A (3:08)

I started taking something last year that was really helping me out with my workout. So if you guys have been listening for a while, you know that one of the things that I have really been working on is doing more strength training, doing more heavy lifting and resistance training because it's so good for your health. And what I started taking is something called Mitopure and it actually helps me feel stronger in my workouts. I feel like I recover quicker, I don't get as sore. And Mitopure is the only Urolithin, a supplement on the market clinically proven to target the effects of age related cellular decline. With regular use you'll see and feel the difference in the form of improved energy levels, better workouts, faster recovery and more endurance. Mitopure is shown to deliver double digit increases in muscle strength and endurance without a change in exercise. That's crazy. This is your year to be your best, most energized and most revitalized you. It promotes cellular renewal and mitochondrial health to address common signs of aging at the root, timeline is offering 10% off of Mitopure. This is hands down my favorite supplement that I've found in the last couple years. So make sure you go to timeline.com realfoodology that's T I M E L I N E.com realfoodology.

A (4:25)

I'm so grateful that Dell connected us. So I actually was in My husband and I flew out to D.C. a couple months ago because we became friends with Senator Ron Johnson because I was on his nutrition roundtable last year with Bobby Kennedy and Cali Means and very involved in the Maha movement and they knew that I really cared a lot about vaccines. So Ron Johnson's assistant Invited me out to that hearing that you guys had about the COVID vaccines.

B (4:49)

The most recent one.

A (4:50)

Yes.

B (4:50)

Okay. And you, like about a month ago.

A (4:52)

Yes, exactly. And you really stood out to me because I will never forget. Who was that senator? It was Richard Blumenthal. He asked you if you were a doctor and your response was so baller. Hector and I were like. You said you had to rely on the actual science and not just your title, which was so awesome.

B (5:10)

Yeah, it was a good moment.

A (5:12)

I mean, that's when I knew. I was like, oh, this guy is so legit. And since then, I've looked into so much of your work and what you've been doing. Obviously, you wrote this book, Vaccines. Amen. Thank you so much for writing that and the work that you've been doing on this issue. I just want to say I'm so grateful because there's so many parents right now that are trying to navigate this and they don't know what to do. They don't know the truth. They don't know what's actually happening. And that big pharmacy has lied to us for so long. So thank you so much for the work that you're doing and for people that don't know you and have not heard of your book yet, can you tell them a little bit about what you do?

B (5:43)

Sure. And thank you for helping to spread good information to parents so they can make good decisions.

A (5:49)

Yeah.

B (5:51)

I've been doing vaccine related work for over a decade, so my firm has over 50 people that just do vaccine related work. So I think we have the largest vaccine practice in the world that does not represent pharmaceutical companies. And so, you know, we do every aspect of it. You know, we help people immigrate with, you know, legally without getting vaccines, go to university without vaccines, go to school without vaccines. Military, you know, we've got. We brought in, you know, cases against the military when they were crying. The COVID vaccine, preventing over 10,000 members of the Air Force, for example, for being discharged. We got an injunction to stop that. And then we also help people who are injured by vaccine. But we don't sue pharma companies. We can't for the most part, because they have immunity. It's the only product in America, literally the only one that you cannot sue the manufacturer to claim that had you made that product safer, my kid wouldn't have died, my kid wouldn't have been seriously injured. So what we do. But you can bring a claim against the federal government, the very same department that claims it's safe. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. And so we bring those claims. It's a limited program with limited compensation and not a fair form. You don't get any discovery.

B (7:12)

But they've paid out over $5 billion, and we help folks get some compensation for that. And then at the heart of the vaccine work we do is our policy practice. And that involves securing people's individual and civil rights. So, you know, if you want to get a vaccine, great. That's freedom.

A (7:31)

Yeah, you should be able to.

B (7:33)

This is America. Yeah, you should be free to get a vaccine every day. I support your right to do that. I support your right to wear 16 masks and live in your basement if you want, because that's freedom. If you're 18 during COVID with no comorbidities, and you wanted to get a vaccine a day and live in your basement and wear 70 masks, I'd fight for your right to do that. And if you're 80 with 10 comorbidities, but you wanted to go to the coffee shop with no mask, no vaccine and live your life, you should be able to do that because that's what freedom is. And so our policy practice focus around making sure that everybody has a choice to choose to get or not get these products. Obviously, the get is not a problem, than not get can be a problem in certain circumstances. And so states that don't have an exemption, like Mississippi, we brought a lawsuit to restore a religious exemption there to over 400,000 kids now have an exemption where we got an injunction or, you.

A (8:33)

Know, is that statewide or is it just based on the kids that you brought into the statewide. Oh, okay.

B (8:38)

So we, we brought a case in federal court. So during COVID you might recall, the U.S. supreme Court came down with decisions that said, hey, look, if you can keep Walmart open, you can let the church stay open.

A (8:50)

Yeah.

B (8:50)

So we said the same thing. We said, hey, if you can let a kid into school based on a secular reason, a medical exemption, then you can accommodate religious reasons. If there isn't a health imperative to say nobody can come and you can accommodate some for a non religious reason, then you need to accommodate for a religious reason. And so that prevailed in federal court.

B (9:12)

We did the similar thing in the biggest university system in the United States that didn't offer an exemption, which is the University of California system, and that's over 300,000 students. And they finally, after a number of lawsuits, finally folded and restored a religious exemption for all students. Yes. And so, you know, for the most part in America, you can go to school I mean, there's virtually, there are very few universities you can't go to, to in America without.

B (9:42)

Without that don't have, excuse me, an exemption. So if you want to go to university in America, you can.

B (9:49)

If you want to go to school, you can. There's four states left basically, that don't offer an exemption. New York, Cali, Maine and Connecticut. And we're working on that.

B (9:59)

And you know, so the, that's the heart of, of the practice. And, and it's, it's the heart of the type of work that I do. And when I litigate those cases, as you just brought up with Senator Blumenthal, I don't get to rely on titles. And I go to court and I say, hey, this product doesn't stop transmission. I have to prove it. I don't just say it. I don't get to say I have an MD, PhD, MPH. So trust me, trust me. So I, so because I have to prove it. You know, we have to actually, we need good data, we need good studies. And when we go and have to bring those vaccine injury cases I was telling you about, we have to prove causation, we have to actually prove in almost all the cases the vaccine actually caused the injury. How do you do that? You need good science, you need good data. Right. And so forth. You also need to have an understanding of vaccinology and immunology, infectious disease and so forth. And so along the way, we have also had the opportunity, including by representing a group called icann, the Informed Consent Action Network, which funds most of our policy work.

B (11:16)

To uncover.

B (11:21)

Most of the trial data and other related information about vaccines. And once you see the actual data, once you have it, you realize there's what public health authorities tell you and tell the public, and then there's what the evidence actually shows, and they are quite different. And that's what I wrote in the, that's what I basically wrote the book for, to show people that differential.

A (11:46)

Yeah. And this is, I mean, as someone who, I've known this information for quite a long time. I didn't have the data to back it up. But When I was 11, 10 or 11, my brother was vaccine injured. And my mom said to me on the side that she felt like it happened after my brother's shots. So around at that age, I lived with that my whole life going okay. I just, I knew that like you could have an injury from a pharmaceutical drug. And obviously my mom didn't know. And I will say this and be very clear, my parents have never officially proved It. But they did watch an inconvenient study recently. And my parents called me and they said, we're really rethinking what happened with your brother. And we think this is exactly what happened, because he was completely fine. And then his fever spiked. He ended up in the NICU for three weeks. And mind you, this was like he was born completely healthy. There was no issues. They're two days in, they're about to leave the hospital. He gets shots, or maybe one shot. It's still unclear. My mom doesn't fully remember. And then his fever spiked, ended up in the nicu. He could never walk. He could never talk. He could never hold up his head. He was an infant until he died when he was 11. And my parents watched an inconvenient study, and they said, oh, my God. And they flew him across the country to every single neurological expert, you know, every major doctor they could find, and nobody ever had full answers for them. My mom just was like, intuitively, she said, it happened after the shots. And so I. And then, you know, in the 90s, Jenny McCarthy starts talking about all of this. And then I internalized, oh, I can't talk about this, because then I will be. My career will be destroyed. I'll be a quack. No one's gonna believe me. Cause they went so hard after people about that. Now I'm so grateful that we're in this time where I'm like, oh, finally I can share about all this, because I've known about this for so long, and we actually have the science and the data to back it up.

B (13:41)

Now.

A (13:41)

That's what people don't understand. And this is what I love about your book, is that you go into all of this, and I want to talk about some of this. So you talk about how vaccines have become a religion.

A (13:53)

I want to know, first of all, how do we combat that? Is there ever any hope to get past this point of where people just see this narrow tunnel and they can't see outside of their own biases?

B (14:04)

Absolutely. I think we're actually.

B (14:09)

A significant way down that path. Genuinely. I would say that. And just so folks understand what I mean by it's a religion, just so I'm clear about that. But what I mean is this, in a religion, whatever one practices often, you know, you're engaged in a leap of faith.

A (14:30)

Yeah.

B (14:31)

It's. The point is to answer the unanswerable. Where do we come from? Where do we go when we die? Right. You know, you're taking a leap of faith. You can never really prove those things. So it's a religion. It requires faith. It's the whole point, right?

A (14:47)

Yeah.

B (14:49)

Here's the thing about this religion, okay? It's a perverse religion because the folks who run this religion, the vaccinologists and some of their peers.

B (15:01)

I don't think they think that they're in a religion. They repeat claims about vaccines that are completely contrary to the data. They tell you vaccines are the most thoroughly studied products before they're licensed, that their clinical trials are incredibly robust. That's what they tell you. That's what they let the public believe. I'm using one example.

B (15:25)

The data is completely contrary. Most vaccines, for example, are licensed based on clinical trials, days or weeks of safety review after injection, no placebo control group, not enough kids in them. Any one of those three things are not sufficient. Trial is not reliable on safety. And so, but, and here's how, and here's how I.

B (15:51)

To really bring it home. When I depose vaccinologists, immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians, or I deal with other members of medical community, like that doctor who. You saw, the infectious disease professor from Stanford at that hearing. Right. When you confront these people with the data, with the proof, do they have an intellectual response? Do they go, oh, I should rethink this? No. What do you often get? You get anger, defensiveness, defensiveness, demonization, pejoratives, personal attacks. As you just said, anti this, you're anti science, you're. Whatever it is, some other pejorative. That's what you get. Why? Because if you could support it based on data, based on logic, based on evidence, you draw from your head. But when you can't, where you can draw from, from their emotions. Yeah, because they're, they're, because these are beliefs. And that's a proof in it. You might recall at that hearing, you know, every time the Stanford infectious disease professor was confronted with the evidence, he, he kept, you could see it visibly. He kept getting more and more upset. He didn't, he didn't. He didn't reach down into his intellect or pull out his phone and research and, or no, he just kept getting more and more upset where by the end, you could see his. What was his closing statement? His closing statement, well, I hope we can all be civil and not send mobs after scientists, which really is what he's saying. You're violent. Yeah, it's. That's a tactic to dehumanize those you don't agree with. You could go. One way you could go is say, okay, I'm wrong. I'm going to learn from this. The other way is to go, no, you're just bad, you're stupid, you're evil, you're this or that. And that's, and that's unfortunately. But, you know. So that's why I call it. That's why I call it a religion now, to answer your question. So sorry.

