The Critical Truth About Vaccine Safety (Everyone Needs to Know!) - With Dr. Joel Warsh｜The Model Health Show

You are now listening to The Model Health Show with Shawn Stevenson.

For more, visit themodelhealthshow .com.

Welcome to The Model Health Show.

Thank you so much for joining me today.

On this episode, we're going to be having one of the most important conversations that we've ever had.

This topic is something that is incredibly inflammatory.

It's something that is incredibly impactful.

impactful, and it's also something that is incredibly important.

Today we're going to be talking about vaccines.

Now it's very difficult to have a conversation like this in our modern society because conversations surrounding vaccines tend to get flagged or censored.

There's a lot of red tape around this subject matter, which in and of itself is a concern, but what tends to happen is that it's so polarizing that folks tend to swing to one end of the conversation.

And we're going to be looking at both sides of the conversation.

And we're also going to be looking at the most important stuff in the middle, sometimes the messy middle, looking at the things that we know and the things that we truly do not know when it comes to vaccine safety.

This is a conversation and really a masterclass on a subject that I've wanted to do for a long time.

And I really pushed the boundaries around vaccines and the vaccine conversation in particular during the COVID -19 vaccine rollout.

And one of the first things that I did was reach out to some epidemiologists and people who are tracking the data.

And I had on the author of the first peer reviewed study on the vaccine trial data to really help us to make make sense of it all.

And this was because this was going to be so impactful for our society.

I wanted to make sure that we had accurate answers.

And unfortunately, unbeknownst to me, a lot of that work, a lot of the information, a lot of the highly credible individuals who were reaching out to me and who were sharing this data were being censored and videos taken down, platforms being removed.

And it was such a very difficult terrain to navigate in the first place.

And it shouldn't be like that.

We just want to have healthy, logical conversations, not to negate the potential benefits, but also to be honest about the potential risks.

And so that we all have a well -rounded perspective about it.

And we can make intelligent decisions for ourselves and our families, not to be pro or anti anything, but just to be truly pro -human, to be pro -communication, to be pro -asking questions.

And that's why I'm so grateful for this episode today and this interview because I have the perfect person to have this conversation with.

He is a traditionally trained pediatric physician, and also he has has a master's degree in epidemiology, and he's not looking to take sides.

He's looking to take the side of humanity and our kids and have a well -rounded conversation about this subject.

And so with that said, let's dive into this conversation with the incredible Dr. Joel Warsh.

Joel Warsh, MD, is a board -certified pediatrician and author of multiple books, including his latest bestselling book, Between a Shot and a Hard Place, Tackling Difficult Vaccine Questions with Balance, Data, and Clarity.

Dr. Warsh grew up in Toronto, Canada and completed his master's degree in epidemiology and earned his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson Medical College.

Additionally, he completed his pediatric medicine training at Children's Hospital of Los Angeles and then worked in private practice in Beverly Hills before founding his current practice, Integrative Pediatrics.

Dr. Warsh has published research in several peer -reviewed journals on topics including childhood injuries, obesity, and physical activity.

And he's here today to share his insights and data on one of the most important and controversial topics in healthcare today.

Let's dive in this conversation with the one and only Dr. Joel Gator Warsh.

My guy, Dr. Joel Warsh, good to see you, man.

Thank you for having me back on.

Of course, it's my honor.

What prompted you to write this amazing book that I have the pleasure of being able to read?

It's such a polarizing topic.

And it's one of the most important topics of our lifetime.

And yet, a lot of people are scared to talk about it.

What inspired you to write this book?

For me, as a pediatrician who went into integrative medicine, about a decade ago, I noticed that I was getting more and more questions about vaccines.

And people started to come to my office to discuss vaccines were getting more frustrated around that topic and I really noticed how censored it was even to the point where I didn't really talk about it online obviously talked about it in the office but it wasn't something I talked about on shows or really anywhere else because you just couldn't unfortunately or you could but I guess you know people would just get their platform shut down and especially over the last few years I've noticed more and more questions and I really um wanted to dive into the topic as much as I could to be able able to

provide the best answers possible because there were still a lot of questions that I didn't even know and I realized and thinking back I didn't really get taught that much about vaccines yet I'm getting questions about every day on my social media in the office and I really feel like I want to be knowledgeable and I also want to provide people information that I've learned to help people make decisions and it shouldn't just be something for my office and especially with COVID people were so frustrated around vaccines couldn't talk about it at all and I I was like, that's it.

I'm going to write it.

I don't care what happens.

I want something that's balanced and I want something that we can have discussions.

And so that's why I did it.

And I did not write the book to be air quotes like pro -vax or anti -vax.

I wanted something that's balanced.

I wanted something that we can have discussions.

I just want debate.

I want to have conversations like this that are nuanced and talk about what we know and what we don't know based on what I've learned.

It's been really exciting to see that people are so open to it now and the times have changed a little bit and it's not really getting censored anymore, more, which is great.

Yeah. And a part of it, as far as your communication and just being able to talk about this stuff also, is you did such a good job in the research and the articulation of it.

It was really a joy to be able to read and to look at, quote, both sides and to see this messy middle as well.

And this conversation is so important because it impacts the lives of all of us, in particular, our children.

And, you know, right now, unfortunately, like you said, in our recent times, there's been a lot of censorship around this topic, which that should put up a huge red flag for us in the first place.

Just like, why can't we have discussions about this?

Why can't we talk about this?

Why can't somebody who has a master's degree in epidemiology and who's a physician, a pediatrician, explicitly talk about this publicly without having it censored?

Right. I always thought that was so crazy.

Why can't you ask a question?

It doesn't matter if you totally disagree with what i'm saying why can't we talk about it if i think something then prove me wrong show me what i'm saying incorrectly like that's what i want to be able to do if you're giving kids more and more vaccines and we're seeing more and more hesitancy amongst parents we should be able to talk about why people are concerned and discuss those things censorship is not the answer the answer is figure out why people are concerned look at the research and the data get the research and the data that people are interested in getting if they have concerns, and let's

get better science, more research, more data to have a more robust understanding of the topic.

And instead, what we're getting is, don't talk about it.

Vaccines are safe and effective.

And that really only shows one side of the story.

There is a lot more to it than just safe and effective.

That's just propaganda.

It doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, yeah. And so of course, we're going to talk about some of the prospective benefits, some of the prospective red flags.

And I'd love to start with one of the most not so fun facts about vaccines in our modern world and the immunity of not for us, but for vaccine manufacturers.

Where did that come about?

Can you talk about the current state of affairs as far as, you know, again, even if a vaccine is promoted to be safe and effective, if somebody is injured by a vaccine, it is very difficult for a vaccine manufacturer to have any liability.

Yeah, it's a really important, I think, really time -changing point for vaccines.

Even before I answer, I feel like I want to say, for me, I'm not against vaccines.

In my office, we give vaccines.

We have patients that do the regular schedule, some that do a slow schedule, some that don't do it.

I personally believe people shouldn't be forced to do anything.

I believe that we should be giving people information and they should make the best decisions that's right for them.

Again, I didn't write the book to tell people to do them or not do them.

I just wanted to have discussions.

I think that's important because a lot of people are like, oh, he's so anti -vax or whatever, which is totally not true.

I mean, I've gotten vaccines in my life.

We get vaccines in the office.

I think we should be able to have discussions.

And so for your question, in 1986, a little before 1986, with the especially with the DTP vaccine, the diphtheria tetanus pertussis, there were growing concerns around some of of the reactions with that vaccine and others in terms of potential side effects like encephalitis and seizures there were increasing amounts of lawsuits that were happening at that time and if you are vaccinating a healthy child and they have a bad reaction that's a big lawsuit and so companies were potentially liable for a lot of money more money than maybe they were even making and some companies left the market stopped

making vaccines a lot of companies were very concerned that they were going to get sued so much that they wouldn't be able to continue making them And so it was decided that they would give these companies essential immunity from liability.

They would take the liability away from the companies.

And if you were injured, then you'd sue the government under a special program instead of the actual company.

So now you don't really sue companies anymore.

It's technically possible to sue them, but basically you can't.

And really you would start by suing the government for your injury if you feel like you were injured from a vaccine.

So now the companies have no liability for these things that are on the schedule, basically, and you're not suing them.

So that normal way that we kind of keep the checks and balances doesn't really happen with vaccines.

There's nothing that really stops them from trying to, nothing that makes them make their products safer, right?

So they don't have to make them safer if they don't want to because you're not suing them if there's a problem.

Yeah. And this is really important because it's unlike other forms of medication.

Right. Anything else you have a problem with it, you sue them.

And either they make the product better or they stop making it because it's causing too many problems. But with vaccines, that option isn't available to you.

So you cannot really sue them, which then it puts we have to be the ones to kind of police them.

We need the CDC or the NIH or the FDA to monitor things.

And now with so many people going back and forth between these organizations, all the the money that's flowing back and forth between the organizations.

There's nobody really policing these products, nobody forcing them to be safer.

And why would a company say, hey, you know what?

Let me spend a billion dollars, do a new study on a product that we already have on the market that's already pretty much mandated for people to get.

And let's see if we find a problem.

So that way, if we do find a problem, we can pull our product off the market.

They're obviously not going to do that, right?

