TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RobSchneider

RobSchneider
Posted - October 26, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Saved - October 27, 2025 at 5:31 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider 🇺🇸

If THIS doesn’t SHOCK YOU to your CORE… You don’t have a core👇👇☠️🇺🇸

@ValerieAnne1970 - Valerie Anne Smith

"Remdesivir Was Too Unethical To Put Into Ebola Clinical Trials In Africa Because It Had A 53% Kill Rate." Dr David Martin, PhD "The Gov't Chose Remdesivir That Kills 53% Of People...As The 'Drug Of Choice' For Covid." Still Prescribed Today & Now Approved For Newborn Infants. Remdesivir, under the brand name Veklury, is still the 1st line treatment in hospitals & outpatient clinics for the treatment of Covid. Previously for ages 12 & up, the CDC & FDA have recently approved Remdesivir for infants less than 28 days old & it is now being marketed as treatment for newborns who weight at least 3 lbs. The pediatric 'safety' clinical trial that brought the updated inclusion of newborns was based on 58 hospitalized infants who were injected with Remdesivir & monitored for only 10 days. Remdesivir (Veklury) Toxicity Across All Age Groups For Multi Organ Failure Of Kidneys, Heart & Liver... Kidneys: Patients treated with Remdesivir (Veklury) suffered 2.81X greater AKI Acute Kidney Injury & subsequent permanent renal damage. Heart: Continuous cardiac monitoring is recommended for those receiving remdesivir because it has been documented to cause... Sinus bradycardia (slow heart rate) T-wave abnormalities Prolonged QT interval Ventricular fibrillation Cardiac arrest Heart block Torsade de pointes, a fatal arrhythmia Liver: On a cellular level, remdesivir has been demonstrated to be toxic to human hepatocytes, causing drug induced permanent liver damage. Combine this damage with being placed on a ventilator & patients quickly develop pulmonary edema, causing their lungs to fill with fluid & drown to death. Loved ones lost their lives while hospitals brought in millions of dollars of profit from government incentive programs & huge payments for each patient, each treatment & each diagnosis. 👇Remdesivir (Veklury) Package Insert👇 https://www.gilead.com/-/media/files/pdfs/medicines/covid-19/veklury/veklury_pi.pdf 👇Remdesivir Causes Kidney Failure👇 https://www.scielosp.org/article/csp/2021.v37n10/e00077721/#:~:text=Table%201%20describes%20the%20number%20of%20adverse,of%20renal%20adverse%20events%20among%20patients%20with 👇Remdesivir Causes Heart Failure👇 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8511861/ 👇Remdesivir Causes Liver Failure👇 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8224190/ Speaker: Dr David E Martin, Phd Video: @foreversovereign

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2018, remdesivir, described as one of my favorite targets, was deemed too unethical to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a fifty-three percent kill rate published in medical journals. The speaker notes that Ebola doesn’t have a fifty-three percent kill rate, yet in April and May 2020 it was chosen to be the drug of choice to treat COVID. The drug was considered too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing fifty-three percent of the people to whom it was given. The speaker asserts that Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx were sitting next to the president advocating the use of remdesivir despite the World Health Organization stating it was unethical to use it. The central problem identified is that, as long as the financial interest that dictates which product is promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, there is no possibility for accountability and no possibility for justice. The speaker argues that the decision-making is influenced by a lineage described as having emerged from the Eugenics office, specifically naming Carnegie Mellon in 1913, the same group of people that established the World Health Organization in 1953. The speaker claims that this same group is the one making the current decisions. The speaker asks the audience to consider their feelings about Eugenics and concludes by expressing a problem with it, tying these connections to the governance and promotion of pandemic responses.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Remember that in 2018, remdesivir, one of my favorite targets, remdesivir was too unethical to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a fifty three percent kill rate published in medical journals. Ebola doesn't have a fifty three percent kill rate, but it was chosen in April and May 2020 to be the drug of choice to treat COVID. This drug was too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing fifty three percent of the people that it was given to. And we had Anthony Fauci, Deborah Burke sitting next to the president going, we need to use remdesivir despite the fact that the World Health Organization said it was unethical to use it. Here's the problem. The problem is as long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, We have no possibility for accountability. We have no possibility for justice. And what we do is we allow people who were formed out of the Eugenics office, Carnegie Mellon in 1913, that same group of people that were the same group of people that established the World Health Organization in 1953, that same group of people are the ones who are making this decision. And I don't know how you feel about Eugenics, but I have a problem with it.
SciELO - Saúde Pública - Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database scielosp.org
Potential Cardiotoxic Effects of Remdesivir on Cardiovascular System: A Literature Review Corona disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread around the world with no efficacious treatment. Intravenous remdesivir is the only authorized drug for treatment of COVID-19 disease under an Emergency Use Authorization. Remdesivir is a ... pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Hepatic manifestations of COVID-19 and effect of remdesivir on liver function in patients with COVID-19 illness COVID-19 has emerged as a major global health crisis since the first cases were reported in China in December 2019. Remdesivir is the only broad-spectrum antiviral approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat hospitalized patients with ... pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
RobSchneider
Posted - June 16, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Saved - June 17, 2025 at 1:40 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider 🇺🇸

Americans cannot and will not participate in another Middle East war.

@robbystarbuck - Robby Starbuck

President Trump warns that "everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran." I agree that the leaders of Iran are zealots who hate America and want us dead but I don’t want American boots on the ground. Israel seems to be handling Iran quite well without us, so let them handle it. https://t.co/GwH48gN44p

RobSchneider
Posted - March 3, 2025 at 6:17 AM
Saved - March 3, 2025 at 12:56 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

The Democrats WERE and STILL ARE the BIGGEST THREAT to the UNITED STATES remaining a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

https://t.co/6kreKPOn0N

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Democrat propaganda machine is fired up to destroy me because entitlements fraud, including Social Security, disability, Medicaid, and entitlements fraud for illegal aliens, acts as a magnet, pulling people from around the world and keeping them here. If we end illegal alien fraud, we turn off that magnet, they leave, and Democrats lose voters. In New York, illegal aliens can already vote in state and city elections. FEMA, meant to support Americans in distress, was paying for luxury hotels for illegals in New York. They're buying voters; it's a giant voter fraud scam. If you put 200,000 illegals in swing states, with an 80% likelihood of voting Democrat, and they become citizens, those states will turn blue, leading to a permanent one-party, deep blue socialist state.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, so if I were to say, like, what's at the heart of the sort Speaker 1: of like, why is the Democrat propaganda machine so fired up to destroy me? That's the main reason. The main reason is that is that entitlements fraud, that includes, like, Social Security, disability, Medicaid, entitlements fraud for illegal aliens is what is serving as a gigantic magnetic force to pull people in from all around the world and keep them here. Like, basically, if you if you pay people, at a standard of living that is above 90% of Earth, then you have a very powerful incentive for 90% of Earth to come here and to stay here. But if you if you end the illegal alien fraud, then you that you turn off that magnet, and they leave. And they they stop coming, and the and the ones that are here, many of them will simply leave. And if if that happens, a mass they will lose a massive number of Democratic voters. Speaker 2: And if it didn't happen, they would turn those people into voters Correct. Which they were trying to do. Speaker 1: They are already telling them so in in New York state, illegal aliens can already vote in state and city elections. A lot of people don't don't know that. There's there's that I mean, they try to fight them, and they're trying to stop that, but it's they're currently, I think it's, 600,000 are registered to vote, illegal aliens in New York. That is wild. Yeah. Well, mean, if you look at, say, you know, FEMA like, the the agency that was paying for illegal aliens to stay at luxury hotels in New York was FEMA. The you know, that's meant that that's an agency that's meant to support Americans in distress from natural disasters was paying for luxury hotels for illegals in New York. Speaker 2: It's true. Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a fact. Fact. They're literally like, when when we stopped that payment, we we stopped all those those money because that's obviously an insane way to spend taxpayer money. The New York sued the government, sued the federal government to get the money. So you could just look at their lawsuit. They they they were get they were sending that money even after president Trump signed an executive order saying it needs to stop. They still press send on $80,000,000 to luxury hotels in New York. Your tax money went to pay for legal aliens in luxury hotels in New York from an agency that is meant to help Americans in distress from natural disasters. Speaker 2: Right. And I would like to know how much, and I would like to know how much they spend on North Carolina and how much they spend on Maui. Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. What what's actually happening is they're buying voters. That's really what's happening. It's like it's like a giant voter fraud scam. They're importing voters, and and it's really just a matter of time. So, like, if a lot of people have trouble believing this, but if you the more you look at it, the more you will realize just how much of a problem this is and how it's it's it's not just real. It is it is an attempt to destroy democracy in America. That's what it, in my view, it it is what it really is. Like, Speaker 0: if you Speaker 1: take the the the sort of seven swing states, like, often the margin of victory there is, like, maybe 20,000 votes. If you put 200,000 illegals in there and they have, like, a 80% likelihood of voting down, and it's only a matter of time before they become citizens, then those swing states will not be swing states in the future. And if they are not swing states, we'll be a permanent one party state country, permanent, deep blue socialist state. That's what America will become. Speaker 2: And that was the game plan? Speaker 1: That that was that was the game plan. That is still the game plan. And so they They almost succeeded. If if if if the if the machine of which the Kamala puppet was the representation had won, that's what would have happened. The reason I went so hardcore for for for for Trump was because, to me, this was a fork in the road. Very like, a very obvious fork in the road. If they had another four years, they would legalize enough illegals in the swing states to make the swing states, not swing states. They would just they would be blue states. Then then they would they would win the presidential they'd they'd win the house, the senate, and the presidency. They would then make district, you know, DC into a state. May maybe Puerto Rico get four extra senators, pack the supreme court, so then you'll have the house, judiciary, senate, and presidency all blue. And then they will keep importing more illegals to cement that that outcome. Basically, what happened in California? Jesus Christ. It would have been the end. That's why I went so hardcore for for Trump. It was other otherwise, it's been the end. And that's why the the the Democrat machine is so intent on destroying me. Speaker 2: It's just so fascinating that people can't see this. Speaker 1: I mean, I invite people to do their research. The more they do their research, the more they will see that what I'm saying is absolutely true.
RobSchneider
Posted - February 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Saved - February 23, 2025 at 6:43 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

The race baitress has been fired. Can YOU imagine if someone said THIS about people of color?👇👇

@EndWokeness - End Wokeness

BREAKING: MSNBC fires Joy Reid 🥳 https://t.co/nSQ4xErwHV

Video Transcript AI Summary
In America, we see a pattern of white vigilantism followed by what I call "white tears," especially from men. They act first, then cry when caught. White men often get away with this, and it's effective. Even as some try to claim masculinity is being taken away by multiculturalism, they still want to be able to cry.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In America, there's a thing about both white vigilantism and white tears, particularly male white tears. Really white tears in general because that's what carrots are. Right? They carrying out, and then as soon as they get caught, it's green waterworks. White men can get away with that too, and it has the same effect even as the right tries to politicize the idea that masculinity is being robbed from American men by multiculturalism and wokeism, they still want to be able to have their tears.
RobSchneider
Posted - February 5, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Saved - February 6, 2025 at 10:59 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Hear THIS ⁦@elonmusk⁩ https://t.co/C6M0lBlVQK

RobSchneider
Posted - February 1, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Saved - February 2, 2025 at 5:17 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

👇👇👇

@liberty68573592 - mylibertymatters

@RobSchneider yes. https://t.co/uBDOtsGoBo

RobSchneider
Posted - January 12, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Saved - January 14, 2025 at 5:27 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

PLEASE HELP IDENTIFY…

@lincolnxiii - lincoln the third

@GavinNewsom Investigate these kids who were right near the fires starting point. https://t.co/ZUVnUlB7yQ

@clairdestella - Stella

@RobSchneider @RobSchneider meet @BeniOren1

@BeniOren1 - Beni Oren

@clairdestella @RobSchneider Lmao

@clairdestella - Stella

@BeniOren1 @RobSchneider Hey man I don’t want to be a snitch, just tell the man the situation

RobSchneider
Posted - December 28, 2024 at 2:00 AM
Saved - December 28, 2024 at 2:58 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

ONCE you LEARN HOW VACCINES ARE MADE, you will never feel the same way EVER again about the drug… The last 25 minutes of this interview is absolutely disturbing and devastating…

