Skip to content
The Joe Rogan ExperienceThe Joe Rogan Experience

Joe Rogan Experience #1999 - Robert Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an attorney, founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance and Children’s Health Defense, author, and 2024 candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America.  www.kennedy24.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.guestJoe Roganhost
Jun 27, 20243h 5mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 15:00

    (drumbeats) Joe Rogan podcast,…

    1. RJ

      (drumbeats) Joe Rogan podcast, check it out.

    2. JR

      The Joe Rogan Experience.

    3. NA

      Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. (instrumental music)

    4. JR

      I like them because they keep people from locking in, but one of the things I wanted to make sure, um, I did in this conversation is not interrupt you. (laughs) Because, uh, it's, it's very frustrating for me when, um, I'm, I'm hearing people talk in these, what should be long-form conversations about very important and nuanced things. And, y- you know, I think one of the things that happens is people are very concerned with letting you say things that is going to get them in trouble or get their channel in trouble. Like, there's, uh, there's people that are doing a lot of self-censoring, and I think they're doing that also when they're having these conversations with you, because they want to establish right away that they have problems with you, and they have problems with some of the positions that a lot of people have problems with. I was one of those people. So, (sighs) when I had heard of you in the past, before I had read your book and before I'd met you, I had no information on you. But there was this narrative, and this narrative was you were anti-vax and you bel- you believed in pseudoscience and you were kind of loony. I didn't look into it at all. I just took it at face value, because that's what everybody had said, and, uh, in my mind, vaccines have been one of the most important medical advancements in human history, saved countless lives, protected children, and I, I thought very strongly that they were important. I didn't have any information on that either. Th- this was also just a narrative that I adopted from, uh, c- cursory reading of news articles and, you know, not really getting into the subject at all. (sighs) Then the pandemic happens, and I had quite a few very reasonable, liberal people, rational people, people that I, I, I trusted their mind, recommend The Real Anthony Fauci, your book. And I'm like, "Robert Kennedy wrote a book about the, about Anthony Fauci? Like, what is this gonna be about?" This is my initial reaction. You've got this, what I perceive to be a kind of fringy-thinking, you know, almost conspiracy theorist type person that's not based in fact, what their argument was, and he had written a book on Anthony Fauci. And this was right around the time where I was w- you know, I was very concerned with the way things were going, that people were just blindly trusting that there was only one way out of this. That was, that was kind of bothering me, particularly when I had known that so many people had gotten the virus, had been fine. So I'm like, "Well, what is, what's the reality of this?" So then I read the book. (sighs) And I've talked about it multiple times on the podcast, but if what you were saying in that book was not true, I do not understand how you are not being sued. You, you, you would, uh, instantly, immediately be sued. The book was very successful. It sold a lot of copies, but it was mysteriously absent from certain, certain bestseller lists. People were a- not promoting that book at all, but through word of mouth and through the time that we live in, through this time where there was so much uncertainty and people were very confused and also suspicious. They were suspicious that they're being told a very, uh, a narrative, and they were starting to remember that, hey, this has happened in the past, these kind of narratives about medications. Th- these, they have happened in the past. They just never happened where this, like, the whole country is being convinced that this is the way to do it. So I read your book, and by the end of the book, it was so, it was so disturbing that sometimes I had to put it away and just read fiction for a few days. I was like, "I don't want this in my head right now." You know? Because a lot of, I listen on audio, and a lot of times I'm listening in the sauna, so I'm listening while I'm already getting tortured.

    5. RJ

      (laughs)

    6. JR

      So it's, it's (laughs) 185 degrees and I'm listening to this, this book that, if it's telling the truth, just about the AIDS crisis, just about the AIDS crisis, just about the use of AZT, just about, uh, th- all of it, all of it. Um, so I, I had, I'd seen numerous interviews with you and, you know, uh, you seemed very reasonable and very rational, and then I was like, "Is this possible that this is the guy that's telling the truth? Is this possible that everyone that I know that had these strong opinions of you, that most of them, at least, were like me? They had formed these opinions through th- uh, a glance at a headline, someone talking about you on a, on a, on a television show." And so, uh, and then we run into each other in Aspen. (laughs)

    7. RJ

      (laughs)

    8. JR

      Just randomly.

    9. RJ

      That was the weirdest moment, because we were both staring at each other.

    10. JR

      Yeah.

    11. RJ

      And then we almost did like a full 360.

    12. JR

      Yeah. Yeah.

    13. RJ

      (laughs)

    14. JR

      I, yeah, I noticed you walking. I'm like, "That's, yeah, it is." So I said, "Hey, what's up?" (laughs)

    15. RJ

      (laughs)

    16. JR

      So, um, so first of all, I wanted to ask you if you could just please explain how you got into these controversial positions in the first place. Why, how did you adopt these, these opinions that people find so controversial? Because you started out as, uh, an environmental guy, right?

    17. RJ

      Yeah. Yeah, and I, and I'll say one thing about that book is that it, um, it is depressing to read, and like, my wife could not read it. She, she was gonna read it out of loyalty to me, and I just said, "You can't do that," because it would have depressed her so much, you know? And I'm not, this is not a good advertisement for this book, but it's, you know, she...There's so much about documentation of corruption, and, you know, the sort of brutality towards children, and, and I didn't want her reading that. Her life is about making people laugh, making people joyful, you know, which is, which is its own contribution to kind of global health. You know, people who can make you laugh are, are doing you ... doing something for you that is gonna probably extend your lifetime. You look at, you know, I look at Norman Lear, you know, who's, like, 96 years old or whatever, and he, he's like, like, look like 50. And Carl Reiner and all these people who, you know, laugh with ... There's something about laughter that makes, you know, that is good for you. And, um, and so it i- you know, I admire anybody who, who took it on to read that whole book and, and made it through. I, uh, I was, uh, you know, kind of one of the leading environmentalists in the country. I, I founded ... I started ... I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River in 1983 when I first got sober, and I, um, I wanted to do something with my life that I, uh, you know, that I felt drawn to. And I'd always been an outdoorsperson. I'd always been a fisherman, and outdoors, w- wildlife, kayaking, and all that stuff. And I went to work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River. Uh, we began suing polluters. They purchased a patrol boat and began patrolling the river, and we sued ... I ... And while I was there, we sued over 500 polluters. We forced polluters to spend almost $5 billion on remediation of the Hudson. A- and today, you know, partially as a result of our work, the Hudson is now the richest waterway in the North Atlantic. It produces more biomass per gallon, more pounds of fish per acre than any other waterway in the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator. The miraculous resurrection of the Hudson of- when ... When, when I first started working on the Hudson, it caught fire. It was de- it was dead water, zero dissolved oxygen for 20 miles north of New York City, 20 miles south of Albany, no life in it.

