me vaccinating somebody in my office that just had enough doubts that it wasn't something he was gonna line up for with a thousand other people in the parking lot of Bishop Airport, but wanted to come into my office. And after a couple meetings with him and just talking to him about what mRNA is and what DNA is and how all this works with diagrams and charts, he decided to get vaccinated, which was a good thing because he had chemotherapy, and he was a cancer patient. And and I might not have him as a patient anymore were it not for his having that immunity. And so having all of these conversations, whether it's about reproductive health, whether it's about your child that may be transsexual, whether about your ability to fight off the next infection, whether or not it's a kid and whether they should get vaccinated for themselves or because they may not have any problem with the infection themselves but could infect the grandparent at home that's taking care of them, These are all conversations that need to happen in our offices with the physician patient relationship, which should be the guidance for all of these decisions, not what somebody happens to see at a commercial or pop up on their phone, on social media. That's where things go wrong. Speaker 0: No. I appreciate that. Just a quick follow-up while I have you. Is it possible possible to change one's sex? Speaker 1: Is it well, I mean, that so, again, there's the the transsexual thing is something that is there's, again, you're asking me for a white paper definition. Is it possible to change somebody's DNA in every cell from x x to x y? No. But does that mean that they don't identify with a particular sex as a transsexual? No. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then the second one is, did you file any VAERS reports then after vaccinations, or do you file have you filed any VAERS reports? Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. You mean the the the the negative physical consequence of somebody that Speaker 0: Yes. Reported? For the COVID shot, have you filed any for the COVID shot? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Yep. Representative McDonald. Thank you.
MdBreathe
Posted - March 25, 2025 at 1:07 AM
Saved - March 25, 2025 at 2:06 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

This is creepy.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Oh look here is Trump’s new CDC Director Nominee Susan Monarez on DARPA TV discussing how AI will accelerate better health outcomes for all of us. https://t.co/nvLWg01mLM

Video Transcript AI Summary
ARPA-H advances AI in healthcare by developing tools for patients to understand their healthcare journey and empowering providers to better understand and optimize patient care. AI is also used defensively to anticipate and defend against vulnerabilities within the health ecosystem. ARPA-H funds innovators, called program managers, to solve significant health ecosystem problems, aiming to improve health outcomes for everyone. The AI cyber challenge addresses vulnerabilities by incentivizing innovative solutions. The diversity of solutions benefits ARPA-H and the entire health ecosystem. The AI Cyber ​​Challenge (AICC) village represents the healthcare ecosystem to understand vulnerabilities and anticipate future threats. ARPA-H aims to democratize developed capabilities, ensuring accessibility and affordability for all health systems, including those in rural environments. ARPA-H also recruits program managers to identify and address critical problems within the health ecosystem.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We think about advancing AI for healthcare in a number of different facets. So some are direct to the patients. What tools and what capabilities can we develop to help them really understand where they are in their healthcare journey and empower them to make great decisions. We also think about AI from the provider side. So how can we help providers better understand their patients? How can we help providers optimize their time within the health system as they're seeing patients, as they're trying to make complex decisions to create the conditions for improved patient health outcomes. We also think about AI from the defensive side. So we understand that there is a great vulnerability within the health ecosystem. More and more is coming online in the Internet of Things that are going to have an incredibly positive effect, but we also know it creates vulnerabilities. And so we're using that same AI technology to help defend against those vulner abilities, to anticipate the negative implications that are happening within the health systems and to try to stay ahead of it. ARPA h takes on the entirety of the health ecosystem. It's not just biomedical research. It's not just resilient systems. It's not just investing in the tech of the future. It is all of those. And what we do is we actually go out and we seek these incredible innovators. We call them our program managers And they come to us and they say, you know, here are the big problems that we're seeing in the health ecosystem space. We will fund anything across the health ecosystem so long as it helps further our mission, which is to improve health outcomes for everyone. So the AI cyber challenge fits so well within the mission of ARPA H and that we are funding traditional type programs, which are big and bold and ambitious, we also fund these challenges where we know that there is a large problem within the health ecosystem and we need to have the most innovative solutions come to the table to come in and look at that problem set in an entirely different way. And we have said, here are what we understand are those problems that we've given them the access to so much of the capability that that we see here at DEFCON. And we say, we are going to tell you what the solution is. You tell us how you would solve that problem and we incentivize it through this challenge structure. The incredible benefit that ARPA h is gonna get from launching this type of a challenge is that we are gonna see a diversity of solutions that come out from all of these challenged competitors where they don't look at the problem the same way. They each come with their own perspective and they say, here's how I would solve this problem. Here's the vulnerability that I'm finding. And we will be the beneficiaries and ultimately the whole health ecosystem will be the beneficiaries of what they're developing. So through this first year where we're getting to the semifinals and then through the next year, we're actually getting to those finalists. We're already seeing some incredible work that's coming out of these competitors, and we're leveraging it to help solve some of these big problems. Coming into the AICC city is, I think, so well choreographed to understand the vulnerabilities that exist across the health ecosystem. So whether it is a clinical care site, an emergency room, provider back office, all of that is collectively now represented in AICC. So the cleverness of who came together to think about what needs to be present to create a health ecosystem, to drive the competition so that AI Cyber Challenge really is well represented by what we see in the infrastructure of this village is incredibly well formulated. It is so thoughtful. It should allow anyone who is wondering what does it look like in a health care ecosystem to understand the vulnerabilities that are present in a way that maybe they've never even been able to think about. They've never experienced. They never understood. Where do those vulnerabilities come from? How do you identify them? How do you bend against them? That is all represented here in the AICC village. But this space is moving so fast that we're also hoping that it illuminates something that can help us anticipate what is the threat space of tomorrow or two years from now or five years from now. And so as we build the capabilities over the next year of AICC, it was going to help lead us to what are we doing in our program portfolio in 2027 or 2029 or 02/1935 because it is gonna continue to evolve and this is the place where we really think that we can drive technical understanding of how this is evolving and what do we need to do now to shape the future to be able to continue to have safe operations within our health systems? One of the other great benefits of having ARPA H here and really being at the forefront of this technology as part of our core principles as an agency, we really wanna make sure that the capabilities being developed are democratized in such a way is that they will benefit not just the large health systems, those that have revenue margins where they can bring on the greatest technologies to be able to create a safe and environment, but also those who operate on a very low margin. So those in the rural environment, critical access hospitals, FQHC is all of which have the same sets of vulnerabilities. Now when we create these capabilities, our goal is to make sure that they are accessible and they are affordable and implementable so that we create a safer space across the health ecosystem. We also wanna make sure that we are recruiting program managers that come in with the same level of energy and excitement to really identify critical problems that they see within the health ecosystem that they wanna help be part of the solution. And when they come to ARPA H, we give them the capabilities to drive forward in significant ways to be able to address those problems. It has just been an awesome experience, and I'm so excited that ARPA H is now part of this collective DEFCON and AICC, and I'm looking forward to many opportunities to come in the future.
MdBreathe
Posted - March 24, 2025 at 12:09 PM
Saved - March 25, 2025 at 10:49 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Montana tried to pass a bill banning mRNA but 24 republicans and 42 democrats voted against it. I assume this means they are all following CDC recommendations and getting an annual booster and making sure their kids are up-to-date. Here is the roll call: https://t.co/1jUk52nCeN

