Our Next President Exposes The Corruption of Empire w/ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. AMP #408

By Aubrey Marcus April 12, 2023

Our Next President Exposes The Corruption of Empire w/ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. AMP #408
What is worth risking your life for? 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can unflinchingly and unequivocally answer that question: For Freedom. For Health. For All Life. RFK Jr.’s uncle JFK and father RFK were aware that they might have to pay the ultimate price for standing for what they believed. RFK Jr. is cut from the same cloth of integrity and is stepping forward in a courageous stance to expose the corruption of Empire. A free market capitalist at heart, Robert is an environmental lawyer, author, and founder of the Children's Health Defense. He’s spent the last 40 years in litigation and information dissemination trying to keep our government and the corporations that run it behind the scenes, honest. He’s won many of those battles, and the corporate press has slandered him mercilessly for it. In today’s podcast, we talk about the capture of our regulatory agencies, corruption of government, and the current trajectory of global leaders toward complete totalitarian control.

Connect with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

Website: www.teamkennedy.com/

Twitter | twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr

Children's Health Defense: | childrenshealthdefense.org/

Check out his latest book: The Real Anthony Fauci

ROBERT F: It has been the ambition of every totalitarian regime in the history of mankind to exert total control over every aspect of human behavior. Over not only our movements, our transactions, or our organization, but also, ultimately our speech and our thought and what we read. In the past, none of those regimes has been able to manage that because they simply did not have the technological capacity to control every aspect of human behavior, to control what you are doing, what you are saying in your house, what your movements are, even your sexual behavior they want to control. But today, we have created this wave of technology, that now will give the next totalitarian regime the capacity to do exactly that.

AUBREY: I'm here today with the next president of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On April 6, he announced his bid to run as a Democrat in the 2024 elections for the presidency. I believe he's going to win. He's proven that he has the integrity and the courage to stand up to the corporatocracy, which has captured, and is overrunning all of political and state agencies. And he's not afraid. I believe he's going to continue the legacy of his uncle, John F. Kennedy, and his father, Robert Kennedy. And we talk about that a bit on this podcast. The podcast was recorded before he announced his candidacy. So we didn't get into any of those details. But you will see the integrity, the courage, the wisdom, and the absolute clarity of this man who has been slandered in the press, everywhere he goes for standing up for what he believes to be the truth. And everything he says is backed by research, is backed by fact. Any area where he might extend himself beyond what he knows, he pulls back. He embodies every characteristic of a leader that I will follow to the end. And I'm all in. I told him, I give you my word, I give you my sword if you run for president, I'm all in. And so here I am, and just honored to share this podcast with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Bobby, it's such a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for coming.

ROBERT F: Happy to be here, Aubrey. Thank you for having me.

AUBREY: Of course. There seems to me to be something that runs in your family that stands for courage, it stands for value, it stands for code of integrity and ethics. And it doesn't mean that everybody in your family and yourself included, did everything perfect all the time, and are perfect people by any stretch of the imagination, nobody is. But there's this thread of courage that it seems like you can track through the Kennedy line. And it's certainly shone brightly over the past few years, particularly, but even before that. So, I guess my first question is, what is it about the Kennedys? Where did this come from where there's this kind of backbone of standing for what is right, true, and just?

ROBERT F: I don't know. I don't know all of that. The stuff that I do that a lot of people say it takes a lot of courage, or you're making a big sacrifice, I don't look at it that way. I see the battles and the engagements that I've been able to be involved in, that it's a privilege. It's something that makes me feel peaceful, and happy to be involved. I think all of us, me and my 11 siblings, my 29 cousins, were all raised with this idea that our lives ultimately would be consumed in some great controversy, and it would be a huge privilege if we were able to take some meaningful part in that debate. And I feel like that's happened to me. But also, I'm surrounded by people who I see this tremendous courage and character quality in all the time. And it just, it feels good to be in a foxhole with those people. A lot of them are mothers who were recruited to this issue involuntarily by having an injured child, which upended their lives, and destroyed in some ways, their families, their aspirations, their ambitions, and they had to put that aside. And then they were highly motivated to understand this issue, and they started reading the science themselves, and refusing to back down. And to be involved with those kinds of people... Particularly, I have resources. I can make a living with being an attorney. I have family loves me. I have other kinds of resources that gives me a resiliency that most people don't have access to. A lot of the people who are on the frontlines of this battle are people who have no alternatives. They're scientists and doctors who have given up their careers, in order to speak out on these issues, and to help other people to spread the word. And they made genuine sacrifices that are almost existential for them. And I've never had to make that choice. I've had to make choices where I lose friendships, I lose political clout, I lose professional relationships, I lose even family members who turned against me, and a lot of income. But none of those sacrifices are existential for me. I don't get up in the morning and worry how am I going to feed my family? And a lot of the people who have taken on this mantle, and have decided that they're going to fight back, are making decisions that are in many ways existential. They're having to choose about paying their mortgage, putting their kids in private school, and taking care of their family in a good way, or just speaking the truth. And they've chosen to speak the truth. And that is real courage. What I do is, I feel, I'm privileged to be able to do it.

AUBREY: Yeah. I mean, I love that you're pointing to the real courage of the everyday individual with everything to lose, that's putting their own career, their own health, safety, life, and security, at least from that standpoint on the line. And just to acknowledge that as any great leader would is to point to those people who are making even greater sacrifices. But I wonder if given your family history, and the fact that your uncle and father, they were assassinated in this, and they stood for things and actually did pay the ultimate price in some regard. Now, I don't know what your personal beliefs on why that happened. Obviously, there's some new information that came out about JFK and the collusion, potentially with the CIA. There's some very interesting things that have happened beyond just the theories that are now emerging. But, do you ever worry that you are actually physically in danger for what you're standing for?

ROBERT F: The answer to that is I do not worry. My life is in God's hands. And, I need to do what I believe is the right thing to do, whatever the cost is. And also, I think my father and uncle were both idealists. They both knew that they were involved in a high risk enterprise, and they believed that the stakes were high enough to justify their entry. And I think both of them believe that there are a lot worse things than dying. And they showed that repeatedly in their lives. My uncle and father both volunteered for World War Two. And my uncle really fought. Heroically, his brother was killed in essentially a suicide mission. His brother-in-law, with whom he was close, Billy Hartington was killed on the Maginot Line. He had many, many friends who put their lives at risk. And I think that whole generation believed there were things that were a lot worse than death. And I think it's important for all of us to understand that. And one of those things is, one of the things that would be worse than death would be losing our freedoms, and living like slaves. And it was a whole generation of Americans in 1776, who put their lives on the line in really what at that point was a lost cause. Nobody in the world who believed that we were going to be the biggest empire. That a scraggly band of American colonists could beat militarily, the biggest empire in history, with the greatest fleet in history. And they put not only their lives on the line, their properties, their reputations, and because of their courage, we got to live in this country with a constitution with free speech, with freedom of worship, with property rights, and all of the other rights and privileges that we have as Americans that at one point, were really unique in the world. And, we have to remember that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for free speech for the Constitution. And, it's kind of a crime against them and their memory, and a dishonor to that generation, if we're willing today to give up our own free speech right so easily.

AUBREY: Yeah. You mentioned the word empire. And of course, empire stretches back even before the Roman Empire. There's empire, and the way that I look at it is, it's a consciousness and the consciousness is control, absolute domination. It's elite, emperors, kings or rulers that control a large swath of the population, control by any means necessary by force of violence, or by force of thought. And it seems that we're in another position now, in a different type of battle against also that same consciousness of empire. But that empire has spread seemingly globally, as a global consciousness, fueled by this kind of corporate collusion and political collusion. And it's now once again, a small band of heroes that potentially nobody thinks is going to win, standing against this massive conglomerate of what you could collectively call Empire. Do you see the world in a similar light right now?