    18. JR

      Wow.

    19. RJ

      Um, and so-

    20. JR

      It caught on fire? It was that polluted?

    21. RJ

      It caught fire. It would turn colors every week depending on what color they were painting the trucks at the GM plant in Tarrytown. You know, it was really ... My father toured it in 1967, and it was just ... It was regarded as a national joke. Well, today, it's an i- it's an international model for ecosystem protection and the miraculous resurrection it ... It's the only waterway in the North Atlantic that still has strong spawning stocks of all of its historical species, the migratory fish, some of the anadromous fish like striped bass, sturgeon, herring, alewives, um, blue crab, et cetera. Um, and the, uh ... And the miraculous resurrection of the Hudson inspired the creation of new Riverkeepers. We copyrighted the name, uh, and we started helping these other groups get started, and today it's the biggest water protection group in the world. So we have 350 Waterkeepers. Each one has a patrol boat. Each one patrols their local waterway, uh, and they sue polluters, and we're in 46 countries. So i- in 2005, I was representing a bunch of, uh, Waterkeepers all over the United States and in the provinces of Canada suing coal-burning power plants and cement kilns for discharging mercury. Two years before, ni- 2003, the, uh, National Academy of Sciences and the FDA had published a report, like a five-year study, that showed that every freshwater fish in America had dangerous levels of mercury in its flesh. The CDC simultaneously published a study that showed that one out of every six American women had levels high enough in her core blood in order that her child would have some kind of intellectual deficiency like lost IQ, et cetera. Um-

    22. JR

      And where's the mercury coming from?

    23. RJ

      The mercury was largely coming from coal-burning power plants. It's in the geology and the coal, and it precipitates out, you know, when there's rain. If you ... When you burn the coal, it's in the ... You know, it's an element, so it doesn't degrade. Uh, and when the rain comes, it falls onto the landscapes, and it washes off the landscapes into the rivers, and the fish were all contaminated. We know that saltwater fish, like the big predatory species, have mercury, but the freshwater fish are just as bad. And it struck me then that we were living in a science fiction nightmare where my children and the children of every other American could now no longer engage in the seminal primal activity of American youth that I had grown up with, of your parents taking you to the local fishing hole and then coming home and safely eating the fish. You can't do that anymore in the United States of America or anywhere in North America. And so we started suing coal plants and cement kilns, which were the primary contributor of mercury. And there were a lot of people suing coal plants back then, but they were suing them for other reasons, for ozone, uh, particulates, for acid rain, for, uh, for carbon, et cetera. And we were foc- uh, the W- the Waterkeepers were mainly focused on mercury. So I was also pushing legislation about mercury, lobbying, uh, EPA to, to reduce it, uh, and I was giving lectures all over the place. So these women start showing up at every lecture that I give, public lectures, and they would come and sit in the front seat, uh, occupy the front. They'd come early, occupy the front row, and then afterwards, they'd stay late, and they would ask to talk to me. And, um, they would say to me, in a ki- in a very respectful ... And by the way, when-These women were all very ... all looked kind of similar. They were very pulled together. They were, you know, chi- uh, they were women in child-bearing years. As it turns out, they were all the mothers of intellectually disabled children, and they believed that their children had been injured by the vaccines, by mercury in the vaccines. So, um, I, uh, uh, so they would say to me in kind of a, a respectful but vaguely scolding way, "If you're really interested in, uh, in mercury contamination to g- exposure to children, you need to look at the vaccines." Now, this is something I didn't wanna do 'cause I, you know, I ... first of all, I'm not a public health person. I wanted to do environmental stuff. Second of all, I'd been involved since I was a little kid in the whole area of intellectual disabilities. My family, it was part of the DNA of my family. My aunt had been in- intellectually disabled, my Aunt Rosemary. My Aunt Eunice Shriver, who was my godmother, founded Special Olympics in 1969, but she f- she was called ... before it was called Special Olympics, it was called Camp Shriver. She lived 10 minutes from my house, and I would go over there every weekend to be a hugger and a coach in Special Olympics. And then when I was in, uh, when I was in high school, because this was so much a part of my family DNA, I spent 200 hours in, what, say, a home for the retarded, um, you know, working, doing service. Um, so I ... but it wasn't something I wanted to do with my li- ... Other people in my family were devoting their lives to that. My cousin Anthony Shriver, uh, started Best Buddies, and, and many other people. My family had written a lot of the legislation that protected people and gave rights to people with intellectual disabilities. My father had kicked down the door and, um, you know, uh, of the, of the big ... of Willowbrook, which was the big hospital, uh, in Staten Island. So my family was deeply involved, but it was not what I wanted to do with my life. But these women kept g- s- c- continually, (laughs) I don't wanna say harassing me, but they were following me, and it was different ones at every speech. And one of them g- ... And I was like ... I, you know, I was ... I l- did enough research to show that the public health authorities were saying that they, these w- women were crazy. But they didn't look crazy to me. A- and they were rational. They weren't excitable. And they had done their research, and I was like, "I should be listening to these people. Even if they're wrong, somebody needs to listen to them." I mean, (laughs) you know? And by the way, I had, you know ... I'd worked on the Hudson River with the commercial fishermen, and I'd seen so many times