MdBreathe
Posted - March 22, 2025 at 10:37 PM
Saved - March 23, 2025 at 2:18 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer's post-marketing surveillance revealed alarming statistics: an 81% miscarriage rate, a 5-fold increase in stillbirths, an 8-fold rise in neonatal deaths, and a 13% rate of breastfeeding complications in newborns of vaccinated mothers.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Pfizer's post-marketing surveillance analysis showed a miscarriage rate of 81%, a 5-fold increase in stillbirths, an 8-fold increase in neonatal deaths, and a 13% incidence of breastfeeding complications in newborns whose mothers received the COVID shots.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Link to article: https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-as-safe-and-effective-as-the-medical-industrial-complex-claim-part-i/

Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim? Part I - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Introduction: In Part I of this three-part series, we report a retrospective, population-based cohort study assessing rates of adverse events (AEs) in publichealthpolicyjournal.com
MdBreathe
Posted - February 14, 2025 at 11:49 PM
Saved - February 15, 2025 at 12:07 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@WhiteHouse @PressSec You cannot Make America Healthy Again as long as all babies are expected to get 3 mRNA shots by the age of 9 months. https://t.co/hFGkI6VqVe

MdBreathe
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 2:27 AM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 1:14 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Will Montana be the 1st? MT physician Dr Drivdahl-Smith gives powerful testimony in support of HB 371, a bill to ban the administration of all gene-based vaccines to humans in the state of Montana. @MTHouseGOP @MTSenateGOP https://t.co/tYi2x2crhi

Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm urging you to support the bill banning gene-based vaccines to prevent further harm, disability, and death. These vaccines, including COVID-19 shots and an RSV shot, have caused significant adverse effects. The VAERS system reported over 38,000 deaths, with substantial underreporting. Over 3,400 peer-reviewed studies link these vaccines to severe injuries like cardiac arrest, blood clots, and cancers. Highly vaccinated countries show increased mortality and decreased life expectancy and fertility. These shots don't prevent disease; more shots increase COVID risk. COVID shots are contaminated with DNA, exceeding regulatory limits, raising cancer risks. These vaccines can shed to others, causing adverse reactions in those exposed. There are no benefits, only potential harm, yet many still get boosters. Drug companies and regulators have failed to act. We must ban gene-based vaccines in Montana now.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Christine Drivdahl Smith, d r I v d a h l hyphen s m I t h. I am a family physician in Miles City. I have no conflict of interest. I am a volunteer board member of the Montana Medical Freedom Alliance. Gene based vaccines or mRNA vaccines are the most destructive and lethal medical products that have ever been used in human history. I'm asking you to support this bill banning gene based vaccines so that we can halt continued harm, disability, and death of our citizens. Gene based vaccines include the COVID nineteen shots, and there is one other RSV shot that was approved for this past year for older adults. There are ongoing trials for influenza and bird flu, and there are dozens more in development. The COVID shots were rolled out just over four years ago under emergency use authorization or EUA. This has been renewed multiple times. The last renewal was in December of twenty twenty four and extended the EUA until 2029, which also extends the liability protections. Under EUA, the FDA may allow use of unapproved medical products including experimental products. Further, the regulatory procedures do not apply to the EUA products which explains why the FDA has not withdrawn these dangerous vaccines. By the end of twenty twenty four, there was over thirty eight thousand deaths reported to the VAERS system with a known under reporting factor of thirty one to as much as a hundred. There are over 3,400 peer reviewed studies in the medical literature describing injury from these vaccines, including cardiac arrest, myocarditis, blood clots, immune suppression, autoimmune disorders, cancers, neurological disorders, prion induced disease, pregnancy harms, and miscarriage. Every highly vaccinated country has had a significant increase in all cause mortality, a decrease in life expectancy, and a decrease in fertility. These vaccines do not prevent disease or transmission. In fact, the more shots one receives, the more likely they are to get COVID. Over a year ago, it was discovered that the COVID shots are contaminated with DNA. This has now been confirmed by multiple labs around the world. The amount exceeds the regulatory limits by as much as 400 times. The presence of this genetic material increases the risk of cancer in the recipient, and this foreign genetic material has now been found within dividing human cells in a petri dish and in colon cancer biopsies. These mRNA vaccines, like other gene therapy medical products, can be shed to others via blood, body fluids, excrement, and airborne exosomes. Studies have now confirmed that these products are shedding to others, and that those exposed via shedding can experience adverse reactions. As you can see, there are no benefits and only the potential for harm. And yet, twenty three percent of Americans continue to receive boosters. The American College of OBGN continues to recommend COVID shots shots to pregnant patients, and the CDC has added the COVID shots to the pediatric vaccine schedule starting at six months of age. There have been ever increasing calls for an immediate ban by professional groups all across the globe. Five states attorneys general have filed a suit against Pfizer for misrepresenting the effectiveness of the COVID shots. And just last week, citizens filed a petition Wait a minute. With the FDA to remove these products because the DNA contamination was not revealed to the regulators. The drug companies, the regulators, the federal government have failed to act. We all know that the hands of justice move slowly. Time is of the essence. I've spent over half of my medical career in emergency medicine. And during a trauma code, the most important thing is to stop the bleeding. So I'm asking all of you to use common sense and a Montana let's get this done attitude. We must we must ban gene based vaccines in Montana. Thank you. Thank you. Next proponent.
MdBreathe
Posted - January 7, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Saved - January 9, 2025 at 11:13 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Make ivermectin over the counter.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The FDA has 11 more days to take down its online directives about ivermectin. I’m still getting pushback from pharmacists. Last Friday, one from @Walgreens cancelled my prescription without notifying me, the tech later told me the pharmacist didn’t feel comfortable. https://t.co/Do5jURqCun

