Transcript of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

6/30/25 Interview with

Tucker Carlson 

Watch the Interview on X here:

https://x.com/i/status/1939732916491399329

Tucker Carlson interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on June 30. Carlson's questions are in bold. Sec. Kennedy's responses are in plain font. 

Mr. Secretary thank you thank you for doing this.

I remember the night that Trump won talking to people in Washington and their doomsday scenario. The thing that they feared more than North Korea getting the bomb was you becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services. They really were afraid because they felt it was a threat not just to them but to the whole business of the city, and I think a lot I mean there's a reason they felt that way. And they probably still do. So what's that been like? What's the opposition been like the organized opposition to your program?

Well, the irony is I’m not really getting opposition directly from the industry. Most of the industry wants things from this Department, and we want American industry to profit. the pharmaceutical companies, everything else. And so I think they know that, and they know that: we're working with them or not. They also know they have been getting away with stuff up till now and that that era is over. I get opposition from proxies to the industry.

I think the major opposition that I feel is from the mainstream media and from Democrats, which is really that is an interesting phenomenon because these were people I was friends with my whole life. And I have not changed, and my values have not changed and the policies that I’ve been advocating have not changed, but the party has just a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is Trump and that President Trump's in this kind of really paradoxical position where he not only has completely taken over the Republican Party and dictates its platform, but he's also dictating the platform for the Democratic Party.

I’ve noticed, if I remember, I saw this for the first time on NAFTA. Democrats traditionally were against NAFTA and as soon as President Trump came out against NAFTA all the Democrats were now for NAFTA. The Democrats were the anti-war party but as soon as he expressed his opposition to the Ukraine war they became the war party. The Democrats traditionally were the biggest critics of the CIA and the intelligence agencies and as soon as President Trump started complaining about the power of the intelligence agencies in Washington, they became bonded with the intelligence agencies to the extent where they had for the first time in history, a former CIA director speaking at their convention immediately before Kamala Harris. They were the party of free speech, and they became, when President Trump started advocating for free speech and his ability to talk, the shutdowns of him on Twitter and these other really crazy efforts to suppress the speech of a former president. He became a major advocate of free speech and the Democrats are now openly for censorship. The Democratic Party was the party of women's sports. My uncle wrote Title Nine making sure that women had the right to and had the equal access to the resources that they could play sports. And the Democratic Party has become the party of that is now the enemy of women's sports. And you can go on and on with those examples but President Trump is literally dictating the platform of the Democratic Party. Anything that he says they're going to be against. Ahat is also a departure from tradition, my father was very critical of partisanship, and I remember him telling us when we were kids I don't vote for the Democrat or Republican, I vote for the person whoever is supposed best in the job. That partisanship by its nature is dishonest and it is the enemy of democracy, and that in George Washington's farewell speech he said that he was very scared of the rise, frightened about the rise, of the political party because they would become self-interested rather than patriotic, they would become interested in promoting their own agendas, rather than the agenda of the country. He thought that that would that that was a real threat to American democracy. 

I remember your first break with the Democratic Party, and with personal friends, even members of your family, was a Rolling Stone piece that you wrote about autism asking why have autism rates risen and you were kind of written out of polite society for doing that. One of the first things you did as Secretary, I think tell, me if I’m misstating it, is commissioned a kind of study of autism. Can you tell us what that is what are you seeking to do with that?

There are a handful of studies that CDC has generated on autism. They were all epidemiological studies and they all say what the CDC wanted them to say is they couldn't find a link. The problem is that the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences had said in 2001 that the link between autism and vaccines is biologically plausible, and they were highly critical of the way that CDC was making decisions about the vaccine schedule-- that it was the group ACIP, which is an external panel which has the responsibility of deciding which new vaccines will be added to the schedule, that they had essentially been captured by industry, the people who serve on that panel almost all of them have financial entanglements with the industry, and the Institute of Medicine recommended a litany, a retinue of studies including animal models observational studies bench studies, and epidemiological studies. They said you need this whole retinue to answer this question. CDC never did those. 

Instead, it commissioned the creation of these six epidemiological studies and none of them does what all of them were, they use fraudulent techniques, they say statistics don't lie but statisticians do, and epidemiological studies are very easy to manipulate. None of those studies did what you would want what you would do if you wanted to find the answer which is to compare outcomes in a fully vaccinated group to health outcomes in an unvaccinated group. 

And CDC did that study in 1999. They brought in a team of scientists under a Belgian researcher named Thomas Versraeten and they looked at the data they looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life and compared those children to children who had received the vaccine later or not at all and they found an 1135% elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. And it shocked them. They kept the study secret and then they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link. And we know how they did it they got rid of all the older children essentially and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed and they stratified the data, and they did a lot of other tricks and all of those studies were the subject of those kind of that kind of trickery. 

And so what we're going to do now, and meanwhile, the external literature is showing over a hundred studies that show, that there indicate that there is a link, but what we're going to do now is we're going to do all the kind of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended and we're going to do observational studies, retrospective studies, and epidemiological studies but we're going to do real science, and the way that we're going to do that is we're going to make the databases public for the first time. We've gone into CDC we've gotten the data from CMS which is Medicaid/Medicare, we're getting the data from the Vaccine Safety Data Link which is the biggest repository for HMO health records. So those records would have all the records of vaccination and then the subsequent health claims, and you can do a cluster analysis and look at see if there's an association, but and we're going to do some in-house studies ourselves but more importantly we're going to make this data available for independent scientist so everybody can look at it. And then we have already put out requests, grant requests, the general scientific communities, so that any scientists with credentials can apply for a grant and tell us how they want to go about studying these and we're so we're going to get real studies done for the first time. And we should have some answers by September, some initial indicator answers, and then it'll take over the next 6 months these large studies by independent scientists all over the world we anticipate there'll probably be about 15 different major teams who are all trying to answer this question and within 6 months we'll have definitive answers after September.

