Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. We're very excited to be joined by Robert Francis Kennedy Junior. He is a author, an activist, and a presidential candidate. Sir, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me absolutely pleasure. So one of our goals here, sir, is we know you've been doing quite a bit of interviews.
We would like to treat you seriously as a presidential candidate. We want to get to some things which we haven't seen you touch on before. We know some of the issues that animate you the most. We will leave those to decide. We want to make sure that we get as much ground as possible. So our first question is actually a very basic one. Why do you think that you should be president?
Well, you know, I'm running because I'm disturbed about the direction our country is going in not only our country, but are my political party.
And it really culminated during the.
My unease with what's happening culminated during the pandemic when I saw all of this kind of almost like an orchestrated assault on the Bill of Rights, that suddenly it was okay to sensor speech, particularly criticism of the government, which has always been the purview of American citizenship. And then they went after freedom of worship. They closed every church in our country for a year with no scientific excitation,
oh democratic process, no notice in comment, rulemaking. They went after jury trials so that we can no longer which are guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment in any case or controversy exceeding twenty five dollars. Americans are entitled to jury trials if somebody arms you. But suddenly you couldn't see vaccine companies or pharmaceutical companies or any kind of medical provider, no matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless
their conduct, no matter how grievous your injury. They went after property rights. They closed there's a Fifth Amendment right to due process and just compensation. They closed three point three million businesses with no due process, no just compensation.
They went after the Fourth Amendment, you know, the Fourth Amendment right to our prohibition and warrantless surges and seizures was just left by the wayside as we encountered all of these kind of intrusive government mandates where you couldn't essentially leave your home without showing your private medical records, etc. And you know, I personally was subject to a lot of this csorship, but more disturbing mothers who had injured children, people who who said they suffered or felt that they
had suffered injuries from the vaccines, Doctors who wanted to provide medical advice on early treatments. We're all banished from the internet. And you know, it started becoming a country that I didn't recognize. My own political party was at the forefront of that, the spirit tip of those moves, and our parties suddenly became the party of censorship, the Party of pharmaceutical companies, the Party of fear, and now the Party of war.
So let me let me ask you a little bit about that, because we both watched a lot of interviews of you and you know, both on a general interest but also to prepare for this interview and sitting down with you. And I think some of the key issues that you tend to focus on our COVID, the Ukraine War, and censorship. Those are all issues where you seem to be in basic agreement with the former president Donald Trump.
So I'd love for you to lay out what do you see as some of the most critical differences you have with the former president.
Well, I have a lot of not only issues differences, but stylistic just did differences. I think my approach to people in politics is very different, I'd say, you know, in terms of the issues, probably the biggest departure is.
On the environment.
And in fact, you know, my first encounter with Donald Trump is that I sued him twice, you know, in the years before he was president.
To block his.
Construction of golf courses to golf courses, which I successfully did in the New York City Watershed. But on all of the you know, environmental issues, I think my worldview is very different than the president's. You know, I'm happy to talk about any of the other issues.
What about the current president.
So, when you obviously are running against an incumbent president. I was thinking a little bit about your father. He decided to run in nineteen sixty eighty. So you wanted to save the party from LBJ from the chaos of Vietnam. You're running against an incumbent president as well. Is there a similarity there? Like, what do you want to save America from Joe Biden from what exactly was?
Well, you know, the Forever Wars, you know, which which was a really kind of a Republican issue, and it's it's flipped. You know, there are many I think there are many more Republicans who are skeptical about this war. We should be making peace around the world. We should be projecting economic power rather than military power, the same way that the Chinese and you know, instead we you know, the war is now our major industry, and weapons are
one of our largest exports. And that's you know, I mean, that's the that's the inverse of everything that America was supposed to represent the world. My uncle, President Kennedy said when he was asked by one of his best friends, one of his two best friends, Ben Bradley, who is the publisher of The Washington Post, asked him what he wanted on his gravestone, and he said he kept the peace. And when he when Bradley asked him about that, he said, he said he felt that the principal job of a
president was to keep the country out of war. My uncle had been in World War Two, He lost his brother in World War two. His father was adamantly against, had opposed World War One as ambassador in England. He had tried to keep the country out of a war. And this is before we knew about Hitler's atrocities. You know, the final solution didn't begin until forty three. But my you know, my grandfather believed that the best strategy for
the United States. There's a famous historian called Paul Kennedy who's no relationship to me. He's a Yale history and he did this very influence and show a book on the declines of Empires. And he went through all of the empires in the last five hundred years and shows that each one of them destroyed itself, cannibalized itself by overextending its military abroad. And my grandfather knew that my
grandfather nine kids, he could not bear. He could not conceive of an issue that would be worth the sacrifice of his child, now my own son thought in the in the Ukraine War, in the Kurgave Offensive, he joined, he joined without telling us. He went over to the Ukraine, joined the Foreign Legion, and he fought as a machine gunner for a special forces unit.
