Ep.154: Talking Vaccine Safety and Efficacy with Activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Podcast: Play in new window
The Kennedy family recently wrote a letter condemning RFK Jr.’s activism for medical freedom. And yet he lobbied every single member of the California legislature and continues to give his life to activism for the safety and health of our country’s children.
As it becomes increasingly punishing, online, to speak up about the many controversies in the accelerating vaccine schedule, I can still shine a flashlight on medical freedom issues on my podcast–where Google and Facebook and Netflix and Amazon can’t censor.
Children are now required to get over 70 doses by the time they are 18, vaccine manufacturers have more than 200 new vaccines in development, they were given immunity from lawsuits in the 1980’s, and California legislature just banned even medical exemptions, even for 4,000 documented vaccine-injured children in the state.
This is a very important listen with one of the most knowledgeable American activists. Bobby Kennedy knows the literature on the connection between vaccines and autism and many other auto-immune disease epidemics. This episode is a must listen!
LINKS AND RESOURCES:
Find out more and support the cause at Children’s Health Defense
EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS WITH ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR:
- [04:20] Your children’s health is declining. There’s been a dramatic rise in chronic diseases since 1989 – food allergies, eczema, asthma, diabetes, ADD, Tourette’s, autism, SIDS, and more. In that same year, the vaccine schedule changed drastically… and the neurotoxic metals inside have not.
- [16:21] Vaccines are the best business idea in the world: No legal liabilities if they cause damage, the client is every human in the world, and doctors who bully you into taking them because of their profits. And, the side effects create even more revenue from treatments.
- [25:28] With more vaccines on the way, can we protect our medical freedom? There’s 273 new vaccines in the making. Not all of them will be approved, but we already have 72 doses of various vaccines required by age 18. Can we get to grounds of refusal?
- [40:41] “Do not get Gardasil.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s biggest recommendation against a vaccine. “If you get it, you are going to do damage to yourself. There’s zero evidence that that vaccine prevents cervical cancer, and there is abundant evidence that it actually causes cancer.” And all of the best evidence against that vaccine comes from Merck’s own clinical trials.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robyn: Hey everyone, it’s Robyn Openshaw. And welcome back to the Vibe show.
I’ve been so excited about my interview today with possibly the most well-known interview that I’ve ever done — or I should say the person I’m interviewing is the most well-known. It’s a Robert F. Kennedy jr. of, yes, that Kennedy family.
Recently, the Kennedy family came together and issued a letter about their support for the vaccine industry and their dismay over Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s advocacy for children’s safety issues. In particular, his stance on vaccines.
I’ve watched his career as he has taken a stronger stand and made more public statements and joined together with other people. He’s the founder of the Children’s Health Defense. He’s chairman of the board; he’s chief legal counsel. He’s an attorney by background.
The mission of Children’s Health Defense is something I think we can all get behind. It’s to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health conditions by working aggressively (and he certainly does that) to eliminate harmful exposures, to hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards. Children’s Health Defense is about much more than vaccine safety.
In this interview — we got to the end of our hour and he had to move on — there were questions I wanted to ask him at the end, including about his advocacy as well in the world mercury project. He believes that vaccines would be a lot safer if we could get the mercury out of it. But you know what? Aluminum replaced mercury in a lot of vaccines many years ago and it looks like the evidence shows it to be just as dangerous and causing just as many adverse events.
Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s heroes for the planet, for his success in leading the fight in a completely different arena. He helped really restore the Hudson river. He has his finger in a lot of different pies. He’s a clinical professor at Pace University School of Law, and he’s a graduate of University of Virginia Law School there in my home state. He also has a Master’s degree in environmental law.
In this interview I ask Robert F. Kennedy jr. a lot of hard-hitting questions about specific vaccines, about vaccine safety issues, about when and why we saw these spikes in childhood developmental disorders, and many other issues. I think you’ll find this a fascinating conversation.
I do want to mention, just because I’ve heard Robert say this in other interviews, that he has (I think it’s probably a lifelong) thing called spasmodic dysphonia. So you will notice that his voice sounds a little bit different. It’s an issue where there are twitches in the voice box or the larynx. That’s what you’re hearing here. He’s doesn’t have the flu or anything like that. I hope you’re as excited as I am to talk with Robert F. Kennedy jr.
