Heated Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz

there will soon be a new vaccine for the coronavirus pandemic the question is are these vaccines safe and can the government force you to take them when it comes down to lawyers they itch for things like this 140 people if seriously injured by vaccines it's not hypothetical if you're right why wouldn't it follow that the flu shot should be illegal CDC is a vaccine company they are not doing their job as Regulators we don't know what covid-19 vaccine will look like Anthony fauci put 500 million of our dollars into that vaccine and how they've got a vaccine that it's too big to fail would you urge the American people not to take the vaccine I'm not any vaccine I am asking me the question what if it was more than a thousand oh of course I'm not going to tell one in a thousand people to die I think you overstayed it look at the vaccine inserts Alan masks work we're gonna kill all these people mandatory vaccinations we're still gonna make a profit so let's go ahead certainly anybody who runs a pharmaceutical company cares deeply about not killing people you can't sue them there's no discover there's nothing they never get caught do you wear wear a mask personally the flu shot not only harms you for flu and it primes you for a coronavirus they are unavoidably unsafe [Music] so look we've invited a lot of different doctors to want to come and debate the topic of covid-19 vaccine and everyone's turned it down but when it comes down to lawyers they itch for things like this so it's a different story when we're talking about my two guests today who by the way both of them have been a guest on Valentine before separately on different topics but today uh conversation came up this week A video popped up about what uh Alan dershowitz said that led to a dialogue with uh Robert Kennedy and then we said you know what if we can set up a friendly debate here together they both agreed and so today's a special episode we'll talk about a lot of different things but prior to going into it if you don't know who uh Alan dershowitz is his resume is legendary 50 years he taught at Harvard he's represented some of the most uh interesting cases O.J Simpson a lot of different cases so he's had debate is what he does for a living and on the complete opposite side we have Robert Kennedy where many call him a hero when it comes down comes down to environmental Crusader he's also obviously a lawyer they've both written books uh Alan's recent book which you can get free on Kindle right now uh is guilt by accusation that's on the topic of the metoo movement again I asked them do you want us to sell it he said no let him go get the Kindle so that's his discretion you can go get the candle we'll put the link below as well having said that gentlemen thank you so much for being a guest on that payment and agreeing to do this debate thank you for having us Patrick thank you so so first thing I want to do is I want to share my screen and I'm going to uh I want the audience to see what led us here a comment that you made on a podcast you did and then I'll go from there asking your thoughts on it so here's what was said in an interview a few weeks ago by Alan let's show a clip of this let me put it very clearly you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease even if you disagree you have no right not to be vaccinated you have no right not to wear a mask you have no right to open up your business wait can I stop you yeah no right not to be vaccinated meaning if they decide you have to be vaccinated we have to be vaccinated absolutely and if you refuse to be vaccinated the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm if the vaccine where is that in the Constitution to prevent if the vaccination is designed to prevent the spreading disease if the vaccination is only to prevent a disease that you will get for example if there's a disease that will kill you you have the right to refuse that but you have no right to refuse to be vaccinated against a uh contagious disease Public Health the police power of the Constitution gives the state the power to compel that and there are cases in the United States to bring forth so now that interview goes for a while so let me bring you back to us here uh Alan those are some strong statements you made obviously his reaction a lot of people's reactions has your position changed since making those statements on that interview the save as I made on the interview were professional statements based on reading Supreme Court cases not expressing personal views items they were uh view I have strong personal views but my constitutional views haven't changed at all um let me be very clear I don't think this issue is going to come up in the near future because right now the New York Times has a big story today uh in which they talk about uh how there's going to be a limited number of vaccines and people are going to be waiting online to get them so the issue uh is not going to be confronted uh as to mandatory vaccines you know having said that I want to just pause for one second and say how important this debate is now privileged I am to participate in it was so distinguished a conversationalist as uh Robert Kennedy um I I of course knew his father uh I had actually been offered a job to work with his father when he was an attorney general but Harvard offered me a job and I decided to take it I was a great fan of Senator Robert Kennedy Attorney General Robert Kennedy and I think I consider myself a friend of the Kennedy family and I consider myself a friend of Robert Kennedy I admire enormously the environmental work he's done and I think he's performed an important function by raising issues about vaccination we as you'll see in this conversation will disagree we'll probably agree on more things than people will be will be surprised at our level of agreement but on the issue of constitutionality I am confident that this Supreme Court would follow uh Supreme Court president president from 1905 and would say if there is a safe and that's crucially important effective measure that could significantly reduce the contagious impact of a deadly disease like the current pandemic virus that the state would have the power to either directly compel vaccination or for example condition young students coming to school on being vaccinated or people doing other things that might result in Contagion being vaccinated so no I haven't changed my professional constitutional opinion but as as Robert will tell you we've had conversations offline and he has persuaded me about a number of things relating to the health and safety and efficacy of vaccine so I've learned a lot from our conversations and I hope people will learn something from our conversations today but the Constitutional issue in my mind Remains the Same so it's important to unpack that constitutionally your remaining same position to say if the government wanted to mandate and make a 3K vaccine we can't say anything to it that position is not changing that's right as long as the vaccination is safe and effect example if you have somebody who has unique uh vulnerability to vaccinations uh that person might get a medical exemption the issue of religious exemption um is something the courts have considered most recently the Supreme Court did just in the last day or two create religious exemptions for private schools religious schools in terms of whether employment laws operate on religious schools so we would have to see what the court would say about religious exemptions but as a general matter a healthy person who simply has an ideological objection to vaccinations as such not to this particular vaccination because of health reasons or vulnerability the Supreme Court would I predict hold that the state could in one way or another compel vaccination either directly or as a condition of people engaging in public activities or activities that could create contagion yeah that's my position well that's very important to know because there's your personal beliefs which is completely different than what you will be able to be mandated so having said that Robert I know you've seen this before and uh uh you've seen uh when this statement was made and in one case uh uh Alan even said he'd be willing to debate Robert Kennedy on this topic which kind of led to us wanting to do this debate what was your initial reaction of watching what Alan said and what has changed since you and him have had calls to get her offline well I want to be and I think at lunch for participating in this by the way Patrick you're familiar and that one's familiar with my voice I want to apologize at the outset it's really bad in the morning and Alan could only do this in the morning but hopefully it'll get better as we yeah as we proceed I want to thank Allen for participating in this debate I've actually been trying to do Aid on this issue for 15 years um I've asked Peter as as Paul off as all of the major leaders of um who are promoting vaccines and none of them have and I think it's really important for our democracy to have to be able to have spirited civil