VACCINES: HONEST ANSWERS with Dr. Joel Warsh

0:00 [Music] Today I'm joined by Dr. Joel Worsh. He's a boardcertified pediatrician with a master's in epidemiology and he is a muchneeded voice of reason. In today's polarized health debate, he's the author of Between a Shot and a Hard Place, which is a bold data-driven book that tackles tough vaccine questions with balance, clarity, and compassion. Now, in this show, we're going to break down what the science actually says about vaccine safety, where public health messaging went wrong, and we're going to explore the research around autism, autoimmune conditions, and the alarming rise in chronic illness in kids. This is the conversation every parent deserves to hear. Let's get into it.

0:49 >> Keeping it real. Keeping it real. >> Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. Dr. Warf, welcome to the show. >> Thanks for having me on. >> How are you? >> I'm great. I'm great. >> You doing okay? I I'm surprised that angry mobs haven't uh pulled you from your home. >> Me, too. I was expecting a lot of angry balls. Maybe some people with black coats are waiting outside. I don't know. >> I was worried for you, but now I'm I'm feeling more confident. Um so, the new book is called Between a Shot and a Hard Place: Tackling Difficult Vaccine Questions with Balanced Data and Clarity. Um first question, who are you? Why did you write the book? What are your credentials? >> I'm an integrative pediatrician. I work in Los Angeles. I've been working with kids for over a decade. Before med school, did a masters in epidemiology um and have been working since. I never

1:35 really talked about vaccines and not outside the office. I mean, it's the question I was getting the most in the office, but unfortunately, it was so censored that it was really scary to talk about. And I think most people just didn't and haven't in a long time. But I got so frustrated during the pandemic. I've been fro so frustrated for parents who have questions that don't seem to be getting answers. And that really led me through um really led me down the path to want to write a book and really want to inform people and and have a discussion and a debate about vaccines. I'm not against vaccines. I think it's really important to start there. Like I'm not against vaccines. I'm not antivaccine. Uh we give vaccines in the office. I don't feel like people should be forced to do anything. I feel like we should be able to have conversations. But there are people in my office that do the regular schedule, that do a

2:20 slower schedule, some don't. And and I think that where we really need to be and I think we need to have debate and discussion and it just doesn't seem like we've been able to do that. And that's why I wrote the book. It's not to convince people to do anything. It's really to discuss the major issues, discuss the major concerns, and then bring vaccines out from the shadow so it's not censored anymore. There's no reason we can't talk about it. You brought up a key word um forced which you know as you've seen I have I don't think I've ever in my entire history of doing this show had a stack of questions this thing. So don't worry you're going to get everything you guys want to get out of this but I did do a lot of homework with regard to the things that people want to know the the areas of debate debate in particular. Um the force piece is a big deal. I want to

3:06 litigate that off the top and it wasn't in the questions. So, so here's my question. Okay? Right? Like I'll give you the example of Kennedy and Marty McCary removing COVID shots from the schedule for healthy kids and everybody went crazy. My answer was hold on a second could still get the vaccine if you want it and you know that then like so what is the issue right you're giving somebody choice they immediately default to the herd immunity argument if you don't get it you're going to give it to someone else okay next then I go to well but the other person can get the vaccine okay ready for the next one I'm

3:52 sure you've heard it a thousand times yeah but I can still get sick though just not as bad. And it's like, but but if you can still get sick, doesn't that nullify the argument? Then it's what about vulnerable populations in the developing world? And my answer would be then if you want to go into that country, you're required to get that vaccine. Explain to me if there is any scenario where you think a parent should be forced to vaccinate their kids based on the logic that I just laid out. And by the way, the severity of the condition. So, one more example, whooping cough. It's now well known that I got my ass kicked by whoop whooping cough in the beginning of 2025

4:39 and it can be fatal for newborns as far as I understand it. >> Correct. >> So, it's like, well, we're going to protect these parents from themselves and we're going to force that whooping cough vaccine because it is so deadly. Okay. Is there any scenario where you should be forced to vaccinate your kid for something? >> In my personal opinion, I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccines. I I think if you are going to force something, it needs to be very clear. We need to have discussions beforehand about what the scenario would be in which we would allow that. It have to be very strict criteria, very rigorous oversight of that. maybe looking at it very often to make sure cuz there there could be something that would pop up that could be extremely deadly where it does make sense that we

5:24 would have some sort of >> oversight that deadly right now. >> Like I want to play devil's advocate the whole show. >> I don't think on the regular childhood schedule there's anything that requires forcing people to do it. I really that's my personal opinion. I think that it needs to be imminent. There needs to be an extremely high level of harm, an extremely imminent danger to force people to do things. My thought around medicine and really the the word doctor is to teach, right? Our job is to teach, is to inform, is to recommend. It's not to force. The CDC schedule is not a mandate. It's a recommendation. It's the recommended CDC schedule. So, I think that's what we should be doing in medicine. I feel like a lot of the controversy around vaccines is around people feeling like they were forced to get the COVID vaccine and they're now

6:10 worried or have been worried they're going to be forced to do something in the future that they don't want to do. >> In general, I don't think you need to force people to do things. The vast majority of people do get vaccines. They want to be convinced based on the research and evidence that it's the best thing for them to do, that the benefits outweigh the harms. And if that is true, you will happily go and get them. >> That's what that's the way that I think it should be. Now, you say it's not forced, but arguably it is because we've all seen that clip of Fouchy being like, "We made it real hard. You want to work, >> right?" But I think that I think that is forced in a way. I I think that to me, we we should get >> kids can't go to school. >> We should get coercion out of the equation. I don't think you need to coers people, to force them to get vaccines, to go to school, to force them to work. I don't think that's what you need. You need good evidence and