ROBERT F: I do. There's kind of two ways to reflect on your question. One, is the role of America in the world, whether we are the model democracy, or whether we are an empire that is forcing the adaptation of art, values, and US hegemony across the globe at the point of a gun. And from the beginning of our existence as a nation, our greatest political leaders were cautioning us, America could not be an empire abroad and continue to be a democracy at home. We would turn in the exertions of supporting military empire abroad, would ultimately by necessity transform America's exemplary democracy into a surveillance state, and security state at home. John Quincy Adams said, Americans go not abroad in search of monsters that destroy. So, from the beginning... And Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, in his most famous speech ever, and probably what today should be regarded as the most important speech in American history, warned against the domination of America by the military industrial complex. Teddy Roosevelt said, we will never be destroyed a foreign enemy. That America is too big, that our borders are too secure. But that our democracy would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would destroy it from within. And then Eisenhower comes in 1963, days before he handed keys to the White House and the government over to my uncle. And he gives the speech where he warns America against the emergence of a military industrial complex that would inexorably destroy all of our democratic institutions. And my uncle really spent three years of his presidency fighting his military intelligence apparatus to make sure that that didn't happen, and he died in that endeavor. My uncle had steadfastly refused to put combat troops in Vietnam, despite all of his advisers saying, you have to send 250,000 American troops. He said, "I don't want to make this an American war. This is a Vietnamese war, we can support them." He sent 16,000 advisors who are not technically allowed to participate in combat. A month before he died, he ordered the removal of all US troops from Vietnam. And, as soon as he died, President Johnson, they staged this Tonkin Gulf incident which was a false incident. And they used that as a pretense to send 250,000, ultimately half a million combat troops to Vietnam and made it an American war. And, my father then died trying to stop that war. He ran in 1968, specifically against the war, and died in the endeavor. And they were part of a long line of American politicians going back to Hamilton and Madison and Adams in Washington, who said, if we try to make ourselves the policemen of the world, it's not only going to drain our resources, and beggar us, and ruin our economy, hollow out the middle class. But it also is going to destroy democracy at home. And that's the cost of war that we have to understand. Even when we go into apparently justifiable wars like the Ukraine, we have to understand that the cost of that is not just $111 billion we send over there. It is also ultimately a threat to American democracy, to the middle class, etc. So, that's kind of one answer to your question. The other one is that, it has been the ambition of every totalitarian regime in the history of mankind, to exert total control over every aspect of human behavior, of not only our movements, our transactions, our organization, but also ultimately, our speech and our thought and what we read. In the past, none of those regimes has been able to manage that because they simply did not have the technological capacity to control every aspect of human behavior, to control what you are doing, what you are saying in your house, what your movements are, even your sexual behavior they want to control. But today, we have created this wave of technology, that now will give the next totalitarian regime the capacity to do exactly that. So, they know where you are all the time through GPS technology, for facial recognition. If you want to see what kind of the future is, look what's happening in China today. Where every move is monitored, where your face is recognized, and the information stored when you walk down the street. Or your telephone calls are monitored, where your emails and text messages are all monitored and stored. Where everything that you buy, now they're moving to digitalized currencies. Digitalized currency is the ultimate weapon of control. Because if you misbehave, they can punish you instantaneously without arresting you. The digitalized currencies are also what they call programmable currencies, which is the way that they're using them in China. So in China, if you're caught on a day when they declare everybody should wear masks today, and you're seen walking around with your mask below your nose or whatever, not in conformance with the way they want it. Now, they can punish you. They can say, okay, we're going to shut off your credit card. So, it will only function in grocery stores that are within a three-block walk from your house. And, I remember in the early days of COVID, part of the insanity that I was watching at that time was that the police in Malibu were going down to Zuma Beach, and they were arresting surfers when they came in, and giving them $1,000 tickets for being out in the ocean surfing, and sending them home. And we know that COVID only spreads indoors. It doesn't spread out on the surf. So, they were taking these people--

AUBREY: It's not saltwater transmittable.

ROBERT F: No, and they were doing that all over. They were locking people in their homes. To escape a disease that normally spreads inside, they threw right out here in Venice where we are right now, they put sand on all the skate parks, on the halfpipes to keep the skaters off them, to encourage them to go home. They padlocked the basketball courts in Compton and Harlem and Brooklyn and Bedstuy. And if they couldn't padlock the court, they just removed the rims and the basket. They were determined to lock people in. And of course, what happens when you're locked in? You're using screens. And you're making huge money for Microsoft and Apple and Google and Facebook. And those are the companies... And YouTube. Those are the companies that were censoring dissent or complaints or questions about the lockdowns, and they were making billions. We closed down 3.3 million businesses in our country. And who were the beneficiaries of that? It was the social media platforms that are linked very closely to the American government, and to the intelligence agencies and enforcement agencies--

AUBREY: Which has been proven with the Twitter Files.

ROBERT F: Twitter Files show that the CIA and FBI had portals where they were censoring complaints about the lockdown, that were making that site billions and billions of dollars. So they were able to shut down all their competitors, and enrich themselves, lock us all in where we had nothing to do but stare at these screens and generate money for them. And guess what? Americans gained an average of 29 pounds. Who was getting killed by COVID? It was the people who were overweight. These were people who were not getting sunlight. It was the people who were overweight and had vitamin D deficiencies. And so, they went outside where they'd get vitamin D like on the surf, and that they were being locked inside where they're going to gain weight, and not have vitamin D, and not have the exercise that would bolster and strengthen your immune system. And, it was so crazy. But today, they wouldn't have to send in the cops down to Malibu to arrest the surfers. They could just, they can look on GPS, they can look on your facial recognition systems that are now everywhere. And they can just find them. Or send them... Like they did with the truckers in Canada. In Canada, and this is what the future is going to look like. We should all take a warning of what the Trudeau Government did in Canada. When the truckers were incredibly peaceful and disciplined, went to Ottawa, to participate, to protest mandates, the government sent police in to read all of the license plates on all the vehicles and then to shut off the bank accounts of anybody who was the owner of that vehicle. So these people were never charged with a crime. They were certainly never convicted. And the government was able to punish them by shutting off their lifeline, shutting off their capacity to buy food for their children, to pay their mortgages, to pay tuition. And to do that without any due process or democratic participation. And that's the power right now that we're seeing. And with AI, with the growth of AI, the capacity of government to control us will be complete. Hell, Bill Gates says, one of his companies is putting up 61,000 low-altitude satellites to do Earth surveillance. He says that his company alone will be able to watch every square inch of the Earth at 24 hours a day. The capacity of people to escape that kind of surveillance, and to live free lives is going to be... What we're creating is this kind of turnkey totalitarianism, where the next totalitarian regime that steps up and really wants to clamp things down, they're going to have all of these mechanisms in place like no regime has had in human history. And if you want to see another example. I spoke in August of 2020, I spoke to a crowd in Berlin, that was 1.3 million people, the biggest crowds ever assembled. There was not a single article about it in the US papers, and mostly European papers. The way that they covered it in Europe was that a tiny handful of Nazis had gotten together, and that's what... There was no Nazis in that crowd. It looked like Woodstock. There were rainbow flags, and the emcee of the event was a black [inaudible 24:49], there was like [inaudible 24:53] of people on the stage, there was Green Party people, Labor people. It had nothing to do with Nazis but the way the European and American press covered it is that there were Nazis protesting the lockdowns. And that happened time and again. There were millions of people, there were demonstrations again and again in Austria, in England, and France and Germany and Australia. I had over a million people, and no coverage in the press. And so the capacity to... It's like Emerson asked the question, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody was there to hear it fall, did it actually happen? Well, that's the same thing. If you have a demonstration with a million people and nobody hears it, nobody sees it, it didn't actually happen and the regime is able to create a reality. And that reality is, it's a parallel reality that is not true. But you saw the creation of parallel realities throughout the pandemic, and you saw the number of people who bought into the official reality, which we know is not true. It was filled with falsehoods and deception. And yet, a majority of people not only bought into it, but they also actively participated in punishing the people who were living in the actual fact based reality, other than the propaganda based reality.

AUBREY: Yeah. So I mean, this picture that's emerging is something you have to recognize there's been what appears to be a globally coordinated PSYOP to actually spread genuine misinformation about what is actually happening, which points to some global collusion, which is kind of interesting to see, because we think of each government acting independently. But it seems like this force of Empire has actually transcended borders to a certain extent. And also, what's interesting is the people who place so much trust in the government imagining that the government always has our best interest in mind, and wouldn't do something like PSYOP, but then open for plain sight, thanks to the freedom of information, is something like the Operation Northwoods proposal, which your uncle rejected. Operation Northwoods proposal being that they were going to launch terror attacks and attacks that they blamed on Cuba to draw us into war with Cuba, if I understand the Northwoods Papers correctly. And John was like, no, fuck that. We're not going to kill Americans to try to get us into war.

ROBERT F: My uncle and the Joint Chiefs proposed Operation Northwoods which would involve killing a lot of Cuban-American civilians in Miami. They were going to plant bombs at shopping centers, etc. in order to blame it on Castro to give us a pretense for invading Cuba. And, the people who were proposing this were people like General Louis Lemnitzer, who was the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Curtis LeMay, these people who have been... The stalwart heroes of World War Two. And here they were in the Oval Office telling my uncle, we're going to kill Americans in order to create a pretense for invading Cuba. And he didn't comment. He walked out of that meeting in the middle of the presentation. And he said, I think it was Arthur Schlesinger. But he famously said, as he was leaving, "And we call ourselves a human race." He realized that he was surrounded by people who were determined to go to war, whose war with the Soviet Union is inevitable, but desirable. Their justification was we got to go to war with the Soviets before they catch up to us, before they close missile gap with us, because we had more missiles and more bombs than them at the time. In one presentation, they did the math to my uncle. Because my uncle said, "How many people are going to die in this war?" They said, we're going to kill 130 million Russians, and we'll only lose 30 million Americans, and that to them was victory. And my uncle was like, "Are you kidding me?" He had been in war. Also one of the advantages of having served in World War Two is, he was the captain of a PT boat. He shared the enlisted man's skepticism and cynicism about what they called the salad brass, the upper brass, all the salad on their... The medals, etc. on their uniforms. If you're an enlisted man in the Navy, in the Pacific, you're constantly questioning what your bosses are ordering you to do, because a lot of it makes no sense when you're actually on the ground, and you're being ordered to do things that make no sense. So he came out of World War Two, and out of the Pacific not with a reverence for the upper, brass, but with a real skepticism toward it. And then two months into his presidency, the same guys came in and convinced him to go into the Bay of Pigs. Nixon had planned the Bay of Pigs, but had been smart enough not to execute it. So, they had trained almost 2000 Cuban, you call them freedom fighters or mercenaries depending on what side you're on. But they had trained them in Guatemala and Florida and Texas, Louisiana. And they had armed them. A lot of them were idealistic people. Some of them had served with Castro in the revolution, and then become disillusioned with him when he openly embraced Marxism. Others were members of Batista's army who were not good people. A lot of them were killers, they were torturers and snipers. But there was a wide range of people in that brigade. And, what my uncle said, my uncle initially said to Dulles and Lemnitzer, Allen Dulles was the head of the CIA. "I don't think this is a place of the United States." Whatever Cuba's... At this point, there was no Russian military missiles in Cuba. It was, we didn't like Castro. And my uncle was like, well, they should be able to choose their own government the same way that we did. No matter how much we don't like their government, it's not our job as the United States to go in and change it for them.