A (17:56)

No, you're good.

B (17:56)

Your question is.

A (17:57)

I do want to, I want to point out one more thing because Del pointed this out in our recent podcast. It's also a religion because at this point, people don't know. They're just, they're believing studies that have faith that they want these vaccines to work. The data doesn't actually show that they are doing what they're supposed to be doing. There's just faith that it's supposed to be doing that. Like, for example, they say, well, we don't have the data to show that it's does prove autism, but they also don't have the data to prove that it doesn't. So it's based off of faith. It's based off of faith.

B (18:31)

Yeah. So in vaccinology and, you know, I've, I've, my firm, like I said, we have over 50 folks that do vaccine work. We also have more than 50 folks who do other stuff. We do class act. We do, you know, plaintiff side data breach cases. We do biometric privacy cases, genetic privacy case. Nobody taxes for that. They're like, oh, protecting genetic privacy. Great. Protecting people's privacy data.

A (18:51)

Great.

B (18:53)

Protect people's facial geometry from. Oh, great. Good job. Protect people from.

B (19:00)

Doing work on vaccine. Oh, that's. Anyway, my point is that in no other discipline, and we have to, in the work that we've done, we do encounter other scientific disciplines. In no other scientific discipline that I've ever encountered, okay.

B (19:18)

Do they draw the conclusion that X doesn't cause Y when there's no evidence to reach any conclusion. So let me add meat to that. Okay? You just said vaccines don't cause autism. They will tell you vaccines do not cause autism. As Dell might have told you. We sued our firm, sued on behalf of ICANN. We sued the CDC for all the studies that show that DTaP injected at 2, 4 and 6 months of age does not cause autism, that Hib vaccine injected at 2, 4 and six months of age does not cause autism,. That PCV vaccine injected at 2, 4 and Six Months of Age does not cause autism, that IPv vaccine injected at 2, 4 and 6 Months of Age does not cause autism. And that Hep B Vaccine injected at birth one month and six months do not cause autism. Fifteen injections, all within the first six months of life. You say vaccines don't cause autism. Surely you have studies to support that.

B (20:17)

How do you reach a scientific conclusion, for better or worse? You look at the peer reviewed literature. Peer reviewed processes got its problems, but that's the way you do it. Yeah, I didn't come up with that system, they did. Okay, so give me the studies, please, that show that we first requested in something called the Freedom of Information act request. They didn't provide them. And if they didn't provide them, we sued them. And then days before we were supposed to have the initial conference, I got a call from the Department of Justice, basically, and we're giving you a list of 20. The CDC is going to give 20 studies. So I get the list and look at it, and I think that maybe their assumption is, I don't read. I don't know.

A (20:58)

It's been happening a lot.

B (20:59)

Maybe it's like they thought it was going to be in like some cryptic language that I don't have the cipher for. But they're in English. I read them. So I called. I remember I called the DOJ attorney and nice guy, and I said, hey.

B (21:15)

You got your list. Here's the thing.

B (21:19)

19 of these studies, there are really 16 studies and four reviews have nothing to do with the vaccines in the first six months of life. And most. And autism can often be diagnosed before one year of age. There's no other vaccines given in the first year of life.

B (21:36)

Well, there's flu shot, now there's Covid, and they had rotavirus given orally. But I'm like, these are the core ones, right? I said. And then finally, they start at age one. They give the MMR and the checkerbox. Okay. I said, 19 of these have nothing to do with, with any of the vaccines we asked about. Nothing. They're either studies about MMR vaccine or one ingredient called thimerosal that are not in any of these vaccines. Anyway, so. And I said the. And the final one you gave me is a review by the Institute of medicine from 2012, and it did look at the question of whether DTAP causes autism. Why? Because the CDC and hrsa, that's the agency in our federal government that actually defends those vaccine injury cases. They paid the Institute of Medicine, which is not part of government.

B (22:35)

To review what they said were the 158 most commonly claimed injuries from childhood vaccines. And on that list, on that list, according to them, not Me, not Dell, according to them, was the claim that DTAP causes autism. So the Institute of Medicine took all our money, because it's our money, by the way. They just take it.

B (22:58)

And.

B (23:00)

And they reviewed. They convened a panel of 20 something experts, they reviewed the entire body of scientific literature on whether dtap causes autism, and they could only find one study, study by Geier and Geier, that. You know what? You know what?

A (23:14)

It found that there was a link.

B (23:16)

That there was a correlation between vaccines and autism, between DTaP vaccine and autism, but the IOM threw it out because it was based on something called VAERS data, which I said is unreliable. That's fine. That's okay. The important point is this. So let's get back to this call with the DOJ attorney. I said, so the 20th one you sent.

B (23:40)

Only references, one study. And that one study did find an association. So out of the five vaccines, you have produced its grand total of one study, and that has to do with those vaccines. And that shows there was a connection. So are you sure your client wants to sign this? Like, give him every chance?

A (23:58)

Yeah.

B (23:59)

And, you know, you can go to ICANN's website and. Or you can go to the federal docket and you could see the stipulated order. It's signed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the cdc. I signed it on behalf of icann. It was entered as an order of the federal court, as an order of the court, and there it is. Now, if you want to know whether vaccines cause all. I don't know what else? Like, what else do you do? Right.

A (24:22)

Yeah.

B (24:23)

So to the point that you were making. Yes. They will tell you vaccines don't cause autism because they say, well, there's no studies that show it. There are no studies that show it does cause it. Now, they don't have studies to show it doesn't cause it. They just don't have any studies. So they will say it doesn't cause autism. Put aside the fact that they ignore an entire body of literature that supports precisely how vaccines can cause all kinds of neurodevelopmental issues. That would include autism, which is just a DSM 5 diagnosis, just a psychiatric diagnosis. It's not a. You know, it's not a. It's. In any event, it's just symptomatology. Let's put that aside. So. So, yes.

B (25:08)

It is very much religion for that reason, too. And I'll add one more point to it to really drive it home, because I'm sure the A word is making people upset. And anybody who's getting emotional about autism or in its connection to vaccines, you really should read my book. I don't know where the camera is, but wherever it is, you should read the book. And I'll tell you why. Because if you're having an emotional reaction to a scientific, then, then, then, you know, it's really important to get to a place where you stop feeling about these products or thinking about them. That's really why I wrote the book. Of those 158 vaccine injury payers that our federal government, with our tax dollars, paid the Institute of Medicine to review, and they paid them because they wanted the IOM to come back and say vaccines don't cause these things as a shortcut to defending them in vaccine court. Okay. Instead, the Institute of Medicine, as hard as they tried for over 130 of them, came back and said, sorry, we can't just like DTAP and autism, we can't tell you vaccines don't cause that because you didn't do the science, you didn't do the studies. Right. And that includes encephalopathy, which means brain damage, encephalitis, swelling of the brain.

A (26:28)

Right? Oh, it's.

B (26:28)

Encephalitis is brain swelling. Encephalopathy is brain damage. Okay. So and so for both, they said they, sorry, you didn't do the studies. For about 18 of them, they did find that the vaccine is causal. For five, they said they ruled out that the vaccine has a cause. For the rest they said, don't know. But nonetheless, to your point, in the most recent CDC ACIP meeting, ACIP is the CDC's vaccine committee. They were discussing Hep B and the chief medical Officer of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office put up a slide on which it says, and I tweeted about this that the Institute of medicine, in that 2012 report found that the Hep B vaccine is safe. And that is the religion. No, it found that 20 out of 21 conditions, the most common according to CDC and HRSA, weren't studied. That's not a conclusion. It's safe. That is an indictment that you haven't done your job and it shows a print are complaining about vaccines causing autism, like apparently, or causing some harm, but you're not studying it.

A (27:38)

Something that I love to do every morning, especially in the winter months, because it really does help to boost the immune system, is adding Manuka honey to my coffee. It's a great way to get the Manuka honey in. And the reason why I love Manuka honey, especially for during cold and flu season is it has a special antibacterial compound called mgo. It also comes from the nectar of the tea tree and Manukora is a great Manuka honey because they third party test every single harvest for MGO and they make these results available through their QR system. This honey is rich, it's creamy and the most delicious honey that you've ever had. It's ethically produced by Manukora's master beekeepers in the remote forests of New Zealand. It contains powerful nutrients to support immunity and gut health and it is just a total game changer. You can also add it to your tea, add it to your matcha each morning to get the most out of the amazing bioactives in Manuka. Now it's easier than ever to try Manukura honey. Head to manukora.com realfoodology to save up to 31% plus get 25 worth of free gifts with the starter kit which comes with an MGO850 plus Manuka honey jar and five travel sticks, a wooden spoon and a guidebook. Again that is manukora.com so M A N U K O R-A.com realfoodology to save 31% plus $25 worth of free gifts.

A (29:00)

This cold and flu season I am determined to stay healthy so I'm stocking my medicine cabinet proactively with non toxic doctor formulated essentials from Beekeepers Naturals to support my immune system every single day. If you don't know what Propolis is, it's basically the defender of the beehive, a powerful blend of plant and tree resins and enzymes made by bees. It's packed with antioxidants like polyphenols and flavonoids that fight free radicals and oxidative stress. Studies have shown Propolis has antibacterial and anti inflammatory properties, plus it helps fight germs with its antimicrobial and antifungal effects. I love Beekeeper's Naturals because their Propolis is the real deal. No other brand comes close in purity or potency. It naturally contains vitamins B, C and D, zinc and over 300 beneficial compounds. My personal favorites are the Propolis throat spray which I use daily for immune support and the bee soothing lozenges, perfect for travel or when you feel that little tickle in your throat. Today, Beekeepers Naturals is offering you an exclusive offer. Go to beekeepersnaturals.com realfoodology or enter code real foodology to get 20% off your order. That's B E E K E E P e r s naturals.com realfoodology or enter code realfoodology Beekeepers Naturals products are also available at Target, Whole Foods, Amazon, CVS and Walgreens.

A (30:23)

And isn't the Hep B vaccine the one that they only studied the children for? Was it five or six days afterwards? And then they said that they found no issues with the Hep B. Wasn't that the study or the.

