A new Tucker Carlson clip is blowing up online, and the conservative commentator is getting hammered relentlessly.

Several viral posts, racking up millions of views, are claiming Tucker said: “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.”

That quote has been amplified by major names like Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Chris Cuomo, Laura Loomer, The Babylon Bee, and others.

One conservative broadcaster, Steve Deace, even said he was ready to dedicate a full hour to dissecting this clip.

There’s just one problem: Tucker never said, “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.” Not even close.

Unlike many of the people weighing in, I actually watched the full 5-minute video.

And the only mention of “Sharia law” in the Tucker clip is this: “Saudi Arabia… It’s a country governed by Sharia law. And they’re like, ‘That’s great.’”

The phrase “more advanced” never appears anywhere in the video either.

And yet, no one caught the deceptive, fake quote being broadcast to millions of users. It took me, a cartoon fox, to point it out.

Here’s what Grok, X’s AI chatbot with access to the full transcript, says about the video.

Tucker didn't say “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.” That quote is fabricated and doesn't appear anywhere in the 5-minute clip.

What he actually said (at ~2:33): While describing dinner in Riyadh, “I’m really pro-Jesus, I’m a Christian… They’re like, ‘That’s great. Good for you.’ No, they’re Muslims. It’s a country governed by Sharia law.”

He praised the self-confidence and lack of self-hatred he sees in places like Saudi Arabia/Qatar vs. declining Western cities—but never tied Sharia to making them “more advanced.”

I find it deeply unsettling that so many high-profile journalists, broadcasters, and personalities rushed in to trash Tucker Carlson without even bothering to watch the video.

I’m not a professionally-trained journalist. I worked in healthcare and became a citizen journalist after being disturbed by what I witnessed during COVID.

And it’s sad that I have to point out to the professionals that you need to verify your sources before weighing in on a quote that sounds too crazy to be true. This is journalism 101.

MAGA rightly went nuts over the “fine people” hoax when Trump’s words were misrepresented by the media.

Yet here we are with a more egregious misrepresentation, and those I thought cared about truth are now defending a completely fabricated quote, mocking the idea of “defending Tucker.”

That should set off alarm bells.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Tucker Carlson. But you shouldn’t judge anyone based on something they never said. If this were a fake Trump quote, we would all be rightly outraged.

And I’m not bothering to highlight this just because it’s Tucker. If it were a fake quote about AOC, I’d be calling that out, too. This is about honoring reality.

Before we pledge loyalty to a person, a party, or to someone being on “my side,” we need to remember that our first loyalty belongs to the truth.

That’s what matters.

And if we can’t even agree that truth is more important than our personal biases anymore, we’re in serious trouble.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Acting HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience for the first time since taking his new role, and he did not shy away from detailing the fraud he says he uncovered after finally stepping into a position of power.

With Medicaid and Medicare alone, Kennedy said, “We lose just on Medicaid and Medicare, $100 billion a year,” and it’s all “really shocking, blatant fraud.”

As HHS Secretary, Kennedy described an industrialized scheme operating out of Florida, where P.O. boxes were set up for companies claiming to sell durable medical equipment like knee braces and wheelchairs.

But there’s one small problem: “They don’t have any knee braces or wheelchairs.”

However, they do have patient identification numbers.

Those ID numbers are used to bill the government for equipment that never ships. Kennedy said many of these schemes are operating out of countries like Cuba or Russia.

He then pointed to another staggering example: Los Angeles has more hospice providers than the entire rest of the country COMBINED.

How is that possible? That’s because “it’s all fraudulent,” Kennedy said.

Subscribe now

Moments later, Kennedy detailed a shocking autism fraud scandal that took place in Minnesota.

He said organized crime companies would tell families to designate that “ALL your children have autism now.”

Families were promised a few thousand dollars when they enrolled in autism services. But the crime companies would then “collect all the money.”

The scheme, he said, grew to a massive scale.

In Minneapolis, Kennedy said he expected the autism program to cost about $3 million a year.

Instead, over a three-year period, it exploded to $400 million annually.

It was almost “all fraudulent,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy added that this fraud accelerated under the Biden administration, where he says officials ended the program integrity office and told staff, “We don’t want to do program integrity anymore. We now just want to focus everything on enrollments.”

Kennedy argues you could say there was “bad motive there.”

Watch the Full Interview Below:

The All-American Halftime Show was a massive success, with tens of millions of viewers tuning in over the official Super Bowl halftime show featuring Bad Bunny.

And one song in particular is gaining buzz after capturing the hearts of Christians everywhere.

It’s called “Til Ya Can’t,” and you could hear the crowd roaring as Kid Rock sang these lyrics live:

“There’s a book that’s sitting in your house somewhere that could use some dusting off. There’s a man who died for all our sins hanging from the cross. You can give your life to Jesus, and he’ll give you a second chance…”

Leave a comment

The song quickly went viral, with many social media users saying it was beautiful or that it “brought tears” to their eyes.

After the widespread love from fans, Kid Rock delivered this message on X:

If you enjoyed our version of “Til Ya Can’t” on The TPUSA All American Halftime - Our studio recording of it will be available to purchase or stream at midnight tonight (Feb 9)!

A big thank you to @codyjohnson and the songwriters Ben Stennis and Matt Rogers for giving me there blessing to record and release it, It really is one of the best written songs I have heard in a long time and NOTHING is more powerful than a great song in my book!

— Kid Rock

Until then, you can hear the full song in the final five minutes of this live performance:

Subscribe now

Something unexpected has happened on cable TV, and it’s a sign that disaster is coming for tech billionaire Bill Gates.

In the latest tranche of the Epstein Files, emails drafted by Jeffrey Epstein suggest that Gates contracted an STD from sleeping with “Russian girls” and had planned to secretly medicate his then-wife, Melinda.

Bill has denied the allegations, but Melinda interestingly did not. Instead, she expressed “unbelievable sadness” reflecting on their marriage and Gates’ association with Epstein.