Welcome to the Vibe show, Robert F. Kennedy jr.
Robert F.: Thanks for having me.
Robyn: I’ve got a lot of questions for you.
You’ve done so much amazing work to champion children. Let’s start at the beginning.
Let’s talk about how the health of children is declining, and what links you’ve found to different culprits in the environment with all these epidemics we’ve got in childhood illnesses, developmental disabilities, et cetera.
Robert F.: Well, there was an HHS study that was done in 1986, and it looked at chronic disease in children. And at that point in the American population, 12.8% of children had chronic disease. Today, in a 1999 study by HHS, there were 54% of children.
That’s a dramatic rise in those chronic diseases, or allergic diseases, like food allergies, peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, eczema, asthma, and then a lot of autoimmune diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, etc. And the neurodevelopmental disorders affect one in six children; ADD, ADHD, speech delay, tics, Tourette’s syndrome, and of course ADS and autism. And then a number of other illnesses have also become epidemic suddenly (beginning around 1989), including SIDS, which is now the primary killer of children.
If you take a list and look at all of those diseases (and you know, collectively there’s probably 150 of them), every one of them without exception are listed on the product insert a of the 72 vaccine doses now given to our children as side effects of the vaccines, or potential side effects of vaccines.
There are many culprits for what’s happening to our children. In fact, there’s this scientist called Phil Landrigan, a very, very famous toxicologist, who has listed the suspects for this unprecedented wave of chronic diseases that are now debilitating an entire generation of children since 1989.
Incidentally when Congress asked the EPA, “When did the epidemic begin, specifically autism?” The EPA drew a red line and said the gateway year was 1989. So something changed dramatically in 1989. So if you were born prior to ’89, your chances of having chronic disease is around 12%. If you’re born afterward, your chance of having chronic disease is 54%.
Phil Landrigan named a number of suspects. Neonicotinoid pesticides, glyphosate (which is the pesticide in Roundup, which became ubiquitous around the same time), cell phones, PFOAs, and a number of others. Sonograms, or ultrasound, and a number of other culprits. But none of those culprits absolutely fits the lock, or explains the injuries that happened to our children, as the changing vaccines schedule.
The vaccine schedule changed dramatically in 1989; the reason for that is Congress passed a law, the Vaccine Act, in 1986, which gave immunity from liability to manufacturers of vaccines. So no matter how negligent they are, no matter how toxic ingredients that are, how grievous your injury, you cannot sue them.
That removed from the industry any incentive to make vaccines safe. The reason that they wanted that, the reason the pharmaceutical companies pushed for that, is they said they were getting sued so much that the existing vaccines were no longer profitable to make. In other words, the vaccines that they had were so dangerous that they could no longer profitably make them unless they were given full immunity from liability.
Once they were given that immunity, there was no reason for them to make them safer. In fact, they have a lot of incentive to make them more dangerous because they can’t be sued, and every injury that they create, every chronic disease, is a goldmine for those same four companies.
Their biggest blockbuster drugs are the drugs that treat asthma, like Advair. That treat ADD, like Concerta and Adderall and Ritalin. That treat diabetes, and that treat allergic reactions, like $600 EpiPens.
And that is how the vaccine industry since then has gone from a $1 billion industry to a $50 billion industry.
But the chronic disease industry is a $500 billion industry and the chronic diseases that are most profitable are all the ones that are listed on the inserts of vaccines as suspected side effects.
In 1986, Congress gave them protection from liability, complete immunity from liability. And they became hugely profitable because suddenly you had a product where there was no advertising costs and no marketing costs, because it’s mandated for our 78 million children. And the margins are very, very good on vaccines. Those companies can’t lose the patents like they can with other [medication] because they’re kind of given permanent patent protection; they’re given monopoly status by the FDA and by CDC because those specific vaccines are mandated.
They also have another huge benefit which is they are exempt from safety testing. Not a single one of the 72 vaccines that are now mandated for our children have ever been tested against an inert placebo. In other words, they have not been safety tested. That exemption is an artifact of the CDC’s legacy as the Public Health Service.
