Speaker 1: And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
Today's Wednesday, seventeenth day of September, year of our twenty
twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. And while we
have kind of an offshoot, if you will, from all
the business about the Charlie Kirk investigation the FBI, they're
working all of that, but also some more news about
the FBI came out today about how they were being
very political and the prior administration. We'll share that if
from me with you. The president's over in the UK
having a wonderful visit. He just it's right up his alley.
I mean, he got the right in the Golden Carriage
and he loves all that stuff. So he's having a
good time over there. The Fed came out today and
made their decision about interest rates down a quarter of
a percent. We'll dig into a little bit more about
it and tomorrow and Friday. The new vaccine Panel ASP
it's what they're called there. They are going to beat
about changing the vaccine panel in America. But let's we'll
get into all of that. Is a lot there. Oh
and by the way, the woman who was the CDC
director for I think three weeks they hired her, they
sent it, confirmed her, and then she got fired. She
testified today as well. So we have a lot on
vaccines to go over, but the FBI, well, let me
let me start at the end first. Late this afternoon,
the sheriff of Washington County, which is where Saint George,
Utah is where the shooter's family lived. The sheriff came
out today and briefly mentioned how that whole thing went down,
with the shooter being basically taken into custody.
Speaker 2: My friend drove Tyler and his parents to my office
where he was greeted by playing clothes detectives.
Speaker 3: So that was part of the part of the deal.
Speaker 2: Is Tyler knew it was just inevitable with all the
law enforcement pressure that he you know, his picture in
the news, the gun at the gun on the news.
He knew was inevitable that he would be caught. He
was fearful of the swat team hit on his house,
or he was fearful of being shot by law enforcement.
So part of the negotiation and getting him to bring
himself in was that that we would we would treat
it as delicate and as soft as possible to make
him feel comfortable. To where he would show up at
my office and that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that's just incredible to me. He was afraid
of being shot. Did it occur to him that he
just shot and killed a human being? But he was
afraid of being shot? And the other thing Yet a
weird part about all of this that keeps I know,
this wasn't the main focus on my podcast today, but
I keep thinking about the fact that they, you know,
the news yesterday was the DA read the whole background
and everything else and said that he had communicated with
his roommate that he was that Charlie Kirk was going
to be in the area. He told his family that
Charlie Kirk was going to be in the area, and
then he in one of the text messages with his roommate,
talked about the fact that Charlie has so much hate.
According to the shooter, has so much hate that it's
just not negotiable. But I'm thinking, wait a minute, isn't
that what Charlie did. He sat in front of students
and welcome them, especially the ones who disagreed with him,
welcome them to come up to the microphone and debate him.
So instead of coming up and with a gun and
shooting him. Why didn't he just he was there, he
was at the spot. Why did he not go down
and stand in line for the microphone and confront Charlie
Kirk all about the hate perceived hatred that this guy
said that Charlie had. Maybe Charlie could have convinced him
that they saw more eye to eye than he thought,
or maybe not, but at least that would have been
the normal thing to do. And then to think that
he was afraid of being shot. How can you be
afraid of being shot but you're willing to shoot other people.
It's just bizarre. So I don't know why the killer
did not debate Charlie. He was right there. Just released
a pull By Morning consult finding two thirds of Americans
have heard a lot about Charlie's killing. Most people said
the news made them worried or angry. The Republicans and
Democrats argue that America's political rhetoric is to blame for
the assassination, but the survey says they also blame one another.
The result showed sixty two percent of Republicans said the
liberal media is to blame, while the same number of
Democrats point the finger at President Trump and say he's
to blame. So we both have our villains. People on
the right have the liberal media as they're villain. People
on the left have Donald Trump as their villain. So
that's where we are. Sixty almost not not quite two thirds,
but it's a decent majority of people feel that way.
So let me get to this FBI story. We all
know that their accusations Peter Strock and the whole group
that went after Donald Trump round well first Trump one
point zero primarily, but also before that, and more is
coming out now that Cash Bettel has the controls of
the FBI and they're looking into what exactly went on.
