Loading summary
Transcript64 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Host
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:04]
Steve Gruber
Is America's Voice Live. And welcome to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Guru.
- [00:09]
Moderator/Panel Host
The pulse of the people. We need somebody that's going to hear.
- [00:12]
Steve Gruber
The people's voice, the truth the mainstream won't touch. This guy is by definition a globalist. And the stories that matter, Rav's own Ben Berklomb.
- [00:22]
Moderator/Panel Host
Right up over this hill, I've got one cartel. I see him, I see him.
- [00:25]
Dr. Richard Fry
I see him.
- [00:29]
Steve Gruber
Live. Breaking news right now here on Real America's Voice. Unfiltered. These people are domestic terrorists and unapologetic. We're here to take a stand for God and country. Does feel good. America's Voice Live starts now. And welcome to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Guru. Normally we'd have a full show for you today, but we have something special to make America healthy again. Institute currently holding an important roundtable discussion where doctors, scientists and parents are all getting together, confronting autism and discussing real solutions. Let's listen in.
- [01:04]
Dr. Brian Hooker
These men and women who are doing this aren't doing this to get rich. They're not doing this for their careers. They're not doing this for notoriety. Otherwise then they've made really, really bad career choices. But they're doing it because they're like Jesus and they're touched by the feeling of these children's infirmity. And that's what they're, you know, you talk about Jesus, arms extended to society. It is these pract practitioners who would dare ask the question where pediatricians and family practitioners are turning them away. So I couldn't have more respect and more thanks for them.
- [01:45]
Moderator/Panel Host
So, Richard, you know a thing or two about research. We'll get to question answers about environment and genetics afterwards. But, you know, just give an opener, if you would, about, about this particular topic for the panel and your role in it and what, you know.
- [02:02]
Dr. Richard Fry
Yeah, well, you know, the research on autism at the NIH has been very disappointing over the last number of years, you know, and one of the reasons, you know, I think, is that, you know, there was a bill that was signed, I believe, by President Bush to, you know, to allocate so much money to autism research at the nih. But from what I understand, the NIH wasn't given any money. So they just told everybody, all the institutes, well, you're all going to do autism research. And most of them said, well, that's not in our mission, you know, for us to do that. You know, this isn't the home for autism. So nobody really is welcoming those grants all that much. The other issue is that, yeah, we were in the age of genetics at the turn of the century. That was the really big thing. We were going to sequence the genome and we'd finally find every gene for every disease. And it didn't work out that way, but we trained all these geneticists and we have all this equipment to look at genetics, and genetics is important. And so what happens is you have these scientists that are on the panels that review this work who are biased that that's what they do. So that's what they understand. And they don't appreciate other points of view. It's not what they're trained in. And so those type of alternative grants get, you know, pushed to the side and not funded. And the fact is that the funding pay line now is very, very, very low. You know, I remember when I got started in research in the 80s, it was 25%, so, you know, 25% of grants. I mean, they had good grants, you know, got funded, and now I think it's down to 4%. So you not only have to have what we say, advocates on their. On the panel, but you have to speak to exactly what those particular people on the panel want. And it becomes a self, you know, perpetuating system where new research does not get, you know, funded. The other thing, I think that in general, one of the differences from the United States, from other countries, is that in other countries, a scientist is given a salary by their university, and they don't have to write grants for their salary. They have to write grants for their lab to support their people, their supplies. In the United States, an investigator has to include their own salary on the grants. And so that means if, if they want a good salary, one, they have to get lots of grants, which causes competition. Two, what's really unfortunate is that that grant, a lot of it's taken up by salaries, and they can't spend that money on technicians and other supplies. And so it makes a very competitive landscape. And of course, then there's the idea at universities that they get a lot of overhead, you know, and that's something that has been, you know, talked about. And, you know, many mainstream universities, regular universities may get 30%, but you have universities like Harvard, which get 100%. So if I was at Harvard and I got a $2.5 million grant, which is your standard in our R01, the institute would get another $2.5 million just to pay for the lights and the room. Then. So the universities make it so that this becomes very competitive for these NIH grants because they want the money for this. And so really good research becomes underfunded. It used to be that many private foundations would fund some of this up and coming research, but as the budgets got tighter and tighter at nih, then the people that used to get grants went to those foundations. Of course, then there's the issue with publishing papers too, because if you don't publish exactly what they want, they're not going to appreciate that research. And then it gets published in a lower journal and, and they say, oh, you see, it's not good because it's in a lower journal. So the way we do research, the way we appreciate research, the way it's funded is very flawed right now. One of the major things I feel is that there's many times not an appreciation of the impact of research. And so, you know, and this is what, you know, you know, I said recently, as you know, there's these people that get two and a half million dollars for to study a gene that affects three people. You know, you could give me $30 and I can affect, you know, probably more than that, but you can give me several thousand dollars, $10,000, and I can affect, you know, 2.5 million people just by, you know, spreading the word about lupivorin and doing that type of research. So I don't think we appreciate what the impact. And I don't think it, it's really focused towards treatment. We're always looking for the cause and the cause is important. But as a doctor, you know, I'm a doctor, so I want to heal patients. So, you know, that's great if you find the cause those biological mechanisms that are, you know, in the molecular parts of the cell. But I want to know what's going to help my patient. And if I can find something that helps my patient, you know, you can figure out all those other mechanisms later on. I want to get, you know, kids better.