  2. 15:00 – 30:00

    What was the lie?…

    1. RJ

      when the scientists were wrong and the commercial fishermen were right about what was happening in the Hudson River. Um, I ... one time, I'll just give you an example, the, uh, this commercial fisherman came to me and said, "All the goldfl- fish are dying, um, up in the Wallkill Creek." And, and I went up, and they said, "Will you help us get to the ... because there's a new sewer plant up there that's discharging chlorine." It's hard to kill goldfish. Th- they're one of the most hardy species in the world. You can pour oil on a goldfish, and it won't do anything. It won't hurt it. And, um, I went up to, uh, to the Department of ... Department of Conservation, and they said, "There are no goldfish in the Hudson River." Well, these were people who I'd watched them catch goldfish in the Hudson. So anyway, that was just par- part of the background of my, you know, little bit of skepticism about government scientists, that they're not always right, that sometime you have to listen to people, and that human experience is valid, and that if a woman tell ... uh, all ... if a woman tells you something about her child, you need ... you should listen. And so, (laughs) then one of these women came to my home, and f- she found my home in Hyannisport, had a little bungalow, and her name was Sarah Bridges. She was a psychologist from Minnesota, and she found my home. She came to it. She put, uh ... she took out of the trunk of her car a pile of scientific studies that was 18 inches thick. She put it on my front porch, my stoop, and then she rang the bell, and then she pointed to that pile, and she said, "I'm not leaving here 'til you read those." And her ... as it turns out, her son, Porter Bridges, had been a perfectly healthy kid, got a battery of, of vaccines when he was two, and lost the ability to speak. He lost the ability to, um ... he lost his toilet training. Um, he began head-banging and engaging in other stereotypical behavior like, uh, uh, stimming, uh, hand-flapping, toe-walking, and got an au- autism diagnosis, and the vaccine court had awarded her $20 million for acknowledging that the child had gotten autism from the vaccines. And she didn't want it to happen to other kids, and so I started ... I sat down with this pile of studies, and I'm used to reading science. I'm very comfortable reading it. I wanted to be a scientist when I was a little kid, and my life, my legal career, has been about science. It's, you know ... virtually all the d- uh, the cases that I've been f- involved with, hundreds and hundreds of cases, almost all of them involve some scientific controversy. And so, I'm comfortable with reading science and w- and I know how to read it critically. I know how to look for the flaws in it and, you know, how to weigh the, the, uh, uh, a- a- attribute weight to various studies, et cetera. And I sat down while she was there, and I read through the abstracts of these studies one after the other, and, uh, b- before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta.... between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer-reviewed published science was saying. Then I took the next step, which is I started calling people, high-level public officials. And I had access to everyone. I called Francis Collins. I called Marie McCormick, who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences. I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences, who was the chief staffer, and I was a- asking her about these studies. A- and I realized during these conversations that none of these people had read any of the science. They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science. And then, and they kept saying to me, "Well, I can't answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit." Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine. And i- it would be, it was odd to me that government regulators were saying, "You should talk to somebody in the industry." It's like if I, you know... I used to talk to EPA people all the time, asking them, "What does, what does this provision mean in the permit? Why did you put it in there?" And if they said to me, "I don't know, why don't you go talk to the coal industry?" Or s- this lobbyist for the coal industry, and he will tell you what we're doing, I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indignant. What was weird to me that the, the top regulators in the country were telling me, "Go talk to somebody who's an industry insider 'cause we don't understand the science." And when I talked to him, I caught him in a lie, and both of us knew that he was lying. And that, and that both of us recognized, uh, th- that he was lying. And at that point, I was like-

    2. JR

      What was the lie?

    3. RJ

      Well, I asked him this question. I said, "Why is it that CDC a- and, and every state, um, regulator recommends that, um, that pregnant women do not eat tuna fish to avoid the mercury, but that CDC is recommending mercury-containing flu shots with huge bolus doses of mercury, I mean, massive doses, to pregnant women in every trimester of pregnancy?" And he said to me, he said, um, "Well, Bobby," in this kind of patronizing way... And by the way, when I talked to Paul Offit, he started the conversation, he was very enthusiastic, and he said, you know, "My, your father was my hero. The reason I got into public service and public health was because I was inspired by your father." So that kind of ... You know, I'm susceptible, like anybody else, to kind of that kind of flattery. So I was inclined to like the guy. But then he said this... (laughs) I asked him about, "How can you be, you know, telling people not to eat, w- to, women not to eat tuna fish, but giving them a flu shot that has, you know, these huge doses?" And he said, "Well, Bobby, there are, there's two kinds of mercury. There's a good mercury, and there's a bad mercury." And the minute he said... And I knew there's a different kind of mercury in the vaccines. It's e- it's ethyl mercury in the vaccines and methylmercury in the fish. But I know a lot of... By then, you can imagine, I know a lot about mercury. I've been suing people. When you sue somebody on... You get a PhD in that. You know more than anybody in the world. You have to or you're not gonna win your lawsuit. So I knew a lot about mercury, and I knew that his argument was not with me, but it was with the periodic tables, because there's no such thing as a good mercury. And I also knew the history of why he was saying that. Because, y- you know, m- mercury was added to vaccines in a form called thimerosal in 1932. And Eli Lilly, which was the manufacturer, was... Because people knew then that mercury was horrendously neurotoxic. Mercury is a thousand times more neurotoxic than lead. Wh... You would never get, shoot lead into your baby.

    4. JR

      Why was thimerosal introduced in the first place?

    5. RJ

      It was allegedly introduced as a preservative, but it doesn't kill, uh, it doesn't kill, uh, Streptococcus or any of the other contaminants you would be worried about. In fact, it kills brain cells at 1/30 the dose that it takes to kill a Streptococcus or Staphylococcus. Staphylococcus. So, it wasn't a good preservative. Why? What... NIH admitted to me in 2016 the real reason it was there is an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a, a toxic material that they add to dead virus vaccines to amplify the, um, the immune response. So your body, w- when, I mean, this is kind of getting into the weeds, but a live virus vaccine, if they give it to you, it can spread the disease. It can mutate in you and spread the disease. That's why most of the polio today, 70% of the polio today, is vaccine polio that came from the vaccines. Um, but, so the regulators expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines. A dead virus vaccine, however, will not produce a durable or robust immune response enough to get a license. The way you get a license for a vaccine is showing that you got a, an antibody response for a certain amount of time and that it's a strong antibody response. But the dead virus vaccine won't produce that. Vaccineologists figured out that if you add something horrendously toxic to the vaccine, that your body confuses that toxic product. A- you add it with the dead antigen, which is the viral particle, the- your body confuses that toxin with the viral particle and gets frightened and mounts this huge, humongous immune response. The next time it sees that virus-... the, the, the immune response is there. So they... At that point, vaccinologists went around, searching around the world to find the most horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines.

    6. JR

      Jesus Christ.