6:55 research to show people the benefits outweigh the risks. And you want to get this because you want to be protected. And if you with all of that information decide that you don't feel like it's best for you in your specific situation, then that's how we do every other thing in medicine. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to get blood. They don't want to. You don't have to take cancer treatment if you don't want to. You weigh the risks and the benefits with your doctor and you decide even if there is a theoretical benefit to you. You can choose not to do it. >> Her immunity, if you don't do it, you're killing my grandma. >> So there there is an argument there. For some of the vaccines, her immunity does make a major difference because the disease doesn't have anywhere to go. So for something like measles that that does make sense. It's it's a important topic to understand from a public's perspective because for those

7:42 individuals that the vaccine doesn't work, for those individuals that are too young to get the vaccine, for those individuals that are immune compromised, if there's more measles circulating, there's more chance that they're going to get it. It's a very simplified discussion if you're just talking about that because there are many other diseases which you could still get if you're immune compromised. So it's not just that one disease and it's still this social contract of of what do you owe to somebody else and it's not a simple question. I don't think there's an easy answer there because >> I would do want to protect other people. >> Boil it down to >> the severity of the disease and and a combination of how well it's been tested. So it's like ah this disease is devastating and newborns can't get it and it will kill babies and the vaccine is really safe. We're mandating that for

8:29 public safety. >> I agree with you but it's hard because everyone has a different definition for that. What what is safe? What are you protecting? What should you protecting somebody from? it it just becomes very nuanced and that's why I think the conversation around her immunity and the social contract of how we protect others is something we need to have serious discussions and debates openly and publicly because it's not it's not so simple like is measles super deadly should that be protecting people from that is what percentage of it is something that you should be protecting others from I think that's a very difficult conversation because it's not just about that it's not just about measles it's well you get measles but then you get 15 other vaccines So, how many vaccines is too many? At what point do I feel like the burden on my own child is too high? Then I don't necessarily want to protect somebody else. What if I'm asked to, you

9:16 know, you can give a hyperbolic example of of what if you're asked to give a kidney to another child? Like there's a kid that needs a kidney donation. Should you have to have your child have that surgery to give a kidney? Most people wouldn't do that for someone they don't know, but you are protecting somebody else who needs a kidney. So, there's a line and everybody draws a different line. Obviously, a vaccine is very different than giving a kidney, but it's not a simple eitheror, especially as we're getting more vaccines and the schedule is expanding every single year. It's a more nuanced conversation. It becomes very difficult. So, I understand and that's where we need to have discussions and debates because intelligent people are going to come down on this in different places. Everyone has a different ethical standard or a line or what they feel is correct protecting your own kid versus protecting others. And both can be

10:02 right. >> Okay. So, you're saying protecting your kid, which implies concern, and how many is too many, which also implies concern. Is there a cause for concern or not? I I got every freaking shot under the sun. I've traveled all over the world. I've probably been stuck a thousand times with a thousand things. Mind you, I am aware that the schedule for me as a child was nothing like this. I was born in 74. So cause for concern? I >> I think parents are concerned. I I >> But is there cause for concern? Totally different animal. I >> I think there is growing cause for concern. I think that's not unreasonable. It depends who you ask. I think that's the issue. You have two different worlds with all this vaccine information. I mean the COVID vaccine is a perfect example. You have one world of

10:48 people that say it's the best thing ever, saved millions of lives, saved trillions of dollars. Then you have a whole other world of people that say it's the worst thing ever and it's killing more people. And they never seem to discuss anything in the middle. they don't have that nuance conversation. And I think that's true with all vaccines where we're adding more and more. They have small risks, but they're there. And we also have a lack of understanding of the cumulative risk and a lack of understanding for long-term risks. And so I I I think when we're talking about risk versus benefits, you have the medical community that says, "Look, we know how deadly these diseases are. We know how much they protect you. You should get your vaccines." And then there are other people that say, "Wait, but what are the cost of those vaccines? Are they related to autism? Are they related to autoimmune conditions? Are they related to asthma? Because that is the most important question if you're

11:35 trying to weigh risk versus benefits. I think we have a good understanding of how they can protect you in theory from disease. But the question is at what cost? Because if they protect you and they're not related to any of these long-term complications, that is a very different answer than if they are increasing your risk for asthma, increasing your risk for autoimmune conditions. and the standard medical community still says no there's they're not related to those in any way but I think there's a growing concern more research um more understanding and more skepticism among parents that these things are related in some way or might be correlated in some way okay so three questions I highlighted just off of um what you just said the first one is let's discuss the cost in other words you're suggesting right that there is there is a costbenefit analysis with

12:21 these medications I've often and um vaccines. I've often suggested the same thing because I talk to so many doctors. So, for example, you know, if I had a a flesheating bacteria, I would want my doctor to put cypro in every part of my body. But if I had a cold, I certainly would not want antibiotics prophylactically because they destroy your microbiome and that has a host of negative impacts. So the costbenefit analysis, splash eating virus, you know, sacrifice the microbiome, keep the arm. Yeah. So it's like, okay, with a vaccine injury, let's talk about this for a second. What does this look like truly? What is considered severe? What is considered mild? It's like, oh, you just had a little bit of a fever, right? Oh,

13:07 there's a side effect. Oh, no, you've got myocarditis. Like big continuum. Autism, all this stuff that you just listed. What is a vaccine injury? >> The difficult part of that is it's not very clear >> for a lot of people, right? So I I I think I think for a mild reaction, it's pretty clear, right? It's so we have a mild reaction, right? So basically it's an immune response. You you'd expect your immune system to do something if you get a vaccine that's what it's supposed to do. So you get a vaccine, the things you see very commonly, they have a fever, you don't feel good, your arm hurts, you get some swelling, redness, a bump, a little bit of a rash, those kind of things. That's a common reaction that I wouldn't call it any sort of severe reaction. I the those things happen pretty commonly and that just means your immune system is working

13:52 and and having an immune response. So that >> that >> um if you're doing a research trial, you're going to record it, but it's not necessarily recorded any anywhere else. And most doctors see that all the time. The question is with everything else because to call something a vaccine reaction, it's really something that a doctor calls a vaccine reaction. That's it. There is no exact definition. and you go to your doctor, you think you're having a reaction, you can write it down in the chart. If if it's very severe, it could be reviewed by a panel. Somebody could voluntarily submit that to the vaccine diverse reporting varss. So, you can voluntarily report it, but there is no real other mechanism for reporting right now. So, it's really just if you decide to report it in general. >> And a vaccine injury can be extremely severe. It runs the gamut is basically