- [08:18]
Moderator/Panel Host
Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much. So I'll just start since there's. Thank you both. I'll just start since there's no one, you know, willing to ask me questions. That's fine. I'll just start with what I want to tell you guys. Looking at the genetics question, I want to teach you the history of genetics research and autism where Katie Wright and her father had a division over this as a major issue. If autism is genetic, it's nobody's fault. It's just something that happens and nothing to do with it. Your life is set. You're going to have to be that way. It's not preventable, so you can't treat it. It's genetic. And so they set apart with the whole genome studies to do genetic studies, and they would find genes that are associated with the risk of autism diagnosis. But they couldn't find any genes after finding about 600 of them where any of the genes explained more than 1 or 2% of the genetic risk. And then they kept searching and searching until they got about 850 genes. And autism speaks, the organization that Katie separated from over ethics, they actually celebrated every single one of those new gene discoveries with a headline. And sure enough, mainstream media, hey, they found a gene for autism. Hey, they found a gene for autism. Hey, they found a gene for autism. After about 850, it became really evident, especially after I published my book, the environmental genetic cause of autism, that they weren't explaining autism if none of these genes explained autism in terms of inheritance liability. So a group of them put their heads together and say, I don't know. What we'll do is we'll actually pare down that list. There's too many. We'll pare down that list, and we'll get to the core set of genes that we think are most important. And of course, they went for the neurological genes. They didn't go for the detoxification deficiency genes. They didn't go for the methylation genesis. They want to make it neurological, neurodevelopmental from a neurological like neuroimpairment. And so they got this core set of genes and said, oh, scientists believe this. I got a headline. Scientists still think it's genetic, but these are the important ones we need to focus on. And the purpose of that was really just for pharma to go find drugs. It was twofold. We're gonna go find drugs that can impact these and maybe have some effect. Fair enough. But then the strange thing happened. Next year, guess what they found. Hey, we found some more autism genes. Found some more autism genes. They wanted the headline, so they kept funding new discovery research on autism genes. And that lasted about a year or two. And then it became really ridiculous to say that autism is genetic when the numbers really show. And our messaging was successful, especially Tony Bark, a friend of ours, who's beloved and belated that you can't have a genetic epidemic. Right? It doesn't exist that way. So we've all said it, and the message, I think, stuck, that the jig is up, if you will, and the heritability. Tony Lyons mentioned heritability and that it seems like there's autism traits that are heritable, but that's only because traits are heritable. Think about the diagnosis of autism. What is it? You have repetitive behavior. You've got, you know, whether you're very social, not social. These are heritable human traits. The fact that brain function is heritable is what they're really tapping into on the heritability of autism. Right? So a lot of people know dads of kids with autism, and they might have, you know, they kind of like to keep to themselves or whatever, but they actually lied in the last three major heritability studies. Because in the first three heritability, three or four heritability studies, they would say, let's look at how much of it's genetic with a correlation. And they calculated something called liability. Under the liability calculation, you're looking at 40% genetics, 40% genetics leaves 60% for environment. They couldn't have that. So they kept changing study designs and doing it in a different way until they got to the point where now they say, oh, it's, you know, between 80 and 90% if you look at the headlines today in the mainstream media. But they never refer to the original studies, and that's not fair. They need to refer to the original studies and say that the range is here to here, and why did it increase? Why did the heritability increase over time like clockwork? The studies that have never been done and that the NIH need to fund have to include genetics and environment in the same study with the same people. So not only can you understand the percentage that's due to genetics and the percentage that's due to environment, but you can calculate genetics times environment interaction. It's a very specific, easy to do study design. It doesn't take $3 million, takes about $150,000 and a good electronic health record and some surveys. And then you put a P value on the genes and you put a P value on environment, including environmental, common environmental exposures, and you put a P value on the interaction term. If anybody knows a statistician, you can actually get them to agree with you that autism has not been studied. They'll know what an interaction term is. They'll say, you know, what a good way to. To hide environment. Do genes over here and environment over here, but never do or even do genes and environment in the same one. But don't look at the interaction term. You can bury the action in the interaction because the interaction can be more important than one of the main effects. I'm getting in the weeds on this for a specific reason. Anybody from this day forward who says autism is genetic doesn't know what they're talking