    7. RJ

      And there's a mantra in vaccinology that the more toxic the, uh, the adjuvant, the more robust the immune response. And so, that's why toxicologists and vaccinologists don't get along with each other. 'Cause the toxicologist would say to the vaccinologist, "Well, I understand it gave you your immune response, but then what is the fate of that in your body? Wh- where is it going? Is it being excreted? Is it being lodged in the brain? What... Is it penetrating the blood-brain barrier?" And the, the vaccinologists could not answer those questions, and did not want to. So they basically moved the toxicologists out of these, (laughs) you know, out of the vaccine, whole, (laughs) the whole vaccine universe. Anyway, what... Um, so when it was added in 1932, the industry said, Eli Lilly said, um, "Well, the reason..." Because everybody was saying, "W- how can you put mercury into a child? Who would do that?" And they said, "Well, it's a different kind of mercury. It's ethylmercury, and the ethylmercury is excreted very quickly, so it won't stay in your body." They had no science to say that, but that's what they were saying for years. And then, in 2003, a CDC scientist called Pichero did a study where he gave tuna sandwiches that were mercury, you know, contaminated to children. And they... And then measured their blood, and the mercury from the tuna sandwich was there, half-life 64 days later. So it was still there 64 days. And he injected the children with mercury from a vaccine, and that mercury disappeared from their blood within a week. And this kind of confirmed what Eli Lilly had said in 1932, "Oh, it disappears really quickly from the body." And that was published, I, I believe, in the Lans- Lancet Pediatrics. But immediately, the journal began getting letters from people, including this famous scientist called Dr. Boyd Haley, who was the head of, he was the chair of that chemistry department of the University of Kentucky. And he said, "What, but what happened to the mercury?" 'Cause Pichero couldn't find it in the children's urine or in their feces or in their hair or sweat or nails. So where is it? And then, and NIH actually then commissioned a study. And they, because they, at that point, they were really trying to figure out, you know, whether this was dangerous. And they commissioned a very famous scientist called Thomas Burbacker up at the University of Washington, Seattle, to do a study with monkeys, with macaques. And he did the same study Pichero did, but he did something you can't do with children, which, he then killed the monkeys. And then he looked for the mercury. And what he found was, the mercury, yes, it left their blood immediately. Uh, the ethylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week. Methylmercury from the tuna fish was there two month- uh, a month later, two months later. (clears throat) But when he sacrificed the monkeys and did postmortems, he found that the mercury had not left their body. Instead, the reason it was disappearing from their blood is because ethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier much easier than mer- methylmercury. The ethylmercury from the vaccines was going directly to the brains of these animals, and it was lodging there and causing severe inflammation. And, um, and, you know, we now know it's there 20 years later. So, um, what... You know, so the, so when Burback- when Offit, when I'm on the phone with Offit and I said... He said, "The ethylmercury is excreted quickly." And I said, "How do you know that?" A- and he said, "Because the Pichero study," uh, because the study by, uh, by Pichero found that it was excreted quick- in a week. And I said, "But, uh, you're familiar with the Burbacker study that showed in that it's gone to the brain." And there was dead silence on the phone. And then he said to me, he kind of hemmed and hawed and said, "Well, you're right. Uh, it's not that study, it's just a whole mosaic of studies." And I said, "Can you cite any for me?" And he said, "I'll send them to you," and he never did, and that's the last I heard from him. So at, at that point, I knew there was something wrong. And then somebody handed me a transcript of a secret meeting, um, that took place in 1999 in, in... I think it was 1999. It might have been 2000. But it was called, it's called the Simpson-Wood meeting. And, and what happened is, i- in the mid-19... You know, uh, I mean, the, the history is that in 1986... Well, I'll go back a little further. In 1980, bl- '79 and '80, when I was a kid, I only had three vaccines.

    8. JR

      Mm-hmm.

    9. RJ

      My kids got 72 vaccines. That's what you need now to get through school is 72 doses of 16 vaccines. So, and it started changing in the '80s and '90s, but in, in late 1979, they, uh, they brought out a, a vaccine called the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine. And that vaccine was very dangerous, and it was killing one out of... Killing or giving severe brain damage to one in 300 kids, and it was pulled in the United States. It was pulled in Europe, and it... But Bill Gates still gives it to 161 million

  3. 30:00 – 45:00

    The same vaccine? …

    1. RJ

      African children every year.

    2. JR

      The same vaccine?

    3. RJ

      The same vaccine, and to South Asian kids. And I'll, I'll tell you, you know, we now know what that does, because the Danish government did a study, uh, called Morgensen in 2017 that showed that...... African kids, and that's, that's, uh, published in a journal called eBioPharma. And, uh, it was done by the leading deities of, of, of African vaccinology, all of them pro-vaccine. People like Peter Aeby, whose name is very famous, Sigrid Morgensen and a bunch of others. And they went to Africa and looked at that va-... They had 30 years of data. And Gates had gone to the, uh, Danish government and said, you know, "Give us m- money because we've saved millions of lives with this vaccine in Africa." And the Danish government said, "Can you show us the data?" And he couldn't. So they went to Guinea-Bissau, which is a, a country in the west of Africa. In Guinea-Bissau, uh, the Danes, for 30 years, had been paying for these, these very advanced, uh, health clinics, local health clinics all over Guinea-Bissau. And the c- the clinics were g- were weighing every child at three months and every ch- and at six months. And, uh, the... In the '80s, they began... Or '90s, they began, um... Or the '80s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, three-month visit. But if they didn't hit the child exactly... If they didn't have a full 90 days, uh, you know, of age, if they were 89 days, they wouldn't give it to them at the six-month visit. As it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the kids were vaccinated and half the kids were not, between two months and five months of age. So it was a perfect natural experiment. And, and they went in there and they looked at it, and they looked at 30 years of data, and they found the girls who got that vaccine, the DTP vaccine, had, um, had, uh, uh, 10 times... Were 10 times more likely to die over the next three months than girls... Than children who did not. And they, they weren't dying of diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis. They were protected against those by the vaccine. They were dying of anemia and bilharzia and malaria and pulmonary disease, m- mainly they were dying of pneumonia. And what the researchers said is that the vaccine is almost certainly killing more children than diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the vaccine because it was protecting them against the target illnesses, but it had ruined their immune systems, so they could not defend themselves against these other minor infections.