Video Transcript AI Summary
We currently only have a single dose available, not the 75 needed. The insurance won't cover the dosing we have. The prescription was canceled without notification, leaving the patient without medication. The other pharmacist was uncomfortable with the dosing issue, and we also lack sufficient medication. When medications are unavailable, it's important to contact another pharmacy, and for dosing issues, reach out to the doctor. Neither of these steps were taken, leaving the patient in a potentially serious situation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. So right now, we we really don't have 75. The map we had is only 20 just like one dose. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And then with the dosing like that, the Intranosa doesn't wanna pay for that either. Speaker 1: Okay. But you know what happened is you just canceled the prescription. I didn't get a notification. You just canceled it unless the patient's high Speaker 0: and dry. That's right. The other pharmacist, because of dosing like that, they'd, he or she did not feel comfortable prescription like that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And also the second problem we had, we don't have enough meds. Right. We just want dose. Speaker 1: Well, you know what? When you don't have enough medications, you reach out to another pharmacy. And when you have a problem with the dosing, you reach out to the doctor, and neither of those actions are taken. You left a patient high and dry who now could be in serious trouble. Who who is the pharma?
MdBreathe
Posted - January 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Saved - January 8, 2025 at 10:48 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Texas Medical Board filed a 17 page motion to protect themselves from my Open Records Requests and is asking judges for sanctions against me. Retaliation for getting their medical director fired? #txlege https://t.co/2j8vDOSDlp

MdBreathe
Posted - January 7, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Saved - January 7, 2025 at 10:54 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

@GovRonDeSantis 1 in 800 serious adverse events. Any other product would have been pulled off the market a long time ago. http://Www.AmericansforHealthFreedom.org

Americans for Health Freedom americansforhealthfreedom.org
MdBreathe
Posted - January 5, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Saved - January 6, 2025 at 8:18 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

TMB throws a Hail Mary and after three years of fighting, has asked for 2 motions for summary judgment against me. They expected me to cave and now they want to deny me a trial. https://t.co/QueuPVgCvj

MdBreathe
Posted - December 15, 2024 at 4:05 PM
Saved - December 30, 2024 at 7:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation began with a discussion about SV40, a virus discovered in 1960 in monkey kidney cell cultures used for polio vaccine production. Contamination occurred in vaccines from 1955 to 1963, leading to mandatory testing and changes in production methods. SV40 is oncogenic in animals, causing various tumors, and studies have found SV40 DNA in human cancers, particularly mesothelioma and brain tumors. In response, it was noted that SV40 can also be detected in the blood of vaccinated individuals.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

What is SV40? - SV40 is a virus discovered in 1960 in rhesus monkey kidney cell cultures used for the production of polio vaccines. - Between 1955 and 1963, some polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40 due to the use of monkey kidney cells for vaccine production. After this was discovered, testing for SV40 contamination became mandatory, and vaccines were no longer produced with cells from SV40-carrying monkeys. - SV40 is known to be oncogenic in experimental animals, particularly hamsters, causing tumors like mesotheliomas, brain tumors, lymphomas, and bone cancers. The virus's large T antigen can transform cells by disrupting key cellular control mechanisms like p53 and retinoblastoma protein pathways. - Numerous studies have detected SV40 DNA in various human cancers, particularly mesothelioma, brain tumors, and some bone cancers.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

@MdBreathe We can find it in the blood of vaccinated people. https://t.co/NhmvG0QIHW

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

A deeper dive on Chakraborty et al, Ryan et al and Odak et al. There is vax DNA in the blood of vaccinated people despite people using DNA depletion methods. https://t.co/voHoDTGRHu

Video Transcript AI Summary
SV40 promoter sequences are still detectable 48 hours later, despite being wrapped in LNPs and using methods aimed at eliminating them. This raises urgent concerns about how long this DNA persists without DNA depletion protocols. The purification methods used to capture this DNA require thorough examination, as techniques like ethanol precipitation and mini DNA purification kits may not effectively eliminate small DNA fragments or could further degrade them.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: SV 40 promoter sequences are detected. Considering these contaminants are wrapped in LNPs and are still detectable 48 hour out using methods designed to eliminate them should be urgent grounds for immediate investigations into how long this DNA persists in absence of DNA depletion protocols. The purification tools used to capture this DNA need to be heavily scrutinized as ethanol precipitations and mini DNA purification kits will eliminate small DNA or further digest them with
MdBreathe
Posted - July 2, 2022 at 7:37 PM
Saved - November 9, 2024 at 4:51 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared how Medical Center Hospital in Odessa, TX, prioritized staff safety by bagging COVID patients for over a year, with doctors seemingly ignoring the issue. Dr. Richard Bartlett provided powerful testimony to the Texas Senate about this troubling practice.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Medical Center Hospital in Odessa TX bagged COVID patients to protect their staff. This went on for over year while doctors turned a blind eye. Powerful testimony from Dr Richard Bartlett in front of @Texas_Senate https://t.co/GyRrbIKgPt

Video Transcript AI Summary
A teenager, who was active and sociable, tested positive for COVID and experienced distress with low oxygen levels. Her mother took her to the ER, where they confirmed the positive test. Inappropriately, medical staff used plastic bags, typically found in grocery stores, to cover her head for protection. This practice was not meant for human use and was observed in various healthcare settings, including daycares and nursing homes, without intervention from doctors, nurses, or respiratory therapists. This situation persisted for nearly a year, highlighting serious issues in patient care and safety protocols.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But this is critical. Dangerous things were done. This is a teenager, a minor, who is a social butterfly, who is the trainer of all the sports teams, who knew no strangers, who tested positive for COVID. Her oxygen level gets down to the eighties. Her mother brings her to the ER because she's in distress. They retest her. She's positive. And then they pull this you you know, when you go to the grocery store to the produce section and you see the roll of plastic bags and you rip a plastic bag off and you stuff a head of lettuce in it. This is what they were using, equipment covers. It says equipment cover across her forehead. This was not made for human use, but they got away with it. As a child, if you saw a plastic bag being put over someone's head to protect the workers at a daycare. If you went to a nursing home and you saw a senior citizen in a corner getting a plastic bag put over him so he wouldn't be a hazard to the workers. They were doing this for months and doctors were looking the other way. Nurses looked the other way. Respiratory therapists looked the other way. This is the bag this is exactly the bags they used. It comes in a roll. You rip it off. It's not a medical, it's not an advanced trauma life support to stabilize the airway. They were bagging one person after another. This is inappropriate. This is lessons learned. I think we learned a lesson. But this was for almost a year madam chair. I don't what do you say about that? And you know what? This is

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Hospital’s response: https://t.co/PVahIpdPCO

MdBreathe
Posted - October 26, 2024 at 4:17 PM
Saved - October 26, 2024 at 6:35 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

They are calling for all babies to get 3 mRNA shots by the age of 9 months old. We have an enormous amount of data showing the shots don’t work and are all risk, no benefit - we just don’t have people in power willing to acknowledge it.