AUBREY: Freedom is a universal right in a way.

ROBERT F: And it always ends badly, because there's always blowback. When you try to go into another nation and fix it, it never stays fixed. It creates forces, and a nature of resentment, of anger. And whatever fix you put in, ends up... It's like when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, who was the first democratic leader of a 8000-year history or 4000-year history of Persia. First democratically elected leader, imitating the United States, saying, we've got to do what the US did, turn us into a democracy. And then he tried to nationalize the oil company, and Allen Dulles who as an attorney, prior to becoming the CIA chief had represented Texaco and BP, went in there and said, "We're going to throw him out." So, they went in there, and they made a pretend revolution, and they threw him out, and they put the Shah in. And the CIA still looks at that as a success. But we are still paying the price of that in our relationship with Iran 70 years later. And all of the problems that have come from that twisted relationship, including ultimately the war in Syria that sent two million refugees into Europe and destroyed democracy in Europe, and created Brexit and everything else. That's all blowback. And they never had to account for any of that. And so, my uncle said to Dulles, at that time, "I don't feel comfortable going into Cuba and displacing their leader even though we don't like him." And he said, "Well, number one, we've already trained these guys. And if you don't send them down there, they're going to cause problems right here. They're armed, they're trained, and they're going to cause a lot of problems right here in the United States. You've got to send them down there." And then he also told my uncle. He said, "There's so much discontent in Cuba against Castro that as soon as those guys land on the beach, there's going to be a revolution that will throw Castro out." My uncle was skeptical about that. And he later found out that it wasn't true, that Castro was enormously popular in Cuba. My uncle, when he was trying to get the Bay of Pigs prisoners out of jail, he sent two of his aides down; John Dolan and James Donovan. And they spent six months with Castro, every weekend. And they would go with him, he would go to baseball games. And when he would walk into the stadium, everybody in the stadium would stand up spontaneously and cheer, and they weren't doing it out of fear. He only had a couple of guys with him, really good security team, but very small. And they came away convinced that he was beloved in Cuba at that time. Because people had suffered terribly under Batista. And so the CIA knew that, and they were lying to my uncle. And when the Bay of Pigs occurred, what they thought, what Dulles thought is this young president, we'd hoodwink him into allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion to happen. My uncle refused to allow the Navy to transport the Bay of Pigs. He didn't want the military to have anything to do with it. So how did they get over there? They took United Fruit and Standard Oil, provided boats, they'd go land over there. So, when they got stuck on the beach, my uncle walks out of that meeting, and he said, "I want to take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces, and scatter it to the wind." And then he fired Dulles. He fired Cabell, who was the second command, and he fired Bissell. So, he fired the top three guys at the CIA, but he knew from that moment that he could not trust his intelligence apparatus, and he could not trust his military, and that the function of the US intelligence agencies was to provide a constant pipeline of new wars and conflicts to feed the military industrial complex, exactly as Eisenhower had warned. And he spent three years fighting against his own military and intelligence apparatus, and ultimately died in that endeavor.

AUBREY: So, what I see here is a couple of different forces at play. One is, there's the force that's desiring the military industrial complex to continue to propagate new wars, because wars are incredibly profitable business for certain, like--

ROBERT F: We've sent $111 billion to the Ukraine. And there's almost no audit on that money. It's the most corrupt country now arguably, in the world. We know what's happening to most of that money. It's bouncing right back from Ukraine and going to General Dynamics and to all of these military contractors, US military contractors. And then you go and watch CNN, and you'll see these generals on CNN, who are former generals, who are saying, yeah, we need to go over there and help the people of Ukraine. But then you look and say, what is this general doing now? Well, as it turns out, he's--

AUBREY: Working for General Dynamics.

ROBERT F: Working for General Dynamics. And the whole thing is this loop.

AUBREY: Yeah, it's this revolving door policy, which we see with the FDA, CDC and all the Big Pharma companies.

ROBERT F: All of them, it's agency capture. The CIA and Pentagon are captured by the military contractors. The FDA, CDC and NIH are captured by the pharmaceutical industry. EPA is captured by the oil, coal and pesticide... When I sued Monsanto, I was on the trial team during the Monsanto trials, and we ended up with a $13 billion settlement that basically has curbed the use of Roundup in this country, elsewhere around the world. One of the things during discovery is we got documents that showed that the head of the CDC or the EPA pesticide division, was secretly working for Monsanto for decades. And we got emails from him, where he said, this week I'm going to kill the ATSDR study, a study by another agency that was studying the toxicity of Roundup and the carcinogenicity. Monsanto was terrified that this agency that it did not control was going to do this study. And their guy who was the head of the pesticide division sends them a letter saying, I'm going to kill that study, but you better give me a gold medal after I do it. So, people at all these agencies who are the head of the branches oftentimes who are working not for you and me as they're supposed to, that are working for the pharmaceutical industry, Coleen Boyle, who's the head of the Immunization Safety Division at CDC, she works for industry. She's not making choices based upon public health. She's making choices that are based upon what is good for the industry. And this is true... I mean, I was in East Palestine. Last week, we're representing about 600 clients whose lives have been upended by that train wreck. And they know that that train wreck happened because of agency capture. It happened because the rail companies, and particularly Norfolk Southern run DOT, and they've been able to get rid of all the safety, just common sense safety regulations. You should have at least two people on every train. I mean, not one of these corporate executives from Norfolk Southern would get on a commercial aircraft if it only had one pilot, right? But they've been able to push through this absence of regulations where they only have to have one guy on a train. A train could be carrying a bomb loads of toxics that can kill whole towns like they did up in Canada a couple of years ago. The whole town got killed. And so the consequences... And the engineer could go to sleep, he could have a heart attack, he could have a stroke. Of course, you should have two people on the train. The maximum penalty for violating any regulation is $225,000. This is a company that's making a billion and a half dollars a week. It's not even a rounding error. It's just the pennies that fall off the table. They're using the same brake system they used during the Civil War, right? There are modern pneumatic and electronically controlled brake systems that are far safer, that the industry has bragged about. And yet they don't use them. Why? The Obama administration tried to force them to use this new brakes, which may have averted this catastrophe in East Palisade. But they didn't use them because they said it's going to cost too much money. How much money was it going to cost to refit all of their trains with ECT brakes? $3 billion. That's two weeks of revenue for the company. Instead, it took a lot of that money, about $200 million and they did a stock buyback to benefit their board and their upper level staff, which owns one and a half percent of the company. So this company is owned primarily by Vanguard and BlackRock, which also own each other. The two biggest multitrillion dollar investment funds. And those funds are telling them we don't give a damn about the people in Ohio or the Midwest. What we want is profits, and we want you to show every penny of profit you can because then we can sell you for more. And part of their business plan is to capture DoT and make sure that they don't have to do anything that's sensible to protect people. And I could go on and on about all the bad stuff that they did. But that's a captured agency. All of these agencies now in our government are now captured by the industries they're supposed to regulate. And they function essentially as sock puppets for those industries. I've spent my 40 years suing them. They've sold democracy down the river. And they're destroying the infrastructure in our country. The public health agencies don't do public health. Their deep concern from the top, I'm not saying there aren't people in those agencies, including the CIA who are idealistic and patriotic. At the top, people in those agencies do not care. They are interested in one thing, which is corporate profit taking and serving the industries that they're supposed to be regulating.

AUBREY: So we have one force that's fairly inarguable that there's an idea and a zeitgeist of profit at all costs, right? And this is what's causing all of this capture, and all of the collusion between these... It's just profit at all costs, even if that means risking human life. It's like profit above everything else. So, there's a new god that's being worshipped, and it's profit. That's one thread that I think it's very hard to argue that that exists. And that's what the corporate beast actually is built for. It's built to grow through profits. A corporation by its nature doesn't have its own moral compass. It's not bound by their own connection to the divine. It is we're in worship of the god of profit and money. So, we have that force at play. And I want to talk about potential other forces.

ROBERT F: Let me comment on that. First of all, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free market capitalism. What we have now in this country is not free market capitalism. It's corporate crony capitalism. It's not democracy, this wonderful interplay of democracy and free market capitalism that reinforce each other. What we have is our exemplary democracy has been essentially replaced by a system of plutocracy and corporate kleptocracy. These corporations have been unleashed by captive regulatory agencies to strip mine our country, to commoditize our people, our landscapes, our waters, our children's health, and to make money for themselves. So, is the problem that corporations are greedy? To me, that's not the problem. Corporations are supposed to be greedy.

AUBREY: It's their nature.