 And is it your expectation that those answers will differ from status quo understanding

I think they will. My opinion, I always tell people is irrelevant, we need to stop trusting the experts, right. We were told at the beginning of COVID don't look at any data yourself, don't do any investigation yourself, just trust the experts. And trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion and it's a feature of totalitarianism. In democracies we have the obligation, and it's one of the burdens of citizenship, to do our own research, and make our own determinations about things. Mothers when they go shopping, they don't trust the advertising, a good mother does not trust the advertising. They don't trust what they hear. They do their own research and it's much harder way to live, but that is one of the burdens of living in a democracy is that we do our own research, we make up our own minds and that's the way it should be done. And we're going to give people gold standard science we're going to publish our protocols in advance, we're going to tell people what we're doing, and then we're going to use data and we're going to publish the peer reviews which is never published by CDC studies. We're going to publish any time that we can the raw data and then we we're going to allow and then we're going to require replication of every study which never happens at NIH now. That's something new that we're bringing in, is that every study will be replicated.

I thought that was like a basic precept of science; we can't know something unless it can be, unless the experiment showing it, can be replicated, right?

Yeah, that is a basic precept of science, and, unfortunately, it has the kind of science that was done by NIH, and NIH was the gold standard agency when I was a kid, but they stopped doing that. And it incentivized a lot of cheating. And the reason it incentivizes cheating is that if you're a scientist your career depends on how much you publish. And so if you have a hypothesis and you say this is my hypothesis, this is the study that I want to do, and you get a grant from NIH and the hypothesis turns out to be wrong, it doesn't , it -- the science does not support it, a lot of times you cannot get that study published. That's science. It's science when a null hypothesis is science, and it ought to be published, but the journals won't do it, and also the journals won't publish anything that is critical of vaccines. They just they won't do it because there's so much pressure on them.

They're funded by the pharmaceutical companies and they'll lose advertising. They'll lose revenue from reprints if they don't do that. So even Marsha Angel, who was the long time, I think 25 years at the New England Journal of Medicine, she said you can't believe anything that's in the scientific journals anymore. Richard Horton who's the longtime editor of the Lancet said the same thing. He says "we've become propaganda vessels for the pharmaceutical companies." And the pharmaceutical company, now you have to pay to get something published in these journals, and so the pharmaceutical companies pay for something. They hire these mercenary scientists to do a study that will validate their product. and say that this statin drug works against heart attacks, and they'll mess with the data because they want it published. They're being paid by the pharmaceutical companies and then once it's published the journal will make available preprints. The preprint is a little like a little magazine with the logo of the Lancet on the front and it has that one article that says this statin drug works or this SSRI works.

Then they have tens of thousands of pharmaceutical reps who will take those journal articles and go to every doctor's office in the country and say, , and they're usually, let me put it this way, hot-looking women, and they'll go right, they'll go take the doctor out to lunch. They'll say why don't you start prescribing this drug and they'll incentivize the doctor in all kinds of ways to do that and so the doctors also have their own incentives prefers incentives. 

There's a published article out there now that says that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines and then there's a whole structure where Blue Cross and the other insurance companies pay bonuses to the pediatrician to make sure if for example 95% of their if their clients are fully vaccinated they get huge bonuses it could be tens of thousands of dollars and that's why your pediatrician if you say "I want to go slow on the vaccines," or "I want to have a little different schedule," your pediatrician will throw you out of his practice because you're now jeopardizing that bonus structure. These are all perverse incentives that stop doctors from actually practicing medicine and caring for the client because they're looking at the bottom line.

 20 years ago 20% of the doctors in this country worked for corporations today 80% do and that corporation is telling we don't care what happens to your patient, we care about how much revenue you're generating. These doctors are coming out of medical schools with ginormous bills and that will bankrupt them if they don't have a job and so they're under tremendous pressure just to keep generating those funds and the whole system it's just a bundle of perverse incentives where everybody is making money by keeping us sick. 

I’m not saying that's deliberate or purposeful or planned in any way. It's just the incentive system that everybody makes money, insurance companies make money if you're sick, ironically, they make more more money if the population is sick and that may seem counterintuitive to people. A guy said to me once who worked for AIG one of the big insurance companies he said-- I said I want to go with some data to AIG and show them that what they're doing is actually-- I can show them on paper --what they're doing is actually making their people sicker. They're the one group that you would think would want healthy people because they'd have to pay out less. And this guy said to me. “Think of it this way, if you're Lloyds of London and you ensure all the shipping in the world is it better for you if one ship sinks a year or if 500 sink a year and I said to him it's better if only one sinks he said "no it's better if 500 sink because then everybody has to get insurance." and what the insurance companies are collecting money is friction so they're taking a cut of the revenues that come through them. More people that buy insurance, it doesn't matter what the claims are if the claims are high they just raise their premiums, and the it's the amount of money that flows in the system that gives them money. So they're making money that way, the doctors are making money from keeping us sick, the hospitals are making money from keeping us sick, the pharmaceutical companies are making money from keeping us sick. So every level of the system is incentivized financially no matter what your intention is of a doctor, if you're a doctor of course, you don't want sick patients, but there's tremendous pressure from every angle of the system to actually to keep us all sick, and we're now the sickest nation in the world. 

One of the reasons there hasn’t been much of a discussion you said there were signals in 1999 that there was a connection between autism and vaccines. The response from the American media was just to throw you out, take away your New York Times presence, ban you from Rolling Stone etc. attack you as a Nazi. You made the point years later that the reason that happened was because pharmaceutical companies are the single biggest source of revenue for a lot of media companies and they're buying the protection with that money.