Somebody else has to do that research to say, hey, we're finding these problems this is what we're concerned about we need to see some changes and of course we want better safer products we don't want kids to have reactions to vaccines and we there's no reason for us to believe that we have the best possible vaccines that we're ever going to have in humanity we have the best schedule we're doing everything perfectly we need to always be trying to make things better and and that is what i think the angle we should be going at in the future is trying to make things better trying to decrease disease

trying trying to decrease infections, but also minimize risk.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you for sharing that.

And also just going back in history, like where did all this start?

Because, you know, since then and being able to have that immunity, of course, the number of vaccines and the doses have gone up precipitously.

And right now we're in a completely different state than when you and I were kids and getting vaccines.

Correct. And so what I want to do before we get into like, okay, so they're getting shielded.

There were some effects, but we still want to push this technology forward. And we're going to talk about some of the trial data and all that kind of stuff, which is a very important part of this conversation.

But I want to go back even further.

We're going to jump into the DeLorean again, go back even further to where this paradigm of a vaccine even came from.

And you talk about that.

This is one of the things I love about your book is because this is, I'm a very big systems thinker.

And also I have this tendency to ask like, where did this come from?

How did this start?

And so even a lot of episodes over the years of the Model Health Show have been going back in history and starting, where did the calorie come from?

Like where did, you know, this whole paradigm of something that we have in popular culture, it started somewhere.

And so where did this paradigm of vaccination begin?

Really? Well, I mean, if you go way, way back, you can think about like some research shows that maybe in Asia.

Asia so back in Asia there were some information about how they were snorting pustules from smallpox to help minimize your risk because the theory again is if you expose yourself to something on a more minimal basis before the actual disease then your body has a chance to mount an immune response then in the future you can mount that immune response a little bit better so that's what they were doing there then there's some information where maybe Lady Montague here year, learned this from slaves and started doing it in Boston on the East Coast. And then after that, there were other individuals

who were looking into smallpox, injected cowpox into themselves.

And that's where I think the smallpox vaccine really comes from.

I mean, there's different versions of how things started, but basically that's what it is.

At the end of the day, it was trying to give yourself a small dose.

So that way your body gets used to it or gets gets aware of it or has an immune response, that way in the future, if you see that smallpox, you have a lower likelihood of disease.

Originally, even when you did inject the cowpox or you did inject the smallpox, you still had a risk of dying.

It was still 1 % or 2%.

So then that's where the more modern vaccines started to be formulated over time.

And then you moved into things like diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, which were in the 40s, 50s, 60s.

And, you know, this paradigm, again, it seems very logical to have an exposure, a smaller exposure.

exposure can you talk about the types of therapeutic implements when it comes to vaccines like are they using a live version of a virus a small amount are they using something that's dead what are they using so there's a few different kinds of vaccines there's the live vaccines which are killed and attenuated so you're basically taking the disease and killing it or changing it in some way so it doesn't cause any sort of pathology in you but your body can have an immune response then there are a bunch of vaccines where it's just a part of the disease so maybe it's like like a protein.

So that way, your body can amount to a response to that protein.

So that way, if you see the whole disease at some point in the future, again, you have a mounted response to that protein, you can amount to faster response.

And then there's the newer ones, which are the mRNA.

So that's basically putting in this genetic sequence.

That way, your body creates the proteins.

And then therefore, you have a memory about those proteins.

So that way, again, in the future, you can amount to response.

So the concept of vaccination is a great one, in general, I don't think anybody is against if you were to give someone a magical pill and say, hey, I'll give you this pill.

And your kids are never going to get sick.

And they're never going to have a side effect because it can protect you against all diseases.

And that would be great.

But that's not the reality of the world.

The reality is risk versus benefits.

And if you're doing something that's going to prevent a disease, okay, at what cost?

And that is the conversation that I don't think we have often enough is, okay, yes, you protect yourself against a certain disease.

But then what are the risks from that?

What are the long term implications?

How is that affecting your body and oftentimes in modern medicine you just hear oh it's safe and effective it's perfect it never causes a problem and when you read the mainstream books that's what you read but then if you start to look outside of that at other research other data then you see that there is actually some other really good studies out there that might show that there are some concerns and there's a lot of areas which we've never really studied or very minimally studied that are really important especially today where the issues have changed like we're not seeing the infectious X

disease like we used to see 200 years ago.

Now we see chronic disease.

And so it's a reasonable question to ask how are vaccines related, if at all, to this chronic disease epidemic that we're seeing?

Yeah. Thank you for sharing that as well, because this brings us back up to current times and vaccine manufacturers, again, under a seemingly ethical, righteous approach to create vaccines to, again, save lives, saw some alarming things happening and being forced to kind of pay money and maybe not seeing a sustainable business model and creating vaccines that can save lives to shifting to a program where they have essentially, and there are some, a couple of spots where they are liable, but it's, it's very difficult, but essentially the government taking over our tax dollars, taking over to pay

out if somebody is injured from a vaccine injury.

And this brings us to, if they're safe and effective, we're not paying out a lot of vaccine vaccine injury money, are we?

Well, actually, you share this.

It's billions and billions and billions of dollars have been paid out to people who've been injured by vaccines.

And we're talking about, in many instances, going through courts of law here in the United States to prove that they were injured.

And this also speaks to the power of pharmaceutical companies and this entire entire system who have arguably the most remarkable and powerful forces of as far as lawyers and they're working their ass off to prove that you weren't injured by a vaccine and so how many more billions would be paid out if they weren't so good at proving which is here's the thing this i'm going to say this the burden of proof is on the individual correct and that is the system that we're currently in and that's one of the things that it shouldn't be like that you shouldn't be the one trying to convince somebody that your

child was injured from a vaccine just because again, your physician unintentionally because of their education and their intention, it's safe and effective.

And so oftentimes these things aren't even related.

Yeah. I think that the injury compensation is a very difficult topic because it is so nuanced because you just don't want every single person who maybe has some sort of reaction a day after getting a vaccine to be able to sue them for millions of dollars.

And it's also really really important from an epidemiologic, but also just a general concept of the fact that just because you get a vaccine this morning and have a heart attack this afternoon doesn't mean the vaccine caused it.

It might just be that you had a vaccine this morning and you were going to have a heart attack this afternoon.

It has nothing to do with it.

But if a whole bunch of people have heart attacks the same day they get a vaccine, you sure as heck should look into it, right?

But you have to be careful with where people can sue.

But I think there's some sort of middle ground there where you can bring back some liability, but maybe with limitations, I don't know.

But But like you said, it's very difficult to sue.

The amount of people that were injured by vaccines is probably much higher than what you have seen the lawsuits that win because the winning lawsuits are very specific.

Like there are things on the table.

If you get this vaccine, you get this injury, we're going to pay you.

That's what we've proven.

Nothing else is proven.

Therefore, you have to prove that it's causing that issue.

We saw that with autism.

We've seen it with many other things where it is possible that maybe the vaccine did It did cause that thing, but you can't prove it.

And it's really hard to prove in a court of law yourself that you are going to, that your vaccine caused your injury, unless it's very, very specific and obvious, which are not that many things.

And think about like allergies or asthma or autoimmune conditions.

It's really hard to prove that this thing you got two years later was from something you got two years ago.

So that's a tough thing to prove for an individual who's fighting against a company with unlimited dollars.

so it's just a very complicated field and we really haven't studied that long -term risk from vaccines and I think that's one of the big blind spots in the vaccine research because like you said we know about the diseases we know about generally how well the vaccines work we know a lot about short -term problems from a vaccine but we really don't know a lot about long -term risk because who's studying that when you study a vaccine mostly it's studied before it comes out it's really short they maybe study for a couple of days maybe a few weeks a few months maybe if you're lucky a year or two but nobody's

studying for two three five years right and so how do you know if your vaccine causes cancer five years from now like it says literally on it doesn't they don't study for cancer or fertility so who's studying that yeah the only way that we would know that is if we have true gold standard randomized double blind placebo -controlled trials on these vaccines.

That would be the best way.

I mean, you could still, and this is what I argue, you could still do prospective trials.

So right now we have a very difficult thing.

And I guess this is a good time to talk about kind of going back with the research because the best way to do research is a double blind trial with an inert placebo.

Right. And what most people don't realize, what I didn't realize is that very, very few of the vaccines, almost none of the vaccines on the regular schedule were ever studied that way.

Certainly not originally.

So there's a lot of debate about the word placebo and when it comes to vaccines it's a little bit of trickery with that word because the way that i was taught a placebo it's an inert substance it means salt water or saline you want something that doesn't do anything in the body so that way you can tell and you have a good baseline for safety with vaccines that isn't the way that it was done with most of them most of the original trials were done against another vaccine or they were done against a vaccine with the antigen taken out so like hepatitis b not in there with everything else in there.

So they call it a placebo.

So when somebody says, oh, every vaccine has been placebo trial tested, it's true.

They've all been placebo control tested, but the placebo isn't actually an inert placebo in many of these trials.

And so you get a relative safety, not an absolute safety.

As an example, you study vaccine A versus vaccine B.

Let's say in vaccine A, you get 10 seizures.

Vaccine B, you get 10 seizures.

You can say with that study, oh, it's safe because both both have 10 seizures.