14:37 what you're saying. Correct. Nothing. Could be a little fever, immune system responding, could be myocarditis. >> And in the short term, yes. So you could have death, could have. So there are some things that are listed that are known causes, but very few. But there's a short list of things like death and sephilitis. So inflammation in the brain, um inflammation in the arm, um seizures, and then myocarditis in in um the COVID vaccine is something that's obviously been top. >> All vaccines can cause this kind of injury. Some vaccines can cause this kind of >> they can generally all cause the serious reactions just not that commonly. And certainly obviously some vaccines will cause certain reactions more or less that is documented. The question I think that most parents have and many practitioners have is how about all the other things? How are those related in the long term? And how do we know if

15:22 they are or not related? >> What do you mean other things? asthma, allergies, autoimmune conditions, autism, the big questions that are in parents minds because >> doctors work in the hospital, they work in the ICU. >> They've seen serious disease. They've seen people get very sick from whooping cough and die. They've seen, if they were older doctor, maybe himmophilus influenza cause menitis. They've seen RSV cause breathing issues. And so, they're very worried and they're like, "Look, you can get this vaccine. You can protect your kid from this." Parents don't see those things. Parents see autoimmune conditions on the rise. Yeah. Chronic disease. They see and so it's a different world and I think that people have a very different frame of reference and so there's a very big fear around some of these chronic conditions because most parents have never seen these

16:08 diseases and a lot of that does come back to vaccines. I mean we have certainly much improved sanitation, much improved nutrition, but a lot of the vaccines have gotten rid of these these diseases so you don't really see them anymore. I want to work backwards here. Let's litigate what's truly been safety tested. So, you could literally Google right now. It's like this autism conversation has been debunked. But in my mind, I'm like, how though? Even just when I look at he B and you try to find long-term studies on safety not efficacy safety

16:53 good luck like oh we looked at this at 5 years and we looked at this at 10 years but what did safety what did you did you look for autism or this or that or allerg it's looking at efficacy as far as I can tell and then it's we robustly debunked measles and autism, but have you looked at when measles, mumps, and rebella are put to has that been robustly tested? So, Kennedy says no. The news, Google, Chad GBT say yes. How rob Let me go to my safety testing questions in here while I look for my whole list of questions. >> Okay, that's a broad enough question. We can go. Yeah. Like what? Tell me vaccine

17:40 by vaccine. Some have been tested, some haven't. >> Do you want to do autism first or safety testing? Because those are both huge topics that are crazy. Do you want to do autism first? >> I want to do safety testing and then cuz they're kind of like we've tested it for autism. So it kind of has like a >> they haven't they haven't really. So we'll get there which is crazy. >> Okay. Talk to me about the safety testing. >> So when we hear Secretary Kennedy talking about it, the words matter. And the word placebo I think is the biggest controversy right now. Okay. Because if you are to say that vaccines haven't been safety tested, that would be untrue. Every vaccine has had lots of safety testing. >> Okay? >> They've all been tested before they hit the market. They haven't all been tested in the way that we would consider the best safety testing now. >> Okay? >> And the vast majority, basically all the

18:27 vaccines on the childhood schedule were not inert placeboc controlled tested. So that's the big key difference because when he's not specific with his words, that's where he gets into trouble. >> You explain what inert placeboc control testing means and why it matters. >> Correct. So placebo by definition should be inert meaning it doesn't cause anything in the body. So like salt water. Check. Understood. >> So >> yes. Oh, compared to testing against other vaccines. >> Exactly. So he says it hasn't been placebo. They said yes it has. Look at look at all these studies that have been placeboc controlled. Yes. They've all been studied. Every single one for sure. But they haven't been inert placeboc control drug. Basically, all the vaccines on the market for kids have not been studied before they were licensed with inert placeboc control testing.

19:13 Some have done efficacy testing. >> Some have done um mostly they've been testing against other vaccines. That's how they do it. So they test against other vaccines. They test it against the earlier version of a vaccine or they test it against the vaccine minus the actual antigen. So the actual active component. So that's what he's talking about when he's saying it. And sometimes he's not very specific with his words, but that is true. There have been some some inert placebo control trials and some of the vaccines we don't use in the kids schedule. Um the original polio vaccine, it was tested against saline, but the one we use now is different. So we have an ethical debate because we never did them in the correct way back then >> because it was different science back then. It was, you know, 50 years, 100 years ago. They weren't doing things the way that we're doing them now. But once

19:58 we have said that these things work, >> then you go, okay, well, we can't not give a kid a vaccine. So therefore, we test the old whooping cough against the new whooping cough. So you're testing your new DTAP vaccine against the old DTP vaccine. The old DTP vaccine was taken off the market for safety concerns, but when you're studying them, you're saying, well, it's not >> unsafe because they have similar safety. So that's what he's talking about. It's a relative safety. So it doesn't mean that a vaccine's unsafe. It's just you're not testing it against an inert placebo or salt water. You're testing it against another vaccine. So the the easiest example would be imagine you take vaccine one versus vaccine 2. Both vaccines you get 10 seizures. So after that trial like oh it it causes 10 seizures. Therefore it's the same. There's no safety risk. But if you had a

20:44 third group that that was salt water and that had one person get a seizure you would say well that's pretty different study. One seizure versus 10. So that's what he's talking about when he's talking about not having inert placeboc controlled trials. He wants that moving forward, which should be the reality. >> I have read that and I didn't understand that it's like, well, that causes 10 seizures and this causes 10 seizures, so we're good. Moving along. So that's the way that they can get around it sometimes because when you're doing a blinded trial, if unless you're lying or cheating somehow as a company, you don't know who's getting what. So the way that you could have the best results is to stack the deck. So you study one vaccine