about. There is zero chance that anybody knows what the size of that interaction term is because. Because it's never been done. And until it's done, nobody can say it's genetic or environment. You can say it's environment, partially, you can say it's genetic, but you can't say either or. That's the nature of this ignorance and it's enforced ignorance and it has to stop. So another topic I just want to mention briefly is, okay, why doesn't everybody get autism? Right? It's the same vaccine schedule, no problem. Well, there are a couple of, couple of reasons. You can point to the fact that the nurses weren't shaking up the vials with the mercury in it and some kids got larger doses. That's a risk. You can actually look at the fact that there is a cohort of kids that got aluminum and mercury containing vaccines combined. But if you look up the paper, autism is an acquired cellular detoxification deficiency syndrome. I actually tested the hypothesis that these kids are not able to detox as well as other kids, plain and simple. And we birthed them, we brought them into and are raising them in an increasingly toxic world. It's so bad that I think we would have had an autism epidemic eventually finding the same families, the same genetic lineages of people who happen to not be able to detoxify as well as others. Even if vaccines were never invented, petroleum chemicals are absolutely poisoning our food, they're poisoning our water, they're poisoning our medicines. And usually it's the waste leftover that they say, how do we agriculture, how do we do this? Let's make a kind of fertilizer out of this or something. Plastics, the things that you hear about all the time. I teach a course, environmental Toxicology, because it's a huge concern. So not only do we have to have NIH then turn a sharp corner, do a 180 on genetics and environment for autism. We actually have to have real environmental science done. Major universities, they have endowed chairs. The endowed chairs include the chemistry department. Big Chem doesn't want anybody to know about environmental toxicology. You can't find a course on environmental toxicology like the one that I teach. 18 lectures that tell you the source and what to do about it, how to avoid it, how to shut it down, the source of biological effects and how to shut it down. I taught that course because this was before I developed that course because I didn't think we would ever get anywhere like we are right now with Bobby Kennedy as secretary. I thought we would never get there. I'm like, okay, we're going to have to clean up all of the rest of the world because they're going to insist on vaccines for everybody forever. If we're going to have any effect. That's how dedicated I am. It's online. You can go to ipac-edu.org and sign up for it, but. So the way that vaccines contribute to autism is that they aluminum or mercury goes into the brain. There's no doubt about that. 0 Chris Exley showed that. There's no doubt about the fact that aluminum makes it to the brain. But we've known it since 1985 when they found that amyloid, that thing that you hear about with Alzheimer's, is part aluminum. Amyloid in the brain is part aluminum. So it gets to the brain and it kills cells. Those cells die. Microglia pick up those dead cells to clean up the brain, the cellular debris. They become intoxicated with aluminum and they die. If you distract your microglia during neurodevelopment, you cannot have a proper neurodevelopment. They prune the brain at the right time in the right way to make the brain a human brain the way that it is. I'm not saying people with autism are not human. Please don't quote me and twist that language around. I would never say that. They're beautiful human beings. The fact is, if you can't develop your brain right because you have chronic microglial activation, it becomes an unstoppable inevitability that eventually you're going to lose everything that you got over neural development. When the doses are accumulating as the aluminum builds up to toxic levels in the brain, you're going to regress. That is known. That is not controversial. Kids have chronic microglia activation from the age of 5 to 25. It's in the literature on autopsies of kids who died from other causes with autism. This other thing about neurodiversity, the last thing that I'll say for my part of this is people say, let's celebrate autism. It's neurodiversity. There's just differences, and differences are, okay, what's the average lifespan of a kid with an autism diagnosis? Anybody know? 34 in the United States. Is that okay? Is it okay that we're celebrating neurodiversity instead of saying, what? Okay, so we really need to get the aluminum out of kids brains. We need detoxification chelation studies. Not the type of chelation that you hear about bleach and all that garbage. Let's not talk about that. Let's talk about mild long slow chelation because it's chronic exposure to toxins in the environment, including mercury, including aluminum. And if you can get that out, I have a protocol. I reversed my asthma. NIH needs to study slow prolonged chelation to reverse asthma, autoimmunity, ADHD and autism. That has to happen now. Dr. J. Bhattacharya should be putting a research program together. Bobby Kennedy tells me they're going to study the health effects of aluminum on humans. So that's good news. So the really good news is we can do something right now. So let's go to, let's go to Richard, if you don't mind. First, Richard, what exposures do you see parents reporting that attribute to the initial causes of autism?
- [20:02]
Dr. Richard Fry
So you know, so you know, we, you know, as you know we do a lot of research on mitochondria.
- [20:09]
Moderator/Panel Host
Yeah.