Chuck Grassley the oldest senator, he turned ninety two years
of age today. He sounds like you said, much younger man.
He acts like a much younger man. But anyway, he
is unveiling the fact that the FBI is accused of
targeting Republican groups, including turning point USA that they were
going remember remember back in You've got to go back
to the Obama years when they were going at the
lowest learner and that whole crowd at the I r
S were specifically going after anybody that was a nonprofit
organization on the right side of the aisle. I mean,
they just they absolutely used the big boot of government,
uh to violate a lot of organizations' rights under the
Internal Revenue Code. Well, now apparently it's coming out that, yeah,
they were still doing this in the Biden administration, targeting
Republican groups, including Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA.
Speaker 4: There's grassly articke Frost wasn't just a case to politically
investigate Trump. It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI
agents and Department Justice prosecutor could achieve their partisan hands
and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.
Speaker 1: So if the FBI was investigating Republican organizations, what was
the reason for going after Turning Point usaid? Do you
know the answer to that is no.
Speaker 4: But understand that none of this stuff would be known
this very day if we hadn't had whistle wars in
the FBI and Department of Justice. Tell us about it
and give us the documents, and I can thank Director
Patel for making sure that we got those documents. And
I think it's ought to remind us all that it's
a continuation of what tried to happen in the Obama
administration with the Loess Arner attacked through the irs of
investigating conservative nonprofits. And it's something that shouldn't happen on
our political system. And it's an example of the FBI
weaponization or political weaponization. And it all started with a
special agent t Bow, Timothy t Bow, that violated every
FBI protocol to set up for the Jack Smith electoral
charges against President Trump. And until now we thought that
that's all it was about, was going after President Trump.
But it's going after ninety two conservative groups, Republican groups,
and Republican individuals, and Charlie Kirk's organization Turning Point was
one of those. But we wouldn't have known that.
Speaker 3: Without the FBI whistle blewart.
Speaker 4: I think we ought to make a case for both
political parties to quit this attacking each other in these
very secretive ways where you don't know about it until
some whistlebo war tells you about it. And it's just
very anti American, it's anti constitutional, and it's an a
violation of free speech if you can pleader political speech.
Speaker 1: Being Senator John Kennedy always has John Kennedy's asked about
always has his accusations. He was asked about these accusations
about the FBI.
Speaker 3: It doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 5: There were some people, not the majority, but some people
with that bunder President Biden who used their positions of
power to prosecute their political beliefs or the president's political beliefs.
We know that we've seen the evidence Peter Struck, Lisa Page,
and part of mister Patel's mission needs to be to
get rid of them.
Speaker 1: Now. That doesn't mean to go the other way.
Speaker 5: That means to just be turn the FBI back into
a professional a political organization. But there's no question that
under President Biden, the place was political as hell.
Speaker 1: And people wonder why many of us don't trust our
government the FBI of all places. I mean, how can
you not trust the FBI? But this is proof positive,
and because of whistleblowers within the FBI, we are finding
out about the fact that they had political access to
grind and win after people based upon politics. Well, I
don't we'll find out later. I'm sure what the deal
was with what their problem was with Turning Point USA.
But like Chuck Grassley said, that was just one of
ninety two Republican organizations that the FBI was going after.
Absolutely disgusting. Back to more on the shooter and FBI
profiler guy by the name of Jim Clemente. That's what
he does. I don't know how anybody can look into
somebody's head, but this is what he had to say
about the shooter.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, it just indicates that he has
a very skewed perspective. I mean, obviously, the difference between
getting in trouble with his father and murdering a human
being is drastic. Yet he's more worried about the lesser
crime or lesser problem. I think the father represents morals
and ideals to him and he doesn't subscribe to them,
and therefore he didn't fit in well, and that could
lead to a really poor self image, which led this
guy to decide that he wanted to do something outrageous
to feel better about himself, to feel more powerful. Well,
obviously his father has the social skills to discuss this
with his son. His son, though secretly at least for
the last week, has been harboring this incredibly violent way
to address this issue. This is not the first thing
he should have been thinking of. This is not the
first way that you address an issue. If he had
a problem with somebody's political ideologies or what they said
in public, then he certainly could have addressed it one
on one. He could have talked to a number of people,
but that's not what he chose to do. And this
is where he indicates what's really going on in his mind.