21:30 versus another. For example, the first numoccus vaccine. There were no other numoccus vaccines on the market. So you could study it against a neurop placebo. There's no ethics there. They studied it against the maninja caucus vaccine in their safety trials. So there's only one reason why you would do that and it's not because they're evil, just because they want to get the best results possible. That's what you would do if you're a company. If you're not forced to do something else, why wouldn't you do that? >> Okay. All right. Let's I want to come back to a autism for a second. I want to talk about the different technologies here. So this was briefly explained to me um from an evolutionary biologist, believe it or not. Um, >> I heard that episode was good. >> I really like it. >> Thank you. I I I love her. She's

22:16 amazing. But it Let's talk about the different technologies. It's You know what? I'm not even going to try to butcher it. Tell me about the different technologies. >> Yeah. >> The vaccine tech before I try to explain it to you and then you correct me. >> Yeah. The very basics are you would have um killed diseases. You would have parts of the disease proteins or the new ones are the mRNA. So, it's a genetics where you're trying to create a protein to create a response. So you're you're putting some part or the whole disease virus or bacteria into the body so that way you get an immune response to it. You're either killing it, you're inactivating it, or you're just doing one part of it. So you can actually get sick from the disease in theory unless it's a live virus. >> Those still exist though in small doses or no more live viruses

23:02 still. Um but usually they're killed >> such small dose. Okay. >> Yeah. The oral polio is the main one where there's that concern because the oral polio vaccine was live and theoretically could convert back into polio and people got polio. Most of the polio that people were getting for a long time was actually from the vaccine which is why they pulled it from the American market and we only get the inactivated polio now. >> When was it pulled? I'm curious. >> Uh like 20 years ago I think 10 years ago >> 20 years ago >> something like that maybe 30 years ago. >> It wasn't it wasn't that long ago. Like most of the polio we had was from It wasn't a lot. It was one in a million doses, but it was a lot when there was no polio. >> Got it. All right. So, now you've got all right live, but that's kind of doesn't really almost extinct science. You've got dead pathogen or pieces of the pathogen.

23:48 Enter the adgivant conversation. So what Heather Hang had tried to explain to me or did let's see if I interpret it correctly is that when you put a dead pathogen into the body dead virus dead bacteria whatever the body can or cannot care can choose whether it's alarmed and the immune system wakes up and says uhoh pathogen let me create a blueprint to kill this thing should I ever see it again since it's dead they got to put an adgiant in there like aluminum or uh what the heck what mercy right back in the day. >> Is this still happening? What is the genuine concern on adgivants? And the argument, as far as I understand it, is the amount of mercury is so small, you'd have to eat 50,000 vaccines to ever be

24:35 worried and you get more mercury in the potato that you coached that came from the soil. >> Said that very accurately. >> So the first thing is mercury was more of a preservative. Um, so not so much for an advent. It was more because for the multi-dosese vials, it was to make sure that bacteria and fungus didn't grow. A little bit different of a reason, but another metal. So aluminum is in there. It's not so much for the killed uh infections. It's more for the pieces like the proteins because so if you have a whole virus, whole bacteria, your body tends to respond pretty well. So like measles vaccine or chickenpox vaccine, which are um the live vaccines, those are the ones that don't have aluminum in them. the other ones like hepatitis B whole um hepatitis B the the DTAP vaccine those ones do have a little

25:21 bit of aluminum in there because you're only doing a little part a protein so your body doesn't necessarily create a robust immune response to that and so the aluminum helps to do that it's a immune irritant it helps to stimulate an immune response in a stronger effect so that way you have a better more robust immune response so that's why it's in there it definitely works the question is again at what cost After doing all of this freaking research, what is the cost? Or do you have a >> do you speculate at one? Does there seem to be evidence of one? >> I it's it's tough because just like you said, the the standard medical community would say >> it's a very very very small dose and therefore we don't see any issues. You eat more aluminum every day. >> Um it doesn't create an issue.

26:06 >> Okay. >> My argument to that is it's not the same thing as injecting it. It's not the same thing as injecting multiple vaccines as you add more and more. I think we have an evolving understanding of these metals. We didn't think lead was a problem until we did. We didn't think mercury was a problem until we did. They put mercury in vaccines without even thinking about how it could be potentially an issue. And then somebody somewhere said, "Wait a minute. We have more mercury in vaccines than we allow in food. How does that make sense?" And then people went, "Oh crap, we do. Let's and it's a little different form of mercury, but still they were like, we have more mercury in vaccines than we have in food. Is that okay? And then now we're at this aluminum conversation where we say it's totally fine. We've done all these safety tests. It's totally okay. But if you look at the

26:53 number, if you look at the the details that we have like the EPA, the FDA, they allow like 0.2 uh milligrams per liter in our drinking water. And in some vaccines, they have more than that. They have more than point like 0.25 milligrams in hepatitis B vaccine. The argument is, well, it's one vaccine versus drinking all the time. So, it's a very small amount. But I still think >> it's a different mechanism when you're when you're drinking it or eating it. Your body has, I think, developed over time to deal with these metals because they're just in the environment in general. And so, it it's a little different when you're injecting it and the way that your body deals with it. And it doesn't mean that's a problem. I don't know. I don't know that anybody totally knows yet, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a parent to have concerns about it, especially as we had more and more vaccines that have aluminum in it. Then what is the cumulative effect? Especially in kids that maybe they have a certain genetics,

27:39 >> maybe they have a kidney issue, maybe they were born premature, >> maybe they just don't detoxify as well. Again, not to say that we shouldn't use it, but should we not be allowed to ask those questions to research it to make the vaccines the safest? Because if it is causing an issue, let's just say, wouldn't doctors want to know that? Wouldn't we want to know so we can make the vaccine safer? Maybe we could find a different adventure that we could use. Maybe we could use a different dose. I I don't No, I don't know what the answer is, but if you keep adding more and more, at some point it's going to cause an issue. >> How many? >> Well, that's one of those crazy questions cuz doctors say you could have 10,000 vaccines, you could have 100,000 vaccines, it's totally fine. We're we're exposed to all sorts of things when we eat an apple. So therefore, our body should be able to handle all these vaccines. And that doesn't make sense to me because that's not the way that a