- [20:10]
Dr. Richard Fry
And so some of the studies, you know, we developed an assay that is to look at not only mitochondrial function but mitochondrial resilience. And what we found is a signature to neurodevelopmental regression that for some reason these kiddos, their mitochondria is actually functioning about twice that of normal. It's like a little race car, but as soon as it hits a bump, it falls apart. But the other thing that we were, you know, in our research to kind of look at these things is we found out that environmental exposures in utero are highly correlated with these changes in the mitochondria. So we've done a few studies. One at looking at air pollution PM25 and we found that prenatal air pollution exposure has just looking at mitochondrial function of a kid that's 8, 10 years old has a very is a significant raw correlation. Without correcting for anything of this, we also collaborated some of the work by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine with the, the baby teeth where we showed, actually they had showed that manganese and zinc levels low levels prenatally you could distinguish twins which was going to get autism. Well we showed those in regressive type autism those change mitochondrial function long term.
- [21:49]
Moderator/Panel Host
So those who don't know mitochondria are the parts of the cell that power the cell. You can't do much if you don't have an engine in your cell powering the, the processes of the cell.
- [21:59]
Dr. Richard Fry
And the, and this in the Brain uses up 20% of the energy, but it's 2% of the weight of your body.
- [22:06]
Steve Gruber
All right, we'll continue with the conversation. There are a lot of interesting things coming out and we'll continue with that in a moment. But first, I realize there are many choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service and there are new ones popping up all the time. Here's the truth. There's only one that boldly stands in the gap for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for and that's Patriot Mobile. For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines fighting for our God given rights and freedoms while also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to all three of the main major networks. Don't just take my word for it. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've already made the switch and are now supporting causes they believe in. Simply by joining Patriot Mobile, switching is easier than ever. Activate in minutes from the comfort of your own home. Keep your number, keep your phone. Or you could upgrade if you'd like to. Great phones available. Patriot Mobile's all US based support team is standing by to take care of you. Call 972 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com RAV use promo code RAV for a free month of service right now. That's patriotmobile.com RAV or call 972 Patriot and make the switch today. We'll take a quick break and be right back with more coverage of the Maha Institute's Roundtable on Autism from Washington D.C.
- [23:20]
Dr. Richard Fry
People that you know.
- [23:33]
Steve Gruber
All right, I want to take you back down to the Manhattan Institute. Excuse me. The MAHA Institute's roundtable discussion on tackling the autism crisis. Here's more.
- [23:43]
Dr. Richard Fry
Are going to adapt to that. They're not going to grow normally and they're actually going to change the way their mitochondria work because they're not getting those fuels or maybe they're getting certain types of metabolic intermediates that interfere with the way that they work. So what we're finding is that these things are actually transgenerational, heritable, can be found in the parents, both mom and dad, some of these things and you can detect them before time. And then if you can intervene preconception before we even start to have babies, then we could take the change, the rise in autism to reverse the course. So it's better.
- [24:28]
Moderator/Panel Host
So do you think it would be like 50%, 70%, 80%, 90% could be prevented if we stopped putting toxins on purpose into Children.
- [24:39]
Dr. Richard Fry
Well, I think there's many different things. I think, you know, definitely that toxic load is important. Giving the right nutrients, you know, making sure we feed our microbiome correctly. That's something we even talk about, which is transgenerational too, you know. So I think that this whole idea of just becoming healthy, you know, and treating our bodies correctly by decreasing the toxins and put in the fuels and the good nutrients it needs could go a long way to reversing a lot of chronic disease.
- [25:08]
Moderator/Panel Host
Yeah. Thank you very much. Let's move on to Dr. Brian Hooker. Big hand for Dr. Richard Fry, please. Could you discuss, please, the role of acetaminophen in autism causation?
- [25:23]
Dr. Brian Hooker
Well, when you look at how acetaminophen is detoxified, it is primarily detoxified in neonates and postnatally through glutathione regulated pathways, basically methylation and sulfation. And so if that is not properly detoxified, then a toxic metabolite called NaPQI than can accumulate in the brain. NAPQI is a neurotoxin. We know that autism is a neurotoxic condition. If you look at it, there's a paper called by Distacio that came out in 2019 that shows Frank damage of microglia, a phenomenon called microglia blebbing, where the cells actually pinch off these small blebs or exosomes that are essentially damage cells. Cells. So that is caused directly by nabqi. Now, when you hear all this, when I first started learning about Tylenol, I was like, oh, great, one more thing to think about, one more toxin. But it is, I believe, in many cases of the etiology of autism, it is necessary but is not sufficient. You still need the genetic terrain, and then you still need the oxidative stress along with acetaminophen for autism causation.