But if you did A versus B versus salt water, and you had 10 seizures, 10 seizures, one seizure, you can see how that's a very different study, and that's a possible outcome.

And maybe both vaccines are not that safe when it comes to seizures.

Maybe there, maybe 10 is the number that it should be, and that's fine.

But that's why you do the best kind of trials, which were never done originally for most of the vaccines.

There were some vaccines that did inert placebo -controlled trials, but they weren't really the ones that were here.

year. So the ones that we use for kids, for the most part, don't use an inert placebo.

There are ones that we use other parts of the world.

Some efficacy trials have used inert placebos.

The COVID vaccine actually did.

The original polio actually did, not the polio we use now, but the original.

There were a few that used it, but mostly not.

Mostly they studied against other vaccines.

And so you don't have a perfect, absolute safety.

And that's what people are arguing for.

And we talked about whooping cough.

So the DTaP vaccine, DTP, was taken off the market for safety concerns but it was the new DTAP was studied against the old one so is it safe or is it safe relative to the old one which had problems so that that's just an open question doesn't mean it's unsafe it just means that's a reasonable question to ask if you don't study absolute safety yeah and if you look at the old one that wasn't tested against a an inert vaccine as well or inert substance right well especially if you go way back where if you're talking 30s 40s 50s maybe maybe had 20 people, you were studying against maybe somebody's

brother or cousin, you know, the old studies were not done the way that we did things now.

They were just pretty much looking at efficacy in general.

So a lot of those studies were not, would not be what you would consider a gold standard trial.

And, and now we have this difficulty because you say, well, vaccines are so good and they protect you.

So we can't not give people vaccines.

So now we can't do a double blind study anymore on these vaccines because that would be unethical.

So we never did it in in the first place.

And now you're saying you can't do it.

So you run into this difficulty with that.

And there's been a lot of discussion about placebos recently, but at least I still think that if we are going to bring a new vaccine on the market, there's never been a vaccine like this before.

There is no reason why we shouldn't require a pharmaceutical company to do an inert placebo trial for those new vaccines.

We should never, the FDA, the CDC should never accept accept something new onto the schedule until they could show us that trial that's not the same thing as the ones that are already on there that's more difficult but for something new we can at least set that standard let's make sure we have the most safety most robust safety data possible for a new vaccine that we're going to inject into our kids how is it anti -vax at all like you if i'm going to inject something my kids i want to know it's as safe as possible right and we can do trials like that just no one ever forced them to do it so we

should we should make them do that now for For the old ones, that's where it's more difficult.

But like you said, we could do trials.

We're probably not going to get a randomized double -blind trial, but you could still do a prospective trial, open label.

You can choose which groups you're in.

You can follow people forward. We should do that research. We need it.

Yeah, absolutely. And there's zero reason that we can't do it.

We have all of this incredible innovation.

We know how to do this stuff.

It's just this particular category of medications, again, it's not saying that the data isn't accurate but it's misleading because they are doing randomized double -blind placebo -controlled studies but the placebo isn't something that's inert and like you said if you keep going back and this is what i found in my research as well looking at the potential benefits looking at the potential kind of black holes really just like going back and i just kept looking like well did this trial for the earlier version have a placebo a true placebo what about the one before and it It just kept, it'll get to

a point where it's not disclosed.

And so some of the vaccines that we can assume maybe they use an inert, it's not disclosed.

And that shouldn't even be a thing either at this point.

And so we're at a place where we have a lot of, a lot of power to affect change.

Like things are changing.

A lot of what's going on in this conversation happened as a result of the vaccine rollout with COVID, you know.

And it was very messy, but I'm grateful for that in a way because it opened up the conversation on this category of medications overall, and especially looking at the safety profile, because we're going to get in a little bit more into this.

But one of those things, as you mentioned earlier, we don't have any long -term safety data.

We don't have any. We don't know.

And so, for example, the manifestation of another disease.

so we might utilize a particular vaccine and eliminate your risk dramatically reduce your risk of measles for example and it might do that job but what if it causes another disease right something that manifests down the road or maybe even you know not even that long after and we don't have these questions answered because we don't have true placebo groups with an inert are...

Well, and you're not following them for long enough.

So nobody's doing trials for 5 or 10 or 15 years.

And they're not randomized or blinded.

You're not following people forward. So it's really difficult to know.

You have to ask that question.

You have to ask it specifically.

And it's even more complicated because we keep adding more vaccines.

So it's not just one vaccine.

It's not just MMR. Does MMR have something to do with asthma?

That is a true question.

But then what what about all the vaccines?

What about if you if MMR plus DTEP plus chickenpox, but like all together increases your risk over time, like that, that is also something that needs to be discussed, because just because you say it's a one in a million risk of having a severe reaction, which I don't think is true, I think it's more, but let's say it's one in a million.

When you're doing 50 shots, one in a million times one in a million times one in a million, it starts to add up, and then it becomes one in 100 ,000, or one in 10 ,000.

And the numbers start to become real and when a lot of these diseases are extremely rare then it starts to become a reasonable question for a parent to say hey there hasn't been polio in america in 40 years do i have to give my kid three vaccines when they're two months four months and six months or is that something i can wait and do later like these start to become reasonable questions because it's risk versus benefits and we don't just give everybody a smallpox vaccine just because a smallpox vaccine exists we haven't had it in 50 years so we don't do it we don't just give everyone a yellow

fever vaccine unless you're going to summer with yellow fever, right?

So, we haven't had these discussions around risk versus benefits, and I'm not saying you want to get polio or you want polio to come back.

Obviously, if it started to come back, that would change the equation, but you have things like diphtheria that you don't really see and polio that we haven't seen in a long time that maybe these are things that we could decrease the amount of vaccines we give.

Maybe we can give them later in life.

I don't know what the answers are, but these are not unreasonable questions as you're doing more and more vaccines to say, well, what should we prioritize?

Do we prioritize measles?

We prioritize whooping cough.

Like what are the most serious risks to our kids?

And do we want to just keep doing more?

Is there ever a too many?

Like you look at something like mainstream books, you're like, no, you can have as many vaccines as you want.

You can have a thousand vaccines, 10 ,000 vaccines.

It's totally fine. And you know, maybe that's true.

I don't know. But I would think that that's not true.

I would think that there's got to be some upper limit of the chemicals that are in vaccines that you can't just keep injecting yourself all day and just be totally fine forever.

Like there has to be some upper limit.

it. And when we just say safe and effective, that doesn't get in to the nuances.

It's just a catch phrase.

And medicines shouldn't be buzzwords.

It should be science.

And I believe that medicine lost its trust during the pandemic because of things like using these catchphrases like safe and effective when what you should be saying is based on the research and the data that we have so far, here are the benefits.

Here are the known risks.

We don't know anything about long -term risks.

We obviously can't.

You could grow a third arm in 10 years.

We don't know that.

Probably not, but you're good so here's what we know here's why we recommend it here's your decreased risk here are the risks that we know we recommend it based on the risk versus benefit profile that we see that's honest safe and effective is not honest that's just a catchphrase that doesn't make any sense and people were just like that like why are you saying this how do you know it's safe you can't possibly know and then safety things started happening like we saw about myocarditis that wasn't unexpected like things come up when you start vaccinating hundreds of millions of people.

But if you tell people it's safe, if you tell people it's going to work for sure, if you tell people that it's, you're never going to get COVID if you get this vaccine, you're not honest, then people start to say, well, if you're not being honest about this, what else are you not being honest about?

Right, exactly. It opens the door.

And again, one of the things I love about you and your work is that you're also intentionally shouting out most, the vast majority of practitioners are really, really good people who want to help.

And they're doing the very best that that they possibly can to be of service.

And unfortunately, the way that our current system of education is constructed and also standard of care, it's complex to be able to do that and to make judgements on in a one, right?

We were talking about this before the show a little bit.

Because part of this risk benefit analysis is gonna be based on the individual, the individual child in front of you.

And it's exceedingly difficult for a physician to do that when it comes to vaccines, scenes.

It's really a one size fits all protocol, or you can't go to school, or you're going to suffer potential ramifications.

It's not even potential.

It's changed a lot where they're coming after physicians if they're writing too many exemptions.

Oh yeah, it's really tough to do it.

Especially in the state of California in particular.

And so this isn't an end of one where you as a physician are right there paying attention to all these biomarkers for this child and making the decision based on them.

That risk benefit is taken out of your hands, even from that perspective yeah i mean that's absolutely correct so if you go back to med school go back to my training we don't get training in vaccine safety right you don't and you don't think about it you just get taught all right here are the horrible diseases here's how what they were like 100 years ago now we don't have them anymore that's thanks to vaccines vaccines are the best thing ever here's your schedule go do it and all you ever hear is vaccines are amazing and great and the best thing ever and you have no reason to question that so you

do it doctors champion vaccines it's almost a religion at this point, doctors are not bad people, pediatricians are not bad people, right, of course not, they're going in to help kids, and they believe in vaccines, they believe vaccines are the best thing that you can do for your kid, and that's why that they recommend them, it's not because of money, it's not because of anything else, it's because they believe that those will protect your children, and most doctors have never looked at the research themselves, they don't actually know what the research shows, and I know that because I didn't,

and I am an an integrative doctor who gets all these questions.