I think I've said it before. Genetics actually loads the gun.
Personality and psychology aims it, and experiences pull the trigger.
And that psychology and personality you participate in the formation
of that through the thousands of little decisions that you
make in your mind. And so instead of going away
from that violence, he embraced it. Instead of trying to
deal like a normal human being, he decided he wanted
to go towards extreme violence. And I'm not saying that
genetics made him do this. What I'm saying it just
he had the potential, that's all. He could definitely have
fought thought that potential gone against it. But I think
that he made a lot of decisions in his brain,
and maybe a lot of them occurred over the last
year or so, but he made decisions in his own
brain that he was going to do something outrageous so
that he could feel better about himself.
Speaker 1: Well back to the why didn't he go talk one
on one with somebody like Charlie Kirk, It would have
been the obvious place to go, I would think. Paul Morrow,
former NYPD, weighs in with his latest thoughts.
Speaker 7: But yeah, you can see that is the planning that
reportedly is about a week going into it, and then
this meticulous plan that he follows. He very clearly thought
it all out. But then even subsequent to the event,
which he seems to have executed the way he expected to,
he then takes all of these evasive maneuvers to get away,
to include dumping the gun in a place that he
thought was going to be a drop point, then getting
to the roommate by text in a forum that he
thought was going to be safe in discord, giving that instruction,
and planning to go back waiting for the cops to
be clear. All of that speaks to the fact, exactly
as you're just saying, he's speaking with a clear mind.
He doesn't have a mental defect. The bar is high
for an insanity plea in Utah. The fact that he
was operating at such a high level I would argue
pretty much takes that off the table. They may try it,
I don't think it's going to succeed. So from the
press conference we got yesterday, two things jumped out at
me relative to the roommate. First of all, the fact
that he says to the roommate, destroy the note. And
then the prosecutor said in the press conference we have
a photograph of the note, not the note itself, which
argues to me very good chance that the roommate did
destroy the note, which is potentially chargeable. The other thing
was this conversation about you saw me engraving the bullets. Now,
while it does seem that the roommate appears to be shocked,
is that a little bit on the nose is a
little contrived? Is it a little too perfect? Somebody exchange
they have there's some suggestion of that online. Those are
people just speculating. But the fact that he knew that
his roommate was engraving bullets argues that that's a callback
to mangi own, which obviously was done for no good purpose.
So those things suggest to me maybe the roommate could
be in the hot box. But the thing is this,
that doesn't mean you have to charge that person, and
in fact, it seems like the investigators have the roommate
working for them. They got that person right where they
want them, and they want to keep them that way
because you can do all the forensics in the world, computers, phones, surveillance,
all of that stuff. To have somebody who was living
with the accused for the investigator, that's gold. So this
is difficult. We had this very much in the terrorism world.
When I was working terrorism cases. We used to call
it loser the lion, and isis particul call it what
loser to lion isis was particularly adept at finding people
who were leave leading sort of slipping down lives, who
were looking around for an identity, to get into that mindset,
to catfish them and to cite them into doing something violent.
Speaker 1: However, low level.
Speaker 7: Here, pick up a gun, pick up a knife, pick
up a bat, charge a police officer, give them purpose,
and that made them a lion for Islam right now.
It was a pure act of weaponization, and it's a
very low level operation. It's very easy. What you're looking
for is that cognitive aperture. You're looking for the opening
in the person's psyche where you can drill in there
and change their mindset into something that's more glorious for them.