 That’s another perverse incentive, right?

Absolutely, I think we're one of only two countries in the world that allow that. Can it be stopped?

That's a question that we are looking at right now and there's a bad Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago that that gave that essentially anointed pharmaceutical advertising with First Amendment protection. The First Amendment protects political speech. If you're saying something political you should have absolute protection under the First Amendment if commercial speech has a lower level of protection and the pharmaceutical advertising was regulated as commercial speech and it was until 1990, really around 1992, it was you didn't see pharmaceutical advertise, there was no direct to consumer advertising on TV, and after that and then there were new more changes made in 1997. That's when it became--it exploded and today 

Roger Ailes, who both you and I knew. Roger Ailes for your audience, who doesn't know him which I think most of them do, was the founder of Fox News and I had this odd relationship with him because politically we were at loggerheads, but I had spent when I was 19 years old, I spent three months with him in a tent in Africa. And we developed a friendship then and as he was a very engaging guy. He was very witty, really fun, to be with, very paranoid, but at the same time brilliant.

He was very kind to me he was a very loyal friend to me and he would make Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto and all the other hosts who your former colleagues put me on TV to talk about the environment, even though he didn't agree with me on it, he made them put me on so during the 80s and 90s I was the only environmentalist who was going on Fox News but I brought him one time, this this this around, I think it was like 2014, I brought him a documentary that we had done about mercury and vaccines and he had he watched it. He was completely sold on it he had a family member who had been affected he felt and he said "but I can't put you on because if I did I if any of my hosts allowed you on to talk about this issue I would have to fire them and if I didn't I would get a call within 10 minutes," and he said for the evening news division about 75% of the advertising revenues are coming from pharma, and then he told me something that, if I remember it correctly, he said that on a typical evening news show there are 22 ads and 17 of those are pharmaceutical ads, and so this was the principal source of revenue. And for a lot of these television networks. It's keeping them alive. 

As they're all kind of collapsing financially, collapsing due to lack of popular demand for their presence. So, could you end that? Do you have the authority as the Secretary of Health and Human Services to say no more pharma ads on television? Well, , a lot of the pharmaceutical ads are misleading. And even the music and the video, the photos, or that they show the scenes that they show are that's kind of speech and it's misleading. It's sending a message and if you take this drug you're going to be riding jet skis, and playing volleyball, and water skiing, and have a great looking spouse, right and kids

The side effects meanwhile are rolling you at 80 miles an hour and that's misleading and so one of the things that we're looking at is making them be more honest about what they what they show so that the public know this pharmaceutical advertising is insidious for a number of reasons. That's why they don't allow it anywhere else in the world. 

New Zealand has a very limited allowance of direct-to-consumer advertising, very highly controlled compared to us, it's nothing. People who come over here from England or Europe and watch our tv are shocked by what they're seeing on it. It's insidious because of this the pharmaceutical advertisers are advertising the most expensive version of every drug. They're not going to advertise the generics because they're not making any money. So they're advertising the ones that are the highest profit margins for them and normally if you see an advertisement on TV like for Coca-Cola you then have a choice to go get that and then you're paying out of your pocket for it. When somebody buys a pharmaceutical drug it's Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it whereas us 

it's the taxpayer so they're advertising something to the consumer when the consumer has no skin in the game. And then the consumer and we are paying for the ads because they're tax deductible, So we are paying for them to advertise and the advertisements are getting people to buy drugs that may be ineffective, that may be the least effective drug of the ones that are available. Then they go to their physician. the physician is told by his boss, who's the corporate bean counter, you have 11 minutes with each patient and that's it and the physician then can spend that 11 minutes trying to talk the patient out of something that they want and then the patient's going to go away unsatisfied or the physician could just say "all right you want this prescription I'll write it for you." 

And then that patient is then going to come back because he's happy. The doctors hate it. The American Medical Association has been against it for 30 years and nobody thinks that this is good for public health. It is hurting us and it's distorting the markets and it is not it's not you can't even call it a free market because everything's paid for by the federal government.

So if in starting in September when we start to see the results of the analysis of these massive data sets that you're putting out there in public, and if we if it becomes clear that there is a connection between autism and vaccines the government promoted, vaccines in some cases the government effectively required, that's a tort. I mean that means there are a lot of injured people who can now show they were injured by this product. How are they made whole? What happens to them?

Well, that's going to be complicated because in 1986 Congress passed an act, the vaccine act, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that and they gave the vaccine companies immunity from liability so you no matter how reckless the company is, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how egregious your injury, you cannot sue them, and that's one of the problems. That is one of the reasons we had this explosion in the vaccination program. 

When I was a kid we only had three vaccines and by 1986, the year the act was passed, there were 11 doses of I think five vaccines, and today a child to go to school in states like California and New York and many other states where you have mandates, an American child now has to receive between 69 and 92 vaccines between conception, some of those are given to the mom during pregnancy, and age 18. And the reason it's 69 to92 is some of the vaccines have different brands, have different dose requirements, so some will require three doses some will require one dose some will require four doses. But that's a lot of vaccines for a kid and each one of those is calculated, is designed to permanently alter your immune system. So we have now this epidemic of immune dysregulation in our country. And there's no way to rule out vaccines as one of the key culprits. If you look at all of these diseases that have become epidemic: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, all of these seizure disorders, the neurological disorders like ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism, all the diseases you and I never saw when we were kids and suddenly they're in this generation is damaged is incredibly damaged by all these disease the autoimmune diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, the allergic disease like peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, eczema, and did you ever know anybody with eczema?

No.