And I didn't know most of what I learned until I went to go research it myself with the book.

There are many things that I was even shocked with when I did the research, even after knowing a lot of what I know, which is still pretty outside of what mainstream medicine is.

So I just don't think that a lot of doctors know the other side.

And if they saw the other side, they still might not change their mind.

But I think they would be a little bit more open or understanding to some of the concerns and the complaints.

Right now, I think they're just these two very different worlds.

They never communicate and there's no bridges between them and everybody thinks the other side is just evil and it's not really that way.

I just don't think people understand the other side's perspective very well and why they think that there is a concern or why they think that the vaccines are the best thing ever and I think it's just a different perspective.

Absolutely and this is what you let off with is having these conversations and how important it is and the fact that they've been flagged as like you can't talk about this is again, it pisses me off.

It's just silly. we're not being rational adults.

And so part of this conversation for all of the amazing physicians and practitioners listening, for the families listening, you mentioned this a little bit earlier, another thing that we have to talk about, and we should have some change regarding this is that this polypharmacy phenomenon where we don't have any studies conducted at all on when you're taking these multiple vaccines at one time, or your children is getting these in close proximity and this kind of entourage effect or polypharmacy, we don't know what happens.

We don't know if there's an increase in whatever, like they're just not studied together.

And even the data that we do have when a vaccine is studied, it's studied in isolation, or there's these combinations in certain shots now, which is, you know, another innovation.

And one of the great things you mentioned in the book is that, you know, with these combination shots, you were able to use less adjuvants or like preservatives and things like that.

And that's another concern concern too.

We're going to talk about that shortly.

I think before we should talk about that a little bit because I hear people saying in the background like, oh, but there is studies, there are research. But the thing to understand is mostly what we have is epidemiologic data, which is good.

It's useful, but it's only as good as the research and the equations that you use.

And as someone who's done this in the past, it's really very easy to change the study to mold it to your beliefs.

And what's really very clear in the vaccine research world is people that are are very pro -vaccine they find very pro -vaccine findings people that are anti -vaccine air quotes find things that are these are the worst vaccines ever and it depends how you model things and the way that it works is you're putting in so you're looking at the data retrospectively and then you're saying okay well how many people have autism when they get these vaccines and if you were to find a thousand percent increase like this was on the news recently kennedy was talking about those old studies or the old research

on hepatitis b and autism and he was saying oh there was a a thousand percent increase and then the CDC hit it.

And the original data showed there was an increase of autism with hepatitis B based on the thimerosal dose.

And after they took that research, then they adjusted it for confounding factors and then it went basically to zero, no risk.

So the question then becomes, did they adjust it appropriately or did they adjust it inappropriately?

And there's no way to know that, right?

There's no way unless you know someone's motivations.

The only way to really know it is if you actually do prospective studies to see whether it's there.

maybe they did the right thing and maybe there shouldn't be any any findings but but you can see how different a result you can get just by changing a couple of things that you're adjusting for you can have a thousand percent or zero percent and so if you're doing a study let's say i'm the head of i don't know denmark and and their public health and i'm the vaccine safety czar you're probably not going to come out with a bunch of studies that show vaccines cause autism right you're not going to keep your job very long so if you were to do that research and you look at and you're like my study

showing that that the more vaccines you get you get five times the amount of autism you're going to be like wait a minute what did i do wrong all right what do i adjust for i forgot to adjust for this you go talk to your friend you should adjust for that okay i adjust for this okay now it's zero all right that's good right and so maybe you were supposed to adjust for or maybe you weren't but you can change it to find what you want to find and that's why epidemiologic studies are only as good as you can as only as good as the person that's doing it in not as good as prospective randomized trials

because you can't fudge the data in a randomized trial, whereas you can adjust things appropriately or inappropriately.

And that's why I think we get these very different results with vaccine trials because people are looking for something and they adjust it in a way to find what they want to find.

Exactly. Exactly. Wow.

And thank you for that because explicitly what I meant was no, again, gold standard randomized controlled trials on this polypharmacy or entourage effect with different vaccines there is observational data and that's the thing observational data there it's impossible to see causality impossible right we got all these confounding factors we've got all these biases that are inherent we can gather observational data should really its intent is to warrant a randomized controlled trial to be done on something like something you could see a trend or to affirm something we know from a randomized in minus

control trial. It's not really valuable data.

And we know this. It can be.

It has its place. But the thing is, even with COVID.

No, no, I'm agreeing with you.

I think that it's just so important to note that epidemiologic research is very valuable.

It's just, it's only valuable to a point.

And when you start seeing many studies done by CDC or Danish health or wherever it is where they're very pro -vaccine and they find one thing and then other people find other things, that gets you to a point where you could say, okay, the majority of the research now shows this.

It shows whatever the CDC or the pro -vaccine people want it to be.

And maybe that's correct.

Maybe they don't cause issues.

But there's so many people that have concerns and so many stories that are happening over and over again from parents, moms who take their kids in to get a vaccine and they say, my kid was normal today.

The next day they weren't.

This is not an anti -vax person.

This is a mom who took their kid to get a vaccine.

I've heard that story said thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of times.

We need to get the best kind of research possible to know what's true or what's not true.

I think we're just at that point where we need that.

And I don't think that we should put all of our faith in epidemiologic studies or the research done by the pharmaceutical companies that benefit from those products.

Like that's what the research we have for vaccines.

And I just think we're now at the point where it's like, okay, let's get the right research that we actually need the best kind of research. And we're going to find either they cause issues and then we're going to say, Hey, why are these vaccines?

Why is MMR causing asthma?

Let's figure that out.

What ingredient? Can we change that ingredient?

Can we remove it? Can we move things around the schedule?

Maybe we can make it better.

Or it's going to say, look, we did 10 trials.

They were all prospective.

They were all blinded.

They were fantastic studies.

There is no increased risk in any of these studies across the world on asthma, autism, allergies.

Look, here is the research. Then parents would say, okay, that's the research that I wanted.

Now I feel more comfortable that this is not going to cause a problem for my kid.

You want to get people to do something.

You don't have to force them.

You get to give them the data that's going to make them comfortable to do it.

But that's what I want to see.

And there is no reason why we couldn't do 10 prospective trials and in 10 years have really good research and data to go in a direction and use that.

It's not to stop vaccinating, so do it as safe as possible.

Yeah, yeah. And also, we have the capacity to do this now with independent studies.

Another thing that you shared was that, interestingly, the trials are usually funded and conducted by the vaccine manufacturer and open up this conversation about observational versus what what we know to be a much higher quality type of study, randomized control trial, double -blinded, placebo controlled, inert as well.

This happened during COVID, a big change and the public awareness of this.

And I'm grateful again, but when the vaccine rollout happened, we all saw the numbers, 95 % risk reduction, 94 % risk reduction.

Of course, my initials like, that's amazing.

and also I need to see the study and what I did was the very first thing that I did people you could check my track record the first thing that I did I reached out to a couple of epidemiologists and one of them actually had the first peer -reviewed study analyzing the vaccine trial data is epidemiologist dr. Ron Brown and again peer -reviewed study published in the journal.

And I was shocked. He was shocked.

And what he found and what he was expressing to everybody and the message that really got out in a big way is something that you even talked about a little bit earlier was the difference between the relative risk reduction and the absolute risk reduction.

And touting this number, 95 % risk reduction for the Pfizer vaccine, 94 for Moderna, that was the relative risk reduction found in the trials.

And what a relative risk reduction is, This is comparing one trial to another, one data set to another.

It's relative to each other.

It's not the absolute risk reduction, which is the most valuable point if we're talking about risk reduction in a vaccine trial or any trial for that matter.

Absolute risk reduction is your risk reduction as an individual in the real world.

What is your risk reduction?

And so him analyzing all of this data, which this, it's deep.

It's like, it's a lot.

It's a lot to go through.

What he revealed, and again, what was published in a major peer -reviewed journal, was that for the Pfizer vaccine, the absolute risk reduction, your risk reduction as an individual in the real world, was actually 0 .7%, 0 .7 % absolute risk reduction.

For Moderna, it was 1 .1 % absolute risk reduction.

And so now here's the thing.

The relative risk reduction wasn't a lie.

The 94%, 95%, it's not lying.

it's just withholding it's misleading because you're not telling people once you get this shot you probably have about a 1 % chance of now here's the other part what did the vaccine trial what was it conducted to find was it hospitalizations death none of that stuff it was it was to affirm and what they found in the vaccine trial was that it was a 1 % risk reduction for mild to moderate symptoms they didn't see any difference in hospitalizations and death in the trials themselves right but that's what was promoted to all of us you know our leaders got on television head of the cdc it stops transmission no that wasn't

true that wasn't seen in the vaccine trial i already knew it wasn't true and we shared that before any of that stuff even came out it didn't reduce your viral load but the other things was reducing hospitalizations and death And which, again, we want this.

Right. I want to. That's what you want a vaccine for.

But where that data came from, because there was data affirming that, that was after the fact.

That was observational data based on associations with various hospitals and health institutes and things like that.

And I have right here several of these observational studies that found things that were contrary.

It just depends on the data set that you look at.

And we didn't find this in the actual trial itself.

So it just led to all these hairy things coming up.

And that's why it's so important that we do get more transparency with these things, especially for something like an emergency use.