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

The New York Times claims the evil Bobby Kennedy wants to ban the polio vaccine and paralyze children. That’s an absurd lie, explains his lawyer Aaron Siri. (0:00) The Establishment’s Attempt to Discredit Bobby Kennedy Jr. (8:18) The Vaccine Religion (18:57) Did Anyone Protest This Polio Vaccine? (21:04) How the Government Protects Vaccine Developers (30:51) The New York Times vs. Bobby Kennedy Jr. (50:31) Why Is Nobody Lobbying Against This? (55:03) How Profitable Is the Vaccine Industry? (1:06:22) The Perversion of Science (1:10:47) Siri Risked Everything to Speak Out (1:25:57) The Dark Link Between Abortion and the Vaccine Industry (1:43:39) Will Bobby Kennedy Jr. Be Confirmed? Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by President Trump for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. His opponents are attempting to discredit him by falsely claiming he wants to eliminate the polio vaccine. The truth is that a petition was filed questioning the safety of one specific polio vaccine, which was licensed based on inadequate clinical trials. The petition aimed to require a proper review, not to eliminate access to the vaccine. Additionally, the conversation touches on the broader issues of vaccine safety, the conflicts of interest in health agencies, and the increasing chronic health conditions in children. Kennedy's commitment to transparency and public health reform is emphasized, highlighting the need for change in the current healthcare system.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you're Bobby Kennedy's lawyer. Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by president Trump to be the secretary of health and human services, h a HHS. Bobby Kennedy has a this is just my quick summary. He has a very large constituency, in the United States. He's not some anonymous character. He's a guy who's been around for many, many years and has many, many fans. So it's hard for his opponents, who are many in Washington, to take him on directly. And so they are trying to discredit him preemptively before the vote. This is my read. And the latest way that they have done this is by accusing him and you of trying to limit access of Americans to the polio vaccine, the one vaccine that most people think is great. I think that's a fair summary. Speaker 1: I I I would say they accused us of trying to eliminate Speaker 0: Eliminate the Speaker 1: polio vaccine. Vaccine. The New York Times headline was, right, that it was filed to to get rid of the polio vaccine. Speaker 0: The polio vaccine. Speaker 1: The headline that everybody picked it up. So you Speaker 0: are, as we say, objectively pro polio. Oh, well, it's Human characterization of the near term. Speaker 1: It's it's it's it's a classic retort. If you question anything about the safety of these products or even their efficacy or the clinical trials or the post licensure safety, the typical retort is, so you want everybody to have polio. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, yeah. Desperately. Speaker 1: Like, well Speaker 0: Kind of a life goal. Speaker 1: It's a product. We're just asking questions. Speaker 0: Oh, just asking questions is not allowed. I've been penalized for just asking questions. No questions. So I okay. So that's the context for this question. What is your position on the polio vaccines? And I I think as you speak, you were also suggesting what Bobby Kennedy might think you are his lawyer, but you tell me. Speaker 1: So the what The New York Times did is they purposefully, knowingly misled the entire country into believing that a petition that I filed on behalf of a client, not my petition, my of my client's petition, not mister Kennedy. He was not the client. A petition I've never spoke to him about ever nor did my client sought to eliminate the polio vaccine. That was the headline. And therefore, because I'm mister Kennedy's lawyer, in some instances, my firm has almost 80 people. We have lots of clients, including mister Kennedy, including many others. And because we filed this petition on behalf of a different client, nothing to do with him, that questioned one polio vaccine, by the way, and it's licensed to try and only ask the children. I'll get into that. Somehow, he wants to get rid of the polio vaccine, and they knew it was untrue, and they published it for the following simple reason. First of all and and and if they didn't know this, they're not fit to be a high school newspaper. K? 1, the petition only sought review, and this was a petition to the FDA, only sought review as to 1 of 6 licensed polio vaccines and only as to children. Why? What was the basis of the petition, which, by the way, should have been the headline? This particular polio vaccine licensed in 1990, not the Salk vaccine. It's not the Sabin vaccines. It's not the vaccine that you think of when you hear the polio vaccine. K? This vaccine was based on a novel technology. You need to grow a virus in some kind of cultural medium. Here, they use something called Vero cells. These are chromosomally modified monkey kidney cells that are rendered immortal, just like cancer cells. That means they'll grow forever, just like cancer cells. And they end up as an ingredient in every single vial. The clinical trial relied upon to license this brand new novel polio vaccine in 1990, reviewed safety for literally 3 days after injection. 3 days. That sounds incredible. That sounds like it cannot be true, but it is on the FDA website. On behalf of my client, we FOIA the FDA for all the clinical trial reports for the summary basis of approval. We we tortured them for years basically saying, come on. There's gotta be more than this. You licensed based on 3 days of safety review in the clinical trial after injection with no control group. There's no way you could know the safety of this product before you license it to be injected. No control group. There was no control group. Speaker 0: Isn't a control group of prerequisite for a scientific experiment? Because Speaker 1: because you Speaker 0: need a baseline. What do you compare Speaker 1: it to? The best you could do is compare it to the background rate, which is almost impossible. Because then you'd have to figure out the background rate for that exact demographic. It essentially renders the trial useless for safety. But here's the thing, Even if they had a control group, Tucker, even if they did, with 3 days of safety review, what what are you reviewing? It takes weeks often for even any immune dysregulation caused by the product to appear just like it takes at least many weeks for you to build up, let's say, antibodies to the target antigen in the vial. Speaker 0: Exactly. Speaker 1: If you're gonna have self attacking antibodies, those take weeks as well to develop. And oftentimes, when you're giving it to a baby, this product is given at 2, 4, and 6 months. If they're gonna have an immune dysregulation, if they're gonna have a developmental issue, you're not gonna know that for years. Asthma is not even diagnosed until a few years of age. Developmental issues will take years. And so, you know, a lot of the issues that we see I I mentioned, you know, my firm's got about 40 people that just do vaccine work. We do other things, but we they just do vaccine work. And so and and and we don't represent pharmaceutical companies. So as far as I know, we have the biggest vaccine practice in the world that doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies. One of the practices we have is vaccine injury claims. We don't sue pharmaceutical companies. You can't. They have immunity, to liability since 1986, the only product like that. But you can't sue the federal health authorities in this little program. And so, you know, our a lot of the injuries that we see when we do that work are immune or immune mediated neurological disorders. And those things are not going to appear until, typically, a few days after vaccination. So this trial, going back to this polio vaccine called, this this that was the subject of this petition, It was utterly useless to determine its safety. Speaker 0: So Wait. I'm a couple quick questions. Please. I've never heard of that. I've never heard of an experiment without a control group. And 3 days is obviously inadequate to judge the the safety of or the efficacy for that matter of a product. So how did federal health regulators sign off on that? Speaker 1: You know, that's an excellent question. Why would the FDA agree to license it? Right? It's it's a great question. We could talk about regulatory capture. We could talk about the ideological beliefs that the folks who are involved in CBER and which is the biologics division of the FDA. And within that, there's a office called the OVVR. That's the where the vaccines are actually licenses are reviewed. And I've met some of the folks who've been in that department, and they're they're very much I don't know if the right I guess, ID logs. You know, they believe almost a priority priority in the safety of these products, even when they're experimental to such a degree that, I guess, they let products like this and and I should tell you, if you think that Speaker 0: Because they believe the category of products is so virtuous that the details aren't important? Speaker 1: I I I'm I'm speculating. Right? The the the the important point is they did it. Why they did it, we could speculate on, but they did it. Speaker 0: Well, Sue, I do but I do wanna ask you to pause and try to solve a mystery that I've been thinking about for a long time, and I and I don't know I really don't understand it. What accounts for the religious attachment of certain people, particularly affluent, well educated people to vaccines as a category. I mean, there are a million medicines out there and prophylactics and there are all kinds of treatments for all kinds of diseases, but people take a kind of cooler, less emotional view of them. And chemotherapy saves lives, but there are downsides to chemotherapy. And most people are like, we don't kinda weighing it out. Is it worth taking chemo or not? Right? But vaccines quickly become religious, like, almost immediately. Like, even the word has an emotional power that no other treatment or medicine does, and and this has been true for a long time. Why is that? What is that? Speaker 1: Well, I'm I Speaker 0: Have you noticed this, by the way? Speaker 1: Absolutely. I it's it's iron there's an irony in the following way. Those who often don't wanna receive vaccines, I find here are the ones, not always, who have taken the time to really look at the clinical trials, the post licensure safety, to understand these products more objectively. The CDC will tell you that the people who have the highest rates of completely unvaccinated kids are ones with PhDs and and are highly educated often in the sciences. So what are they learning? What are they understanding that caused them not to receive these products? And so I find the, quote, unquote, those who oppose vaccines, you know, whatever pejorative one wants to use about them Speaker 0: They're the ones who believe the science. Speaker 1: Oftentimes. And that's just not me saying it. I mean, I'm saying that they when they survey, because they've tried to identify, well, who are the populations refusing these products? They they find it's the they're they're disproportionately highly educated. There are some folks who don't have access to care, and they just don't get it because they don't get it. Right. But those who consciously choose, typically very highly educated. Now to answer your question, which is, have I seen religion almost when it comes to these products? Yes. I have. But it comes from often the side of the folks who wanna make you get them, force people to do it. You must believe what I believe about these products. Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: You must submit. How dare you ask questions? Do not ask questions. You must just believe and you often hear it in the following. I've never heard people say, I believe in statins. Speaker 0: Well, that that's that's the point. Right? Speaker 1: I believe in vaccines. That's the language they use. It's the language of religion. And alright. And you're asking me to speculate, so I'll speculate, which I, you know, prefer usually prefer not to do. But it is for a lot of people, and I found this with a lot of the vaccinologists who, you know, who I've deposed and interacted with. They're often a lot of them are atheists. And maybe they were brought up in a certain religion, but they have now become atheists. And I think when somebody doesn't have religion in their life, any religion, they don't believe in god, some god, ends up with a an empty space that needs to be filled with something. They have to believe in something. How do you not believe in something in this life? You have to have meaning. It's it's gotta be a really dark place to not believe to believe everything came from nothing. And if you do, I you know, I'm I'm speculating that vaccines start holding a place of religion that they look to it as, see, this saved us. This is what saved humanity. And I and and I think there's maybe some degree of that that this notion of vaccines are, especially those in the medical profession. And and I'll give you an example. You know, I'll use the example of measles. K? The great killer that you'll often hear. You know, they make you feel like everyone's gonna die if you don't get measles vaccines. Well, here's the thing. Public health authorities should take credit for the decline in measles deaths in America. They should. But they should take credit in the following way. Between the year 1900, this is on the CDC website, what I'm about to tell you, and the year 1960, 61, 62, the year before the first measles vaccine in America, 1963, the mortality rate for measles declined by over 98%. Yes. By over 98%. That is you can just go pull up the mortality data on the CDC website. This is uncontroversial. It's just data, what I just said. Some people get emotional about it, but it's just data, what I just said. Why would Speaker 0: they get emotional? Speaker 1: For the reasons we just discussed. That decline had nothing to do with vaccines. You know how I know? There was no measles vaccine. Speaker 0: That's how I know. What what what caused that decline? Speaker 1: I I I think that in part, it's the public health, health authorities should take a lot of credit for that. Nutrition sanitation. Sanitation, clean water, getting sewage running out of the streets. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: Right? All of these things, initiatives to make sure that there's natural light. Like, remember all the tenement buildings? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: All these initiatives. Even basic things like quarantine. Oh, if you're sick, not that not to kind of force kind of stay at home stuff that we're talking about. Just if you're sick, hey, maybe you should stay at home in bed kind of stuff. And so that decline, 98 over 98%. You know how many people died in a few years, on average, a year before there was the first measles vaccine in 1963 when pox of this country were still like the developed world? Around 400 Americans a year died. That's 1 in 500,000 Americans died of measles in the years before they were vaccine. Every death's a tragedy. And measles can still kill people just like any virus can in parts of the world that are really underdeveloped. Any virus can kill children, adults. And there are still pockets of America in the early sixties that were like that. But that declining rate of mortality, it was a trajectory that was ongoing even when the measles vaccine was introduced in 63. So those 400 deaths which have now gone down, how much of that is attributable to measles vaccine? How much of it is Right? We we that could be debated forever. We don't need to. But the important point is this. Long way to answer your question is this. When you listen to public health authorities today, they will say to you measles is what caused the decline. Measles vaccine is what caused the decline in mortality. They never talk about those other things that they did. They never talk about the increased sanitation, the the the better all the all the different effective measures that they took to get it down by 98%. Speaker 0: Sunlight. Speaker 1: They talk about that last 1%, but they make it seem like the vaccine, which caused that last 1% of decline from 1900 or some I shouldn't even say it caused it. You could argue it's up to 1 point something percent from the measles vaccine. You can't argue it's more than that in the decline. It's not possible, but they ignore that. And the only thing they'll point to is say, measles excuse me. Measles vaccine is what saved us. And that's true of most of the vaccines, actually. When you look at the number of people that died in the year before the vaccine, typically, the mortality had precipitously declined for diphtheria, for tetanus, for almost every disease, it declined 80 over 80, 90% before the from the year 1900 introduction of the first vaccine. And oftentimes, in the year before, you're down to a dozen or 2 maybe months, a dozen or 2 dozen deaths, you know, for most of these things. So, you know, when you talk about religious beliefs, but yet many in the medical community, they'll say, how how could you not take a vaccine? Millions in America would die. And that's an incredible statistic to think millions in America would die a year for if you don't get vaccinated. Because if you just add up the number of deaths in the year before every vaccine that is net that is now on the schedule, putting aside COVID vaccine because there were 100 of thousands of deaths and before the vaccine, right, they say. And you can argue whether the vaccine reduced mortality, though there was all increased all cause mortality afterwards, putting aside the flu shot, which the science has cleared doesn't reduce mortality based on numerous reviews like cork and crab collaboration, which I understand now is is owned by the Gates Foundation, so maybe those studies will change soon. You, you're at thousands of deaths, thousands total. And and and many of those were occurring in years long before the, you know, the the the current acute care that we provide, the current, increases in all the other factors that cause the reduction in mortality to begin with. So but, nonetheless, this is the only thing they wanna point to is is vaccines. You know? So, I I think that that's maybe what it is. There's just it fills a space of they have to believe in something, and these products fill that space for them. Because I find a lot of times, you can't really have an objective converse a a a nonemotional objective conversation with with with some people about these products, and they are just products. Speaker 0: How do travelers stay prepared for the unexpected? Well, when you're flying across the country or driving for hours crammed into crowded spaces, and yet most people don't think what they do if they got sick or someone they love got sick. Have you thought about that? Well, now it's the holidays. It's the busiest travel time of the year, and it's also flu season. Everyone's stressed. People are coughing. And if you're unlucky, you could find yourself ill in a place where you need medication. So what do you do about that? Well, thankfully, there's a solution. It's called JACE Go. JACE, j a s e, go. It's a compact kit of essential prescription medications for all of those unexpected health emergencies for infections, food poisoning, and more. It's designed to go wherever you go. Think about that. Snow hits, pharmacies close, flights get delayed, bad things happen. If you have JSCO, you're covered. There's no scrambling, no worrying. You can be content because you've got peace of mind. So don't wait until you're stuck with that essential medications. It's Chris and Vacation. Is there gonna be an ear infection? Probably. So go to Jace. Go to jace.com/go. Jase.com /go. Use the code Tucker to get your Jace Go with a special discount. Jace.com/gocode Tucker. Was this review the the polio, the one of 6 licensed polio vaccines in question you said received its license in 1990. It was 35 years ago. Did anyone over the course of 35 years say, wait a second. You know, the process used to evaluate its the safety of this product was like a joke, woefully insufficient. Did anyone say anything about it for all those years up until recently? Speaker 1: Well, my client, in Action Network, ICANN, has been, beating on that drum now for, you know, a a good 8 almost 8 years with the FDA, starting with, an extensive letter about all of these, shortcomings in 2017. ICANN was formed at the end of 2016. And, you might say, well, the vaccine had been licensed for decades at that point. You know? What why now? Well, first, ICANN was just formed then to really to really start looking at these things. And, also, you know, in 1986, there was something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was passed. Speaker 0: I don't know if you're Speaker 1: familiar with that. And, basically, leading up to 1986, there were only 3 routine vaccines in United States. That's it. A child in the 1st year of life received 3 injections according to the CDC schedule. K? Problem is is that Speaker 0: And what what were they? Speaker 1: DTP, OPV, and MMR. Speaker 0: For the layman, what are those? Speaker 1: So one is, DTP with his diphtheria tetanus pertussis, so that's one vaccine. OPV, which is oral polio vaccine. And then MMR is measles measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. So each of those are counting 3 3 different vaccines on the market. 