Subscribe now

When asked about this during an interview with 9 News Australia, Bill Gates said he doesn’t know what Epstein was thinking with the email, suggesting Epstein may have been trying to “attack” him in some way.

The reporter challenged Gates on why this accusation against him wasn’t true when other Epstein file revelations were accurate.

Gates sidestepped the question and asserted his own version of events.

“It’s factually true that I was only at dinners. I never went to the island. I never met any women,” he replied.

That response was unexpectedly met with fierce skepticism by the ladies of The View, especially Joy Behar.

“I know nothing. I did nothing,” she mocked, adding, I like when they say, ‘I was not on the island,’ as if that’s the only place any of this stuff could happen.”

Whoopi Goldberg’s face screamed extreme skepticism to Gates’ remarks, whereas Sunny Hostin described Melinda Gates’ comments about Bill’s association with Epstein being a major detriment to their marriage as a “big statement.”

“[The files] were released by the Justice Department, and I think he should answer to it,” she said.

WATCH:

Bill Gates stated in his 9 News interview that as more information comes out, it will become “clear” that he “had nothing to do with that kind of behavior.”

But the court of public opinion has already turned on him. And you know Gates is in serious PR trouble when he loses The View.

Share

Dear readers, I apologize for not delivering a Top 10 today, but something else came up that I believe was more important.

Today, we lost a great warrior in politics, someone whose mission in life was to be “useful” to his fellow human beings. I’m talking about none other than Dilbert creator Scott Adams.

Subscribe now

Scott was more than just a cartoonist. He was the “Internet Dad” for right-of-center minds. He taught people how to be “useful” in their own lives, ditch loser thinking, and become more persuasive.

I spoke with Scott a few times briefly via online messaging, and I was genuinely honored that he liked my work and took the time to reply to my messages.

But what I admired most about Scott was how deeply he valued his fans.

He believed in simulation theory, yet as he neared the final days of his life, the warmth and love from those fans touched him profoundly. Their persistence moved him so much that it convinced him to convert to Christianity.

Leave a comment

Today, Scott’s X account posted his “final message” to the world. It personally brought tears to my eyes, and it captures everything I loved about the man.

I encourage you to read it in full. The world was a better place with Scott Adams around.

If you are reading this, things did not go well for me.

I have a few things to say before I go.

My body failed before my brain. I am of sound mind as I write this, January 1st, 2026. If you wonder about any of my choices for my estate, or anything else, please know I am free of any coercion or inappropriate influence of any sort. I promise.

Next, many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I’m not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for doing so looks attractive. So, here I go:

I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I look forward to spending an eternity with him. The part about me not being a believer should be quickly resolved if I wake up in heaven. I won’t need any more convincing than that. And I hope I am still qualified for entry.

With your permission, I’d like to explain something about my life.

---

For the first part of my life, I was focused on making myself a worthy husband and parent, as a way to find meaning. That worked. But marriages don’t always last forever, and mine eventually ended, in a highly amicable way. I’m grateful for those years and for the people I came to call my family.

Once the marriage unwound, I needed a new focus. A new meaning. And so I donated myself to “the world,” literally speaking the words out loud in my otherwise silent home. From that point on, I looked for ways I could add the most to people’s lives, one way or another.

That marked the start of my evolution from Dilbert cartoonist to an author of – what I hoped would be – useful books. By then, I believed I had amassed enough life lessons that I could start passing them on. I continued making Dilbert comics, of course.

As luck would have it, I’m a good writer. My first book in the “useful” genre was How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. That book turned out to be a huge success, often imitated, and influencing a wide variety of people. I still hear every day how much that book changed lives. My plan to be useful was working.

---

I followed up with my book Win Bigly, that trained an army of citizens how to be more persuasive, which they correctly saw as a minor super power. I know that book changed lives because I hear it often.

You’ll probably never know the impact the book had on the world, but I know, and it pleases me while giving me a sense of meaning that is impossible to describe.

My next book, Loserthink, tried to teach people how to think better, especially if they were displaying their thinking on social media. That one didn’t put much of a dent in the universe, but I tried.

Finally, my book Reframe Your Brain taught readers how to program their own thoughts to make their personal and professional lives better. I was surprised and delighted at how much positive impact that book is having.

I also started podcasting a live show called Coffee With Scott Adams, dedicated to helping people think about the world, and their lives, in a more productive way. I didn’t plan it this way, but it ended up helping lots of lonely people find a community that made them feel less lonely. Again, that had great meaning for me.

---

I had an amazing life. I gave it everything I had. If you got any benefits from my work, I’m asking you to pay it forward as best you can. That is the legacy I want.

Be useful.

And please know I loved you all to the end.

Scott Adams

Share

Something feels deeply off about the Trump team’s response to the Vanity Fair hit piece featuring Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and people are starting to take notice.

Earlier today, Vanity Fair published a lengthy piece drawn almost entirely from on-the-record conversations with Susie Wiles herself.

The article included blunt characterizations of key figures inside Trump’s inner circle: Wiles described JD Vance as having been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” and labeled Russell Vought as “a right-wing absolute zealot.”

She also made less-than-stellar remarks about the president himself, telling Vanity Fair, “Trump has an alcoholic’s personality.”

When the piece became public, Wiles quickly took to social media to dismiss the article as a “disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.”

But Susie spoke with Vanity Fair “regularly” over the “past year.” Was she so naive that she really did not see this hit piece coming? And why would she hand a left-wing outlet ample ammunition to smear the Trump team by supplying them with such derogatory statements?

But the truly strange part wasn’t Wiles’ response. It was what came next.

Trump’s inner circle and cabinet members rushed in to defend her, and their posts were so exaggerated that it went well beyond helping out an ally; it resembled borderline worship.

Look at this response from HHS Secretary RFK Jr.