But I can't.
Conceive the you know, the the grief that I would feel if I lost my son in that conflict. And there are three hundred thousand Ukrainian parents who have lost their children, and maybe as many as seventy or eighty thousand Russian parents, which is something that I don't think we should be happy about that we should be celebrating. And the war is bad for us from a geopolitical standpoint. We shouldn't be pushing Russia and China together.
And it's.
You know, and we went to that war for the right reasons, out of compassion for the you know, the best of American character and virtues, and compassion for the Ukrainian people who were victimized by any illegal and brutal war invasion by the Russians. But it's ceased at some point being a humanitarian mission, and it became an agenda, a geopolitical agenda to exhaust Russia to do regime change with Vladimir Putin, which is the opposite of humanitarian impuls.
And they've been out out front, you know, up front of about that. At times they've admitted that it's the goal. One quibal with you. I just I've seen you mentioned this three hundred thousand Ukrainian deaths number a couple of times and I wasn't able to find Can you tell us where's that number come from?
That was I forget the name of that. It's the commander of the Ukrainian Forest and it was in his conversation with the NATO commander, okay, which was publicized because in the leak documents it was alway, that's correct, okay, but I will I will provide you with as sid.
Yeah, I'd love to see because we looked beforehand and wasn't weren't able to see that the different numbers in the league documents. We just want to be accurate.
Well, let me know, I'll get I'll get you that today.
That'd be great, sure. So Day one agenda, what are the priorities?
The priorities on A one will be partnering Julian Assange and UH and and then starting to fix an IH FDA, CDC, you know, get them off of the you know, their subsistence relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and unraveling that agency capture, putting the right people in that agency who know how to do that.
And is that just a matter of different personnel or do you need to have a public option for pharmaceutical companies? Do you need to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry? What does that Actually?
No, I don't think that's the right thing.
I think we need to get pharmaceutical money out of the regulatory agencies. An IH personnel should not be able to collect royalties on pharmaceutical products that they worked on, which they can do today. An ihe has evolved from being a from being a research agency that's supposed to be improving American health and instead it's become an incubator
for pharmaceutical product. So they a developed you know, initial pharmaceutical products in their lab and then they farm that product out to a university and they give the universities hundreds of millions of dollars and to go through phase one and phase two trials, and then they bring in a pharmaceutical company if they if the drug works, which they almost always do because they can make them look
like they work. And then they bring in a pharmaceutical company to do the phase three, which is very very expensive, may cost a billion dollars. And along the way, everybody gets a piece of the patent, so ANIH gets a piece of pattern. For example, NIH owns half the MODERNA patten. And you know, there's been billions and billions of dollars maybe one hundred billion so far on that platform and on that mRNA platform that NIH develop and NIH stands
to collect half of that money. Not only that, but individuals within NIH, you know, the deputies of Anthony Fauci have margin rights on that patent, so they can collect one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for life, and then their children and so on as long as that product's being sold. And what that means is that the regulatory function of the agency is subsumed by these, you know, the mercantile ambitions of these regulators who are no longer regulators.
Isn't the isn't the profit motive though at the core of that problem, because the problem you're describing isn't unique to FDA and IH, et cetera. You can go down. I know you would talk about the EPA, you probably have direct experience there as an environmental lawyer. But you can go down the list of these agencies and you
see the way the revolving door works. You see the way that there's a lot of industry capture because ultimately, you know, we have a health insurance industry and a hospital industry and a pharmaceutical industry that has the bottom line is the bottom line? Isn't that really the root of the problem here?
Well, me and him in nature.