3 separate products. Speaker 0: So that was the state of play as of 1986? Speaker 1: That was the state of play. That's it. And they were causing so much financial losses to the manufacturers of those three products. There were many companies that made those products that all of them went out of business or stopped making them, except there was one company remaining for each of them. And they were threatening to go out of business too. Now Congress, in its wisdom, should have let them do what every other manufacturer does for every other product. You make a plane that falls out of the sky, make a better plane. You make you make a car that gas tank blows up, make a better car. You make a drug that's causing people to have all kinds of complications, make a better drug. Instead, congress said, you know what? Actually, we'll just make it so nobody can sue you for the injuries. So the Speaker 0: 3 products companies are going out of business because of lawsuits from people who Were injured. Speaker 1: That's right. They were gonna go yeah. That's right. They were they were succumbing to incredible financial losses because of the injuries these products are causing. And so, you know, when you think about it, drugs don't have this immunity. But congress passed a National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and that gave them immunity for any injuries from those two products. But not only those three products, any other vaccine, childhood routine childhood vaccine that came on the market thereafter. And so we have gone from 3 injections in the 1st year of life on the CDC schedule, those ones we just talked about, to if you look at the CDC schedule today, you get 29 injections in the 1st year of life. If if you if your child gets all of the vaccines that is currently on the CDCs just in the 1st year of life schedule, I'm not even counting the 4 shots that you're supposed to get in pregnancy now, which didn't exist back in 86, and that assumes you don't get any combination vaccines. That's what you would get. That's the differential between then and now. And in that same time period, we have gone from under 13% of kids in America have a chronic health issue in the early eighties to well over 50% of kids today have a chronic health issue. And many of those issues that have exploded are From 86 to present? From 86 to present. Yes. And many of those chronic health issues amongst children that have exploded are immune or immune mediated conditions. K? So something has gone wrong with the immune system of our children. I'm not saying vaccines cause that all of that rise, But what I am saying is that we do know that vaccines can cause a number of immune and immune mediated neurological conditions, including some of the conditions that we have seen explode since the early eighties. It's obviously not the only environmental change. Right? Because something in the environment had to change between the early eighties and today to cause this dysregulation in our children's immune system to cause all this chronic disease. Was it vaccines? Was it pesticides? Is it the all the new chemicals that are kinda aligned in our food? There's a whole host of factors you should look at. But when you're talking about immune system dysregulation, looking at the products that came online between 1986 and today, it's pretty critical. And so to answer your question now, you said, well, has anybody asked the question about this clinical trial for this polio vaccine? So when my client, ICANN, started really looking at this issue, it said, well, you know, we we you know, is is are the vaccines a contributor? Because given a lot of vaccines in the 1st year of life, is that what's causing these immune system issues? Well, the place that you go to assess whether a product is safe is its clinical trial. Why? It's the one time you can determine causation, really, between a product and a claimed injury. You need a prospective double blind placebo controlled trial, typically, or well controlled trial. It's okay to use non placebo if you have an existing standard of care that has already been established as safe in a double blind placebo controlled trial. Right? K? And so the that process began by looking at the package inserts and the 58 documents. Well, let's look at what the clinical trial data says for each of these products. Not only because I can want to look at that investigation, but also when our clients call our firm and they say, hey. My kid went in totally healthy. You know, his baby APGAR score perfect. Goes in 10 minutes after getting a shot or these shots has a grand mal seizure, blah blah blah, you know, has a cascade of issues. When we go to vaccine court, the program I told you about, because you can't sue the manufacturer. You sue the secretary of health immune services. And if mister Kennedy becomes, for example, the secretary of HS, we'd actually be suing him, ironically. You see the secretary of HHS, and in a program where almost every claim, you have to prove causation. You have to prove it. K? I don't have an MD. I don't have a PhD. I'm not I'm I'm a lawyer. So when I go to court about vaccines, I have to prove things with real evidence. I need good evidence. I don't get to just say stuff. I don't get to appeal to my credentials. Okay. How do I prove it? Starts with clinical trial data. Because everything after licensure is almost all retrospective epidemiological studies, and those, they say, can never show causation. You roll into court with those, they're like, well, that's that's just correlation. You can't prove anything with that. And and and by the way, it's not even like there's a mountain of that stuff. There's if you go to PubMed and you wanted to research the safety of any particular child of vaccine, you're not gonna find a lot of studies. I know they say these most robustly studied products, but there's there's, what they say, and there's a reality to to the state of the science. So bringing this all the way back Speaker 0: And and the reality is that they're just not studied very closely. Speaker 1: And and this polio vaccine is a great example, and and as well as the other 2 petitions they took issue with in the news recently. So in this one petition, here we are, right, 2 or 20 something years later. We've got this explosion of chronic health in our children, and, the manufacturer of this product, this was a novel product at the time, the manufacturer's product, 20 something years later still needs immunity to liability? You still don't know it's safe enough to live that? Really? It's been how many years? Right? So Merit's really looking into look at the clinical trial. Like I said, on behalf of ICANN, we FOIA the FDA for all the clinical trial reports. We sent them letters. We did everything we can to give them an opportunity to show us it's more than 3 days with no control because that is not believable. Meaning, if you had said to me you said, Aaron, come up with the most nefarious thing you can come up with about vaccines. Like, just go crazy. I wouldn't even dream of saying that to you. Because nobody would believe it. It's it sounds crazy, but it's right there. It is the reality. And so we filed a petition that I think if anybody in America read, if you didn't read the headline of the New York Times, but instead read the actual petition, you'd be like, oh, that's very reasonable. So you license a particularly novel, yes, polio vaccine based on essentially cancerous monkey kidney cells that end up as an ingredient, and you're reached for 3 days after injection with no control. So the petition said, hey, FDA. Excuse me. Can you require a proper clinical trial of this product, please? Before it's licensed? And it was only asked to children. That's what the request was in this petition filed on behalf of ICANN. K? So let me address 2 things. Speaker 0: Wait. So that was the ask just for a clinical trial? Speaker 1: Before it's licensed for children. Yes. And so what we're asking now just to just to understand, it's not even like ICANN wanted to withdraw the licensure of this one product. It's not the point. The clinical trials are done by the manufacturer. They're not done by the FDA. K? They're done by the manufacturer. So how do we get the manufacturer to do another clinical trial that's appropriate? Well, you have to, when you file a request with the FDA on their formal docket like, when Pfizer files a request on this formal docket that we use, FDA hates that we use it because it's only pharma companies typically use it. They're like, we'd like to license this product. We would like to change the licensure. We would like to change that company's licensure because of this. Right? So we use the same document on behalf of ICANN, and we filed on it, And we said, hey. We want you to take this action, but we have to ask them to change some action the FDA took. Well, the only action they took was to license it. So the valve to ask them to get them to require a new trial is to say, pause or pull the licensure for this one product until there's a proper trial. K? It was it was the legal mechanism to get the good good another trial. It wasn't the purpose wasn't to get rid of the vaccine. The purpose was to get them to do a proper trial. And in no universe, to be clear, did we ever think, my client ever think and I ever think that the FDA would actually pull the licensure. We just hoped, thought, they'd say, hey, go do a proper clinical trial. They're on to us. It's now been that thought petition was filed in 2022. It's been years. They haven't done it. And I like to make this point very clear. Just super clear. I really gotta set this record straight. It's so important. Even if this petition was granted, there is not a single child or adult in America that would not have had access to a polio vaccine. Not one. That is what makes the New York Times headlines absolutely false. They knew it was false. They intended for the country to be deceived because they're trying desperately to derail mister Kennedy's nomination. And I'll I'll just Speaker 0: But hold on. I I know you don't like to speculate as to motive, but, it does raise this confusing question. Why would The New York Times, a, be so opposed to Bobby Kennedy? He's a it's a liberal newspaper. He's a lifelong liberal. Was. Kennedy was. Yeah. Right. Speaker 1: In their in their minds. Yeah. He is he's a classical liberal. Speaker 0: Oh, I I couldn't agree more. And, I would say it's a compliment. Believes in civil liberties. We all should. But, why would The New York Times be willing to lie in order to keep him from getting confirmed? Why is it so important? Speaker 1: I think it's probably a mix, like many things in life, of a number of factors. For sure. I think that it matters whether you're looking at the level of the 2 reporters that wrote this piece, at the level of the New York Times as an organization, at the various people between those two reporters, and New York Times an organization that had some hand in that piece before it came out. I think it's probably a blend of ranging from ideology. You know? The I will tell you these two authors of this article, I mean, they they are in the category of what I would call vaccine zealots. I mean, they, I think, are incapable of objectively thinking and looking Do you Speaker 0: remember their names? Speaker 1: Their names are Cheryl and and Christina, and it's I I could pull it up if you'd like. Yeah. Speaker 0: Just for if people are understood, the first names are are great people can find. Yeah. Speaker 1: They're they're they're right there on the article. You can. But from, you know, over the years, and Cheryl, you know, has reached out and, you know, it it you you never have a conversation with somebody, and you're like, hey. Look. Look at this fact right here. And they just instead of responding to it, they just immediately go to something else. Right? Because they can't deal with that fact, so they just bring us something else. I feel like that's a sign to me of a lack of being able to really objectively evaluate the evidence in front of you. And I feel like that that, you know, I there there there's there's an issue there. So there's ideology. And then there's also, you have to look at always gotta look at somebody's financial interest. Always. Right? Because it it conforms their conduct whether in one way or another. As objective as we all think we would like to believe we are, and we should all strive for it, Financial interests affect us. They do. Speaker 0: Of course. Yes. They do. Speaker 1: And so where does New York Times get some of its financing? Does, do is there any dollars that flow to their advertising coffers from those who want informed consent, medical freedom, or is there more dollars that flow from pharmaceutical companies? And so, you know, that's maybe a consideration Speaker 0: as well. What's the answer to that question? Speaker 1: Oh, it's obviously more from the the the the the medical pharmaceutical industry flows to New York Times. I don't believe that there are many medical freedom and foreign consent organizations with a lot of money. Yeah. There's no so I don't think that's there. But Speaker 0: Is pharma a big advertiser? Speaker 1: I I don't know the percentage, but I know I mean, I've seen ads. So I I I've not dug into it. I I have not engaged in trying to answer the question you just asked me. So you as you asked me to speculate, so speculated. You know what I mean? Again, whatever their motives are, they did it. And the reason that I and just to, you know, I'll wrap up the point of why they knew it was false and why it was false is that the petition only asked for it, the reevaluation as to children, which would have meant even if the petition was granted, it would have made available for all adults in America, licensed, k, which would have meant it would have remained off label use for all children. Right? So nobody would have been deprived in America for even that one vaccine we asked about. But putting that aside, there are 5 other licensed vaccines for children. Polio on the CDC schedule is given a 2, 4, 6 months of age, and 4 years of age. And there are 5 other shots you can get at those intervals because they're given with other vaccines at those at those time periods. So so it it would have taken them 2 seconds of thinking to know their headline of the polio vaccine is gonna be eliminated was absolutely a lie. Why do you I mean, I I mean, why do you think they did it? Speaker 0: Because I think Bobby Kennedy well, I because I thought some of them are vaccine zealots. I I think that's right. I've certainly seen a lot of that. But I also think there's something about the way he assesses facts and history that's terrifying to a certain sort of person who's very vested in the current system, who's a rigid dogmatic thinker. A lot of them are. A lot of the dumber people are rigid and dogmatic, in case you haven't noticed. It's a it's a it's a sign of mediocrity, in my opinion, but it's very common in our professional class. And Bobby, like Trump, is the kind of person who assesses things on the basis of what he sees and doesn't necessarily genuflect before, you know, the pieties that all of us have to, who are required to, you know, whoever's supposed to say. He doesn't necessarily go along with that, and that temperament is incredibly threatening. Once you start asking questions, you know, are these products safe? You might wind up asking other questions like, why do we have NATO? Or he's like, how was John f Kennedy murdered? Like, what was that? I mean, there's people who ask uncomfortable questions in one area are likely to ask uncomfortable questions in other areas. And if your entire system is built on lies, that's, you know, a huge threat. That that's my personal view. Speaker 1: I'll build on that then, which is when you look at the last 40 years, who has been one of the big supporters in many ways of the of of what's occurred? Right? You don't often a lot of times, you'll see The New York Times supportive of what the HHS administration has been doing over the last 40 years, And where has that gotten us over the last 40 years? Just think about this for a second. So under the under the under the, a current approach that's been going on, which Bobby stands in opposition to in many ways. Right? And I'm not talking about just vaccines. I'm talking about the way business is done across health. Exactly. Right? I'm not talking about just vaccines right now. When you look over the last 4 years, we've gone we've already talked about child chronic health gone exploding, right, which is, you know, just suffering on a micro scale. You know, each one of these families that has a kid with chronic health issues is devastating. When we have families with a vaccine injured kid, it's it's it's a devastating event. But then there's also the macro issue too, which is we got $35,000,000,000,000 in debt. We have, almost 2,000,000,000,000 a year of that we can't cover of what we spend in this country. We're bringing in 4 point something trillion in revenue. And and and just one agency, CMS, that does Medicare, Medicaid is almost $1,700,000,000,000 of our $6,000,000,000,000 budget. And when you look at the growth curve of that agency alone, it's just skyrocketing. We are you know, if a few countries stop using our dollars or national reserve currency, we could be in a death spiral. I mean, this is how empires fail. And and what is driving a massive component of our national debt? It's health care spending. And it's gonna rise, and it's gonna increase. And and really, Congress, unfortunately, has in many ways rigged the rules for Medicaid and Medicaid. So it's really hard to reduce the total spend other than getting people healthier. And that is what Bobby wants. That's all he's focused on. He has no, interests, that, you know, that extend, you know, my experience with him beyond that. The the he is genuinely committed to helping people and saving people. And I think you're right. He stands against what, what has brought us to this place. And and and in many ways, I guess, you know, you're right in that. If he's right, if if there are a whole host of things that our health agencies have been doing or ignoring or not proper studying, and I'm talking about everything right now, it would show that the New York Times and all of these papers have not been doing their job. Speaker 0: It was 5 years ago this month that people started to drop dead in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. 5 years since the beginning of COVID. Tens of millions dead. Societies re reordered completely, economies destroyed. And yet, for some reason, we still don't know answers to the most basic questions. Where did this virus come from? How did it get here? Why did the government tell us to do things they knew wouldn't work? None of those questions have been adequately answered. And one man knows those answers. His name is doctor Tony Fauci. Until now, nobody has really pressed. And now, a documentary filmmaker called Jenner First is out with a new film explaining exactly what happened. The film was called Thank You, Doctor Fauci. Jenner First spent years trying to get answers. And in that time, as he awaited doctor Fauci's response, he went through tens of thousands of pages of documents and pieced together the story, which is shocking. We are proud to host that documentary here on TCN from December 20th to January 19th. You will see it exclusively here on TCN. Again, it's called thank you, doctor Fauci, and it's worth it. So just to just to kind of tie a bow in the New York Times, story element of this conversation, they made the claim that you were you were Bobby Kennedy or a pro polio. What other claims do they make? Speaker 1: They also said we were trying to get rid of hep b vaccines, and then they pointed to a yet another petition that I could talk about, because, again, a petition that we filed with regards to hep b vaccines. And, again, only with regards to 2 of them. There are others. K? So there were not about all hep b vaccines. And, again, it was filed on behalf of our client, ICANN, not on behalf of mister Kennedy. He had knew nothing about it. He had nothing to do with it. Right? So the association with him is totally false. And it would have not have left Americans without access to hep b vaccine, so that was false too. What did the petition actually ask for? Well, let me tell you because that's what should have been the headline. The headline should have been the following in the New York Times. FDA licenses hep b vaccines for infants and toddlers based on clinical trial with 5 days or less of safety monitoring after injection and no control group. That should have been the headline. That is patently insufficient to determine safety, and I think anybody that reads the petition that was filed with the FDA would find it eminently reasonable because it doesn't just say you did this. It starts with, in 2017, we said to you, how could you do this? You didn't really do this. Give us documents. And then they gave us an answer, and they didn't provide anything of substance. Then we did it again on behalf of ICANN, and we foiled them, then we sued them. And we on behalf of ICANN, we did this for years, and then we finally brought the petition, Again, saying, come on. You gotta require proper clinical a clinical trial. Again, this is yet these were 2 vaccines that also came online during that period between 1986 and now that were part of the explosion of chronic health condition. Let's make sure they're really safe, and the way to do that is a proper clinical trial. The New York Times also accused us of, wanting to get rid of a bunch of other vaccines. Okay? Because there was a third petition that was filed with the FDA. Again, after a lot of back and forth. And that petition, I think most people again would find eminently reasonable. That petition was based on a peer reviewed study that came out by the world's leading aluminum expert and 4 of his colleagues. And what did this paper