The CDC was formally known as the Public Health Service, which was a quasi-military agency. And the vaccine program was launched as a response to a potential biological attack on our country by the Russians.
The regulators and the government wanted us to be able — if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent — be able to develop a vaccine, manufacture it, and then deploy it very quickly without regulatory burdens. And if they called it a medicine, they would have to do placebo testing on it. They would have to do randomized testing that takes years.
But if they called it something else, they felt they wouldn’t have to do that. So they called them “biologics” and that way they exempt them from the need for safety tests. So, nobody knows what the risk profile is of any of these vaccines.
Nobody can say, scientifically, whether that vaccine is causing more harm and more deaths than the disease would have. And that’s a big problem for our society because conterminously we saw this explosion in chronic diseases. And if you look at the neurological disorders, the clearest culprit is mercury and aluminum in vaccines.
The reason for that is, the timeline is so clear that this began in 1989. That year it began affecting every demographic. Cubans in Biscayne Bay, Miami, to Inuit in Homer, Alaska.
And it affects boys on a four to one ratio to girls. There’s only one toxic that meets all of those criteria. And that’s mercury, which was ubiquitous with vaccines at that time.
Mercury impact boys disproportionately from girls, and the reason for that is that testosterone amplifies neurotoxicity in the mercury molecule, whereas estrogen tends to wrap them the mercury molecule and protect the female brain. The girls who get impacted by autism are usually high testosterone girls. There’s a number of studies that show that, and many of them look kind of boyish, but it disproportionately harms boys.
The only demographic that appears that was not affected beginning in 1989 are the demographics that were not vaccinated. For example, the Amish. You don’t see these huge autism numbers in the Amish populations. The EPA actually did a study at the Amish, I think it was in 2005, with a reporter called Dan Armstead where they went to Lancaster Pennsylvania, and they could not find a single case of autism. And there should have been hundreds of them.
They did a similar study, a follow up study, among homeschool kids in Chicago and found that same effect. And among the unvaccinated children, they could not find any autism. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, because it does. There’s some other things. Autism is just brain damage. It’s encephalopathy.
What we call autism is really a compilation of symptoms are very different with each child but have some overall similarities. But it’s just brain damage. And we know that mercury causes a brain damage.
Aluminum, which replaced the mercury in 2003 when they removed the mercury from the pediatric vaccines, they loaded the new vaccines with the aluminum and that also causes the similar kinds of brain damage.
Robyn: Okay. So we’ve got the best business idea in the world because your demographic is every human being in the world, and you have no legal liability for your product if that causes any damage. And you’ve got governments all over the world who will even subsidize the sales all over the globe. And you’ve got an army of a hundreds of thousands of doctors who not only will sell the product, but they’ll also bully anybody who doesn’t buy it.
Robert F.: By the way, the doctors, particularly pediatricians are making a killing on vaccines, in a number of different ways. They’ll tell you, “The margins on vaccines for us are not very good.” But the vaccines are a profit center for them. For one thing, it causes a lot of walking traffic.
When I was a kid, I only went to the doctor when I was injured. I didn’t go for regular wellness visits. And now children come for these regular wellness visits which creates foot traffic in those offices and revenue for those offices that is steady.
I talked to a doctor, a famous doctor in Minnesota, called Bob Zajac and he has in his practice, I think, 50 or 60,000 families.
I said to him, there’s only three doctors; how do you treat that many patients?”
And he said to me, “Because they’re never sick. They don’t have the scheduled visits that you have when you’re vaccinating people all the time.”
The vaccine companies give kickbacks to the doctors that are laundered through the insurance companies. Like Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser, they’ll give a volume-based discount based upon the number of vaccines purchased by that insurance company’s customers. F.
For example, let’s just say they sell the MMR vaccine for $12 apiece for the first million jobs, and $6 a piece the second million (those numbers aren’t real, they’re schematic). The insurance company now has a big incentive to push a lot of vaccines.
It incentivizes the physicians by saying — and we have the contracts now from Blue Cross Blue Shield with their physicians where they say — “We’re going to give you a per-vaccine bonus that is very large. It’s hundreds if not thousands of dollars per child. It can amount to tens of thousands of dollars annually, or hundreds of thousands depending on the size of your practice. But we’re only going give it to you if you can show that 75% of the children in your practice are fully vaccinated.”