B (30:36)

So before I answer that, I want to say this. If you asked me to come up with the most ludicrous, craziest thing I could come up with about vaccines, I would never have dreamed about saying what I'm about to tell you. So I wouldn't believe it personally unless I saw it and litigated it. But what I'm about to tell you is categorically a fact, and you need go no further than the FDA website just to prove it. Okay? And anybody at home watching this, you can go do this. Okay? It's not hard.

A (31:11)

Go to the website.

B (31:12)

You can go to. You can go to literally. And I'll even walk through it. If you go to Google, type in FDA licensed vaccines. Okay? Everybody watching at home, you can do this. All right? And you will get the page from the FDA website that has all the licensed vaccines. Go down the list and you will see four Hep B vaccines. Four. Two of them are only for adults, so forget those. The two for kids are Recombivax HB and Ngerx B. Okay, that's it. So Recombivax HB. Click on it. Click package insert. Go to section 6.1. Okay? And when you go there, you will see, as required by federal regulations, a summary of what was the clinical trial relied upon to license this product. And what it shows is that this vaccine was licensed to be injected into babies and children based on a clinical trial that monitored safety for five days after injection.

A (32:05)

Oh, my God.

B (32:06)

With. It gets worse with 147 kids and there's no control group. So the other B vaccine, njourxb, had four days of safety monitoring after injection. Okay? So you're giving this to a baby. You will not know what immunological, neurological, developmental, go down all the different systems. You will not know those issues until the baby's at least a few years old. Yeah, at least. Or, or at least can, you know, express their issues. Yeah, maybe it's part of why they give vaccines to babies so often. They can't.

A (32:41)

This is what I say. I say this all the time.

B (32:44)

Yeah, I had this debate with a. Actually a vaccinologist. Not just a few days ago, but. So that is. And I will tell you, the first time I saw that, I just could not believe it was true. I just couldn't believe it. It seems so incredible. And when I deposed the world's leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, which I discussed in chapter one of my book, I asked him about exactly this trial. And if you watch the video of this deposition, you will see that he too opens the package 6.1. And he too was surprised. Now, in the deposition, there was something I didn't know. He seemed surprised. And I said, well, is five days long enough to know whether or not a kid will develop X or Y or Z on, you know, day six? He's like, no, of course. I mean, just logic. Here's the crazy part. After the deposition, I subpoenaed him to produce any documents to show it's longer than this amount of time. Because it's ridiculous. Yeah, it's like, again, it seems unbelievable.

A (33:44)

Yeah.

B (33:46)

He moved to quash a subpoena instead of responding. He never produced anything. We then foia, the fda, on behalf of ICANN for the underlying clinical trial document, so. Well, maybe there's more.

B (33:57)

And no underlying clinical trial documents. The summary basis of approval, the package insert, and the peer reviewed study on the trial all say the same thing. It is categorical. I mean, I had to do the whole. We had to do the whole thing to really believe it. Here's the craziest part. You ready for the kicker? When we got the clinical trial reports.

B (34:19)

It listed who the principal investigator was for that trial. Guess who was Dr. Stanley Plotkin.

A (34:26)

Of course.

B (34:26)

The very same vaccinologist who I was deposing. And when you watch the video, you know, to me, looks surprised. And what that reflects, too, is that safety is such an afterthought. He himself, even as the principal investigator, apparently did not recall how long safety was monitored in that trial. So, yeah, it's a problem, but I am hopeful about it. I never answered your hopeful question.

A (34:53)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, well. So, okay. You feel like it's changing course? I mean, I do. I shared in the beginning that I was so scared to talk about any of this stuff because I watched what happened to Jenny McCarthy in the public, and I said, okay, I'm just not gonna touch this on my Instagram or my podcast. And now I have found that you can have these conversations openly. And, yes, I get attacked a lot still. And I'm sure that you do too. But I'm also getting a ton of people that are going to. Oh my God, what do I do? What do I do? You know, I'm a parent, I'm about to have kids. I'm getting texts from friends now that are asking me, which I never. And people I never thought would have ever been questioning any of this. So it's definitely changing. But what people are still not fully understanding is that these top vaccinologists do not actually have the data to back up what they're saying. And people just say, oh, that's not true. We have loads, we have mountains of evidence. And you also had. Hold on, I need to find his name. Was it Jake Scott, I believe?

B (35:51)

Stanford infectious disease doctor at the hearing?

A (35:53)

Yes. Oh yes, that's right. He was at the hearing. Okay. So he basically said that he had 600, what was it, 50 something studies?

B (36:00)

661, I think he said, or something like that.

A (36:02)

Yeah. So he had over 600 studies to prove everything against everything that you're saying. Can you talk about what happened there?

B (36:12)

Sure.

B (36:14)

So, Dr. Scott, a true believer.

A (36:18)

Yeah.

A (36:22)

A true believer.

B (36:24)

When we were going to have this hearing. Well, let me back up, let me back up because there's a good backstory to it, I think. So there's a CNN article that quotes him and what the CNN article says, something to the effect of RFK juniors claim that vaccines were never licensed based on placebo controlled trials has been debunked. They debunked it. They debunked this claim all the time. They're really just debunking the FDA, by the way. But let's put that aside. Chapter 10 of my book lays out every single clinical trial license, every routine injected child vaccine, all cited to the FDA sources. It's easy to figure this out. All that CNN had to do was go to the FDA website. But no, CNN doesn't do that. They don't go to the FDA website and like look at the primary sources. I mean, why would you do that?

A (37:18)

It's so crazy.

B (37:19)

Why would you do that? Instead they go to Dr. Jake Scott. And what does Dr. Jake Scott do? God bless him. Instead of going to the FDA website to the infectious disease professor from Stanford, he decides to crowdsource, okay.

B (37:36)

All the placebo controlled trials in the whole universe, apparently, and he starts collecting them on an Excel spreadsheet and he's got hundreds of them listed. And so CNN says, see, debunked RFK juniors claim that there's never been.

B (37:55)

A routine injected childhood vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo controlled trial is just false because Dr. J. Scott says so when they quote Dr. Scott, here's what he says, and you got to read the article to make sure. I think I'm getting this accurate, but I'll rely on the article's exact wording. He says when he heard RFK Jr's claim, he knew. He knew it must be false and so he set out to prove it. Understand? Yeah. That's not how the scientific method works, by the way, in any other discipline other than vaccines. He knew.

B (38:33)

He just knew. And so he set out to prove it. Here's the thing. So when he showed up at the. So that's the backstory. Okay? So, you know, he's very. He's out there and he's doing this thing. And so when we had this hearing that you just described, which Senator Johnson had a hearing about, you know, vaccines and childhood vaccines and safety and corruption and so forth, the corruption of science with vaccines.

B (38:56)

The other side, so to speak. The other party, they invited Dr. Jake Scott. Now, why didn't they invite a vaccinologist? Why don't they invite Dr. Stanley Plotkin, Dr. Paul Offit or Dr. Walter Orenstein or Dr. Peter Hotez? Why don't they invite any of the vaccinologists to defend vaccines?

A (39:17)

Why didn't they?

B (39:19)

Because I don't think that. I do not believe that they feel they could defend it. Not in that form. I've offered debate them, I've deposed them. Now they're kind of trapped in that forum. Yeah, but I've openly offered to give them an even better. I've told Dr. Offit, I don't know if he's probably the most well known vaccinologist. We've had our tussles on Twitter.

B (39:47)

And when that didn't work out, he switched to substack. And then that didn't work out. He just stopped. But I offered, I said, look, let's get together in a forum. You get to. We pick a topic, you pick it. Clinical trials, post licensure, safety, autism, you name it, and let's go. 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 Minutes. I said, my only condition is we have a monitor, big screen where we can put up evidence. That's it. That's all I want. Yeah, I just want to be able to put up evidence, like, you know, data, documents. He's never taken up the invitation. That's why he's not there. That's why Dr. Jake Scott's there. Anyway, so they bring in Dr. Jake Scott, why? Because he's an infectious disease doctor. He's not a vaccinologist. And he just, he's never really studied this from what I can see. He just believes, you know, he's doing this crowdsourcing. He's never even really looked at the studies from his own admission. So he just, he believes the slogans, the mantras that have been fed from the vaccinologists. You know, people think of as infectious disease doctors and pediatricians, immunologists in the medical community as being knowledgeable of vaccines, but they don't know. Based on my experience in depositions, they don't know anything. Vaccines, I mean pediatricians, they don't virtually know. I've never met a pediatrician other than the ones that have crossed over, so to speak, who, who, who take issue with the products to some degree, who know almost anything about it in my depositions of them, nor infectious disease, nor immunologists. So. But they take it from the vaccinologist, but they're the ones who are hiding in the background. Anyway, I, that's a long way to answer your question. I'm so sorry. No.

A (41:19)

Oh my God, I love this.

B (41:19)

The answer to your question is this, all of this. When we were sitting at that hearing, he says, he says something like, and this claim about, you know, the placebo trials is just, you know, debunked. I have 660 something trials now. He had put that in his written submission. And so I was like, all right, I'm better go look at all these trials. So I did, I went and looked, I looked through the whole list and it wasn't that hard to get through it because as I, you know, went explained at the hearing, I said, well, 500 and something of them have nothing to do with a routine injected vaccine in the childhood schedule. None of those were relied upon to license any of the, of those vaccines. So what does a vaccine of, you know, for an AIDS vaccine in Africa have to do with a Hep B vaccine given to a baby or nothing?

A (42:13)

Yeah, exactly.

B (42:13)

It's irrelevant. It's like, well, I, I relied on that, you know, that trial for that heart medicine to tell you that this other medicine is safe. Really? I don't know how you do that anyway, it's just silly. He, he, I don't think he would even argue that. If you, when he really is in his right mind, then the, the next after that you're left with like, I think it was like a hundred and like seventy of them.

B (42:41)

Had, didn't involve healthy children. So you Again, you were giving like you involved adults and so forth, which you can't ever license a product for kids without kids in the trial because you don't know how it's going to work. And anyways you could you watch it. But basically the the the upshot is not a single one of those was a clinical trial relies upon to license a routine injected child vaccine. Not one.

A (43:10)

And then the best part was what he said. He goes I can't believe that you read all of those. I haven't even gone through all of them yet.

B (43:18)

What it's cause he hasn't spent a decade actually involved in vaccine litigation. After being familiar with the body of literature. I know it was a sad admission.