    4. JR

      Ah.

    5. RJ

      And nobody noticed for 30 years that it was the vaccinated children who were disproportionately dying. And that's the problem with not doing, you know, real placebo-controlled trials. None of the vaccines ha- are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials. It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure. Anyway, what ha- happened in... The DTP vaccine wa-... When it was pulled in this country, it was pulled 'cause so many people were suing the drug companies. Wyeth, which is now Pfizer, was the primary manufacturer. They went to the Reagan administration in 1986, uh, and they said, um, "Y- you need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines, or we're gonna get out of the business." And Reagan actually said to them, "Why, why don't..." They said, "We're losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we're making in profits." And Reagan said to them, "Well, why don't you make the vaccine safe?" And they said, "'Cause vaccines are unavoidably unsafe." That's the phrase they used, and that, uh, phrase is in the statute. And it's also in the Bruzewitz case, which is the Supreme Court decision upholding that statute. And so anybody t- who tells you vaccines are safe... And the fact that the industry itself got, uh, immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

    6. JR

      Now, the argument against that would obviously be they've prevented disease that would have killed untold numbers of children. Right? That would be the argument they would use against that.

    7. RJ

      Exactly. And that, and that vaccine injuries are very rare. That is the argument that is used against them. And both of those arguments, in CDC's own studies, have been severely challenged. So the CDC did a study in 2010 called Lazarus, and it was Harvard scientists, um, who looked at one of the HMOs, the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, which is one of the top HMOs. Um, it's actually, I think, the ninth-biggest HMO. But, uh, and they were testing a machine counting system that could do a cluster analysis. Because right now, the, the only way... The only vaccine injury surveillance system they have doesn't work. It's one in... One out of... Fewer than 1 in 100 vaccine injuries are ever reported 'cause it's voluntary. And this i- is what you can... You can find support for this in the Lazarus study. Lazarus actually looked and said, "How many injuries are actually happening? How many were reported?" And they said fewer than o-... Uh, fewer than 1 in 100 are ever reported. And they developed a system of machine counting so that it doesn't rely on voluntary reporting. What you do is you look at all the vaccine records for a population and all of the medical claims, the subsequent medical claims, and you do machine counting. You do a cluster analysis. A- and you... It's very, very accurate. And they found... The CDC at that time was saying one out of a million people were being injured by the vaccine. They found it 1 in 37. A- and so... And, and CDC had asked this team to design a machine counting system because their, their system was so heavily criticized by everybody. David Kessler, who was the surgeon general, everybody was saying, "It, it's terrible. It doesn't work." And Congress had told them, "You have to accurately count vaccine injuries," and they weren't doing it. So when they did it-When they actually looked, they found that it's not one in a million, it's one in 37 kids had, you know, had potential vaccine claims. Now you can't tell whether any of those claims were actually from the vaccine because it's a machine counting, so it's statistical. But you can say, uh, that the n- number of injuries is much higher than anybody was admitting. Um, and then in, uh, the year 2000, CDC did a study with Johns Hopkins called Guyer because there, there was this emerging claim that vaccines had saved tens of millions of lives around the world. H- and I'm not gonna tell you that they don't because nobody should trust my word on this, you know. My, what I say is irrelevant. What, what is relevant is the science. And this is the, the principal effort by CDC to actually verify that claim. And what the Guyer study ... And they looked at all the, um, you know, the history of each vaccine and health claims, and what they were trying to say is there, there was this huge decline in, uh, infectio- in, uh, mortalities from infectious disease that took place in the 20th century, a- an 80% drop in deaths from infectious disease. A- and what caused that wasn't vaccines. And what they said is now it wa- it had very little, m- almost nothing to do with vaccines. The real drop happened because of, um, really engineering solutions, um, uh, refrigerators, how you could store food, transportation systems that would get oranges up from Florida, et cetera, roads, um, better housing, sanitation, the invention of chlorine, sewage treatment, but mainly nutrition. Nutrition is absolutely critical at building immune systems. And so, um, what was really killing the- these children was malnutrition, and, you know, it was the, this infectious disease that was kind of knocking them off at the end. But the real cause of death was malnutrition and a collapsed immune system, and that is what the Guyer study says. Now, you, anybody who's listening to this, you know, you can go look at this study, so don't blame me and don't say, you know, "Kennedy is in denial." This is the only time CDC ever looked at this, and it's called G-U-Y-E-R. It's published, as I recall, in Pediatrics, and it's, and it's, uh, CDC and NIA and, um, uh, Johns Hopkins in the year 2000. And, um, I believe the study is true and that it, it ... And it's borne out by many, many others. There's another study from 1977 called, um, McGinley and McGinley, and it was, uh, uh ... And that study also said that fewer than 1% of the decline in, uh, infectious mortality deaths could be attributed to vaccines. So ... And that, that study was required reading in almost every medical school in this country until the mid-1980s. So anyway, that ... I'm just saying that that orthodoxy that you just described, um, it's, it's not an orthodoxy that should be accepted on faith. People should actually look at it. And when they have, it has not borne up. I'll just finish this story and I'll try to be brief. Um, in ... Because what? Because Reagan f- caved in and it wasn't just Reagan, it was the Democrats. My uncle was th- chairing the Health Committee at that time, and the Democrats also went along. They passed the Vaccine Act in 1986, and the Vaccine Act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies if you ... For any injury for negligence. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the ingredient, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, you, your vaccine company, you cannot be sued. So this was a huge gift for this industry because the, the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities. And all of a sudden, those had disappeared. So you're not only t- taking away that cost, but you're als- ... And incentivizing the production of many new vaccines. You're also disincentivizing, you're removing the incentive to, to make them safe because they're ... No matter how dangerous there are, they don't care because they, they can't be sued. A- and then ... But you may say, "Well, if they're really dangerous, then, uh, nobody's gonna buy them." But the problem with that is nobody has a choice. So they not only got rid of the, the downstream liability, but they don't have any advertising or marketing costs because the federal government is ordering 76 million people, essentially ordering 76 million kids to take the product a year. If you can get that on the schedule, it's like printing a billion dollars for you. And so there was a gold rush. And then the other thing is they're, they are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing. They don't have to be tested, and they're not. And I said this for many, many years, you know, I said not one of these 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo-controlled trial where you're looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and looking for ... At, at health outcomes. Never been done. A- and, um, Tony Fauci was saying, "He's lying. He's not telling the truth. This is vaccine misinformation." In 2016, Donald Trump asked me to serve on a vaccine safety commission, and I agreed to do it. And I ... And he then ordered Fauci and Collins to meet with me and, you know, Peter Marks at FDA and all the ... So I had meetings with all these guys. And I actually went into that meeting with Fauci, with, uh, uh, with three people. One was Del Bigstream, another one was Aaron Seré, the attorney, and another one was Lynne Redwood, who's a, you know, a very, very famous nurse practitioner, public health, um, official in Georgia. And during that meeting ... And there was a referee there from the White House, from the West Wing.And I said to Fauci, I give kind of a lecture showing what we knew. And I said to him, in the middle of it, I had a PowerPoint. I said, "Tony, you have said any..." By the way, uh, you know, he's known my family forever, and, you know, my uncle is Chair of the Health Committee, writing his salary every year, everything else like that. So, and, you know, and very cooperative relationship with him. The, the, the, two of the centers at NIH are named for members of my family, for Eunice Shriver and my aunt, my grandmother. So, I, you know, I said to him, "Tony, you've said, been telling people I'm a liar. When I say no vaccine has ever been, not, none of the, um, mandated vaccines ha- or what they call recommended, they're actually mandated in many of the states." I said, "None of them have ever been tested against, uh, in a placebo-controlled trial and a safety test prior to, to licensure." And I said, "Can you show me one vaccine that has been subject to a safety test? Show me one study that shows that." And he made it this show of looking through a red well. They had brought in from NIH this big tray full of file folders and he made a, a show of kind of looking through that at the time, but he couldn't find whatever he was looking for. So then he said, "It's back in NIH in Bethesda and I'll send it to you." Well, he never did. So Erin and I sued him, sued HHS and, and said, "Show us one study that's ever been done on, you know, pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines." And after a year of stone- stonewalling, they finally gave us a letter and said, "We don't have any." So they don't, they literally don't have any. So nobody knows what the risk profile for these products are. So they're telling people they, they, uh, they avert more harms than they saw- than they cause. But there's no science behind that statement. It's just a, you know, it's just a guesswork. Yeah.

