Speaker 1: I'm going to talk to my friend David Strom from
Speaker 1: hot air dot com first, because this popped up over
Speaker 1: the weekend and I saw it, but I didn't I
Speaker 1: was busy when I read it, and I was like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: I don't even not even sure what Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: saying in this post on truth Social. But David Strom
Speaker 1: paid attention and he wrote a whole column about it
Speaker 1: because in the post that President Trump put on truth Social,
Speaker 1: it seemed to me, after I went back and read
Speaker 1: it again, a bit of a shot across the bow
Speaker 1: at both Pfizer and RFK Junior. So there was like
Speaker 1: shots fired in all directions. But then I thought I
Speaker 1: would let David come on and talk about it because
Speaker 1: he did such a great job in his column.
Speaker 2: Good to see you again, my friends, Hey, how are you?
Speaker 2: I am fantastic.
Speaker 1: So what did that post on truth Social seem to
Speaker 1: address in your view, David, Well.
Speaker 3: Donald Trout for the past five years has been bragging
Speaker 3: about Operation warp speed in the development of the COVID vaccines,
Speaker 3: and he's been very consistent about that until this weekend.
Speaker 3: And what he did was open up the question about
Speaker 3: whether or not he's been lied to basically by the
Speaker 3: big pharma companies. He says that you know, Pfizer in particular,
Speaker 3: showed him a bunch of numbers about how many millions
Speaker 3: of lives they saved, not just with the COVID vaccine actually,
Speaker 3: but also with drugs like paxelvid, which a lot of
Speaker 3: doctors say is a very dangerous drug because of liver toxicity,
Speaker 3: and there are accusations at least that it is.
Speaker 4: Just far more dangerous than it's worth.
Speaker 3: And basically Trump's challenged them to dump.
Speaker 4: Out all the data.
Speaker 3: And show just vacation for all the claims that they
Speaker 3: made to him. And you will notice that these companies
Speaker 3: have not been nearly as vocal in recent months and
Speaker 3: years about how great these vaccines are. And Trump seems
Speaker 3: to be opening up the question of whether fraud was committed.
Speaker 3: And this has a major major impact because it's not
Speaker 3: just a public relations problem.
Speaker 4: If that's the case.
Speaker 3: These vaccines were put out under an emergency authorization, and
Speaker 3: you know, they made representations and that's how they got immunity,
Speaker 3: and if fraud was committed, that immunity could in fact
Speaker 3: be taken away.
Speaker 1: Well, David, for me personally, one of my great regrets
Speaker 1: as a talk show host. Was I read the studies
Speaker 1: that were released by Pfizer. I read all of the
Speaker 1: stuff that they put out, and I said to my audience,
Speaker 1: I'm going to take this vaccine. I think you should,
Speaker 1: and I encourage people to get the vaccine because I
Speaker 1: was using the information that Pizer made available. Pfizer apparently
Speaker 1: kept all kinds of information behind the scenes, And I
Speaker 1: know that I should have been more doubting by the
Speaker 1: fact that they had to be given you know, liability
Speaker 1: immunity going forward. That should have been the big clanging
Speaker 1: you know, warning.
Speaker 2: Sign read flag for me.
Speaker 1: But apparently I, just as sometimes I did with men previously,
Speaker 1: I just blew right through those warning signs. But this
Speaker 1: to me feels significant because he also says, look, you know,
Speaker 1: I want them to show now to the CDC and
Speaker 1: the public and clear up this mess one way or
Speaker 1: the other.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So is he also calling Bobby Kennedy Junior onto the
Speaker 1: carpet tour, you know, not producing clearer documentation or does
Speaker 1: he say that documentation doesn't necessarily exist within the CDC
Speaker 1: because the drug companies are not giving it.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, it all depends upon how the data
Speaker 3: turns out. I mean, he certainly leaves open the question about,
Speaker 3: you know, who's right and who's wrong, which is a
Speaker 3: very new thing. And you know what his position on
Speaker 3: Kennedy Throughout all this time, I think he's been very,
Speaker 3: very supportive on the preventative medicine stuff, particularly nutrition and
Speaker 3: other things make America healthy again. He has been more ambiguous,
Speaker 3: I think on the question of vaccines, and one of
Speaker 3: the things that we have to keep in mind. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, Kennedy is the guy who as the Secretary
Speaker 3: of Health and Human Services, people have the most familiarity,
Speaker 3: but the people underneath him, you know, doctor Vna Pisad
Speaker 3: and Jay Badakaria. These are medical professionals with decades of experience.
Speaker 3: Badakari is one of the best public health and virologists
Speaker 3: out there, and Prisad has very nuanced positions on vaccines.
Speaker 3: And of course you've got Martin mccurey as well at
Speaker 3: the FDA, and these are all really top notch, exceptional people,
Speaker 3: and I think that they're going to be the ultimate
Speaker 3: judges of this.
Speaker 4: The people who give advice to drump on it.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I just I thought this was extremely interesting.
Speaker 1: I'm interested to see what happens next, because it's going
Speaker 1: to be hard to argue that if a drug company
Speaker 1: was given protection from liability based on incomplete information, I'd
Speaker 1: like to know more about that process.
Speaker 2: How was the.
Speaker 1: Decision made to give them immunity from liability from these vaccines?
Speaker 1: Was that decision made with all of the information available?
Speaker 2: I doubt it was.