A (43:30)

Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 90s when big corporations switched to cheap, cheap processed seed oils? Boo. I know. Cue the boos. Today's seed oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories and recent studies have linked seed oils to metabolic health issues and inflammation in the body. Masa decided to do something about it. They created a tasty and delicious tortilla chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils. Organic Nix Demolicized corn, sea salt and 100% grass bed beef tallow. That's it. These chips not only avoid all the bad stuff, they taste incredible and they are so crunchy and sturdy. Unlike the other chips, these don't break in your guac, which is a total game changer. Snacking on Masa chips is nothing like eating regular chips. With Masa, you feel satisfied, you feel light and you feel energetic with no crash, bloat or gross sluggish feeling afterwards. And an added bonus is that the beef tallow makes the chips much more satiating, so you will not find yourself uncontrollably binging and still feeling hungry afterwards. Personally, my favorite is the Cobonero. They taste like Doritos to me. I also really love the lime, so it's hard for me to pick favorites. If you're ready to give Masa a try, go to masachips.com real foodology and use code real foodology for 25 off your first order. That's masachips.com real foodiology and use code real foodology for25 off your order. If you don't feel like ordering online, you can also go to your local sprouts, stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone.

A (45:05)

Most people have no idea that traditional non stick cookware is loaded with forever chemicals A study from the Ecology center found that 80% of non stick pans contain Teflon which are also known as pfas, also otherwise known as forever chemicals that can leach into your food and your home. And a brand new study in the Science of the Total Environment found that one scratch on a nonstick pan can release about 9,100 plastic particles into your food. This is why switching to toxin free cookware is one of the most important choices you can make for your health. Our Place makes high performance toxin free cookware completely free of PFAs and PTFEs so you never have to wonder what's ending up in your food. And their four piece cookware set is the easiest way to overhaul your entire kitchen. You get two always pans and two perfect pots in mini and full sizes. Replacing a whole cabinet of bulky outdated cookware. You can saute, sear, fry, bake, boil, steam everything with just four pieces and buying the full set saves you $150. Personally I love how their nonstick surface performs. Eggs glide out, cleanup takes seconds and everything matches in those iconic Our Place colors. It genuinely upgraded my kitchen. And also if you are looking for a great non toxic air fryer, I highly recommend checking out their Wonder Oven or their new Wonder Oven Pro. They are amazing. I love them. I use mine every single day. Our Place is having their biggest sale of the year right now. Save up to 35% sitewide now through January 12th. Head to fromourplace.com realfoodology to see why more than a million people have made the switch to Our Place Kitchenware and with their 100 day risk free trial, free shipping and free returns, you can shop with total confidence. Shop the Our Place holiday sale right now. No code needed, just go to fromourplace.com realfoodology.

A (46:54)

Can we talk about the holiday season because it's both wonderful and it's completely overwhelming and exhausting. Your regular life continues. Work, family, the daily stuff. But now there are gatherings, big meals, gift shopping and it's all holiday memorable. But you get a little bit out of your routine. Maybe you're eating new foods that you're not normally eating. Maybe you're overeating a little bit because you're going to all these holiday parties. And the result? Your body feels it. That heavy bloated feeling after dinner, the food coma after eating foods that your body is not normally used to. Maybe you're eating more sugar than normal and that uncomfortable fullness and feeling that lasts for hours. Here's why stress and Maybe a diet that you're not normally eating slows down your digestive system. You produce fewer enzymes to break down all that rich food. And this is why I take Mass Zymes. It's a full spectrum enzyme formula with four times more proteins than the leading brands and 18 different enzymes to help break down proteins, fats and carbs so your body can actually process those holiday meals. Which means better digestion, less bloating and more energy to actually enjoy the holiday celebrations. And you can be with your family. Now here's what you get as a Listener. Go to bioptimizers.com realfoodology. You'll see a limited time special on their best selling mask signs. This exclusive offer gives you 30% off mask on your first subscription. A free 30 count bottle of magnesium breakthrough for sleep support, the biological optimization blueprint for free. And the regular price of this offer is $72. But for a limited time you can get it for just $28. That is a total savings of over $44 when you use code Real Foodology. If you're there during the 12 days of wellness sale, you can also grab select daily deals on other products with savings up to 32% off while you shop. If the promo is passed, you're still covered with my exclusive code Real Foodology. That always gets you at least 15% off. Lock in your sleep, support your body, go to bioptimizers.com real foodology and get your mass times today and the limited time free gifts.

B (48:46)

Oh.

A (48:47)

So let's talk about the National Childhood Vaccine injury act of 1986. You've mentioned this briefly, but you know, I'm getting a lot of questions from parents asking, do we ever think that this is going to be overturned? What would happen if vaccine companies were actually being held accountable like any other industry? And do we think that this will ever be overturned?

B (49:08)

I think it will take something cataclysmic for it to be overturned because you have over 1,000 pharma lobbyists and you know the number of vaccine injury lobbyists.

A (49:17)

A lot of it.

B (49:20)

I actually don't know if any really Vaccine injury lobbyists.

A (49:23)

Oh, sorry, vaccine injury. I'm sorry, I thought you were saying vaccine lobbyists. No, yeah. No, no, no, no.

B (49:28)

There's over a thousand pharma pseudo company law. And so your health industry, healthcare industry and pharma lobbyists. Right. I mean it's outnumbered and so, you know, they have an outsized influence on the political process, including, you know, with dollars and so forth. Beyond just the lobbyists campaign Contributions and so forth.

A (49:50)

Yeah.

B (49:50)

And so I don't see Congress now. There's plenty. There are many, well, many. Maybe a little too strong, but there are a number of elected representatives in Congress that have put forth a bill to repeal the immunity under 86 Act. We've worked with a number of them. There's a few, you know, there's a bill right now that's got a few dozen co sponsors on it, but that's about it. They're not getting a lot more than that. That bill will never make it through in my opinion. I mean it should.

B (50:25)

But I don't think so. I don't think it'll be repealed.

B (50:29)

With that said, it is a terrible, it's a terrible law.

B (50:35)

You know, the reason that products are safer is because the companies have an economic self interest to make them safer. That is what makes company, that's what makes products safer. It's nothing to do with the government. Yeah, government regulation. Government agencies don't make products safer. Look at countries that have almost no free market economy and incredible amounts of government regulation like the old ussr. How the products doing there? And safety wise, they're not so safe.

A (51:02)

Terribly.

B (51:03)

Yeah, terrible. So government does not make products safe. They like to project that they. Do you think cars are safer because of the government as a joke? No, they're safer because the company.

B (51:17)

Exists to make money. Okay. And that's doesn't need to be a bad thing. That's what they're there to do. Obviously you might have a 401k, you might have an invest portfolio. You want the companies you invest in to make money. Right. Everybody who's got an investment account, obviously Wall street does, you know, the board members do, the officers do because that's what the comps are tied to. Everybody has their interests aligned in the company making money. Now normally on the safety front, they're often aligned. If you put a product out that hurts people, you're going to end up upside down financially. So you don't want to do that. Yeah, you have a natural. The company has a natural economic self interest to assure safety. I can't stress enough how critical that is. It's self regulating. Okay.

A (52:07)

Yeah.

B (52:08)

The only product. Again I said this earlier, I just, I'll stress again, the only product in America. Everything in this room you and I are sitting in, if this microphone catches on fire, if this wall has chemical in the sheetrock that causes cancer, if this, you know, not designed to suspend whatever's above our head right now and it comes crashing down on us right Go through it. The plane I flew in on today, the car I drove here on the asphalt used. I mean, literally every single product that you encounter, every single day, think of every single component that makes up your house. Thousands of products go into doing that. Think of every component that makes every consumer product that you buy. This glass, right?

A (52:51)

Yeah.

B (52:51)

Okay. I mean, it looks clear, but, you know, it could have bad stuff on it. I mean, it could.

A (52:57)

Yeah.

B (52:57)

The water that's in this glass. Okay. The food that we eat. Right. You catch me on that. For every one of those. If the manufacturer could have designed it such that it would not have killed or injured the user, then you can hold them accountable. And I'll give you just basic examples. If for one penny, I could have put a stopper on a gas tank so when a car got into a crash, the gas wouldn't have continued to flow out and exploded. By the way, this is an actual case.

A (53:30)

Wow.

B (53:30)

I don't know if it was a penny and I don't know the exact. I don't really know gas tanks mechanics that well, but it's something like that. Okay. Yeah, we got the gist, but it's the gist. Okay.

B (53:40)

You could have averted.

B (53:46)

The car exploding. And the famous case was actually that there was a few cars that exploded and the company had done a calculation, literally had done a calculation that it would cost them more to replace that than paying for the deaths, like the dozen or so deaths it would cause every year. And so that's where kind of punitive damages ended up coming into play. Because with punitive damages, you are punishing the company for exactly that kind of conduct to again, make that economic force work. Okay.

A (54:19)

It holds the company accountable.

B (54:21)

Which is why with drugs, for example, they don't do those ridiculous trials to do with vaccines. They do multi year placebo controlled trials, often here. Not to cherry pick. And I have this in a chart in my book. But the four most profitable drugs sold by Pfizer, okay, each have multi year placebo controlled trials for their license. Why? Because the government required it? No, in my opinion, it's because Pfizer wants to know. Pfizer wanted to know.

B (54:56)

Before they put it on the market. And X amount of people got it. Is it going to hurt people? Because if it does, they could end up upside down and that would get everybody upset. Well, sets are strong is the wrong word. They would lose money. That would not be good for business.

A (55:12)

Yep.

B (55:13)

Okay. But with vaccines, they have the opposite incentive. It's the only product like that. The more Safety. They do. The less likely is to be licensed. And once it's licensed, do they have to worry about liability? No. And so that liability is terribly corrupting. And it's been with us since 1986. A child in 1986, when the National Child of Vaccinating draft was passed, following CDC schedule would have gotten three injections by the first year of life. You know how many it is today?

A (55:45)

Oh, by three. I don't know.

B (55:46)

No, no. By one. By one year of age. Now it's 29 injections, including in utero. Nine by one by one by one year of age. So on, including the first, including their first birthday, assuming they get all the car vaccines on their first birthday as well, a child today, including in utero, will get 29 vaccines. I can bore the crap, everybody going through them, but it's 3 to 29. And every one of those products, every one of those products, save one, was licensed by a pharmaceutical company. No one that they were not going to be ever held accountable for the deaths or injuries that occur on the basis they could have made that product safer.

A (56:30)

And that's why they've been just adding more and more vaccines to the schedule. Because when I was born in 84, my mom said that I, she thinks I maybe got like five shots or something. She doesn't remember exactly. But now by the time a child turns 18, I think it's up to 78 shots. Doses. I want to be clear doses of vaccines.

B (56:50)

Let's look at the business model. Okay. You ready?

A (56:53)

Yeah.