discussions about important issues like this this is an issue that has been on the news 24 hours a day for the last four months and yeah there's no debate happening about this is all along kind of a a repetition of these government orthodoxies and government proclamations and democracy functions only when we have the free of information policy is as often crafted in the furnace of heated spirit is part of our constitutional system it's part of Americans tradition that is free speech in this country is it the First Amendment and it ought to be something that we celebrate and that we model for the world it shouldn't be something where you now have Democratic leaders like Adam Schiff calling on social medias is a censored debate about important um an issue that shouldn't happen so I'm very grateful Alan I know loves the First Amendment or actually agreeing to debate on an issue at which he is at a disadvantage because I've spent 15 years working on this issue I'm in a big disadvantage for him and when it comes to talking about constitutional law and I'm going to try to keep a lot of this debate on my eyes oh let me start out by saying I don't agree with Allen's initially and this is a very small disagreement because Alan and I have talked a lot offline and I think we've come to a place where we really believe this is going to be a conversation not a debate because I think I'm most of the issues we are in agreement and he made the qualifiers when he came up and he said if it's safe if it's effective and I think those are the biggest at the playground this debate is really happening and I think in the end he and I would end up in the same place in that debate I will make a minor which is the Jacobson case which was decided in 1905 was not a case where the state was claiming the power to go into somebody's home and plunge a needle into their heart or kicked out their door and take them by force the um Jacobson actually I was resisting taking a smallpox vaccine he was from Cambridge Massachusetts and the penalty for not taking the vaccine was a five dollar fine so it was like a traffic ticket he decided to take it he had been injured in a previous vaccine so I didn't want to take this one he took the case the Supreme Court he lost and the remedy was he paid a five dollar fine so I think it's a big there's a big there's a there's a big constitutionalism between you know that remedy which is paying a fine and actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them and I I don't I'm not convinced the Supreme Court of the United States at this point would would um would uphold that kind of law uh nine to zero or eight to one at all so let me just uh let me out go to a the initial place I think we're in agreement I think Alan and I are both an agreement at this should be a voluntary program at if there's mandates they should be as an ultimate final dramatic drastic and that really and and the question is why can't we do a voluntary program When Alan and I were kids you know people wanted to get vaccinated it was no fear of the statements of polio facts and some people had a tremendous Trust in our health regulatory officials and today that trust has evaporated to the extent where Now 50 of the people who are pulled in this country are saying they may not take the covet vaccine in 27 are hard now is it even before the vaccine is developed why is that happening and that's the question I think we really have to ask ourselves I agree I do so many Americans no longer trust a regulatory officials and Trust his process and one of the reasons is you know vaccines are very very interesting and and very different kind of of medical prerogative because it is a it's a remedy that is being it's a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick and it's the only medicine that's given to healthy people so you would want and particularly your children who have all lifetime in front of them so you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it's safe because you're saying to somebody we are going to make you make this sacrifice or the greater good you have no health problems of zero risk is you know we are going to force you to undergo a medical intervention and our side of the park and should be oh we want this to be completely safe and in fact what we know about vaccines and this is um HHS is a a a 2010 study the agency for healthcare research I was commissioned to look at vaccine injury because it is every many years have been saying vaccine injury it only occurs One in a Million but what ahr you found with the federal agency they looked at one HMO which was a Harvard Pilgrim HMO and a in a machine cluster analysis in other words artificial intelligence counting very very accurate accounting system and they just at the actual rate of vaccine entry is 2.6 percent that means one in 40 people if seriously injured by vaccines and we want to and do we have a right to say we are going to impose this intervention on people whether it's a one in 40 chance that you may get injured in order to um in order to protect hypothetical people touching that particular does it is and for anybody and this I think is something that Allen really has to I think Alan that you need to come to terms with in terms of crafting your own arguments as it's not hypothetical and the injuries are not rare the vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting it judged in HHS admits fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court the other thing is vaccines are zero liability so this is an industry that went to Congress in 1996 and they had a yeah at that time was called a causing brain injury one out of every 300 people and they said the Congress we cannot make this we cannot make vaccines safely they are unavoidably unsafe that is the phrase in the statute of unavoidably unsafe the only reason that we're going to continue to make vaccines is if you give us complete blanket immunity from liability and Congress gave it to them hey you have a product that it that if it injured you no matter how negligent the company was no matter how sloppy that line protocols no matter how toxic the ingredients that you choose to use no matter how Grievous your injury you cannot Sue that company and that company therefore has no incentive to make a product safe and that should be troubling to any of us who are part of the legal system that is saying we are going to force people to take this intervention look uh I agree with much of what uh Robert has said first of all I completely agree this Supreme Court decision in the Jacobson case in 1905 is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel somebody to take the vaccine the logic of the opinion however not the holding the logic of the opinion and subsequent opinions including some by Justice olive oil Holmes strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met safe effective exemptions in appropriate cases you talked about healthy people being compelled to take a vaccine which is not designed to help them of course it's also designed to help them but the major function is to make sure that they don't become typhoid marriage and spread the disease to other people but when you take a vaccine you also increase the chances that you will not get the terrible terrible disease I think you're going to have to concede Robert that um the smallpox vaccine had an enormous positive impact on wiping smallpox from the face of the Earth smallpox was a dreaded dreaded dreaded disease the black plague back in many many centuries ago if there had been a vaccine back then could have saved probably millions of lives we don't know what covid-19 vaccine will look like but um on the Assumption and here we have a real argument on the assumption that it would be effective and would stop the pandemic and would cause some injury to some people then you have to ask how the courts would strike the balance of Wendell Holmes once made an analogy to uh in an unrelated case to being drafted into the army um when you were young 18 year old healthy person and we have a draft as we had in the second world war we don't have it now but at that point in time a young 18 year old was told look Congress has given the Army complete exemption we're not liable if you're shot by the Nazis or by the the Japanese you have to risk your life in order to protect other innocent people in the country and it's not a Perfect Analogy obviously but it does show that the courts have given to the government the authority to sometimes make decisions that require you to sacrifice your life I have to tell you I don't become personal about this but I don't think it's any family in the history of America that has ever made more sacrifices in the public interest than the Kennedy family you know we broke all of our hearts to see how much sacrifice the Kennedy family personally made in order to particularly Robert Kennedy who put himself In Harm's Way so many times on behalf of the Civil Rights Movement people forget how much he put himself In Harm's Way on behalf of Israel you know he was a great friend of Israel a great supporter of Israel and the horrible