 Right. Now it's ubiquitous in every classroom. And all of those injuries are listed as side effects on the manufacturers' inserts of those products. So we would have to be blind to not say we have to look at this as a potential culprit. We have to do the studies that the Institute of Medicine has been telling the CDC to do for 25 years. 

The Institute of Medicine told CDC in 2013 there are 158 injuries that are suspected to be vaccine injuries, only 38 of those been studied. and almost most of those it was positive it was yeah this is vaccine entry the other 120 whatever and I’m not doing the math in my head but the others have never been studied. CDC's job is to study them and yet it never studied them and that was purposeful. I’m not saying that out of speculation, I’m saying that because I’ve seen the emails and CDC deliberately derailed any study on that. Then if somebody does independent scientist does do a study they can't get it published, the scientific publishers will not publish a study that is critical of vaccines. So we need to change that taboo and that's one of the things Jay Bhattacharya is doing at NIH. We are going to remove the taboo about talking about this issue and we're going to be honest with the American public.

It's pretty clear from the VAERS self-reporting vaccine injury system, federal system, that vaccine injuries with the COVID vax jumped to multiples of what had been reported before.

There were more injuries reported from VAERS by the COVID vaccine than all other vaccines put together for the past 36 years. I'll tell you something else, there's a lot of people out there who say this is part of the consensus, you'll see this on every mainstream Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, all of these guys again and again that the link between autism vaccines has been debunked. Right? That it's been studied, but those studies that I was talking about earlier the epidemiological studies they only looked at one vaccine the MMR and one ingredient thimerosal. 

None of the vaccines that are administered to children during the first six months of life have ever been studied for autism. In fact, the Institute of Medicine said that they looked at this issue. Has it been debunked? They and they said, “No these studies have never been done on the vaccines that are the most likely culprit which is dtap, hep b, Hib, pneumococcal, the vaccines in the first six months, none of them. They said the only one that has ever been studied is DTAP which is diphtheria tetanus and pertussis, and they said that the one study that was done showed that there was a link with autism. But we're not going to count that study because it was based on the VAERS system, which is CDC's only surveillance system. They said that system is too unreliable so they what they were saying, the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the only system that CDC has to study vaccine injury is so bad that any study done on it we're not going to count. I'll tell you something else, David Kessler, who was a very famous surgeon general, who you remember, and many other people have said, that VAERS system does not work and you need a new system. So in 2010 CDC designed a new system and it was a machine counting system the problem with VAERS, with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is that it's voluntary.

 So the doctor has to, if he sees a vaccine injury, he's required to report it to VAERS but there's no penalty if he doesn't. It takes him a half an hour to fill out the paperwork so there's a big incentive for him not to do it. There's another incentive though, he doesn't know if something is vaccine, if you get a vaccine and then four months. four years later. you come in with a food allergy how do you. will any doctor in the world say that's a vaccine injury? Or seizure disorders, and the other thing is they don't know what to look for. They've never been taught that at medical school. There's no course on vaccine injury in medical school, in any medical school in this country, and then the other thing is he has a big emotional incentive because he told that mom to give that child that vaccine and if the child has a seizure 3 weeks later and she comes back and she says "I think it might be the vaccine." a lot of doctors will say "no that's normal for that age." and they're not going to call it into VAERS.

So, CDC designed a machine counting system that would do essentially a cluster analysis. They would look at the vaccine and then they would look at clusters of injuries that were unique or anomalous to that vaccine and it was a very accurate system according to the group that designed it. It was a team led by a guy called Lazarus and CDC paid for the whole thing millions of dollars and it was a long-term study and they looked at one HMO which was Harvard Pilgrim up in Massachusetts and they did they did this this machine counting system for Harvard Pilgrim and then they compared what the machine counting system had gotten, had yielded, and collected in terms of vaccine injuries. I compared that to what VEARS had collected during the same period at Harvard Pilgrim and they said that VAERS was capturing fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries and they had a system now that would capture over 95% and they were very proud and they brought it to CDC and said our system works. Here's the data the data showed injuries in about 2.7% of vaccines given which I think is something like one out of every 37 vaccines you get there's an injury and so CDC saw that and said we're not going to use the system and they shelved it in 2010 and they've continued to use VAERS now for 22 years when they know that it doesn't work when it is designed to fail we're going to absolutely change VAERS and we're going to make it we're going to create either in within VAERS or supplementary to VAERS a system that actually works.

Right now, even that system is antiquated because we have access to AI. We are creating here at HHS an AI revolution. We've been able to attract the top people from Silicon Valley. People have walked away from billion-dollar businesses and they don't want prestige, they don't want position they don't want power, they want to change, they want to make the system work. We are at the cutting edge of AI. We're implementing it in all of our departments at FDA. We're accelerating drug approvals so that you don't need to use primes or even animal models you can you can do the drug approvals very quickly with AI. And We're also implementing it at CMS to detect waste abuse and fraud which is extraordinary at that. But we're also going to use it at CDC and throughout our system to look at the meta data that we have and be able to make really good decisions about interventions. For example if you look at the population as a whole and say okay we're using three different diabetes drugs or five different statin drugs or all these SSRIs and others you can then look drug by drug and you can tell on the population whether it's working or not and which one is giving you the best bang for the buck and which one has the most side effects we have a potential now to use ai in ways that are going to revolutionize medicine. 