28:26 vaccine works. Like it's not just the antigen. There's so many other things in there. There's certainly some upper limit the amount of aluminum you could inject into your body. >> You've opened up another door here. But what is it? And I'm not saying, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that it is an issue. I'm saying it's reasonable to ask the question and it's reasonable for people like Secretary Kennedy to say, "Look, let's study this more." And at the end of the day, if we get more research and the research continues to show that it doesn't cause an issue from unbiased individuals, that's the kind of research that would make parents more comfortable to get vaccinated. >> Key word being unbiased research that is not conflicted. >> Sure. >> Right. and meaning it's not funded by the people that >> and that's what's so hard with the vaccine research I find because you have two worlds of research. You have people that are super provax that get the most provax studies that show everything's

29:12 perfect and then you have people that are pretty antivax that show all these sorts of problems and then you get a book by somebody like Paul Afett or Peter Hotz like major vaccine people like there never is a problem with vaccines. look at all these great studies and then you read a book by Secretary Kennedy or Neil Miller and it shows all these studies that show issues and neither one of them shows the other side. And that was again one of the reasons I want to write the book. I want you to see both things side by side because Secretary Kenny needs to sit in a room with Paul Offett and they have to have a debate and discussion about these things so we can move things forward and actually get to the best place. I don't care if kids get 10,000 vaccines or zero vaccines. I want them to be the healthiest possible and I don't know what the answer is unless we can discuss it. It shouldn't be our job shouldn't be to push more vaccines. It should be to make healthier kids. And if vaccines make you healthier and more vaccines

29:58 make you healthier, great. But if they're causing an issue, let's figure out what those issues are. Because it's not just about protecting against disease, it's also about what risks come from those vaccines. >> I want to throw this into the mix and see what you think. When we talk about adgivants and metals and so on and so forth, um it would seem to me given the amount of PhDs and MDs that I I've had the privilege of interviewing over the past decade that kids are more vulnerable to these kinds of toxins because their body is developing that you you see with even marijuana, something like marijuana. It's like, well, a child's developing brain can't really take that. It's not great for anybody, but kids are particularly more vulnerable. You talk about off label cancer drugs that are given to kids for

30:44 gender affirming care, they'll explain that it's going to have a far more negative impact on a developing brain than the brain of an adult male who has prostate cancer. Is there an argument to be made there that a developing body cannot handle or potentially maybe could not handle adgivants as well as a fully developed body? it couldn't detox as efficiently, that it could interrupt development. >> That makes logical sense to me. I mean, that makes logical sense that the younger you are, the less developed your immune system is, the more that it could be impacted, the weaker your kidneys are and your liver is, so therefore, you might not be able to dxify as well. The counterargument to that from the medical standpoint would be, well, that's when the kids are most immature, so that's when the vaccines would have the most

31:29 benefit. So, that's the kind of counterbalance that argument. Um, but I I don't think your point is unreasonable. I mean, that's the way that I feel is is the younger you are, the the more risk you would have from any sort of medication, not not just a vaccine. So, it comes back to discussions around risks versus benefits. Like, what are we protecting against and what are the risks and what are those long-term risks? Because we really don't know. Like, how do you know if you take a vaccine today if that increases your risk for cancer 10 years from now? There's just no way to know that. >> That's another thing that like Dr. Lee and Casey means were discussing with me on a podcast about cancer. They're like, "We can't isolate this. >> As much as you Yeah. She's They're like, "As much as you want us to give you an answer, Jillian, between the crap in the air, the crap in the How do you control for this? >> You It's like you're going to remove all

32:16 the water and the chemicals in the air and the chemicals in the food. Like, you can't isolate one thing. >> You can't. But you could still study vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and follow them prospectively and see what kind of things you find. It's not going to isolate it to be specific to the vaccines, but the unvaccinated lifestyle. If those kids have a much lower risk of certain cancers or much lower risk of autoimmune condition, that would be really interesting to know. And you can do it. We we keep saying we can't do it. I don't know why you can have there plenty of people that are going to volunteer their unvaccinated kids to do that study. It's obviously going to be there's going to be some bias there. There's no question. There's going to be people that want to volunteer. They're going to be You can't do it blinded. This is not the best kind of study, but you could certainly do an open label trial. Follow kids for 10, 20 years. We've done it with heart disease. We've done it with other things. And

33:02 just see what happens over the long run. Let's get good information because that's the kind of research again that hesitant parents are going to want to see. In 15 years, if the autism rates are the same in both groups, it's going to make more people be confident to get vaccines. If they're wildly different, then that's something that we should know. We shouldn't be running away from this information because we're scared or we think people are just going to stop vaccinating. We should be trying to make the best possible safest vaccines. We don't have the safest vaccines we're ever going to have in the humanity in humanity forever. Like we want safer vaccines in 10 years than we have from now. And we can only do that if we even >> have the discussion that there could be a problem. And the companies are not going to study these things. They're going to go and be like, "Well, let's study our products that are on the market that everybody's getting to see if they might cause a problem." They're not going to do it. >> Yeah. So, who is studying safety?

