Exclusive interview: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on vaccines, nutrition and cell phone radiation

First of all, because there's a lot of skepticism and confusion about this, are you anti-vaccine? No, I've never been anti-vaccine. I've said that thousands and thousands of times. My concern is that we should set properly safety test vaccines so that people understand and we are able to understand the risk profile for these products. We know that many vaccines prevent disease. If you take your measles vaccine, your chance of getting measles goes down by 97%. But we don't know what the risks are of taking that vaccine because we've never done a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and that is required for every other medical product. But right now, when I was a kid, we gave three vaccines. I got three vaccines and I was fully compliant. Today's children get between 80 and 92 vaccines. And the only ones that have been safety tested in a randomized placebo-controlled trial is the COVID vaccine. None of the other ones have. So we do not know whether those vaccines are causing downstream effects that could include many of the chronic diseases that are listed on the manufacturers' inserts as potential adverse events for most products. Well, that was my next question. I mean, do you think that vaccines have caused and are indeed causing chronic diseases? Well, we know that they can cause chronic disease because, first of all, we have lots of data on that, many, many studies, but also the manufacturers are required to list the side effects on their inserts that FDA agrees are probable vaccine injuries. And there's over a thousand side effects, and they include many of the diseases like diabetes, like neurological disease, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette syndrome, autoimmune diseases, and fertility issues that are now chronic in our children. So we don't know what, if any, contribution vaccines are making to the chronic disease epidemic, and that is something that we need to find out. But that's a crucial difference. We don't know. So you're not saying that they definitely caused them. You're saying we don't know. We want to study it. Well, we know that certain vaccines can cause those issues in some patients, but we don't know enough about, we've never quantified that. So we don't know, for example, SIDS has been associated particularly with the DTP vaccine for 60 years. We don't know how many of the SIDS cases that are out there are vaccine-induced. We have no way of knowing that. And so, because of every kid, virtually every kid who gets SIDS has been vaccinated, but we don't know what the association is. And what we need to do now is the science determines whether 80% or 2% or 1% of those SIDS cases are being caused by vaccines. Understood. You mentioned the COVID vaccine. What was the last vaccine you yourself had? I took a lot of flu shots up until probably the mid-1990s. I was getting a flu shot every year. Why'd you stop? Well, I actually stopped in 2005 when I began looking at the side effects. And actually, I was preparing litigation against some of the flu shots several years ago. And one of the injuries that was listed on a lot of them was spasmodic dystonia, which is an injury I have to my voice. That's why my voice is so screwed up. And that turns out to be a vaccine injury. Do I know that it was caused by my annual flu shot? I have no idea. Do you suspect it was? It's a possibility. It's a potential culprit that I cannot rule out. But I can't prove it. I'd like to know. We should have that data, but we don't. Our piece is about crunchy moms. And you may have heard that term, the crunchy moms who are out there. These are moms who are very into sort of holistic eating. They're very careful about what they eat. They're very careful about what they put in their bodies. And they're huge fans of yours. We met with some of these crunchy moms. And a couple of them told me, I asked them, I said, look, if we did all the testing in the world on vaccines, if we did everything you want to do, everything that RFK wants to do, would you give your kids the vaccine? And they said, no. They said, even with the testing, we still wouldn't. Do you have a message for people who think that way? And do you think that way as well? I think we need to have the data before I put out any message. What we've done recently under President Trump's orders is to condense the vaccine schedule, the vaccines that we consider the most important. And those are vaccines that cause infectious diseases that spread very easily and that children are most vulnerable to. So we advise them to take those vaccines. For people who don't care to do that, you know, we want to make sure that we can treat those diseases when they do appear. What's next in terms of the vaccine schedule? Are you looking at other changes? Well, that's going to be up to ACIP, which is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is an external committee at CDC made of external scientists, scientists who are not working for the agency. And they are the ones who are now looking at the data for the first time. Okay. But then, you know, we're doing studies now, which should have been done 30, 40, 50 years ago. We're doing those studies now, but they take time. Some