man who killed him killed him because he was a Palestinian who hated Bobby Kennedy seniors views sacrifices part of the American tradition and the Americans owe the Kennedy family an enormous debt of gratitude for their sacrifices now those were voluntary sacrifices um you know President Kennedy went to Dallas knowing there were risks Prophet Kennedy went to Los Angeles knowing there were risks by the way I was working on his campaign the night I was woken up in the middle of the night to learn the horrible horrible horrible tragic news um uh and uh those were voluntary acts and obviously we're talking about a very different thing we're talking about involuntary acts but being drafted as an involuntary act again uh to mention the Kennedy family the oldest brother of the Kennedy family volunteered to serve in the Army and killed in combat as a Great Hero but there were others didn't volunteer many of my own relatives served abroad so we demand sacrifices and we don't demand Perfection I think both Robert and I agree that we live in an age and it's a terrible time that we live in where everything has become politicized you mentioned that when we were kids I remember not being able to swim in the Summers of 1953 4-5 because sapolio my friend died after being on a a lung machine and the blessing that we all made to sulk and savement for developing the vaccine but there were consequences people took the vaccine in and did suffer in the end no polio was was wiped out and you know we live in a very divisive age let me mention one other point that I think we should be discussing today the New York Times is a very interesting story about who the vaccine will be offered to the time story is not about mandatory it's about people wanting it and Robert and I completely agree that the program should begin by giving it only to volunteers we should only get to this terrible tragic Choice issue in the end if it's absolutely essential that people who don't want to be vaccinated have to be vaccinated to get the kind of hurt immunity we all agree with that but we live in such a divided time that everything has become politicized on July 4th uh the Reverend Farrakhan made a speech to almost a million people in which he urged black people not to take the vaccine because we know the history of how black people were experimented on during the terrible Tuskegee time and yet black people and Latino people and people of color are the most vulnerable to the illness uh is that a smart thing for Farrakhan to have urged his community um the the number of of people of color who have refused who have indicated a refusal to take the vaccine is I think slightly higher according to the report than the number of people not of color who are refusing to take the vaccine I understand that I understand the suspicion that our country has generated among people people don't trust people anymore uh I wrote an article in early March right in the beginning of this right at the beginning of this I wrote an article and the title was trust science but be skeptical of scientists and at that point I pointed to two things that were being argued by scientists including the World Health Organization which I generally support saying don't wear masks number one and number two the covid-19 is not contagious by air it has no aerosol contagion you wrote an article you wrote that article no I wrote the article against it against the article saying don't believe that masks work number one if they didn't work why would so many doctors be using them and why would it be some necessary for doctors to have them and second I don't believe that there's no aerosol transmission the disease could not have developed so quickly around the world just by touching surfaces so I challenge the medical establishment on that and I turned out of course as we all know to be right we know there's aerosol transmission we know masks have an impact whether they help you who are wearing it or whether they only help you in transmitting it but I would like to throw a question out to Robert I think I know the answer Robert would you be against a a law that mandated the wearing of masks in public for everybody even by people who don't approve of the wearing of masks you know masks don't kill you they're not they're not they don't pose the risk the vaccine do but they do deprive you of Freedom do you think the state the government has the legitimate constitutional power to mandate the wearing of masks by people who refuse to wear masks let me come back to that let me eat some of the other things because I think that's actually a complex question and I think the science is very controversial on that let me address any earlier things that you said first um one is this is for other esoter discussion um and and one that you know I'm not gonna really drag you into it other than to say this the proposition and the theology add smallpox and polio or abolish due to vaccination is controversial that is not a proposition that is universally accepted and I mean if you notice all the infections is is whether it was scurvy or tuberculosis for which there were no vaccines um along with peripheral fever or diphtheria and pertussis and measles all disappeared at the same time without vaccination oh CDC actually examine because it became such a part of the Orthodoxy of you know of vaccines that that uh the idea smallpox were abolished because of vaccines and these other diseases they did on Hopkins CDC in 2000 it it comprehensive study of that proposition the study was published in Pediatrics which is the Journal of the American Association of Pediatrics which is a a readout fortification for vaccine Orthodoxy so it was a it's a publication very very friendly and supportive of accentation the people who want to look up the studies I'm the lead author is a guy or g-u-i-e-r and the conclusion of that study is at the abolishment of mortalities from infectious diseases that took place during the first half of the 20th century nothing to do with vaccines it had everything to do with sanitation was nutrition with hygiene with electric refrigerators with reduction in population densities and essentially engineering solution clean water good food um and that was uh and and actually there was a guy called Edward Cass who was out of Harvard Medical School at that time who gave a very very famous speech in which he warned that people who were promoting vaccines and other Technologies would try to take credit those reductions and mortalities from infectious disease and he's aware of them because they'll try to monitor that they'll try to monetize them and you just have to increase their power and their Prestige so it's something that you might look at and it's called IR g-u-i-e-r um I agree with you that was tremendous phase in vaccination during a period oh and you grew up I grew up Alan we had three vaccines and all of them were deemed as necessary they were fear diseases today's kids have to take 72 vaccines 72 16 facts in order to stay in school and that explosion of new vaccination came in 1989 after the passage of vica vaccine Act s like an immunity from liability to vaccine companies and so those companies all of a sudden looked around and is at a holy cow now we've got a product where we are completely excused from the highest cost from Netflix every other medical product which is Downstream liability for injuries that's the biggest cause for every medicine not only that the accidents happen other exemption and most people don't know about they are the only medical product that does not have to be safety tests against a place and that is at exemption is an artifact of CDC is like a Public Health Service which was a quasi military agency which is why people at the CDC have military ranks like Surgeon General and they wear uniforms the vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against biological attacks in our country and they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us the biological age and Anthrax or something like that we could quickly formulate a vaccine and and deploy it to 200 million American civilians without regulatory impediments they said if we call it a medicine we're going to have to test it and that takes five years to double blindly but fasting so let's call it something else we'll call it a biologic and we'll exempt file objects from safety testing so not a single one of the vaccines that 72 vaccines now our children tested against the police and I in fact sued HHS in 2016 and said show me any Placebo studies that you have for any vaccines and they were unable to do so none of them and you don't have to sue them like I did anybody can go on their cell phone and look up manufacturers insert hepatitis B vaccine Gardasil vaccine polio vaccine you know how many days the current polio vaccine you know how many days it was safety testing for Alan 48 Hours the Hepatitis B vacs in the glass aversion was four days the merch version five days that means that if the baby they gave that to and a seizure on day six it never happened if the baby died on day six it never happened if the baby got food allergies or