By that they mean that they have received every vaccine on time. If any child is a day late for any of the 72 shots or vaccines, that child is not scored as compliant. That’s noncompliant. So the doctors are under tremendous pressure to fully vaccinate every kid in their practice because if they get under that 75% threshold, they lose the entire bonus. And that bonus is the profit margin for many of these practices.
You wonder, “Why is my pediatrician so angry at me? Why is he threatening to throw me out of the practice if I don’t vaccinate? Why is he taking this choice away from me?? And that’s the reason.
This week there’s a video circulating, a video that is done by that actor Rob Schneider and it absolutely brilliant. He did a video of phone calls to 872 doctors, pediatricians offices, in the state of California. He pretended to be the parent of a child who is unvaccinated. He asks the pediatrician, “Can I join your practice?? And every one, every single one of the 872 he called said, ?No, we will not take unvaccinated children in our practice.”
Robert F.: The reason for that is because insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have rigged the system of kickbacks so that the amount of money that flows to the pediatricians, if they can force their practice to comply, is enormous. And the losses that they suffer if they failed to get their clients to comply is also enormous. It’s devastating for the practice.
Robyn: Going back to Bob Zajac, I believe he’s the pediatrician who’s also an MBA and has a PhD in Special Ed and is also a pediatrician medical doctor and a father of eight. And he’s really out there publicly.
I’m just bringing this up because Robert mentioned him, that he takes thousands and thousands of more kids into his practice. He is a self-confessed former vaccine bully who started really diving into [vaccines]. He says he spends at least an hour a day studying vaccine issues and he has come to a different conclusion. So I believe his patients are not vaccinated. And that’s why I just want to go back and touch on that because the reason he can take thousands more is because they’re not sick, because they didn’t get vaccinated.
He is the pediatrician who’s out there saying, “Listen, I’ve been in practice for decades and my sickest patients are the ones who are fully vaccinated. My sometimes-sick patients are the ones who are partially vaccinated. And my healthy patients are the ones who didn’t get vaccinated at all.”
I’m going to go find that Rob Schneider video. That’s super interesting.
I want to mention that over 20 years ago, I was kicked out of a pediatrics practice; let’s see, my child is now 22, so 21 years ago I got kicked out of pediatrics practice because I was there for an ear infection. And the pediatrician said, “Is she fully vaccinated?” I said, “No.”
She just froze and she said, “Why not?” And I said, “Just by my choice.” And she said, “Then you’re not welcome here. Get out.”
I asked why and they said it was because — and it’s become very clear to me that you’re right, because I’ve actually asked pediatricians why they kicked people out of their practice — I have learned that they’re not profitable.
If you get only one vaccine — you’re only vaccinated against one disease per office visit — their overhead makes that an unprofitable visit. 85% of the revenues that come into a pediatrics practice apparently goes to overhead. And so they really have to increase their revenues. They’ve got to get three shots in your kid (or three diseases).
I do want to mention that, and of course it was 21 years ago and I don’t know if she would still do this, but the pediatrician I then went to, I called them up and I said, “I have unvaccinated children. Will you take my four children as patients?” And a female pediatrician (her name is Melissa Kendall in Orem, Utah at Utah Valley Pediatrics), she did take my child. And I said, “Will you allow my children into the practice?”
And she said, “Yes, vaccines are controversial. I understand.” And she treated my children. I mean, they were never seen for anything. I think we got some warts burned off and we got scalp physicals.
I want to go back to another question that we were talking about a minute ago.
We’ve got this amazing business proposition where they’re just unfettered, and they can’t get sued. And every single human being in the world is a potential customer of their product. So these four pharmaceutical companies… More [vaccines] are coming.
I’d love for you to comment on how many and what this has to do with (you lawyers would call this Oh, I can’t remember the word, but like I think leading the witness or something like that) if we have a lot more vaccines in development because of this perfect storm that makes this an amazing business for these mega billion dollar companies, what does this have to do with why we should protect medical freedom?
It’s a big question I’m asking.