ROBERT F: Corporations are entities. They have no morality, and they are immortal. And I think it was Franklin who said, if corporations were angels, we wouldn't need regulation, but they're not. So, we know what they are. And we don't want to change that. Listen, if you see Walmart or another big corporation bringing water bottles, bottled water, pallets of bottled water down to the Katrina victims, or hurricane victims, they're not doing that out of altruism. They're not doing that out of philanthropy. They are doing that because that public act will in their minds accrue to greater shareholder value in one way or another. Goodwill or whatever. And if they're doing it for a genuine reason, like they just want to give away something great with no reciprocal benefit, they can be sued by any of their shareholders and the shareholder will win that lawsuit. Because the company is not allowed to turn itself into a philanthropy. It is not allowed to do true altruism. It is required to spend its money in a way that benefits the shareholders, and that accrues to shareholder value. There's nothing wrong with that. And that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people, CEOs of companies, and I would say probably most of them that actually do want to do good things for our country. The problem is that they're not allowed to under that framework, because they're not allowed to turn the corporation into a philanthropy. So, knowing that, knowing the corporations only operate for their own benefit, and they're legally required to do so, that's a good thing. Because we want people to give to corporations, to invest in them, that the corporation can assemble lots of money, and then invest that and create jobs and wealth and prosperity for our country. That's a good thing. And if the shareholder does not believe that corporation is acting solely in his or her interest, he's unlikely to make that kind of investment. But knowing that, we would be nuts to let that company run our government. Because he's not running it for our sake. They're not investing millions of dollars and lobbying and political donations out of patriotic impulses, or out of love for humanity. They're making those investments because they believe that they can change US policy away from benefiting the whole, the rest of us, our country, and make it so it benefits their shareholders. And so, it's crazy for us to let corporations run our government, and that is the problem, that we've let them take control of our government. We now have kind of this perfect merger between state and corporate power that goes by another name, which is fascism. When a country becomes the servant of its business owners, that's technically what that's called.

AUBREY: Yeah, I heard Russell Brand recently talking about how a large percentage of senators own particular stocks in certain companies that they're regulating, and although the lobbying dollars. And he's like just, if you're a public servant in that way, "public servant" which clearly isn't the case in our political climate, you shouldn't be able to own stocks in companies that you're regulating over. Actually, even the whole process of lobbying dollars, which influence decisions and campaign contributions, that whole system needs to be reimagined clearly. And I think you elucidated that really clearly. But what I want to also get to is to legitimately play the devil's advocate for this totalitarian idea and decisions that are immoral, but could hypothetically be justified based upon the result of this temporarily immoral act. And so I want to go to the potential decrypting and uncovering of information that led FDR's presidency to understand that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Japanese. And I don't know if this is proven now, but there seems to be reasonable evidence. There's a whole book written about it. Somebody poured through like 200,000 pages of documents that were declassified, showing that there's a good likelihood that we were aware that Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and we didn't say anything, so that there would be the carnage that would then draw us into World War Two. Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate. And I'm not saying I agree with this by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think you can justify the murder and the killing of Americans for any other cause. It's a very complicated moral question. But playing the devil's advocate, let's say you're looking at World War Two, and you're saying this Nazi thing that's happening and spreading is actually a danger to the entire world. And I'm Jewish by heritage. So, this hits close to home, right? This is a big issue that was happening. So let's say you're in that mindset, and your advisors say, look, the American public will never go for this. World War One was a fucking nightmare. So many people died, we're not going to want to go into war unless we're attacked, and people are killed, and we need to go into war. So this is the cost that we're going to have to pay in order to do something that actually really needs to be done. Do you think that all of this totalitarian mindset could have some justification where it's not only just greed, that they're fueling and this kind of revolving door policy of the war machine, then feeding their own profits. But potentially, they actually think somehow in their mind that all of this is necessary for the greater good. Do you think that's really potentially part of what's going on? Here's they're willing to justify safety in their mind at whatever cost, is that part of what's happening here?

ROBERT F: Well, let me just say a word in defense of Franklin Roosevelt. I had looked at that evidence, and I do not believe that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was happening. And there were a lot of people that had information that should have allowed them to make that connection, because we had at that point, broken the Japanese codes. We could decipher all of their communications amongst each other. And there were warnings issued that were not paid attention to, but I do not believe that that was deliberate. And there's a lot of evidence, very, very strong evidence, because we basically know all the conversations that FDR was having at that time. And I just, I am not at all convinced that that is true. I just wanted to--

AUBREY: Nor am I. I'm not informed enough to know. But I'm placing that hypothetical, assuming that in hypothetical it was.

ROBERT F: The question is, do I believe? The broader question you asked is, do I believe that the people who are kind of involved in making a lot of these decisions, for example, about how to regulate COVID, the weird decisions that were made about that, that they actually kind of have sort of a higher level of idealism that's driving them, and I can't say that one of the things that I really avoid doing in my book and elsewhere is looking into people's minds. I don't look into Tony Fauci's mind, I don't look into Bill Gates's mind and say this is what he was thinking, because I don't know. Bill Gates may actually have convinced himself that all of these endeavors that he's involved in, like the vaccination program, that are killing so many people in Africa, according to scientific studies that are very, very high level studies, that the vaccines, particularly the DTP vaccine, that is killing far, far more people than it's saving. And this is well documented. I mean, there's a very famous study called Morgenson that was done by the Danish government that said, African girls who get that vaccine are 10 times more likely to die over the next six months than children who do not get it. And Gates must know that. But has he convinced themselves that there are those costs or sacrifices for some greater good? I don't know. He may have. What we do know is that you talked about this kind of coordination of all these Western nations who suddenly pivoted in early 2020, and responded in the same way that we now know is irrational and wrongheaded, clamping down totalitarian controls and lockdowns, masking, social distancing, all of which kill. We know the lockdown has killed far more people than COVID would have, or that COVID did. Even UNICEF and the big aid agencies who receive money from Gates now acknowledge that. So, there's 130 million people put in poverty. I think that AP reported halfway through the COVID that 10,000 African children were dying a week from the lockdown, from starvation, for months. And so, they did things that were wrong, and they all did it at once. The things they were doing were things that they knew better. Because the idea of mass lockdowns had been explored again and again and again and consistently rejected by WHO, by CDC, by all of the pandemic planning documents. The plans, the strategies all said, you can't do mass lockdowns because they kill more people than they save. And, particularly when you're dealing with a disease that has a 1% infection fatality rate, you're going to kill far more people with the lockdowns. And it's a respiratory disease, which you can't stop the spread. We see what they did in China. They just held it all... They put their finger in the dike. And as soon as they took it out, they had killed all these people with lockdown in China. And then COVID went through anyway, and killed everybody it was going to kill. So, we know from the beginning that what they did was wrong. But what I show in my book, "The Real Anthony Fauci" I actually was shocked when I discovered this during my research phase, is that they had drilled that again and again and again and again. And they had drilled, the agency that had orchestrated the drilling was the CIA. And I said from the beginning, why is the CIA involved in public health? The CIA doesn't do public health, the CIA does coup d’états. The CIA was involved in over 80 coup d’états between 1947 and 1998. And most of those were against democracies. So, you can say the CDC does coup d’état against democracy. So, why is it drilling a pandemic, this use of a pandemic as a pretext for clamping down totalitarian control? It began doing that... The agency began doing these formal, what they called tabletop exercises or pandemic simulations in 2001, just before the anthrax attacks. And then it was involved in a dozen of them that I talk about in my book. It went right up to October 2019. The last one was called Event 201. And who was in Event 201? And it was in New York City. And the hosts of it were Bill Gates. Avril Haines, who is the former deputy director of the CIA, who's now the biggest spy in America, the Director of National Intelligence and the senior adviser on COVID to Joe Biden. And the COVID Operation Warp Speed was run not by HHS, by the National Security Agency. If you look at the organizational charts, the Pentagon and National Security Agency ran the COVID response, not HHS. Why is that? And in these simulations, which I was able to take up the scripts and the details of most of them, they all have a very heavy CIA presence. James Woolsey, the director of the CDC, Tara O'Toole who's on the board of In-Q-Tel which is the CIA Investment Agency and many, many, many other senior CIA officers participate. In each one of these, the CIA writes the script. Or people from the CIA write the script. And each one of them has some kind of famous celebrity, like Madeleine Albright or Bill Gates, or Tom Daschle, or Sam Nunn, who give kind of the picture of legitimacy. And each one of them drills the onset of a novel pandemic. A lot of them from lab escapes, that's what they're drilling. And instead of drilling well, how do we stockpile vitamin D and make sure everybody gets it? How do we make sure people get exercise? How do we link all of the doctors, the 15 million frontline doctors from around the globe, and figure out, the treatments that are working for people and communicate those to doctors, here's what works, here doesn't work. That's the kind of thing you should have been doing. There's none of that. It's all about how do we clamp down totalitarian trolls? How do we force censorship? Get the social media companies to participate in censoring dissent. How do we lock down the public, force them to wear masks, force them to social distance, isolate them, etc. And over 100,000 people participated in these. And they were frontline workers, police, firefighter, FBI, US Marshals, utilities, local hospitals, local, state, and federal health directors from every agency. And the same cohort, the counterparts in Canada, in Mexico, all across Europe, in Australia. So all of these countries were drilling these together again, and again. Here's what you do when there's a pandemic. You don't isolate the sick, you don't care for the vulnerable and protect them. You lock down the whole society, and use that as a pretense for funneling everybody to one solution only, which is an untested vaccine. And they do that again, again, again and again for 20 years. And so when the pandemic did come, I'm sure there's a lot of people who are local cops and firefighters, and all of a sudden said to them, we're going to start censoring people. They would have said, holy cow, we're not going to do that. That's democracy, that's not our Constitution. There's no pandemic exemption in the US Constitution, you can't throw out the window, but because they had been drilling it year after year after year, and a lot of them apparently were in a mindset where they said, "Yeah, that's what you do when there's a pandemic. We know that because we drilled it so many times."