- [26:55]
Moderator/Panel Host
Is there a window of susceptibility for acetaminophen?
- [26:59]
Dr. Brian Hooker
Absolutely. The window of susceptibility is really postnatal. So what I would call perinatal during labor and delivery, especially after cord clamping, because then you cut off the mom's bloodstream and then postnatally at that particular point in time, then the risk regarding acetaminophen does decrease postnatally as the newborn gets older and older. But I still believe that there's a risk and there's a risk of regressive autism up through five years of age.
- [27:33]
Moderator/Panel Host
Yeah. I remember the advice of doctors saying, if you're going to go in for your vaccine, give your kid acetaminophen beforehand in anticipation of a fever. I asked Richard about the maternal immune activation during pregnancy. And the idea in the mainstream medical thinking is we don't want infections during pregnancy. That's why we want to do vaccines. But not every woman gets influenza during those nine months. Not every woman gets COVID 19 during those months, and not every woman gets tetanus or pertussis during those nine months. But every woman that vaccinates three times gets all of those antigens as well, right? Yeah.
- [28:16]
Dr. Richard Fry
And, I mean, the. The thing is, it's that you can plan for this, right? If you're gonna get pregnant, you can make sure your vaccines are up to date, you know, if you want to do that, you know, and so you don't have to get vaccinated during pregnancy. You know, other things, like, you know, influenza, where it may be a seasonal thing, you know, you know, one thing you could do is have people around the mother get vaccinated so she's not exposed to that, so they don't bring that home. So there's other different ways that you can prevent those disorders and even get the vaccines that you need without doing it during pregnancy.
- [28:55]
Moderator/Panel Host
Thank you. So, Brian, back to acetaminophen. It's been around since the 1880s. How do you explain this dramatic rise of autism starting in the late 1980s.
- [29:04]
Dr. Brian Hooker
The rise in autism? Again, it is sort of a fire triangle of acetaminophen oxidative stress. Best way to get oxidative stress is to directly inject the toxins into your body vis a vis vaccines and the genetic landscape on top of that. But starting in 1980s, there's a baby aspirin scare with Reye syndrome. Okay. And so baby aspirin was no longer recommended during pregnancy or, well, essentially for postnatally. And that's when baby. The advent of baby Tylenol started to come about. Then on top of that, when you start to increase the oxidative stress. With oxidative stress, you also increase the need for some type of pain reliever, fever reducer. And so acetaminophen used and skyrocketed along with a vaccination schedule.
- [29:56]
Moderator/Panel Host
Thank you. So sounds like you're moving away from pointing a finger at vaccines, at autism. Is that true?
- [30:03]
Dr. Brian Hooker
Wow. Bite your tongue, dude.
- [30:07]
Moderator/Panel Host
No.
- [30:07]
Dr. Brian Hooker
No. Absolutely not. No. There are, again, taking a delivery system that gives you 100% absorption of a toxin is not good for you. It is just plain not good for you. You cannot. Vaccines do not get a pass in this. Mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 triple live viruses, even a single live virus at the concentration that we don't, by the way, Merck does not tell us how much virus they put in the MMR vaccine. We know the minimums, we don't know the maximums. So again, it's such a great, a great tongue in cheek delivery system for these toxins. They do not get a pass.
- [30:55]
Moderator/Panel Host
Thank you very much. So a couple of closing points, Dr. Brian Hoover, ladies and gentlemen, a couple of closing points that I want to point out. You mentioned triple antigen sources. Under the US Code of federal regulations, if you're going to sell or distribute a vaccine in the United States, the only part of the vaccine that has to be tested by law for safety is the proteinaceous part. And they don't even do that. Those safety studies would be animal studies where they increase the amount of antigen to animals and see what happens when you finally reach that overload point. What's the LD50 of the MMR? It's not published. What's the LD50? That's the number of animals that die after vaccination. Well, you know, 50, 50%. That's the dose at which 50% die. But we have to change the code of federal regulations so that dose escalation studies on every ingredient in vaccines has to be studied the way that it is in drugs. There's fillers and drugs and pills. You go to the pharmacist, you get a pill. There are things that cause latent release, slow release of drugs. They have to be tested. Right. We have to take the environmental toxicology of vaccines seriously in the phase of development, bringing them to market, and that's something we can do with a signature. We can have a signing statement by President Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Changing. I think he can change the code of federal relations that way. I want to leave you guys with a story. It was before COVID I think it was about 2018. Gracie and I like to travel and we're foodies. So we stopped at this restaurant and I went up to the bar to get a little, you know, I don't know, colo and cream for grace or something. And I sat next to this guy and struck up a conversation. What do you do? Oh, I'm a retired pediatrician. Really? Oh, okay. What do you do? I'm an author. What's one of your books? Maybe you look familiar. Oh, the Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism. He said you used the word cause. Are they allowing you to do that now? True story. That's part of the problem let's stop restricting speech. Let's speak in plain English language. Patients and parents and doctors need to be able to share and compare ideas without getting at each other's throats. Be respectful, be kind, and provide a world of a rational society in which we are here to learn with and from each other and stop this nonsense. Thank you all much for being here.