That was during the terrorism world. This paradigm feels very,
very similar. It's very very tough to guard against. There's
so many encrypted apps. Generally, what it really comes down
to is the people who are closest family friends, primarily family,
because after one of these events, they always say, on
doing the interviews, I saw them going down a bad path,
but I didn't think it would be anything like this.
This commission is important to sensitize people, but as far
as stopping.
Speaker 1: It, I'm sure this story isn't the only one in America.
And imagine how many If you know anybody that's gay,
you know they'll tell you that the whole excruciating, anxiety
filled moment of having to come out to tell their parents,
tell their mother. Many many cases, it's easier to tell
mom than it is dad. And I'm sure that this father,
who was described as a very conservative guy and his
son turning to the not only to the left, but
into the gay and trans world, I'm sure there was
probably a lot of problems between those two even getting along,
let alone sitting down and trying to figure out how
to help him. So I mean, this is where you
need to go to professional counseling, get somebody outside of
your home to help. Where this young man was having
problems with self image is clear. And so again not
go stand in front of Charlie Kirk and debate him
instead of shoot him as still absolutely puzzling. So it's
all I don't want to blame the clowns under the dome,
but yesterday there was I think there's something wrong with
Corey Booker. He's just such a strange guy. And yesterday
he was supposed to be asking questions of the FBI
director and instead he started yelling at him, and Cash
Betel fired right back at him, and Corey Booker had
just lost his mind. It was embarrassing to see. These
are supposed to be the adults in our country. Senator
John Kennedy was in the room when these two went
down this path so immature.
Speaker 5: Well, I'll put it this way, mister Patel on the FBI,
working with you, Utah state and local law enforcement officials
caught the assassin uh with within thirty three hours, and
I congratulate him and all his colleagues for that. In
terms of the hearing. Parts of it were very informative.
Parts of it, as you showed, looked like something my
dog brought up.
Speaker 1: You know, you can.
Speaker 5: It's never a good thing when senators and a witness
uh lose their temper and uh and and start screaming
at each other. Wasn't exactly a Lincoln moment. And and
I think most Americans look at that and with it,
some will assigned blame. I don't care to, but they'll
look at it and they'll think, you know, you can
only be young once, but you can always be immatere.
I think I think the FBI is going to be
on this very aggressively. I asked the director yesterday point blank,
can you tell me with certainty that no one else
was involved? And he said, no, I can't say that.
And I said, could others have been involved? And he said,
he said, yes. Look this this the assassin. We've all
seen his emails. This guy was about ten exits past normal.
That doesn't mean he's insane, he just he just he
has no soul and talking to his his his boyfriend
or girlfriend. He's not worried about having just killed another
human being in cold blood. He's worried about his dad
being mad because he lost his grandfather's rifle. This guy
got radicalized in some way, and I believe the FBI
will get to the bottom of it, and they should.
And yeah, some of it probably is the fault of
social media. Maybe he had other chuckleheads encouraging him. But
at the end of the day, I believe in free
will and responsibility, and this guy's going to be held
and should be held responsible for his action.
Speaker 1: All right, So, speaking of tense moments in Congress, doctor
Susan Moneraz who was the CDC director for all of
three weeks she was hired, She went through the she
was hired by RFK Junior, and then went through the
Senate confirmation process and he fired her three weeks later.
I thought it was well, first of all, it's time
she was testifying today, but tomorrow and Friday, this vaccine
panel is going to be meeting to determine what vaccines
are allowed and which ones are not, and maybe even
beyond a ladder. It comes down to sometimes they will
allow it, but if they don't approve, what that means
your insurance company is going to pay for it. So
I thought we would play some chunks from her testimony. Today,
we'll start with doctor Susan Moneras, and she was being
quizzed by Senator Bill Cassidy, who's the head of this committee,
but he's also a medical doctor. So listen to this
and see if you aren't confused when we get done
with this segment.
Speaker 8: I met with him twice when he swore me in.
He was in the room he swore me in, and
then I met him again on August eleventh when he
came down to tour the buildings that had been under
the gunfire, and we chatted briefly.
Speaker 3: Then you met the twenty fifth as well, and.