B (56:53)

All right. I'm gonna pretend I'm approach you as a potential investor. I'll say, I got a business day for you. Ready? Okay. We're going to sell this product. We inject it into people. What does it do? Don't worry about it. Well, it's going to hurt people. I would say to you, don't worry about it. The government is going to give us immunity for all the harms we cause. Really? Well, who the heck's going to take it? It don't worry. Government is going to mandate it for school, so you got to take it. People won't have a choice, really. But what if they're still upset about it? Don't worry. The government is literally going to spend billions of dollars promoting this product to the public. And you say, okay, well, but what if people just refuse to take money out of their pocket and just pay for it? Don't worry. The federal government guarantees payment for any vaccine. In fact, the federal government pays for over half of the shots. Given in this country to children. Okay, so think about it. So it's a liability free product with a guaranteed market, free advertising and guaranteed payment. Who wouldn't go into this business? Of course, it's incredible business model. And for anybody who's like, well, but we, you know, we need to give, you know, but, but if they have to be held accountable, then they might stop making them. Really. You know, there are drugs that are given to only a select few people that cause a lot of harm and they can make money on that. But a product they give to millions of kids that you can't make money on. The reality is this the reason the way that pharma companies protect themselves with drugs is one, they make them as safe as possible, as technologically feasible, and two, they disclose the risks.

A (58:38)

Yeah.

B (58:38)

So you can't be sued for what they call design defect claims and you can't be sued for failure to warrant claims. The primary claims you bring. Why can't they just do that for vaccines? Is it because they don't want to make them safer when they, even though they know they can, or is it because they don't want to disclose the real risks?

A (58:55)

And I would assume they probably don't want to put more money into that because why fix something that's already working?

B (59:02)

I mean, I. A boardroom or a CEO that makes decisions on the basis of what's moral and ethical and not what's best for the financial bottom line of a company is not lasting very long. In their position, Wall street will have them out, their investors will have them out. It's just the way corporate America works. And again, I'm not saying that in a nefarious way capitalist system works really well and including assuring safety when the normal market forces operate and our elected representatives don't screw it up.

A (59:29)

But we have this pharmaceutical drug that is not being held liable. And it's the only, like you said, it's the only product on the market. It's the only product in the history of this country or the world that is not liable for the damages done. If you can prove it.

B (59:47)

Yeah. Well, I mean obviously we can go to communist countries probably don't have.

A (59:51)

Well, that's true, I guess, but I guess we're talking about America.

B (59:54)

In the United States and in most of the developed countries, it's a similar system with vaccines.

A (59:59)

Yeah.

B (60:00)

So it's not unique to the us They've exported this everywhere.

A (60:05)

I'm just shocked that more people that to me alone, when I finally learned about that was really eye opening for me. And I'm shocked that more people don't, that that doesn't get them in initially where you just say they're the only product in our country that's not held liable if you're injured.

B (60:20)

Well, I think the next step people go to is they say, okay, fine, there's this exception, I think that somebody really, you know, who I think gets it, people who, you know, who deal with big corporations and, you know, let's say, you know, lawyers who really represent them or finance like they, you know, because they see how they really operate. But I think the next question the typical person has as well. But maybe despite that, you know, our government did do all the safety studies. They were really studied in good clinical trial before they were licensed. And then after licensure, they're carefully monitored for safety. Right. Because people are told that, the federal government tells them that. Federal health departments told them that and state health departments tell them that. And for a lot of people, it causes cognitive dissonance. Right. Wait a second. I have been told these are safe and effective over and over and over again. Like there's only two words you hear. Saving effective. Saving effective. It's like a mantra. Saving effective.

A (61:22)

It's like a spell at this point.

B (61:24)

It's a spell. And you're like, what do you mean? They're the most thoroughly safety tested products that exist because they're given to babies. That's what they tell us. Right. And so what it can cause is cognitive dissonance in the sense of.

B (61:37)

If they come to the conclusion that in fact, those assertions cannot be relied upon. And I can't even rely on the claim that vaccines don't cause autism. Forget whether it does. Put that aside. But that the claim that it doesn't, that's not a scientific claim. Okay, then what else can't I trust? And we go through life as human beings, we have to rely on what I call cultural cognition. We have to rely upon some, you know, what we come across, the information we learn to some degree or how do we make it? We can't question everything. I don't go in and question how my car works at every instance. I don't question, you know, I mean, you could go crazy, right?

A (62:21)

We have to trust that things have been put into place to protect us to a certain degree.

B (62:27)

Great. I'll use judges as a good example. Okay. And this, this segues into your hopefulness. My hopefulness. Eight years ago, when I was eight, nine years ago, when I was bringing a typical vaccine policy case to Protect rights. I would say the standard that I had for any attorney in my firm that brought me that case is I would say, look, if you want to bring a vaccine policy case, it better be one where when the judge looks at me, he goes, or she goes, I hate you, I hate your client. I hate everything about this case. But I don't really have a choice but to rule for you. That was the standard. Why not? Because judges are bad. Really nothing to do with that. They're busy. They're often of thousands of cases. They have incredible dockets. I mean, honestly, I don't know how most judges get through them. Truly, my hat goes off to most judges out there. Forget politics. Just the workload's incredible.

A (63:26)

Yeah.

B (63:27)

And so they have to rely on cultural cognition to get through that to some degree. Again, it's no knock on it. It's not a knock on them. That's just, you know, there's no way to do it is like they have to rely on the fact that, like, you know, you know, you need water to survive. Okay. Just a basic fact. You need water. Survive. You will not survive without H2O in your body to some form. Okay. For. Okay. And the idea that vaccines saved ineffective, literally carried the same weight. It was just a fact not to be questioned. We don't look under the hood. And it was very tough for me to get judges going under the hood eight, nine years ago, where today the cultural cognition has changed not every part of the country, but a lot. And when I make an argument in a case, well, this vaccine doesn't stop transmission, I find that there are.

B (64:17)

Let'S call it half the judges in this country. I don't know what the number is. But they'll look at that argument. They'll look at the data. They'll consider it a litigated issue that can be litigated, basically, you know, and so it's the same thing because, you know, with people in general and so forth. So, yeah, that's.

A (64:38)

Well, the beauty of this is that you actually have the data and the facts to back up what you're saying. And what we've been trying to get across this whole episode is that the vaccinologists, the doctors, whoever, is saying, you know, safe and effective, they don't actually have the data to back up what they're saying.

B (64:55)

Well, it's, you know, unfortunately, it's the opposite. When they say some of those statements, the reality is often the opposite of what they're saying. But, you know, I mean, I'd have to read My whole book here.

A (65:10)

Exactly. I want people to read the book, but I want to know. So I put on my Instagram a text box and I had a ton of parents write me and say, okay, but what do we do if we live in a state where there are mandates? So for example, parents living in California, yes, they're aware of the risks. They don't want to put their kid through that. What are their options? Are there any options?

B (65:28)

Well, it's difficult in California for school.

A (65:31)

Yeah.

B (65:32)

The good news before we get to the bad news is that for almost for most states in the country, 40, basically six states, it's 45 and a half. I'd say West Virginia is in flux, but pretty much it's getting there. You can send your kid to school and you can have an exemption. And you know, they're either philosophical, they're religious. And religious means something broader than Sunday. It means your convictions, your personally held, your deeply held religious convictions. It can be a religion of one. Okay, now there are four states where you can't send your school without a non medical exemption. Those are New York, Cali, Maine and Connecticut. Now even in those states you can go to university with an exemption. Okay, so you can see even in New York, Cali. Right. So we're really, we're really cabined to school in Those states for K through.

A (66:26)

12 is K through 12, where it's.

B (66:28)

Really tough now if you are in, you know, and it really is state dependent, you know, like in Maine, my understanding is that some of the private institutions, you can't still go to school. And really, you know, in Connecticut you just go over the border. But no knock to anybody in Connecticut, but it's not that big. And then New York, New York can be tougher. But now, now for example, in New York, one example, a medical exemption is decided by the head of the school, not by a health authority, by the head of the school. So if you're in a private school and the head of the school, you know, reviews your medical exemption and says, oh, I find this acceptable, then you can go to school in New York as an example. There are other things, but it is tough. In Cali, medical exemptions are reviewed by the Department of Health by, I mean true vaccine zealots. I mean these folks are, you know, they are. And doctors are scared out of their mind to write medical.

A (67:30)

Well, and I was going to say, and doctors are losing their licenses if they write too many of these exemptions.

B (67:34)

They don't write in Cali anymore. So in California, it's Really tough. Now they have these. And I should say that, you know, ICANN is supporting our firm to fight to restore those exemptions. And we are. We're working on it. Just the wheels of quote, unquote justice turn slow. It's going to. It's probably still a few years out, but we're working on it. We are actively working on it right now in the court systems and. But if you've got a child in California and there's a reason you don't want to vaccinate, then you can homeschool. And there are homeschooling co ops where you. Essentially, it's the school, but it only teaches your kid up to 49% of the instruction. Okay. So they go to school for two and a half and a bit less of days of the week, or sometimes it's three to four days. But what they do is they have non. They'll have like art class, music class, and those classes that don't count towards the curriculum. So your kid, or they, sometimes some of them break it up. So your kids in school literally five days a week, but it's not school. It's an enrichment program. Okay, so they go to enrichment program. They're there for many hours every day and they come home and they have. But they have to do at home at least 51 of the math, English and core studies and sometimes kind of.

A (68:55)

Like a hybrid of like homeschool slash.

B (68:58)

Yeah.

A (68:58)

You know, I have a lot of friends. I haven't talked about this before, but I have a lot of friends that do pods now. They call them little school pods. And what they'll do is they'll just hire a teacher. The parents will hire a teacher and they'll get a group of parents that want to just have their kids be taught by that teacher. And that's the only way I know out of it. But I think it's a great option if you want to do that. So I want to know what you tell people when they say vaccines are safe and effective. What's your answer to that?

B (69:27)

Well, I'd say. Well, I mean, I'd say, look, if vaccines are so safe and effect, then why do they need immunity? Why?

A (69:39)

Yep.

B (69:40)

Really?

A (69:40)

That's it?

B (69:41)

If they're so safe, why do they need it?

A (69:43)

Yeah. Why is the company.

B (69:45)

Let me ask you this. Why, after the Hep B vaccine has been in the market for 40 years. 40 years, why do they still need it? You want to tell me 40 years later, you don't know it's safe enough to lift the immunity. Or maybe you need it at the beginning because you didn't know. Now you just don't know. And then if that, then I would, if that's. If I had like 30 seconds and then if I had a little more, or if I just send them to resources, they can go to ICANN's website, icandecide.org and there's a one pager they could read. There's a 10 pager, there's a longer version. There's my book, there's all those resources. There's, you know, but I mean, you know, but if you don't, if you want something short, just go to icandecide.org and you go to the. And get informed and start with the one pager.