Speaker 1: So those are the kind of things implications. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean this could have incredibly far reaching ramifications. And I
Speaker 1: think you said it best in your column today at
Speaker 1: hot air dot com. I'm not anti big pharma across
Speaker 1: the board, but what I am anti big pharma about
Speaker 1: is the notion that drugs somehow need to be underpatent
Speaker 1: indefinitely so generics can never be made, and the way
Speaker 1: they gain the system to their advantage.
Speaker 2: Over and over and over again. I am very.
Speaker 1: Frustrated with the industry as a whole and would like
Speaker 1: to see them perhaps brought to heal. I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: want to see them destroyed, but I would like to
Speaker 1: see them brought to heel just a bit, and this
Speaker 1: may be a starting way to do that.
Speaker 3: Well. Yeah, and one of the things that we have
Speaker 3: to understand, I thought about this quite a bit, because
Speaker 3: I'm actually a major consumer of pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 4: I have heart issues.
Speaker 3: And you know, even if, for instance, liability the liability
Speaker 3: shield is taken away from Pfizer, that would not actually
Speaker 3: mean that and Pfeiser went down that which would be
Speaker 3: the result of that, There's no question about it. I mean,
Speaker 3: even if the evidence is ambiguous, put any of these
Speaker 3: cases in front of a jury, and I guarantee you
Speaker 3: they're going to pick the injured person over the pharmaceutical company,
Speaker 3: even if the evidence is ambiguous.
Speaker 4: That's just the way that the jury system works.
Speaker 3: So what would happen, Well, first of all, you know,
Speaker 3: Peiser as a company might go down, it might get stripped,
Speaker 3: but all the intellectual property would exist, all the people,
Speaker 3: you know, it's basically the executives who would be out
Speaker 3: on the researchers would still be there. They would be
Speaker 3: picked up by other people. It would not actually be
Speaker 3: a death blow to the kinds of research that are
Speaker 3: going on, but it would be an enormous impact on
Speaker 3: the way in which pharmaceutical companies operate, which is clearly ropped.
Speaker 1: Well, I'd love to believe that that's true. But perdue
Speaker 1: Pharma in twenty twenty five, agreed to a seven point
Speaker 1: four billion dollar settlement on oxy cotton alone. Right now,
Speaker 1: the Sackler family has now backed out of Purdue Pharma, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're just going we're going to wash.
Speaker 2: Our hands of this. Nobody went to jail.
Speaker 1: Nobody in that family is ever going to pay the
Speaker 1: price for what they did in unleashing the opioid epidemic
Speaker 1: in this country by lying to doctors, by misrepresenting information.
Speaker 1: So I don't think there's any reason to think that
Speaker 1: if Iiser ended up having to pay significant settlements. I
Speaker 1: think seven four billion dollars would probably cover a lot
Speaker 1: of people who have a vaccine injury or may have
Speaker 1: lost a loved one. But the reality is is that
Speaker 1: these are just little speed bumps for these companies. They're
Speaker 1: just little price of doing business type things.
Speaker 2: And i'd like to see to your point.
Speaker 1: I'd like to see someone go to jail like you're
Speaker 1: lying to the president, which seems to be what the
Speaker 1: President is implying.
Speaker 2: Here, go to jail. That's what I want to see.
Speaker 1: And I think that would be far more compelling than
Speaker 1: thousands and millions and billions of dollars in fines or
Speaker 1: judgments or whatever send somebody to jail, and every other
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical company has to pay attention.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's right.
Speaker 3: I'm skeptical as you are that it would actually happen.
Speaker 3: I think ultimately the place where the real pressure point
Speaker 3: is going to be is in reforming the FDA, reforming
Speaker 3: the CDC. And you can see because ultimately they're the
Speaker 3: people who push this over the hump. I mean, we
Speaker 3: should not expect a pharmaceutical company to voluntarily, you know,
Speaker 3: go out of their way to tell people that, well,
Speaker 3: here's this product that's going to make us hundreds of
Speaker 3: billions of dollars, you know, and that's what we're talking about,
Speaker 3: hundreds of billions of dollars. They're not going to go
Speaker 3: out of their way to volunteer bid information about that.
Speaker 3: It is the responsibility of our regulators to ensure that
Speaker 3: they've got.
Speaker 4: All the data.
Speaker 3: And our regulators failed absolutely miserably. They were bound and
Speaker 3: determined to get a vaccine out and they were at
Speaker 3: least as complicit in lying about it. And there were
Speaker 3: I mean, there was not a lot of coverage of this.
Speaker 3: You know, we're now hearing about this, This satanist who
Speaker 3: quit theff at the FDA or I'm sorry, the CDC,
Speaker 3: and everybody is crying about it, but actually the top
Speaker 3: two vaccine regulators during COVID actually did not want to
Speaker 3: have the COVID boosters approved. They said, there's we don't
Speaker 3: have enough data about this, we're making representations, there's no
Speaker 3: safety data on this, and the media, so they resigned.
Speaker 3: I mean, the top two FDA regulators resigned during that.
Speaker 3: And I guarantee you that ninety nine nine percent of
Speaker 3: Americans don't know about that, whereas they know about the
Speaker 3: guy with the you know, the leather pentagram as a hero.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just bizarre.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: Amen to that.
Speaker 1: David Thram is my guest today. You can read his
Speaker 1: work at hot air dot com. Appreciate you making time
Speaker 1: for me today. David always all right, man, I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you soon. I have a link to that article
Speaker 1: today as well on the blog at mandy'sblog dot com.