Speaker 8: Then the twenty fifth that's correct, yes, okay.
Speaker 3: And how many meetings were during around the period of
the twenty fifth.
Speaker 8: We had three distinct meetings that day, okay.
Speaker 3: And what did he tell you to do.
Speaker 8: In the first meeting? Briefly? In the first meeting, he
asked me to commit to firing as scientists or resign.
He asked me to pre commit to signing off in
each in one of the forthcoming ACIP recommendations, regardless of
whether or not there was scientific evidence.
Speaker 9: And what were those recommendations. Did you have a foreshadow
and of what they would be.
Speaker 8: I did not. We did not get into any subsistance.
Speaker 3: About what he wanted to approve them.
Speaker 8: He just wanted to blanket approval. And if I could
not commit to approval of each and every one of
the recommendations that would be forthcoming, I needed to resign.
I did not resign. And that is when he told
me he had already spoken to the White House about
having me removed.
Speaker 9: Did he ever communicate is going to change the childhood
vaccination schedule?
Speaker 8: Not until that very day. In that morning meeting, he
said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting
in September, and I needed to be on board with it.
Speaker 9: Did he ever suggest that the President was that he
was speaking for the president.
Speaker 8: In that morning meeting, he did say that he had
spoken to the president. He spoke to the President every
day about changing the childhood vaccine schedule.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 9: Did Secretary Kennedy asked you to speak to anybody outside
of HHS?
Speaker 3: He did.
Speaker 8: In the second meeting that day, he indicated that one.
Speaker 1: Of his.
Speaker 8: Colleagues or collaborators, I don't know what the relationship is,
was coming into town the following week and he wanted
me to meet with that person.
Speaker 3: Who was that person?
Speaker 8: The person was named Aaron Siri.
Speaker 3: Aaron Siri? Is he the trial attorney who.
Speaker 9: Wanted to get rid of the polio vaccine allegedly and
President Trump slapped him down and said he couldn't do that?
Speaker 3: Is that the same eron Siri?
Speaker 8: I don't know the second part of that, but I
do know that there were public reports that he is
the individual who had suggested getting rid of the polio vaccine.
Speaker 9: Now, Senator Secretary Kennedy told the Finance Committee that he
did not ask you to prove but that you're a
biased against the new ACIP and he just asked you
to keep an open mind. Did he cite any data
or science as relates to the potential ACIP recommendations to
persuade you to support them.
Speaker 8: He did not have any data or science to point to.
As a matter of fact. We got into an exchange
where I had suggested that I would be open to
changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science were supportive,
and he responded that there was no science or evidence
associated with a childhood vaccine schedule, and he elaborated that
CDC had never collected the science or the data to
make it available related to the safety and effort.
Speaker 9: To be clear, he said there was not science or data,
but that you still expected you to change the schedule.
Speaker 3: Correct, Okay, doctor Howery.
Speaker 9: Doctor Manaras has just said the Secretary directed her to
accept vaccine recommendation without seeing them and for which there
is no science related to tomorrow's ACIP meeting.
Speaker 3: Who decided what would be on the agenda?
Speaker 10: So I don't have great visibility into that. I know
the senior Advisor and HHS counselor worked with our staff
and the designated federal official and proposed items.
Speaker 3: Kent, And who is the senior counselor.
Speaker 10: The senior counselor. The senior Advisor is Stuart Burns, and
the HHS Counselor is Ren Archer.
Speaker 9: And those are political appointees answerable to the secretary. Yes,
is that the way the does it? Normally the Cabinet
Secretary of Political Staff set the agenda for a scientific meeting.
Speaker 10: Not for the past decade.
Speaker 3: I was at CDC, so.
Speaker 9: This is the first time that's been the case. Yes,
And in preparing materials for the meeting, were you told
to disregard science or to enhance science or how is
what were you supposed to do for the last meeting
we had to I'm talking about this meeting coming up.