I mean the profit motive, I mean putting the product motive.
Of the problem.
The private motive is human nature. So you know, in a democracy, the challenge is how do you insulate public institutions right from the human impulse for greed and acquisition, you know, acquisitiveness. And that's really to me, that's the solution is you get the money. You know, half of it of FDA's budget, almost half of FDAH budget comes from pharma, and so you know, they're not really working for the public interests, they're working for the pharmaceutical companies.
CDC buys about five billion dollars worth of vaccines a year from pharmaceutical industries and secret deals with you know, that are sweetheart deals that benefit those companies. A product that CDC has has previously approved and mandated effectively, and then CDC then is under a you know, under pressure and to make sure everybody takes those products and to not find problems with those products. If problems arise, you want the regulator to be the first.
One to notice.
And so we have we have a system that is that is being corroded by conflicts of interest.
Yes, and some of these issues.
We want to remove those conflicts of interests as much as you can. You'll never get of all of them, but you want to movement as much. And it's it's really like agency capture on steroids. And because the conflicts are so rife and pervasive.
And the US healthcare system is uniquely good in certain respects in terms of advanced treatments, et cetera, but uniquely bad in a lot of other respects in terms of you know, chronic illnesses and the expense. And we pay way more for health care than other developed nations and we get way less. As you know, every other developed nation in the world has universal health care. Do you support universal health care through a medicare for all program or something so man, my.
You know, my my.
I would say my highest ambition would be to have a single pair program, which you know with a people who want to have private programs can go ahead and do that, but to have a single program that is available to everybody. I don't know how politically realistic that is, but you know, if you ask me if I were designing the system from the beginning, that's what I would do. You're right, the system now is broken. We take you know, we pay the most health care in the world. I
think we're seventy ninth. We're behind like cost the Reek and Cuba in terms of health outcomes. We have the highest level of chronic disease in the world of any country. You know that means neurological diseases, autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases like peanut allergies, food allergies, eggs, anaphylaxis, asthma, and and we we pay more than anybody else. We also consume consume more pharmaceutical products.
I think we take more.
I think we take three to four times as many drugs per capita than Europeans do, and they're not making us healthier. The third largest cause of death in this country after cancer and art attacks and now pharmaceutical drugs. Americans are the sickest country in the world. Is that the sickest generation we've ever had. And we spend four point three trillion dollars on health care every year. Eighty percent of that goes to treating chronic disease. And to me,
the worst, you know, the most alarming metric. When I was a boy, six percent of Americans said chronic disease.
Today, by two thousand and six.
Fifty four percent, and you know, I'm sure it's going up since then. I means, have our children aren't debilitated for life from a chronic disease. And you know, the pharmaceutical industry is making a lot of money on that, selling us the EpiPens, the albuterol and hilers that any seizure medication, the insulin shots and all that, and they're making a killing. They make, you know, half a trillion dollars a year. But it's not good for our country.
And what we need is public health agencies that are actually focused on public health of rather than advancing the pharmaceutical paradigm or profits for these pharmaceutical companies.
It's interesting to me. I heard you talk a lot about corruption. We were talking here about the profit motive. I was surprised though he did the interview with the all In podcast. I knew that you were against nuclear power, but he's talking with something interesting, saying that we should
have effectively a completely free market energy system. And I guess I wanted to talk to, you know, with somebody who's father and uncle famously supported major public initiatives which didn't necessarily pay out, which would yielded massive dividends in the future. Why should nuclear, solar, wind, or any power honestly float outside of public support systems if the overall social benefit of it unlocks economic potential. I'm just curious for the cost.
You know, I think the market is the but I mean, here's the thing is in it. We don't have free market capitalism.
Let me just say free market energy.
No, that's right, you know, we have the energy. The rules that come in the energy industry are written by the incumbents to you know, to UH, to benefit. The dirty is filthy, is most poisonous, most toxic, most warmongering feels from hell rather than the cheap, clean, green, wholesome and UH and you know, efficient feels from habit in.
A true free market. True free market promotes efficiency.
Efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution is waste. In true a true free market would require us to properly value our natural resources, and it is the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. In a true free market, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by
making everybody else poor. Certainly, they raised standards of living for themselves by lowering quality of life for the rest of us. And they do that by escaping the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and force the public to pay his production.