A (70:34)

That's easy. That's a great way to direct people to that too. I know you wrote about this in the book.

B (70:39)

Okay.

A (70:39)

Did vaccines save lives when they were introduced? So let's talk about measles, for example.

B (70:47)

So most vaccines, even the ones required for school, they don't prevent transmission. So they're really just personal protection. Okay, Yeah, I know that sounds shocking to many folks, but you can go argue with the FDA and CDC about that. Okay.

B (71:02)

But measles vaccine, however, can prevent transmission. So the measles vaccine is an attenuated vaccine. So it's actually live measles viruses in the vial. There's a bunch of other stuff in there, like billions of pieces, literally, in every single injection of DNA from the cultured cell line. And abort a fetus in every single injection because they have to grow viruses on a cellular medium. Viruses grow in cells. So in, you know, for, like, for one of the components of the MMR vaccine, that includes the measles vaccine, they grow it on the cultured cell line of an aborted fetus. Now, let's put that aside. It replicates after its injection, not as. And it gives you a form of immunity that can prevent transmission. Now, with that said, since it can prevent transmission, obviously it can prevent you from getting clinical measles. Right. The disease, forget the infection. It also prevents you getting the infection and the disease. And hence it could save lives for measles. Absolutely. Because if you're not getting infected with measles, you wouldn't have disease. And in the United States right now, measles virus is not what they would tell endemic, meaning it's not circulating freely. Yeah, Right. And that's probably the vaccine that did that. Now, those who believe in vaccines, that's the way they want to stop the Discussion. Okay, good. Stop. Let's go. No more.

A (72:32)

End of story.

B (72:32)

End of story. Obviously, if you care about public health in general, you want to look at the full picture, right? You don't just stop there and you have to then say, okay, well, what are the benefits? And what are the. And what are the downsides of doing that? Right. So let's talk about the benefits now. And since you brought up deaths, let's talk about mortality. I'll stick with just deaths. So, you know, most folks think that millions of people in America died from measles before this vaccine. I mean, that's like half a million people die in a year of COVID Oh, man, there must have been more of that than measles, right? Okay, well, here's the reality. Here are the facts, and this is CDC's own data. It just is what it is. Chapter seven. Between 1900 and 1963, when the first measles vaccine was introduced, the death rate for measles in America declined by over 98%. By over 98%. Okay. Now you could say was it was a clean water, better sanitation, could attribute to a lot of things. And probably, by the way, you could attribute it to a lot of things that public health authorities did do. Yeah, they could take credit for it on that score. But instead, they always give that credit to one thing. The measles vaccine. The measles vaccine. But I know for sure there's one thing that did not cause that decline. Measles vaccine. Because it didn't exist. How could it do it? Well, if you're a believer, you know, you got faith. Maybe this is why it's a religion. You could believe it. I still hear it all the time. Okay. Anyway, so that gets us to the late 50s, early 60s. How many people were dying at that point from measles? Around 400 a year. Every death's a tragedy, but that's nowhere near what they lead you to think that amounts. And remember, this is at a time where every American got measles. It was endeavor Brady Bunch. The Brady Bunch show where they were laughing about it.

A (74:27)

Yeah. And I know everyone, like, says, oh, that's just a TV show, but that shows you where society was at that time and how they thought of the measles.

B (74:35)

Oh, don't worry. In 30 years from now, you remember chickenpox?

A (74:38)

Oh, yeah. We had chickenpox parties when I was a kid.

B (74:41)

I did, too.

A (74:42)

Yeah.

B (74:42)

And I assure you, in 30 years from now, the way people think of measles today, they will think of chickenpox.

A (74:47)

Wow.

B (74:47)

Mark my words. And they're. They're working on that too. Go look at some of the literature about chickenpox. You'd think it was like the bubonic plague. Okay. With that said, that amounts to 1 in 450,000Americans dying a year from measles. Okay. That's quite different than what they lead you to believe, that everyone's dying. All right, so we have a declining mortality. As the US population was exploding from 1900s to the 1960s exploding, you had mortality declining. So most likely even as population increased in the U.S. after that, you probably had a continuation of that decline. It probably would have kept going. In fact, when you look at other countries that introduced the measles vaccine a little later, it continued to decline. Like in the. In England, they introduced it in 1968. Now it's only five years later, but their mortality had declined by over 99%.

A (75:37)

Oh, wow.

B (75:38)

1900. So they were. So what would have continued to happen probably most likely is that measles would have continued to decline. I think in the same way many other pathogens, their pathogenicity over time, for one reason or another, or the population's susceptibility, one of the two. Right. Continued to.

B (75:59)

Go in the direction of reduced mortality. And when you look at like scarlet fever and so many other pathogens, they tried to create a vaccine, they failed. There's no vaccine. And those things are. You don't even hear about them today.

A (76:12)

Yeah, that's a great point.

B (76:13)

But had they developed a vaccine, let me tell you something, you'd be hearing about scarlet fever and how everybody's going to die if you don't get your scarlet fever vaccine. And it's going to come roaring back.

B (76:24)

But by introducing the vaccine, they broke that natural ecology. So let's just assume the measles vaccines save 400 lives a year, even though that would be to. That would ignore the trend in what was occurring in terms of mortality of that pathogen. Okay. But we'll do a little believing. 400 a year. Okay.

B (76:49)

Studies that have looked at populations that have had measles versus those that haven't have found those that have had measles have far less deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancers.

B (77:04)

800,000Americans die a year from heart disease. 800,000. A 22 year prospective study in Japan that tracked 100,000 Japanese found that after 20 years there was a 20% decline in mortality from cardiovascular disease amongst those that had measles and mumps. Wow. Think about that. If that is true, and that is a prospective study that is of a large population, 20 years. It wasn't retro. It was right with involved in the Japanese government. Like this was a serious study and looked at lots of other things too. Then 20% would mean 160,000 deaths. Obviously, even if it was 1%, and I will do it by life years, because a child dying versus an adult are different life years. You're still upside down. From a public health perspective.

B (77:53)

Those who have had measles have a statistically significant reduction in Hodgkin's and non Hodgkin's lymphoma that kills 20,000 people a year in America, many of them children.

A (78:04)

Wow.

B (78:05)

66% increase rate if you haven't had measles. For.

B (78:10)

Hodgkin's lymphoma and non Hodgkin was increase of about 166%. Those are massive increases. They were statistically significant in the study. And there were small retrospective studies, but they were from major institutions. And the thing about all those cancer studies, and they're all in PubMed, you can read them. Just. They're just studies. Don't get mad at me.

A (78:27)

Yeah. Trust science.

B (78:29)

They're pretty consistent. They're consistent. They show this consistency that these fertile childhood infections, when you've had them, you have far less rates of these cancers. Half the rate of ovarian cancer amongst those that have measles versus those who haven't. Okay, wow. And so. And there's a lot of. There's. There's, you know, there's explanations that make sense as to why that is. The important point is this. It could be that measles, unlike many pathogens that go away over time, never left humanity for a reason. It might be because it conferred a survival advantage. I'm not saying that for sure. I'm just saying that's what the data appears to reflect. So, yeah, you want to look at the whole picture, you know, not just that one narrow slice.

A (79:17)

This reminds me, and correct me if I'm wrong, or maybe you don't know this, but I think that there was another.

A (79:23)

There were studies that they found that if children got chickenpox when they were kids, not the vaccines, but if they actually went through chickenpox, that they had a. They had a lesser chance of developing cancer later on in life. I believe it was chickenpox.

B (79:36)

Oh, yeah, right. Yeah, it's chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox.

A (79:40)

Okay, so it's all under that same thing, right?

B (79:42)

All of these fertile childhood infections, like the ones yes, they are.

A (79:48)

And they explicitly found that the kids that get vaccinated don't have that same effect because they needed to have the natural immunity. From what I understand, from what I read.

B (79:58)

Well, the studies that I have seen. Just compare those who've had chickenpox, those who haven't. Now those who haven't because chip and pox is endemic, we're likely vaccinated.

A (80:08)

That's crazy, right?

B (80:10)

Meaning they're unlikely to have not gotten chickenpox. I mean, is. So, you know, that is likely the case, what you described.

A (80:18)

Okay.

B (80:18)

I mean, it's likely the case in many of these studies.

A (80:21)

That blew my mind because especially when you look at rates of cancer exploding right now and everything else that we're dealing with, chronic disease, everything. I just feel like if we let nature do its thing in some of these instances, but oh, my God, I'm such a bad person for saying that and letting it move through the population, we might be having better outcomes for overall the health of the public when it comes to cancer.

B (80:44)

I would say that these other issues, we at least need to be able to have that discussion on a scientific and intellectual level and to be able to study it without people getting hyperbolic. Yes, that's what's important. Because just, just putting out the data we just described will make some people very upset. Yeah, but it's, it's just what the studies reflect. And if there's a series of studies that show those are wrong, I'd love to see them too. And I, you know, then. So in any event, well, to end.

A (81:13)

This on a positive note, because I always like to try to give people some hope. We've, we've talked about how we feel like this is changing. You've talked about, you're working on the mandates right now that are, you know, in California. California and New York and the hardest states. Is there anything else that you can share with people that you guys are actively working on that you feel like may change the scope of all of this in the next five or ten years?

B (81:34)

Oh, absolutely. I mean, I would say this.

B (81:40)

When we started doing this, there were not many groups. I mean, ICANN is right at the edge in terms of supporting vaccine policy, related work and, and putting information out there through the high wire and so forth.

B (81:58)

But, and, and that information, you know, a lot of it, which I've written about and it's on the ICANN site, was cabined. Right. It was censored. It. You couldn't get it out there. Whereas now it's permeating and you're seeing more and more doctors, medical professionals, folks in government elected representatives.

B (82:20)

They are beginning to become exposed to this information and that is completely changing the landscape. I mean, already I'll use my own personal experience again. I gave you the experience of the judges, I would say eight, nine years ago. I don't know, an elected representative that was really interested in running a bill on this issue that supported individual rights and liberties or anything like that. We work regularly now with members of Congress and state elected representatives. I mean, we've represented 17 members of Congress in challenging mass maintenance on planes. We work with members of Congress all the time. There's about 400 state elected and related representatives that assigned something called the Medical Liberty Pledge. And if you go to icannlegislate.org, which you know is different than ICANN just because that's a 501C4. So the legislate has something called the Medical Liberty Pledge. And politicians around the country have signed this pledging to never mandate any medical product. You want to get them, get them, but no government to ever coerce you to do it. So I mean, that's, that's a milestone change. And it's, and it's just growing. I, I think that people are waking up. I don't, I don't think it'll take 10 to 15 years. I think it'll take more or less. Oh, yeah. Oh, I think, I think so. We're having this podcast right now, right?