There should have been way more transparency because it's really hard to know that what a company is telling you is true.

Obviously, if you are a big company and you want to get a product and you want to make billions of dollars, what are you going to do?

You're going to show the best possible information and you're going to minimize showing the harms as much as you possibly can.

they have access to the data nobody else does they don't have to publicize their data so you're getting to see what they show you right and it doesn't mean what they're showing you is a lie it could be a lie they could be fudging data but let's assume that they're not then they're still going to cherry pick the information that's best maybe they don't show you some part of the research maybe they show you the relative risk versus the absolute reduction they show you whatever parts are going to make their product look the best and when things are moving that fast or when there's a push to do something,

then especially with the media and the way things have gone, it's like, oh, this vaccine is great.

It protects you. That's not actually true.

And if we're not actually getting the real information, we can't have informed consent because nothing says that after you read all this information, you actually have it, you won't do it.

Like some people would.

For many vaccines, there certainly is potential benefit for you.

Even for the COVID vaccine, there's still a lot of research even today that shows that it could increase your risk of death or decrease your risk of severe disease on some studies and so that might be a choice that you make and that's fine that's what informed consent is like you're supposed to give information and some people are going to choose to do it and some people aren't but when you're talking about covid especially it's like you have this world of people it's like the covid vaccine is the best thing ever and save trillions of dollars and millions of lives and the other world says it's

the worst thing ever and it's killing everybody and you should pull it off the the market and do you ever see like a debate do you ever see people talk do you ever see them get in a room be like well here's what i think here's what you think where where should we come in the middle i mean even see the american academy of pediatrics suing kennedy um because they were like oh you want to take the the covid vaccine off off for kids and for for pregnancy we don't agree with that and i don't obviously don't know the back the back end of things but like did they get in a room and talk about it before

they started suing like that's that's not what we need right now we need conversation we need nuance we need to have discussion about it people get to get in a room we need smart people to sit down and say here's what i think here's what the data shows and maybe there is some middle ground they're like oh i didn't actually know that or i didn't consider that other research but it seems like they're especially with the social media it's there's two different worlds that just don't talk to each other and then what's a parent to do what's a person to do when you hear two really intelligent people

giving you very different information with really good research and studies and that's because studies can show different things Absolutely.

Absolutely. Got a quick break coming up.

We'll be right back.

How can we get our kids off of all this crazy, ultra -processed food consumption?

Well, a great step in doing this is changing up what our kids are drinking.

Our kids' drinks are a fast delivery system for the good stuff or the not -so -good stuff.

And I grew up, if you grew up much like me, drinking Capri Suns, Fruit Punch, all manner of soda, the off -brand stuff, and the expensive stuff Dr. Pepper is not a doctor all right grew up drinking all that stuff and of course just flooding my body with high levels of blood glucose and insulin and all manner of ultra processed newly invented chemicals and so being able to switch up what our kids are drinking provide our kids some healthy beverages can be a game changer and my friends at Organifi are dedicated to this mission too they've got a new special superfood blend just for kids it's called

Organifi Kids Easy Greens is providing our kids with some of the most micronutrient dense superfoods ever discovered, including moringa, spinach, carrot, coconut water, and more.

And it's in a tasty flavor just for kids.

The reviews for Organifi Kids Easy Greens are off the charts.

So kids are loving it and parents are loving it as well.

You're getting a micronutrient blend blend with a sweet apple taste that kids enjoy, probiotics and enzymes for optimal absorption, and of course, it's organic and free from fillers and additives.

Head over to Organifi .com forward slash model, and you're going to get 20 % off their Organifi Kids Easy Greens and also the Organifi Red Juice blend and just store -wide any of their incredible organic blends.

Again, go to Organifi .com forward slash model for 20 % off, and now back to the show.

You know, and just even leaning into that 1 % risk reduction, that's not sexy.

You know, for the news anchor to get on, you've got a 1 % reduction and you getting mildly sick from this condition.

And unfortunately, and again, this is just what the trial data says.

Oh, by the way, let me actually share this because that was based on the randomized controlled trial, placebo controlled, all that good stuff.

of, there was, funny enough, in one of our most prestigious journals, the Lancet, a study that was published months later looking at observational data, all right?

And this was crazy.

And what was really great about this study is that there wasn't a lot of intermingling of vaccines.

It was from a country that just used Pfizer.

And so Oxford researchers, and again, this was published in the peer -reviewed journal, The Lancet, Oxford researchers shared the results of this analysis analysis of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign utilizing Pfizer.

And although the study design and methodology were different from the randomized trial design, the researchers reported a relative risk reduction of 94%, right?

Which was same as the clinical trial, but with an absolute risk reduction of 0 .46%, 0 .46%, 0 .46%, which was comparable to less than 1 % risk reduction noted in the vaccine trial but here's the thing this wasn't even half a percent protection in the real world and that what you're bringing up is so key because it's just honesty right it's honesty as opposed to pushing people to try to do something if you were to tell people look for your kids you have if you get this vaccine it's going to decrease your risk of hospitalization you know one out of a thousand times you're gonna be like yeah i don't

need to do that if you're like oh oh, it decreases your risk by 60%.

That sounds better.

And it's true. But both things are accurate.

And I think the job of medicine should be to teach. It should be to inform.

It shouldn't be to push or persuade or try to get people to do anything.

And we have seen that problem where it was like, let's do everything we possibly can to get people to get this vaccine.

Let's get everybody possible to get as many vaccines as possible instead of the goal of let's teach people as much as possible why we believe that you should get this vaccine.

vaccine. It's totally fine for a doctor to believe you should go get the MMR vaccine.

It's going to protect you.

It's very different than to say, I need to do everything possible to make you get that vaccine.

That's not your job.

Your job is to inform people so that way they make that decision if they feel like it's right for them.

And if you're providing people all that information, if that's available as opposed to propaganda or pushing people to do something, you would have trust. We've lost trust because people saw that.

And now even before the pandemic, like 70 plus percent of people were trusting of doctors and healthcare and now it's under 40 percent in big studies we're talking hundreds of thousands of people people don't trust medicine anymore more people are not getting vaccinated more people are hesitant more exemption requests that's because medicine is not listening and not providing information honestly i think it's really more of a push to do something it's almost like a force to do it it's like you don't do this you can't go to school you don't do this we're not going going to see you anymore you're

kicked out of my practice that's the movement that medicine has taken is digging its feet in the sand and pushing back against vaccine misinformation or whatever you want to talk about it but whatever the words you want to use but the way to win people back in my mind is to be honest and to partner and to provide information and get the information data that people want not to just say oh i'm not going to see you anymore you're a crazy cuckoo anti -vaxxer because you have a question but that seems to be the direction that we're going and that is not how science is supposed to be done or medicine

was ever meant to be and doctors are making themselves obsolete because people don't listen to doctors anymore they listen to health influencers and tick tock and whatever and like there's a lot of really smart doctors that know a lot that people should listen to yeah true true and also again amazing books like yours that have so much incredible data and one of the other things you talk about which i think we get up pieces bits and pieces of understanding about the it's not just the the therapeutic thing that's in the in the the vaccine, it's the adjuvants as well that are of particular concern.

So can you talk a little bit about what else is in a vaccine besides something to provide that therapeutic benefit?

Yeah. So there are many things in a vaccine.

I mean, the main component would be the actual part of the vaccine.

So like hepatitis B, measles, like those kinds of things are in there.

But then you also have adjuvants.

So that's meant to stimulate the body.

So the main one would be aluminum is, I would say, the biggest concern at the moment.

So you have that in there.

We can come back to that in a second you have preservatives in there you have stabilizers so there are a bunch of other things that you're going to have i mean there's a long list of chemicals if you want to read them but ultimately the biggest concern right now would be around aluminum and that's because we have a lot of concerns around metals i mean we have been told for many years that metals are safe and then we learned later that it's not so safe like lead right there wasn't ever lead in vaccines hopefully but you know we had lead in pipes and paint and then all of a sudden no actually it's

not so safe oh we should get out of these things noled is safe okay that happened then mercury was in vaccines and and somebody in the late 90s was like hey wait a minute there is more mercury in vaccines than we're allowing in food is that okay like nobody thought of this right nobody thought hey we have mercury thibirisol in vaccines is that safe should we test it should we see if that's safe no they realize oh wait a minute we're allowing more mercury than we allow in fish fish to be ingested, to be injected into our kids, is that okay?

And so they did study it a little bit, they never really found a true problem with it, but they did decide to take it out of the vaccines anyways, proactively, and that has come up in the news again recently, because it was still in the multi -dose flu vaccines, and now it's being taken out of that as well, but now the concerns around aluminum, and again, we're told, you know, it's safe, it's a very small amount, we eat a lot more of it in food, which is true, we do, we eat a lot more per day than we get injected, but that's still not the same thing as injecting something and it's still not unreasonable

to have a concern as you're doing more vaccines with more aluminum maybe for certain kids certain genetics certain you know premature kids whatever it might be maybe they're more susceptible to aluminum or any other ingredient in there and so I just don't think it's unreasonable for parents to ask to have concerns and for us to instead of saying oh these things are safe it's just a small amount to say maybe they could cause problems let's continue to study it let's be open to the reality there could be be issues and let's continue to get that research and study it prospectively, not just retrospectively

like the recent studies that we've had, which again, didn't show anything that the big study that just came out, but I don't know, it's still by someone that's pretty pro -vaccine again.