- [33:35]
Panel Moderator
Thank you so much. Jack and Brian and Richard, thank you so much. Our next panel, Panel three, please welcome up to the stage is on justice, Redress and remedy. We've gone over a little bit. They're going to kick us out at exactly 5pm So I just wanted to let everyone know we're going to try to, like, really keep to the time that we have 45 minutes. For each of these panels, I want to introduce who's moderating Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel from Children's Health Defense. She oversees litigation to protect the health of children, protect parental rights, and oppose censorship, among so many other things. She's also an attorney in private practice located in New Jersey, representing clients nationwide on medical freedom issues, as well as healthcare practice management and disputes and insurance coverage issues, focusing primarily on services provided to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Thank you so much, Kim.
- [34:26]
Podcast Host
Thank you. Thank you, Brian, Are we getting you back?
- [34:32]
Dr. Brian Hooker
Perfect.
- [34:33]
Podcast Host
Hi, everyone. I'd like to welcome our panelists, two of whom you've seen already today, so I'm not going to read bios for them. Drew Downing and Brian Hooker. John Gilmore is up for the first time today. He is the executive director of the Autism Action Network. He's an advocate who's worked for 25 years on public policy issues concerning autism, developmental disabilities and vaccine rights and safety. Since 2007, he served as the ED of the Autism Action Network. It's a national nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization that influences legislation and policy on a wide range of issues impacting the autism community. He began his work following a vaccine injury to his infant son that caused extensive neurological damage later diagnosed as autism. He's worked with a wide range of organizations, including Children's Health Defense and most recently co founded American Values 2024, the federal super PAC that worked to elect RFK Jr. As president. He has a master's degree in public policy from the Graduate School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and he lives in Long Beach, New York, with his wife and his adult son. So welcome, John. I'd like to start, actually, you know, we want to keep things positive and talk about hope and movement forward in the future. We have to revisit the past sometimes to do that. But I would love for you to share the miracle in Albany about communication choice.
- [36:01]
John Gilmore
So I live in New York and I do a lot of basically lobbying, mostly in Albany. I do some in Washington as well. We used to do a lot in Washington. Then once Obama came along, there's just like, you got to be hopeless. But now there's a lot of hope again. But anyway, and my son is a speller. Right. I think there's probably a lot of speller parents here as well.
- [36:25]
Moderator/Panel Host
Right.
- [36:26]
John Gilmore
And we've. The spelling is growing in New York like it is in a lot of other places, and we're running into more and more obstacles about getting support for it. New York has some very generous benefits, but they won't pay for anything related to spelling. We also have problems like people who spell in group homes are not allowed to spell in the group homes and things like that. So a group of parents got together and we put a bill together. This was, I guess, in about February, and it's called the Communication Bill of Rights. Right. And so we started plugging it. And I just knew, because I know, you know, what persuades people up in Albany that if we could get some spellers in front of the decision makers, we wouldn't even have to talk to them. Right. You know, it's a pretty stunning thing when you see what the spellers can do. And I was right. So we took around a group of spellers to a bunch of different offices and just had them start communicating with the people who were there. And we started this unbelievable momentum moving forward. Right. I've worked on bills in Albany like autism insurance reform bill took us eight years to do. Okay. So we started the end of February. We got it passed in the assembly about six weeks later because just everybody thought it was insane what these kids could do. You know, we took.
- [38:06]
Steve Gruber
All right, it is time for a quick break. We're going to continue with more live coverage of the Maha Institute's Roundtable on Autism in Washington, D.C. in just a moment. Well, we'll get you back out to the Maha Institute's roundtable on autism here shortly. But first, I want to talk about gold. The prices here catching my attention again today. Gold 3745 silver. Above $45. Above $45. Metal prices continue to skyrocket, hitting record numbers. That's why it's important to ensure that you own some gold yourself. Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind, or in global instability, or just for sensible diversification, gold can be your ticket to financial security. In the future. Here with me to discuss the current prices of gold is precious metals specialist from Burchgold, Philip Patrick. Phillip, I've been watching this for a while. I'm not sure if gold's going to make it to 4,000 but it sure is going to, it's going to scratch close. And silver, I mean if you bought silver here a few months ago, it was at 28, it's at 45. I mean good Lord, pretty good return on investment one year 37% for silver, one year on gold, 39%. It's beating the markets hands down, isn't it?