What about the people injured by the COVID vax. There are a lot of them. I know a lot of them. Some died. Some were permanently disabled. Nobody seems to care. You never hear about them and they don't seem to be getting any help what will that change 

Yeah that's going to change I mean as I said the big impediment is the 1986 vaccine act. So it's complicated about how we fix this so that we can get compensation to those people. We just brought a guy in this week who is going to be revolutionizing the vaccine injury compensation program which is a program that when Congress or when Congress passed the vaccine act and gave immunity from liability to vaccine companies, it recognized that that vaccines were in the description the characterization of the American Academy of Pediatrics, were unavoidably unsafe. That some people, like for every medicine, some people are going to be injured and killed, and so it set up a program that's in the federal government called the “vaccine courts” and they have a trust fund. The trust fund is endowed by a 75 cent sur charge on every vaccine. That program is supposed to be a vaccine court that's supposed to be generous and fast and give the tie to the runner in other words if there's doubts about whether somebody's injury came from vaccine or not, you're going to assume they got it they and compensate them and it's paid out over $5 billion now to about 12,000 people. 

We're looking at ways to enlarge that program so that COVID vaccine injured people can be compensated. We're changing the program so that we're looking at ways to enlarge the statute of limitations it's only 3 years and a lot of people don't discover their injuries till after that. There's no discovery in that program, there's no rules of evidence the program has devolved into lawyers from the Department of Justice, you're not suing the vaccine company you're petitioning my agency and it's represented traditionally by the Department of justice, and the lawyers in the Department of Justice, the leaders of it were corrupt, and they saw their job as protecting the trust fund rather than taking care of people who made this national sacrifice and we're going to change all that. I’ve brought in a team this week that is starting to work on that so that's one of the things we're doing.

But we're looking at everything: what's the status of the COVID vaccine now, who gets it, what are the recommendations, and why the recommendations now are that children under 18 are not recommended to get the vaccine but they can get it if they want, it's through a joint consultation with their physician so it's available to them. 

There's a new version of the COVID vaccine that just came out that was approved by FDA and that vaccine is going to actually do real clinical trials so and it's being given to people who are 65 years older or have profound comorbidities, but the agreement with the company is that everybody who takes it will be part of a clinical trial so we'll actually get some real data and as there was just data chaos with the other vaccine.

In fact. the Pfizer vaccine, when it came out, it had a higher all-cause mortality. So more people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group. I had 20,000 people who got the vaccine 20,000 who didn't and after 6 months they looked at it and there was 23% more deaths in the vaccinated group from all causes than in the placebo group and the efficacy was kind of dubious.

There was only two people who died from COVID in the placebo group and there was one person who died from COVID in the vaccine group and that's the whole data set they were looking at. Remember they were saying the vaccine is 100% effective? Well, that's why they were saying it because two is 100% of one, right? 100% larger than one. That's what they had but what they were telling the American people. “ Oh it's 100% effective.” When people heard that they thought if you get the vaccine you can't get COVID which of course now we realize, now everybody realizes, was wrong because everybody got COVID whether they got the vaccine or not and what they really should have been telling people is that in order to prevent one death from COVID you had to give 19,999 vaccines if any of those vaccines were killing people you would cancel out the effect of the beneficial effect.

Do you think the COVID, I mean net-net as we say in business just kidding do you think overall the COVID vaccine killed more than it saved? 

My opinion about that is irrelevant. What we're going to try to do is make that science available so the public can look at the science. I would not say one way or the other and the truth is I don't know and the reason I don't know is because the studies that were done by my agency were substandard. They were not designed to answer that question and there's been a lot of obfuscation about covering up as about suppressing any kind of discussion of vaccine injuries. 

I mean Mark Zuckerberg publicly said that he was ordered by the White House to suppress anybody on his platform on Facebook or Instagram who mentioned vaccine injuries. He was ordered by the Biden administration to. He said, “I was stunned I was being ordered by the federal government to deny facts, anybody can look him up on YouTube saying that, so and we know that too because I sued the Biden administration and we got all this discovery documents that showed that he was 37 hours after he took the oath of office swearing to uphold the Constitution, he opened up a group in the White House who whose job it was to suppress any dissent about this government policy.

I was the first person that they went after. 37 hours after he took that oath they were telling Facebook to take me off of Instagram which Facebook did. I had almost a million followers and there was no vaccine misinformation on there. I asked Facebook again and again show me one fact I got wrong. Everything I put on there that was vaccine related was cited and sourced to government databases or to peer-reviewed publications. It wasn't misinformation. Iin fact they had to invent a new word which is because Facebook was saying to the White House, “This isn't misinformation it's actually true,” and the White House said well it's “malinformation.” “Malinformation” this is an Orwellian kind of construct and “malinformation” is information that is factually true but it is nevertheless inconvenient for the government. All the people who are now running this agency were censored. Jay Bhattacharya was censored, Marty Makary was censored, Dr. Oz was censored. Vinay Prasad was censored. We were all. I was censored.

I remember well. what's the status of the COVID vaccine and pregnant women

The recommendation has been removed now for pregnant women 

Are you satisfied that MRNA technology is safe for people

I am not satisfied. Again, my opinion about that is irrelevant but we will be doing those studies and I would say there's a lot of skepticism in this agency about MRNA vaccines, about MRNA technology, about the status of it now about whether it's safe. The safety studies simply have not been done but there is enough anecdotal reports of people getting profound injuries that may or may not be associated with it and we're going to answer those questions. 

What happened with the vaccine board? I keep reading you fired all these eminent scientists on the vaccine board, all these important highly-credentialed scientists.

Well, we fired that board because they were, it was an utterly, it was just an instrument, it was a sock puppet for the industry that it was supposed to regulate. So they, in fact, and this was a long time coming.