Speaker 10: So for this meeting, we didn't have work groups other
than one for COVID, So CDC scientists were being asked
by ACP did questions and recommendations. I did suggest additional
questions that the Hepatitis B work group look at so
that they could look at differences in age groups. The
senior advisor was concerned that could bias moving away from
a birth dose. I asked how asking questions and providing
data could do bias if we didn't have the answer.
Speaker 9: Bias against moving away from your suggesting that they wanted
to move away from the birth dose, but they were
afraid that your data would say that they should retain it.
Speaker 1: Right, That's okay, So again that's well, there's two ladies there.
One is doctor Susan Moneraz, who was the fired head
of CDC and the chief medical officer for the CDC.
You heard doctor Deborah Howry. Here's the thing. As far
as having confidence in the CDC, they lost my confidence
a long time ago, back when they were coming up
with all kinds of goofy things during COVID and they
were proven wrong over and over and over. So this, however,
is focusing on childhood vaccine protocol. And Senator rand Paul,
who also is a doctor, I don't know if he
asked really all that many questions. He kind of basically
made a lot of statements. But listen to the back
and forth with doctor rand Paul.
Speaker 3: Doctor Menaras, I agree with you completely that we need
to restore trust in public health. In order to do so,
we have to have a discussion about the actual science,
and we can't have discussions this. You know, it's a
but all vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad. This
is about specific vaccines. It's about specific age groups, It's
about specific policies. Does the COVID vaccine prevent transmission?
Speaker 8: The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who
are positioning.
Speaker 3: Does it prevent transmission?
Speaker 8: When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission.
Speaker 3: But in other words, it doesn't prevent transmission. You can
still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine. In fact,
there's been reduced ability to interfere with transmission over time,
and what we've found is the most recent one since
Omicron is down around sixteen percent reduction. If there is
a reduction. Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children
under eighteen? It can, it doesn't. The statistics are inconclusive.
And the reason you can't prove that it does is
there's so few people under eighteen that go to the hospital.
The numbers are extraordinarily small. There's like seventy six million
kids under eighteen in our country. One hundred and eighty
three died and a few thousand went to the hospital
in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, and since then
the numbers have dropped precipitously, and the idea and the
issue needs to be discussed. But the COVID vaccine is
not reducing hospitalization. It's not statistically significant. Does the COVID
vaccine reduce the rate of death for children under eighteen?
Speaker 5: It can?
Speaker 3: Once again, it can. That's a ridiculous answer. No, it doesn't,
and there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce
the death rate. These are statistics. We've looked at it.
When they approved it, they had this discussion at the
Vaccine Committee that we've been talking about During the discussion,
they acknowledged that there was no proof of reduction in
hospitalization or in death. So what they did is they said,
what can we use to try to make people take
this vaccine. They came up with this, They said that
if we give you a covid vaccine, you make antibodies.
So really, the whole recommendation for having a COVID vaccine
from six months up is not based on hospitalization data,
not based on deaths. It's based on whether you make
antibodies or not. And what people fail to see from
this is I can inject you with a foreign protein
every week and measure your antibodies. You will make antibodies
every time. It just means immunology work has nothing to
do with whether you should get a vaccine every week.
So when we're discussing the science here, we have to
discuss what is the science in favor of giving a
vaccine to six month old and what are the benefits
from that? And there is no benefit of hospitalization or death,
and then what would the risks of the vaccine be.
We have large population studies of the risks of the
vaccine and younger people, and it turns out that You
don't see this as much if you look at the
general population. But once you start isolating in by age group,
which you have to do in COVID because there's such
a disparity among age group, you find that there is
a risk of milcarditis a significant event and somewhere between
six and eight and ten thousand. But that's much greater
than the risk of hospitalization or death, which are not
even measurable because they're so small. So you resisted firing
people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should
be at six months. That's what this is about. You
didn't resist firing the beauty of the perfect, beautiful scientists
that are a career people and unobjective and unbiased. You
wouldn't fire the people who are saying that we have
to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That's
who you refuse to fire.