find in this peer reviewed journal? It found that amongst 10 childhood vaccines, there was far more aluminum adjuvant in the vial or far less in the vial than what was on the FDA label for those vaccines. So you got a label, the FDA approved label. It says it's got 0.5, let's say, micrograms, but their the finding was that it had double maybe inside of it. That's a serious concern. Aluminum adjuvants are neuro- and cytotoxic. They're what you use to induce autoimmunity in lab animals. Okay? They're not something not like candy. You know, if I just injected you with, just dead pieces of proteins, right, from a pertussis bacteria, your body would probably macrophages and dendritic cells would probably just gobble it up and throw it away as garbage because to have a real immune reaction, you have to have cellular death. K? You have to have cellular and how do bacteria cause cellular death? They're replicating and killing cells. Viruses are taking over cells. But if you have just dead pieces of protein in the vial, it's not gonna do much. So they include aluminum adjuvants. Aluminum is bound to silic acid in the ground. Humans did not come into contact ever with aluminum throughout all human history, for the most part, until we not long ago in in the scale of human history, we started ore mining it and separating the silic acid. Most metals that you come into contact with the environment have a human function, like iron, right, magnesium. Your body has some mechanism it uses it for. Aluminum has no biological function in your body. 0. That's why when you have an aluminum can, you know how it can, like, survive forever and bacteria and virus don't grow? Because it's toxic to life. K? People think of aluminum, like, as if it's ubiquitous, like, it's because it's now ubiquitous in our you know? But but the, so aluminum, imagine having too much or too little is problematic, and the aluminum that you ingest is usually an ionic form. You know, like, in the periodic table elements, it's like tiny, you know, tiny tiny piece of aluminum. So if this cup was an ion of aluminum that you ingested, which, you know, wouldn't cross the blood brain barrier, which your body could, you know, use its pathways to get rid of, A piece of aluminum adjuvant would be like the size of this whole city we're sitting in. K. On the micro scale, it's massive. So it gets injected into your arm with the vaccine in the it's in the vial to cause cellular death at the injection site. K? So that your, your blood neutrophils come pouring out, and you have that inflammation that you see when you have an infection. It gets red. And that's your immune system working, and I and those those aluminum adjuents are bound to the antigens. So when your macrophages and xyridic cells are immune system cells, take them and go to your lymph nodes to create antibodies, adaptive immunity. Right? After they're done doing that, where does the aluminum adjuvant go? Well, let me tell you. The CDC and others have done studies where they inject aluminum adjuvant into animals, and then they sacrifice them. You know, they mark the aluminum adjuvant with, like, a fluorescent so they could see where is it afterwards, and they can, you know, shine it on the animal. It ends up in all their organs, their brain, their lungs, their their heart, everywhere. So that's not good. You know? Having a a a a, that kind of material deposited is not good. So you don't want too much of it in a vial. K? I'm not saying what kind of harm. I'm just saying you don't want too much. You don't want too little because that presents efficacy issues Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: And even safety issues. So the petition, all it asked for and I know this might have been a little too much detail about aluminum. But but the the petition, all it asked for is says said, hey, FDA. And if you read it, the ask was this. Please confirm. Please provide documents that confirm that the amount of aluminum adjuvant in the vial of these 10 trial of vaccines matches what's on the product label. And if you can't and you don't have that documentation and you can't show, then pause distribution until you do, because that's a serious safety issue and efficacy issue. You're giving kids vaccines that might have safety concerns, like a shot in the dark in many ways, and also may not even be efficacious, may not even produce the immunity you're looking for. That petition was filed years years years ago, and still they have not confirmed it one way or another. Again, the the point of these petitions was not to actually stop the distribution of these vaccines. ICANN didn't wanna do that. It just wanted them to do proper safety studies. That's really it. The legal mechanism was to say, pause it so that they then would require the science. Otherwise, there's no legal mechanism to get the FDA to do the things it should have been doing. And I would like to think we could all agree that, you know, when you go to the store and you get a box of Captain Crunch Cereal and you read the ingredients, what's on the ingredients should match what's in the box. Speaker 0: Right. And in the case of the 3rd petition, it wasn't just that you showed the safety testing was inadequate. You there was evidence of an actual problem. The ingredients didn't match the label. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: By by the world's leading aluminum scientist. That's that's right. So but the headline wasn't, FDA shirks its duties to assure product safety. FDA no. It was, you know, by implication, mister Kennedy wants to ban vaccines, which is complete and utter nonsense. Speaker 0: So the purpose of this piece was obviously not to report the news or tell the truth or, you know, get to the heart of anything. It was to stop Bobby Kennedy's nomination at the confirmation stage. What has it been effective? Speaker 1: I well, that is why I, you know, I'm on your show to to make sure everybody understands that The New York Times deceived this entire country about what's in those petitions, deceived the country about their connection to mister Kennedy. It's nothing to do with him. And I I do not think I do not think. Thank thankfully, because of folks who are willing to actually cover the truth. And thank goodness there is media that's willing to cover the truth, about this. I I I don't think it will hurt him. But but had it if we were 15 years ago, and there was no alternative media, as it's called Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: And The New York Times ran the story and everybody else picked it up, who would I talk to to tell the truth? Who could I go on? Who would I speaking with? I'd be I'd be I'd be in my office just talking to the wall. So I I you know, it's I'm very thankful that there is there are those, you know, and I'm thankful to the to the the alternative media that's hosted me as well as others, you know, who have hosted me. You know, you know, Fox put me on to talk about this. Chris Cuomo had me on to his credit to talk about the NewsNation. And and and The Wall Street Journal just published an op ed. To their credit, I their rivals in New York Times, I don't know. So maybe that helped, as my understanding. So, you know, and it was an op ed. It wasn't a a piece, but fine. So, my hope is that, no, I don't think it's gonna hurt him because, I I I like to hope and think the senators will look at the actual facts at the end of the day on this, and they'll realize this this it just wasn't true. What was in this article? There's, you know, there's just no truth. There's just no truth to the claim that he wants security vaccines. He just wants transparency, and he wants good science, and we should all want that. Speaker 0: I wanna ask a specific question that's bothered me for a long time. So 1986, congress grants blanket immunity to the vaccine manufacturers that cannot be sued. The you know, those are not the only products people sue over, of course. The trial bar, which was, you know, famously the most powerful along with teachers union, is the most powerful single constituency in the Democratic party because it gave the most money. You know, they've lobbied to make it easy to sue over anything. You know, OBGYN's going to business because, you know, they get sued. Why haven't they complained about this? Speaker 1: It's a great question. I I mean that. I I I just think that there's, it's there aren't many plaintiff's firms that have made a line of business in it. So it's not like they had this line of cases and business suing on vaccine injuries, and now you've taken it away. I mean, there were a few doing it, obviously, back in the early eighties. But I think you're talking about, like, in the decades since, why hasn't this trial bar done this? You know? Maybe it's a blend of ideology, and it's also none of the big plaintiffs side firms have a vaccine injury practice. And the ones that do have gotten used to maybe the existing system. Speaker 0: But it's just weird. I mean, sue over talcum powder, asbestos, tobacco, slip and falls, I mean, you name it, playground equipment manufacturers, the rest of the medical establishment gets sued constantly, but nobody thinks, well, wait. Everyone knows there are a lot of vaccine injuries. That's not a controversial point. It's known. And no one no lawyer thought, well, wait a second. You know? We need to lobby to change this law because we could save people and make a ton of money. I just think it's very strange. Speaker 1: Well, I I'm I, you asked me a lot of questions that are complex and require a lot of speculation. But, you know, maybe part of it is that, you said the trial bar has a lot of lobbyists, right, and and influence. But Speaker 0: Yeah. They do. Speaker 1: But but pharma and and and health the health care industry has, my understanding, over 2,000 lobbyists. My understanding is they have the most lobbyists of any industry out there. Double is my understanding in terms of dollars. If I'm I'm don't quote me on this one because but you should look it up. I think, last I heard, and this should be verified, double the next in line, which I thought was, like, oil and gas industry. So I don't know where trial lawyers stand in that in that thing, but I I suspect those who would benefit from keeping that immunity probably have far more influence, and that's probably why it stays in place. Speaker 0: It's just very strange because, you know, all of us, well, thanks to propaganda from organized lawyer lobbies, have been told from birth that, you know, the civil law keeps us safe. You You know, if you make a crappy product, if, again, if as you said, if your gas tank blows up, some lawyer's gonna sue the car manufacturer, and you'll get a safer car. Speaker 1: That is that is how product safety works. When you look at countries that don't have, you know, basically market based systems, how do their products get safer? They didn't. Go look back at other countries in that way. The way that products get safer is the company's economic interest, which is a good thing. Meaning, their economic interest aligns with safety. I make a car. I make a drug. I wanna make sure that it's as safe as I can make it so that I can still make money when I sell it and not space exposure downstream that will make me with a end up with a loss. Speaker 0: Well, I'm glad you said drug too because it this immunity applies only to vaccines. There are lots of drugs out there. Some of them have you know, all of them have side effects. Some of the side effects are scary as hell, but they're still on the market, Speaker 1: and they're given to only very small groups of people. So you have drugs given to small groups of people, like you said, can go sci fi, and they can survive. But a product that you give to 1,000,000, often by coercion, by school mandates every single year, promoted by the federal government, you just can't make a profit on. You don't have to pay marketing budget because the government does it for you. You don't have to worry about selling it, promoting it because they're mandating it to go to school. Millions have to take it. You're breaking in 1,000,000,000 a year, and you still can't turn a profit without the immunity. I mean, it is it's a very troubling reality. It's part of the reason that drove that petition. I will give you I will I'm gonna put this into Speaker 0: I'm not profitable, but just to just to clarify when you said, how profitable are vaccines? Speaker 1: The the the vaccine industry profits to the tune of 1,000,000,000 of dollars a year. Speaker 0: So it is a legitimate profit center for the pharmacology. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Oh my goodness. And and since the early eighties, it is becoming an increasingly large percentage of their portfolio, in particular for Sanofi, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Those 4 in particular are make most of the childhood vaccines and vaccines in America, and their portfolio their percentage of portfolio has been increasing because imagine I came to you and I said, hey, Tucker. I got a business idea for you. K. You ready? You wanna hear it? Listen to what we're gonna do. We're gonna put out this product. Okay? Like, what is it? Don't worry about it. But we inject into people. Well, why would people take it? Well, the government's gonna mandate it. Oh, okay. Great. Well, is it safe? Don't worry about it. Because they're gonna give us immunity. Well, I mean, what if people, like, start attacking us in the media? Don't worry. Federal government's also gonna promote it for us as well as all 50 health agencies. You'd be like, well, let me get this straight. Guaranteed market, immunity to liability, it's a no brainer. So, obviously, yes, vaccines But why have increased. Speaker 0: Why did the 86 law passed as a public service in the name of public health? Why did it allow vaccine manufacturers to profit? So in right? You'll you get a immunity shield, but you're not allowed to get rich off it. That seems fair. Speaker 1: Be well, what they did was is that they left the financial incentive to make more vaccines, but they didn't leave the financial incentive that makes them make more vaccines that are safe. Exactly. So what they did is they took away the one true way you assure product safety. And to be clear, there is no other product on the market that's like this. And let me draw this into sharp contrast for you. K? Pfizer, according to Money Inc's top 5 selling drugs, k, when you look at that list, 4 of them are drugs one's a vaccine. This not including COVID vaccine. K? Enbrel, Eliquis, and so forth. If you go to the FDA website, everybody should do this. And I'm like I actually have a chart on this on my Twitter feed. Okay? And and and you can see what was the clinical trial relied upon to license that those 4 drugs. Right? The top 5 selling Pfizer products. Most of those clinical trials were a lot of punch and licensed products were multiyear placebo controlled trials. Why would Pfizer do that? Why would Pfizer do that with those products? But when you look at vaccine products and again, this is gonna sound crazy, but I'm telling you, it's right there on the FDA website. Most childhood vaccines are licensed based on days or weeks of safety review after injection. Virtually never a placebo control group ever or sometimes no control or a control that makes no sense. And often underpowered, meaning you don't have enough kids in it to really assess if there's even an issue. So why would Pfizer have multiyear placebo controlled trial for its drugs, but all these vaccines are put out with just ridiculous, like this polio vaccine we talked about? K? It's because Pfizer wants to know whether or not those drugs are gonna cause harm after they're licensed. Because if it does, they're on the hook. They don't wanna end up upside down financially. They don't wanna lose money on those drugs. So before it goes on the market, they make sure they want those trials. Forget you asked me before about the FDA. Forget the FDA. That's what economic interest does. It conforms the conduct of the company to assure safety, and that's a great thing. That's part of why our market system works well with regards to product safety. People talk about the lawsuits. Yeah. The lawsuits are there, but it's not the lawsuits that make them safe. It's the fact that they wanna make money, and most of safety happens before the lawsuit. It happens before the product even goes to market. The company cares. They test it. They evaluate it. They don't wanna face the liability and be upside down. But when it comes to vaccines, they don't have that interest. When you look at most lawsuits that big companies face, the board members face, the officers face, oftentimes because they cause a financial loss. Right? Ever hear of a lawsuit of securities class action because a company was immoral, was unethical? No. It's because they lost money. It's because they didn't do things to maximize money in many ways. And so that's what conforms. That's what drives corporate conduct. It drives the companies to make decisions about what they're gonna do. And you have a company that's making a a product. When they make the drug, their their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to make sure they test that properly. But their fiduciary duty to their shareholders when it comes to vaccines is to test them as little as possible. Because if they do test them and they find a problem, then they can't make money from it. They might not get to market. They would actually be kind of in some ways, forget ethics and morality. They would in many ways violate their f their their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to to test the vaccine too much. Speaker 0: Too much. Speaker 1: If they know too much, then then it won't get licensed. It's a perversion of it. And then after so not only did they gut not only did they gut the the the economic interest, there is one other way you assure product safety. It's a far weaker way. It's not very good, but it's there. And that's regulators. And they have a role to play. They have a role to play. But the regulators here are completely conflicted because HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, is the department of the federal government in which you have the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, all of the health agencies. Okay? And it's it is responsible for promoting vaccines. So it's responsible for the safety of vaccines and promoting vaccines. Those are in conflict. For example Speaker 0: You think? For example, Speaker 1: the department of the Department of Transportation is responsible for promoting transportation. So they go to the airlines and they say, hey, make more planes. Get more planes in the sky. Have more airports, you know, and so forth. But who's responsible for safety if there's a crash? The NTSB, a completely different agency. You separate them. It's hard for me to shake your hand with industry. I'm the government. I say, hey, make more planes. And at the same time, slap you and say, hey, you're out of they it's hard to do the same role, so you separate. Or the Department of Energy is responsible for promoting nuclear power in America. But there's an atomic energy, the nuclear regulatory excuse me. Yeah. Thank you. It's responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants. They completely separate this function with vaccines. They're not separated. And additionally, not only do they not separate those absolutely diametrically opposed duties. You cannot have the same department responsible for both. One will win out. More than that, remember what I told you earlier. The 1986 act that I referenced did create a very narrow path for some compensation of your vaccine injury. But you sue the Department of Health and Human Services, the secretary. You're suing the very same federal health department that is responsible for safety. So if and and and they're represented by a little law firm called Department of Justice. You might have heard of them. K? So you're fighting against the Department of Justice in this program where there's no discover let's put that aside. The important point is this. It is the only product that I know of where the government defends the product and the industry and the companies against the consumer and the citizens, and that creates an incredible conflict. So if they do any study, Tucker, think about it. If they do a study that shows this vaccine causes asthma or causes an increase in some serious issue, what are the the few lawyers that that that engage with vaccine engineering program gonna do? It's an admission against interest. They're gonna use those studies, those science, to get liability against who? The federal government for those vaccine injuries. That's an incredible conflict. Speaker 0: If I bring shoot against the secretary of HHS, on behalf of Sweden's vaccine injured and I win, where does the money come from? Speaker 1: So there is a tax. 75¢ is paid for every vaccine dose, and that goes into a fund. That fund has about $3,000,000,000 right now. It's paid out, you know, I think over 4,000,000,000 to date with a cap of 250,000 in pain and suffering and a cap of 250,000 for death claims. And so it comes out of that. It's called the vaccine injury. Oh, it's it's Speaker 0: So the manufacturers are not on the hook? Speaker 1: They still are not on the hook for it. Speaker 0: No. So so the the system's even more grotesque than you described. There's a product made by a publicly traded company, a private company. Non pub you know, nongovernment. The government requires its citizens to buy the product. The manufacturer product cannot be sued if the product is faulty. And if someone's injured, they have to fight the government to get paid, and when they do get paid, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay. Speaker 1: Right. And well and