of these studies will take two or three years. Some of them may take more. But we can expect possibly more changes to the schedule? That is up to the ACIP panel. So you place a lot of emphasis, obviously, on personal health and what you eat and what you put in your body. And one thing we're really interested in that we found making this program is that there's a real disconnect when it comes to nutrition on one side and vaccines on the other. And I'd like to see whether you agree with me on this. I think that when it comes to what you've put forwards on nutrition, for example, the nutrition, the new nutrition guidelines that you put out, you've largely got the backing of the scientific establishment. The ADA, for example, came out and said, yes, we agree on this. I don't think the same can be said when it comes to vaccines. I think that the sort of establishment of science is still basically says, no, these vaccines are safe. We don't need to test them. They've been tested. Do you acknowledge that there's a dichotomy there, that there's a difference there? Well, if they say they have been safety tested, then that's just not true. Okay. And that's the problem is that there is even a disagreement over the facts. But, you know, I don't think if anybody actually, that anybody can show you data that shows that they've been safety tested. There's a big difference between established science and the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment told us that thalidomide was okay. It told us that cigarette smoking could be good for you. It told us many things that they were wrong about. And unfortunately, many of the scientific academies now and independent scientific bodies like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics receive huge amounts, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars a year from pharmaceutical companies. And so, unfortunately, there's a lot of conflicts that might impair their judgment about certain interventions that are a high, high profit. Do you think that that helps explain why they sort of support you on the nutrition side of things, but not on the drug side of things, not on the vaccine side of things? I think that's one of the reasons. I think that's probably one of the reasons. Okay. But you acknowledge that there is that dichotomy, right? Oh, I acknowledge that. I mean, for 25 years, I've been a major critic of those institutions. And, you know, I think we should have scientific institutions that are not bedeviled by conflicts of interest that might lead them or incline them or encourage them to give advice that may not be public health oriented, but may advance the mercantile interests of the companies that are supporting their institutions. I mean, the same could be said of nutrition, though, right? I mean, the same could be said of the big food companies. And I mean, they're pretty It is true. I mean, the American Heart Association is notorious for taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the biggest processed food makers and then driving us away from natural proteins toward processed foods. And so that is an issue there. And I'm happy that recently, in the last few days, the American Heart Association has done a 180 on this issue and is now supporting the new, the food pyramid, the dietary guidelines. Yeah. So let's move on. I mentioned that I want to do a sort of a quickfire list of questions. So this comes out of our research into this, the crunchy mom movement. You know, as I said, it's a community that wholeheartedly endorses you. So what I want to do is list quickfire style, several treatments, supplements and health concerns that have come out of our research. And I'd like you to give me a sort of a very quick gut reaction to them and tell me whether you think that they're dangerous, positive, all the rest of it. And actually, I think if we start with the concerns, how concerned should the American public be about these following things? And even if you could give them a grading out of 10, that would be really useful, I think. So first of all, seed oils. Seed oils. I mean, I have personal concerns, but the critique of the seed oils has not been scientifically validated. So I would personally limit, I don't eat seed oils and I would advise my children not to eat seed oils, but as HHS administrator or HHS secretary, can I make that recommendation to the American public? Because the science isn't there quite yet. So out of 10, how concerned? Well, my concern, my personal concerns would be different than my official concerns. Okay. Could I have your personal concerns? My personal concerns would be, I'm not going to eat seed oils. So you can not sign any numbers. Let's say 10 out of 10. Okay. How about nonstick pans? I don't use them anymore. I use an iron skillet and I actually have come to enjoy using it. And I think the food tastes better. They last forever too, right? So there's that. They last forever and you never have to clean them. Sure. A good weapon too, if you ever need one. So how about food dyes? Food dyes are not going to be good for you. So, you know, we're getting rid of all of them. There's nine petroleum-based synthetic food dyes and we're going to get, we're getting rid of all of them. So that's a 10. Let's get rid of them. There's no nutrition in them. How concerned should Americans be about COVID today? I think COVID has declined as a major health concern in our country now. What would you assign to flu? I would say it's around the same as that. Okay. I don't know what I would assign. Well, I mean, some years flu is, you know, would be high priority. Okay. So depending on the year, basically. Yeah. Okay. What about preservatives in vaccines? Well, I would say mercury preservatives, my level of concern would be 10. Aluminum preservatives, I would say would be nine. Okay. So pretty concerned. 