A (83:38)

That's true. And you know, I will say I've been doing this podcast for five years and I've only been. I really started to talk about vaccines in the last, I would say, maybe year and a half because like I told you, I was scared to talk about it because I was like, they're gonna drag me in the mud. My career is gonna be over. I mean, people still question where I got my degree and my master's and all of that. And it's fine. Cause I know that I'm right. And I don't mean that in a cocky way. I just mean that in a way of. I said this before we were recording. We are early to the information that not everybody has been privy to yet. That's it.

B (84:13)

And I'll tell you the thing that I think is really going to strike home when people really finally realize it. When you look at the chronic disease epidemic that is engulfing our children today, we have gone from under 10% of kids, according to studies in the early 80s, having a chronic health issue to today over 40. Some studies, over 50% and often multiple chronic health issues. And what are those. What are those health issues? They're almost all a form of immune system dysregulation, not obesity and not some of the issues that result from obesity. But when you look at a lot of the other issues, like asthma, Right. Eczema, psoriasis, adhd, people don't think about that. But it is a form of immune system dysregulation, according to. To a whole line of studies. Nobody thinks about it that way. Right. If you go down the list, they're almost all related to some form of immune system dysregulation. What is causing the immune system of our children to go haywire and mass. Could it be we've gone from three to 29 injections of products that they tell you are powerful pharmaceutical products intended to modify your immunity from your toe to your ear systemically?

B (85:28)

And when you really understand how vaccines work, when you really understand how aluminum adjuvants and vaccines work, I mean.

B (85:37)

I think you will. Quickly people will wake up and realize vaccines are not the only environmental insult that can cause dysregulation and cause harm. For sure. Not.

A (85:51)

Yeah.

B (85:51)

Or unvaccinated kids can have health issues because you can have, you know, any. Any exposure that is harmful can cause harm. Okay, just exactly. Talk like a lawyer for a second. Okay. But, you know, and it can be exposure to chemical products forever. Chemicals, pfas. I mean, we do some of these cases at my firm.

A (86:17)

Oh, you do? I might have you.

B (86:19)

It could be. It could be, you know, you know, you name it. I mean, fluoride is a known neurotoxin. And obviously, what we have in our food. Critically important as well as what we've done to our food. Important. Yeah. But for the subset of. For the. For the issues that are related to immune system dysregulation, the studies that compare kids with zero vaccines with one or more are pretty consistent, basically. Are consistent, essentially. And they show the kids who are vaccinated have multiple times the rate of these chronic health issues. I didn't see obesity again. That's. That's so nice. But. But virtually almost most of the other chronic health issues multiple times the rate. And I think as those studies continue to be done. Because you can't stop it.

A (87:10)

Yeah.

B (87:11)

And they get out there, that's gonna. That's gonna be like a dam breaking. They can only. They're trying desperately to hold that back. I mean, desperately. It would be so easy for these vaccinologists and all those who Support vaccines to quote, unquote. Shut up. The anti vaxxers just do that study and put it out there. I have no doubt they've tried. And the reason I have no doubt they've tried is that the Institute of Medicine in 2013, after being commissioned by our federal health authorities to review the safety of the whole schedule, said, hey, you never done a proper study comparing Novac exposed and unexposed. That's the way you do science.

A (87:49)

Exactly.

B (87:50)

Unexposed, exposed. How am I going to tell you it's really safe? And they said, but you can do it. And something called the vaccine safety data link. So the CDC then commissioned a few hundred thousand dollars to just get a white paper written by a bunch of pharma insiders, included that how to do that study that was published in 2015. We're 10 years later. You think they haven't done it or you think they haven't published it? I think they've done it and I think they just can't. They can't make it. They can't make it. They can't get the result that they want. Yeah, that's what I think. I can't prove that, by the way.

A (88:25)

Of course not.

B (88:26)

I'm just saying, speculating, you know, because all those other studies I mentioned, they were all privately funded. They're not done by major institutions that have a vested interest that could be harmed.

A (88:37)

But again, to your point, if they had the data to shut up the anti vaxxers, they would be releasing that. We know that they would be, if they had the data to do that. And can we just let common sense in the room for a second here? If we're shooting up babies that are under 1 years old with pharmaceutical drugs that they themselves boast that are having an effect on the immune system, why are we not allowed to say, huh? What are 29 of those doing to our immune systems? And then we're looking around and going, okay, all these kids are dealing with chronic ear infections, okay? They're all getting eczema, they're all getting autoimmune disorders and it's all going up. Gee, I wonder what we're doing with their immune systems.

B (89:18)

Repeat after me. Safe and effective, Safe and effective. And repeat after cnn. Hundreds of studies debunking and repeat after, you know, go, that's. But it's. But the problem is that they've lost control of it because.

B (89:32)

Social media now and this, these kind of podcasts or people are getting their information and they can't control that and they can't censor this book. They can't take down ICANN's website. They just can't stop that from coming out. And people make up their own mind. At the end of the day.

B (89:52)

I hope the goal of this. My goal is not to make anybody say, vaccines are good or vaccine's bad, or I'm anti vaccine or I'm pro vaccine. I just want people to start looking at them as products. Yeah, they're just products. I'm not anti or pro this microphone, and I don't think it's good or bad. It just is what it is. And, you know, But I'll tell you what, I bet before you bought this thing, you probably researched which is the best microphone to use for this podcast, I'm guessing.

A (90:22)

Yeah.

B (90:23)

All right. Potentially. And before people go buy a car for their kid, they go, I want to. Maybe I should look at the crash test rating because I want the safest car. It doesn't mean you go into a deep dive and I'll understand the exact mechanics. But you engage it in that way, in the same way people should approach vaccines that way. It doesn't mean they have to become an expert in it, but they got to stop believing in them and start thinking about them. And I think in many ways, the experience during COVID did that to people across this country. They started thinking again. They're like, wait, how does this work exactly? I mean, because the regulations were so ridiculous, it did the job in many ways of waking people up.

A (91:04)

That's true. I think we had a great awakening about vaccines during COVID because of that. I have one last question for you, and it's. You mentioned pfas, so actually, right before you got here, I did a solo episode about what's happening currently right now with the epa, because a lot of people are really upset about this. Do you know anything about what's happening right now regarding.

A (91:27)

PFASs? So this is something I'm incredibly concerned about. And the EPA, I guess in 2024, they wrote some regulations around our drinking water, and they've specifically wrote regulations around six different forms of them. The most harming ones are the PFOAs, I believe, and the. What's the other one? I have it written down somewhere. Anyways, now everyone's super mad because apparently the Trump administration, the epa, is rolling back regulations on the drinking water. Do you know anything about that?

B (91:57)

Not enough that I'd want to talk about it. I'd want to talk about it, I mean, because, you know, I. I'm familiar. I am familiar with It. But I really do focus my effort on the items that the government takes away your rights over. Yeah, I mean, PFAS are bad.

A (92:14)

Oh, they're really bad.

B (92:15)

They're really bad.

A (92:16)

Horrifying.

B (92:17)

Yes. And we're at the beginning of it really because the cumulative toxicity will, you know, and the bad results will happen over time. And so we really do need to get that in check right away. But nobody's making you take a pfas. Nobody's saying you can't go to school if you don't inject PFAS into your body. Nobody is saying you can't sue PFAS manufacturers. They are right. And the government is not.

B (92:48)

Marketing for them. And the government's not conflicted in the same way. You can probably impact the EPA to do the right thing to some degree on this. That's not to say I'm not trying to minimize the issue, of course, but I'm just saying the focus that we have is on the. It's when you really don't have a choice. Because I think eventually the market will correct on pfas. I think it will. I don't think it'll be the EPA that saves us. Yeah, I don't think that you think.

A (93:17)

It'S going to be market.

B (93:18)

I do. I think there are a lot of multi district litigations that involve PFAs that are seeking to hold various forever chemical.

B (93:32)

Components accountable for the harms. They're complicated. Those kind of cases are complicated.

A (93:38)

Yeah.

B (93:39)

But eventually they'll come to the more complicated, the longer they take. You know, a big MDL like that that's complex to take 10 years but eventually comes through. And the way that these markets often worked is. And I'm not going to say this specifically about any PFAS manufacturer, just in general. Right. And you know, like, like company puts out a drug or a product and so forth and they identify an issue. Now it's already in the market. It's already there. Sometimes what companies will do is they will start taking money and putting it into a kitty on the side because they know it's coming to a head. But they ride it out until.

A (94:15)

Until they're forced.

B (94:17)

I mean, look at GLP1s right now. Oh yeah, GLP1s. Look at them. Look at all the lawsuits are being filed. Look at the issues. I mean, you know, those cases started being accumulated at plaintiffs firms around the country a while ago before there was even probably much public chatter about it amongst the plaintiffs firms. They knew this was coming and the company knew it was coming. And over time, it's going to, you know, and eventually there'll be a decision in those cases and there'll be a big giant settlement. And probably, I'm guessing, I mean, I'm guessing that's what will happen. There will be potentially a giant settlement that will pay out for those injuries, but the companies will have made 20 times that amount along the way. And in the meantime, they'll ride that out because the ship's already sailed. And as long as their math pencils out, it's a business decision at that point. Obviously there's a lot of folks who get injured along the way. But when that settlement happens, what will happen? You will read about it in the paper and then all of a sudden this reality shift will happen. But that reality shift will never happen with vaccines in that way because of the immunity.

A (95:30)

Because they can't be held liable.

B (95:31)

Not in the same way. Wow. Right? Think about that. When you read about a car having an issue, cars, tires blowing up, it's usually because of a class action lawsuit. You won't see that. With vaccine makers, virtually anything. The only real exception is fraud. That is really tough. To get the evidence you need to plead it and to survive a motion dismissed, because you have to, oh my gosh, I'm about to bore your audience. You have to plead it with particularity under the federal rule of civil procedure, which means I can't just like, allege it. I have to actually have specific factual allegations to support a claim of fraud, to survive motion dismiss. And that's really hard to have. You can't just make that up. You gotta have it.

A (96:13)

Yeah.

B (96:13)

So it's really hard. You know, it's inside the company. How do you get it?

A (96:17)

But the beef that I have with those types of situations is then the pharmaceutical companies, they just pay out a sum. They have made billions. Sometimes they just pay out a little sum, they get a little slap on the wrist and then they go about their day and they create new products and they never get taken down.

B (96:34)

But it's not always that way. Right? Not all of them. Sometimes the judgments are massive, Sometimes the amount they pay out is big. Not always. You're right. Often, but from the company's perspective, they don't know.

A (96:50)

They don't know how bad it's going to be.