In 2002 the Government Oversight Committee and the United States Congress held hearings about that board which is called ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and they said that 97% of the people on that board have undisclosed conflicts, many of them that had disclosed conflicts as well, but they said that Congress said that it gave an example. it said the rotavirus vaccine was approved by that board and there were five members of that board at that time and four of them had direct financial interests in the rotavirus vaccine they were working for the companies that made the vaccine or they were receiving grants to do clinical trials on that vaccine they all had overwhelming financial interests one of the people on that board was a guy called Paul Offit, who is one of the big voices for vaccines, CNN goes to him all the time when it wants to know about vaccines, he voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule when he had a rotavirus vaccine in development because it's now on the schedule his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. It's a competitive product but once you say rotavirus vaccine has to be vaccinated for, his vaccine is now guaranteed to get on the schedule. The one they voted on, that he voted on, within a year it had to be withdrawn because it was causing this really disastrous disease in kids that is often lethal called inception. Agonizingly painful when you're intestines kind of tie up against each other. It kills children on occasion. That vaccine was pulled the following year, and his vaccine then replaced it, he was still on the committee. He didn't vote on that, but he was still on the committee, but he voted to make rotavirus vaccine mandatory.

 And he then he and his business partners Stanley Plotkin and a couple of other people sold that vaccine to Merck for $186 million. He told Newsweek that he won the lottery. It's been said of him that he voted himself rich so that, and that kind of conflict, was typical on that committee, but the most did people know this was going on. The Office of Inspector General in this department investigated and they said this is a disaster you got to change it. Congress investigated and said you got to change it and they did nothing. 

The most glaring example of medical malpractice by this by this group is that they approved all these vaccines. We went from 11 remember to 69 to 92, 11 vaccines in 86 and not one of them had, except for COVID is the only one that had a pre-licensing safety trial that involved a placebo, a true placebo. All of those other vaccines were ushered in without safety studies and that means nobody understands the risk profile of those products. 

How can you do that? 

They did it. It's corruption and it's because of agency capture, because the companies that were making these products said if you can get your vaccine on the schedule it's generally typically about a billion dollars a year for your company because you now have a trap market with no downside.

You got no downside. First of all the federal government often times actually designs the vaccine. NIH would design it, would hand it over to the pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical company then runs it through ACIP, runs it first through FDA then through ACIP, and gets it recommended. If you can get that recommendation you now got a billion dollars in, at least, revenues by the end of the year every year forever. So there was a gold rush to add new vaccines to the schedule, ACIP never turned away a single vaccine. Everyone that that came to them they recommended and a lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious. I mean the they recommended the hepatitis b vaccines for babies when they're an hour old, the first day of life they get that, and hepatitis b if your mother's got it you should get it and you can, you can pass through maternal transmission, but every mother that goes in a hospital in this country is tested for it so we know which ones are vulnerable which aren't. But the mass vaccination of the entire population including well children, this is a disease you get through sexual transmission or you get it from sharing needles, and particularly it was prevalent among promiscuous gay men, but a one-day old baby has the risk to a one-day old baby was one in 7 million

 Very few of whom are promiscuous. 

Very few of whom are involved in prostitution or drug addiction. So it was a financial, they were all financial drivers. In a lot of the diseases that they target are not diseases that the vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. So the justification for having it mandated is very ephemeral. 

These are all things that we need to look at we want to protect public health. That means protecting against chronic disease too. There's nobody who will contest that they can cause chronic diseases that last a lifetime. 

So one of the reasons that the system has become so corrupt, I think it's fair to say, is Anthony Fauci. One of the longest serving federal employees who was the subject of one of the bestselling books of a couple of years ago which you wrote the Real Anthony Fauci. Amazing book and all this information about him was exposed to the world and he gets some sine cure at Georgetown, and still a secret service protection he seems to be thriving.

He doesn't have secret service protection any longer. President Trump took that away from him.

Good 

He got immunity. Why did he need immunity? Why did he need a pardon in advance? 

What do you think the answer is? 

I would be speculating but I think he was vulnerable. I think he had a lot of liability on creating the corona virus. He was funding precisely that research at the Wuhan lab. He was giving them the technology. He gave them not only the technology, the precise technology for developing that pathogen, and published about it by the way, and the publications credit NIH for financing the studies, but he also gave them one of his fundees, Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, developed a technique called the “seamless legation technique” which is a technique for hiding the laboratory origins of a virus, of a manipulated virus. Normally if there's a virus manipulated, you can look at it, researchers can look at it, they can look at the DNA sequences and they can say this thing was created in a lab. But Ralph Baric had developed a technique that he called the “nosee’m” technique and its technical name was “seamless legation” and it was a way of hiding evidence of human tampering. If you were interested in public health you would want to be doing the inverse of that you would want to be pinning red flags all to it and say this was created by people. That's what you would do if you were creating viruses for biological warfare

That's right but that's another question is why would he gave it to the Chinese? I mean that was a military lab. It was run by the military. It's hard to even understand that. What do you mean what would be the rationale for doing that? 

I try not to look into other people's heads. I try like in the Fauci book I never look in and speculate about what his motives are. I just say this is what he did but I do think that there is among a lot of the people who were doing that kind of research, the gain of function research, there is big career, economic and professional incentives to break ground and say I just one of his one of his fundees created an avian flu virus which can be very deadly to humans if you can make it do human-to-human transmission. He developed one that could jump to mammals. Why would you do that? You are just inviting a catastrophe and they published it and bragged about it and I think there's this kind of, I don't know whether I would call it a god complex or something, where some of the people in that field seem to have this this kind of, gets some kind of sense of omnipotence or something, from developing something that can kill all of humanity.

Yes. But I don't know that's that is sheer speculation. That sounds right to me. So it sounds like Fauci is beyond the reach of the law at this point 

Yeah. I think generally unless there was a truth commission which they did in as in South Africa, and they did it in central America after the 1980s wars there, and they were very helpful to those societies. I think we should probably do something like that now. In those cases what happens is you have a commission that hears testimony on what exactly happened anybody who comes and volunteers to testify truthfully is then given immunity from prosecution so that at least the public knows who did what.