    8. JR

      But it's an amazingly effective narrative. And that narrative, the way it's spread through this country, like I said-

    9. RJ

      Yes.

    10. JR

      ... it has gotten me and I think it gets a lot of people, in that people are terrified of being called an anti-vaxxer. It's a, it's a very dismissive pejorative.

  4. 45:00 – 1:00:00

    Yeah. …

    1. JR

      It's a very bad term. And if someone calls you, they're like, "Oh, he's one of those."

    2. RJ

      Yeah.

    3. JR

      And it's, it's kind of amazing what they've done, especially in a world where we're very aware of the side effects that were hidden from the public with other drugs, whether it's opiates or whether it's Vioxx or... We're very aware that deception has taken place. But for this one, for whatever reason, that one, I, I think maybe it has to do with protecting children, because good parents who don't, you know, they, they want to trust science and they want to think that medical science is the reason why people live so well today, and a lot of that's true. But they want to think that it's all connected and that they know what they're doing. So if they say you're supposed to get 72 shots, you should get 72 shots, 'cause they, they really know.

    4. RJ

      Yeah.

    5. JR

      And everybody just assumes that.

    6. RJ

      And everybody... And you think your doctor did the research, but he didn't.

    7. JR

      Yeah.

    8. RJ

      And you're absolutely right about the opioids. I mean, that, there's many, many other, um, examples, but the opioids is a good one, because if anybody goes and looks at that, at, on, that Netflix documentary Dopesick.

    9. JR

      Yeah.

    10. RJ

      That documentary-

    11. JR

      It's Hulu, right?

    12. RJ

      What?

    13. JR

      Is it Hulu?

    14. RJ

      Is it Hulu?

    15. JR

      Is that Hulu?

    16. RJ

      So, that-

    17. JR

      I don't know what it is. Sorry.

    18. RJ

      ... documentary shows how this, you know, the, all of these subtle, uh, forces that lead to agency capture and the, and the, um, and the, uh, this collusion, this corrupt collusion between the industry and the regulator later... 'Cause it was the regulator who agreed to put on the label, it was FDA who agreed to put on the label, "It's safe and effective and it's not addictive." You know, about oxycodone.

    19. JR

      Which is crazy.

    20. RJ

      And, right? And everybody knew it was addictive. You had the entire medical community who said, "Oh, we must've been wrong, 'cause FDA says it's safe and effective." Well, you can imagine if they did that for vaccines and then you saw what they did in COVID, you know, and, and they had to continually change the goal posts. "It prevents transmission if you get it. Uh, grandma won't get sick." And, you know, um, and each time, "It won't, you'll never get sick," you know, "You only have to take one. It's, it's really effective." And then now it's two, and that's it, and now it's three, and now it's four. And, um, you know, and that, uh, and each time they had to move the goal posts and everybody just would go along with the next claim without ever saying, "But wait a minute. Y- you know, why should we trust you now? Because you were, uh, you know, you were saying with such..." And by the way, the defense is, well, they were, we're in the middle of a pandemic and they had to act quickly. But, um, and, you know, they had to sort of do some guesswork? But they were saying it was such assurance and they were punishing, uh, doctors of conscience who began questioning them. They were ruining their careers, they were destroying their reputations, they were taking away their livelihoods of scientists and doctors. People who were getting injured, they were, um, you know, they were marginalizing, vilifying, gaslighting them and urging others to do the same. You know, getting on TV and saying, "If you didn't do this, you're a bad person and you shouldn't be treated when you go to a hospital." You know, and all of these things, which is not... Uh, something was won- you know, something was really wrong.

    21. JR

      But it's, it seems to be the same pattern over and over again. It's just bizarre that it takes so long to get the narrative out to people that when...You get a corporation, any corporation, just any group of people that can make money unchecked, it seems to be a, a normal, human characteristic that they do that. When they're-

    22. RJ

      Yeah.