And the study has a lot of holes in it, the new recent one.

Yeah. To say the least. Yeah.

But again, it's great that we are able to talk about this stuff and now it can get to more people just to be aware.

And also in particular, I'm grateful for this book because it's a great resource for practitioners as well.

Well, this is, it's a very complicated terrain, but we have so much power to change this.

And all we're asking for is true safety testing, making sure the premise behind a vaccine is a phenomenal innovation in and of itself.

Just to think about, it's just very logical.

It's very logical. And many of these exposures, even with COVID -19, you know, like like getting an exposure for most people, they're going to be okay.

But your immune system develops a capacity to defend itself against it.

And what we're doing is intentionally, you know, proactively creating this exposure for things that, you use this term, decimated populations historically.

And what we saw over time, of course, like humans are very resilient.

Like things start to trend downward as far as their prevalence.

In some cases, though, the prevalence didn't go down much when a vaccine came along.

What went down was the severity of a disease, for example, like with other innovations.

And I'd love for you to talk about that a little bit, because it wasn't just a vaccine.

We can't put all of the cards in on vaccines did all of this stuff and save lives and transform humanity, not to take away from the value, but it's not the only thing.

Yeah, it's just a great historical perspective on vaccines, because as a doctor, as most people, we're like, oh, vaccines did everything.

They're the best thing ever.

That's why we don't have these diseases anymore.

That's why people are not dying from these things.

And that's not the whole picture.

It's not totally true.

And then you have the other side of the people that say, oh, vaccines didn't do anything.

And it was just the rest of the world.

And neither is true.

It is many things. If you go back, for example, measles.

Before the measles vaccine came out, there were a few hundred deaths per year.

There were millions of cases, but maybe 400 or 500 deaths a year.

It had already trended way down to the point where there weren't that many deaths anymore because we were much healthier at that point.

We ate better. We had enough calories to go through the day.

We understood what diseases were.

200 years ago, we didn't necessarily know that there was bacteria or viruses or what was going on people didn't wash your hands we didn't have antibiotics we didn't have good health care we had horses roaming the streets and pooping everywhere we had water sanitation plant like all of these things that improved health a lot and had nothing to do with vaccines and you can look at tuberculosis or cholera or scarlet fever things that were very common hundreds of years ago and that killed a lot of people and we don't have a vaccine that we give to people every single day now for some of these things

and And yet they're pretty much gone.

If we had have given a vaccine for tuberculosis 50 years ago, would we say, well, tuberculosis is gone because of vaccine, even though we don't really see it anymore?

No, it's because we're just generally healthier.

So we don't see these things as often.

But it's also true that for a lot of these diseases, they were still around a lot and people still got sick and some people died.

So the vaccine also played a role in bringing it down to almost zero.

and the most i think obvious example for people of our of our generation is just think about chickenpox right when we were growing up everybody had chickenpox it was around you had chickenpox parties it wasn't a big deal but everybody got it and now you don't see it anymore in kids so it's not like we magically the world got so much healthier in the last 20 years no we have vaccines and it got rid of the disease for the most part i mean still around but very few people have it so do you need a vaccine for chickenpox that's something you can discuss but some people if millions of people get chicken

pox, get really sick.

Some get a bad skin infection, some go to the hospitals, some get meningitis.

So, as a public health measure, it still does decrease those severe cases, but most cases are not very severe.

Most people just get a rash and they're fine.

So, that is where, again, you have to understand that debate because, yes, the vaccines definitely did decrease these diseases, but they weren't that deadly even before they came out for the most part.

So, that's something that we have to wait because just because if you were to say, get rid of all vaccines today, it's not like everyone would just just start dying of measles.

Like people were not dying of measles even 75 years ago, but a few people would, and more people would get it and more people will get really sick and more people will get pneumonia.

And that's not good either.

So you have to weigh those two things, but I think we need to understand the perspective of where we are today.

So that way we can have a nuanced conversations about the, again, the risks versus benefits, because it's not, it's not so simple as well.

If we just get rid of the measles vaccine, everyone's going to get measles and die.

That's not true. Or if you get rid of the polio vaccine, everyone's going to get polio and die.

Like most most people don't get severe disease from polio, like 99 .9%.

You just get a nothing or a stomach ache if you get polio for most people.

So, you know, you don't want to have paralysis, right?

But most people don't get that.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

It just popped up in my mind right now that when vaccines were invented and really became something that's a big part of medicine, there were papers written about we're going to eradicate disease, no more infectious diseases.

pieces and here we are we just had a whole pandemic all right we just had this huge breakout right and for whatever the reason whatever you believe about it something happened and that's not the only thing like countless people were dying from flu every year like this has been we were not we didn't accomplish what was the initial thrust or intent behind vaccines we're still sick And we might not be sick from that stuff, but we're sick from different stuff.

And matter of fact, in many ways, we're sicker than we've ever been.

But it's just different diseases, more of the slow burning kind.

And so with that being said, if there is anything related to a vaccine potentially causing some kind of dysfunction or damage or injury or even death, where would that be shared?

Where would people be able to share that information?

Where would physicians be able to share outcomes about their patients?

Can you talk about the VAERS system?

Well, yeah. I mean, that's hard because there isn't really a place, right?

That's the problem.

So, VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Reporting, is the main system that we have right now for reporting events, but it's self -report.

So, somebody has to go, whether it's the patient, the doctor, whoever, and say, okay, I believe this was a vaccine event, and so I'm going to put it in the system, and that's really how it's done, and that's it.

it. So there is no good way right now to even know, because if you, let's say you get asthma, if your kid gets asthma when they're seven, you're not thinking, oh, that could be related to my kid's vaccine.

I'm going to go to VAERS and put it in.

So we don't know. You have no idea.

The only way to know about these chronic conditions is to follow kids forward. And then you say, hey, wait a minute.

How come all the vaccinated kids are getting more asthma?

Or you're saying, and that might be seven years later, or how come kids that get hepatitis B vaccine earlier have a a higher risk of thyroid cancer, like whatever.

You're not even going to know what to think because you don't know until you follow kids forward, and you're like, why is this data so different between these two groups?

And you just have to figure out why that is.

But that's what those studies are for.

And we've done it before.

We did it with heart health, right?

We have the framing hand studies and other studies where we followed people forward for decades and generations.

That way we can get this information that we never even thought we needed because you're following people, you're following them through generations, 30, 40, 50 years.

That's the best kind of data that you can get realistically.

And we, I think with something as important as vaccines, as important as the discussion is, it deserves that kind of research. And I just think that we're there, and that's what's going to really help move the discussion forward and actually bring people together because doctors and patients are supposed to be on the same team.

Everybody wants healthy kids.

Not everyone agrees on how to get there, but we all want healthy kids, and the answer isn't to say, oh, Dr. Joel's some crazy anti -vaxxer because he's talking about vaccines, the answer is, okay, you don't agree with something I said.

Prove me wrong. I don't care.

Like, I'm not here to tell you to not get a vaccine or to get a vaccine.

I'm just here to discuss it.

And if there's some information that I don't know, great, tell me.

I'll change my opinion.

I don't care. Like, I don't care if kids get 10 ,000 vaccines or zero as long as they're the healthiest possible.

And I don't think we're going to get there if we can't even have discussions about vaccines and have a nuanced discussion about what works or doesn't.

Otherwise, we're just going to have another hundred vaccines that are They're going to come out in the next couple of years, and we're just going to keep doing a vaccine.

And just because you can doesn't mean you should.

There is a plus and a minus with everything, and a thousand vaccines might sound good, but it might be really bad.

Right. Go figure. So I want to ask you about VAERS a little bit more because, as mentioned, this is a voluntary reporting site, and it's supposed to be something that can help to sound an alarm if there are trends.

and because it's voluntary, this is part of the issue with this.

It's commonly said, and there's a couple of studies that affirm this or note this that somewhere around 1%, only 1 % of vaccine -related, possibly related injuries are reported to VAERS.

And actually, and I'll put the study up for everybody to see, there was an analysis done actually surveying physicians to see how often they report if there's something related to a vaccine, a vaccine concern.

CERN. And the vast majority of time, physicians admitted that, admittedly, they don't report the stuff themselves.

Because again, it's not intentional.

It's just that the programming, the vaccine is safe and effective.

It's unlikely. And also just they're not required to do it amidst all the other things that you're supposed to do and take care of as a physician.

And so what is your experience or what does the data show for you as far as like people actually reporting the only data i know is what you already mentioned which were the couple of studies that show that it's really under reported and that makes logical sense to me obviously don't know on other people's offices i have no idea what they're doing and what they're reporting but doctors are really busy it's a lot of paperwork so i assume that generally it's not reported unless it's something that's very very severe but it goes back to what we've been discussing it depends what a vaccine reaction is right

depends what it is because you don't know know how much is being reported because we don't know what a vaccine reaction is if it turns out in 10 years that asthma allergies autoimmune conditions autism have something to do with vaccines then nobody's reporting anything because why would if your patient gets asthma you say oh i'm going to go to vaers and report a vaccine injury right you're not doing that right so it's not assumed to be a vaccine injury so therefore you're not reporting it so there is no way to figure out what a vaccine injury actually is if you're not reporting it outside of what's

already known to potentially be an injury like obviously if you get a vaccine and somebody has an anaphylactic reaction and goes to the hospital, you're going to probably report that.