@DrBenTapper1 - Dr. Ben Tapper

Ultimate cringe. CDC Director Mandy Cohen and Senator Chuck Schumer are calling for another COVID-19 vaccination. When is enough enough? https://t.co/UeCCsE6FH4

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hi everyone, I'm Mandy Cohen, director of the CDC, here with Senator Schumer. We're encouraging everyone to get their flu shot and updated COVID booster. These vaccinations are painless and provide significant benefits. Getting vaccinated now can help you avoid serious health issues later. Please make sure to get your shots. Thank you!
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everyone. Mandy Cohen, director of the CDC, and I'm here with senator Schumer who has an important message for you about vaccines. Speaker 1: And what's many good things about our director, one of them, she's from Baldwin, New York. We're urging everybody to get their flu shot and their updated COVID booster. They don't hurt. These shots don't hurt anymore like they used to when I was a kid, and they do you a lot of good. Please get your shot. It'll avoid a lot of pain later. Speaker 0: Thanks, senator.
MdBreathe
Posted - October 22, 2024 at 5:26 PM
Saved - October 23, 2024 at 12:30 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

I just saw a patient whose doctor at Houston Methodist hospital refused to change the battery on the patient’s baclofen pump unless patient got the C0VID shots. 6 months after 2 Pfizer shots, patient developed metastatic cancer. https://t.co/M6SSuKEyHG

MdBreathe
Posted - October 13, 2024 at 4:20 PM
Saved - October 14, 2024 at 3:06 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

People don't realize what a dangerous drug this is. https://t.co/YUNpb0GjSZ

Video Transcript AI Summary
PAXLOVID is claimed to be a potentially dangerous drug, more so than Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It allegedly has 44 severe drug interactions, including with statins, and is supposedly toxic to the liver and kidneys. The drug purportedly contains an HIV drug with a black box warning. PAXLOVID is said to leave a bad metallic taste, leading to poor tolerance and early discontinuation, with a claimed 20% increase in rebound infections after stopping. The cash price is stated to be approximately $1200, leading to the assessment that it is a "trash drug."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't think people realize what a potentially dangerous drug PAXLOVID is. It's far more dangerous than alternatives such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It has 44 severe drug interactions, and one of those drugs is with statins, which is the most widely prescribed medication in America. It's toxic to the liver and kidneys. It contains an HIV drug with a black box warning in it. It leaves a very bad metallic taste. So it's poorly tolerated, often stopped early by patients. And then there's a 20% increase of incidence of rebound infection after you stop taking it. Not to mention that right now, cash price for is approximately $1200. So it's really a trash drug, and I would be very reluctant to prescribe it.
MdBreathe
Posted - October 9, 2024 at 10:52 PM
Saved - October 10, 2024 at 9:17 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Just finished my 2nd 4 hour deposition in front of TX Md Bd where they picked apart my social media posts and my affiliation with @Honest_Medicine. Now I get to wait until May 2025 for my hearing.

MdBreathe
Posted - October 1, 2024 at 2:15 PM
Saved - October 2, 2024 at 12:56 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Flu shot doesn’t doesn’t prevent spread of flu and doesn’t reduce deaths from pneumonia and flu. Flu shot mandates are not based in science, yet @memorialhermann requires it for everyone.. even the volunteers. https://t.co/bOgRywfUAv

MdBreathe
Posted - September 3, 2024 at 5:29 PM
Saved - September 3, 2024 at 7:33 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m feeling devastated after diagnosing two patients with aggressive malignant brain tumors in just two weeks, both of whom had received Covid shots but never had Covid. This follows a pattern with other patients, including one with a rare lung melanoma and another whose stable CLL rapidly evolved into AML after a booster. Since 2021, I’ve seen two patients die from glioblastoma, all over 60 and vaccinated. In my 30 years of practice with 600 patients, I’ve never encountered such a cluster of cancer cases, raising concerns about safety signals.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

From a colleague: “I am beside myself (really devastated) because I recommended the C0VID shots.” Full message…. “I have diagnosed 2 patients with aggressive malignant brain tumors in the past 2 weeks. Both have never had Covid by antibody testing, only Covid shots, one with many shots the other with just the original series. These two, compiled with a patient who has a primary lung melanoma without a skin source, a non-smoker with an aggressive adenocarcinoma of the lung, a stable CLL that Rapidly evolved into AML within a matter of weeks not long after his third booster, and I have already had two patients die of glioblastoma since 2021. All patients were over the age of 60. All took the Covid shots. I am beside myself (really devastated) because I recommended the Covid shots early on for all those who were FDA eligible, except for those who had already had Covid. Luckily, for those patients, I told them that natural immunity is the gold standard and they did not need anything more. They make up the large majority of my non”immunized” patients in my practice, though I do have several others, who just never took any of the shots. I only have 600 patients, and I have been in practice for 30 years. I’ve never had such a cluster of cancer all at once. I only have one non “immunized” patient with cancer since 2021 and I know the denominator is smaller, but it’s still feels like this is a safety signal.

MdBreathe
Posted - August 17, 2024 at 11:57 PM
Saved - August 18, 2024 at 4:24 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

I was just reprimanded by another doctor for using the term “monkeypox” rather than “mpox.” 🤦‍♀️

MdBreathe
Posted - August 6, 2024 at 2:25 PM
Saved - August 7, 2024 at 8:54 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

He bribed families to poison their children.

@GovTimWalz - Governor Tim Walz

Big news: Starting this month, families who get their 5- to 11-year-olds vaccinated can get $200! That’s cash in your pocket for starting the year off right by protecting your child from COVID. Learn more: https://mn.gov/covid19/vaccine/vaccine-rewards/kids-deserve-a-shot/index.jsp https://t.co/4WLq89YvHO

MdBreathe
Posted - August 4, 2024 at 4:30 PM
Saved - August 4, 2024 at 9:24 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Did you know that none of the vaccines on the childhood schedule were tested against an inert saline placebo and none of the trials were long enough to accurately measure harms? @ICANdecide https://t.co/ipyoPWlBn5

MdBreathe
Posted - July 24, 2024 at 10:10 PM
Saved - July 24, 2024 at 11:38 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

10 months ago a pharmacist at @Walgreens turned me in for prescribing IVM. Today the TMB dismissed the case. Thank you to all my subscribers - helps with my legal bills and increases my reach. I still have complaints from @MethodistHosp and TX Huguley Hospital to fight. https://t.co/1HvBksl4hl

MdBreathe
Posted - July 19, 2024 at 11:04 AM
Saved - July 19, 2024 at 12:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Some followers suggested I need to “move on,” but I continue to witness vaccine injuries and struggle to provide IVM for my patients. With all babies required to get shots at 6 months, I can't just move on. I will keep fighting until the shots are removed and accountability is established.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Some of my followers told me last night I need to “move on.” I am still seeing vaccine injuries. I am still having trouble getting my patients IVM. I am still fighting for my license. All babies are expected to get the shots at their 6 month check-up. How can we move on when it’s still going on? I will not stop until the shots are pulled off the market and people are held accountable.