Susie Wiles is arguably the most perfect chief of staff in modern American history. She is the first female to occupy that position, but more importantly she is a leader who combines deftness, kindness, and compassion with a maternal toughness and discipline that elevates the entire White House apparatus.

Her impeccable judgment, moral center, intuitive understanding of the President’s intentions, and her ability to translate his vision into concrete policy have earned her universal trust and respect of the cabinet, which, consequently, functions more as an unusually efficient family than as assemblage of competing rivals.

Her mastery of politics, her encyclopedic command of every issue and policy, and her ability to instantly grasp the heart of every problem rival anyone with whom I’ve ever worked. Susie—like President Trump—understands how to wield power with purpose.

Vaccine critic and Substack author Toby Rogers wrote back to Kennedy: “Can y’all please knock it off already with these hostage tweets?”

Singer-songwriter and medical freedom activist Five Times August replied: “SUSIE WILES IS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING IN EVERY WAY AND THE BEST PERSON TO LEAD US IN ALL THINGS.”

Attached was a GIF with a woman pointing a gun at a man’s head.

When you dig a little further, you notice multiple members of Trump’s team moved almost in unison, issuing similar messages about Susie Wiles in rapid succession.

Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash)

“Fake news comes after you when you’re effective… and there’s nobody in @realDonaldTrump’s team more effective than @SusieWiles.”

Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent)

“2025 has been a year of historic achievement by @POTUS for the American people, and @SusieWiles’ unwavering leadership has led the way.

Susie is an exceptional Chief of Staff, and her tireless dedication, loyalty, and commitment to the President are beyond reproach. Powerful leadership often works quietly—never seeking credit and always relentlessly driving results. Our Chief exemplifies that.”

Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin)

“Susie Wiles is an EXCEPTIONAL White House Chief of Staff. Her partnership with President Trump, and a team loaded with chemistry, dedication and talent, has yielded historic results for the American people in such a short period of time. I have immense respect for Susie, her impactful leadership, and her enormous accomplishments—with so many even bigger victories still to come.”

Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec)

“Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has helped President Trump achieve the most successful first 11 months in office of any President in American history.

President Trump has no greater or more loyal advisor than Susie.

The entire Administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

Leave a comment

Attorney Tom Renz has been investigating Susie Wiles for some time, and his findings have led him to conclude that she is bad news. After JD Vance brushed off Susie Wiles calling him a “conspiracy theorist,” Renz wrote:

I understand @JDVance has to deflect a bit here, but it must be grinding to have Susie Wiles throw him under the bus like this. I see the whole administration speaking out in unison about how great the “most powerful woman in the world” is. How much of that is self-preservation? Anyone near the administration knows how Wiles does business, and it isn’t gentle.

I broke much of the info on Wiles being a managing partner at a lobbying firm that represented Pfizer, Alibaba, Gilead, and many other nefarious places. I said at the time I wished I was wrong and still do, but the facts are the facts, and Wiles wouldn’t even chat about them. You don’t hide things unless you have things to hide, and her loyalty to the Bush world is 180 degrees out of line with MAGA.

You can’t serve two masters, and it looks like many in the administration are starting to see which master controls—and it doesn’t look like it’s MAGA. My real question is, how powerful must she be to have the entire administration and all the “conservative influencers” speak out in unison about how great she is?

Tom raises a great point. It’s strange how Wiles draws so much praise in unison. Whenever Wiles’s reputation gets shaky with Trump’s base, she always seems to be swiftly lifted back up.

Something very unusual is going on, and it suggests Wiles holds an unusual amount of power and leverage within the Trump administration. One can only speculate why that is. But one thing is certain: something’s off.

Subscribe now

A long-awaited vaccine reversal has just sent shockwaves through the US medical establishment after 34 long years.

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, just voted 8–3 to end the universal Hepatitis B birth-dose recommendation and move instead to shared decision-making for infants born to hepatitis-B–negative mothers.

For the first time since 1991, parents (not a blanket federal recommendation) will decide whether their newborn receives this shot in the first hours or days of life.

Voting YES to end the universal mandate: Retsef Levi and seven other members.

Voting NO: Dr. H. Cody Meissner, Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln, and Dr. Raymond Pollak. Two of the three issued grave warnings, insisting the decision to end the universal hepatitis B recommendation will “cause harm” and that the panel will have to “accept this responsibility when this harm is caused.”

The decision to end the universal hepatitis B vaccination recommendation is a huge deal because the three-shot series is required for public school attendance in nearly every state, and most states base their mandates directly on ACIP recommendations. Today’s decision instantly places the decades-old school requirement on unstable ground.

The debate leading up to the vote centered around a single primary question: why is every newborn vaccinated against a virus primarily transmitted through sexual contact, needle sharing, or from an infected mother during birth?

Every pregnant woman in the United States is screened for hepatitis B. Only 0.5% of births involve a mother who tests positive. Newborns do not engage in behaviors that spread the virus. And yet, for 34 years, every child in America has been expected to receive a Hepatitis B shot on the first day of life.

During yesterday’s meeting, CDC contractor Dr. Cynthia Nevison presented evidence that the universal birth-dose never meaningfully altered population-level Hepatitis B trends. Acute Hepatitis B cases were already plummeting years before the vaccine recommendation took effect in 1991.

As she showed, the sharp decline in cases during the 1980s and early 1990s was overwhelmingly due to other factors: improved blood screening, widespread adoption of safe-sex practices during the AIDS crisis, needle-exchange programs, and targeted (not universal) vaccination of infants actually at risk.

Her conclusion was blunt: “universal birth dose contribution to acute [Hepatitis B] case decline is likely very small.”

For decades, parents have questioned why a vaccine for a bloodborne, sexually transmitted virus is pushed on healthy newborns within hours of birth. Today’s vote shows those concerns are no longer being dismissed.

This vote does not end the Hepatitis B vaccine. It restores parental choice. And after three decades of unquestioned policy, that alone is historic.

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading. If you appreciate this kind of reporting, please become a paid subscriber today. Your support is the clearest signal that this work matters to you and directly shapes what I cover next.

If you’ve been on the fence, now is a great moment to upgrade, as I’m offering 50% off first-year subscriptions for a limited time. This work is only possible because of paid subscribers like you. Thank you for your support.

Get 50% off for 1 year

As of today, Hepatitis B vaccination is required for public school attendance in nearly every state in the United States. If ACIP votes to end the universal birth-dose recommendation and limit it only to infants born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B, that long-standing school mandate could be displaced to uncertain ground, since most states base their school requirements on ACIP recommendations.

Hepatitis B is a viral infection primarily transmitted through blood and bodily fluids, most commonly through sexual contact, needle sharing, or exposure during birth. Mothers are routinely tested during pregnancy to determine whether they are hepatitis B positive and at risk of transmitting the virus to their baby. And with only about 0.5% of births involving a mother who tests positive, it continues to raise questions about why the vaccine is recommended for every child on the first day of life.

Also, because newborns don’t engage in sexual activity or needle sharing, the universal vaccination recommendation has puzzled many parents for decades, who wonder why a sexually transmitted or bloodborne illness requires immunization at birth.

Many questions about the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine have been raised by figures such as Robert Kennedy Jr., Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Casey Means, and countless concerned parents.

But one CDC contractor, Dr. Cynthia Nevison, walked into the ACIP meeting and raised another critical question: has universal Hepatitis B vaccination, after 34 long years, even lowered Hepatitis B cases on a population level? Dr. Nevison’s answer to that question might surprise you.

And if not the vaccine, why did Hepatitis B cases plummet after 1991? Dr. Nevison addressed that question, too.

Subscribe now

The first slide Dr. Nevison presented showed acute Hepatitis B cases over time. At first glance, it looks like universal vaccination in 1991 is the reason for the downtrend, but if you look closer, you’ll notice that acute Hepatitis B cases were already falling sharply compared to when they peaked in 1985.

Moreover, if you look at the 20–24 (light blue) and 15–19 (orange) age groups, you’ll notice that the rates of acute hepatitis B were falling long before the vaccination could ever be given credit, because the vaccine would not have an impact on 20–24-year-olds until around 2011–2012, or until 2006–2007 for 15–19-year-olds, Dr. Nevison noted.

As such, Dr. Nevison concluded, “universal birth dose contribution to acute [Hepatitis B] case decline is likely very small.”

Instead of vaccination, Dr. Nevison gave credit to other factors for the sharp decline in acute Hepatitis B:

• “There was better blood screening for the hepatitis B surface antigen, which led to sharp declines in hepatitis B transmitted through transfusion and also through dialysis.”

• “And then this was the 1980s, with concern about AIDS. So there was widespread adoption of safe sex practices.”

• “And then there were needle-exchange programs, which helped curtail transmission through IV drug use.”

• “And also the 1980s saw the beginning of screening and case management for surface antigen–positive mothers and targeted (not universal) vaccination of their infants.”

“So all these factors helped bring down cases both before the universal birth dose was implemented and after,” she said.

Dr. Nevison showed one last slide on this exact subject, and it was both alarming from a health standpoint and quietly devastating for the universal vaccine program. New chronic cases of hepatitis B have risen sharply in people aged 60 or over since 2020.

Dr. Nevison said, “It’s not clear what’s causing this.” However, “what is clear is the universal birth dose is doing nothing to help these older adults who are experiencing disease now and need help.”

What’s promising is that after 34 long years with little to no debate on this topic, there is now growing pressure to question the legitimacy of hepatitis B shots for newborns on the first day of life.

As we noted, only 0.5% of infants are actually at risk of contracting hepatitis B from the mother, and 88% of mothers are screened. Increasing screening compliance rather than universal vaccination makes far more sense because once you rule out mother-to-baby transmission, the likelihood of a child contracting hepatitis B through sexual contact or needle exposure is virtually zero.

And when you consider that there has never been a true placebo-controlled trial comparing long-term outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children for this shot (or any childhood vaccine, for that matter), it becomes difficult to justify why this vaccination is given universally.

With the leaked FDA memo where Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote that at least 10 children died from the COVID shots, perhaps voting members will come to their senses and recognize that overconfidence in vaccines can have deadly consequences, and that this universal hepatitis B vaccine recommendation makes no sense. We can only hope. We’ll see what happens.

Leave a comment

I need your feedback!

Would you like to see more posts like this, where I break down in-depth presentations into a quick and easy read? Was it boring, or do you appreciate the effort? I’d love to hear where you stand.

The Daily Beast just quietly confirmed a “conspiracy theory” about why RFK Jr.’s ex-CDC director was fired.

“Susan Monarez, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s handpicked CDC appointee, was privately assuring health officials that she would reverse her own boss’s directives, according to agency staffers,” the outlet wrote.

This theory was previously mocked as “baseless” and “unfounded,” but now leftist outlets confirm it to be true.

Monarez was actively working against RFK Jr. and made promises to “make changes” to appease CDC staff who were not aligned with RFK Jr.

Subscribe now

“Please wait… When I come, I will make changes,” Monarez reportedly promised CDC’s former chief medical officer, Debra Houry, urging her not to resign.

“Monarez has said that Kennedy then issued her an ultimatum: obey or resign. Just 29 days after her Senate confirmation, she was ousted. Houry quickly followed her out the door,” The Daily Beast reported.

Read the full story here.

Monarez also believed COVID vaccines were medically indicated in children — a belief that is aging worse than rotten milk after a leaked FDA memo confirmed at least 10 children died from the shots.

Once again, conspiracy theory becomes reality. This one took just over three months to become confirmed true.

Leave a comment

Loving father and TV powerhouse Howie Mandel had an unexpected moment on air when his daughter and co-host, Jackie, grew testy with conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly in the studio.

Mandel is known for his upbeat, gentle personality, but when he saw his daughter getting a little too confrontational toward O’Reilly, he stepped in and told her she was being too “woke.”

It all started when O’Reilly laid out what he believes is the most effective and humane way to handle the illegal immigration crisis right now.

Subscribe now

O’REILLY: “Everyone here undocumented right now, and I suggested this to President Trump… has to register with the federal government within 30 days. Everybody has to give the federal government their status, where they live, and whether they’re employed or not.

“Federal government gets that information, and then they run it through the computer system to see if there’s a warrant against those people… If they don’t, then the federal government sends them back a piece of paper or whatever… that allows them not to be picked up. So it’d be like a cop asking for your, ‘Let me see your ID’… That’s the way to do it.”

HOWIE: “That is a good idea.”

JACKIE: “Really? Stop any brown person and say, ‘Show me you’re allowed to be here?’”

HOWIE: “No, no, no. He’s saying—”

JACKIE: “They wouldn’t go up to you and say, ‘Show me that you’re allowed to be here.’”

HOWIE: “No, if they think that somebody’s—”

JACKIE: “Why would they think that?”

HOWIE: “But you’re going two steps ahead.”

O’REILLY: “It’s probable cause.”

JACKIE: “Because of the color of their skin.”

HOWIE: “No, no, you’re being a little more woke. Because that’s not why.”

JACKIE: “Okay. Why would they stop them and ask them if they’re allowed to be here then?”

At this point, O’Reilly was ready to defend himself as she continued to press him, but Howie stayed involved, choosing to handle his daughter himself.

HOWIE: “Probable cause… If they were not a criminal and they knew that there was a pathway and they were going to get a paper that guaranteed that they weren’t going to get swept up by ICE, is that not a good idea?”

WATCH:

The full conversation between O’Reilly, Mandel, and his daughter is available here:

Share

The Schumer Shutdown is finally over. On Wednesday night, the House passed a bill to effectively reopen the government by a vote of 222–209.

Before this vote happened, Democrats openly admitted they were using Americans as hostages, making air travel more dangerous, and putting vulnerable citizens at risk of food insecurity for “leverage.” And after 43 days of pain and suffering, it was all for nothing because they didn’t get what they wanted.

Subscribe now

In the aftermath, AOC attacked the Democrats who voted to reopen the government as “traitors.” Sen. John Fetterman took issue with that on NewsNation, spelling out what “leverage” really means. And he even confronted the “democratic socialists” looking to take over his party.

Cuomo asked Fetterman: “What do you make of the argument that this was your only leverage, and without this, you’re at the mercy of the Republicans, and they don’t want to cut costs?”

Fetterman’s response exposed the real cost of using a government shutdown as “leverage.”

“No. I refuse to use American citizens, [make] food insecure, not pay our military — they are NOT my leverage,” he responded firmly.

“Those are fellow citizens. Those are the ones that I defend; those ones that I fight for. Some of them are the most vulnerable ones. I refuse to put them in the middle. Again, it’s a fundamental betrayal of what I think is our core party’s values.”

Moments later, Cuomo threw another question at Fetterman — to which he used the opportunity to fire off a blunt message to AOC, Bernie Sanders, and every “Democratic socialist” in his party.

CUOMO: “Do you believe this [government shutdown] may be, at least in part, about your party changing… that this may be a moment where [the democratic socialists] want to take over the party?”

To that, Fetterman delivered this blunt reality check: “I promise you America’s future and my party’s future is not socialism or kinds of outlandish, far-left kinds of ideas.”

He even said outright that the far-left wing is the reason Democrats are in this political hole.

“It’s been a year [since] we lost the election. And part of those ideas pushed our party over the cliff. And that’s why we’re in this situation right now. That’s why we’re firmly in the minority, and that’s why we’ve lost control of the White House.”

Fetterman kept going, drawing a clear line between what wins and what loses.

“If you think [socialism] is a solution, that’s fine, but it’s going to be a competition of ideas, and we know that’s not going to prevail,” Fetterman said.

“What’s going to prevail is common sense. What’s going to prevail is choosing this country over the extreme in our party. What’s going to prevail is common sense,” he stressed.

“And I do believe… we should respond [to Trump] with order and logic and patriotism and not shutting down our government right now,” Fetterman argued.

“And that’s where I’m at. And I don’t know why that’s controversial. That’s not a big tent party if you’re not allowed to have the opinion that it’s wrong to shut our government down and put these people in the middle of it — and now refer to [Democrats wanting to open up the government] as ‘You’re a traitor’ or these other kinds of labels.”

Fetterman continues to prove he’s a rare kind of Democrat, opposing government shutdowns, refusing to call Republicans “Nazis,” and now pushing back against the rising popularity of socialism.

He sees the writing on the wall, and he’s slamming the brakes before more cities learn the hard way what New York City is about to suffer with Mamdani in charge.

Share

CNN’s “expert” political panel gloated in victory as conservative commentator Scott Jennings issued a blunt warning to the Democratic Party on Tuesday night.

The results are in, and it’s official. New Jersey and Virginia elected Democratic governors. Zohran Mamdani will be the next mayor of New York City, and arguably worst of all, Jay Jones — the Democrat wishing for death on his political opponents and his children — won Virginia’s attorney general race.

The wins of Mamdani and Jones, in particular, Jennings called a “terrible” image for the Democratic Party — one he warned would come back to haunt them. “You own this now,” he said bluntly.

Jennings’ warning began with Mamdani’s win, when he issued this message to Chuck Schumer: “AOC is going to be the next senator from New York.”

But the real warning came when he shifted his focus to Jay Jones.

Subscribe now

“I see the energy in Virginia Democrats looking the other way on a violent candidate for attorney general who says he wants to murder Republicans and their children. If you think you’re getting rid of Graham Platner in Maine now, think again. This is a terrible night for the national Democratic image given what is happening inside their party.”

Jennings continued: “Mamdani is an avowed socialist. It’s not what people say that he is. It’s what he says that he is. He’s now the leader of their party. That’s their energy and Chuck Schumer’s —”

Anderson Cooper cut in, mocking the idea: “[Mamdani’s] the leader of the Democratic Party?”

“Who is the leader? Can someone tell me?” Jennings shot back.

“He’s a life raft for Republicans who have to go on TV and get their asses kicked,” David Axelrod responded with a big smile.

Even as the panel laughed him off, Jennings doubled down on his warning about Mamdani and Jones: “You own this now. You all own this now.”

Share

Republicans are taking heavy losses tonight, with Democrats dominating key races across multiple states.

Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial race. Democrat Mikie Sherrill secured New Jersey. And NewsNation just called New York’s mayoral race in favor of Zohran Mamdani.

Subscribe now

It looks like a bad omen for a midterm nightmare. But not so fast, says conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly, whose words on NewsNation went viral.

O’Reilly explained, “[Tonight’s results] have nothing to do with the midterms” — to which Cuomo replied, “You better hope.”

But Cuomo’s expression turned from confident to confused when O’Reilly said: “Between now and this next year… it’s going to be a completely different country than it is now.”

“Now, I can’t predict which way that’s going to go.” O’Reilly continued.

Looking stumped, Cuomo interjected: “Then how do you know it’s going to be a completely different country?”

“Because there are so many things that have to be decided. There are too many undecideds,” O’Reilly explained.

“And you can start with the Supreme Court ruling on the tariffs… That will give Trump then a free field to see if, in the next eight months, the tariffs can kick in to bring prices down and to help people. That’s what the midterms are all about. It’s about economics here. It’s not about China. It’s not even about Putin. It’s about that.”

In other words, “It’s the economy, stupid.” And Trump now has exactly one year to make Americans feel like it’s working for them.

Leave a comment

44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, is increasingly inserting himself as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party as it looks to pick up new seats in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

In a recent conversation with journalist Heather Cox Richardson, whose Substack he personally endorsed, Obama said the quiet part out loud: “We’re going to have to start experimenting with new forms of journalism” with “government regulatory constraints.”

Subscribe now

“Part of what we’re going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism and how we use social media in ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion. We want diversity of opinion. We don’t want diversity of facts. That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media. By the way, it will require some government regulatory constraints…” Obama said.

He added that this should be done in a way “that’s consistent” with the First Amendment, while paradoxically arguing that platforms should crack down on speech “in the sense of inciting violence,” something already not protected under the First Amendment.

“There is a difference between letting all voices be heard versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence, voices,” he continued. “That I think is going to be a big challenge for all of us to undertake.”

Cyber expert and former Trump official Mike Benz reacted to Obama’s remarks, saying: “F*ck this guy. His whole apparatus is set up to end the First Amendment. He’s coordinating with foreign governments to end free speech in America. And he spied and lied and did every dirty trick in the book along the way.”

This call to suppress the “most hateful” and “most polarizing” voices is especially chilling because those terms are so vague that they can easily be weaponized to silence critics of government policy.

In the UK, police make over 30 arrests a day for “offensive” online messages under broad communications laws, which goes to show just how fast speech rules can get out of control.

A large part of this criminalizing of so-called “offensive messages” targets criticism of unchecked immigration policies—policies that have led to the rape of countless British girls and are now being used to justify digital IDs, with compliance required to keep the “right to work.”

It’s a dystopian playbook: create or exacerbate a problem, silence the critics of the problem, and then push in a new control mechanism (digital IDs) to tighten the grip on society.

Obama’s words may sound nice, even reasonable to unsuspecting populations: “Yeah, we should crack down on hateful and dangerous speech,” some might say.

But what he’s proposing is the dream of every modern tyrant: regulation of facts, deciding who gets amplified and who gets silenced, and dictating what kind of speech is considered “appropriate” online.

Some of you may not be happy with Trump, but after what Democrats did during COVID with the censorship-industrial complex, it’s hard not to see where this road leads. If Democrats regain full control, the First Amendment may not survive.

Leave a comment

Democrats are about to get MUCH ANGRIER after hearing what John Fetterman just said on Fox News.

As they threaten to primary him, Fetterman’s doubling down — calling out the rot inside his own party.

Hannity sat back and enjoyed every second as Fetterman torched Democrats for abandoning common sense just to spite Trump.

By the end, Hannity was so impressed, he half-jokingly asked Fetterman to join the Republican Party.

Subscribe now

A major meltdown in the Democratic Party started last week after John Fetterman appeared at a NewsNation town hall and did what few in Washington have even attempted — he tried to turn the temperature down.

There, he said: “I know and I love people who voted for President Trump. They are NOT fascists, they’re NOT Nazis, they’re NOT trying to destroy the Constitution.”

“I REFUSE to call people Nazis or fascists. I would never compare anybody—anybody to Hitler.”

At that same town hall, Fetterman also shared an inconvenient truth about his own party’s talking points on the shutdown, pointing out how health care subsidies were “DESIGNED by the Democratic Party to expire at the end of the year,” adding, “This is NOT something taken by the Republicans.”

Now, Democrats are threatening to primary him.

But those threats don’t seem to be working. On Hannity Wednesday night, Fetterman doubled down on every comment that angered Democrats — and threw in a few new ones for good measure.

He began by saying Charlie Kirk’s death proved his party’s “extreme rhetoric” has gone too far.

“I refuse to do those kinds of things [call people fascists and Nazis] because that kind of extreme rhetoric makes it easier for those kinds of extreme actions, like what happened to poor Charlie Kirk,” Fetterman said.

“It’s like, that’s just basic humanity there… I refuse to be a part of comparing people to Hitler and those things because if that’s what’s required to win, then I refuse to.”

From there, Fetterman exposed how Democrats are letting their own base GO HUNGRY over the shutdown just to score political points against Trump.

“Two million Pennsylvanians depend on SNAP to help feed themselves and their families. Two million,” Fetterman stressed.