Cause that's what all pollution is.
When the general la when I you know, when a coal company burns coal at you know, and sells, for example, in North Carolina, sixteen cents of killowhite hour, we have the or two cents in the evening. We have this sense that we're getting the cheapest energy possible, but that coal generation is poisoning every freshwater fish in America with mercury. So they're externalizing that cost, which is a cost on all Americans. They have sterilized every lake on the high
peaks of the Appellation from Georgia northern Quebec. That's the cause of coal that they don't tell you about. There's half a trillion dollars here an asthma, TA, expulmonary and respiratory illnesses associated with those on particulars from that those emissions. That's a cost that they should be forced to internalize.
I don't think there's any debate here. I'm more focusing on nuclear thinking. I agree with all your criticisms, which is why you know I will believe very much in a nuclear power future. And that's where I was surprised to hear you say that we shouldn't pursue a nuclear future instead go in the direction of wind and solar, where we don't seem to have the same level of renewable energy.
Production and actual efficiency.
If we look at the way the amount of power that we can get out of these out of these systems when they are properly constructed. I will concede a lot of the problems of the prises.
Let me see it, yeah said.
The problem with with variable power power like like wind and solar, is not that we don't have the generation. We have enough generation just from wind just in Montana, Texas and North Dakota lone of the North American energy grid, and we could power all of North America with a by putting panels PVC panels on an area seventy five miles by seventy five miles in the desert southwest. The problem is we can't transport the energy.
We don't have mind, we don't have battery.
Well, let me just get to the new Newke issue. First of all, I don't I think we should continue to explore nuclear power. Okay, but and I'm all for nuclear power. If you can never make it safe, and if vision is not safe, and if it were safe, they wouldn't if they would get an insurance policy, they can't. It's not you know, it's there is not a bunch of hippies and tight T shirts that's saying it's not safe.
It's guys in ties and suits from the AIG and Lloyd's of London that says, who are saying, your industry is so risky that we will not even consider writing you an insurance policy. So the nuclear industry had to go to you know, to Washington, to the capitol in the in this sleazy legislative maneuver in the middle of the night and pass the Price Anderson Act, which immunized
all these plans from their own accountability. So if the Indian Point power plan blows up and irradiates all of the homes in Westchester County, New York and Connecticut and everybody in New York City, makes New York City unpopulated, unpopulable for the next fifty or sixty.
Years, who pays for that?
It's not you know, con Edison, It's not the people who run the plant.
The plant is insight.
It's just like the vaccine companies do not have to pay for the you know, the the consequences of their recklessness. So the company has no real incentive to make it safe because they're not liable for you know, for injuries they caught. So and by the way, if you look at the costs from Fukushima, an Indian Point is still leaking trittium every day into the Hudson River, Fukushima. If you look at Fukushima, there are you know, anybody can go and google the water waste water tanks at Fukushima.
There's so much radiation going into the Pacific that they now the only way of dealing with it is building water tank after water tank, and they go all the way to the horizon, and you know, and you look at what happened at Chernobyl. So but ultimately the ultimate arbiter of risk is the insurance industry, and the insurance industry is saying that in the nuclear industry is to do is too risky for us to ensure? Now is it economic?
No?
The last I think two plants built. One of them caused nine nine billion dollars per giguad, the other causes sixteen billion per gaguay. The solar plant caused one billion a gigawa and then you get free fuel forever, so the wind in the sund are free. A wind plant costs about one point one two billion a gigaway, So a NWD plant is fifteen times.
What a wind solar planta.
And the new plant people say, well, it's variable out, it very very powerable power.
You're not getting the power all the time. The same with a nude plant. The NW plant have outages all the time.
Well, they want to run ninety one.
I don't want to spend too much time here necessarily going through this because okay, well but I.
Understand, I understand your objection.
Let me just say one other cause. What the big cause is storing the waste, which has to be stored for thirty thousand years, which is five times the length of recorded human history. If you at the internally and there's no utility on Earth today, will build a nuclear power plant unless it essentially is fully subsidized as subsidation. And I don't think that's you know, good to allocate public resources.