I'll add to it in that this. When you sue the government, it's not like you get an article 3 judge. You know, article 1, 2, and 3 of the constitution. Article 3 created the judiciary. There are judges that are, you know, that that are nominated and confirmed by the senate. You don't get an article 3 judge. You get something called a special master in this program, which is, I I I will submit as, in many ways, policy driven. So there are things that'll compensate. There are things they won't they don't wanna compensate dead babies as basically, almost on a policy basis. K? They they there are things Why? Well, that would people won't vaccinate. Come on. I mean, ideology around these products is very strong. I'm I'm that I don't joke about. I mean, people are very ideological around this product. They believe without vaccines, everyone will die. I mean, that's the typical retort. Oh, you want a proper clinical trial? Everyone will die and get polio. Oh, you you filed a petition on a novel polio vaccine from 1990, and that would have left nobody without a polio vaccine even if granted that just asked for a proper clinical trial. Oh, you want everybody to get polio and die. I mean, this is the you just saw it happen. Speaker 0: But you could be for vaccines. I'm not sure I am, but you could be. Many people are. I always have been. And still demand good vaccines. I'm for cars. I I think it's fair to expect they're not gonna blow up. I don't under it doesn't even make sense. Speaker 1: I don't understand what what that means, by the way, to be pro for or against vaccines or pro or anti vaccines. I mean, I'm not for or against cars. I'm not pro or anti cars. Cars have a purpose. They have a function. Sometimes I wanna use them. Sometimes I don't. If you wanna, like, park it in my bedroom, I don't want it. I mean, they just it's just a product. And this is the problem. This is what I'm talking about, is that they're just a product. They're a product. They were not given to Moses at Sinai. They're a product made by companies. And the problem is is that people just can't talk about them objectively. Like, it's it's a problem, and it feeds into so you said, I think that this program in the federal government, they they also are part and parcel of the overall object. Let me put it this way. Agencies set policy. The CDC is not a science organization. It's a political organization. What do political organizations do? They set policies, and then they subscribe and they follow them. Exactly. Okay. So the CDC, for example I'll give you a great example. There's something called the MMWR. It's it's what, they call it their scientific publication. It's what I call their newsletter. K? And and they publish studies in it. Alright? And those studies are often used to then set CDC policy. But here's the thing. They don't go through a a peer review process. They go through something called, this is all on the CDC website, a clearance process within CDC. And one of those steps is that the study must align with the CDC policy. Speaker 0: Come on. Speaker 1: I'm not joking. I I I'm not joking. Speaker 0: I I I I How is that science? Speaker 1: It's not science. It's the perversion of science. I've written about this. I've substacked about it. I've tweeted about it, you know, but I'm I don't have your platform. But it's the perversion of science. I mean but that is the reality of the MMWR. And I'll I'll give you an example of how this plays out in the in the lives of everyday Americans. Do you remember the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic when, the vaccines first came out, the COVID 19 vaccines, And the CDC came out with all this guidance about how natural immunity is useless. It's worthless. You gotta get the vaccine no matter what. And so they the their their guidance to the public and and the states around this country, luckily not all of them, followed it. And they said, okay. If you've been vaccinated, you're allowed to have your civil and individual rights. You've had COVID, you're not allowed to have your civil and individual rights. How do they get to that conclusion? There was, at that point, numerous peer reviewed studies around the world with millions of people in them that showed natural immunity was more protective than vaccine immunity. But what did the CDC do? They went and they did this 300 person, basically, case controls retrospective nonsense of a study. We could do a whole show on that one study. We could pull it up, and you and I could sit here, and we could read it. And you could spend your all day reading it, and I promise you would never understand the study design. Because it is the most convoluted nonsense to achieve the result they wanted, but it achieved the result they wanted. If that study, which showed vaxx, you know, what they wanted it to show regarding national immunity versus vaccine immunity, they relied on that one study in the MMWR. I I shouldn't even call it a study in their newsletter to deprive people with national immunity of their civil individual rights, ignoring all the other science. So, yes, it is the perversion of science, but it has real life consequences, and I just gave you a real life example of it. On behalf of ICANN, by the way, and and others, I actually wrote the CDC. My firm wrote the CDC a letter. We we put all these studies, and I can I could I could provide these? You could make these available. They're such great letters. I wish everybody in America read them. We laid out all the science. All of them showing natural immunity is at least as efficacious as vaccine immunity. Can you please give these people their rights? Civil individual rights. Freedom. They wrote back with that one study that one study that I just told you about. We wrote back another letter saying, this study is total garbage. We explained why it's garbage. You know, as I told you, I, you know, one of the things that I do is I depose vaccinologists. It's part of what I do, infectious disease doctors and immunologists. So I got to learn epidemiology status you know, statistics, vaccinology, immunology. I mean, you know, that's part of what deposing experts requires you to do. K? I don't again, I don't have any degrees, but I have to learn this stuff. And and and I can tell you that that study design, it categorically is non it is designed to reach the conclusion that they want it. And because it's a clearance process I described, if something had shown a different result, it would just wouldn't have made it through. So, yes, it is the perversion of science. Going all the way back to your actual question now, CDC is a policy entity. HHS is a policy entity. And to your point, why wouldn't the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensate? Now I'm finally gonna answer your question. That was a long road to get there. Because it's a policy organization. And, yeah, of course, what the policy of that organization is, vaccines are safe and effective. That's a mantra. I I don't know what that means entirely, by the way, but they say it all day long. And any anything that shows they're unsafe will get people to not vaccinate, and that goes against their policy. So absolutely. They Speaker 0: That's too crazy. How did how did you get involved in this area? You graduate law school. You went to Berkeley? Speaker 1: I went to Berkeley for law school. Yes. Speaker 0: And what did you plan on doing when you graduated? Speaker 1: How did Speaker 0: you wind up here? Speaker 1: Well, I after law school, I clerked for the chief judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for a year after law school. And after that, I worked for, Latham and Watkins, which is one of the Yeah. Biggest firms in the world for almost 6 years, doing bet the company litigation. Right? Multibillion dollar disputes. And then, I left there and, started my own practice. I was, I I wasn't home enough. I wanted to see my kids more and and my wife, more. So my own practice. And I continued to do commercial litigation, actually. That's what I kept doing. And, but instead of doing multibillion dollar cases, we would do, you know, few few $1,000,000 or a few $100,000,000 few $100,000,000 cases. You know, there are some cases, for example, that, for example, Latham would have or a big firm would have, and, they're doing a giant bankruptcy. And they can't do a litigation. Right? They can't do the litigation because it conflicts with the banks, but they don't want a different big firm to do that litigation. Right? Because they might steal the client. So I I I would get some of those cases that would kick off to our firm because they trusted us to do good work. So we would do some of those, you know, cases from half of publicly traded and large corporations. So I did that for a few years. And then, in terms of legally how I got involved, there was a law in California passed. The bill number was called s p 277 in 2014. And what it did was eliminate nonmedical exemptions for children to attend school. K? So all these kids, tens of thousands of children, were thrown out of school in California because their parents made the medical decision. And like I said before, these are often the folks who I find are most informed about these products, sometimes more informed than many of the pediatricians I depose about these products. And, I was in New York at the time, and they Who who pushed that that proposition? Senator Richard Pan, who's no longer there, and and a senator excuse me. And and and a senator, Richard Pan and and Ben Allen were the 2, members of the California legislature who drove that bill through. I mean, if you look back and Speaker 0: see Did B Pharma back it? Hard to know. Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, it's, it but it happened. And and so they they started some schools in New York started kicking kids out of school just kind of for you. In in New York, actually, even though they didn't need to. I was in New York at the time, so I brought some suits, to help those kids get back to school so they can get back in. I got injunctions and got them back into those typically private schools that were certainly decided, but they don't want to have any of the kids who had religious exemptions. New York state allowed religious exemptions at the time. And then, and then, and and here's the faithful moment. The the city of New York required a flu shot for preschoolers. And so my wife was also an attorney and partner at our firm. And, you know, I said, hey. You know, that's can we challenge that? And I I looked at it, and I said, you know, and after looking at it saying, yeah. We could because it was not passed by the legislature. It was passed by the Department of Health. They don't have the authority to do it. So we could just challenge it on separation of power grounds. Yeah. And she's like, okay. Great. Do it. And I said, woah. Wait a second. I said, you mean, we have clients who are publicly traded companies. I said, if I prevail, if we prevail and we strike this down, I mean, you understand this will make headlines. I do not think our, you know, clients would would like that. And she's, you know, I I won't use the word she used because I don't know if it's appropriate for the show, but she basically said, bring the suit. And that was the end of discussion, and I did. Good for her. Absolutely. My wife's incredible. She is the the north star, to, you know, what is right and good. Speaker 0: You have to have that if you're gonna do a job like yours. Speaker 1: Yeah. She's she's you know, she does not she does not, compromise on what's right for anything. And so, I did. I I I I got it. I did win in the trial court level. I got the injunction and made national news and as expected. There you know? And so, you know As expected what? What? As expected, the, you know, our commercial lit practice contracted. Really? Absolutely. People Speaker 0: didn't want your services as a lawyer because you had challenged the flu vaccine mandate. Speaker 1: I don't it just doesn't accord, I think, with what a big Fortune 500 companies would. I don't think it fits well into their portfolio of lawyers that they would use for what they do. Speaker 0: Well, you're very diplomatic because that's grotesque. Yeah. Speaker 1: I I I'm not accusing all of them. I'm just I I mean, Speaker 0: I just Lawyers of big firms defend pro bono, you know, death row inmates who have, you know, murdered people, raped children. I mean, that and that's fine. You know what I mean? But you can't defend the rights of parents to educate their children? Like, it's crazy. Speaker 1: There is a very strong ideology around these products. And, again, I stress their products. And so we started doing more of that work, and there's there's a lot more to that story, but I don't know if it's yeah, I don't know why it's, you know, it could not forever. Speaker 0: How did your views so you didn't expect this? Your life to take this turn, it sounds like. Speaker 1: I will tell you that. No. If you ask me 10 years ago, I'd be doing this, that, the New York Times wrote a headline that I wanna, you know, basically take away the polio vaccine, give everybody polio again, and, you know, and and senators would say fire that lawyer, mister Kennedy. No. I I would not expect to be in the spot, nor did I expect to ever do vaccine work, but, did you have views Speaker 0: on this subject? Speaker 1: I I I when I was in law school? No. Yeah. I've no. I wouldn't know the first thing about a vaccine. And the I will tell you the very first time I ever looked at this topic in, you know, a long time ago, you know, I would send some material. I was actually still late to Milwaukee at the time. And like I said, I and and, a lot of it was medical. And I I didn't know anything about immunology or vaccinology or infects. I didn't know any of this medical stuff. No idea what I was reading. But then I read about the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986, and I was like I remember. I just, like, was like, what? Because I don't understand medicine. I didn't understand that stuff. But, oh, I understood corporate conduct. And I understood fiduciary duties. I understood conflicts of interest. I understood what drew corporations. I represented them in really important critical litig I understood those things very well. And I was I remember I remember it was, like, late at night in my office when I read this. I remember being up there in the lipstick building and, in Manhattan. And I was dumbfounded when I saw that law. I couldn't believe it. I mean, I just didn't understand it. Because I remember thinking, like, this is the product they tell you is perfectly safe, and it's given to babies, and you can't see the manufacturers for injury. I found that to be immediately troubling. And Speaker 0: So you didn't know that? Speaker 1: No. I did not know that until I read I I didn't know that until I read it. Speaker 0: I think a lot of people don't know that. Speaker 1: I I I can tell you they don't know that because, obviously because the work I do. I meet people all the time in this area, and they don't know that. And, you know, sadly, they they they don't know it till they do know it. And often, they know it after they have some kind of personal experience. And most of the folks around the country who who do know it are the folks who have been negatively impacted by these products in one way or another. They know it. They know about the law. They know about the science. They know about these things. Because when your kid's impacted or you're impacted by a product, you research it. Yeah. You know about it. And until you don't, you don't. And I'll say one other thing about that just because I know a lot of people always say to me, like, well, if there were vaccines caused a lot of injury or they caused injury, I would know it. And I always say to them, do you know which drugs cause which injuries? Speaker 0: Of course, you don't. Speaker 1: Even though they come off the market all the time. Vaccines won't because you can't sue the manufacturers, but drugs do. And do you know which drugs are coming off the market? Do you know what injuries are causing? No. Why would you know? Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: Why would you know? Why would you know that vaccines cause injury? Why do people it's always funny to me. People assume that. I would know. You wouldn't know. You know who would know? I'll tell you who would know. It's the firms that accumulate cases for people who are injured. You know who knows that a particular drug is going to is is is causing harm first? It it's the plaintiff's lawyers. You know? And you could there are a lot of things you could say about plaintiff's lawyers. But the one thing that is that they're they know because they're getting phone calls. Hey. I took this drug. Exactly. And they get another call. And they get another, and they're like, oh, a pattern emerges. They're the ones who typically know it, and they start accumulating the cases. Just like, you know, we've got, I mean, for for for vaccines, we have, you know, that's what we get called for. We have endless cases. In the for COVID vaccines, I mean, it is we basically had to we our our entire phone system for is basically, if you're injured by a COVID vaccine, press 1. And you get instructions to go to our website and just fill a form, because there's pretty much nothing we can do for you. Because not only do they have immunity essentially under the 1986 act, they they have, for COVID vaccines, a completely another level of immunity called PrEP Act immunity. You can't see those manufacturers for you can't even go to the VAICP, vaccine agent compensation program for COVID vaccine injuries. Seriously? Yes. You can't even go to that program. Even as as limiting as that program is, you have to go to something called the CICP, the counter injuries compensation program, which, we have 2 federal lawsuits right now we're suing to strike those programs down as unconstitutional because it's the most ridiculous system you've ever court program you ever heard of. Who you're filing a claim with? You don't really know. Who's reviewing it? You don't know. Who's their experts? You don't know. What's their basing on? You don't know. It's a complete black hole. You there is no due process. There's no hearing. You can't confront the people that are going to use to evaluate it. You don't know who the trier of fact is. You don't know who the trier of laws are. You don't know anything. All you do is you submit a piece of paper, and then you get, you know, at some day when you don't know. You only have 1 year to file some response, and the whole program only has about $7,000,000. And most of it goes to pay the staff, so we can't compensate anybody. It's a ridiculous program. When I sued Is Speaker 0: this a product of the PREP Act? Speaker 1: It's a product of the PREP Act. And so I sued to to render the program unconstitutional on procedural due process. I said, if this program like, the the core the the government doesn't have to afford you a remedy. But if I say to you, hey. They can have zoning laws. I said, but you can have a variance on your house. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Like, I can be processed for that. They can't make it unfair. It can't give you a variance, and I don't give that guy a variance. Speaker 0: Right. Exactly. Speaker 1: It's gotta be fair. So if there's gonna be a process, it has to conform with due process. This thing is the most procedurally defunct program ever. I got a call from a reporter. I forgot which, paper. National paper after I filed the lawsuit. And they said, what do you you know, why are you filing a suit? I said, yeah. Let me let me explain it to you in layman terms. If you're injured by a COVID vaccine, fill out a piece of paper. K? Doesn't matter what you write on it. Use crayons. Go to your backyard. Dig a hole. Bury the paper in the hole. Cover it up with dirt. Now I want you to water it. Make sure it gets a lot of sun, and just wait for it to grow compensation. I said that. I literally told that to a reporter. I don't think she kept talking to me. No. But that but that is that is what I would describe the program as. They don't Speaker 0: What has this done to your personal life? I mean, did you like, people you know, your family, your friends, your law school classmates, what do what do people think of what you're doing? Speaker 1: Well, it matters how much you know about this, and it matters how much you understand what I'm actually doing. Are you looking at what the New York Times is saying I'm doing, or you're looking at what I'm actually doing? Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 1: And, of course, again, to be clear, I'm an attorney. I just ask questions, in many ways, kinda like you. I ask questions. I bring suits. I'm looking for answers. I'm looking for truth. I don't I don't really have any emotional attachment to these products like some people do. And I don't have a need for a prior assumptions. You know, it the data, the science, the studies, they are what they are. You know? So, it really just depends who I think some people Speaker 0: The attitude you just described, which I think is rational and science based and admirable, by the way, is not shared by a lot of people. So you said that there was a cost to your business Yes. When you started representing these clients. Was there a cost to your friendships? I guess that's what I'm asking. Speaker 1: I would say that, was there a cost to my friendships? Well, not friends that you'd wanna keep, I guess. Yeah. Absolutely. So, yes, I would say it absolutely has come with, I guess, you'd say, a cost. And, communally, certainly back in New York. And, but it also comes with amazing rewards because, you know, you're you're there's a community of people who really need help, and they really need support. I'll tell you one more story that I think drives us home. So New York City, there were cases of measles in New York City. Remember that back, in 2000 number of years ago. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: K? In which nobody died. Speaker 0: Yep. I think Bobby got blamed for that. Speaker 1: In which everyone died. No. Nobody died. And and nobody got, I'm not aware of any actual person who got really any real issues. And so and there were 1,000 and thousands and thousands of cases. You know how I know? Because, as the New York State City Department of Health said, please stop having measles parties. Why? Because the only way you could get your kid back into school was if you got the vaccine or you had measles. So there were these giant measles parties occurring in Brooklyn so that people could get their kids back into school. So they could then get blood work to show titers to show they had immunity. In any event, the the city of New York decided the way they were gonna deal with that was to make it literally illegal to exist in certain ZIP codes in Brooklyn if you didn't get an MMR vaccine. It was illegal. If you did not get the shot, you were violating the law. Now let me explain to you why some people oppose the MMR vaccine. In every single dose of an MMR shot, there are literally literally millions of pieces from the cultured cell line and aborted fetus in every single injection. Now, again, that might sound crazy, but I can literally pull up right now the CDC's own ingredient list for the MMR vaccine. Anybody can do this at home. Just Google MMR, excuse me, vaccine excipient list, CDC, and you can pull it up and you could see. It has MRC 5, w I 38. Those are cultural cell lines from aborted fetus because you have to grow viruses in a cell. Viruses won't just grow. They have to grow in cells. That's how they replicate. They take over the machinery of a cell. So you have to grow it on a cellular substrate. So how do they grow the rubella virus? They grow it on these cultured cell lines from aborted fetus. Speaker 0: Where do they get aborted fetuses? Speaker 1: From baby babies that are aborted. From abortion clinics. Well, well, and, well, the and it's it has to be you you don't you you can't use so the cells need to be alive. K? So you understand, like, the board of fetal tissues has to remain alive to be used. And so, you know, I I depose, for example, the, and, the world's leading vaccinologist, doctor Stanley Plotkin. And that deposition is actually available on, iCAN, the highwire.com. The whole deposition, 9 hours is available there. K? Parts Speaker 0: of it are available on x, and, I I watched part of it in preparation for this interview and was, you know, so shocked and revolted by it. I was already on your side, obviously, as a parent of a child who was vaccine injured. So I'm I'm in tune with everything you're saying, but that deposition with doctor Stanley Plotkin, who's still alive, 93 eject, was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in my life. Speaker 1: You watched the whole thing? Speaker 0: No. I watched select collections of it. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. And so then you know about what the clip I'm about to talk about, which is relating to just one study that was done that involved over 70 normally normal healthy fetuses. Right? That would've there there was nothing wrong. There were abnormalities that were aborted for the purposes of this one study. I mean Speaker 0: Past the 1st trimester. They're all older than 3 months, you said. Speaker 1: That's right. That's right. And some of them absolutely. And what they do is they take they take those in that one study, those 70 something babies, and they, then, they chop them up into little queue each body parts. So they take the tongue, the lung, the liver, the every body part, and they chop them up into little little cubes. And then they try to culture viruses on them because they wanna see which part of the body can be is the best suited for growing the virus used in the vaccine. And so this is, you know, in any event, and there's a lot any and anybody wants can research about this. There's So Speaker 0: this is answering the question, why is this a religion for some people? There is a I mean, there's some heavy stuff going on. Speaker 1: You mean for folks who don't wanna receive the vaccine? Speaker 0: No. No. No. For people who support them. Speaker 1: Well, you have to Speaker 0: sacrifice quality here. Sorry. That that was my takeaway from that interview, and I think you actually asked him, are you an atheist? Yes. I am. Speaker 1: Yes. Be well, the case was about a religious belief that our client had. You know, contrary to the practice of vaccinations, they don't wanna vaccinate her kid, and he decided to volunteer for reasons I'll never understand to be an expert. And he came to the deposition. He didn't come to trial. He he did not show up for trial. And we even sent him a subpoena to to take him after the the deposition. If you ever see the deposition, he says, oh, well, there's there is this or there's that. So I sent him a document request saying, hey. You said there's this and that. Give it to us. And then he brought a collateral lawsuit to quash that subpoena, believe it or not, because he did not wanna give because he doesn't they don't have it. It doesn't exist. Just like this polio petition. You know? It's not I don't ask for things, you know, you know, we we we do I try to do my homework beforehand, in any event. There's a So but Speaker 0: this, vaccines are grown with the cells of aborted baby tongues. Speaker 1: Well, no. No. No. No. No. Well, let me be clear about that. In that study, they were trying to figure out which body part was best to use. So the one that they ended up with was actually from the lung of the aborted baby, aborted fetus. So it's it's it's it's lung fibroblasts are the, where the cells they end up the substrate that ended up working. So they tried with tongue. It didn't work as well. And there's a number of qualities that are looking for how well does the virus replicate. Are there other potential, you know, viruses back you know, and so forth and and so forth and so forth. What what's the best median to do it in? And so, there's Speaker 0: But you said that the the cells have to be alive. So where do the bodies come from? Do we know? Speaker 1: I mean, when they when the baby is aborted for the purposes and they're typically aborted for the scientific purpose. Right? I mean, they they have to know beforehand for the most part because if the if the baby if if they abort the baby and, they don't immediately act to make sure that the tissues don't die, then you you can't use them in these experiments. So, and this is, and this Speaker 0: is I'm about as uncomfortable as I've ever been in an interview right now. This is, like, really beyond beyond that this happens. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's there's a whole industry, around. It's not, you know, not not something I litigate about, but there as you know, there is a whole industry around, with regards to abortions. You know, you've heard of humanized mice, for example? No. Right? So, so for example, in the, Pfizer and Moderna COVID 19 vaccine trials, for example. Right? COVID 19 vaccine development process. Those products have no border fetal tissue in them. K? Kill vaccines typically don't. You don't need to grow them in the same way. Well, it's not always true. Any event, but in the process of development, a lot of times they use humanized mice in order to experiment with the vaccine. And so and this is not just vaccines, by the way. This is across science. So they basically take and sometimes from aborted babies, sometimes from other in other ways. It doesn't have to necessarily be an aborted baby to to to and they inject the mice with these human cells to, quote, unquote, humanize them to then use them for experiments. You should have somebody on to talk about this. I'm not your person for this. I just, I just I only know about this enough to depose around religious belief around these products because there's a whole industry on this. And that's Speaker 0: if I want Speaker 1: to know Okay. Speaker 0: More. I mean, you do as you hear this, you think, you know, this can't continue. This is too this is tampering with the the secret sauce of of nature. So, you know, this this will not end well at all. Speaker 1: So the yeah. Well, I I yes. I mean, it's what's unfortunate about it is that and the reason I know about any of these things is because in these depositions with regards in these depositions regards to religious beliefs, the issue of aborted, aborted field issues come up. And so a lot of times, they like to say, oh, well, it only involved a few babies way back when. And so I have a whole series of in these depositions of showing no. It's not just a few babies way back when. It was a lot of babies, and it's and it's still ongoing, and this industry has only grown. Anyway, with that said, I was I was saying that these parents in Brooklyn, unless you wanna stick on this talk, sounds like you don't. I mean, you Speaker 0: just shocked me. Speaker 1: I know. I mean yeah. So we are going back to these these families in Brooklyn. Many of them, you know, religious for and and not in in different religions. Not not all of them were, many of them were were ultra religious Jews, but some of them were other religions, actually, who have, beliefs where they do not wanna participate in with that product for the reasons we just discussed. K? And so they will not take the MMR vaccine. They won't give it to their kids. They won't take it. And so here is the city of New York saying no. You must. You must take it. I mean, if you didn't and what they did is they went into, like, the registry. And if you were not in the registry as vaccinated, they hunted you down to your house, and they showed up at your door, and they gave you a violation for literally existing as God created you. You got as God created you, you're just standing in your house, just existing, then they give a violation. And so, it it it it ICANN actually supported us to represent anybody, anybody that got those violations. And hundreds of people got them, and we got almost all of them dismissed before the hearing. Technical stuff. You served it this time. You did that. Speaker 0: No. No. No. But they were they were disproportionately ultra orthodox Jews from Brooklyn. Speaker 1: Yes. In this instance. Yes. Speaker 0: The good news about it's a group I like, in general, but they're also politically organized. So pretty dumb of the city of New York to do that. Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I mean, I I there were, they're organized, but, also, you know, they they were very lucky in some respects in that, you know, ICAM, which believes in informed consent. That's the name of Informed Consent Action Network, you know, supported our firm, allowed policy for reviews on their behalf to, defend anybody with these violations. And so they put a a a notice out in Yiddish in the paper. If you got a violation, just call our firm. And so they did. And like I was saying, we got most of them dismissed except for, like, 20. Now when we're down to the hearing, this is a long road to answer your question from earlier, is that, we went down to the hearing, the the head lawyer of the New York City Department of Health was on the other side in the hearing room defending the city of New York. And so we ended up in the hallway at one point, you know, just chatting. Very nice guy, actually. You know? Actually, not as much of an ideologue as a lot of the folks I encounter in health departments. And, you know, we had worked collaboratively to got most of them dismissed even before that. And, you know, lawyer to lawyer, he says to me, why are you doing this? It's like, I mean, I looked you up. You're like, you went to Berkeley, clerked for the chief judge. You went to late. Like, what why you know, and this was earlier on before I clearly was doing this work. Do you know what I mean? At this point, I this is what I do. And I and I said to him, this answers your question from earlier. I said to him, look. You you asked me a question earlier. You said, how am I treated? Right? Do do I feel like I'm out of this? And I said to you, but there's a community that needs support. And and and so this is me finally answering that question. Said to me, why why do you do this? And I said to him, I said, look. I said, I want you to just imagine the following. Imagine a group of people in America right now, today. Pick a group. Pick an ethnic group, a religious group, a national pick a group in your mind. K? Now I want you to imagine people go on national television, and they say the most horrific things about them, and they feel no filter in saying them. They talk about throwing their kids out of school, spelling them from their jobs. They call them quacks. They call them all kinds of horrible names. They do all the things to them we say we should never do to somebody. Right? Because they're this religion or this ethnicity or they or so forth. She never do those things. I said I said, that's the group you're talking about. I said, you're talking about a a group of individuals. Most people vaccinate. I said to him, most people vaccinate. They choose to do it. K? Rare is the person in my mind who just wakes up one day and goes, you know what I wanna do today? I'm gonna just stop vaccinating my kids. So that I can be called anti quack, anti vaxx, maybe get them kicked out of school, lose friends, be called anti science. That's what I'm gonna do today. No. No. Nobody makes that decision lightly. You you to go against the social grain, and there's a strong social grain on this, especially pre COVID. You have to have something pretty powerful happen to you Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: To make you decide, woah, I'm not gonna do that. Or I have some seriously held beliefs or one thing or another. And I said, this is the group of people you're talking about. You're talking about a group of people who typically they're not vaccinating because their child themselves has had somebody in their family has bad some kind of adverse events, some kind of bad experience. Exactly right. And so they've they've realized they overcome that social conformity to do what they think they have to do in that instance. And then to add to that injury, what does society do to them? It adds insult. It calls them names. It berates them. It throws their kids out of school. I mean, it treats them in the worst ways possible. The the type of stuff we should never do to people. But that's how those people are treated. And so when you say to me, you know, do I feel like I've lost friends? Yeah. Yeah. I've lost friends. But, you know, there's there's an entire community of folks out there who who are who are that folk that group I just described to you. And those folks are are don't have the government working for them. The government not only doesn't work for them. The government fights them with DOJ attorneys, berates them when they try to even file claims. I mean, you some of the reports about the vaccine conversation program talks about the aggressiveness, these some of the attorneys, you know, and how they treat some of the petitioners. The government's not working for vaccine injured. It's working against the vaccine injured. It literally fights against their claims. So they're not looking out for them. Industry's not looking out for them. Who's looking out for them? They look out for each other. And that forms a really strong community of individuals of what some call the anti vaxxers or the medical freedom folks. Really, they're just people who wanna live their lives, and they don't wanna talk about this. Speaker 0: And worship their god. Speaker 1: Worship their god. They don't want anything to do with the topic. They're the ones who actually don't typically there are a few people who are very loud. They get all the attention. But most of the folks our firm represents who got issues with this, the last thing they want us to be on the radar on this topic. We represent a lot of people when it comes to these products. A lot of people are you're open about what you just said earlier with regards to your family and and your experience with vaccines, but most people, including many famous people, are not, and they don't wanna be. Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I yeah. I've never talked about that at all. So Speaker 1: I'm okay if people don't like me for what I do. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I've learned more in this interview than I expected to, and you've single handedly raised my regard for lawyers. And I never do this, but I just I wanna do it in your case. Tell us the name of your firm. Speaker 1: Oh, sure. It's SyrianGlimstad, LLP. Speaker 0: In New York? Speaker 1: Well, we're we're we're all over. We're national. You know, we've for our vaccine practice, which we try you know, we help people across the whole country. So, Speaker 0: So for people who, have a family member who suffered an injury, you're you're open to talk to them about Yeah. Speaker 1: Steps. Yeah. My my firm does. We do vaccine injury cases in the VICP if if for folks in Dubai, vaccines. Speaker 0: Well, I just Speaker 1: And then we also but that's that's just 5th like, 15 of the folks, but then we do vaccine policy cases. So that's, like, you know, that's actually even more than the more folks. So a lot of the cases around COVID vaccines that you may have heard of, like, suing, the FDA to get all of Pfizer's clinical trial documents. We brought that case, suing, on behalf we sued on behalf of, you know, over a dozen members of congress about mask mandates on planes. We struck down COVID vaccine mandate for school in California. So we have a big policy practice, and that dovetails with what a lot of what we've been talking about, which is where a lot of my work is and how I find fascinating. And then we have we do vaccine exemption cases in all areas. We brought the case in the against the air force and the army where we got the injunction and prevented one of the great honors of my life, actually fighting for the people who fight for us to preserve the thing that they swear to, which is to defend the constitution. What is the first freedom in the bill of rights? The right to religion. And what did the military do? He said, no. You don't get to have your right your religious beliefs with these vaccines. So it was that was truly one of the one of the great honors of my life was to defend members of the military, and them come to me and it was humbling. They're thanking me for defending them. Well, I mean, I'm just a lawyer. I'm just going to court and you know? And these guys just I mean, those hearings are incredible. Like, it would've brought tears to your eyes to be in those injunction hearings when those members of the military come in. And, anyways, so we do we we kinda do everything. And then we have and then we do, yeah, we do plaintiff's side class action stuff because, you know, there's, there is work that do we need to to make money. Speaker 0: So, is is Bobby Kennedy gonna get confirmed, do you think? Speaker 1: I sure hope so. There's nobody there truly is nobody who is his whole life experience, I believe he was put on this earth to have that role. He was he's prayed every day for 20 years, as he always says, to be able to help save children. And in that role, he can do it. Anybody who says, well, he's gonna disrupt, you know, the way things are working. Good. Good. We need disruption because the way things are working right now, we've got a country that's got over 50% of people with a chronic health condition, often multiple conditions. You we are do you do you know that? Speaker 0: I did. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Do you and and and we are dead last pretty much on every single health metric amongst all developed countries despite spending almost 3 times as much on health care. Yes. Just think about those numbers. We are on the fast path, not only to be the sickest sickest country. This is this is the largest decline in human health, this chronic disease explosion, in recorded human history that I am aware of. K? And I'm that I'm aware of. This 40 year chronic disease explosion. I don't think there's any records in in recorded human history of that kind of increase. And we're spending 3 times as much, and we have the worst outcomes in developed world. Yeah. We need to change. And and mister Kennedy is not beholden to pharmaceutical interests. He's not beholden to health insurance companies. He's not beholden to anybody. He truly just wants to do what's right. I think it's it's a rare quality, and he is he has gone through the fire, and he does not care what anybody says about him. He does not care. He only cares about what's right and what's true, and it is exactly the type of leadership and leader that we need in this country. And so, God, I hope he is confirmed. Speaker 0: Aaron Siri, thank you very much. Speaker 1: Alright. Thank you.
RobSchneider
Posted - November 8, 2024 at 6:03 PM
Saved - November 15, 2024 at 11:34 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I addressed Jimmy Kimmel, reminding him of his past comments about unvaccinated individuals. I expressed my frustration over the censorship we faced while he freely criticized dissenters. I urged him to focus on the struggles of American families affected by rising costs due to Democratic policies, contrasting his privileged lifestyle with their hardships. I emphasized that the recent election was a clear mandate for change, reflecting the people's desire for a more affordable America and reaffirmation of free speech. I wished him and others well, despite our differences.