diagnosed two years later it never happened if the baby got autism which is not diagnosed to four years of age 4.2 years of age it never happened autoimmune diseases you cannot see those if you have these short-term studies and you can't see any risk if you don't test against duplicity both and my question is nobody knows because of that nobody knows the risk profile or any vaccine that is currently on the schedule and that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty That vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths and it's causing and my question is how in the heck can we be mandating to children that they take a medical product for which we do not know the risks and to me that is Criminal and you know we talked we started this discussion by talking about how do you avoid the whole discussion about mandating vaccines the way that you do that is you have a transparent process after people see a vaccine is going to be tested they see that is tested fairly against the placebo and that it is there's long-term tasks that are going to be evidenced by all of these difficulties and and it's transparent and open and yet what we've seen from the current group of covet vaccines is none of that's happening they're skipping Keys key parts of the test um the internet vaccine which is the lead candidate skip the animal testing altogether when they came to human testing it does it on 45 people the at a high-dose group of 15 people a medium to 15 people on a low growth of 15 people one of the people I was sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized that's six percent three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized that's 20 percent they were going ahead and making two billion dollars of That vaccine and by the way the people that they test them on Allen are not typical Americans they use what they call exclusionary criteria they are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they're doing to the healthiest people if you look at their exclusion you cannot be pregnant you cannot be overweight you must have never smoked a cigarette you must have never Vaped you must have no respiratory problems in your family you can't suffer asthma you can't have you can't have um rheumatoid arthritis or Auto any autoimmune disease there has to be no history of seizures I'm like is the people they're testing the vaccine on but that's not who they're going to give them to they're gonna go what happens these people are like the Avengers they're like Superman you can shoot them with a bullet and they won't go down of what happens when they give them to the typical American you know Sally six-pack and Joe Bag of Donuts who's 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes you know what is going to happen then you're not going to see 20 percent you're going to see a lot of people dropping debt these people are lost Consciousness they had to go to hospital they had huge fevers they're the healthiest people in the world so any other medicine that Allen that had that kind of profile in its original phase one study would be d-o-a the problem is Anthony fauci put 500 million dollars of our dollars into that vaccine he owns half the patent he has five guys working for him who are entitled to collect royalties from that so you have a corrupt system and now they've got a vaccine and it's too big to fail and instead of saying hey this was a terrible terrible mistake you're saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and and you've got to understand Alan with these covet vaccines these companies are playing with house money they're not spending anything on it and they have no liability so if they kill 20 people or 200 people 2 000 people in their clinical trials big deal they have zero liability and guess what if wasted money their money because we're giving them the money to play with oh you know people like me and people in our community are looking at this process and we're saying uh you know whatever comes out of that process we don't want to take it because we're seeing how this sausage gets made and it's really sickening no medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that oh there it has let me just respond because I think we're coming to some common ground here I have no doubt that transparency and testing is essential uh I don't understand why there isn't a placebo testing and other testing later after the initial vaccine so there are many phases in a vaccine we have an emergency now and we may have to in fact develop a vaccine and make it available to people without Placebo testing without diversity testing we may have to do that but there's no reason why over time we can't do the traditional testing say with polio or smallpox that are now part of our history and have now existed for so many years obviously at this point there's no reason not to be able to do the placebo and the other kinds of human testing uh the article in the times that I referred to made a very interesting point it said that the people who are most vulnerable to the disease or the people who probably won't be part of the original testing the testing is as you said done mostly on people who are quite healthy but isn't there a natural test that occurs you say the pharmaceutical injury has nothing to lose but look at what happened to the pharmaceutical companies that put forward some of the opiates they have been driven out of business their names have been taken off buildings uh they are regarded as pariahs in the world today certainly anybody who runs a pharmaceutical company cares deeply about not killing people and even if the government doesn't mandate this kind of testing and even if they give them exemption from Financial liability surely good people and I think we assume that people who run companies today I have a friend who's trying to develop one of the vaccines and and he's doing it without profit he feels so strongly about the need to uh vaccinate people around the world so I think you overstate it when you say that the people who are developing those vaccines have no concern whatsoever whether people live or die I think they do have a concern I I think the government has eliminated their financial liability but would you would you be set and the other thing is you say there's no testing but I I'm not the expert I'm not the medical journal reader but I've read enough medical journals to know that there is a lot of natural testing you cite some of of it you cite some of the arguments that say that over years people get autism people get this people get that those results don't come from the initial testing that allow the product to go forward they come from great universities medical schools and public health institutions that continue to test products over time and report to the public the results of those products uh Robert here's the the answer is a bunch of questions one is the opiate people Alan and and by the way no they were not moral people they knew what they were doing they're killing uh 56 000 of American young kids a year knowing what they were doing or kids every year that were killed in the 20 or Vietnam War these are not moral companies and they only got busted because plaintiff's attorneys could sue them and they got the the discovery documents and walked them out of the U.S attorney's office and said hey there's criminal Behavior here that can ever happen in a vaccine space because you can't sue them there's no Discovery there's no depositions there's no class action suit there's almost on District litigation there's no interrogatories nothing they never get caught now they use four companies that make all of our vaccines all 72 of the vaccine shots and for our children every one of them is a convicted serial felon in the past 10 years just in the last decade a hose companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties damage is fines are lying to doctors for defrauding signs for falsifying signs for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly and getting away with the viox which was the biggest vaccine producer my Ox which was their Flagship product in 2007. was a pill that they marketed as a headache pill act caused heart attacks they knew it caused heart attacks because they saw him in the same those in their clinical trials he didn't tell the American public and they killed between 120 000 and 500 000 Americans who did not need to die and those of those Americans were people who had rheumatoid arthritis or the headaches and migraines they took that bill that bill leaving and and by the way when we sued them we got spreadsheets from there being counters where they said we're gonna kill all these people we're still gonna make a profit so let's go ahead nobody can justify that I agree with you and they ended up they should log on to prison and say they spent a ID a seven billion dollar fine but how can anybody it requires a cognitive dissonance or people who understand the corporate called the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they're doing this and every other product that they are that they have but they're not doing it with vaccines