Speaker 8: So that assertion is not commensurate with the experience that
I had with the individuals who are identified to be
fund Any of the people.
Speaker 3: You refused to fire, did any of the people you
can answer the question, did any of the people you
refused to fire believe that we should change the vaccine schedule?
And no longer force six months old kids to take it.
Every one of them was adamant. We should keep it
at six months. Everybody's alarm, we're going to change the
childhood routine. Well we should. There is no medical reason.
What is the medical reason to give a hepatitis B
vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis?
Speaker 8: So none of the discussion points that you just brought
up wherever.
Speaker 3: It that's changing the childhood schedule? Answer? Regular order, regular,
your time? You have your time? Wordy, I got in mine. Look,
this is the debate over changing the childhood schedule. The
hepatitis B vaccine on the schedule is given to newborns.
What is the medical, scientific reason and proof for giving
a newborn a hepatitis B vaccine if the mom is negative?
Speaker 8: I want to go back to the assertion association.
Speaker 3: What is the medical reason for giving a hepatitis B
vaccine to a newborn? See, everybody's like blithely going along.
We can't change the childhood You're somehow terrible if you
want to change the childhood. We should be discussing what
is the childhood vaccine schedule? And you should be The
burden should be on you. You want to make all the
kids take this. The burden is upon you and the
people you wouldn't fire to prove to us that we
need to give our six month old to COVID vaccine
and that we need to give our one day old
a hepatitis B vaccine. That's what the debate ought to
be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether
we live in alice.
Speaker 8: In the one len, I actually agree with you, and
I was open to the science. I just would not
pre commit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science.
Speaker 3: Untrue.
Speaker 1: Okay, so where does that leave you? So Rand Paul,
by the way, is medical doctor, but he is an
eye doctor. And the doctor Mani is an immunologist who
deals with your im know your immune system and viruses.
So and there you know he's just slamming her one
side and the other. So let's get a couple more
doctors in here. By the way, the reason why you
give a baby on his first day a hepatitis B shot?
Doctor Bill Cassidy, the chairman of this committee, will answer
that in a moment, But first let me get doctor
Sanjay Gupta in here to respond to what you just heard.
Speaker 11: Well, she wasn't really allowed to answer the questions, so
I don't know that it was an exchange as much
as a sort of a statement from from doctor Paul.
He is a doctor, by the way. I think what
he was sort of getting at was the idea that
what is the data show on the efficacy of vaccines
for children? And he focused on COVID, he focused on
have B, But again she wasn't allowed to answer some
of those questions. There is evidence to show that people
who received the COVID vaccin scene reduced their likelihood of
hospitalization and death. That benefit is lower as people become younger,
because they're less likely to get very sick in the
first place, but there's still benefit, much of which we
reported on for years, frankly after these vaccines rolled out.
But again, it would have been great to hear what
she had to say. Other things that sort of stuck
out to me was this ASIP meeting that's going to
take place tomorrow and Friday. The agenda for that was
set by political appointees, according to doctor Manaraz, something that
has not been done in at least a decade, probably ever,
but at least a decade. Also, the changing of the
childhood vaccine schedule, which really seems to be at the
heart of all these discussions. It appears that there was
no data or science provided to doctor Manaras when she
was asked to sort of rubber stamp or preapprove some
of these changes. So it was just she didn't see anything.
She didn't hear what the recommendations were. She didn't see
any of the science that I dictate some of those
future recommendations. So that was a little confusing, and I
think the last thing had sort of jumped out at me.
She said that Secretary Kennedy had been in regular communication
with President Trump, who agreed, at least according to what
we just heard, that President Trump agreed to changing the
childhood vaccine schedule.
Speaker 3: That's something we had not heard before.
Speaker 1: All Right, one more politician. Doctor. This is a Bill Cassidy.
He is the chairman of the committee that was hearing
this today, and he's also a medical doctor. Let's see
what he says.
Speaker 9: One thing that reportably reportedly is going to be discussed
at the upcoming ACIP meeting is ending the recommendation for
the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Now, again, this
was my practice for twenty years before I entered politics, more.