Yes and people who are called and don't take that deal and purge themselves, they then can be prosecuted criminally. 

We don't have a good track record of revealing the truth in a timely manner as you better than anybody the president on January 23rd issued an executive order ordering the full declassification of files related to the murder of your uncle, father and Martin Luther King and we haven't seen all of them yet. Where is that process have your conclusions about any or all of those three murders changed on the basis of new documents?

No, nothing's changed. I mean as there's already millions of pages of documents out there and I think, in in terms of my uncle's death, I think that that ship has sailed. I don't think anybody who actually is willing to read the evidence now will question the fact that my uncle was killed by a conspiracy and that in fact Congress in 1973 when the Church committee looked at, I think it was 73, the 75 Church committee said it was conspiracy that was the conclusion of the Congressional committee so the Warren committee that was run by Alan Dulles who was had a lot of reasons to lie and did lie throughout and in fact he said at one of the sections, “Yeah if we were involved in this we would lie.” He said that and he got himself put on that committee and he was really should have been called the Dulles commission. He said it's a single shooter, but then in 75, that was 64, so 11 years later Congress investigated and they had a much larger purview. They had much more data at that time and they said it was a conspiracy, but since then there's been million documents released and probably 30 people who were involved and made confessions including many of the prime actors and so I don't think there is any doubt that my uncle was killed by a conspiracy. 

My father is more difficult because we just don't have the data. It's never been investigated and I’ve been trying to get it investigated. One of the women who played potentially a key role in it was a woman called “woman in the polka dot dress” who appeared to be Sirhan’s handler and that woman is living openly in Tarzana, California. Nobody's ever talked to her. This should be investigated and people should talk to her and really investigate the crime.

I think I I’ve talked to you about this before that my father, Sirhan was there were 77 eyewitnesses in the kitchen at the time. He took two shots at my father, one of those shots hit Paul Shrade in the head and Paul Shrade survived. The other one hit the door-jam behind my father and it was later removed by the LAPD. Then Sirhan was grabbed by six people including Rafer Johnson, Rosie Greer, Carl Oric, who was the the manager of the Ambassador hotel and they turned his gun they bent him over the steam table and they turned his gun away from my father but he had six more shots in it and he emptied the chamber so they Sirhan or Rafer told me that Sirhan had superhuman strength. Sirhan is a little tiny guy. I’ve met him and talked to him and but he's a very, he's kind of a frail. 

Well, I mean he's real now because he's older but even then he was just a little tiny guy and was not particularly strong and Rafer said he had superhuman strength and he could not pry the gun from his hand and he fired six more shots. All those shots hit people. We know what happened to every shot in his gun and my father was shot by four shots from behind one of them passed harmlessly through the shoulder pad, this was what Noguchi's autopsy said, through the shoulder pad of his suit. All the others were contact shots meaning the barrel of the gun was either touching his body or less than 3 inches from his body. The last shot that killed him was behind his left ear and that shot, Noguchi says from was from one to three inches from him and he Sirhan, was never behind him Sirhan was always in front of him and they a guy who almost certainly took those shots was a security guard who had just gotten his job within a week before. My father fell down on him. My father must have known that he was being shot because the last thing he did was he turned and he tore off the clip-on tie from Cesar. Cesar had him by the left hand and had steered him into the ambush. He had his gun in his right hand and he admitted it was seen. My father fell on him and he pushed my father off him. His gun drawn. The gun was not taken away by the LAPD, which did a terrible job and not only a terrible but a malevolent job because they destroyed 2500 photographs that were taken that night. Before the trial there were photographs, 2500 photographs in that kitchen and the ballroom and the LAPD collected them and destroyed them all. You have to ask why would they do that. And a lot of the other evidence was also destroyed including the door jambs and we have pictures of them but we don't have the real thing and then they never confiscated the gun from Cesar and Cesar said that, “Oh I had the gun out because I was going to shoot at Sirhan.” and so that should be questioned were there any documents

And I'll just say this that Zane Cesar was working at that time. His job was working for the Lockheed plant in Los Angeles and he had a top security classification at that and Lisa Peas who's one of the researchers and authors who's written extensively about this went through his background and the only employer that he ever listed officially in his background was the CIA so there are a lot of questions and we don't know the answers to them. I was in contact with Cesar in 2019 2020 negotiating with him. He had moved to the Philippines and I was trying to see if he would talk to me and I was going to go over there and talk to him and he said I'll do it for $5,000 and then when I got close he said 10,000 and he said 20,000 then he said 30,000 and and then he just said, “No, I’m not going to meet with you.” and then he passed away. So, again, we don't know but there are enough kind of flags on it that you would, that if you were actually wanted to know answers you would be asking questions, and those. 

Are you confident that, I know there's been some frustration, about getting all the documents relevant to those three murders, those three assassinations? Are you confident that all of it will come out by the end of this term?

 I’m confident that President Trump will release anything that he has access to but I don't expect anything groundbreaking to come from those documents because first of all with my uncle we've already got everything there may be little things like the calendar for Bill Harvey who is one of the people who was in the CIA who is almost certainly involved and other things like that that would be, and then more evidence I mean that the evidence that came out the last tranche the New York Times had to finally admit that certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset which they've been denying for 50 years. They finally admitted, “Yeah he was working for the CIA.” and so there may be some more validation of what he was doing and how he was recruited etc., but I don't think it's going to be anything groundbreaking. I don't think you need anything groundbreaking I think listen I was a prosecutor if I had to try the case right now against a number of the people are dead I believe I could win in front of a jury with it just with the evidence that we got, with my dad it was never investigated and that was deliberate 

So last question. You left, you were born here obviously, your father's attorney general of the United States when you were young, he's murdered 1968, you leave Washington, you haven't lived here since. You just came back as Secretary, what's it like? What do you notice? What do you think of it?