5G towers. That's something we hear a lot about. 5G. Yeah. Generally speaking, electromagnetic radiation, I think is a major health concern. Okay. So how concerned should we be about 5G towers? I'm very concerned about it. So like nine, 10? Calling it 5G is actually a misnomer because that doesn't have to do with, 5G does not tell you what's wrong with EMFs. EMFs are bad depending on, you know, the pulse rates and the wavelengths, and some of them are very bad. And in Europe, they, you know, the regulations are an order of magnitude lower than what we allow here. But there are literally over 10,000 studies that just, you know, that document a number of ill effects, including cancer, tumor growth, the pervious of the blood-brain barrier. In other words, you know, that it opens your blood-brain barrier, DNA damage, many, many other bad effects. Okay. Fascinating. Bluetooth headphones. Well, to the extent that they're amplifying EMF exposure, and I don't know exactly how much that is, but I think it's something that we should probably be concerned about. We need to look into it. I don't know that much about it. Big pharmaceutical companies holding back cures for cancer. I have heard anecdotal reports about that. I would not be able to say whether it's factual or not. Fluoride in water? That is a huge concern. Like a 9-10? Yeah, 9. We know it reduces IQ. So, you know, I don't want my, we need smart people in this country. And the National Toxicity Program, which is the ultimate arbiter of the toxicity of environmental exposures, have found that even small exposures to fluoride reduce IQ by a point, a point and a half. And, you know, the larger exposures by much more. I'm nodding along. I have no idea whether that's true. I've never looked at that. So let me talk about treatments and supplements. And again, if you could just tell me succinctly whether you sort of endorse or agree with them. So kind of this is the flip side, I guess. So colloidal silver we hear a lot about. I have no idea. No idea. Okay. Stem cell treatments? Stem cell treatments. We are looking at those and I think we're trying to make it easier for Americans to get access to the ones that have good documentation that they work. Got it. This is a big one. Peptides. Peptides is a complicated issue. It's, I mean, the word peptide basically just means molecules. And any intervention we need to see data on. So, and there's hundreds of different kinds of peptides and some of them have good documentation. Many of them do not. And we don't, I don't know adverse effects are, or the beneficial effects. And we can't do that without a clinical trial. Fair enough. How about ivermectin? Ivermectin, I have seen over a hundred studies that indicate that, that it overwhelmingly indicates that it works against a number of diseases, but it works specifically against respiratory infections. Okay. How about a fun one? Microdosing of hallucinogens. That would be somebody's personal choice. Okay. Okay. Interesting. I mentioned peptides there. I think a lot of people are interested. What's your, what is your personal nutritional intake? Like what do you eat in a day? I'm on a carnivore diet. Oh, really? So I eat only meat or fermented foods. Oh, wow. The whole day? The whole day. Every day? Yeah. Okay. What about supplements and other things? I take some supplements. Do you, do you take peptides yourself? I have taken peptides. Okay. Recently, or? I think the last time I took them was probably three months ago. Okay. Okay. Interesting. I, I don't, I don't want people to, I don't want my, to make myself a role model for what people should do and shouldn't do, particularly with peptides. I tend to try things that people say are good. I didn't, I have not gotten a noticeable benefit from them personally, but I know many people claim that they have. Is there a supplement you have gotten the sort of a personal benefit from? No, the one thing that I've really gotten a note of, I, I think I'm very personally insensitive to stuff. So I'll try stuff for a while when, when there's extravagant claims made about it. And then I usually discard them after, you know, some time. Cause I just don't feel anything. Yeah. I'm going to push, let me push on that. I will say this one thing that I've gotten an enormous benefit from is a, is going to that carnivore diet for me. That may not be right for other people, but I lost 40% of my visceral fat within a month. Visceral fat is the internal fat around your organs and that's where most disease occurs. And it was really an extraordinary benefit in the way I feel my mental clarity, my word retrieval, I had noticeable improvements and you can attribute some of that to placebo effect, but I had objective, I lost 20 pounds in 20 days when I switched to this diet. And then I