they are and I just want to answer your other question no Placebo testing does not take place after the clinical trials and the reason for that is the HHS has adopted a very unethical guidance that's as it is unethical once a vaccine is licensed recommended it is unethical to to publicity trials or compare of accent interpersonal vaccinated people our scientists who do it they're punished for it they're it's very difficult for them to publish they get their uh their funding cut off because nobody wants any study that is going to reveal the truth about vaccine injuries or just must not happen look it's very important that you're making these points because we live in a democracy and nobody is going to compel a vaccine unless you get Democratic approval legislatures are going to have to pass laws doing that and you should testify about this your your voice should be heard but in the end how do you respond when the American public has listened to you as listen to your argument in a very persuasive and very convincing and they have an impact on people like me with open minds uh and yet in the end there's a vote by the legislature and the legislature votes to compel vaccinations in the public interest just the way the legislature votes to draft young people to fight Wars in which they will die in a democracy don't you have to follow the will of the majority I agree transparency is all important and and let's shift the debate because you said you wanted to answer the question let's take it out of vaccine for one second because I think it helps analytically I'm a law professor for 50 years so I always do hypotheticals hypos so let's assume the legislature now passes a law every 50 states and the United States Congress passes the law requiring everybody to wear a mask when they're Outdoors and you say well I'm not so sure that masks are helpful maybe they are maybe they aren't Congress has hearings congress makes a determination that on balance they are helpful wouldn't you agree that it would be constitutional let's start with constitutional and then desirable wouldn't you agree that would be constitutional to mandate the wearing of masks even if people have political ideological medical religious objections because a the wearing of the Mask is only an inconvenience maybe it'll cause a little irritation by some people that will require you know a topical uh pharmaceutical uh and it has the potential not to save the world but to improve the possibility of not having communicable diseases wouldn't you agree that mandatory mask wearing would be constitutional well if I accepted all of your presidents then perhaps I would the thing is I know a lot about the mass and my organizations CHD has not taken a petition on on um but I have read um well I've read at least three matter reviews uh involving hundreds of studies on that and the majority of the studies in fact there's a bmj study from 2015. as actually likely to spread the disease and to make you less healthy because the carbon dioxide that you're breathing and the people who wear them as are more likely to get sick I'm not saying that that's my position I'm just saying yeah there's a lot of contrary science out there do you do you wear a mask personally if the science was clear if the science was clear then I'd be much more synthetic let me ask you this let me just answer the other question already well I grew up in Virginia Allen and when I grew up it was illegal a majority voted it was illegal for a black man to marry a white women so the majority is not no in a democracy you have the courts there that protects um and unfortunately we are in a situation today where we have tremendous corruption not only in Congress which is receiving which receives more money from pharmaceutical companies than any other industry pharmaceutical gifts in lobbying twice the amount that oil and gas which is the next big one four times with defense in Aerospace there are more lobbyists are not lobbyists in Congress and there are members of Congress in the Senate so we have lost the um you know the legislative Independence body and the unfortunately Alan let the agencies are also captured now you know about agency capture my entire life we just I'm assumed the the uh EPA which is Monsanto we've got an historic Judgment at 12 billion dollar settlement in the Monsanto case and I was part of that trial team and one of the things that happened during that trial is that EPA Talk of the position against us they took a position that that uh glyphosis Roundup I caught this cancer as it turns out we got an internal memorandum that showed that the head of the pesticide division in EPA was actually working secretly for Monsanto and killing studies and twisting studies and ghost writing studies of also about the science look you're doing it we were able to show that to the gym right now imagine this a CPA which is an independent agency Imagine This FDA that's 50 of its budget um vaccine companies from the industry fifty percent the CDC has an 11.5 billion dollar budget and 4.9 billion of that is buying in sunlight and distributing vaccines CDC is a vaccine company it owns 57 vaccine patents so it can make money on every sale of a vaccine and I age owns hundreds of vaccines patents NIH owns half the patent for the moderna vaccine there's five individuals at NIH and the rules at NIH if you're a scientist or an official were not a vaccine Bureau out to collect 150 000 a year in royalties on sales That vaccine makes these regulatory agencies are actually vaccine companies the the vaccine Marketing sales part of those agencies is the tail that is now wagging the regulatory talk they are not doing their job as regulators and in fact the senior scientists at CDC today the senior vaccine safety Sciences I was benefiting still he was a senior scientist there for 18 years he is the author or co-author on all of the major studies that CEC has produced on vaccine safety and particularly the studies that show the vaccine does not cause autism his name is Dr William Thompson three years ago he came forward and he said we have been ordered to fake all the science of the last decade on autism and and he's and he's and in fact we were in the major study which is called the seven oh 2004 it's the most excited study on this subject any on PubMed and he said in that study we found out that black boys look at the MMR vaccine at a 363 percent greater risk of getting an Autism diagnosis than black boys who waited after 30 second months he said he was ordered to come into a conference room with all that data with his four other co-authors by their CDC pause Frank DeStefano Ruth and ordered them to destroy that data in front of them in CDC headquarters and then published that's not a saying there is no effect oh you have an agency that is really just an arm of industry and the people who are in my community who are being derived and vilify these mothers who have vaccine children and your children are being vilified in the Press who aren't saying wait a minute we have read the studies the scientific studies we have read about the industry corruption we need to talk about this they're being silenced by the Press they're not allowed to tell their stories and nobody is talking about a single member of Anderson Cooper's staff or Sanjay Cooper has made any effort I talked to Bill Thompson and he has been begging to be subpoenaed and he's still at CDC look the reason to do this debate is because I think you perform an important function by bringing out some of these ties some of these connections you perform an important function when you bring lawsuits against corrupt pharmaceutical companies but my question is this knowing all that you know now and putting aside the issue of let's assume we didn't have mandatory vaccinations let's assume you win that debate and it's only voluntary vaccinations now and they come forward with a vaccine that they say will stem the tide of the pandemic and you're allowed to go on television on Anderson Cooper would you urge all the American people not to take the vaccine would you become part of the campaign not to take the vaccine oh no I'm not anti-vaccine people call me Manny vaccine because the way I'm marginalizing man silence I am asking you the question you know look Alan I've been trying to get Mercury out of fish for 37 years nobody calls me any fish I support everyone 100 but what would you do let me just you know what would you tell the American public if the vaccine were available and If you were invited say to speak to members of the black community members right you know community members of the general uh American community and they said if they come up a vaccine yeah it does what Bill Gates says it's going to do is you give one shot you and life's not immunity and there are vanishingly rare serious injuries uh well I don't mind you know job site redness bitching forget about it I don't care I'm talking about death's brain damage one in a million that may be acceptable in that case and and it works and I'd say I'm I tell people yeah I'm gonna get it let's go ahead and get it what if it was fine enough