- [39:28]
Philip Patrick
Yeah it is. And by the way, it's done that since the turn of the century. It's, it's interesting. We've seen a massive increase in the money supply this century and gold and silver have become growth assets. I think we've got some scope for movement. You mentioned $4,000 an ounce. You're in good company. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, UBS Society General all say gold will hit 4,000 by year's end. Now predicting $5,000 at some point next year. And I think it's very telling. It tells us that the biggest banks in the world are not ignoring the rally, they're leaning into it. And encouragingly the demand here isn't coming from, from day traders. It's long term structural demand being driven by central banks. So I think it's going to continue to increase.
- [40:17]
Steve Gruber
So central banks, governments getting involved with buying gold to secure their assets. That's what I'm hearing you say Philip.
- [40:26]
Philip Patrick
It's exactly it. These were countries overwhelmingly holding US dollars in reserves. The dollar's lost 25% of its purchasing power just since COVID five years ago. And it's a problem for them just like it is for us. So what they've been doing for the last three and a half years, setting consecutive records for gold buying, single biggest six month period in history for central banks have been the first six months of this year. They are looking for an alternative to the $73% of central banks who were surveyed say over the next half a decade they're looking to decrease dollar holdings and increase gold holdings. I think we're heading back towards the 80s and where gold was over 70 bank. 70% of central bank reserves.
- [41:14]
Steve Gruber
And what would that mean if that were true? If we go down that road to 70% bank reserves in gold in the next 12 to 24 months, what would that mean to the price of gold?
- [41:26]
Philip Patrick
Listen, that, that is a continuation of what we've been seeing now which is structural demand increasing. It's driven almost 40% this year. I think it'll just keep going. People have to remember gold's value is a reflection of the value of currency. As currency becomes weaker, gold is worth many more dollars. It's what's been driving it and I think it's what will continue to drive it.
- [41:51]
Steve Gruber
All right, so my question for you is this. Some people watching and say, well gosh, I wish I had bought it at 2,000 or $3,000 an ounce. It's too late for me. It's not too late, is it?
- [42:03]
Philip Patrick
Not even close.
- [42:05]
Moderator/Panel Host
Right.
- [42:05]
Philip Patrick
People set it at a thousand, at two thousand, at three thousand. Gold is a commodity and it will go up with the cost of living and it'll go up as currency loses value. So like I said, I think we got a lot of scope for growth. Look at the investment banks. They are scrambling to up their predictions. They're seeing demand and they know what that means for prices. We're moving into a more multipolar world and I think gold has a lot to gain on the back of that.
- [42:34]
Steve Gruber
Yeah, and don't overlook silver. Look, silver is not at its all time record high yet. That happened a number of years ago, but it's pretty close now. Is it? Silver's also booming. What's driving that price?
- [42:48]
Philip Patrick
Silver's also booming. It's demand as well. Both monetary demand. People look at it as a safe haven asset, but also industrial. Look at what we're seeing. AI chips heavily reliant on silver. That industry needs it. They're consuming huge amounts. Solar technology, electric cars. Then you've got the traditional industries, electronics, medical. Silver has a very broad industrial base. Demand for it is growing. And for about half a decade in the US we've been consuming more silver than we can mine. It's why it's growing and it's why it'll continue to grow. And I think these new technologies are, will continue to push demand higher and higher and higher. Silver's cheap relative to gold. Since the 70s they average about a 55 to 1 ratio. Even with the upside in silver, they're about 83, 84 to 1 today. Lot of scope for growth in silver.
- [43:42]
Steve Gruber
So just to reiterate, to reiterate, it's not too late. You can get in, you can diversify with gold. Right now. I'll give you the last word.
- [43:50]
Philip Patrick
Listen, it's certainly not too late. Central banks are buying at record levels today and they're buying knowing prices will increase. What works for them. As you said earlier, Steve, it works for us. We have the same problem, just at a much smaller scale. So a lot of scope for growth. Don't be saying, you know, it's too high at 5,000 or 6,000. I think now's the opportunity to get in.
- [44:14]
Steve Gruber
Philopatrick, always appreciate you being here, sir. Thank you for the update. Do not wait. Learn to diversify your savings with gold. Do it today. Look, I can look back over time. Gold may come back a little bit here and there, but it never really goes backwards. Text the word America to 98. 98 98. Claim your FREE information kit on gold. Do that right now. All right, we're going to return to that MAHA roundtable talking about autism and the possible cause, the possible effect in the here's more.