    23. JR

      ... unregulated or unchecked, or when someone's not watching them, or when the people that are watching them are compromised, and then, if you are literally funding media, so you're funding all these shows by ... and they have to essentially self-censor, and you're seeing it, I'm sure you're aware of the YouTube videos of yourself that have been pulled now. You know, um, the Hotbox-

    24. RJ

      I-

    25. JR

      ... boxing with Mike Tyson got pulled, uh, Theo Von's podcast-

    26. RJ

      Theo got-

    27. JR

      ... you got pulled.

    28. RJ

      Theo called me and, you know, really worried and apologetic for saying, 'cause I was gonna go on his show again, and he said, "I'm worried about having you on my show." And this is just two weeks ago.

    29. JR

      And what was ... Well, he's probably worried about getting another strike from YouTube.

    30. RJ

      Yeah.

  5. 1:00:00 – 1:15:00

    55. …

    1. RJ

      six years later, six year- they ... By, by the way, um, there were four corrections, I think four or five corrections in the article in the next week, right? All of those corrections were made by the ar- the editors of Salon and Rolling Stone, and I ... They've sent me letters, which are also on our website, saying this. None by me. Um, but from then on, they said, "Oh, Kennedy, it was loaded with mistakes." Then six years later, Salon, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, takes it down and says, "We found mistakes in it." But they never s- showed any mistakes. They would nev- have never ... I've said repeatedly to them, "Show me one mistake in that published piece. Show me one." And they have not been able to do it. And then they also forget that the four mistakes that they f- that, you know, were found that, you know, that, uh, that we printed errata for, that Rolling Stone printed errata for, um, were all made by them.And then, because they edited my 16,000-word piece down to a 3,000-word piece. And when they were doing that, they made some errors. Um, so then, uh, so then, um, you ... But wha- what, what happened after that is you had this explosion in chronic disease. So, the, so ... And this is something everybody ... This is a mo- this is a punchline. And this is what everybody needs to focus on. In 1960s, when I was a kid, 6% of Americans had chronic disease. What do I mean by chronic disease? Basically three categories, plus obesity. One, neurological disorders. ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism. Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation ... It's still one in 10,000 in my generation. I, uh ... How old are you?

    2. JR

      55.

    3. RJ

      55. Well, I bet that you've never met anybody with full-blown autism your age. You know, head-banging, football, or a helmet on, non-toilet tr- trained, non-verbal. I mean, in my ... I've never met anybody like that my age. But in my kids' age, now one in every 34 kids has f- has autism, and a half of those are full-blown, meaning that description.

    4. JR

      Now, what's the conventional explanation for that?

    5. RJ

      Well, th- I mean, th- i- there, there's no real explanation. You know, they-

    6. JR

      But how do they try to explain?

    7. RJ

      They, they try to say, "Well, we're just noticing it more," which is ridiculous because first of all, there's all kinds of studies that say that the ... You know, really good studies like, uh, Irva H- Irva Hertz-Picciotto is a very famous scientist, epidemiologist, biostatistician who was commissioned by the California State Legislature to answer that question. She's at the UC, uh, at, at the MIND Institute at UC Davis, and she came back and said, "No, the e- the epidemic is real. It's not, you know, better diagnostic or changing diagnostic criteria." And so, and that ... You know, the ... Any real scientist now, even the big backers like Paul Offit won't, I don't think even he will say that. But nobody from CDC is actually gonna stand up and say that. They certainly won't debate the point. But even more so, wha- if th- if it's one, if th- if it's not an epidemic, then where are all ... Where are the one in 34 69-year-old men who are wearing helmets and non-toilet trained? And, uh, you know, if y- if you've got autism, you live for- forever. It doesn't affect lifespan. You're gonna ... These kids are gonna be around forever. And they ... And ... But there's nobody my age who looks like that. So i- if it was, if it was really better recognition, you'd see it in every age group, not just in children. A- and not only that, but it changes every year. It gets worse and worse every year, so they can't keep saying, "Oh, we're just noticing it for the first time." A- and also, you know, I want to-

    8. JR

      How does it get worse every year?

    9. RJ

      What?

    10. JR

      How does it get worse every year?

    11. RJ

      Because, you know, the, the c- the CDC releases new data. It's called the, uh ... I think it's an ADM. It's a mo- it's a monitoring system. And there's been all kinds of scandals with that 'cause the CDC tries to manipulate the data. And there's all kinds of whistleblowers from the different states who say that they're pressured to not report cases and that kind of thing. So ... But the CDC releases new data every year, and every year, it gets worse. It's g- it goes from ... You know, it's now, I think, one in 22 boys.

    12. JR

      Has the rate of, uh, vaccinations changed? Uh, has, has the schedule changed?

    13. RJ

      Yeah, the rates of vaccinations have gone up. And, uh, you know, the, the mercury has been removed from a lot of the vaccines. But it, there's aluminum in those vaccines, which, you know, operates, uh, along the same, uh, biological pathways and does the same kind of damage. It's extremely neurotoxic. And then there's other things, lots of other toxics in the vaccines that, you know, uh, could be responsible. Th- I mean, there's lots. There's hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies that looked at it, but nobody ever reports them. Uh, I did a book in which I, I, I have, uh, 450 studies that are digested in that book, you know, that I summarize and cite. And 1,400 references. And everybody will say, "Oh, there's no study that shows autism and, and vaccines are connected." That's just crazy. You know, it's ... That's people who are not looking at science. So anyway, if-

    14. JR

      Wh- but they want to say that. They wanna say that. It's like-

    15. RJ

      Well, uh, it, it's just part of the religion.

    16. JR

      It, it, it's ... Yes.

    17. RJ

      Right? (laughs)

    18. JR

      That's exactly what it is.

    19. RJ

      Yeah.

    20. JR

      It really does seem like a, like a religion.

    21. RJ

      And, and the heretics have to be burned at the stake.

    22. JR

      Yes.

    23. RJ

      They have to be humiliated, silenced, destroyed.

    24. JR

      Yes.

    25. RJ

      Oh, it, it is, it ... You know, trust in, the trust the experts is not a function of science.

    26. JR

      Yeah.

    27. RJ

      That's the opposite of science. Tru- trust, trusting the experts i- is a function of religion. It's not an, an ... Totalitarianism. It's not-

    28. JR

      Well, especially-

    29. RJ

      ... a function of science or democracy. You know, in democracies, you question people in authority and e- and, and maintain a posture of skepticism toward 'em. The same is true in science. You don't trust the experts.