no of course I'm not gonna tell one in a thousand people to die so that on 999 people can can avoid croven particularly I mean like a healthy person as basically a zero chance of dying from covet oh thank you you need to give it to a tremendous number of people to save one life and and we and the problem is with this vaccine is we don't know if the vaccine is going to kill more people when you start giving it to those people with comorbidities 54 of Americans is overweight rheumatoid arthritis air smoke they have 54 percent of us I'm not even talking about smokers and Vapors 54 of us has chronic disease they're they're testing it on one group and they're going to give it to another and we need to know what the risk factor is and the people that they give it to you and I I agree with that let me put you in let me just say that I completely thought I was going to be made before you know I've certainly EPA for many years and it was captivation agency what would happen if EPA made half of its annual budget selling coal that's what you got with these Regulatory Agencies and important for doing this let me ask you another question what if we had a system which said this you have two choices one you can have the vaccine or two you can refuse to take the vaccine but if we refuse to take the vaccine you have to remain in quarantine until such time as the pandemic is basically passed so it's your option the one option you don't have you don't have the third option that is not taking the vaccine and mingling with the public and risking other people getting covet not only uh young people although young people do die the Broadway actor who had his leg amputated and recently died tragically without any pre-existing conditions what if we gave people that option quarantine is the option for refusing to accept the vaccine but you don't have the third option of refusing to accept the vaccine and walking around the public without masks the problem is you know that sounds like a reasonable position the problem is it's not the world the way the world works and let me explain why here's how the world works and as an allergy is the is the flu vaccine so a flu vaccine is very much like the coronavirus vaccine but we've had the flu vaccine for 90 years so every year it's fine-tuned and we and and perfected and originally they told us the flu vaccine you'll get one shot you'll have immunity for life and then it turned out no we we need to get it every year because there are variations of the flu same thing is highly likely to happen with Coronavirus uh the Cochrane collaboration which is the ultimate Arabic herb for vaccine safety it is you know it is the highest Authority and the British medical journal have done three giant meta reviews on on the flu vaccine literature so they look at all the literature that exists the peer-reviewed literature that is on bloodman I think 127 studies it did it in 2010 2014 and 2017. here's what they find CDC said the flu vaccine is 35 effective that's what they claim Cochrane collaboration said no it you have to get 100 fluid shots to prevent one case of flu number one number two there is zero evidence that the flu shot prevents any hospitalizations or any deaths number three the flu shot transmits the flu in fact if you've got a flu shot you're six times more likely to give somebody else the flu and if you didn't get the flu shot and this is Drew Allen for many many other uh it was a polio the polio vaccine which you know about is so good at transmitted giving polio to other people that 70 of the polio cases in the world today come from the vaccine so let me ask you a specific question and the chickenpox if you go to the chickenpox um manufacturers insert it says if you get this Chickenpox vaccine you should not go near a pregnant women for six weeks or anybody with who doesn't mean to compromise the same with pertussis you become an asymptomatic carrier so it's a you're not guaranteeing and in fact the AstraZeneca vaccine the Oxford vaccine which is the the other leader when they gave it to monkeys the monkeys continue to transmit the disease and Bill Gates and fauci have been going on TVs and you know we make a vaccine that protects you but you may still be transmitting it so why are you gonna lock that guy up in the house people out who've been who are now asymptomatic carriers because they've got a vaccine let me agree with you first of all if they develop a vaccine that only prevents you from getting it but doesn't prevent you from transmitting it I would not be in favor of uh compelling That vaccine and I think the Supreme Court would not accept that as a rationale but I want to ask you a direct question I'm 81 I'm almost 82 years old my doctor who I love and admire says to me every year come October you must get the flu vaccine you must get the vaccine against pneumonia uh you must get the vaccine whatever it is again shingles I listen to my doctor who I love and admire has been taking care of me for years should I instead listen to you and not take the flu vaccine nobody should listen to me people need to do the science themselves and I would say to you no um listen to your doctor what Reagan said about about Gorbachev trust but verify you look at the vaccine inserts Alan yeah look at some of the science and I would say you know my I am in a million years I would not take the flu shot and I'll tell you why because this is what Cochrane and bmj have found people who take the flu shot are protected against at the strain of flu up there 4.4 times more likely to get an on fluent faction and you might find a lot of people do that they get the flu shot and then they get sick they're usually not getting the flu or getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming if it it injures your immune system so that you're more likely to get a non-flue viral upper respiratory infection in fact a pentagon published a story and you can decide this it's by wolf of your LFE in January of this year in which they said the flu shot not only primes you for flu and it primes you for a Coronavirus if you get a FL a placebo group and they had a vaccine group because they were on it for many military Readiness to see if the fluid shot was prophylactic against virus what they found is actually the people who got the flu shot were 36 more likely to get a coronavirus and that's not that's not a loan study we've found six other major studies that say the same thing if you get the flu shot you're more likely to get component virus and that's what the science says then you should not listen to me nobody should I understand so let me understand the implications of your position on the flu shot uh not only uh would you not take the flu shot and urge me to look at the science and in the end decide not to take the flu shot because it's too dangerous but you would also if I take the implications of your position accurately outlawed flu shot make it illegal because in your view and in the view of the scientists you quote the flu shot causes more harm than good and and increases the chances of us all getting the coronavirus do I understand the implications of your view correctly yeah but I wouldn't I wouldn't take um that sort of extreme position what I would say is we should have vaccines but it's we shouldn't have one size if it's all mandates there may be some situations where even a flu shot would be beneficial to somebody because a flu shot is not completely ineffective it does probably give you protection against that Year's foolish strain if they get it right and there could be a situation where somebody's live depended on getting that flu shot but to mandate the flu shot population why I think is Criminal and I think it's you know where the look all you have to do Alan and this is what Cochran said is look what's happened to longevity in the elderly since we started mandating the flu shot to elderly people those are the people who their their life expectancy had dramatically gone down as the flu shot proliferated and if you see you know the people who died during the covet vaccinate during the coveted crisis and there's no science on this but it's observational it tended to be people who got their flu shots people who were in nursing home will all get flu shots people who are First Responders respect that I don't understand the implications of your position if if you're right why wouldn't it follow that the flu shot should be illegal you said it's criminal to mandate the flu shot because it kills people in my age category so if you had to cast the deciding vote if you had decided to run for Congress instead of doing the great work you've done over so many years and you were the deciding vote in the United States Senate and there was a bill to Outlaw the flu shot why wouldn't you vote for it if you you know I'm kind of a free market I I think you know what I'm against mandates I think that you know there may be situations where you know that where that product might do some good for somebody but I don't I just don't believe it should be mandated I don't you know I wouldn't think for example of at a um that I Viagra should be