Robert F.: Well, it’s almost irrelevant that there’s more in production. There are, according to FDA, they now have 273 new ones in the a pipeline, but the ones that they’re giving us already are already too much and many of them are clearly causing more harm than good.
If you look at the hepatitis B vaccines, and even the flu vaccine… I mean the Cochrane collaboration and the BMJ — British Medical Journal — of which are probably two of the most reputable of all science organizations in the world, have done meta reviews of the flu vaccine. And they’ve repeatedly concluded that the flu vaccine is worthless, and that it is creating all of these social costs, including the money, and also that you’re more likely to get the flu in subsequent years. That we’re losing natural herd immunity that you get for having natural flu infections that protect you against pandemic flues when they do come, whereas that flu shot does not.
There’s study by Cowling that shows that the kids who get the flu shot had the same (this is a randomized study) rate of flu as kids who don’t get it, but the vaccinated kids have 4.2 times the rate of non-flu infections, other respiratory illnesses. The flu shot actually ruins your immune system.
The DPT vaccine… We now have numbers of that because the CDC refuses to do these kind of studies that you would need to do in order to say, “This vaccine is solving more problems than it’s causing.” And that’s what everybody wants to know. People would vaccinate if they believe the vaccination was making them healthier and that’s what we need to know. But you don’t know that unless you do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, which is also known as a placebo study.
But you can do them retrospectively, if you have a good database; you can look in the past and you can look at people who got the flu shot and compare them to similar groups that didn’t, and then you can look at outcomes and you can do that for any vaccine. The problem with this is, the database that would be most valuable for doing those studies is called the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
It is the database and vaccine records and health records for millions and millions of Americans that have been archived by the HMOs, the 10 biggest HMOs. The CDC controls that database; congress funded it and ordered them to archive it in order to make back the vaccines safer, but to CDC does the opposite. It won’t let anybody in there who’s independent.
The CDC did its own study of that database and kept it secret in 1999. And that study found that children who were vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine within the first 90 days had an 1100% greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than kids who did not receive that vaccine. And when they saw that they hid the database. They gave it to a private company so it wouldn’t be susceptible a freedom of information request. And they’ve kept it off limit to scientists ever since.
So, you could do it on that. CDC has blocked everybody from doing that kind of study and if you try to do one in this country, you’re blackballed. Funding disappears. You’re not going to publish. However, a group of scientists from Scandinavia were able to do one on the DTP vaccine in 2017.
Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine is the most popular vaccine in the world. It’s the most important vaccine because it’s the vaccine that the World Health Organization measures national compliance with vaccination by the number of children who are given that vaccine in a country. So in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, virtually every kid gets this vaccine. Nobody had ever done a safety study on it.
Peter Aaby, who was the world’s greatest authority in African vaccine program, he was the winner of the highest honor in Scandinavia given to research scientists. And he has impeccable credentials.
He led a team in 2017 because they found that, in the nation of Guinea-Bissau, for 50 years the Danes have financed a state-of-the-art health clinic there that weighs every child in the country at three months and weighs them at six months of age subsequently. And in 1980 they began giving children, on that three month visit, a DPT vaccine. But it would only give them the vaccine if they were fully 90 days old. If they were 89 days old, they would wait and give it on the six month visit.
As it happened for that 40-year period, half the children in the country between the ages of two months and five months were vaccinated, and half were not. And it was completely randomized; it was the perfect natural experiment. And Aaby and his team went back and looked what had happened to those kids. And what he found was — and this was a study financed by the Danish government — that the children who are vaccinated had 10 times the death rate of unvaccinated children. They found that the DPT vaccine was protecting children against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. But the kids were dying of unrelated infections who were vaccinated.
They were dying of malaria and bilharzia and dysentery and anemia. And nobody had connected the dots for 30 years, where the kids who were dying were all the vaccinated kids, not the unvaccinated ones.
What Aaby concluded, and his team, was the vaccine was killing many more children than it was saving. And subsequently about three months ago, Peter Gotzsche was one of the founders of the Cochrane collaboration, which is 30,000 independent scientists who kind of try to look over pharma’s shoulder and keep them honest.