MdBreathe
Posted - July 9, 2024 at 10:22 AM
Saved - July 10, 2024 at 3:27 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Philippine government has indicted 14 officials for the deaths of 10 children who received the Dengvaxia vaccine. They are accused of acting hastily in procuring and launching the mass immunization campaign. A physician and bioethicist suggests that governments and manufacturers should learn from this and exercise caution in approving and selling new vaccines.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

"The Philippine government indicted 14 government officials over the deaths of 10 children who received the Dengvaxia vaccine. The government said the officials acted with 'undue haste' in procuring the vaccine and launching the mass immunization campaign." April 2019 Link in comments.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

"The debacle in the Philippines offers a key lesson for governments and manufacturers when it comes to approving and selling new vaccines: 'Slow down,' says physician and bioethicist Keymanthri Moodley." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions

Rush To Produce, Sell Vaccine Put Kids In Philippines At Risk A dengue vaccine put thousands of kids at risk for a deadly condition. Some scientists say the manufacturer and health officials did too little to warn parents in the Philippines. npr.org
MdBreathe
Posted - July 4, 2024 at 2:00 AM
Saved - July 4, 2024 at 7:48 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

The Covid vaccines are killing people.

@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸

The Covid vaccines are killing people.

MdBreathe
Posted - May 28, 2024 at 11:27 PM
Saved - May 29, 2024 at 12:18 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

If I had vaccinated the 6000 patients I treated for C0VID, I would have made $1,500,000. https://t.co/89s6jXRHSz

MdBreathe
Posted - May 4, 2024 at 2:57 PM
Saved - May 4, 2024 at 5:20 PM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

.@Walgreens now saying they won’t allow refills on certain medications. It will take the pharmacist five days to get the medication in stock, but she won’t allow the patient to refill it and have it on hand for emergencies. https://t.co/e8xRDJalNQ

Video Transcript AI Summary
We do not allow refills on medications like Tamiflu or Paxlovid. If a patient needs a refill, we will contact you for approval. Antibiotics also do not have refills unless for specific circumstances like travel. Refill decisions are based on clinical judgment. We will fax you for refill approval when needed. No refills are available for one-time treatments like Tamiflu or Paxlovid. We will prepare the prescription for the patient when necessary.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When you're treating for COVID. Speaker 1: So, you don't allow refills on any medications? Speaker 0: Correct. Whenever patients come in with Tamiflu prescriptions, there's no refills on them. It's just one time for the box and one time for any, even like in Speaker 1: the PACSOLIN, Speaker 0: there's no refills on them. Speaker 1: Do you do you think it's possible that maybe I've talked to the patient and the patient knows that if they get sick, they can call me and then they can start taking it again? Maybe they have to have it on hand for another reason. Is there more to it that maybe you're not aware of because you're not the treating physician? Speaker 0: Okay. So in that case, we will just give you a call. We can, you know, we'll put it in the system, and it'll call you or fax you for a refill request. But there's no refills that are added to medications that are sent in for tamiflutaxelvid. There's nothing added like that. So if that's the case So what about what if Speaker 1: it were an antibiotic? Am I am I allowed to put an a refill on an antibiotic, or is that your choice? Speaker 0: No. They don't they don't they don't allow refills on I mean, antibiotics. I mean, they have the treatments on it, and if they're, you know, traveling, then they have some refills. We hardly have any medications that are refills on it. Speaker 1: You don't allow refills for certain medications since that's at your discretion? Speaker 0: That is a clinical judgment, ma'am. That is not a clinical judgment. Really? Speaker 1: So you're the so just like you're the treating physician, you're allowed to make that call whether a patient can get refills on the medication. Speaker 0: No. We're letting you know that if they need refills, we will be faxing you for refill approval whenever that time comes around that they need refills on their medication. Or if they if they contact you and, you know, you need to send in another prescription for COVID, then you can do that. But I cannot put refills on a one time treatment on a particular type of medication that doesn't have refills on it. Nobody has refills for CamelFlu, Paxlovid, any of that for that nature. So I'm just letting you know, I would be ordering the prescription for the patient. I'll be getting it ready. It may
MdBreathe
Posted - March 22, 2024 at 3:58 AM
Saved - March 22, 2024 at 10:15 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The FDA has agreed to remove all social media posts and consumer directives about ivermectin and COVID, including its popular tweet. This case limits FDA overreach and is seen as a precedent for the doctor-patient relationship. Thanks to Boyden Gray PLLC and others involved.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

🚨BREAKING: FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship. Thank you @BoydenGrayPLLC for your excellent counsel. @drpaulmarik1 @RobertApter1 @Covid19Critical

MdBreathe
Posted - March 22, 2024 at 3:58 AM
Saved - March 22, 2024 at 4:41 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The FDA has agreed to remove all social media posts and consumer directives about ivermectin and COVID, including its popular tweet. This case limits FDA overreach and sets a precedent for the doctor-patient relationship. Thanks to Boyden Gray PLLC and others involved.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

🚨BREAKING: FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship. Thank you @BoydenGrayPLLC for your excellent counsel. @drpaulmarik1 @RobertApter1 @Covid19Critical

MdBreathe
Posted - January 5, 2024 at 12:41 AM
Saved - January 6, 2024 at 9:30 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
We have 59 candidates and 47 elected officials from 23 states calling for the removal of COVID shots. They are also refusing donations from Big Pharma. New Hampshire has the most elected representatives, and Texas has the most candidates running for office. Here are the newest additions to the list. Tag your representatives who aren't on the list. (1/4)

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

January 4, 2024 🚨We now have 59 candidates, 47 elected officials and 1 Surgeon General from 23 states publicly stating the COVID shots must be pulled off the market. Many are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma. Over 17,000 physicians stand behind them. Tag your representatives who aren't on the list. (1/4) States with the most elected representatives: New Hampshire (13) Kentucky (9) State with the most candidates running for office: Texas (27) Newest Adds: Sen Glenn Gruenhagen @GlennGruenhagen MN SD18b Rep Savannah Maddox @SavannahLMaddox KY HD61 David Covey @CoveyTX candidate TX HD21 Mitch Little @realmitchlittle candidate TX HD65 Jon Welch @jwelchtxUSA TX LamarCISD School Board Tag your representatives who aren't on the list. @AAPSonline @molsjames @unbridledmd @KLVeritas @GeorgeFareed2 @btysonmd @LynnMissFlynn @purehealthmed @P_McCulloughMD @PierreKory @RWMaloneMD @richardursomd @stella_immanuel @drsimonegold @BenMarble_MD @DrNoMask @goddeketal #txlege