mandated to every human being on the planet right but there may be somebody who's as you know I want to take that medication let them do it order everybody to do it look you're we you and I are on the same page there I'm curious what you think of this because I feel very strongly about this let's assume you have a drug a pharmaceutical that hasn't been tested that is potentially dangerous but has a 10 chance of curing pancreatic cancer in terminally ill patients do you agree with me and with President Trump on this issue that individuals who are dying should have the opportunity to go off label and to take dangerous drugs that probably will kill them but increase the chances that they remain alive but that should be a matter of individual Choice I'm I'm I'm I'm I have a big libertarian streak in me I think people should be left just our own choices wherever possible unless it's going to do something harm to others let me address one just one last thing I both agree with John yeah I think I I I think we agree on most stuff you know you said well if it status it against the placebo and this I think is why people like me are suspicious are reticent um the Oxford vaccine which is you know was the is the other leader Gates has a huge investment in it fauci is pushing it it is a leader AstraZeneca is now you know is branding it of That vaccine is run I I called Greg Pollard who's at Oxford a very very famous powerful uh virologist he originally promised at the beginning he said we're going to test it against the placebo we're going to do what's never been done in vaccinology before we're going to actually use an inert Placebo and test and then in the middle of his phase two he said no we're going to test it against the meningitis vaccine the meningitis vaccine it's a vaccine with a really high injury profile it has a listed just on its manufacturing answered our 50 deadly serious enter is including Kawasaki disease um paralysis or heart attacks and death and and hepatitis and all kinds of autoimmune disease it's probably it's arguably the most dangerous vaccine so instead of giving his placebo group in a nerd Placebo he's giving them the most dangerous vaccine he can why it's a ploy that vaccinologists use and they give their placebo group something that's horrendously dangerous The Mask injury isn't the vaccine and you know and so everybody on my side sees this and they say he's not being honest we do not know what the rich profile of that product is we are never going to take that product because it was never tested against a placebo make them do the science don't say to you know get angry at people who are skeptical and say oh you're skeptical we're watching the sausage get made and it's an ugly process and by the way he gave that vaccine to a bunch of monkeys you know my and and then he exposed he challenged the macaws by exposing them to the wild coronavirus yeah yeah and all of the macaws got sick so the vaccine doesn't work but because the British government put 90 000 pounds into it he now is in order to make two million doses with a vaccine we know doesn't work and they're going for it with it anyway and he refuses to test against the placebo so that gives us zero Faith so let me first of all say nobody should be angry at you people should be praising you for bringing this to the attention of the American public let me just summarize if I can my view and then you can get the last word uh I am thrilled that we had this debate I think the public watching the debate has learned uh we've learned how much we agree about we're both Libertarians we both agree with John Stewart Mill that the government shouldn't be compelling you to do anything just for your own good but they can compel you to do things that prevent harm to others oh we have some disagreements about uh um mandates uh I think we both agree that any vaccine should start out by being offered voluntarily we both agree that people should um be offered the vaccine initially and take it on a voluntary basis and that mandatory vaccination which presents events very daunting moral and constitutional issues should not be required until it's proved absolutely necessary by the consensus of medical opinion I think we also agree that the First Amendment and the spirit of the first amendment requires that this debate continue and so I'm pleased that we had this debate you've persuaded me about some of the medical issues I will look further into medical issues I don't think I've persuaded you on the Constitutional issues and I know you haven't persuaded me on the Constitutional issues I still take the position of though in a democracy the courts do have the final word that I do believe that if there were legislation mandating in extreme circumstances with safety and other considerations taken into account mandatory vaccination I do believe the Supreme Court would and should uphold mandatory vaccination under those circumstances that's the major area we disagree with but in Practical terms I suspect we don't have a lot of disagreement that will come to fruition in the next year or so because in the next year the big issue will be how to get the vaccine voluntarily to as many people as possible we're willing to take it and so thank you for putting together this debate I think it really was informative and thank you Robert for uh accepting the uh idea of debating on this issue thank you Alan and I I want to express my gratitude to you on behalf of myself and everybody in this community you know people who are who are called antifax they're mainly not anti-vacing almost all of them are the mothers and fathers of intellectually disabled kids who gave all the vaccines who did what they were told and then their child was injured and they and that prompted them to go out and do the research those people should be allowed to speak those people should not be gagged they should not be taught considered Heretics they should be allowed to tell their story and they should be treated with compassion and understanding and patience and an intellectual openness toward their stories they shouldn't be vilified they shouldn't be gaslighted they shouldn't be ignored and right now a particularly a point in our history where we're talking about yeah I think lots of people that vaccine the urged stories are more important to you than ever I want to thank you because for 15 years all of us have been trying to do a debate and we haven't been able to get Peter otes to do it and Paul often Ian look in any of the leaders I've been have been scared to say where you are now and I want to thank you so much on behalf of all of us but also our Democratic traditions for coming here thank you Alan well thank you Robert gentlemen one thing I do want to say is I'm glad I got through my 28 questions with you guys it was uh very good and uh I know one thing is we have to make this disclaimer that this this uh debate is not sponsored by Viagra even though Robert brought up Viagra and I'll make sure next time we're in Boston I avoid taking you to my favorite Sushi Spot since you are anti-fish I had no clue until today's debate that Robert is anti-fish uh and by the way based on how this goes if the audience comes back we may reach out to you for part two again if there's other topics we can uh touch up Robert thank you so much for your time take care everybody appreciate you guys thank you thank you very much Patrick so can you imagine for 15 years Robert Kennedy has been waiting for one person to want to debate the issue of vaccine and Alan Durst was the attorney constitutional lawyer finally said yes and this took place you had a chance to watch both of them go at it I'm curious to know if either one of them changed your mind comment below and on top of that you know what I'd like to see take place is to get someone who's a doctor any one of them offered hotels anybody that you would like to see debate go on Twitter and tweet them and myself saying we'd like to see a debate Robert Kennedy on valuetainment and outside of that look I got two other interviews I want you to watch one of them is my full interview I do with Robert Kennedy which is an even deeper interview on the topic of vaccine than this one if you've not watched a click over here and the other one is a debate format that we had about a year ago where we had two folks come somebody who's from U.S Navy intelligence and another person that was the director of a developmental director from normal and they debated marijuana we went to cocaine alcohol very very good debate live right here in my office if you've not watched that click over here and if this topic of vaccine is important to you you are directly or indirectly affected by this help share this video on the topic started out there by people talking about it whether you're Pro or anti share this video with others Facebook Twitter text whatever it may be so we can get a lot of eyeballs where people start talking about this debate as we're getting closer to a possibility of a mandated vaccine for Coronavirus and if you enjoyed the video today please click the Subscribe button take care everybody bye [Music]