B (96:51)

Right. And they have to think about it like this. From a Wall street perspective, they have to disclose on their 10Ks and on their quarterly reports. So their annual reports. Excuse me, and their quarterly reports, they have to disclose ongoing litigation and give an Assessment. So if you're in Wall street, you're like, oh my God. They're being, they got this huge, massive for this drug in this, you know, that, that can, that can hurt valuation. Right? And so they don't want those cases pending out there. And they also truly don't know. I mean, look, if you have a very aggressive plaintiffs firm on the other side who are leading the charge, who are just not going to settle for anything, but, you know, you know, that's a very different outcome. We bring class actions all the time, okay? Defense firms all the time come in and want to just bribe you out to settle for the one individual plaintiff. That happens across the class actions landscape. And a lot of firms, they take that. The client, I should say takes that. And often the clients and the attorneys, the attorneys can impact the clients.

B (98:01)

So it also depends on the aggressiveness of the lawyers. There's a lot of factors that go into whether or not there'll be true accountability. The point is they don't know what they're going to get. And so I do think that the, the specter, the potential is there. And so they, you know, they are more careful about safety beforehand and even afterwards they tried to limit or they're like already planning for the next product and they're going to roll this one out. They do do recalls, you see drugs come off the market.

A (98:29)

That is true. But you know, what I was just thinking about is Pfizer, for example, that, you know, rolled out the COVID vaccine. They throw, they rushed it through the eua, the emergency use authorization, and then meanwhile, Pfizer, I believe it was Pfizer, paid out the most amount ever in history for a pharmaceutical company. Because I don't remember what they got in trouble for, but they got in trouble for something catastrophic and paid out the most sum of money than any other pharmaceutical company. And then they were just, just quote, unquote, saving our lives during COVID and just rolled out this vaccine and then made billions on that one. And then they're off making more drugs. And that's where I find it's not fair.

B (99:09)

No, it's, it's not fair. And it's bad enough that they're, they're big, massive, powerful actors. It is.

B (99:20)

The height of absurdity and immorality that when it comes to drugs and especially vaccines, not only do these parents who've got a vaccine injured child need to fight against industry, which they can't because they're shielded, so they're punching a wall. That's what they're doing. They got to fight against the federal government. Think about that. Nobody, nobody is there. If you're injured by vaccine, as I said earlier, who do you sue? You sue the secretary of hhs, right? So when we bring those cases, and like I said, you have your hands hide behind your back as the lawyer, because in a normal case, how do I prove that this drug caused an injury? Often I proved it by getting the internal documents of the company and deposing the company representatives and their scientists. Can't do that in vaccine court. But I still have to prove causation. There is no other product where the government.

B (100:18)

Represents the interests of industry and fights against the injured consumer that I'm aware of. Think about that. That's what happens with vaccines. And by the way, when you sue the Department of Health and Human Services, they use a little law firm. You might have heard of them, they're called the Department of Justice. Okay. Happen to have all our money and that's who we fight against, Literally, the doj. Think about that. Who's the DOJ to protect you? An injured family? No, they're there to crush that injured family. And they do. That is the way they approach these cases, in my opinion. You don't go into VICP program to the vaccine compensation program. And there's this, okay, let's try to help this family out. No, the DOJ fights you tooth and nail. You, the citizen, the injured family in a system that's, you know, that's a whole nother show. Let's leave it alone.

A (101:12)

Yeah. Oh, God. I could talk to you for hours. Thank you so much for this. Is there anything else before we go that you feel like we didn't cover, that the audience really needs to hear?

B (101:22)

Well, look, I'll just say this, that, you know, whether you love vaccines or you hate vaccines, whether you love masks, you hate them, whatever.

B (101:36)

I really would like people to truly appreciate how important the right to inform consent is. It's so critically important. Okay? Because.

B (101:48)

And I view it akin on par with the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. And I'll tell you why.

B (101:58)

Let's say you love every vaccine. Great. You love every mask mandate. Great. You love any other mandated medical product. But what happens when the day comes for anybody out there watching this where the government says, you know what I am going to require now? X and if you don't get that medical product, you don't get that medical procedure. You can't go to school, you can't get a job, you can't Go on public transport, you basically, you basically get to be by yourself in your house. So what good are your rights? What are good are all those rights if you're basically a prisoner in your own home? And that's why the right to inform consent is so critical. Hate vaccines. Love vaccines. Whatever. Ideally, you just think about vaccines, okay? They're just products, but be careful, because the right you see to the government today is often not a right you get back later. And so this right.

B (102:53)

Is so critically important. And my hope is that everybody begins to appreciate that. Right. However, their position is on the science, the data on the products, because your body, your body, my body, our kids bodies, future kids bodies, you know, everybody out there, your bodies, they're the commodity on which pharma makes its profits.

A (103:18)

Yep.

B (103:19)

Okay. The more they can control that commodity, meaning the more they can control what gets injected, ingested, and put on that commodity, the more money they can make. And so they have a pecuniary interest to affect legislation, which they do, and judicial decisions to control it. They don't spend money on ads to promote their vaccines like car companies do. They use their money really wisely. They're smart. They use it to affect legislation, judicial outcomes. Go down the list.

B (103:55)

Trusted intermediaries, doctor conferences, medical journals, medical schools. To continue to perpetuate the belief that everyone must partake and if you don't, you must be excluded from society. They create this idea, they perpetuate it. That's the marketing, not the reality. That's the marketing, but people believe it and it's, you know, and so people, like, run into, you know, with that belief, they're like, yes, take away my rights and my kids rights. Hey, listen, you want vaccines, go get them.

B (104:31)

But stand for the position of nobody should be compelled to get them ever, under coercion, otherwise it's destructive to inform, consent, persuade people on the merits. And if you can't, that should be the end of the discussion. And if you look around the world, Denmark, Smeden, Norway, most provinces in Canada, they don't have mandates for school for vaccines.

A (104:48)

Oh, they don't?

B (104:49)

Nope. And most states in America, like the 45 states we talked about, basically check the box exemptions. So most parents still choose to get vaccines even though they could just check the box. Right. Giving people rights does not mean that everybody's gonna stop vaccinating. This is also the myth they create. It's a myth. Okay?

A (105:10)

They just want to make more money.

B (105:11)

Exactly. Yeah. So who do the mandates hurt? They hurt those who need to not get this product. Those in California who want to get this product, they don't need a mandate. Those who've got an injured kid, a kid that died, the kid had a serious injury or some other complication, they can't get a medical exemption, okay? Because that's not the way medical exemptions work. They're not about medicine. They're a policy thing.

B (105:38)

That's who it hurts. And these same families are the ones who desperately need to be able to opt out of these products more than anybody. And they can't. So it hurts. Those who've already been injured oftentimes or who have some other belief that just prevents them from getting it. They don't want to engage in this one because of its relation to a border fields issue, you know, because they believe abortions immorally. And now you may not think that that's fine, but they do. So that's what our country's founded of. Freedom. One of the basic freedoms.

A (106:08)

Exactly.

B (106:09)

So I mean, that's what I would leave with is, is. Is, you know, I spent a lot of, I spent a lot of ink trying to impress the importance of this. You know, that's really the end thrust was I'm trying to get to. Because at the end of the day, so I mean, vaccines cause injury. Of course they do. Why else would they be a licensed medical product?

A (106:28)

Exactly.

B (106:29)

Why else would you license them? Of course they do. Then you wouldn't. Then they would be over the counter. They'd just be like food. That's why they're licensed. They hurt people sometimes. Big deal. It hurts people. That's why it's a licensed product. Of course it's gonna hurt some people. The problem.

B (106:46)

Is that this belief system has caused taking away the rights of those who need their rights the most. And it is one of the gravest injustices that we have committed in our society against these families. And the problem is if we don't reverse course, it's only going to expand because the number of products they're going to continue mandating is only increasing. That business model we talked about, the injuries are going to increase and the need to more and more crush rights is going to increase because that's what governments do when they can't persuade you on the merits. A little coercion, more coercion, can't go to school, censor you. And we saw it during COVID And we're going to end up going down that path if we continue down this road without respecting informed consent as a true fundamental right in this country.

A (107:34)

Which is so concerning. And I want to just point this out. So Del and I were talking about this, and he brought up this great analogy, and he said, if I filled a stadium full of people, I could not find a single piece of food that somebody in that room wouldn't have a reaction to. And so you think about this, you take it a step further and say, okay, we're just going to mandate peanut butter for everybody. People are going to die. There are people that go into anaphylactic shock from peanut butter, and there's not a single food or injection or product or thing that you put on your body lotion or whatever that one person is not going to have a reaction to. And so to act like we can just mandate this and say, oh, they're safe and effective. No one's ever going to have an issue with it. You are forgetting the bio individuality in people and that people have different genetic makeup and they have different reactions to different things. And you can't just mandate something like this because then people that will actually be harmed by this stuff lose their rights.

B (108:26)

Yeah, but I don't need a stadium analogy. I've got the tens of thousands of people that contact our law firm.

A (108:31)

Wow. Boom. Mic drop. We can end it on that. Okay, please let everybody know where they can find you. And then obviously, please everybody, go find his book, Vaccines. Amen. It was an amazing resource.

B (108:41)

Sure. Well, the book's available on Amazon, as I noted, if those want to support our vaccine policy, the vaccine policy work, our firm does. That would be icanddecide.org that's a nonprofit that supports most of it. My law Firm's website is syria LLP.com and, and I mentioned earlier, you know, we help folks with all kinds of related issues. And I'm on Twitter AaronSeriesg, and I have a website, AaronSeriofficial.com that my folks just created because they're like, you need something with everything. So apparently that's awesome. That's that. So I think that's probably plenty. And I'm on Substack too.

A (109:16)

Awesome. Okay, everybody go check out all those links and we will add them to the show notes. And thank you so much for coming on.

B (109:23)

Thank you.

A (109:24)

Thank you so much for listening to the Real Foodology podcast. This is a Wellness Loud production produced by Drake Peterson and mixed by Mike Fry. Theme song is by Georgie. You can watch the full video version of this podcast inside the Spotify app or on YouTube. As always, you can leave us a voicemail by clicking the link in our bio and if you like this episode, please rate and review on your podcast app. For more shows by my team go to wellnessloud.com see you next time. The content of this show is for educational and and informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for individual medical and mental health advice and doesn't constitute a provider patient relationship. I am a nutritionist, but I am not your nutritionist. As always, talk to your doctor or your health team first. If you struggle with bloating, gas constipation, digestive issues, yeast overgrowth, well, you may already know about Digest this. It's the podcast hosted by me, Bethany Cameron, also known as Little Sipper on Instagram. I dive into gut health, nutrition, the food industry and drawing from my own experience, I break down what's good, what's bad and what's the best for your gut, your skin and so much more. I even offer gut friendly recipes. New episodes every Monday and Wednesday produced by Wellness Loud.