AUBREY: Yeah, one of the things you mentioned, vitamin D. So, the suppression of vitamin D, and its link was one of the most ridiculous things, because there's no cost to actually... I mean, there's pennies of cost if you wanted to distribute vitamin D, but no costs in actually sharing that information. But that information was suppressed at the cost of human life. Same with the common sense, at the very least understanding which has now been proven out to be true, that natural immunity, natural immunity that was conferred from actually having been infected with COVID was actually more effective than the vaccines, which we know to be true right now. I mean, that was actually recent in the last few weeks. I saw it in your newsletter that that's finally been acknowledged, but that was suppressed as well. Even the hashtag natural immunity was banned from social media platforms. So, you start to look at this, and you can't help but think, wow, it seems like some people wanted more people to die. And what is the reason why you would want more people to die? And ivermectin, you can include in that conversation, potentially. Why would they want more people to die, unless it was serving some greater purpose of a totalitarian control and takeover where they had to make this thing painful enough that we would actually allow all of this new surveillance to take hold. And this isn't a conspiracy theory about what they're doing. It's just you look at the evidence of what happened, it doesn't make any sense. And so the only logical philosophical understanding is, well, they had to have been doing this for a reason, that there was an agenda. And that gets really scary, because then you think, all right, well, this agenda to really have absolute total control over people, again, this consciousness of Empire that transcends even the profiteering, it seems to be that it points to that there's this idea of total control that is willing to be pushed forward, at any and all cost.

ROBERT F: Yeah, I mean, there's a more benign explanation, although it's not a really good one.

AUBREY: Yeah, no, I'd love to hear it.

ROBERT F: Well, the benign explanation is that there's a little known federal law that says you cannot issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine or an untested vaccine if there is a medication that has already been approved, that is demonstrated to be effective against the target disease. From the beginning, Anthony Fauci was, and the people who were working with him, who were trying to get us, funnel us into the vaccine corral. They had this big, big problem, which is the emergency use, the law, the emergency use authorization, the Prep Act and the Cares Act, and, the other acts that created the emergency use, exception. They all said, if there's an existing medication that looks like it works, you can't issue the EUA, it's illegal.

AUBREY: But that would apply only to ivermectin, hydroxychlo... It wouldn't apply to vitamin D or natural immunity.

ROBERT F: Yeah, that's right. And obviously they didn't like vitamin D because you can't patent vitamin D.

AUBREY: It comes from the sun.

ROBERT F: Yeah. The only drug... I mean, Pierre Kory has this terrific chart that shows all of the compounds and drugs, the repurposed drugs that have shown to be devastatingly effective against COVID. And he shows the price for each and of course, I think ivermectin is like 50 cents a dose.


ROBERT F: Packs of it is thousands of dollars a treatment. I think it could be $3,000-4,000 a treatment. I don't remember right now. But it's the ones that were expensive that got approved, and that we're going to make a lot of money for the pharmaceutical industries. And the ones that were cheap and off label and expired patents were not... One of the things with hydroxychloroquine is that after the SARS epidemic in 2003, China and the Western nations began dumping huge amounts of money into trying to figure out, repurpose therapeutic drugs that were effective against SARS. And in 2006, I believe it was 2006, NIH did a study that showed that hydroxychloroquine would just obliterate SARS. They said, not only does it kill everything in the petri dish, the SARS virus petri dish, if you put it in the petri dish, and then add SARS, SARS will never grow. So it was useful--

AUBREY: As a prophylactic.

ROBERT F: Not only as a cure, but also a prophylactic. So, it was a vaccine essentially. You give people hydroxychloroquine and it's really hard for them to get...

AUBREY: And minimal side effects. None like the side effects that were showing from the actual vaccination.

ROBERT F: No. And as soon as SARS came into people's consciousness, hydroxychloroquine came under attack in every major country in the world, where they moved it. Because most of the countries in Africa, for example, it's over the counter. In France, it was over the counter. In Canada, it was over the counter. And they moved overnight in early January, they moved it to like a class three medication so that you couldn't get it without a doctor's prescriptions. And you had, one of the factories that made it in Taiwan get burned to the ground from arson. You had the National Stockpile buy up all of [inaudible 01:10:53] stocks of hydroxychloroquine, and then put them... They were paying off the pharmaceutical company, and then they kept them in the National Stockpile and not let anybody touch them. It's supposed to be used by the National Stockpile to distribute it. They did it to put it in a lockbox. And this was happening all over the world. Harvey Risch talks about people that he knew in Africa, they were reporting trucks arriving, pickup trucks arriving in towns all over Africa and buying out all the hydroxychloroquine in the local pharmacies and then burning them. And you could say, some of this just was coincidence, or whatever, or rumor. But we saw enough of it to see that there was this concerted effort, what appears to be a concerted effort to end access for hydroxychloroquine. And then Bill Gates, and Jeremy from [inaudible 01:11:56] run these and the WHO run these studies, the solidarity study, the recovery study, that were just crooked studies that were clearly designed to discredit hydroxychloroquine, by giving people three or four or five times the lethal dose in elderly patients, so they could say, oh, look, it killed them. It's too dangerous to give to people. In fact, in Brazil, one of the studies where prosecutors indicted the people, the researchers who were conducting this study for murder, for deliberate murder homicide.

AUBREY: Well, alright, in this explanation, we have clear financial incentive to suppress approved medications because of the Cares Act, because of the Emergency Use Act, because of this. And then again, as we're saying, there is a separate category of vitamin D, there is a separate category of natural immunity, which does point to something potentially a little bit darker. But again, we're not playing the game of getting in the minds of people.

ROBERT F: Well, and I had a really important fact here, which is the countries that adopted Anthony Fauci's protocols had the worst death rates in the world, starting with the US. The US had the worst body count in the world. So, we had a body count in our country, we have 4.2% of the global population, and we had 16% of the COVID deaths. So how is that a success story? How is Anthony Fauci a hero to people? He racked up a death count that is by far the biggest in the world. We had a death rate in our country of 3,000 people per million population from COVID, that were assigned to COVID. 3,000 Americans dead per every million population. In Nigeria, where there was a 1.5% vaccination rate, they had a death rate of 14 people per million. So one two hundredths of our deaths right now. You can say that, well, yeah, Nigerians are a much younger population, which is true. And COVID was a death [inaudible 01:14:17] but it does not explain that huge discrepancy. What probably explains, at least part of it is that almost everybody in the country is on hydroxychloroquine because they have the world's largest malaria burden. And half the country is on ivermectin because they have a big burden of river blindness. The explanation that they're young does not hold water because Japan also had I think, one tenth the death rate that we had, and they have the oldest population in the world. And then you look at these provinces in India that are near each other, like Uttar Pradesh in Karela. Karela adopted Tony Fauci's protocols and had Western style death rates. Whereas Uttar Pradesh gave everybody hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and ended the pandemic overnight. And there's enough of those stories that you can think of, okay, maybe there's other explanations, but why weren't we studying it? Why wasn't Anthony Fauci rushing teams to these places that were doing better than us? Why did Haiti which has a 1% vaccination rate have a death rate of 15 per million when our death rate... And they're the poorest people in the atmosphere, and blacks in our country were dying at much higher rates than whites? COVID was devastating to American blacks. They lost 3.6 years of life expectancy. That is like a war, a civil war. And nobody asks why? Why is it that all the blacks in our country were dying disproportionately, and in Haiti, where they're much poor... They never had a pandemic in Haiti. And by the way, Haiti has almost exactly the same population as Cuba, which is right next door. And in Cuba, they're similarly impoverished. In Cuba, the death rate was about 850 people per million population. It was 10 times what Haiti had, and Cuba, they have vaccinated everybody. What's the explanation? You can't say one way or the other. There's a lot of correlation to, the less you got vaccinated, the better you did. And the more hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin you got, the better you did. You can't say, because correlation is not proof of causation. But you know why? When a reasonable person who really cared about public health, why wouldn't you be down there saying, what are they doing right? And what are we doing wrong? None of those kinds of studies were ever done.