- [44:45]
Vaccine Program Expert
HHS sort of changed the game by rewriting the vaccine injury table, which is the definitional section that sort of governs how the vaccine program works. But more recently, the Department of Justice that represents the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the vaccine program sort of seized control of the decision making in the program for at least probably the last 10 or 15 years. And imagine if you put a bunch of lawyers together and say, what do you want to do? You want to litigate because you're a litigator. So that's what and that's what happened. It started around the same time as the omnibus proceeding and has gotten worse since that point in time. To the point point now, which is sort of why I'm here, is that it is nearly impossible to win a vaccine case now, regardless of injury, if it's a questionable case or has to be defended. Some of the special masters have above a 90% denial rate on litigated cases. And when a program was designed to compensate victims, victims in an area that we may never know for sure what caused the injury. We can't prove vaccination did something. We can't prove infection did it. We just have theories. We can prove it with animal models and support it. But you don't know for certain. So the point there was since we don't know for certain, we need to compensate. The close call goes to the victim. That is how the vaccine program was originally designed and it's been hijacked, for lack of a better word. Hopefully not for much longer.
- [46:38]
Podcast Host
Brian, if you could talk a little bit about your perspective on the omnibus autism preceding the OAP and what you'd like to see as compensation for families of children with autism who are vaccine injured.
- [46:55]
Dr. Brian Hooker
My family was in the OAP for 16 years. We filed in May of 2002 and because of a statute of limitations, could only include my son's 15 month vaccine. So anything, any contribution then allowed the DOJ and their experts witness to say, oh, he was tugging his ears at, at six months, so we must have autism because he's tugging his ears. You know, couldn't, definitely couldn't have been the ear infections that he was having over and over again. But yeah, it was autism. And the other thing that is, was laughable was really that it was going to be a friendly process. It was highly contentious. We could not find expert witnesses because any of them that had any experience witnessing for the petitioner, you know, as an expert witness for the practitioners had already been eviscerated and had committed career suicide by stepping forward as an expert witness. And these individuals, you know, special masters. We had George Hastings as a special master's master. He went to Links to make sure that he tore down our expert witnesses to the very core. It was like watching one of the old Flintstones episodes where Fred Flintstone was in with his boss, Mr. Slate. And then Fred would shrink and get smaller with every criticism, every slam. That was what it was like. And then finally we were thrown out of the system because of a statute of limitation. And we never got oral arguments whatsoever. Neither did we get any type of compensation for the amount of money that we spent for legal fees. And so it was a net loss. These children need to be taken care of. My son is very, very similar to your son John. Really, really brilliant, loves physics, loves calculus, loves German. But his whole body dyspraxia just traps him in his body. And so bar another medical breakthrough or miracle, then he's going to need a lifetime of care, you know, just 24, seven care. And so these kids, there needs to be some type of endowment for each child that's been affected to this, for this in order to take care of them for the rest of their lives.
- [49:42]
John Gilmore
If I could add something to that though, because my son was in the omnibus as well. And one thing that I think we have to talk about is the omnibus has to be revisited because. Well, and I agree with Drew, earlier today, Drew said that the omnibus was a setup from the beginning, right? That it was going to be a way to get all these cases, put them together and then just find some way to get, get rid of them. Okay? But in the omnibus, they completely violated their own rules and they violated the law in multiple places. Because what they decided to do was pick six test cases to, to test various theories of autism. Causation. Right. Well, two of them. One was Hannah polling. Okay. That was just outright autism. And they said, oh no, that doesn't count anymore. And then there was another one where based on the. An expert witness. Okay. Changed their opinion about what caused the autism in the individual concerned. So there was another one. But the lawyers for the government never let that testimony, that changed testimony come back into the system. So you already had two out of the six saying, yeah, it was autism. And they completely disregarded all that. Right. I can't imagine a more immoral, illegal thing to do. And at the very least, it has to be investigated, if not just completely reopened with look back provisions for other families as well. I mean, this three year period is just insane. If it's any other kind of injury, correct me if I'm wrong, Drew, but if it's a medical injury, you have until a minor is no longer a minor to file. And we got three years with vaccines.
- [51:36]
Vaccine Program Expert
Yeah, it's part of the. It's part of the fallacy and certainly something that I have flagged now that's a. We need the legislature to weigh in on that because that's in the statute itself. Would have some. We have to statutorily change the statute of limitations. But yeah, it's a situation where it's three years from the first onset of symptoms, period. Doesn't matter if Your child is 5 years old or not.
- [52:03]
Steve Gruber
Well, a whole lot to Learn at the Maha Institute's Roundtable on Autism in Washington D.C. glad you enjoyed part of that today. As we dipped into that, don't forget to join me tomorrow to start your broadcast day here in Real America's Voice. It's free for all Friday. What does that mean? Means you get to call in and talk to me live on the air. You don't want to miss that. Right here. The Steve Gruber show on Real America's Voice. I look forward to talking to you tomorrow. All right, Free for all Friday. Don't miss it. We'll see you then.
- [52:33]
Podcast Host
This is an iHeart podcast.