33:48 >> Been done, though. That's the game, right? >> Nobody studied it forward. Nobody, every single trial, right, when you're talking about pre-licensure trials, they go for a couple months, maybe a year, maybe two years on a great study. They're not 5, 10, 15 years down the road. And so, the only things that we have long term would be these self-reporting systems or medical databases or someone who decides to do a research study. But who's studying uh hepatitis B versus cancer 15 years later from the vaccine? It takes 15 years to do it. You have to put those things together. You have to even think there's a problem in the first place to do that research. >> Got it. >> It just doesn't exist. >> Before I get to the the elephant in the room, which is the mRNA tech, you said there's other stuff in there. What else is in there >> in vaccines? >> Yeah, >> it's a long list. There are many things

34:33 in there, but so they use formaldahhide, they use inactivators, they use buffers. Um, sometimes they're grown in cultures. I think one of the biggest concerns around vaccines is what they're grown in because they're using human aborted fetal tissue for some of the vaccines. >> That was old news. Not >> it's not old news. So that's how they grow. So they're not aborting new babies. They're using old tissue they've used for babies from a long time ago, but they do grow them in culture because you have to grow the viruses in something. So they use those cells. So that's where there are certain concerns for some people. The most religion, all religions really say it's not an ethical concern, but certain people still might have ethical concerns. even some individuals who are vegans, some some products use pork but porcene uh for their gelatin. So there there are reasons that certain specific individuals might have concerns around

35:18 some of the ingredients in vaccines. I just >> formaldahhide isn't even an ethical conversation as in like if I'm vegan I don't want the pork like formaldahhide is not good. Correct. >> It's not good but they say it's at the doses at the amount. I know the dose came. I got you. Okay. It's very very small. It's it was used to inactivate which you do want the disease to be inactivated. So that's a good thing. You don't want to get the disease. So they're using it to inactivate and then they're filtering it out. So but there's trace amounts in there. The question is are those trace amounts >> significant >> harmful or not? They say no. >> And harmful at that stage of life, harmful if ingest injected not ingested and harmful with regard to the cumulative amount of toxic load that we take on. >> And I think just in general what's not discussed is the nuance around individual variability where >> even if it's a small amount, you could

36:04 walk by a peanut for some people. whiff of peanutic response. So what's to say that for some people even that very very very very tiny amount of formaldahhide couldn't be an issue for them and if you add more and more vaccines you increase that compounding risk where a one in a million chance becomes a one in 100,000 risk becomes a one in 10,000 risk because you get >> 20 vaccines in the first year 30 vaccines over time you're increasing you know we just added RSV vaccine co vaccines new vaccines every year >> let's discuss that very quickly um so it's like ah you get 72 vaccines you don't get 72 2 vaccines, but you get 72 or it's recommended that you get 72 shots. >> So the that 72 is a weird number that whoever decided on. It's not a real number per se. >> I thought I saw like a breakdown. It was like 18 co shots, 18 flu shots, 36 then

36:52 36 doses of >> So it's not totally true anymore because you I can add a flu shot every year. You can add co shots. There's an RSV shot. You can have the So that's antigens. So if you're getting the diptheria tennis protessis, that would be three of that 72. So you can you're not getting 70 hoaxes because some vaccines can have multiple things in them but that's the amount of ant amount of diseases you're preventing against if you're getting multiple doses and that's number is not even correct anymore it's more like 100 >> it is >> if if you wanted to play that game >> I do want to bag of what is this down here >> oh sometimes I brought in just the amount of vaccines that you could get if you got individualized doses in the first year so it's like 25ish if you got all the vaccines so three hepatitis B's where you can get a vitamin K and an RSV

37:38 and you get three hepatitis B's, three DTAPs, three him influenzas, three numoccoccuses, three rotoviruses, three polio, one measles, one chickenpox, co vaccines, two, you can get flu shots, too. So, it's it's a good chunk of vaccines. And when people see this, sometimes they're like, well, okay, now I understand maybe why some parents are a little bit afraid. They're not antivaccine. They're just nervous that this seems like a lot to them. Now again, they're not necessarily getting these pokes because there are some combo shots. You can get a bunch of them together if you choose to, >> right? But but some people don't choose to do it that way and they choose to get single pokes and and this I'm not even this is not like DTAP, but this is like you could get like a DTAP, hemophus, polio altogether. That's called pentacil. So this this you could get this many shots in the first year, this many pokes if you got individual shots.

38:25 >> Okay, let's segue. This is the big moment we've all been waiting for. MRNA experimental technology. Okay, I've heard all of that. Push through emergency use loopholes. Okay, I've also heard cuz I have admitted to this on the show. I can't even remember. I should go back into my emails, but somebody somewhere contacted my old producer on my podcast years ago, must have been 21, and was like, "Oh, you know, we're offering up our vaccine scientists to explain to the public, you know, what this new tech is." And I was like, "Amazing. What a great service. Fantastic." And this

39:10 young 30-year-old kid came on the show and she's like, "We've been developing this tech for 30 years." And I was like, "Wow, you're a vaccine." She was. I mean, she was 30 years we've been doing this. I was like, "Oh, well, this is ridiculous." And I'm like, "Well, people are worried. You know, you haven't done the safety testing for this." Oh, we've absolutely done it. We just fasttracked it cuz it was emergency. All turned out to be bull just stays in the shoulder. Like all bull, all a lie. So then I talked to Heather Hang because I still didn't fully understand what mRNA was and it's arguable whether I do now but I think I have a greater comprehension of it. So it was you we give you this shot of

39:55 messenger RNA and it basically tells your cells to produce the spike protein for your immune system to then go aha. So we're not going to put the spike protein in. Everybody's going to make it and then your immune system's going to attack that. Well, what the That seems crazy bad idea >> potentially. Seems like it depending on who you ask, I guess. >> But but I'm asking you. What do you think? >> I'm still not sure. I think that's the crazy part is I don't know anymore. It's so hard to know because you get such differing viewpoints. I don't think everything that was said before was bull. I think there certainly was a lot of research

40:42 around mRNA >> before the mRNA technology came out. Then the COVID happened and then they they fasttracked things because it was an emergency >> and they were worried and they wanted to get >> faster therapeutics. I mean they famously demonized Joe Rogan for saying he utilized Ivormectin. Do you realize that I have had my entire Tik Tok destroyed because I posted a Tik Tok with a gastroenterenterologist who was suggesting that Ivrome could have been a powerful therapeutic for CO. >> Yeah. I I don't >> and I violated their community and put dangerous disinformation into the world. >> But that was the problem, right? I don't think the issue was was in the middle of a deemed emergency doing things faster. I think that's okay. The issue is