One says, part of part of the argument in favor of nuclear energy that even a lot of environmental activists have come around to at this moment is that the potential consequences of climate change are so dire that even though they recognize some of the risks and the problems, especially the you know, what do you do with the waste issue that you're pointing to here, the thought is, okay, but this is the tech we have, and climate change
has these dire consequences already we're already living through. So what I want to hear from you is, you know, what is your view of the climate crisis, and what is your view of Joe Biden's reaction to that crisis. Do you think he's done too much, too little, or he's been about right now?
Well, let me you know, let me just comment on your first question. If I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend money to a you know, climate or you know, to have a cleaner air, why wouldn't you take the cheapest way of doing that?
You know?
And so how do energy promised us at the outset that they were going to be too cheap to meet or this is what they've been saying for sixty years, right, and instead they've given us the most expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised by humanity.
Why would you have.
The most expensive solution when there's cheaper solutions for our cheaper solution?
What do you think of Joe Biden with the so called Inflation Reduction Act. There have been a lot of subsidies put into the solar and wind in particular to try to move towards the clean energy future. Do you think he's done enough. Do you think he's done too much? What do you make of it?
You know, the problem is I think that you know, energy ought to be able to stand on its own. It's okay for a nation to subsidize a new end industry for national security reasons or to or to to greenhouse and industry that you want to you know that you want to have become self sufficient with.
So I think there are there are really good reasons.
To subsidize industries, particularly in their nacent stages, but it gets more difficult when you're subsidizing mature industries.
The problem with the market is that.
The carbon industry is so heavily subsidized. I think that I am for the World Bank estimates that these subsidies to the carbon industry are about five point two trillion a year globally and uh and so that distorts, That sends a signal out that distorts the whole market place. So instead of choosing the cheapest energy, we're now having to subsidize the competitors to bring them up to.
The don't disagree with you there, but just I'm trying to get a sense of I mean, what is your view of the climate crisis and what level of investment is worth, you know, putting in to deal with it. Do you see it as an existential threat? What is your view there?
I believe that climate is an existential threat there, but I don't insist other people believe that. And one of the problems with the climate crisis, and let me tell you because on the areas of vaccines and public health and a lot of environmental issues, I you know, have made myself an expert the way that attorneys always do when they're arguing a case. I understand the science. I can read the science critically. I cannot do that with
climate science. So I'm left kind of taking other people's word, and I say, most people are in the same situation. We're all, you know, basically saying, okay, ninety nine percent of scientists are saying and the public science are saying, this is, you know, the climate crisis existential and it is being created by anthropogenic carbon production. I can't independently
verify that. But the reason I believe it because and I also know, in particularly the past three years, people, you know, we've seen how science, particularly federally funded science, can be corrupted. And this is what the critics of you know, the sort of the Republican right is saying,
we don't believe anything that federal science says anymore. And I can't go to them like I can with vaccines or pharmaceuticals or other environmental issues and say you're wrong, and I can explain to you exactly why you're wrong. I can't do that, but I have seen in the nineteenth you know, these documents in nineteen seventy were Exon's
own science. Exon had scientists working for them that prided themselves on knowing more about the fate of the carbon molecule and the environment than anybody else, And during that time in the seventies, they were saying to their bosses in the Exxon management, if we continue to burn carbon the way that we are going to warm the globe, and that actually is going to be a bad thing for humanity, but it's going to be a great thing for our company, because we're going to melt the Arctic,
and there's a tremendous amount of oil under the Arctic and we're.
Going to be able to exploit it.
So you had people who were on the industry side back in the seventies who were saying this is real. Now in my campaign, I'm not going to be talking a lot about climate. Why is that because climate has become a crisis like COVID that the Davos Group and other totalitarian elements in our society have you to have used as a pretext for clamping down totalitarian controls.
But isn't that even more of a justification if you if you think that is not even more of a justification for you to argue in favor of an approach that doesn't result in the totalitarian.
Exactly so, And I've always said I've always been cautious about leaning on scientific evidence for climate because the reason is it's not persuasive to people who don't want to believe it. I work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River for most of my career and all across the country. They love the environment. Republicans, most Republicans.
Love the environment.
If you tell them you're you know, you're going to protect this place, this sacred place, your backyard, the water for your children, You're gonna protect again, toxicity, they're all in.
Should not be a divice issue. The environment should not be.