    30. JR

      Right. But-

  6. 1:15:00 – 1:26:47

    That it does? …

    1. NA

      I don't know about how, but I think-

    2. JR

      That it does?

    3. NA

      ... found ... I mean, I don't ... I found an article. I was trying to find the validity of it, but it has a statement on here that-

    4. JR

      "Damages the blood-brain barrier. Radio frequency radiation exposure has been shown to affect the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, as well as altering the expression of microRNA within the brain, which researchers state could lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative disease." Whoa. How come we don't know that?

    5. NA

      Uh, there's a doctor that did a study and said that it's been expanded on researches in China, and there's a published article here, but I was looking around at the page, and ...

    6. RJ

      Eh, they call it leaky brain.

    7. JR

      "The fi- findings were followed by suppression, misinformation, and a shutdown of government-funded-"

    8. RJ

      Yeah.

    9. JR

      "... research in the United States."

    10. RJ

      Yeah. It's the same. It's same play.

    11. JR

      Oh, we gotta get rid of Wi-Fi.

    12. NA

      Mm-hmm.

    13. JR

      What the fuck, Jamie?

    14. NA

      (laughs)

    15. RJ

      I ...

    16. JR

      (laughs)

    17. RJ

      It's a hard time, this place.

    18. NA

      Pretty cool, though.

    19. JR

      Yeah. Oh, my God. That's terrifying.

    20. RJ

      Anyway, so, but I'm not ... I don't know. You know, I can't tell you where the chronic disease epi- ... I mean, I think it's probably cumulative, you know?

    21. JR

      There's a lot going on.

    22. RJ

      There's a lot going on.

    23. JR

      So, it's not just one corporate.

    24. RJ

      Our- our kids are swimming around in a toxic soup, but, you know, we're now up to m- more than 54% of kids now have chronic disease. And- and, you know- uh, you know, I mean, one of the things- r- reasons I wanna be president is to end that, of NIH actually doing studies like this rather than suppressing them. And let's figure out what it is, why kids have chronic disease, and end it. It's costing us ... I mean, we had, during COVID, we had ... We have 4.2% of the global population. We had 16% of the COVID deaths. Uh, and that's probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of the reasons has gotta be the- the burden that we have of chronic disease in our country. And we spend $4.3 trillion on healthcare every year in this country. 80% of that goes to chronic disease. Oh, it's- you know, it's bankrupting us.

    25. JR

      I wanted to talk to you about glyphosate 'cause y- you brought it up. And, um, one of the things I noticed when ... There- there was a test that came out or a study that came out recently that showed that an enormous percentage of Americans, uh, somewhere in the 90% range, uh, when they were tested had glyphosate in their blood. And then I saw a bunch of apologists online that were saying that these numbers that they're used to detect are so minuscule. And then someone I talked to said, "Yes, but that is the average." So, you're gonna get some people that are exposed to tremendous amounts and that- that it could be toxic levels. Then some people who are exposed to very, very little, this is the average. But there's no data on ... Is there data on long-term, even low-dose glyphosate in your system? 'Cause it ... They're-

    26. RJ

      There- there is-

    27. JR

      Glyphosate, we should- we should just tell people, is Roundup.

    28. RJ

      Yeah, glyphosate is the- is the active ingredient of Roundup. And Roundup, um, was used ... I mean, when we sued Monsanto, there's a- it ... there's a l- uh, there's many, many diseases that are linked to glyphosate exposure, uh, including, um, uh, non-alcoholic fatty liver cancers are very, very closely linked. Um, a lot of kidney diseases, uh, and then severe damage to the microbiome, um, because it's designed to kill plants. Uh, um, uh, uh, uh, and- and it ... And- and there are- there are structures in your, um, in your gut biome that are critical structures in your gut biome, uh, which have plant-like metabolisms, which are destroyed by glyphosate. And so, uh, you know, what- what happened is, um, glyphosate ... And glyphosate was a ... It was originally developed as a- as a, uh, tank scalant, so to- to scale the calcif- calcium and other deposits, metal deposits, rust deposits from the inside of-... you know, underground tanks. And in 1973, uh, Monsanto had to stop producing DDT, because, you know, we passed the laws at that time, and it, that was its flagship product. It needed another product, and it figured out that, um, glyphosate, somebody at some point apparently threw some glyphosate on the, you know, out in the back, in the yard, and everything green died where they touched it, where it touched the gr- glyphosate. And so, somebody said, "Oh, this will be a good herbicide 'cause it kills all plants." Originally, Monsanto developed it as a, uh, as a, uh, as a herbicide, but the way that it was applied ar- initially from 1973 to 1993 was in backpack sprayers. So guys would walk down the cornfield, cornrows early in the season when the corn was competing with nearby weeds for sunlight, and they would shoot the individual weeds. And then in '93, somebody d- figured out a way that, that glyphosate, uh, there, there were certain bacteria that glyphosate would not kill, and they said, "We could take a gene out of that bacteria and put it into a corn seed, and develop a corn that cannot be killed by glyphosate." So they developed Roundup Ready corn, and that corn, you can pour glyphosate all over it and it will do nothing to it. So now, you could fire all of those workers who are expensive, and you hire one airplane and they fly over the fields, they saturate the entire landscape with glyphosate. Everything dies except the Roundup Ready corn. (car passing) And within a couple of years, Roundup Ready corn was now on 90% of the corn, 95% of the corn in the United States is now Roundup Ready corn. And so ... But it was still being ... And then they developed it for soybean and for, um, and for, uh, barley, for sorghum, for a lot of other plants, but it was still being applied early in the season. And then in 2000, around 2006, they discovered that if you sprayed it on wheat late in the season, it would desiccate the wheat. In other words, it would dry it out. And one of the big losses for farmers is wheat, is if it rains during the harvest season, you can't harvest it 'cause it gets moldy. And so if you can spray a desiccant on it and dries it out and kills it, you can harvest it right away and it won't get moldy. So all the wheat in our country started being sprayed that year in 2006 with glyphosate, and that's the year you saw this explosion of celiac diseases and, uh, you know, gluten allergies and all of this stuff that people, you know, that you may have noticed around then.

    29. JR

      But they also did-

    30. RJ

      For the first time, they were ... And, and excuse me.

Episode duration: 3:05:35

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode p6LJXPOv4SM

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome