Many people ask: if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is so aware of the dangers of vaccines, why didn’t he ban them immediately upon becoming Health Secretary? But the answer lies not in a lack of conviction — it lies, in my opinion, in strategic brilliance.
What many forget is that Kennedy isn’t trying to amend a single regulation; he has declared war on one of the world’s most powerful and corrupt financial and political networks. And Kennedy, the seasoned attorney, knows full well: a system like this cannot be defeated in a single frontal assault. At most, he might win a small battle — but he would lose the war. And Kennedy isn’t interested in winning skirmishes; he wants to win the whole war.
There is only one way to do that: through systematic, irrefutable scientific validation. He must prove — using publicly available data, independent researchers, and the most rigorous scientific methodology — which interventions are effective and which are harmful.
This way, he can win over not just a part of the scientific community, but public opinion itself. It is the only path to real and lasting change — because it is built on truth, not political decree. The sheer power he’s up against is clear from the immediate wave of attacks already launched against him.
All it took was removing COVID vaccines from the list of recommended childhood immunizations, and pharmaceutical-funded lobbying groups struck back with lawsuits. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) went to court, claiming the decision “undermines public trust” and “puts public health at risk.” This reaction proves that Kennedy’s long-term strategy is the only viable path forward.
The interview between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson was more than a conversation — it was the unveiling of a reform blueprint.
Kennedy spoke with unflinching honesty about the systemic corruption that he believes has captured American healthcare, science, and the media. He promised nothing less than the liberation of science from industrial influence, and its restoration to the people.
This is not just a political talking point — this could be a revolutionary act, if he succeeds in carrying it through.
Because this system thrives on disease…
Kennedy’s core thesis is shocking — but entirely logical: the healthcare system is not incentivized to heal people, but rather to maintain chronic illness. Every player in the system operates under distorted incentives:
Doctors receive massive bonuses from insurers if their practice reaches a certain vaccination rate. That’s why they expel patients who ask too many questions or request alternative, delayed vaccination schedules for their children.
Insurance companies, paradoxically, profit more when the population is sicker. Just as it’s in Lloyd’s interest for more ships to sink — because it drives demand for insurance — insurers rake in profits from the vast sums of money flowing through a chronically ill system.
Pharmaceutical companies bombard the public with ads, knowing that taxpayers ultimately cover the costs through Medicare and Medicaid. These ads are a huge revenue stream for the media — which, in return, suppresses all criticism.
Roger Ailes, founder of Fox News, personally admitted to Kennedy: “If I let you talk about this on air, I’d have to fire the host — otherwise Rupert [Murdoch] would be calling me within ten minutes.”
Blind faith in experts, Kennedy says, is not a feature of science — it’s a feature of totalitarianism and religion.
In a democracy, it is the citizen’s duty to seek the truth for themselves.
And yet the COVID years pushed the exact opposite message: We were expected to believe the “experts” without question, and anyone who challenged the official narrative was branded a conspiracy theorist, or worse — a dangerous enemy of public health.
Critical thinking wasn’t encouraged — it was silenced, as if scientific debate itself posed an epidemiological risk.
The Greatest Taboo: Investigating the Link Between Autism and Vaccines
A cornerstone of Kennedy’s work as health secretary is the launch of a long-overdue investigation — one that the Institute of Medicine had already called for back in 2001, but which the CDC persistently sabotaged.
The goal: to finally examine, with honest and unmanipulated science, the potential connection between autism and early childhood vaccinations (such as hepatitis B and DTaP).
CDC’s Manipulation:
Kennedy points to an internal 1999 study led by Thomas Verstraeten at the CDC, which found a 1,135% increased risk of autism among infants who received the hepatitis B vaccine.
The CDC, however, rewrote the study five times, applying statistical tricks to eliminate the association.
In contrast, Kennedy’s team promises full transparency:
Public databases: Making the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and other large-scale datasets available to independent researchers.
Real science: Launching studies that directly compare the health outcomes of fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated populations.
Independent researchers: Already, 15 major research groups unaffiliated with government or industry are working with the data, and first results are expected by September.
Does Every 37th Vaccine Cause a Side Effect?
At one point during the interview, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. refers to a clear and well-documented statistic: 2.7% of all vaccines cause adverse reactions. This is not an estimate or an opinion — it is a conclusion drawn from the U.S. government’s own data collection. As Kennedy states:
“The data shows that about 2.7% of vaccines caused injury. Every vaccine. Yes, all of them. About 2.7%. That means that roughly every 37th vaccine causes injury — there’s something wrong with it.”
What’s behind the 2.7%?
It’s important to understand that this 2.7% adverse event rate from official U.S. government statistics does not refer only to severe, life-threatening reactions. It includes a broad spectrum of side effects, some of which may be mild — such as fever, pain, allergic reactions, or temporary discomfort. These still count as adverse reactions, even if they don’t lead to — or we don’t yet know whether they lead to — long-term consequences.
At the same time — and this is just as important — the 2.7% figure only includes short-term reactions that were detected and reported within a maximum of 30 days. It does not include possible effects that may emerge months or years later, such as chronic inflammation, autoimmune disorders, neurological issues, or hormonal imbalances. These long-term outcomes are far more difficult to trace back to the original vaccine.
This means that the real rate of adverse effects — especially over the long term — may be significantly higher than what current records and analyses suggest. For informed public discourse and decision-making, this is vital: we must look beyond the surface of statistical averages to fully grasp what is at stake.
A quick calculation based on the 2.7% figure
If it’s true that approximately one in every 37 injections leads to some form of side effect, then we should ask: what is the statistical chance that someone will experience at least one adverse reaction from the total number of childhood vaccines they receive?
While Kennedy specifically refers to the U.S. vaccination schedule, the conclusion is globally relevant, as many countries implement similarly extensive — or even more aggressive — immunization programs.
In Hungary, for example, the official childhood vaccination schedule includes 13 separate appointments and a total of 17 individual injections, covering 109 antigens. Based on the 2.7% figure Kennedy cites, this results in an estimated 38% probability that a person will experience at least one adverse reaction during childhood vaccination.
(Calculation: if the chance of receiving a vaccine without side effects is 97.3%, then after 17 doses, the probability of staying side-effect free is 0.973¹⁷ ≈ 62.4%, meaning the chance of at least one adverse effect is approximately 37.6%.)
In the United States, the number of vaccine injections is even higher: the CDC’s recommended childhood schedule includes 42 separate doses, bringing the statistical probability of at least one adverse reaction to around 70%, based on the same official data.
(Calculation: if the chance of no adverse effect from a single vaccine is 97.3%, then after 45 doses the chance of no side effects is 0.973⁴⁵ ≈ 29.6%, meaning the risk of at least one adverse reaction is approximately 70.4%.)
This doesn’t mean that this many people will suffer serious harm—but it does mean that statistically, this many are likely to experience some form of side effect. And that alone is enough to warrant public debate and ensure that people are given the right to make fully informed choices.
The Numbers Didn’t Lie — But the Statisticians Did: The Real Data from the COVID Vaccine Trials Before Approval
In the interview, Kennedy shed light on one of the most shocking and suppressed data sets from the COVID vaccine approval process.
In the Pfizer trial, which compared 20,000 vaccinated participants to 20,000 placebo recipients, all-cause mortality was 23% higher in the vaccinated group after six months.
Put simply: more people died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.
So how was the vaccine still marketed as “100% effective”?
Kennedy exposed the statistical sleight of hand: during the trial, two people in the placebo group died of COVID, while only one in the vaccinated group.
From this single prevented COVID death, Pfizer crafted an absurd marketing message that concealed the broader reality. People were led to believe the vaccine would prevent infection and death, while the actual data revealed that 19,999 people had to be vaccinated to prevent a single COVID death – and even that came at the cost of increased overall mortality in the vaccinated group.
If just one person out of those 19,999 dies from vaccine side effects, the net benefit is already zero. And now we know the reality was far worse than that.
In another part of the interview, Kennedy recalled how the Biden administration, just 37 hours after taking office, ordered Facebook to censor anyone who contradicted the official COVID narrative.
He was one of the first to be removed — despite having millions of followers.
Since his posts couldn’t be fact-checked as false (they cited government data and peer-reviewed studies), the White House coined a new Orwellian term: “malinformation” — truthful information that is inconvenient to those in power.
This is the machinery of censorship that Kennedy now seeks to dismantle.
Firing the Entire ACIP Panel: Dismantling a Captured Industry Front
Kennedy immediately dismissed all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — the body responsible for determining the U.S. vaccination schedule. His justification: the committee had become a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry, with 97% of its members financially conflicted.
The most infamous example:
Dr. Paul Offit, CNN’s resident vaccine expert, voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule — while developing his own competing vaccine. After a rival product was withdrawn due to causing severe, sometimes fatal intestinal intussusception, Offit’s version took its place. Later, he and his partners sold the vaccine to Merck for $186 million, bragging that he had “won the lottery.”
This rigged system allowed the childhood schedule to explode from 11 shots in 1986 to 72–96 doses today, without placebo-controlled safety trials for most of the new vaccines.
But Kennedy isn’t just exposing past corruption — he’s building a completely new system:
Justice for the Injured: The infamous “vaccine court” and compensation program will be restructured to serve the injured, not to shield the government fund. This includes victims of COVID vaccine injuries.
VAERS Reform: The current passive, self-reporting system — which a CDC internal study admitted captures less than 1% of injuries — will be replaced by an AI-powered system. It will analyze not just the volume but also the geographic and thematic patterns in reports, serving as an early warning system for vaccine-related harm.
AI in Public Health: Kennedy plans to enlist top Silicon Valley experts to revolutionize drug approval, detect waste and fraud, and overhaul public health decision-making using cutting-edge machine intelligence.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s interview is a manifesto of historic significance.
It lays out a plan to dismantle a corrupt system and build a new kind of healthcare — one that is responsible, transparent, and centered on human well-being.
He isn’t trying to force opinions on people. He wants to return to them the data, and with it, the freedom to choose.
If he succeeds in what he has set in motion, it will not only transform American healthcare, but fundamentally reshape the global relationship between science and democracy.
This is a fight against corruption, for truth, and for a healthier future.
References and Sources Supporting Key Claims from the Interview
To allow for independent verification of the most crucial statements made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the interview, here are relevant sources and documentation:
Lawsuit by Medical Organizations Over Revised COVID Vaccine Guidance
Several medical groups — including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after it changed its COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for children.
Reuters – “US medical groups sue to challenge new Covid-19 vaccine guidance”:
Detailed article covering the lawsuit and the participating organizations.
👉 [LINK]
Questioning the Safety and Efficacy of COVID Vaccines (Pfizer Trial)
Kennedy’s claims refer to data submitted to the FDA by Pfizer as part of its clinical trial.
FDA Briefing Document – Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (Dec 10, 2020):
Page 42 reports 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group after 6 months. COVID-related deaths: 1 vaccinated, 2 placebo.
👉 [LINK]
The CDC’s Internal Analysis (Verstraeten Study) and 1135% Risk
This refers to an early internal CDC analysis from 1999 linking thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders. The original version was later revised.
2002 Congressional Hearing – Committee on Government Reform:
Dr. Mark Geier presented the original version showing a 11.35-fold increased risk.
👉 [LINK]
“The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:
The book includes a full chapter referencing FOIA-obtained internal documents.
Conflicts of Interest within the ACIP
A congressional report documented widespread financial ties between ACIP members and vaccine manufacturers.
2000 Government Reform Committee Report – “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”:
Found that many members of ACIP and FDA’s VRBPAC had direct financial stakes in the vaccines they approved.
👉 [LINK]
Paul Offit and RotaTeq:
Dr. Offit voted to recommend a rotavirus vaccine while developing his own, which was later sold to Merck for $186 million.
👉 [LINK]
Underreporting in VAERS (The Lazarus Report)
A CDC-commissioned study showed that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
AHRQ Final Report – “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)”:
Page 6: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”
👉 [LINK]
Censorship and “Malinformation” (Missouri v. Biden Case)
Kennedy referenced how the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to censor dissenting views on COVID.
Court documents from Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri):
Released emails and depositions confirmed direct communication between the White House and tech companies. RFK Jr. cited specific censorship actions taken against him.
Financial Incentives for Doctors
Health insurers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, offered “quality bonuses” to practices that met high vaccination targets.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan – Performance Recognition Program:
Official documents detail financial incentives for achieving vaccination benchmarks (e.g., childhood, HPV).
👉 [LINK]