41:28 censoring and not being honest. If you have some sort of emergency, let's say there's an Ebola outbreak and you need a new Ebola vaccine, you don't want to wait three years to get an Ebola vaccine. You'll be dead. You need to go faster. So, there's nothing wrong with that. But you should not say safe and effective. That to me is the issue. You shouldn't censor, you shouldn't force, you should say based on the research that we have so far, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks that we've determined. And you don't force people to do it. You offer it to them. You say, "We don't know. We might grow a third arm in a few years. We don't really know, but but what we have found so far seems like it benefits. Seems like it decreases your risk of hospitalization. Seems like your risk decreases your risk of death. And so, we recommend it. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting something out faster in an

42:14 emergency. That's what the emergency use is for. But when you demonize medications that have been used forever, when you censor people from asking questions, whether when you demonize debate and discussion around something, which we know happened. I mean, we know it happened. I Mark Zuckerberg said it. They were taking things down from from the internet just because they were trying to not promote hesy. That is the complete wrong direction. That's why nobody trusts medicine anymore or the CDC or anything anything else because they know they've been lied to. What do you think about all of these podcasts that have all of these doctors which I have avoided? You know, my my concern is that they would be like the Daryl Cooper of I don't know if you're familiar with it. Like, okay. So, it's like, you know, the guy that basically said that Churchill

42:59 was also also partially responsible for ex exacerbating World War II. I'm like, eh, you know what? That's just not a hill I need to die on. they can watch these people on much bigger podcasts than mine and god forbid I get it wrong. You know, I I will I will give a platform to to pretty much anyone, even people if they you know, if they confront me with things I don't like, I'm willing to debate it and litigate it and let the audience make their own decisions. As the times start to rise, I get that familiar urge to refresh my closet. But I am done wasting money on trendy pieces that I wear once, which is why I'm obsessed with Quint. The clothes are timeless, elevated, built to last, no insane markup. I'm talking about 100%

43:45 European linen shorts and dresses that started just 30 bucks. Italian leather platform sandals, luxe swimwear that looks straight off of runway but costs half of what you'd expect. Quint partners directly with top tier factories, cutting out the middleman so you get designer quality at a price that actually makes sense. And they only work with ethical, responsible manufacturers who care about people and the planet. Personally, I stocked up on the linen tees and the tanks and believe it or not, a killer summer dress. Occasionally, I do wear dresses and honestly, it finally feels like my wardrobe matches my standards. Upgrade your wardrobe at quint.com. Luxury should never mean compromise. Team, give your summer closet an upgrade with

44:31 Quint. Go to quint.com/jillian for free shipping on your order and 365day returns. That's quinc.com/jillion to get free shipping and 365day returns. quint.com/jillian. Right now, the headlines are chalk full of data breaches and regulatory rollbacks making us all vulnerable. But you can do something about it. Delete Me is here to make it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online. Delete Me knows your privacy is worth protecting. Sign up and provide Delete Me with exactly what information you want deleted. And there are experts take it from there. Delete Me isn't just a one-time service. Delete Me is always working for you, constantly monitoring

45:16 and removing the personal information you do not want on the internet. For me, I feel so much more secure knowing that my personal info has been wiped from the web simply because I don't get all the roocalls. I worry far less about identity theft and so much more. So, take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting Jillian to 6400. The only way to get 20% off is to text Jillian to 64,000. That's Jillian to6400. Message and data rates may apply. Has this summer been a bit of a grind? Are you sleeping less? Are you more stressed

46:02 than ever? Nons everything. I speak for myself when I say that. And behind the highlight reels, I think that not just me, but pretty much all high functioning people are quietly burning out. Low energy, fragile mood, decrease in libido. This is why I like Function Health because it's the one platform that gives you access to real data. 160 plus biomarkers, plus full body MRIs and CT scans, hormones, inflammation, heart, liver, stress, all tracked over time in one place. And you're going to see what most people never do, like how your cortisol impacts your metabolism and your immunity, or how your testosterone and DHA, your vitamin D, magnesium levels affect your mood, your energy, your skin, your sex drive, even your

46:48 breakouts are not just skin deep. And function shows you the internal causes. This is why top health experts like Mark Heyman and Andrew Huberman, Jeremy London, they all back function because it's a near 360°ree view of your health finally in your hands. So learn more and join using my link. The first 1,000 people get a $100 credit toward their membership. Just visit www.functionhealth.com/jillion or use the gift code Jillian at sign up to own your health. Active Skin Repair utilizes a molecule called hypocchlorous acid. And when you apply it to the skin, the molecule works by mimicking the natural immune response to cleanse, soothe irritation, reduce inflammation, and support healing. Active skin repair

47:35 can be used to treat a wide range of skin issues, including cuts, scrapes, burns, sunburns, diaper rashes, and other types of skin damage. And it's also safe and non-toxic, making it suitable for use on all skin types, all parts of the body. And you can even use it on rosacea, eczema, and acne prone skin. With over 500,000 happy customers, thousands of five-star reviews, and ingredients so safe and clean they can be used by the youngest member of the family to the oldest. You now have one simple solution for all of your family's skin health needs. So visit activekinrepair.com to learn more about active skin repair and to get 20% off your order. Use the code jillian. Again, that's

48:21 activekinrepair.com and the code is jillian. But when it comes to kind of life ordeath stuff, I'm like anti-semitism. No, I don't think so. Or you anyway or or or getting vaccines wrong. But there's no question that we've seen these monster platforms feature doctors or scientists that are now saying like so many people died from the COVID vaccine and here's the research and so many young boys got myocarditis and da da da da da are is how do you know who to which one's right? That's what's so difficult. But how do I know? How do we know? >> That's what's so complicated right now because they're not talking to each other. You have all these individuals

49:07 who are saying these things and you have the mainstream medicine not willing to engage them >> cases of myocarditis though >> myocarditis we know pretty well. I mean we know that it causes myocarditis. We know the rate is somewhere between 5,000 depends on which study but somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 uh one in 5,000 to one in 100,000 and they still say that it happens more in the disease happens from the vaccine. So we know that but that's not what I think most people are concerned about. I think that was what they originally concerned about. I think people are concerned that it's killing people. Gosh, I I I would say both. >> Both. I mean, lots of things, but but fertility is another concern. There are many things that >> individuals have brought up. >> Noticeable issues after the vaccine and they were told they were crazy. >> The mainstream I mean, I've seen this many times. The mainstream research, the literature reviews still say it doesn't affect fertility, but I know several