AUBREY: Yeah, and again, the explanation for that could be again, profit at all costs, people looking at them making money. I mean, I think Pfizer made more money in the years of COVID than they've made by far at any other time in history. I think Ed Dowd talking about that. So there's massive profits from this mass vaccination. So you have to look at that as one of the causes, and then also raise a big question about alright, what are the other causes? I guess you could explain all of these other things as just trying to drive fear so that more people got vaccinated, so profits got even higher, and Hanlon’s' razor would say like, alright, potentially, this is just again, profits at all cost, and then the issues of capture. And then I think it's just reasonable to have a question mark raised about these totalitarian agendas that are kind of riding along with this, and including this kind of profit-at-all-cost mindset. But that also points to this desire for some, whether justified in their mind or not, to control the world population. I mean, it seems like there's both clearly this desire to maintain profit and get as many people vaccinated because it's profitable at all costs. And then at least a blinking question mark in the air of, alright, is this all part of a bigger, coordinated plan to make a move to control the whole world, and put out all of this surveillance that allows absolute and total control of the people. Usher in CBDCs, the whole different program, which, of course, everybody talking about, "Oh, you're a conspiracy theorist, you're a conspiracy theorist." You google your name, the first thing that lines up is, RFK Jr. conspiracy theorist, right? I mean, this is also part of the PSYOP, that as soon as you start talking about anything, then you're labeled with this term, which then allows everybody else to excuse you. Yeah, you get lumped in with all the flat earthers and everybody else who's making kind of ridiculous claims that are out there. Sorry, flat earthers. The Earth's fucking round. It's a real thing. My friend Ryan Hartman, he runs helium balloons that go up into the stratosphere and he's got pictures, so it's not relying on NASA.

ROBERT F: "I don't need that proof."

AUBREY: Yeah, exactly. It's not from the... It's from my friend Ryan who's in a fucking balloon. So, chill out, y'all. This is clear here. But I want to talk about, so I want to shift gears a little bit. And I want to talk about your relationship with vaccines in general. Now, of course, COVID brought this to the extreme because of the lethality of some of the side effects. But your own journey, you were sharing here in the kitchen when we were talking, you were sharing about your own vaccine injury that was caused from the flu vaccine. And was that really where you started paying attention?

ROBERT F: By the way, I'm not 100% sure that, and we're talking about my voice, that it came from vaccines. It was a weird coincidence, because I never considered myself somebody who was vaccine injured. I never considered my kids had vaccine injury until I'd been doing this for a long, long time and started reading scientific studies on food allergies, where they were... Why we suddenly have this explosion of food allergies in 1989, where people, kids... I had 11 siblings, and close to 70 cousins. None of them had a peanut allergy. Why do five of my kids have severe allergies? And a couple of them are phylactic allergies. A peanut could kill them. Where did that come from? And why does every classroom in our country have epi pens in it? Now, that's not normal. That's not historical. It happened in 1989. And what I started seeing is that you had this explosion, not only of allergic diseases, like food allergies, peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, eczema, which I had never heard of as a kid, and now it's every classroom, and anaphylaxis, and then asthma exploded. I had a brother who has asthma as a kid and he was told by a doctor there will never be a cure for asthma because it's so rare. Nobody will study it. Well, now one out of every four black kids has asthma. So, all of these allergic diseases started the same year. All of these autoimmune diseases struck American children's. Oh, I never knew anybody with juvenile diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and a hundred other autoimmune diseases that became epidemic suddenly in 1989. And neurological diseases, like ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics. I never knew anybody with ticks. Now they're everywhere. Tourette Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism. I still have never met anybody my age who has full blown autism. And by full blown autism, I mean, nonverbal, non-toilet trained, stemming, toe-walking, headbanging, biting, violent, light sensitivities and tactile sensitivities, kids who really have severe manifestation or presentation of the disease. I've never seen a 69-year-old man walking around the... And by the way, they're not locked up somewhere because there's no place to put them. That's going to be a huge problem. And when EPA was asked by Congress, what year did the autism epidemic... The CDC's own numbers say, in my generation, the autism occurrence rate, incident rate was one in 10,000. In my kid's generation, it's one in every 34 kids on, one in 22 boys. So what happened? And when Congress at the EPA, tell us what year it began... EPA is a captive agency, but it's captured by oil, coal, chemical, pesticide. It's not captured by pharma. It doesn't regulate Pharma. So they actually came back with real science and they said it happened in 1989. It's a red line, the autism epidemic exploded that year. Oh, well, what happened that year? There are a number of things that could have caused it, but it's a limited number. One of those is the vaccine schedule. Because in 1986, they passed the Vaccine Act. Congress passed it, Reagan signed it. And the Vaccine Act gave total immunity from liability to the pharmaceutical companies for any injury from a vaccine. So, now you had a pharmaceutical industry that said, holy cow, this is the biggest expense to making medicine is paying for downstream liabilities, and we're now excused from that. The vaccine industry has another interesting exemption, which is that it is the only pharmaceutical that does not have to get safety tested prior to approval. And that is a legacy of, that is an artifact of CDC's legacy as the Public Health Service, which a military agency. And the vaccine program was originally launched as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent, we could quickly formulate a vaccine and deploy it to 200 million American civilians with no regulatory impediments. So they wanted to make sure that if there was that kind of attack, they could immediately deploy it. And they said, if we call it a medicine, we're going to have to do the approval process through FDA, which takes 5 to 10 years. A lot of the injuries you get from medicines have long diagnostic horizons, and long incubation periods. So, you won't see them right away. You need to wait 10 years and then measure them. And they said, we can't afford to do that. So we'll call them vaccines, a biologic, and we'll exempt biologics from pre-licensing safety studies. And so, I've litigated on this issue. Because for many years, I was saying there's not one of the 72 vaccines that is currently approved, or currently recommended for children has ever been tested in a pre-licensing placebo controlled safety trial. And Dr. Fauci and others were saying I was lying. And then Trump ordered Fauci to meet with me in 2016, when we were starting a vaccine safety commission, which I agreed to chair. And in that meeting, I was there with Aaron Siri, and me and Fauci. And I said, "Fauci, you've said for many years I'm lying, and that there's actually pre-licensing safety trials for these vaccines, schedule vaccines." And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Can you show us one?" We had a referee there from the White House, and the counselor's office. And Fauci made after show of looking through this read well, like a lawyer's read well. They had a bunch of studies they'd rolled in on this little cart, and they were in read wells and file folders. And he made a show of looking through them for one of these studies in order to show me that I was lying. And he said, "I can't find it, it must be back in the office." And he said, "I'll send it to you." Of course, he never did. So we sued him. We sued HHS, me and Aaron Siri. And after a year, we said to them, here are each vaccines, here are studies that have been done. We have this very beautiful, elegant graph. Not one of these have ever been placebo controlled, safety prior to license. If we're wrong, can you show us that? And they just said we can't, we don't have anything. So, they, they're not tested. So that's another big expense that they're avoiding. Because that costs a quarter billion dollars. So, they don't have to be tested. There's no downstream liability. And then there's no advertising and marketing costs, because the government is ordering 70 million children to take them every year. So, it's the perfect product, there's no expenses. And a lot of times, the government, NIH develops the vaccine and gives it to the company, which is just free money for them. And then there's a trap market. And so, you look at that and say, okay, well, in 1989 they passed this law in '86. '89 there's a gold rush. All the pharmaceutical companies are racing to put new vaccines on the schedule, including vaccines for crazy illnesses like rotavirus, or hepatitis B which kills a tiny handful of kids a year. You're giving this to 76 million kids with no safety testing. And they originally--

AUBREY: And no liability.

ROBERT F: No liability. It's not even casually contagious. It's not like I get hepatitis B and I breathe on you, and you're going to get it--

AUBREY: You need to have a heroin sexual orgy.