If they have a seizure five minutes later, you're going to report that.

But if they have a seizure two weeks later, is that a vaccine reaction or is that just they were going to have a seizure, right?

Even if it was a week later, were they just sick and it was a virus and so they had a seizure or was it because of the vaccine?

Like all of that is very debatable and most people wouldn't write that.

They would say, oh, it's probably just happened, right?

So you don't really know whether it's a vaccine reaction because how do you prove that something's a vaccine reaction?

It's almost nearly impossible possible unless it just happened right after you did it but what does and even if it did happen right after it doesn't mean it's from the vaccine right let's just say if something happens a week later is that from the vaccine is it not there's not like a test you can do to be like oh i see these antibodies that's what caused your seizure right you don't know and with a vaccine it's very weird it's such a double standard it's so odd compared to everything else in medicine because you give a patient amoxicillin for their cough or cold or whatever six days later they

have a rash and you're like oh must be from the maxisilin let's stop a maxisilin they have an allergy never give it to them again a kid who gets a vaccine and has a seizure five days later like yeah it's probably not from the vaccine do your vaccine another month and it's like it's such a weird double standard that as soon as something might be related to a vaccine you're like no no it's not related to the vaccine and it might not be but it also might be and and it's a medical product you're injecting a thing into kids every kid is different they have different genetics maybe it went into a weird

place maybe it just didn't sit well for them I don't know there are many reasons but we know vaccines can cause seizures so why can't it cause other sorts of issues we know it can cause Guillain -Barre syndrome and muscle weakness so why can't it cause other things if it can do those things it probably could do other things too maybe not most of the time but maybe some of the time and we shouldn't be sitting here saying it could never happen or can never be related for every other medication we're like don't take that ever again that's really dangerous risk we don't want you to have it even though

they didn't even have a major reaction but with a vaccine it's very different oh it couldn't be the vaccine i think that's a weird double standard that we have to discuss in medicine because i think there's this just overarching thought that vaccines are just the best thing ever we put them on a pedestal and they can never cause problems and if you do say that it causes a problem well then maybe everyone's gonna just stop vaccinating because now we see that there could be a problem that's not true it's just it's a product there There are risks and we want to understand what those risks are.

And I don't think we do that when we say that it never caused a problem.

Yeah. Two things can be true at the same time.

A vaccine can help to reduce the risk and incidence of a disease and it can also potentially cause harm.

Two things can be true at the same time.

But the harm part is the very difficult thing to even talk about.

And I'm so grateful that you're having this conversation.

you're talking about it as a physician, as somebody who's versed in epidemiology, and just having a logical conversation.

Because like you said, even if you get the shot, you get a shot, and then you immediately have a reaction, you can also say, well, they're going to have that anyways.

Very famously, a couple of instances of people getting the COVID vaccine and then fainting, like passing out, oh, it wasn't vaccine related, they just have this low blood sugar condition.

That's why they fainted, whatever the case might but you you can just inquire and being a scientist and a physician it's really i think it's the most important thing to do is to inquire is to ask questions and no question is off limits and also encouraging that in your patients as well especially when you hear the same thing over and over and over again especially when it comes to vaccines and autism and you can't talk about it and it's like if hundreds of thousands of parents are saying the same thing we have to be able to talk about it they could all be wrong that's possible but also maybe some

of them are right and maybe we need to think about why these things happen or or what what reaction might occur what the genetics are or what the susceptibility is or what I don't know this is information it's data and just to throw everything out and call people anti -vaxxers really diminishes good parents who care who maybe they've totally vaccinated their first kid and their second kid had a really serious reaction now they don't want to do it anymore and you're like I'm gonna to kick you out unless you get all the vaccines even though this kid had a serious reaction that they think was because of a vaccine

maybe it was maybe it wasn't that's not an anti -vaccine person that's just somebody who cares about their kids and and they saw something and they believe it and and I just don't think that hundreds of thousands of stories are all bs I think there's something there and especially with that research where you're told oh the science is settled oh it's been debunked and then you go look at the research and you're like it's absolutely not settled and it's absolutely not debunked that makes no sense anyone that looks at the research very easily would see that it's not settled, then like, why are we

not able to have those conversations?

Why can't we just get better research and data?

Why can't we listen to parents?

We don't want to cause problems. We want to protect kids.

That's what we want.

Everybody wants that.

Absolutely. And you mentioned a couple of times, some common things that are tied to vaccinations, development of allergies, asthma, neurodevelopment issues.

And the question is, again, even outside of end of one parent experience, do we have any stronger associations it's very difficult to get that data because of not having access to unvaccinated populations or those receiving a placebo and inert placebo we do have access we do this is this is the thing i was going to share this specific thing because this is important for people to understand so this was just published in 2020 right before all the ish hit the fan all right and this was an extremely rare peer -reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children it was published

in sage open medicine and again this was published in 2020 it included the data of a few thousand children which was remarkable in and of itself and researchers found that vaccination before one year of age was associated with significantly increased rates of developmental delays increased rates of asthma and increased rates of ear infections.

And some of these rates were shockingly higher, like the risk of developing asthma was nearly five times higher in vaccinated children in this particular study.

And developmental delays were nearly three times higher in little girls who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated girls.

This is what I love about this study was that they were looking at gender specific.

They were looking at all the kids together.

They were looking at age brackets.

They were looking at the the number of vaccines received, they're looking at a lot of data points.

And other notable issues that they saw as well were higher rates of gastrointestinal disorders in vaccinated children versus those who were not vaccinated and higher rates of head injuries, which could point to developmental problems with motor skills.

Rates of some of these conditions were notably increased as the number of vaccines the child received increased.

Now, this is not to say that the vaccine, again, doesn't have benefit and protection for the child, but these are things that should be like this is a red flag we're seeing other issues manifest in our children as a result potentially of this thing we need to study it right that's where it's key to say that there are studies that show some of these things they're the majority of research thus far the better studies in general don't show these relationships but there actually are a lot of good studies out there in good peer -reviewed journals that do show some of these things do show some concerns

and so it's not just as simple as saying oh there's no research that shows that that there might be a problem.

No, there are studies on both sides.

Still, the majority says no, that it doesn't, but who's been doing the research, right?

So that's what you have to look at.

But there are whole books on concerns around vaccines.

There are whole books on studies that show potential concerns.

A lot of the studies are not that good.

That is true. But it's really hard to do a study on your own when you don't have the big funding of the CDC or whatever it is to do the proper research. So it's a little bit unfair of an advantage, I guess, for studies to be able able to do bigger ones but either way there are both there is some information on on both sides and and that's key and when people used to ask me like hey what do i read about vaccines you have to read multiple sources because you read any book it's so biased and it's like oh you read a cdc book and you're like oh vaccines are the best thing ever they never cause a problem

all the research shows everything's great and then you read an anti -vaccine book and it's like vaccines the worst thing ever you should never do it here are all the studies that show that they're horrible very little shows both and has discussions like this we're like well okay but like here's a good study that shows something else you need that you need to hear that you need to hear it with allergies and asthma and autism and all of these things that there are other perspectives out there it's not just one and you can't just definitively say that one thing is right versus the other because when you

look at it very closely you see that the research hasn't actually been done the best way on most of these things to really be able to say so definitively one way or another especially with autism i mean there's nothing in my whole life that's more shocking than the research on autism, for sure.

I thought for sure there was this great data out there.

Like it really did.

And, and, you know, we're always taught, like it's been debunked, it's been settled.

And when I was going in to write the book, I thought what I was going to write was, all right, here are all the amazing studies that show that vaccines do not cause autism.

And well, you know, I'm an integrative doctor, I've heard some of the other stuff, I know some other things.

So here's the, you know, not as good studies that show that maybe there's some risk, and we have to also continue to say this.

But when you actually go look at the studies, it's really just about MMR, and it's really just about thimerosal.

There's almost nothing, really nothing on all the vaccines.

There's nothing on vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids.

It's never been done.

So how can you say so definitively that vaccines don't have something to do with autism when you haven't even studied it, right?

You can't say that they don't when you're like, okay, because MMR doesn't cause autism and those studies that are observational, that all vaccines have nothing to do with it.

There are all sorts of other vaccines you get in the first year, but the vast majority of the researchers on MMR and thimerosal, thimerosal is not even in the vaccines anymore.

So it's, it's just absurd when you look at it to say that.

And, and I would have thought for sure, like there are all sorts of big databases out there.

Anyone that's done research knows, okay, you could look at Kaiser.

You could look at the vaccine safety data link.

You could look at some countries have really good data and you can say, all right, let's look at all the kids that have zero vaccines.

Let's look at all the kids that have vaccines.

Which one has a higher rate of autism?

That's never been done.

Ever. In the world.

You could do it in one hour.

You could say, oh, let's look at, I don't know, some small Switzerland, some country that's smaller -ish.

Okay, let's look at all the kids that aren't vaccinated.

How much autism do they have?

Where is that? How has that never been done?