A device vision.
But it's hard to persuade people that lines on a graph that say that sometime in the future you're going to suffer take my word for it, and I want you to give up these things in your life. It's just all that's going to do is polarize people more. But what the argument I've always made is that all of the things that we need to do, whether you believe in climate change or not, you don't have to and I'm not going to argue with you if you
don't believe in it. But all the things we need to do to avert climate change we ought to be doing any way to avert war. You know, the oil words that have cost US eight trillion dollars since two thousand and two, the poisoning of every fish in America, the toxicity to our children, the asthma attacks, the ozone A particular, it's the sterilizing of the lakes on the Appellachi.
These are all.
Things that everybody's concerned about it and those are the things I think we can get a consensus on rather than and we're not going to get a consensus on climate and climate using you know, the the approach that we've been using up until now has stalled and if you you know the solutions which are to get everybody to sign treaties and have unenforceable milestones that they have to meet that nobody can enforce, that everybody can lie about, and that that that become an excuse for clamping down.
Totalitarian controls on people are things that are going to get a lot of pushback. You know, if you talk to people about pollution and let's switch to something more efficient, that's going to provide jobs, that's going to give us a new industry and economic growth. That's something that I think, you know, we can unite people on rather than divide.
We've only got ten minutes left forore and we got to get out of here. One something we will we talked about is the border, the current site situation down there. How would you handle the current border situation? Would you preserve and keep the remain in Mexico policy? What does an ideal asylum and immigration system look like under your presidency?
Well, first of all, I'm going down to the border in the next couple of weeks, you know, to talk to every the stakeholders, the border patrol, the people on both sides of the border, and try to better understand it. And better hone my policies develop a solution that, first of all, Number one, makes the border imprevious. We cannot have people coming over, millions or hundreds of thousands of people coming over illegally. It's not good for our country.
It's a humanitarian crisis on the border, and we need to end that. There are ways I know of doing it. I've heard many, many different ways, but I don't know myself. I mean, I know that Israel as not a wall, but it has he has fencing systems, and they have the same issue that we do with African immigration, and they've been able to stop and stop the humanitarian crisis.
We need to look at this as a humanitarian crisis, and we also need to be honest about the US involvement in the policies that created these huge migrations of people. The decades of austerity programs that we've been imposing in Central America, of wars, of supporting dictators and oppressive regimes, of supporting genocides, of funding death squads in those countries, of trade agreements that were terribly imbalanced that have created
this migration. You look at the one country in Central America that we've never invaded is Costa Rica, and you don't see Costa Rican immigrants flooding to the border in the kind of numbers that we're seeing other people. Costa Rica day is the wealthiest country per capita in Central America. It's the only country that we have not tampered with.
And all of.
These other countries we funded these wars and de squads and everything else, and we need to change our policies.
So would you commit to lifting sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela. I mean, Venezuela is a source of a lot of migrants right now.
I would not have sanctions against Cuba or Venezuela. You know, I think we ought to be encouraging those countries and not bullying them. And you know, people need to be able to choose their own governments. If they're killing people, if they're committing genocide, and I think we should be doing sanctions. If they're doing something that threatens the United States,
we should do that. But otherwise we should try to work with these countries and de escalate tensions and be a good neighbor and a good leader, not a bully. People all around the world want American leadership. They don't want bullying and they know the difference.
So I also want to ask you about abortion very quickly. Would you codify Roe versus Wade? What is your view on abortion in terms of national policy should you become president.
I mean, listen, there's nobody that's fought harder in this country. And I have for bodily autonomy and for medical freedom, and you know, I think every abortion is a tragedy and most of the people who experience abortion feel that way, and we don't need to compound that by bringing in government and telling people what to do with their bodies. I just think that's you know that there is no good option, but the only option we have is to let the woman make that choice.
So you'd codify roversus way go beyond that potential?
Well, I don't know if you can codify it, but you know, yeah, I think people ought to have.
You encourage the Senate and the House to pass that law, Like what is the ideal of framework?
In my view, people should have there right. Government should not be interfering.