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

In Office (2/4): Florida (1) Dr. Joe Ladapo @FLSurgeonGen Surgeon General Georgia (1) Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene @RepMTG US House GA Idaho (4) Sen Tammy Nichols @nichols_senator ID SD10 Sen Glenneda Zuiderveld @Zglennevere ID SD24 Rep Joe Alfieri @JoeForIdaho ID HD4 Rep Karey Hanks @kareyforidaho ID HD55 Indiana (1) Rep Charles Bookwalter @TCBookwalter US House IN-4 Kansas (1) Rep Mike Murphy @Murphy4KS KS HD114 Kentucky (8) Rep Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie US House KY4 Adrienne Southworth @Senate7Ky KY SD7 Rep Lindsey Trichenor @tichenor4ky KY HD6 Rep Josh Calloway @callowayforKY KY HD10 Rep Emily Callaway @Miz_EmC KY HD37 Rep Candy Massaroni @CandyMassaroni KY HD50 Rep Marianne Proctor @MarianneProc60 KY HD60 Rep Steve Doan @SteveDoanLaw KY HD69 Michigan (5) Rep James DeSana @jim_desanaMI HD29 Rep Angela Rigas @RepRigas MI HD79 Rep Brad Paquette @BradPaquetteMI MI HD37 Rep Matthew Maddock @matthewmaddock MI HD51 Rep Jaime Greene @jaimegreene65 MI HD65 Minnesota (1) Rep Shane Mekeland @ShaneMekeland MN HD27A New Hampshire (13) Rep Jeff Tenczar @TCBElvis77 NH Pelham 1 Rep Kristin Noble @KristinNobleNH NH Bedford Rep Mike Belcher @MikeBelcher14 NH Carroll 4 Rep Tom Mannion @mannion4nh NH Pelham 1 Rep JR Hoell @JRHoellNH Merrimack 27 Rep Shane Sirois @repshanesirois NH Hillsborough 32 Rep Kelley Potenza @KelleyPotenza NH Stratford 19 Rep Nikki McCarter @NikkiforNH NH Belknap 8 Rep Matt Coulon @NHRepForFreedom NH Grafton 5 Rep Alicia Lekas @lishlekas NH Hillsborough 38 Rep Emily Phillips @NHRepPhillips NH Rockingham 7 Rep Tony Lekas @tony_lekas NH Hillsborough 38 Rep Jason Gerhard @JasonGerhardNH NH Merrimack25 New Jersey (2) Yehuda Miller @yehuda_miller NJ Rep Cty Committee Sen Edward Durr @EdTheTruckerNJ NJ LD3 North Carolina (1) Rep Eric Stevenson @EricStevensonNC US House NC-13 Ohio (1) Rep Jennifer Gross @jenniferforrep OH HD45 Oklahoma (1) Rep Kevin McDugle @kmcdugle OK HD12 Texas (6) Sen Bob Hall @SenBobHall TX SD2 Rep Steve Toth @Toth_4_Texas TX HD15 Rep Briscoe Cain @BriscoeCain TX HD128 David Hamilton @Hamilton4TX Ft Bd TX School Board Joy Roberts @ImJoyola Prct Chr TX 104 Christine Whitmore @cwhitmore903 Prct Chr TX 303 Wisconsin (1) Sen Ron Johnson @SenRonJohnson US Senate WI @EthicalSkeptic

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Candidates running for office (3/4): Arizona (3) Alan White @Nomoretweedles US Senate AZ-24 Josh Barnett @BarnettforAZ AZ LD2 Nick Kupper @kupper4arizona AZ LD25 California (3) Michael Oxford @SCMountainGoat CA HD17 Denise Aguilar @InformedMama209 CA Assembly D13 Julie Threet @julie4butte5 Butte Cty Supervisor CA D5 Colorado (1) Trent Leisy @realTrentLeisy CO HD4 Florida (3) Darlene Swaffar @swaffarcongress US House FL-23 Mara Macie @MaraMacie US House FL-5 Mike Levine, candidate FL HD 26 Georgia (1) Beth Majeroni @lizmajeroni GA SD1 Idaho (2) Jacyn Gallagher @jacynforidaho ID HD9A Amy Henry @Amy_Pope_Henry ID D13B Kentucky (1) TJ Roberts @realTJRoberts KY HD66 Michigan (1) Dr Sherry O'Donnell @SherryForSenate US Senate MI-5 Minnesota (2) Royce White @Highway_30 US Senate MN Steve Boyd @boydforhouse MN CD7 Mississippi (1) Col Ghannon Burton @GhannonBurton US Senate MS New Hampshire (1) Hon Dawn Johnson @NHGOGAL NH Laconia D5 New York (2) Helen Qiu @Helen4NY NY City Council D1 Mario Fratto @MarioFratto US House NY-24 North Carolina (3) Allen Mashburn @Mashburn4NC Lt Governor NC Matt Shoemaker @votemjs US House NC-13 Leigh Thomas Brown @LeighBrown NC HD8 South Carolina (1) Thomas Murphy @tommurphy8485 US Senate SC Washington (1) Jerrod Sessler @sessler US House WA-4 West Virginia (2) Michael Folk @MichaelFolk34 WV Senate Nate Cain @NateCain4WV US House WV-2 Wyoming (1) Reid Rasner @ReidRasner US Senate WY

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Candidates running for office, continued... (4/4) Texas (26) Jameson Ellis @thejamesonellis US House TX-2 Caroline Kane @CarolineKaneTX US House TX-7 Julie Clark @Julie_ClarkTX US House TX-23 Joseph Trahan @JosephLTrahan TX SD 15 John Perez @Perez4Texas TX HD133 Bianca Gracia @BiancaForTexas TX HD128 Aimee Ramsey @RamseyForHouse TX HD114 Barry Wernick @Wernick4Dallas TX HD108 David Lowe @DavidLowe4Texas TX HD91 Jack Reynolds @Jack4TX99 TX HD99 Charles Byrn @ByrnForTexas TX HD71 Andy Hopper @AndyHopperTX TX HD64 Shelley Luther @ShelleyLuther TX HD62 Devvie Duke @duke4texas TX HD56 Wes Virdell @WesleyVirdell TX HD53 Alicia Davis @AliciaForTexas TX HD21 Janine Chapa @Team_JanineHD20 TX HD20 Tom Glass @tomgglass TX HD17 Jaye Curtis @JayeforTXHD8 TX HD8 Dewey Collier II @Collier4Texas TX HD5 Jeff Fletcher @JeffFletcherHD5 TX HD5 Joshua Feuerstein @CEOofAFN TX HD4 Dale Huls @HulsintheHouse TXHD1 @MadMommaBear2 Precinct Chair TX 469 Trisha Hope @JustTheTweets17 Precinct Chair TX 159 Dr Steven Horwitz @DrHorwitz1A Prct Chr TX 1A #txlege 📷

MdBreathe
Posted - January 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM
Saved - January 3, 2024 at 8:50 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
51 candidates and 40 elected officials from 20 states are calling for the removal of COVID shots from the market. They are also refusing donations from Big Pharma. Over 17,000 physicians support them. New additions include Beth Majeroni, Jacyn Gallagher, Sen Tammy Nichols, and Rep Josh Calloway. Tag representatives who are not on the list.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

January 2, 2024 🚨We now have 51 candidates, 40 elected officials from 20 states publicly stating the COVID shots must be pulled off the market. Many are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma. Over 17,000 physicians stand behind them. Tag your representatives who aren't on the list. (1/3) Newest adds: Beth Majeroni @lizmajeroni candidate GA SD1 Jacyn Gallagher @jacynforidaho candidate ID HD9A Sen Tammy Nichols @nichols_senator ID SD10 Rep Josh Calloway @callowayforKY KY HD10 @EthicalSkeptic #txlege @COVIDSelect @AAPSonline @P_McCulloughMD @PierreKory @KLVeritas @unbridledmd @molsjames

MdBreathe
Posted - December 24, 2023 at 1:49 AM
Saved - December 26, 2023 at 12:15 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
We have 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states calling for the removal of COVID shots. 17,000 physicians support them. Show your support and ask your representatives why they aren't on this list. Here are some of the newest additions. #txlege

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

December 23, 2023 🚨We now have 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states publicly stating the COVID shots must be pulled off the market. Many of these are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma. Over 17,000 physicians stand behind them. Please reward their courage with your support. Ask your representatives why they are not on this list. (1/2) *Newest adds at the top. @CEOofAFN candidate TX HD4 @JeffFletcherHD5 candidate TX HD5 @Highway_30 candidate US Senate MN In office: @SenRonJohnson US Senate WI @Toth_4_Texas State Rep TX HD15 @SenBobHall State State Sen TX D2 @Hamilton4TX Ft Bend TX School Board @BriscoeCain State Rep TX HD128 @ImJoyola Precinct Chair TX 104 @BradPaquetteMI State Rep MI HD37 @matthewmaddock State Rep MI HD51 @jaimegreene65 State Rep MI HD65 @KristinNobleNH State Rep NH Bedford @MikeBelcher14 State Rep NH Carroll 4 @mannion4nh State Rep NH Pelham 1 @JRHoell State Rep NH Merrimack 27 @repshanesirois State Rep NH Hillsborough 32 @KelleyPotenza State Rep NH Stratford 19 @NikkiforNH State Rep NH Belknap 8 @NHRepForFreedom State Rep NH Grafton 5 @lishlekas State Rep NH Hillsborough 38 @NHRepPhillips State Rep NH Rockingham 7 @tony_lekas State Rep NH Hillsborough 38 @JasonGerhardNH State Rep NH Merrimack 25 @tichenor4ky State Sen KY D6 @jenniferforrep State Rep OH D 45 @ShaneMekeland State Rep MN D27A @EdTheTruckerNJ State Senator NJ LD3 Ask your representatives why they aren't on this list. @COVIDSelect #txlege

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Candidates running for office: @MaraMacie FL HD5 @swaffarcongress FL D23 @SCMountainGoat CA D17 @tommurphy8485 SC US Senate @Amy_Pope_Henry ID D13B @boydforhouse MN CD7 @Nomoretweedles AZ US Senate 24 @kupper4arizona AZ LD25 @ReidRasner US Senate in WY @NateCain4WV US House WV-2 @Mashburn4NC Lt Governor NC @votemjs US House NC HD13 @GhannonBurton US Senate MS @NHGOGAL NH Laconia D5 @julie4butte5 Butte County Supervisor, CA, D5 @realTJRoberts KY HD66 @thejamesonellis US House TX-2 @CarolineKaneTX US House TX-7 @Julie_ClarkTX US House TX-23 @Wernick4Dallas TX HD108 @DavidLowe4Texas TX HD91 @Jack4TX99 TX HD99 @Perez4Texas TX HD133 @BiancaForTexas TX HD128 @ByrnForTexas TX HD71 @AndyHopperTX TX HD64 @ShelleyLuther TX HD62 @duke4texas TX HD56 @WesleyVirdell TX HD53 @AliciaForTexas TX HD21 @tomgglass TX HD17 @JayeforTXHD8 TX HD8 @Collier4Texas TX HD5 @HulsintheHouse TX HD1 @MadMommaBear2 Precinct Chair TX 469 @JustTheTweets17 Precinct Chair TX 159 @DrHorwitz 1A Precinct Chair Rockwell TX

MdBreathe
Posted - December 13, 2023 at 8:35 PM
Saved - December 14, 2023 at 12:40 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pediatric myocarditis can lead to permanent scarring and increased risk of arrhythmia and death. Numerous studies discuss myocarditis after COVID shots. Trista Martin received the shots without her parents' knowledge and passed away. Ask representatives if they are still getting or giving the shots to their children and encourage them to speak out if not.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Pediatric myocarditis can leave an asymptomatic permanent scar, increasing the risk of arrhythmia and death. Over 200 peer-reviewed studies describe myocarditis after the COVID shots. Trista Martin got the shots without her parents’ knowledge and died 112 days later. (1/2)

Video Transcript AI Summary
A father rushes to the hospital after receiving a call about his daughter. She had taken the COVID vaccine without informing her parents. The daughter's condition worsens, and she is moved to the ICU. It is later discovered that she developed heart damage from the vaccine. The family initially didn't realize the connection but eventually researched and found the truth. The daughter's health deteriorates rapidly, and she passes away. The autopsy reveals vaccine-induced myocarditis as the cause of death. This tragic incident highlights the potential risks associated with the COVID vaccine, particularly in children.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I missed several calls, so I I answered the phone and she said, Alan, it's Trista, it's serious, they're taking her to the hospital, get to Saint Francis right now, so I I did. I drove as fast as I could. There was a lady there waiting for me. They didn't make me sign in. They didn't ask me who I was there to see. She just said, are are you dad? I said, yeah. Yeah. I I guess. Yeah. They called me that. And she says, follow me. And as we're walking through the couple sets of double doors, I remember thinking to myself, this can't be good. She asked me if I was dad. Didn't make me sign in, and they already know who I'm there to see. Speaker 1: As they were moving her up to the ICU, one of her friends said to us, I think I need to tell you guys this. She Had she got the COVID vaccine, and she asked us not to tell you. Speaker 2: So now we have children taking the COVID nineteen vaccine. Some of them are developing a scar. In the Jenna Schauer paper, some of the scars in children are and they don't always feel it. They don't feel the symptoms when they take the vaccine. They're suffering heart damage. They developed a myocardial scar. Speaker 1: At the time, it nothing really registered. Like, it was just you know? Well Speaker 0: Yeah. It was like, well, that's unfortunate. Awful. Like, super sad. That this is what, you know, caused that, that's kinda how we felt at first. Speaker 1: We didn't really put it together until a couple weeks of research. Speaker 3: Her toxicology came back clean. She tested negative for COVID. Had no idea what was going on. They said her heart was swollen, her organs were shutting down. Speaker 0: I don't believe that she was there anymore at that point, I believe she passed at the apartment. Speaker 1: They were they were keeping her alive then with machines and, Speaker 3: it didn't look like there was a Speaker 0: Yeah. There was none of that bright Speaker 1: The light was gone. Speaker 3: She was gray. I I had a little checklist that I thought about in my head because I knew that it was over. And, I I remembered I wanted to hold her hand. I wanted to give her a hug. I wanted to kiss her on the forehead, and I wanted to smell smell the top of her head because every time I kissed her, that's how I did it. And I wanted to do those things because I knew I'd never be able to Sorry. They called her official time of death at 505 that day Speaker 2: An unlucky child will lose their life months after taking the vaccine Due to a cardiac arrest and the underlying pathology is vaccine induced myocarditis and myocardial scar.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

Ask your representatives if they are still getting the Covid shots or giving them to their kids. If not, they should be speaking out. https://rumble.com/v3v0q2m-shot-dead-the-movie.html

Shot Dead The Movie This is the movie we wish we didn’t have to make. But this is a movie everyone needs to see. For the first time ever, hear the stories of covid shot deaths as told by the parents who lost their childr rumble.com
MdBreathe
Posted - October 22, 2023 at 7:32 PM
Saved - October 24, 2023 at 5:06 AM

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

New Zealand, once leading the world in COVID tyranny, looks ready to take it all down. “New Zealand is a crime scene.” “13 children are dead.” “30 of the 30 people who received the shot at the same place and on the same day are now deceased.”

MdBreathe
Posted - October 15, 2023 at 3:33 PM
Saved - October 16, 2023 at 11:13 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a fiery TX Senate meeting, @SenBobHall criticizes TMA's @ajimmywidmer on vaccine "policy" vs "mandate." Widmer falters when asked about exemptions denied by employers. TMA, largest physician group, backs COVID mandates in Texas. Exemptions must be universally respected.

@MdBreathe - Mary Talley Bowden MD

At last week's meeting in TX Senate, @SenBobHall roasts TMA rep @ajimmywidmer over vaccine mandates. Dr. Widmer is careful to use the word "policy" rather than "mandate" and cannot answer when challenged on what happens if an employer denies an exemption. Exemptions are hard to get and worthless if not universally honored. TMA is the largest physician group in the country and supports COVID mandates in Texas.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The video features a discussion about the requirement of vaccines for employees in healthcare facilities. The speaker questions whether employees should be forced to get vaccinated and highlights concerns about exemptions for religious or medical reasons. The speaker argues that if the employer has the final say on exemptions, they could easily reject them, rendering them meaningless. The issue of employer liability for adverse reactions is also raised, with the speaker suggesting that employers should be held responsible. Another speaker adds that some hospitals are making employees sign consent forms stating they won't sue if they have adverse reactions. The video concludes with a comment expressing skepticism towards the Texas Medical Association.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where do we start? You know, it's interesting you talk about gloves and mask that requiring those, but they get to take those off at night. They can't take out the vaccine when they go at night, can they? That's a permanent, irreversible change to their body. This being dictated. You you how do you put gloves in vaccine even in the same breath? Speaker 1: What we are talking about is is patient safety and ensuring that that these physician offices and Facilities have have the freedoms, have the ability to do what they feel is in the best interest of of their of their patient population In accordance with their with their employees and staff. Speaker 0: Does that include requiring your employees to be vaccinated? Speaker 1: Well, with Speaker 0: Yes or no. That's a simple question. Yes or no. Does that include requiring your employees to be vaccinated? Speaker 1: If they feel that it is in the safety, in the best interest of their patients, then then they can put forward that that policy. Speaker 0: So you're saying That it's the employer's choice 100%. There's no exemption for religion or for their personal medical condition. Because there we do know that people have medical conditions that should not receive a vaccine. You do understand that, don't you? Speaker 1: So yes, sir. So so what I what I mentioned is exceptions Or of conscious and when it is medically contraindicated. Okay. Speaker 0: Who gets decide whether it's a valid medical are a valid conscious decision, the employer or the employee who makes it? Speaker 1: Well, as it pertains to a a medical contraindication, that would The the employee and their position, and then speaking with the HR department, the, the, Facility leadership of of that Speaker 0: Is it the employer or the employee who makes the decision whether it's a valid Conscious decision or religious decision. The employer or the employee, which one? Speaker 1: Well, it would be the employee that brings that forward and then the employer would Would take that into consideration. Speaker 0: Does does an employer have to accept it or not? Yes or no? Simple question. Speaker 1: I don't believe it as way it is currently written that that is That that they have to accept it. Speaker 0: We had the airlines had policies for religious exemption, for medical exemptions. Okay. People sent them Hundreds, hundreds, thousands of them, they turned them down, turned them down, turned them down. Religious, it didn't matter what it was. Yep. You can submit it, but they turned it down. So unless there's some standard or there's some definition of who gets to make that decision, then it's worthless. Absolutely worthless to say you can have a medical exemption or a conscious exemption if the employer gets to rule on whether it's a valid exemption or not. Would you agree would you agree with that? Speaker 1: What I would say is that Within the proposal that we are putting forward, that the employee Is is not, would not be subject to punishment for for submitting this, these, these, exemptions of conscious or being medically contraindicated. And so it it is not we're not asking for a a A punitive action to be taken. Speaker 0: Okay. So so an employee gives you a religious exemption. You say, I don't believe this. I don't I don't, you know, I don't think Baptist should be exempted or whatever religion it is, and you turn it down. Does the employee get fired or are they allowed to continue working? Speaker 1: I'm not, I'm not prepared to answer that. I'm not sure. Speaker 0: You're not sure? Then you don't know what you're proposing? Speaker 1: What What I have said what I said a minute ago is that the employee is not punished When they put forward this this constitution. And so I can't Speaker 0: to be punishment. Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that I can't I can't, speak for all health care facilities and and all physician practices in in the state of Texas. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: But it is up to that individual physician practice and facility to take those on a case by case Speaker 0: basis. Government doesn't Protect you when you go in for kidney surgery, liver surgery, or hearts open heart surgery, anything like at. But vaccines are so dangerous, have so many adverse effects that in order for the manufacturer or to produce that them. The government has to hold them, not responsible for any adverse reaction. You're requiring it as an employer. Should you not be responsible for the adverse reaction that they might have? Speaker 1: Well, again, it would be similar to if they had an adverse reaction to, unfortunately, the influenza vaccine now. The same policy Would, would apply. Speaker 2: Senator, I can clarify on the policy if you would like. Okay. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 2: I just had this Discussion. As a matter of fact, many of the hospitals and staff, they were requiring doctors and nurses To sign 2 consent forms. The first one was a consent form to receive the vaccine, which we knew they were being mandated To receive the vaccine. The 2nd consent form was stating if they did have an adverse reaction, they would not sue their employer. So this is playing out. Doctor Oliverson in the house can testify to this, that this these are the tactics being used to Strong-arm Texans, including doctors and nurses, very very smart articulate people who Should be able to make these decisions for themselves. These are the tactics being used. Speaker 0: That's It's what it's quite clear from that, and I wouldn't expect anything less from the TMA.
View Full Interactive Feed