“And now that’s going to be suspended because our government is shut down. I can’t ever vote for that kind of mass food insecurity like that.”

He’s right: according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, millions could lose access to food benefits if the budget impasse continues. Currently, the website looks like this.

And yet, party leaders seem more focused on defying Trump than on feeding families.

To threats of being primaried, Fetterman issued this defiant message:

“I’m not afraid of telling the truth. I’ll be the Democrat that refuses to lie to the base and pretend that this [shutting the government down] is right. I’m proud to stand with Israel. I’m proud to say that we need to secure our border. I think it’s entirely appropriate to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities.

“And now I refuse to call on my fellow citizens as they’re fascists or Nazis or those things. And if somebody wants to primary me or the party wants to vote me out, it’s like I’m going to go down being honest and telling you that this is wrong to do these kinds of things. And I refuse to do that. I think we need to be a big, big tent party. That doesn’t sound like it.”

At the end of the interview, Fetterman spent two full minutes torching his own party for abandoning common sense just to spite Trump.

The music told Fetterman to wrap it up, but he just kept going — raving about how much he LOVES Trump’s “No Tax on Tips” and how disgraceful it was for Democrats to not stand and clap for Laken Riley’s family at the State of the Union.

On top of that, he said, “I will never understand why it’s controversial to round up and deport all of the criminals here that are in our nation. And I’m proud to just agree that we need to secure our border.”

Hannity loved it so much, he half-jokingly asked Fetterman to join the Republican Party by the end.

Fetterman continues to prove he’s a rare kind of Democrat — one that, in his own words, puts country over party, and speaks uncomfortable truths.

As he said himself, if the Democratic Party takes him down, he’ll be remembered as “the Democrat that refuses to lie to the base and pretend that this is right.”

Share

Tucker Carlson had a raw, unscripted moment Tuesday evening while speaking at Indiana University during a Turning Point USA event.

While taking questions from students, one “annoying” heckler hijacked nearly nine minutes of Carlson’s time—accusing him of spreading “disinformation” before claiming he had a net worth of $50 million.

The accusation visibly angered Carlson, who regrettably blurted out the F-bomb on-stage.

The student then admitted he had made the number up, before using Jesus’s name in vain — a remark that escalated Carlson’s anger into a rage.

WATCH:

Subscribe now

HECKLER: “Like, you’re worth 50 million dollars.”

TUCKER: “I’m not worth $50 million.”

HECKLER: “30 to 50 [million].”

TUCKER: “Get off the F*CKING internet, son. Stop believing that stuff.”

Realizing he had broken his vow not to curse, Tucker apologized, saying, “Sorry, sorry, sorry,” as he covered his face with his palms.

HECKLER: “No, but I’m just. Look—”

TUCKER: “You’re too annoying. So I like the last chick who disagreed with me, and then we could have a normal conversation. But you’re, like, telling me [I’m] worth $50 million. What? Stop.”

HECKLER: “You got real defensive there. I—I just thread a number. That’s, like, a lot of money. Jesus Christ, calm down.”

That’s when Tucker’s anger erupted into full fury as he ordered the liberal to step away from the microphone.

TUCKER: “Don’t use that phrase. We’re done.”

HECKLER: “Well, look.”

TUCKER: “Just stop.”

HECKLER: “Can I say one thing?”

TUCKER: “No, you can’t. Not after you say that. LEAVE!”

Knowing he had messed up big, the heckler gave up. “Alright,” he muttered, walking off in shame as the crowd cheered his departure.

Watch the full exchange here:

Share

It’s not every day you see Stephen Colbert take shots at his own side of the political spectrum. But that’s what happened Monday night on The  Late Show as Colbert got in a heated exchange with former White House press secretary Karine Jean‑Pierre.

Subscribe now

For two full years as press secretary, Jean-Pierre straight-up misled the American people about the cognitive capacity of Joe Biden, offering claims such as:

• Claimed Biden “passes a cognitive test every day — every day as he moves from one topic to another topic.”

• Insisted “80 is the new 40” when pressed about Biden’s age and fitness for office.

• Asserted that President Biden was “as sharp as ever,” despite increased media scrutiny following his debate performance.

And she continues to push similar claims today as she promotes her new book, Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.

In her book, Jean-Pierre claims Biden’s ousting was a “betrayal” by the Democrats — a “firing squad,” she writes.

Colbert took issue with this claim (which triggered the exchange). By the end of the debate, Colbert grew so tired of Jean-Pierre’s spin that he started talking down to her like a child.

WATCH:

COLBERT: “I saw a guy who I had not seen backstage… It seemed like a dramatically different person. And at 81 years old, that’s not entirely unexpected. You can imagine why people got so worried.”

KJP: “No one is saying that he didn’t age. I’m talking about did he have… the mental acuity, was he able to govern? And the man that I saw nearly every day was someone who was engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first.”

COLBERT: “I don’t think anybody questioned his heart or his policies. But it takes more than that to be the President of the United States. And in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us, and nothing could assuage that worry. So I don’t think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, ‘We don’t think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.’”

KJP: “I saw every day a really ugly assault on someone who had 50-plus years of experience and who, again, objectively had done a good job as President of the United States. And it was heartbreaking to see that type of behavior.”

COLBERT: “What happened was the debate performance. Everything is downstream of that.”

KJP: “And no one is saying that the debate performance wasn’t shocking, wasn’t a disappointment. No one is saying that.”

COLBERT: “Disappointment is such a light term.”

KJP: “I use your words.”

COLBERT: “It was harrowing (sarcasm). Look, listen, we’re never going to agree on this.”

KJP: “We’re not.”

COLBERT: “Other than the fact that I’m glad that you came here tonight, and I’m telling you to wrap over there. Would you like to say one more thing before we go?”

Leave a comment

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is once again making headlines as he delivered a heartfelt message from the stage of the Kennedy Center during a NewsNation town hall on Wednesday evening.