So let me ask you about vaccines. This is anaria where you and I have significant differences, and you know, just to level with you on this, like a lot of what you say I really respond to. I think you're a very genuine person. But the across the board, whether you want to call it vaccine skepticism or anti vax advocacy, which has been a central part of what you've been up to for the past number of years, For me personally, it's a it's an issue, and it's
a it's a real sort of red line. And I know not alone in that, especially running in a democratic primary. There are going to be other millions of people like me who have similar concerns. So how how do you win them over? What's your message to people who think like I do?
Would just tell me? Tell me where you think I got it wrong?
Well, I think you get it wrong when you draw a correlation between the rise of of things like autism and the introduction of vaccines when there isn't hard scientific evidence tying those things together.
How do you let me ask you this, How do you know there's not a hard scientific evidence?
Well, because the one major study that purported to show that was retracted and the scientist who conducted it was you know, what you're doing basically fraudulently created.
I don't know, but I.
Don't want to get I don't want to get in a debate with you about this, because you've spent your life pulling out this. I will tell you. Let me just tell you. Let me just tell you. I've listened to hours of interviews with you with an open mind, and I'm not persuaded. Now, maybe I'm wrong. That's possible. I'll hold it out there. People can watch. I thought Megan Kelly did a phenomenal interview with you that went
through all these claims, piece by piece by piece. I really encourage people to watch that whole exchange because we won't be able to do it justice here in the five minutes we have left. But there are going to be people like me who aren't persuaded and who see this as an issue. And the fact that it's been such a central part of your advocacy means I can't just sort of put it to the side and say, oh, we'll just ignore you know this piece that's been really
important to you in your life. So you're running in a Democratic primary, you have a lot of people who feel even more strongly than me, who think that, you know, doctor Fauci is a hero in all of these things. How are you going to persuade them. How are you going to reach them and what is your message to them?
Well, first of all, I'm not leading with you know, my opinions about vaccines.
What I say to people is show me where I got it wrong, Show me where I got my signs wrong. I've written books about this, you know.
I wrote a book about a link between dimerizoon and autism that has I think four hundred and fifty distilled scientific studies that confirm and validate that hypothesis as and fourteen hundred references.
And if I got something wrong, show me where it is.
But I think people have shown you where things are, but you don't want to hear it is because I've seen, you know, numerous fact checks. Doctor Vane Prosad, who we you know, really respect on the COVID vaccine. He went through your interview with all Inn. He did a fact check. I mean, it's not people.
Have a fact check and I and you should read that.
I will take a look at it, but I don't think that it's fair to say nobody has ever pointed out anything that's been that's been wrong.
Well, here's why people complain about what I say. And again, I'm not leading on this issue.
People can either take it or leave it.
But if you want to, you know, I what you just said about me, that I'm sort of hardheaded and stubborn, it just won't give in. You're wrong about that. If somebody shows me where I'm wrong.
I'm going to correct it.
And you know, we have the most probably the most robust fact checking operation now in North America. I have three hundred and fifty PhD scientists and empty physicians on you know, HD's advisory board, including until recently Luke my Here won the Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus. Chris Portier was the head of the National Toxicity Program at and I AGE formerly that probably the top toxic
coologist in America. And if I were saying things that were scientifically unsound, those people would not stay with us. What I would say to you is show me where I got it wrong. Show me a study at where I got wrong, and I will change my position. You know, science is fluid. It's not an embarrassment to me. If there's a new scientific study that I haven't seen that comes out and says I'm wrong, that's what you're supposed to do with science. But what I'm saying to you,
nobody has done that. You know, if in a prisad when he did his piece, if he showed me science that was valid, I would say I would change my position.
But we go together, you might my response to him.
So you say, this isn't what you're leading. But I just have to say, as someone who you know is watching your candidacy closely and is aware of the advocacy you've been doing, and you know the organization that you are involved with, it's hard for me to believe this won't be an important part of how you govern. So I think that's the most important piece for people to get who you have to accept there are going to be people like me who just don't agree with you
on this. You you know, certainly understand that there are many who do think that the vaccines that we have are more beneficial than harmful that you know got their kids vaccinated and are happy for that decision. So how is this going to impact the way that you govern? Or does it not at all?
I mean, I'm going to govern according to you know what the evidence based medicine.
Oh that's you know, that's Let.