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Hey Jimmy Kimmel, It’s me “Wheezy” the unvaccinated person who a few years ago you said you didn’t want Doctors to help if I was in the hospital but would rather have me die in the hospital corridor. That was hard to watch because we were censored and kicked off social media if we dared question the government’s narrative. But you weren’t censored. You were free to say whatever you wanted, including making those who disagreed with you get more attacked and feel more isolated. But the other night’s emotional monologue of yours was not as hard to watch. Please save your tears for the American Mom and Dad, who for the last 4 years because of Democrat policies, had to decide whether they should buy groceries or fill their gas tank so they could either feed their family or drive their children to school and then drive to work because they COULDN’T AFFORD BOTH! You see, it’s easy for you and Oprah to lecture hard working American parents who both have to work to make ends meat and live paycheck to paycheck because you and Oprah are RICH, FLY PRIVATE PLANES and if food prices go up 26% it doesn’t affect you or YOUR Family at all. If the price of avocados went up to $5,000 dollars, you and Oprah would just eat five grand guacamole. Wealthy Liberal elites who live in guard gated communities are immune from the destructive Democratic policies that have so deteriorated our nation’s cities. The average American family is not afforded that same luxury…and safety. I would say a better focus of your emotions would be on repairing your Democratic Party that moved so far Left that they Left the American people behind. So, you are mistaken in your monologue when you said that “Americans who voted for Trump made a mistake, too.” No, Sir! The American people made a correction against policies that they could no longer stomach. And policies that their country could no longer afford. And it was an overwhelming majority of Americans who made THEIR choice. A choice for a better more affordable America where Free Speech is not under attack but reaffirmed. Make no mistake, this election is an overwhelming and clear mandate for change. And change is needed. And change is coming. I sincerely wish YOU and all the people who voted differently than me all my very best and I will continue to cheer for your success and for the success of ALL Americans. Respectfully, Rob Schneider

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Americans decided to vote for the Constitution.

RobSchneider
Posted - November 14, 2024 at 5:46 AM
Saved - November 14, 2024 at 5:06 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Harris' Hollywood pals silent after Trump victory — they can't 'afford’ to lose fans: expert https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/harris-hollywood-pals-radio-silent-week-after-trump-victory-cannot-afford-lose-fans-expert

Harris' Hollywood pals radio silent week after Trump victory; they ‘cannot afford’ to lose fans: expert Since Donald Trump declared victory over Vice President Harris in the presidential election, certain celebrities have remained silent, a PR move that speaks volumes, an expert says. foxnews.com
RobSchneider
Posted - September 16, 2024 at 6:56 PM
Saved - September 19, 2024 at 3:26 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Hahahaha!

@DefiantLs - Defiant L’s

Very well put. https://t.co/C13fyhLGAr

RobSchneider
Posted - August 30, 2024 at 4:08 AM
Saved - August 30, 2024 at 4:24 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Here’s some great guys I got to hang out with tonight in DC at Moms For Liberty… The hilarious ⁦@SethDillon⁩ from ⁦@TheBabylonBee⁩ and my new pal and children’s champion ⁦@BillboardChris⁩ https://t.co/omYDfyfDI8

RobSchneider
Posted - August 23, 2024 at 2:15 PM
Saved - August 30, 2024 at 4:21 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see the Democratic Party focusing on hatred towards Donald Trump rather than presenting ideas to improve American lives. They want us to forget about rising grocery bills and their controversial policies during the pandemic, which included censorship and violations of First Amendment rights. The Democrats have labeled Trump and his supporters in derogatory ways, inciting division. Supporting Robert Kennedy Jr. and Trump is a stand against their authoritarian actions. I urge fellow citizens to oppose tyranny and vote for Trump.

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Dear Fellow Robert Kennedy Jr. supporters and American Citizens, As we have seen this week, ONCE AGAIN the Democratic Party is NOT running on any ideas to make American’s lives better, they are once again running on the hatred of one individual, Donald J Trump. And they are hoping that YOU will HATE him so much that you will forget about the Democrat’s FOREVER WARS that are pushing the world closer to World War III, they are hoping that you forget about your grocery bills being 26% higher since Biden/Harris took office The Democrats are hoping that you FORGET all the CENSORSHIP that the Biden/Harris regime did, working with TECH companies to silence Scientists, Doctors and Academics and ANYONE who dared question their Tyrannical COVID POLICIES, VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS, FIRING FEDERAL WORKERS, DOCTORS AND NURSES who refused to get an experimental vaccine, FORCING TWO YEAR OLD BABIES TO WEAR MASKS, CLOSING SCHOOLS AND SMALL BUSINESSES, while allowing BIG BUSINESSES to MAKE BILLIONS in profits, putting GIRLS AND WOMEN AT RISK BY ALLOWING NARCISSISTIC MEN TO INVADE THEIR SAFE SPACES AND SPORTS, putting PORNOGRAPHY BOOKS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, pushing the GENDER MADNESS OF CHILD MUTILATION SURGERIES and CHILD STERILIZATION CASTRATION DRUGS (PUBERTY BLOCKERS), REMOVING AMERICA’S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and once again making our Nation captive to FOREIGN OIL, OPENING OUR BORDER allowing 11 MILLION ILLEGAL NON-CITIZENS INTO OUR COUNTRY, CAUSING MISERY, DEATH AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING, FLOODING OUR CITIES WITH MIGRANTS AND DEATH CAUSING FENTANYL, ILLEGALS FLOWN TO DIFFERENT STATES all being PAID BY U.S. TAXPAYERS. The Democrats CALLED TRUMP ‘HITLER’ and half the CITIZENS of our country “MAGATS” and DEPLORABLES, INCITING HATRED AND THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF A FORMER PRESIDENT. The Democrats cry of ‘SAVING DEMOCRACY’ as they DISCARD the 14 MILLION DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR BIDEN IN THE PRIMARY, effecting a COUP, pushing OUT A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT and much like the SOVIET POLITBURO, INSTALLING THEIR NEW PUPPET LEADER who had the LOWEST APPROVAL RATING OF ANY FORMER VICE PRESIDENT and who has still REFUSED to take ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS. YES, the Democrats are hoping that you HATE TRUMP more than YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR FREE SPEECH, YOUR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION AND SAFETY AND YOUR FREEDOMS. Robert Kennedy Jr. supporting President Trump is plainly this: A REJECTION OF THE AUTHORITARIAN AND SERIAL UNDEMOCRATIC ACTIONS OF THE DEMOCRAT MACHINE. As a fellow American Citizen and Robert Kennedy Jr. supporter, I hope that you will OPPOSE TYRANNY and join us and VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Sincerely, Rob Schneider

RobSchneider
Posted - April 5, 2024 at 8:58 PM
Saved - April 6, 2024 at 4:14 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

The medical liars who have been saying that these repurposed prison castration drugs, Puberty Blockers, are safe and reversible FINALLY ADMIT it causes irreversible damage to children…

@againstgrmrs - Gays Against Groomers

🚨 Another groundbreaking study has just been released, this time from @MayoClinic. It found that “puberty blockers” are, in fact, not reversible, as we have been saying for almost 2 years. They cause lifelong damage, and every medical professional and gender activist who supports putting confused children on them should be deeply ashamed of themselves and face consequences. Great work by @buttonslives reporting on this.

RobSchneider
Posted - March 20, 2024 at 3:06 AM
Saved - March 20, 2024 at 11:59 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Nothing to see here! Just a map of over 900 burglaries in Los Angeles since JANUARY of THIS YEAR! Just another benefit of the open borders policy from the Democratic Party! https://t.co/Ru7PYU8pc1

RobSchneider
Posted - January 22, 2024 at 1:19 AM
Saved - January 22, 2024 at 1:23 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I will no longer fly on United Airlines due to what I perceive as a prioritization of diversity in pilot hiring over passenger safety. The recent incident on flight 1722 from Maui to San Francisco on December 18th, 2023, demonstrated the incompetence of the diverse flight crew. I hope the board of directors swiftly dismisses CEO Scott Kirby before his actions lead to tragic consequences.

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Dear Scott Kirby CEO @UnitedAirlines and Drag Queen practitioner, I regret to inform you that I will no longer allow my family to fly on your airline as you have clearly placed “diversity” of pilot hiring above safety of passengers and crew. As evidenced by the near aviation catastrophe of UA Boeing 777 flight 1722 from Maui to San Francisco Dec 18th 2023, where your diverse but incompetent flight crew didn’t know which flaps were causing its near disastrous dissent, coming within 750 feet of killing every one aboard your United Airline. I cannot tell you how many @UnitedAirlines employees have personally thanked me for my valid criticism of your careless and life threatening leadership. I look forward to your swift dismissal by UA’s board of directors before your inane actions cause the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children. After your inevitable firing you can get back to your true passion, your Drag Queen performances. Sincerely yours, Rob Schneider Former 1K United Airline frequent flyer.

RobSchneider
Posted - December 30, 2023 at 5:59 PM
Saved - December 30, 2023 at 8:15 PM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

Thank you, @billmaher There is so much ignorance in @SethMacFarlane ‘s thinking I don’t know where to start. He seems to not want to recognize the overwhelming hateful vitriol was not coming from the unvaccinated (who were fired,demonized, called murderers) but from the VAXXED

@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd

🔥 Bill Maher & Seth MacFarlane Get Into a HEATED Debate Over the COVID Vaccine “Djokovic didn’t need it. Aaron Rodgers didn’t need it…You completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to all medical interventions including a vaccine!” https://t.co/bafg4BmvBF

Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctors' fallibility and the lack of consideration for natural immunity are discussed. The conversation touches on mandatory vaccination, anecdotal evidence, and the risks and benefits of vaccines. The speakers debate the number of children who died from COVID and the importance of vaccines. They also mention the potential harm caused by vaccines and the need for individual choice. The conversation ends with a mention of the COVID vaccine's testing and the speaker's personal experience with it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But then why are doctors wrong about so much? Speaker 1: Well, what do Speaker 0: you write about a lot too? And yes. And but very often, people who aren't doctors have been righter about things. Like, what would be an example of that? I would think, this country did not allow for, natural immunity to be considered. And I know this is a subject dear to your heart. Like, even if you had the disease, you still had to get a vaccine. That's powerful, stupid. They don't do that in Europe. Speaker 1: I think they do that here. There's mandatory vaccination in grades in Speaker 0: schools that have worse. But if you already had the disease, immunity. We didn't see we didn't we didn't seem to believe in that here. Speaker 1: That was debunked, though. I mean, that was that's that's debunked. Speaker 0: Don't you know people who've had COVID 4 Speaker 1: or 5 times? I do. That's not natural immunity. There's no immunity there. You've had COVID 5 times. Speaker 0: Probably because you had too many vaccines. I didn't have COVID. Speaker 1: The vaccine gave you COVID? Speaker 0: Well, that's certainly they're the unscientific about the fact that the vaccine, which does weaken you in order to strengthen you Says do all vaccines. Exactly. Yeah. But while you're in a weakened state, yes, that's why so many people like me got it, Did not have it while the thing was raging and I was taking zero precautions because I was never that afraid of it. Speaker 1: But that's anecdotal. Like, I've Speaker 0: had every booster that's anecdotal that Speaker 1: yeah. And I have never had COVID. I get a flu shot once a year. I haven't had the flu in 20 years. Speaker 0: Right. Well, I haven't eaten. I don't get Flushot. Speaker 1: K. So this is all anecdotal. But but Right. You know the difference between anecdotal and and statistical. I do. And, and statistically, you still have a 90% better chance of not being hospitalized, not dying if you're vaccinated. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that but that's assuming all people are alike, and that is one of the giant fallacies in your way of thinking. We are not all alike. Yes. I would recommend and have recommended the COVID vaccine for the high risk people. Like, if you're 90 or fat, get it. Absolutely. You need it. Some people don't. But you had Djokovic didn't need it. But you had Aaron Rogers didn't need it. Speaker 1: But you had something like 1900 kids who died of COVID during the pandemic. Speaker 0: I don't think that's Right? The New York Speaker 1: How many how many of them died from the vaccine? None. Speaker 0: The the New York And Speaker 1: then and the the thinking there is that, well, probably most kids are not going to die from COVID, So why bother with the vaccine? Because it's only going to be a few 100 kids. Speaker 0: Right? I don't know how many kids died. That seems very high to me. I know, At one point, the New York Times grossly talking about misinformation, they had to apologize. They got it completely wrong. She reported something like 900,000 children have been hospitalized, and it was like 63,000. So maybe those facts Should be better. Speaker 1: Papers can get it wrong, and they print retractions in New Zealand. Speaker 0: But also the with COVID or from COVID, Did 1900 children die with COVID? Yes. It's a whole different story. Speaker 1: If it takes 7,000,000 people worldwide, 7,000,000 people worldwide who died from Like, if if even just a fraction of that is and and it's probably a larger fraction who died of COVID than who died with COVID. Even if even just a fraction of that is that's still a lot of fucking people. That's a lot of fucking people. Speaker 0: Yes. And But okay. But some but some people millions of people. But things are and you cannot prevent that. Speaker 1: You can, though. I mean, you you you can prevent Speaker 0: At what Cost. Is it yes. Speaker 1: Of getting a vaccine? What what's why is why what's the Speaker 0: The fact that you don't even have a clue, what's the cost getting a vaccine that you don't know the answer to that? No. You're you're you're you you completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to All medical interventions, including a vaccine, all vaccines, they come they say side effects just like every medication does. You can see it in the literature. They can't write it on the vaccine, so you have to dig them. And of course, there is a vaccine court because so many people have been injured. This is not a screed to say don't do vaccines. I'm not against doing vaccines. I'm against doing vaccines that I don't think I need. I should be able to decide that For myself inside my body, but, yes, there are there are pathogens that would come along that I would fight you for? Speaker 1: Don't you think To get the vaccine. That's a good point. To Speaker 0: get the vaccine. Speaker 1: And and you bring me to my next point. Don't don't you think that the The vitriol and the the the just the the aggression towards the the the, That the anti vaccination movement, the way it souped itself up during all this, that the next time there is a pandemic, Our public health system is so weakened. Speaker 0: Yes. Exactly. Because of the because of them and their fucking misinformation that made people skeptical. The fact that everybody came out and said, if you get the vaccine, you you you cannot get the disease, and then, of course, that was wrong. And you and if you get the vaccine, you can transmit it. And that's what's going on inside. I understand. They're not Speaker 1: they're not you just said yourself, doctors are often wrong. Right. Especially when they're researching a Speaker 0: drug or a new disease. And I am not blaming them for it. I'm just saying that's why there shouldn't be the science. There's no the in science. That's what you want. You want just to be the the one true opinion. Speaker 1: That's not Speaker 0: true. Whatever it is. Speaker 1: No. The strength Speaker 0: of science. Want it. You don't know what's The Strength Speaker 1: of science is that it has the capacity to evolve and Speaker 0: improve. That some that vaccines affect have ill effects On some people? I I They do. Again, anecdotally. Speaker 1: But statistically, it's here, and it's here. It's like it's it's people how many 7,000,000 people died of COVID. How many people died from Vaccine. Speaker 0: Probably a few. But but I Speaker 1: don't know what the number is, but I know it's not a 1,000,000. Speaker 0: If we were more judicious about who needed it versus who it might hurt, which would not be the blanket policy of just everybody, one size fits all, then perhaps we could take down the Damages from the vaccine that happened But Speaker 1: then why vaccinate for anything? Speaker 0: And then take down the Speaker 1: Why vaccinate for for measles? Why not why why vaccinate for mumps or rubella, Vertusus, why why vaccinate for any of those things? Because somebody might get hurt by the vaccine. I mean, why why do those vaccines because COVID is newer? Speaker 0: Well, COVID is newer. Speaker 1: It is it yes. It's but is that the only reason? I mean, this this was by the time you got the vaccine I don't know if you had it. But by the time I got the vaccine, This was the most tested vaccine in the history of vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes. I had Speaker 1: it. Because I Speaker 0: had to get Speaker 1: it. Many people by that point had had it. It's like by the time it got into my arm, it's like, alright. Think I'm gonna be okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I just so you know, I took one for the team. Okay? So so, you know, That should go into it. I did something I did not want to do. And we have to talk about this all
RobSchneider
Posted - November 25, 2023 at 7:31 AM
Saved - November 26, 2023 at 10:56 AM

@RobSchneider - Rob Schneider

What Makes Hamas Worse Than the Nazis… https://freebeacon.com/culture/what-makes-hamas-worse-than-the-nazis/

What Makes Hamas Worse Than the Nazis My late publisher Lord George Weidenfeld knew about the Nazis. Escaping from Vienna soon after the Anschluss in 1938, he managed to save his immediate family from the Holocaust, although he lost many other relatives to it. He broadcasted to the Third Reich while working for the BBC during the Second World War, and published Albert Speer’s memoirs after it. If anyone could get into the psyche of the Nazis, George could. freebeacon.com
View Full Interactive Feed