That's like basic science.

Let's just see what what the numbers are.

So it's not like you couldn't do it really quickly.

So either people have done it and they don't like what they found, so they didn't report it or they just didn't do it, but it's never been done.

I couldn't find it anywhere.

And I could not believe it.

And I read very, very pro -vaccine books to be like, all right, I've, I've looked at this.

I'm not finding it.

What am I missing? And they report the same exact studies.

And the theory is, well, these things haven't shown to cause autism, therefore it doesn't cause autism, but they haven't actually looked at everything to be able to say it doesn't which is really important you can't say hepatitis b doesn't cause autism unless you study hepatitis b but the theory is and there are core cases and they talk to really smart doctors and say okay do you think that vaccines cause autism no does hepatitis b cause it no what study do you have to prove i don't have a study that's not an answer that's not that's not an you're just saying i don't have the research to say that it

does therefore it doesn't that is that is a very circular weird way to think and i don't think think most doctors know that because I did not know that.

And I think everybody needs to know that because then we would say, oh, well, let's get some better research then.

I don't know. It should be obvious.

And just to be, again, able to have the conversation, the big thing, and even relating autism, if you say autism and vaccine in the same video.

And this happened to me sitting here with you today.

I shared this with you prior to this that you know i did a really amazing episode interview with an expert in the field of autism and she didn't make any claims about vaccines causing autism right she said explicitly one of those things like we don't know for sure if there's a relationship there but we do know that there are all these other factors that have these warning signs not just vaccines but all these other things so she wasn't blaming vaccines for the increase in autism and yet that video was taken down yeah i'm not either you have to have the research to blame right you can't say something

all you can say is we don't know that's it there are many things that we do know there are many things that are correlated to increased autism rates it's not just vaccines i've taken care of kids that never had a vaccine to have autism so there are many things but the way that we're talking about things is so easily disprovable and we're never going to get somewhere unless we're honest about these things and if you want to go look at it and you think i'm wrong fine Fine, go look.

Find me a study that's not about MMR or thiamarisol.

Find a study that's vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Find any study that's prospective that looks at vaccinated kids versus unvaccinated or retrospective.

Send it to me. I'm happy to look at it.

I've looked everywhere.

It doesn't exist. It should exist. We should do it.

That's it. It's not saying that vaccines cause autism.

I'm just saying we need to do that research and not say that it's been debunked.

It has not. Right, right.

We've got to be able to talk about it.

And this is a huge step.

I think that your book is priceless.

priceless it's priceless for families it's priceless for physicians between a shot and a hard place appropriately named is the new book can you tell people where they can pick up a copy yeah you can find me the best places are at dr joel gator on instagram or x and the book between a shot and a hard place you can get it anywhere where books are sold amazon or you can go to theshotbook .com awesome and you've got a phenomenal social media presence as well what is your Instagram at Dr. Joel Gator.

Yeah, it's been it's been fun to see because people are super interested.

And it's also fun because I can actually talk about vaccines now, which has been great, which is very new.

That's the last couple months only.

But nothing's been censored in a while.

And I don't think what I'm posting is very controversial.

I usually just ask questions and let people have discussions and love to fight in the comments, which is fine.

But it's more just talking about it.

Like we just need to talk about it.

Like this conversation should not be controversial.

You should be able to talk about it.

People out there listening, they can totally disagree with me that's fine i don't care but we should be able to talk about it and then you should be able to say okay why what is dr joel saying that's all wrong go for it say it i don't care i'll be wrong i'm happy to be wrong yeah well i'm grateful for everybody being able to listen to this to be able to learn from you and to be a part of this conversation and this conversation does not stop here so of course you could share your voice follow dr joel over on instagram check out the new book keep this conversation going it's one of the most important

conversations of our our lifetime to say the least and the fact again that it is so volatile and so censored is a part of the problem and for me again just puts up a big big red flag we work very very hard to do this work and to lift up voices of some of the best people in their respective fields and to have have that video taken down, a strike against me.

And during the pandemic, I was one of those voices.

I just was talking with Gabby Reese yesterday and she was sharing with me that that's what she found out about me.

And she was just thanking me.

Years later, she was like, you were so courageous.

How were you able to do this?

And she was like, I know what it was.

You weren't taking sides.

You were just taking the sides of humanity and trying to bring everybody together to be logical.

And we need more of that today, more than ever.

And so I really leaned into that.

Lots of stuff was getting taken down of mine, but I also, a lot of stuff broke through and, you know, it found the, the hands and eyes of many politicians.

And some of my work showed up in, you know, in Congress.

And, you know, I've been invited to the white house several times, all those things as well, which is really awesome that all that stuff is really cool, but it was at a great risk.

And what I wanted to say more than anything else is, man, I am so, I said this to you earlier, I am so proud of you.

I'm so grateful because this was a very risky thing for you to step into.

And nothing short of a calling, nothing short of like, I have to be courageous and do this for families and do this for kids.

And you were the person to do it.

one of the other popular books around like vaccine risk they didn't put their name on right and it's done by there's a bunch of lawyers involved all this stuff who have to put the book together but like your name is on this your reputation is on this your practice is on this and you did such a great job and really checking yourself i know through the process of your biases and just making sure that you're delivering a a holistic and well thought out dissertation dissertation for everybody.

I know it took a lot of work.

This is going to impact how things are done.

I know it. You're going to change things.

You're changing things.

I hope so. I appreciate you for that, man.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Again, between a shot and a hard place, pick up right now everywhere books are sold.

Get a copy for friends and family.

Follow Dr. Joel Warsh on Instagram for more.

Share your voice. I appreciate you so much. Thank you.

The one and only Dr. Joel Gator Warsh.

Thank you so much for tuning into this episode today.

I hope that you got a lot of value out of this.

Again, this is one of the most important conversations of our lifetime.

And this is a conversation that needs to continue.

We've got to open up the doors and eliminate the red tape and be able to ask questions.

It's one of the most important aspects of this whole thing.

It should be incredibly concerning.

when people's voices are getting censored in this free country about being able to ask questions and to speak about your experience with certain medical treatments.

And in addition, any medical treatment that has concerns or uncertainties about the safety data in and of itself should warrant conversation around mandates and being forced to take a certain medication without truly knowing the potential risk.

And so this is really about, again, Dr. Warsh mentioned this a couple of times, which is the risk benefit analysis.

And if you don't truly know the risk and all you're getting pushed in your face are the benefits and then zip it, or I'm going to make you zip it, that is so far beyond where we need to be today as a society.

is just, we've got to make a change.

And so I hope that this sparked some conversations.

I hope that this sparked some insights, some questions, some concerns, and also maybe gave you a little peace of mind.

And again, we've got to keep this conversation going.

It would mean so much if you would pop over to Instagram and make sure to follow Dr. Warsh and also follow me, I'm at seanmodel.

Share the episode there.

You can take a screenshot and share the episode there.

You could send this directly through the podcast app that you're listening on to somebody that you care about and you want to extend this conversation.

And also, if you want to see the video of this episode, because I know a lot of people listen to the audio and they watch the video as well, you're going to notice because of the volatility of this being on YouTube, we unfortunately cannot post this video on YouTube, which is crazy to be able to say that.

that, because just mentioning vaccines related to any of these injuries previously, and I shared this during the episode, but the video was taken down.

It was censored. I got a strike against me.

And, you know, I've been in touch even with people at YouTube and they're just like, our hands are tied.

You know, this is like policy beyond us.

And it's just like, this was a conversation, not making any claims of vaccine related injuries.

And, you know, autism was the particular of the conversation.

And so we've got to be careful about that.

Unfortunately, right now, things are changing, but right now this video is going to be available for you.

If you go to themodelhealthshow .com forward slash vaccine data, all one word, right?

The modelhealthshow .com forward slash vaccine data together as one word. All right.

So I've got your back.

If you want to see the video, we're going to see the studies that we talked about also popping up during the video.

And like I said, just keep this conversation going.

It's important. I appreciate you so much for tuning in with me today.

We've got some epic masterclasses and world -class guests coming your way very, very soon.

So make sure to stay tuned.

Take care, have an amazing day, and I'll talk with you soon.

And for more after the show, make sure to head over to themodelhealthshow .com.

That's where you can find all of the show notes, you can find transcriptions, videos for each episode, and if you've got a comment, you can leave me a comment there as well.

And please make sure to head over to iTunes and leave us a rating to let everybody know that the show is awesome.

And I appreciate that so much. And take care.

I promise to keep giving you more powerful, empowering, great content to help you transform your life.

Thanks for tuning in.

Thank you.

[백신 안전성과 투명한 대화의 중요성: 조엘 워시 박사와의 심층 토론]-[The Critical Truth About Vaccine Safety (Everyone Needs to Know!) - With Dr. Joel Warsh]

📋 Summary

백신에 관한 열린 대화와 과학적 투명성의 필요성

백신 제조사의 면책 특권과 책임의 공백

임상 시험의 한계와 '위약(Placebo)'의 정의

다중 백신 접종과 장기적 안전성 데이터

상대적 위험 감소율(RRR) vs 절대적 위험 감소율(ARR)

결론: 검열을 넘어선 과학적 성찰

🎯Key Sentences

📝Key Phrases

📖 Transcript