Well, I didn't expect to love living in Washington. When I was a kid I couldn't wait to get out of Washington, but my wife is happy here. We found kind of a community, and a neighborhood, and I love the people that I’m working with at this agency. It's the most gifted committed group of people that I’ve ever worked with and they're immensely talented and committed. 

And then I really like the cabinet. I think the President Trump's cabinet has put together an extraordinary cabinet. I’m friends with a number of the people who I never thought I'd be friends with but they're how do you like I mean I really I really get along with Pam Bondi and Cheryl loves Pam and her husband John. Marco Rubio is the funniest guy in the cabinet. He says things that make people belly laugh at every cabinet meeting. I never was very, let's say, approving of Marco because he was kind of a neocon warhawk, but now he's had this incredible transformation and I think he I think he very aligned with me on most issues, on Ukraine and just the fact that we should not be the policemen of the world anymore, that we've got to that, we've got to withdraw from that from that roll. Scott Turner is my friend Sean and all of them. I get Linda McMahon. I get along one of the things with President Trump is that he really knows how to pick talent and he and I’m not talking about me but the other people on there when you sit in those cabinet meetings and every one of those people is incredibly erudite and just fluid in the way that they speak and very comfortable and they're one of the things that President Trump did when he picked a cabinet and I was on the transition team so I watched what he was doing for every of one of the positions that he picked he wanted to see three clips of them performing on tv and so he's very conscious of the way that these people are going to be out selling his program to the public. That he needs people who are good salespeople not only good administrators but that they're that they can communicate a message to the public and I think this time around is everybody tells me it's completely different than the last administration because he he's he had so much time to grow and to learn and to figure out how to do this right and we need a revolution in this country, We've got a we've got a $34 trillion debt we've got.

We're spending two trillion more a year than we got. We're borrowing it from China and from Saudi Arabia and Japan. We have a $1.2 trillion dollar trade deficit and a lot of people are businesses are hurting because of the tariffs, but I admire President Trump because he is looking over the horizon and he's looking that this is unsustainable and we need to do something radically different and you need to, particularly at the beginning when you have momentum, and when you have your most power you need to do a lot of things that are going to be very disruptive to many people he still has tremendous support for the American public and I feel it every day I walk down a block and people are ecstatic and they come to me and they thank you for what you're doing and they feel good about this country again. 

I’ll just tell you another anecdote if we have time, my Uncle Ted Kennedy really didn't personally did not like Jimmy Carter he at every level,

Famously! 

He didn't like his politics. He didn't like him personally and Carter did a lot of things that my uncle was just, I mean one of them was he banned liquor from the White House which my uncle didn't like. And then he and he put the what was it Fresca or something on tap at the White House. And so there were just little things like that that annoyed him, but he also, when Carter came in, he talked about the "malaise" in this country and how bad everything was. It's like what Starmer did in England. 

Yeah 

To tell and that people take those messages from their leader and my uncle and then Reagan came in and Reagan was dismantling everything Teddy had done over 40-year career but teddy really liked him and I asked him one time why this guy is destroying everything you believe in and Teddy said, "I like him because he makes people feel good about being American." and he's able to inspire hope for the country again and President Trump does that whatever you think about him. There's a new feeling in America now that we're back on the upswing again as he says the country is hot again and all around the world people see that too and a lot of things have surprised me about the President because I bought into this fact that he was this one-dimensional character that he was kind of a bombastic narcissist and all this and part of it is hearing it all the time on TV but also the way that he conducts himself sometimes validates those if you have that narrative you can find things and what he does that validate that narrative but what I’ve been surprised in getting to know him is what a kind of deep multi-dimensional and thoughtful character he is and how well I also thought, “Oh he doesn't read and he's not interested in anything.” He's immensely curious, inquisitive and immensely knowledgeable. He's encyclopedic in certain areas that you wouldn't expect like music, and he gets very emotional about music and he has and he knows the whole story behind every song Pavarotti and James Brown.

He cries when he hears Pavarotti. He said to me one night when we were at Mar-a-Lago with the Amaryllis he said  “Amarillys, you understand this because she loves music too.” and he said but most the people here they don't understand it, they don't get it and then in terms of sports he is just he's an encyclopedia he knows everything and then on Wall Street he knows how everybody made their money and the stories and he's an incredible rack about telling all these stories and then and also the most surprising thing is because I had him pegged as a narcissist when narcissists are incapable of empathy and he's one of the most empathetic people that I’ve met you notice whenever he talks about the Ukraine war

Yes, he always talks about the casualties on both sides every time he talks about it

I noticed that and he does that in every theater he talks about how human beings are affected by whether it's vaccines or Medicaid or Medicare. He's always thinking about how this impacts the little guy and the Democrats haven't pegged as a guy who's sort of sitting in the cabinet meeting talking about how can we make billionaires richer, he's the opposite of that. He's a genuine populist and like all of us we're all flawed characters in one way or another but I think he's really the uniquely right person for this country right now. Because we were in a death spiral and not only just morale but also just well the deficits are who could ever, would you believe, we'd ever have a president in our lifetime who would actually be addressing the cost of government in a dramatic way and the trade deficits. How could you ever cure that they're just too entrenched in so many people making money and on them but meanwhile all us all going to hell in a hand basket and so I think he's doing stuff at great political cause to him that is going to benefit this country 10 years from now and 20 years from now and I’m really proud to be part of it.

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. thank you very much. 

Thank you, Tucker