Peter Gotzsche one of the most respected scientists on earth. And he did a meta review of all the literature on the DPT and corroborated the Peter Aaby study, which is known as the Morganson study, the 2017 study, has said, “Yes, this vaccine is actually killing more children than it is saving. And if our objective is reduce mortality in children, we should immediately stop using this vaccine.”
So, the question is, this vaccine was used for 40 years. Nobody noticed that it was killing more people than it was saving. And the question is, could that be happening in our country, where we now have 72 vaccines that are mandated, nobody has done a safety study on them? And could they be causing more injury than they’re avoiding? And the answer is — and we already know this because we have the science on this — that most of them are actually killing and injuring more people than the problems that they’re avoiding.
Robyn: In 2015 you did a video that I was watching the other day and you started out by saying, “Listen, I am pro-vaccine, I vaccinated all of my six children; I believe in vaccines.” And I’ve been curious ever since then. And I saw a debate on Facebook about this and I said, “Hey, I’m going to interview him next week and I’m going to find out.”
You were talking about basically how mercury is the culprit. Since 2015, have you changed your stance on that?
I was curious if you said, “I’m pro-vaccine,” because you, like me, are very frustrated with the fact that we — those of us who speak up ask questions, point a flashlight on the data speak, speak up for the safety of children –everybody just wants to marginalize us with this anti-vaccine label, were you saying that so that you don’t get dismissed as anti-vaxx? Or has your opinion changed at all since 2015, that mercury is the only problem? Because I feel like there’s a lot of problems with vaccines beyond mercury.
Robert F.: Yeah. And I agree with you, and particularly I think aluminum is a problem, but there’s also other issues as well. I’m pro-vaccine as long as the vaccines are tested and proven safe and proven effective. In other words, if it’s a medicine that is going to solve and avert more injuries than it’s going to cause, it’s going to avert more deaths than it’s going to cause, and we can say that that’s a good medicine. But we have to know the risks and you have to have informed consent. You can’t give anybody a medication against their will. To me, that’s kind of crazy.
Robyn: Let’s talk about that because you just said that there are 273 vaccines in development. I’m sure not all of them will come out of development. They’ll fail the basic criteria of the clinical trial. But let’s say 50 more come out in the next 10 years, and we’re already so loaded up with 72 required doses of vaccine by the time you’re 18.
What do you have to say about — I believe 30 states looked at medical freedom bills and some states lost their right people in the state of California, Washington, New York lost many of their medical freedoms; if we have many, many more vaccines coming out, we already have one in six children, like you said, who have developmental disorder, 54% of children, you said have a diagnosed disease, these are children who haven’t even made it to adult adulthood yet — if there are really clear links between these spikes and disease rates, are these increasing disease rates and vaccines?
Then how important is it that we retain medical freedom for religious exemptions and medical exemptions? I believe some states have lost the right completely to almost all exemptions of any kind. Even kids who in some states who have been previously vaccine-injured; I know that children’s health defense is involved in some legal actions.
Talk a little bit about what it means that we have all these additional vaccines coming down the pipeline potentially, and we might lose our medical freedom.
Robert F.: To me that’s almost an irrelevancy because we already have 72 vaccines that are untested. I don’t think that it’s fair to give people anything against their will, and particularly a zero-liability product that has not been safety tested. Where the efficacy testing is dubious. And you’re going to force a human being against their will — at the threat of losing their constitutional right to a public education — you’re going to force them to take that medication? I mean, I don’t even know. Even if it was one vaccine… I don’t see how you can do that.
Robyn: I’m also concerned about toxic body burden. More is worse.
When I was in grad school, I was forced to get the flu vaccine to do an internship and I got so close to the internship when they told me this that there was no chance of me getting another internship. So I did it. And I was interested to hear the piece of data that you shared a little bit ago, that people who get the flu vaccine have the same likelihood of getting the flu as people who didn’t get the flu vaccine but they are also 4.2 times as likely to get many non-flu infections.
Robert F.: 4.2 times more likely.
Robyn: 4.2 times more likely. And I was sick 10 times that winter after getting the flu vaccine.