like I said, in 30 days, 40% of my visceral fat. That's, that's really interesting. Yeah. Um, I want to push on something because you mentioned just now, you know, you will try things that there are claims made about, but it's really, that's really jarring when I put it up against your, your, your attitude or your opinions when it comes to vaccines, because what you're essentially saying about vaccines is like, we have to really, really vigorously test these. We have to make sure that, you know, that they're really tested before people take them. But then it sounds like with your own health, you will sort of try things if they work or if they have claimed to work, like, can you help me understand that? The vaccines are very different because, you know, for most supplements, you take vitamin D and it's out of your system and it doesn't have any long-term effects. Okay. That vaccine is designed and intended to alter your immune system for the rest of your life. So I wouldn't do, I wouldn't do an intervention that was that I knew from day one, the first time I took it and it was going to permanently alter my immune system unless I had good studies of it. Oh, it's really, you know, it's a very, very different intervention. I would never take anything that, you know, was going to permanently alter my immune system. And there's some vaccines that have been shown to be very beneficial for all-cause mortality. You know, the BCG vaccine has consistently shown benefits. Okay. But there's, I don't know of any other vaccine that has had that kind of testing and demonstrated good all-cause mortality benefits. Okay. Very quickly, I was listening to a podcast recently and I haven't read your book, apologies, but I've read parts of it. Do you believe in the or do you follow Antoine Béchamp or both? I wouldn't make a comment on either. I mean, do I think germs cause disease? Yeah. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I believe in the terrain theory that if you're healthy, you're much less likely to get disease. So. Got it. But the diseases still ultimately come from germs. Yeah. Disease can be spread by bacteria and viruses and that may be controversial. I think it's probably true. And based on my experience and observations, but I think that if you are in good health, you are unlikely to die from or to get seriously ill from infectious diseases. Obviously, I can have an opinion on vaccines and the Crunchy Moms that we talked to can have, everyone can have an opinion on vaccines. You have your own opinion on vaccines, but of course, your opinion turns into policy, right? And that policy could. That's not true. Not true. We don't do policy at this agency without gold standard science. Okay. Whatever I feel, if the, you know, we just don't have the science at this point. When we, we're going to follow the science, whatever it says. If the science says that this product is going to benefit all cause mortality, that if you take it, you're much more likely to be alive and healthier in five years. That's a good product. That will be our policy. My question to you though, is, are you ever worried? Do you ever have any concern? Do you ever sort of sit up at night thinking, you know, lie awake at night thinking whether the things that you're putting in place could have ill effects to health, could lead to people dying? You know, my job as HHS secretary is to tell the truth to people and then to let them to make up their own minds. But for an agency like this to be effective, it has to have public credibility. And right now it has very little public credibility because of all the lies that were told during COVID by people who said, I better tell people lies if it's going to get them to do something that I feel that they ought to do. Okay. Oh, it's called the noble lie. And you know, it was endorsed by Anthony Fauci and others who were telling us wear masks when they didn't believe it in their hearts. And I think that hurts the credibility of the agency. And so we've implemented new policies here where we don't tell noble lies. We tell the truth, whatever the impacts are, the truthful land where it is, we live in a democracy. And part of the responsibility of living in a democracy is to do your own research. Are you ever concerned though, that following that truth, that going down that line could have effects even if you didn't intend them? Does that worry you? We don't have any choice but to tell the truth. What is the other choice? I'm going to manipulate people. You are urging me now to manipulate people and to lie to people for their own good. And that is not something that I think is a legitimate government function. You don't mean me, right? I'm saying you. And you're asking me that question. You're suggesting that maybe it's okay for me to lie to people. Oh, not at all. That wasn't what I meant. No, that's not what I meant at all. I'm concerned if I tell them the truth, they're going to do the wrong thing. The implication there is that I should lie to them if they're not going to do the right thing. Oh, I see what you're saying. And we're not going to lie to people here. Okay, so you're saying as long as you follow the truth, whatever happens. You follow the truth, whatever happens, happens. Okay, okay, I understood. Very last question. President in 2028? Me? Yes. No.