Me let me give a specific question if there's another pandemic in the last pandemic. Former President Trump something we gave him a lot of credit for. He launched Operation Warp Speed. They had a whole of government approach, use the mRNA technology that was developed, using you know, US taxpayer dollars to get a vaccine out to the population as quickly as possible. How would your approach have differed?
My approach would have been a science based approach, which means what which means, and a medicine based approach, the approach that has been used for you know, and approved for decades. You look first at therapeutics that are off the shelf, and you look at the efficacy of those. I mean what I would have done if I was empower then I would have created an information grid because now we have this Internet that is supposed to benefit us, and it has become incident and instrument for her, you know,
totalitarian control. But let's use it for something good. Let's link all fifteen million science doctors, frontline physicians all over the world and find out what they're doing to treat this new respiratory virus and find out what they're saying is working and not working. Then test that science and and may turn it into instantaneously into protocols and recommendations for other scientists.
So what a vaccinating development?
Well, you know, I don't think the vaccine worked. I think you know if you think it worked, and try to explain to me, are the countries that were unvaccinated much better than than are many of.
Those countries because there are a lot of different factors in various countries. So a lot of those countries that you pointed out.
Before, are we Why do we have the highest death rate came in the world by far?
I think there are a lot of factors that may go into that. One of them is the fact that we are disproportionately obese as a society. We have the negative health out themes that you've been talking about. We don't go outside as much as countries, say in Africa, I mean we have There are a lot of different factors that may play into that. But I will I will say, did the vaccines work in the way they were initially promised to prevent spread? No? I don't think so,
especially once you got to later variants. But we have a lot of data that shows that in terms of reducing severe hospitalization and the vaccines were really important and maybe there was a benefit.
Now I want to see that data. That's what the industry there is.
There is lots of doubt, and not just from here, from around the world, but shows the vaccine doses, and not just our vaccines, but ones that were created all around the world reduced severe hospitalization and death. So in that way, yes, I do very much believe that they were.
Let me tell you something.
What I believe you're doing now is you're parroting what the public health agencies have been saying, but they do
not have a scientific basis for that. And I have another book out that you should look at All Died Suddenly that goes through all the Johns Hopkins data, which is the dashboard data that everybody used, and shows exactly what happened when the first of all, even the vaccine, the case Western study that is probably the largest most reason shows that at most the vaccine gives you a very very small amount of protection and that after seven
months you go into negative efficacy. So you are if you got vaccinated, you're more likely to get sick, you're more likely to get severe illness, and you're more likely to die than if you were on vaccinated.
I have not seen that. I have seen the study at your study that shows the opposite. Listen, I don't want to get bogged down in this because I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here, and we have some other questions we want to get to in your time is short, but we'll put in posts. You know, please send us what you're looking at. We'll put what I'm looking at, and people can can judge for themselves. Sager, go ahead.
I just think the fin I know you got to get out of here, So I mean the final one is you know, the idea is you're sitting here your entire career.
One of the things that we have.
Fought a lot about on this show against is corruption and also the idea of political dynasties.
So with you with the famous last.
Name, your father and your uncle, literal American heroes and people that we think about in terms of central to our history, do you think we should have royal dynasties in politics?
As somebody who's.
Last time, I don't think we should have, well, because I don't think we do, but we clearly have clearly name recognition and you know the other things that you know, give it advantage to people whose families have already been in politics, who have infrastructure, who have name recognition, who have a trust that goes with that name, have have an advantage. And I don't know how you know whether that's something that you want to get rid of.
Yeah, I mean I would acknowledge that that's a truth.
And my final question for you is, you know, do you plan to support whoever the Democratic nominee is? And do you have any intention of running third party? If you're running the Democratic primary?
I plan on winning the Democratic primary, Okay, but Democratic combination.
You know they're they're rigging things. They're not going to allow debates. It's going to make it very difficult for you. So if something happens and you don't succeed, well, I do not have a plan B. No plan B. And do you plan to endorse if Joe Biden is the nominee or Mary and Williams? Do you plan to endorse the virtual No?
I doubt if I would endorse anybody who's supporting the war.
I think that's what my You.
Know, so you could endorse Trump, then.
I don't see that happening.
You would never endorse president Trump.
I don't.
I think we have so many differences in style and approach that that I probably would never end up there.
All right, well, sir, we appreciate your time.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chrystal. It's my pleasure, absolutely,