I actually got the actual flu, which I’ve never had before in my life that I know of (people should know that, they may think, “I’ve never had the flu and it’s probably because I got the flu shot.” You probably maybe have had the flu. Most people get the flu, never get diagnosed with it. It’s mild. It’s not the horrible thing that you hear about) but I got the actual flu, got diagnosed with it; I was very, very ill after getting the flu vaccine. And I’m not suggesting that the flu vaccine directly caused the flu, but I have never been sick like that for a winter. I usually get sick with a cold every year or two for a day.
Robert F.: There are lots of those stories. Those stories are confirmed in the scientific literature that the more flu vaccines that you get, the more likely you are in subsequent years to get the flu and that year to get non-flu infection.
Robyn: I’m glad you brought that up. And I’d love for you to talk about the Gardasil vaccine and the corruption behind it because I think you are behind a lawsuit against Merck.
Robert F.: Yeah, I am. Gardasil is the one vaccine that I just tell everybody, “Do not get this vaccine because if you get it, you are going to do damage to yourself. And there’s zero evidence that that vaccine prevents cancer, cervical cancer, and there is abundant evidence that it actually causes cancer.” And all of the best evidence against that vaccine comes from Merck’s own clinical trials.
Cervical cancer kills 2.3 out of every hundred thousand Americans, very, very low number. And the average year of death is 58 years old. So you’re giving an injection to a nine year old girl that is supposed to protect them against the disease 50 years later. And of course, if it doesn’t [work] they have no recourse against Merck. The guys at Merck who are saying, “Oh, don’t worry if you take this, you won’t get cervical cancer,” are going to be long gone by then. So it’s the perfect scam.
There’s no clinical study that shows that it actually works against cervical cancer. And in fact their own study showed that if you were exposed to the HPV virus prior to getting that vaccine, your chances of getting stage three cervical lesions — which does not necessarily mean you’re going to get cervical cancer, but it’s an indicator — is 46% greater than unvaccinated girls. For that cohort it actually demonstrably raises your chance of getting the cervical cancer.
The question is, how many people have been previously exposed? Well, there are numerous studies that show that prior to age 10 about 30% of the population has HPV because it’s sexually transmitted, but it’s transmitted much more casually. Many people get exposures in the birth canal and then after that just being handled by doctors and nurses who maybe haven’t washed their hands well enough and daily contact the rest of their lives.
Before the age of 10, your chance of being exposed is 30%. And then afterwards it goes up to like 75%. And for those people, which is a majority of the population, it’s more likely — by their own admission — is more likely to give you cancer than if you didn’t take it at all. So it’s a hoax.
Not only that, but the death rate… the number of girls that died in the clinical trial was doubled the background level for a death. Twice as many girls. They didn’t have a placebo group, so you can’t measure a placebo group against the study group of girls who got Gardasil. But you can look overall.
The biggest hoax that Merck did, they didn’t want to have a placebo because they didn’t want to reveal what was going to happen. Everybody agrees that the worst part of that vaccine is the aluminum adjuvant.
Just so people know this, the vaccine is made of an antigen, and the antigen is the viral particle that has been disabled in some ways. It’s either dead or disabled. It won’t give you the full disease. But it will get your body to develop an immune reaction for the next time it spots that virus as the antigen.
What vaccinologists found out very early on is that the antigen, particularly in a dead virus vaccine like Gardasil, the antigen alone does not provide you with immunity of a long enough duration or that’s robust enough to prevent the disease. And particularly with vaccines like Gardasil that you’re giving it to them at age nine and is supposed to be protecting them 50 years later, you need a really durable antibody response.
Vaccinologists found out very early on as a way to do that is to add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine because your body associates the antigen with that toxic chemical. So vaccinologists started adding mercury to vaccines, which is the most neurotoxic element in the universe that it is not radioactive, and aluminum and squalene and stuff that is really, really bad.
Vaccinologists are not toxicologists. The two disciplines tend to hate each other. Vaccinologists don’t want anybody saying, “Well, what happens to the squalene or what happens to the aluminum or what happens to the mercury after it promotes that response? That vaccinologist gets his license from the response. He doesn’t care what’s going to happen to the mercury afterward.
Toxicologists were saying, “Wait a minute, what if it’s going into the brain? What if it’s going into these other organs? This is really bad stuff.”