ROBERT F: Yeah, if you have a heroin sexual orgy with like a really seasoned prostitute, or multiple sexual partners, male partners, yeah, you're going to get it. So, originally Merck, CDC asked Merck to create the vaccine for those cohorts, for promiscuous male homosexuals, prostitutes, and drug addicts. And as it turns out, none of those people were interested in purchasing the vaccine, right? So, they had made this vaccine for these groups that had other things to do with their money that was more pressing to them. Merck went back to CDC and said, you had us build all this infrastructure and these lines. We invested hundreds of millions in, and nobody wants to buy the vaccine. So CDC said, no problem, we'll just make kids take it. So, we'll make them take four of them, at beginning on the day of birth. And the vaccine, well, I'll tell you this. In 1999, CDC brought in an epidemiologist from Belgium named Thomas [inaudible 01:31:29] Stratton. See, '89, you had this huge blow up with the vaccine schedule. And then, four years later, you started seeing all these kids appear with autism and other neurological diseases, because it's not diagnosed for four years. The CDC thought, maybe this is the vaccines. And they brought in a researcher called Thomas [inaudible 01:31:55] Stratton, and another pharmaceutical researcher called Robert Davis. And they had them do a study of the vaccine safety data link, which is the biggest repository of vaccine and medical information in our country. Full medical records for all the HMOs. So, if you have the vaccine record for every child, and that 10 million people, and you have the full medical claims that you can see, okay, you've got a vaccine now. And then five years later, he's buying epi pens, or he's buying diabetes syringes, or whatever, then you can do a cluster analysis and see whether the kids who had a certain vaccine were buying more. So it's kind of a perfect, natural... It's a database that you can get out of. So, they sent these researchers into that database, and they had them look at kids who got the hepatitis B vaccine within the first 30 days of life, and kids who did not. In other words, kids who got it later or didn't get it at all. And so, they had two cohorts. And what they found was in their first run of data, that the kids who had gotten the vaccine in the first 30 days, had an 1135% elevated risk for an autism diagnosis. Put another way, it's a relative risk of 11.35. To give you context, a relative risk of two is considered proof of causation as long as there's biological plausibility. And by that, I mean, there's a huge relative risk of having yellow fingers and lung cancer. The yellow fingers are not giving you lung cancer, it's just, something is giving you both, right? So there's no biological plausibility that the yellow fingers will give you the cancer. But if it's a relative risk of two, and there is biological plausibility, it's considered proof. The relative risk of smoking cigarettes, a pack of cigarettes for 20 years, and getting lung cancer is 10. This was 11.35. So they knew at that moment what was causing it, and it was a five alarm fire. And they got, I think 82 people from the top pharmaceutical people, all the big academic researchers, what they call principal investigators, the regulatory heads from WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, all of them in a secret meeting. They didn't want to do it at CDC headquarters because they thought that would be vulnerable to Freedom of Information requests. So they did it off campus at this secret Methodist retreat center in Norcross, Georgia called Simpson Wood. And they talked for two days. The first day about the evidence, where they all said, this is clear proof. There's no doubt. And then the second day, they talked about how to hide it from the American people. Somebody transcribed that whole meeting. And I got a hold of the transcripts and published excerpts in The Rolling Stone. That was the beginning of my kind of trip down the rabbit hole. But, if you look at... So, in 1989, something happened. One of the things that happened is the vaccine schedule exploded. But something happened. There's a lot of other evidence. By the way, all of those diseases that I talked about; the autoimmune diseases, the allergic diseases, and the neurological diseases, all 170 of them that went epidemic in 1989, are all listed as vaccine side effects on the manufacturer's inserts of those 72 vaccines. Oh, and the one place the vaccine companies tell the truth is on the manufacturer's inserts. Why? Because under the law, the only way you can sue that company under the FICA Vaccine Act is if they know of a side effect, and they fail to list in the vaccine insert. So that's why they're telling the truth. And they list autism on one vaccine, all of these are listed. But it doesn't mean... And then there's a lot of other scientific evidence for that. And I've written books about that, that summarize, digest all these hundreds and hundreds of studies. And we do that at children's Health defense, as these new studies come out that show the links, that show it's very well documented, it's plausible, it's happening. But it may not be the only thing, almost certainly isn't, that are causing this epidemic of neurological chronic disease. The chronic disease rate among American children in 1940 was 6%. From 1940 to 1960. And then suddenly it started rising as we started adding vaccines and other stuff. By 1986, it was 11.8%. This all CDC data. By 2006, it was 64%. So more than half our kids now have permanent disabilities, chronic disease. Namely those categories, autoimmune, neurodevelopmental and allergic. Anybody who's your listener, who is my age around it, can look back and say, "Yeah, I never saw any of that stuff in the 1950s and 60s and 70s. It suddenly appeared at the end of the 80s." So, there's other stuff. There could be. And there's a very famous toxicologist that I've used as an expert in many of my cases, named Dr. Phil Landrigan. And he's at Mount Sinai in New York. And he doesn't agree with me on vaccines, by the way. Actually I don't know what he thinks. He just has told me, you shouldn't talk about that. So I think he understands where the red line is. There's things you're not allowed to talk about, if you want a career in science. I don't know, because he's never told me what he thinks. It's better not to talk about it. But he did a study that said, this chronic disease epidemic is being caused by something environmental, some environmental exposure. We know that has to be true, because genes don't cause epidemics. Genes can provide a vulnerability, but you need the toxin.

AUBREY: Right.

ROBERT F: So he said, if you look at the timeline, you have to find a toxin that became ubiquitous. In other words, everybody got exposed, from Cubans in Key Biscayne, Miami to Inuit in Alaska, in 1989 or thereabouts. And also that affects boys disproportionately to girls, because the boys are more affected by these, particularly the neurological injuries. All of these injuries have sort of have a sexual dimorphism in their impact, and boys are more impacted. At least as I said, the neurological injuries. The girls are probably more likely to get autoimmune diseases. The boys are really being impacted neurologically. So, you have to find a toxic that does that. And he narrowed it down to I think 11. Like glyphosate, from roundup neonicotinoid, pesticides, cell phones, and Wi-Fi radiation, all stuff that happened around 1989. And that could explain this. Ultrasound is on that list. I don't believe it has any impact, but it may. You can't rule it out. And so anyway, he's got about six other ones.

AUBREY: And just to pause you for a second, what you're going through is proper science.

ROBERT F: Exactly.

AUBREY: Which is looking at all of the potential causes, considering we don't know for sure. However, something is happening, that's clear, it's beyond chance. And so, let's look at all the things and study these things closely to the best of our ability if we actually give a shit about the health of the human race.

ROBERT F: Exactly. The NIH has a $40 billion budget. It distributes that money to 56,000 university researchers to study different things. To study different things about human health. Why aren't we studying what's causing the chronic disease epidemic? And I'll tell you what will happen to you if you try to do this study. Your career will be finished. If you had a young scientists at UCLA, who said, hey, nobody's ever studied autism in the vaccine safety database, and they haven't. And the reason is, as soon as that first Stratton study, CDC looked at that first Stratton study, and one of the things they did is they locked down the vaccine safety database, and they will not let any independent scientist in there to look at it. It's like Fort Knox. They don't want anybody to know the truth. What if there's a young scientist who say, well, I can get into the California Health Department database. And I can look at whether autism is being caused by vaccines, or if there's an association of any kind. His dean would get a call from [inaudible 01:42:28] or Cliff Lane or one of Anthony Fauci's egg men. And, would be told, if you let this guy do this study, you're going to have a hard time getting money. Harvard, I think gets... Somebody did the breakdown of a bunch of these colleges. But that's something like... And this is typical. So I'm not going to say it's Harvard, but it may be UCLA, but it's $400 million a year in tuition and $600 million a year from NIH. So, these colleges are getting these huge amounts of funding. They rely on NIH. And that's why probably why a lot of these colleges--

AUBREY: Capture of academia.

ROBERT F: Yeah, and that's probably why they all mandated vaccines for the kids, because they're taking the orders. They don't care about the students. They care about that NIH money every year. And so, why isn't NIH doing those kinds of studies, and saying, okay, listen, I have kids who have food allergies. I have one son with 29 hospital visits before he was two years old to the emergency room. You bring a kid who is not breathing, whose throat is closing in a speeding car to the emergency room. I don't experience fear a lot in my life, but that is terror. So I, along with a group of people in New York, including a guy I had probably 10 lawsuits against, David Koch, who's the head of Koch Energy. He had a son exactly my son's age who had the same thing. And that brought us together for that purpose. So, we started a group called Food Allergy Initiative, and it later became Food Allergy Network. We raised about $100 million to study food allergies, but what we were studying was not how the allergies occurred, but how to cure them. So, we had insiders from all over the world, the top guys, and they would induce allergies in rats. And then they would give different formulas to try to say, how do we get rid of the allergies. So how do they give that allergy to a rat? Here's how. You take the aluminum adjuvant from the hepatitis B vaccine, and you give it to that rat with a peanut molecule. And that rat will now have permanent peanut allergies. If you want to induce a dairy allergy, give them a dairy molecule. If you want to induce a latex allergy, give them a latex molecule. We're giving all these kids--

AUBREY: Or even pets. One of the things that I thought about too is like you go in to get your adjuvanted vaccine after just petting a cat, and all of a sudden you have--

ROBERT F: Exactly. Aluminum is so active in your body. If it ever happens to me, a Timothy wheat outbreak, when you get that... First of all, a lot of the vaccines contain peanut oil excipients, or other netrin excipients. And maybe that's why all these kids have peanut allergies, because you're giving the aluminum adjuvant and the peanut molecule. And let's say just in the ambient environment, there's a Timothy wheat outbreak. Now, if it occurs when you're getting that aluminum adjuvant, you may now have a Timothy wheat allergy for the rest of your life. And there's two studies, one by a scientist called Cowlings and another by Mohsen. And what they found was that vaccinated children have 30 times the rate of allergic rhinitis as unvaccinated children. And the reason is obvious. We're giving these kids allergies systematically. And the cost to our country is enormous. And of course, they don't have to account for any of those costs.

AUBREY: Sells a lot of Claritin though. So as far as it's been explained to me by the medical professionals who I've talked to about this, so an adjuvanted vaccine, it contains not only aluminum, but other different things that are highly stressful to the body's immunological response. It creates a general heightened state of immunological response. And then there's some weakened pathogen that they're actually targeting. But the generalized response, the body doesn't know that it needs to fight that. That's why they adjuvant it, it puts the body in the most high alert immuno reactive state because of this foreign toxic substance that goes in their body. And then the body's intelligence goes looking, holy shit, something is causing this. What is causing this? Everything that is foreign, everything that is not self, and sometimes even including self, which would be the autoimmune conditions. Something is causing this, let's create defenses against all of these things we find in our body because we don't know what that is. And yes, it may include the weakened pathogen that is part of the vaccine, but it also includes everything else in the body and sometimes the body itself.