49:53 people that said it affected their menstrual cycle. >> Me, too. >> Um, put them into menopause, those kinds of things. So, I know that it did to people that I know. Uh, and that doesn't mean that it necessarily did overall, but it just anecdotally I could just see what I see. But so that's what makes it really difficult because you read the published research and then you see something different and you hear some of these really intelligent individuals going on shows and talking about this study or that study and it it doesn't jive with the rest of the research. So you don't really know who to listen to and it makes it really difficult because the mainstream medicine, mainstream science isn't really engaging with a lot of this stuff. they just shut it down and call you an antivaxer and call it crazy and they won't have debates and discussion and that's what I think needs to happen. I think if you are going to have somebody come out and say this, you need somebody equally as smart from they

50:39 don't want to. They have to. They have to. >> It is exceptionally difficult. What I've had to do >> on the show is have a guest and then another guest and then a guest and then another guest. So it's like you can have somebody pro- Israel, but then you got to get somebody pro Gaza later because you as a host I am not an expert in vaccine science. I I am not an economist. I am not a geopolitical expert. And when you try to get people in to debate it, like Hotz didn't show up to debate Kennedy. >> I know they have to. I hope they will now. >> Kennedy will. >> And he says he will. I hope he will. >> He always he will show up for it. Hotz won't. >> They have to. They have to now. And I hope so. I was talking to Markman about this when I was on his podcast and also I was on Dell Bigree's podcast. very

51:25 different podcast but >> you know and he said well you know that >> Secretary Kenny's always offered and they they didn't do it and I'm like but he's secretary now it's different if they want him to have the entire platform and the entire media and say whatever he wants they can stay silent or they can step up now that he is the one up there and they can have debates and discussions if they're willing to do it and they need to hold their own and and and show why he's wrong if they believe that he's wrong with the things that he's saying >> like we did the testing he's like show it to Nobody can show it to him. >> And that's we go back to the autism stuff, right? >> Well, that's where Okay, so that's my next one. So that's the top. You know what's funny is I find myself dying on hills that I never would have died on. But when you're in the middle of an interview and they're like, "Well, we

52:11 know that it doesn't cause autism." I'm like, "Actually, we don't know that. We actually don't know that. It's been robustly tested." No, it hasn't. Has not. So, so, so let's look at like the insane rise in autism, the insane rise in autoimmune conditions. Like, lay that out for me. When did this start? Kennedy says it's somewhere in the 80s. They can track it back to it was exponential. And has it or has it not been debunked? >> So, statistically first, so if you go back, it was maybe 100,000, maybe one in 10,000, then around 2000, about 1 in 150 to 1 in 250. and now it's about 1 in 31 and in California it's 1 in 12.5 boys. So that is a astronomical rise over a

52:58 few decades. The the first part of the debate is is >> are we just noticing it more? Uh are we just is the categorization different? Were there a bunch of people that were autistic before that we just never diagnosed? And and I think that's partly true. I think it's partly true. I mean you can tell for sure has autism. >> You can tell that they have severe autism. You can't always tell if they have mild autism. And back then they weren't necessarily categorized. We're much more concerned about autism these days. We're talking about it a lot more. There are many people that were not diagnosed that were diagnosed later in life. So I think in terms of the >> mild autism in terms of like very very functional but maybe have some issues with communication that that is true for sure. We're diagnosing it more now. No question about it because we have um screening tools. We do a lot more. So I think that's a part of it. But we

53:44 definitely don't have one in 12.5 adults, males that have autism in California. It's insane that you could look around, you look at any school, you look at any playground, there are many kids with autism. That was not the way that it was before. We have much more severe autism. It's like 25 30% severe autism. The rate of severe autism is rising. There's no reason why we have to be so angry about this conversation. You could have a better diagnosis and you can also have it happening more and we can try to figure out why. Why don't we want to figure out why for those people that need our help? I just had this argument with uh a New York Times reporter who I'm sure is doing a hit piece on me. If it doesn't turn out to be a hit piece, it'll be a miracle. Um but she's like, "Well, you know, you said that autism they they haven't done robust testing for autism and they have." And I was like, "First of all,

54:31 Kennedy said that. I'm telling you that don't you want to get to the bottom of it?" And we have yet to get to the bottom of it. You point me to the study where we've gotten to the bottom of it. >> Yeah. Go point me to that study, please. >> When we are in training, we are taught that it's settled. >> That's what I thought. I thought there was so much robust research because you hear it over. I'll get to what it actually is, but I'm telling you what I thought. When I when I was even going to write this book, I still thought there was lots of research that must be out there, good studies, robust research. And and what I was aiming to do with the book was to show both sides, right? So, I thought I was going to show all these really good studies on autism that show that vaccines don't cause autism. And then I would also show the other studies like this is why people are saying that

55:16 it's not settled. There are some other pretty good studies. Like it's both sides. When you actually go look at the research, which you have to do for yourself, and you can't just trust what other people have said. It doesn't exist at all. It's insane. Like the only things that we have are on MMR and thyosol, the mercury component. We haven't studied any of the other vaccines against autism. You get DTEP polio B you get all these vaccines in the first year. We studied the MMR because of the Andrew Wakefield research which was concerned about the MMR causing autism. So they tried to debunk it. >> Tell people who Andrew Wakefield is just in case. >> Andrew Wakefield was a researcher back in the 80s 90s who did those big studies you've all heard of that were debunked where he linked potentially MMR uh to autism. That was kind of the first big wave of of debunking around that. And so

56:03 that's why we do have some research around MMR. have pretty decent research around MMR at this point. >> Yeah, MMR is the one. But then I'm like, go to HEP B. What do you got? >> But we have nothing else. And you you hear testimony from people saying, well, okay, does he cause autism? No, it doesn't. What research do you have to show that? I don't have any research. We

…