With Gardasil, they had to use the most toxic substance that we know of that’s ever been put in a vaccine, which is something called AAHS. It’s a form of aluminum that immediately crosses the blood brain barrier and lodges in your brain. Studies indicates that AAHS stays there for decades, causing inflammation. But it is so toxic that it promotes a very, very durable antibody response.
Everybody believes that reason that all these girls are getting so horrendously sick and dying from Gardasil is because of the aluminum adjuvant.
When they did these studies, instead of giving 20,000 girls the vaccine and the other 20,000 girls a saline solution that looks like vaccine, which is what you’re supposed to do, they gave 10,000 girls the vaccine and 10,000 girls the pure adjuvant. Just a pure neurotoxin. Then they looked at what happened. And of course in the study group, nine of the girls died. In the aluminum group, nine died. So they said, “Okay, we’re okay. You know, it’s the same.”
Robyn: How is that ethical at all?
Robert F.: It’s not ethical, of course. And then in the study group, 2.3% of the girls got autoimmune disease within six months. But they said, “Hey, that’s okay. Because in the aluminum group, 2.3% got autoimmune diseases within six months.” That’s what they did, that’s the game they played.
If you buy a Gardasil vaccine, your chance of getting an autoimmune disease within the six months is a thousand times your chance of dying of cervical cancer. It’s one out of 40. One in 40 girls are going to get some autoimmune injury from the vaccine. And this is what their own studies show. Anybody can look this up. You just go to a vaccine insert and then look at table nine and it will show you.
If your doctor tries to get you or your daughter to take that vaccine, say to the doctor, “Wait a minute, look at the vaccine insert, table nine,” and then show it to them. It says 2.3% of the girls in the study got an autoimmune disease within six months. And ask your doctor, “Is it worth the risk with a one in 40 risk if you give me this vaccine? I have a one in 40 risk of getting autoimmune disease. If you don’t give me this vaccine, I have a one in 43,000 chance of dying of cervical cancer. Is that a good bet?”
Plus, many other effects of miscarriage rate, and premature ovarian failure. The fertility injuries to these girls are off the charts. The depression, the suicide rates, were off the charts.
If you looked at 2006 when this vaccine was then even population wide, we saw beginning that year an immediate and dramatic decline in fertility nationwide among teenage girls. And you can go to CNN and they’ll say, “It’s a mystery! Why is the fertility and fecundity rate dropped precipitously? Is it cell phones? Is it social media? What’s happening? Why is nobody having babies??
Nobody is asking the real question. 2006, that year it began dropping, that’s the year they gave them the vaccine, population-wide, that was demonstrated in its own clinical studies to destroy fertility.
There also the suicide rate; they’re saying this is the most depressed group of children we’ve ever seen. Beginning in 2006, suicide rates are off the chart, population-wide “What is it? Is it cell phones? Is it social media?” Again, nobody’s asking the obvious question. “Is it the Gardasil vaccine?”
I’m just telling you, if you’re attempting to give your kid a Gardasil vaccine, go to Children’s Health Defense website and look at my lecture on Gardasil, where I just take their own clinical studies and go through them panel by panels, slide by slide, and show you what happened. And nobody who watches that video would ever give their child that vaccine. It’s just poison. It’s a hoax. It’s dangerous.
I know we’re getting to the end of this. I just want to urge people to go to Children’s Health Defense, but also follow me on Instagram because that’s where I break a lot of the science-fic stories. Thank you so much for having me on the show.
Robyn: Thank you. Thank you so much for being with us, Robert F. Kennedy, jr.
Robert F.: Great, thank you.
Related Vibe episode: Ep. 112: How to Tell Good Research from Bad Research in Health Topics, Part 3 (of 3) with Robyn Openshaw
2 thoughts on “Ep.154: Talking Vaccine Safety and Efficacy with Activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”Leave a Comment
Only just listened to this. Very timely given the situation spring 2020. I so appreciate Robert F Kennedy’s commitment to all his work on behalf of the environment and of children’s health including on the vaccine issue. I’m so thankful for his willingness to say it how it is and Robyn for your giving space and support for this seriously important conversation.
Great interview… thank you for standing up for medical freedom!