Channel: Valuetainment

Views: 2,221,406

Keywords: vaccine debate, pro vaccine expert, vaccine debate 2020, robert kennedy jr, alan dershowits, anti vaccine, patrick bet david, valuetainment, Heated Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz

Id: IfnJi7yLKgE

Length: 78min 10sec (4690 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 23 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/firefox57endofaddons]

dershowitz actually is stupid enough to have a debate with kennedy, well that will be a fun and interesting one to watch :D

[u/antikama]

I watched it live. Dershowitz was clearly outclassed when it came to the science

[u/dgrfe]

Why won't a medical expert step up to the plate to have this public debate???

Why a lawyer? And why one of Epstein's Lolita Express/lawyer pals?

All Derk could do was ask hypothetical questions. He added little to the conversation.

[u/firefox57endofaddons]

that was a damn slaughter, as expected :D

it has some great references in it, that are brought up in the interview, so easy to look up, so already worth it to watch it just for those.

in regards to debates it is very interesting to see how the weasel derschowitz is trying to nail kennedy on certain statements. for example the mask mandates, the vaccine mandates, the banning of the flu vaccine, etc...

dershowitz has no leg to stand on, so he is trying to get kenney to walk into an open knife, which would result in headlines even: "kennedy wants to ban live saving vaccines" for example, which we know the mainstream pharma run media just is begging to write.

kennedy being very skilled in debates however properly avoids any of such downfalls and makes excellent points on all regards.

also 10/10 for the added references in pictures and the interviewer standing back from the debate and letting it flow.

so paul offit, peter hotez, bill gates, etc.. etc... come on join dershowitz and have a nice debate with kennedy :D

i am personally really surprised that dershowitz was stupid enough to agree to have this discussion. his goal was probably to walk back a bit from the original "state has the right to get u and force inject u against your will statement regardless of what u say" statement, but of course him coming on the highwire resulted in some good statements by him and him agreeing to a discussion with kennedy is just excellent.

it is also an excellent one to share with friends who are newer to this debate as it goes over the history of things and the basics a lot (which most here already know of course)

[u/sigismund1880]

Deshowitz has lot of experience from defending Epstein, Weinstein and OJ Simpson and von Bulow

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/claus-von-bulow-cleared-in-an-attempted-murder-of-his-wife-dies.html

[u/[deleted]]

Thanks for posting. I was looking forward to this debate and didn't know it was out already.

[u/whosthetard]

I have some doubts about Dershowitz's older clip where he said if something only affects you then it's up to you to decide. But that's not the case always. Pharma agents often refer to seatbelts for comparison purposes. But seatbelts only protect you, yet they are enforced. I am not sure of the legal details but it seems to me inconsistent.

Unfortunately nobody asked the simple question why don't they check for immunity? This has nothing to do with ideology but science. And of course why those vaccine drugs aren't in the open market.