Speaker 3: Than ninety percent of infants.
Speaker 9: Let me start over for those who say, why should
a child be vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease when
they're at birth. The child passed through the birth canal
and is exposed to the same secretions as one would otherwise,
and that passage through the birth canal makes that child
vulnerable to the virus being transmitted, not just hepatitis B.
It can be HIV, it can be other things. But
in terms of hepatitis B that happens if that child
is infected at birth, more than ninety percent of them
develop chronic lifelong infection. Now we'll talk about the consequences
of that in a second. Before nineteen ninety one, as
many as twenty thousand babies babies were infected with hepatitis
B in the United States of America, and that change
when the hepatitis BE vaccine was approved for newborns. And
by the way, as doctor Menora says, this doesn't mandate.
Doesn't say you can't leave the hospital unless you get it.
It just says that if the mother accepts, then the
insurance company has to pay. It's not mandated it's just
like Mama, if you think it's a good idea accepted.
In the decade following approval of a birth dose of
hepatitis B, newborn infection of hepatitis B reduced by sixty
eight percent, as in the decade sets up to two
thousand and one. Now fewer than twenty babies per year
get hepatitis B from their mother. That is an accomplishment
to make America healthy again. And we should stand up
and salute the people that made that decision because there's
people would otherwise be dead if those mothers were not
given that option to have their job vaccinated. Now, by
the way, there's some who said they've never seen it,
so therefore it cannot exist. I want to submit for
the record a link to an x thread in which
doctor James Wong from California shares his personal information. This doctor,
he was infected at birth. He developed cirrhosis. He almost died.
Now because of modern medicine that hepatitis B virus is controlled,
but he has to get screened regularly and lives with
the specter of getting liver cancer because he got cirrhosis.
Speaker 3: When he's infected as a baby. It does occur.
Speaker 9: It occurs less often now, so we can argue, now
that we've controlled it, do we let the genie out
of the bottle. If the recommendation goes away and a
parent does want the vaccine, insurance will no longer cover
it free of charge. She'll be forced to pay out
of pocket.
Speaker 1: So there you go. And as I started this, I said,
you're probably going to be confused. All you can do
is just recommend talk to your doctor. Ask your doctor
what you should be doing. I don't know get they're
disagreeing with each other. And Ran Paul and Sanjay Gupta
and doctor Maneries and doctor Cassidy, they all have different
feelings about it, obviously, and if you're on the fence
about what to do, ask your doctor. So before we
get out of here for today, one of the things
that I'd like to point out it rarely has even
talked about today, is Constitution Day. Yes, it is a
federal observance that recognizes the adoption of the US Constitution.
It normally observed on September seventeenth. Because it was on
this day in seventeen eighty seven yep. Seventeen eighty seven
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the documents in Philadelphia,
So Happy Constitution Day to you on Wall Street. Today,
again they had to digest everything going on with the Fed.
They did lower interest rates by a quarter of a percent,
which was as expected. I'm sure the President is going
to have some rousing to say about that because he
wanted more. Out of all of the FED governors that voted,
there was only one who dissented, and that was the
new guy, Stephen Myron, who was on the National Economic
Council over at the White House. He was on Trump's
team and Trump nominated him. Today was his first yesterday
and today his first meeting. He was the only one
out of all of the FED officials who voted against
a twenty five percent of quarter percent twenty five basis
points a quarter percent cut. He wanted a half a
percent cut. So he's already basically doing political work. Which
is what makes Wall Street nervous about the FED, is
that it will become a political vehicle. But when all
was said and done, the Dow was up, the rest
of the market was down. Dow was up two hundred
and sixty to close at forty six thousand, eighteen s
ANDP down six NASDAK down seventy two, goal down thirty
dollars to thirty six ninety four, and oil down fifty cents.
It's at sixty three dollars some change. That's it for today.
Thanks for coming by. We will be here tomorrow. Hope
to see you then