ROBERT F: Exactly. And that's what autoimmune disease is. Including now, we're looking at obesity as an autoimmune disease. It's when the body starts to attack its own organs. When your immune system turns against your own organs, because it's been overhyped. Your immune system is now on steroids, and it's looking for trouble. It's looking for things to attack, and it starts to believe that your body is a foreign object. Allergic rhinitis, I mean, juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus are all these autoimmune diseases, Guillain-Barre, whatever. They're all these autoimmune diseases where your body begins to attack itself. What happened is, early on in vaccinology, initially vaccinology was... what they used kind of a milder version of the disease, whether it's smallpox or polio or whatever. And they give the person a live virus. It's live virus, but it is a weakened version that's unlikely to kill you. A weakened strain. That it will give you immunity against the ferocious version of that disease. But early on, they figured out that the live virus vaccines would often mutate in your body and regain their virulence, and then start killing other people as you shed them after you get vaccinated. In fact, about 80% of the polio cases in the world are vaccine strain polio. So, Gates is giving all these kids the polio vaccine, but it's actually keeping polio circulating because it's a live virus vaccine, which is the cheaper version of the vaccine. So, the regulatory agencies expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines. So, you kill a virus so it cannot mutate, it cannot grow. And that dead DNA actually alerts your body and gives you an immune response to that same organism when it invades your body alive. The problem is, usually the body's immune response to a dead virus vaccine is not robust enough or durable enough, in other words, long lasting enough to qualify for licensing in order to get an FDA license. They never test. "Here, try the vaccine, you get the vaccine, you don't, and go out in the world and see who gets infected. And that's not how...

AUBREY: That'd be real science.

ROBERT F: The only thing they look for, is do you have an immune response? And you have to have a sufficiently robust and durable immune response for you to get that FDA license, and the dead virus would not give it to you.

AUBREY: Guess why. Because the body is intelligent, and it knows the virus is dead. It's like, oh, we're good. Dead soldiers landed on our beach, do we need to mount our army response? No, they're dead.

ROBERT F: Yeah. So what they found out was that if they added something horrendously toxic to that vaccine... And as you said, the body would go, "Holy cow, whatever they just gave me is really bad. And I better remember it, respond to it. Be ready to respond to it." So it looks at all of the items in the vaccine, including the dead virus, and it is then ready for it. And the immune response is much higher. The problem is, you're also... And one of the axioms in vaccinology is the more toxic the adjuvant, the more robust the immune response. So the more toxic the stuff they put in you is, the more likely you are to get the license. Well, this is why vaccinologists hate toxicologists and vice versa. You won't find high level toxicologists working in the vaccine divisions at FDA, NIH or CDC. Because a toxicologist asked this very inconvenient question. After it gives you this robust response, what happened to it? What is the fate in the human body of this molecule? Is it being excreted? Is it lodging in your brain? Is it crossing the blood brain barrier? What happens to it? The vaccinologists don't care. All they care is they prevented you from getting the disease. And if they've injured you, or made you lose IQ or something else, they don't care. They are focused on how do we prevent that from allergic disease.

AUBREY: And this is part of this kind of myopic mindset that has permeated the entirety of allopathic medicine to a certain degree, where it's just so narrowly focused on the one symptom of the one thing that they're targeting, that there's no holistic view of human health and thriving. So it's not only isolated to vaccinology, it's isolated to the entirety of medicine, because you're just isolating and targeting this specific thing. And whatever else happens to the rest of the body, as long as it passes through the FDA regulatory trials, so be it. Then there'll be another thing, another drug that they'll develop to attack the symptoms that were caused by this other drug. And it will go on down the line until you're on an infinity of medications that holistically undermine the entire health of a human being. I mean, this seems to be--

ROBERT F: The other thing is they've had to invent this methodology. It says vaccines have saved millions of lives. And Gates, says, I've saved millions of lives in Africa, but they're never actually asked to prove that. And when the CDC has actually looked into that claim, when they've actually done science or anybody has done science on that claim, the claim falls apart. And here's a study that everybody should know about. CDC actually investigated in the year 2000 the claim that vaccines have saved millions of lives. And they went into partnership with Johns Hopkins. They took the best scientists from there and CDC, and they went through years and years of data. And the study was published, I believe it's pediatrics, but the study, the name of the study is Guier. That's the lead author, Guier. And what they found when they looked at all of that data, because there was this huge drop in mortality from infectious diseases, from [inaudible 01:54:55] fever or from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, and all of these other infectious diseases in the 21st century, about a 70% drop. It's one of the most momentous medical developments in history. And so the question is, why did it happen? Did it happen because of antibiotics? Did it happen because of medical interventions, like better surgeries, or vaccines? They looked at all of those. And what they said is that medical interventions played almost no part, including antibiotics. Almost nothing. That it all happened because of better, because... And they looked at the timing for each of the vaccines. When you look at that timing, it's striking, because the decline in mortalities. And I have a series of graphs in one of my books that show for each disease when the vaccine was introduced, and when the declined to... And decline always took place long before the vaccine was introduced. And the vaccine introduction did almost nothing to reduce the mortalities. So, what they said is it occurred because of engineering improvements. In other words, road construction that allowed oranges to be shipped to the northern states and electric refrigerators--

AUBREY: So, nutritional advancements.

ROBERT F: Yeah, and also water treatment, chlorinated water, and sewage treatment systems, and all of these. So it was nutrition, it was the terrain, it was the chance for... And if you look, there are huge mortalities still from disease like measles. Measles in 1964, when they introduced the vaccine, I think measles at one point at the beginning of the century, was killing 10,000 kids a year. By 1964, the year before they introduced the vaccine, the death rate for measles in our country was I think two or three per million. It was almost nobody. The only people who were dying of measles were malnourished black kids in the Mississippi Delta. That basically was it. But when they tell you, oh, the measles vaccine saved tens of thousands of lives, it's not true. The mortality decline occurred long before they introduced the measles vaccine. And so, that study says it was not the doctors and physicians, the scientists. It was the engineers that actually are responsible for that. And the countries that still have low standards of living, you still get a lot of people whose deaths are attributed to infectious disease. The truth is, they're probably actually dying of malnutrition. And so, that's one of the kinds of myths that... There's another study called McKinley and McKinley that was published in 1976. And for many years, it was required reading in almost every medical school in our country. And it said the same thing, that the vaccines had virtually nothing to do with the decline in infectious diseases. And in fact, it warns vaccinologists will someday try to take credit for that decline. And we should put a marker in it right now saying they had nothing to do with it. They did predict accurately.

AUBREY: So, one of the things that you're doing, and I know that you got to get on with your busy life being a superhero in our time, and I know you probably push back against that term. You're just a man doing the best he can with the situation that he had. But actually, that's a term that I'm offering to you. someone of great courage who stood up against what I see as the forces of Empire, whatever their source may be. And I know you have to get back to that. But before we leave, one of the things that you're doing is you're filing a lot of lawsuits and trusting in the courts to actually adjudicate fairly in deciding fault, and deciding who's responsible. Everything from COVID to the many, many other lawsuits that you have. How many active lawsuits do you have currently, if you were going to say?

ROBERT F: More than 50 active lawsuits. Litigation is not, I have to say this, because I've been doing this for 40 years. It's not a good way to change public policy. There ought to be better ways to doing it. every time you file a lawsuit, you're making yourself a hostage of fortune, and to judges who are often frightened and are susceptible to all of the pressures that the rest of us are. But it's kind of the one institution left where we can still have an effect.

AUBREY: And do you have faith? Do you have faith in that institution of law?

ROBERT F: I don't make predictions. All I know, you've got to keep fighting. And if we stop fighting, we're going to lose. For sure. We could win. There's other things that we... Listen, we do all of the... We use all the tools of... Martin Luther King said the tools of advocacy; agitation, legislation, litigation, and I would say, innovation. We're using everything. Every weapon that we have, we are using to fight back with.

AUBREY: I know that, I'm doing the best I can, and that's sharing my opinion, my heart, my voice, my compassion for everybody on every side, no matter if they've been the most pro vaccine and the most... In the mindset of we need to support all of these medical interventions, and trying to do my best to share the truth, and also welcome them back at a seat at the table and say, look, I understand the pressures that be, the challenges of having all of this information, and not trying to place fault or blame on anybody and try to bring about a new elevation of consciousness. But I also saw what you're doing and knowing that I couldn't contribute or participate to that directly other than to just contribute to you. And so that's when I called you up and said, alright, what can I do and made a donation, and I encourage anybody who's interested in what you're doing, because you're doing actually all of those different things to contribute to your cause. Because, I look out at the world, and it's just good to know that there's people willing to still fight. And I know so many of them. And one of them is in this room, right here.

ROBERT F: My hero.


ROBERT F: I could not believe when I walked in there.

AUBREY: Surprise.

ROBERT F: So, I'm sitting at the kitchen table.

AUBREY: Surprise, surprise. So, I just want to share my utmost gratitude for you, and for everybody out there. And don't get lost in this idea that your voice is too small and you're not Bobby Kennedy, and you're not Aubrey Marcus, and you're not Aaron Rodgers. Don't think for a second that your voice doesn't matter. Don't think for a second that what you do doesn't matter, because it echoes in the halls of eternity. It's like when Achilles was on that boat, riding into the beaches of Troy. Whatever you want to think about that war, whatever. But nonetheless, it's like our actions here will echo in the halls of eternity, and our souls will know and the Akasha will record the way we stood in our hearts, and in our minds, and our actions, and history will remember.

ROBERT F: Thank you. Thanks for having me here. And thanks for giving me the ability to amplify my voice.

AUBREY: Of course. To the end, brother. To the end.

ROBERT F: Thank you.

AUBREY: Yeah, for sure. And thank you everybody for tuning in. So much love. Thanks for tuning into this video. Make sure you hit subscribe. Follow me at @AubreyMarcus. Check out the Aubrey Marcus Podcast available everywhere. And leave a comment. Let me know if this video resonated or what else you would like to hear from me in the future. Thank you so much.