Fetterman’s words could not have come at a better time. Just over a month ago, the world watched in horror as Charlie Kirk was brutally murdered in broad daylight. Just a year earlier, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had two assassination attempts on his life.

And so, as rising political tensions increasingly spill into violence, Fetterman did something few in Washington have even attempted — he tried to turn the temperature down.

Subscribe now

Fetterman shared how he grew up in a family of Republican voters, giving him a unique perspective that prompted this much-needed message: “I know and I love people who voted for President Trump. They are NOT fascists, they’re NOT Nazis, they’re NOT trying to destroy the Constitution.”

“I REFUSE to call people Nazis or fascists. I would never compare anybody — anybody to Hitler,” Fetterman continued.

He then offered a plea for empathy over partisanship: “Like Charlie Kirk, all I could say is let people grieve — give people the space. I’m not going to use that terrible thing and that assassination to make my argument and try to put out my views.”

“It’s like, my God, he’s a father that had his neck blown out by a bullet. And now people have forgotten: President Trump was in my state — was shot in the head. Could you imagine where our nation would be if he were hit in the same way as Kirk? We really got to turn the temperature down,” Fetterman pleaded.

To close out his message, Fetterman reflected on how the parties are so divided that they can’t even agree to keep the government open, saying he “just can’t take it.”

Popular X account @mazemoore responded to Fetterman’s words, saying, “Good for him. And thank you. The only sane Democrat.”

Ellie A said: “God bless him for being willing to tell the truth. He’s spot on here.”

Paul A. Szypula reacted with pessimism: “Democrat lawmakers won’t listen to a word he says. They’re a lost cause.”

Leave a comment

Moments later, Fetterman had another party-defying moment — exposing an uncomfortable truth about his own party’s role in the shutdown crisis.

“I would love to have a conversation about extending the tax credits for health care. Absolutely. But I would remind everybody, too, this was DESIGNED by the Democratic Party to expire at the end of the year. This is NOT something taken by the Republicans. They were designed to expire,” Fetterman said.

The senator was referring to the expiration of pandemic-era health care subsidies originally included in the 2021 American Rescue Plan. Many Democrats had blamed Republicans for the lapse, but Fetterman reminded them that the end date was written by their own hand.

Fetterman continues to prove he’s a rare kind of Democrat — one that, in his own words, puts country over party, and speaks uncomfortable truths.

Share

I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!

What would convince you to upgrade to a paid subscription? Your feedback shapes what I do next and helps me make this Substack page even better for you.

Subscribe now

The wife of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entered enemy territory Tuesday morning as she sat down with the ladies of The View for what quickly became an unforgettable exchange.

Cheryl Hines had a raw, unfiltered moment as she clapped back at criticisms of Bobby’s stance on vaccines, transforming what began as a polite discussion into a bold challenge of how society treats parents of vaccine-injured children.

Subscribe now

Joy Behar asked the question: “It seems as though Bobby and Trump are casting doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine, which makes Americans very nervous. So that’s the problem that we’re having.”

Hines took on Behar’s criticism calmly, pointing out that the US government’s vaccine injury compensation program has only paid out $5.4 billion to victims since its inception 39 years ago.

But it was her next line that sparked tension in the room.

Hines asked: “Can we do better? Can we make [vaccines] them safer? Can we listen to parents who say, ‘My child got the vaccine and changed and stopped hitting markers, stopped developing the way they were developing.’ Can we listen to people when they say that, instead of saying, ‘You’re crazy’?”

The remark clearly struck a nerve with Behar, who shot back with: “But you want to listen to scientists.”

Leave a comment

On a related note, health journalist and film producer Del Bigtree put a massive spotlight on the dangers of the vaccine schedule with his new film, An Inconvenient Study, which released on October 12. The film focused on a study so damning that it’s been buried for five years because the lead author feared it would destroy his career.

That fear was caught on hidden camera, as Dr. Marcus Zervos, the study’s lead author, openly confessed why he refused to publish the results, saying, “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

Here’s what the study revealed:

• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to have asthma.

• Three times higher risk for atopic diseases (like eczema).

• Nearly six times higher risk for autoimmune disorders — a category that includes over 80 different diseases.

• 5.5 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

• 2.9 times more motor disabilities.

• 4.5 times more speech disorders.

• Three times more developmental delays.

• Six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

• In nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were ZERO cases of ADHD, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders.

• The study’s conclusion was devastating. It stated: “[I]n contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.”

Read the study for yourself or watch the film at aninconvenientstudy.com

Share

Health journalist and film producer Del Bigtree has just released his new film An Inconvenient Study, which follows Bigtree’s years-long exchange with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, a doctor who is about as pro-vaccine as they come.

Subscribe now

In 2016, Dr. Zervos crossed paths with Bigtree, who urged him to take on something public health had avoided for decades: a study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Dr. Zervos agreed, determined to prove Bigtree and other vaccine skeptics wrong. At the time, he vowed, “Whatever the results, they get published.”

Both the buried study and the film are now available for everyone to see.

Before diving into Zervos’s findings, the film laid out prior evidence raising serious questions about vaccine safety.

One striking example came from Dr. Peter Aaby. Once a vaccine believer, Dr. Aaby became a skeptic after discovering that the DTP vaccine he helped promote for African children led to 2.3 times higher mortality among the vaccinated.

Decades after launching the DTP program in Guinea-Bissau, Dr. Aaby realized only half the children there had received the shot — giving him a perfect comparative study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The DTP vaccine did protect against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but there was also more than a twofold increase in overall mortality. The results stunned Aaby, who now speaks openly about what he discovered.

“It’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing. We don’t,” he now teaches.

The film then turned to Dr. Paul Thomas, who had his license suspended after publishing this study.

Dr. Thomas studied 3,324 children and found unvaccinated kids had fewer doctor visits and better health outcomes.

Here’s what his data showed:

• Fever – 9.1× higher in vaccinated

• Ear Pain – 3.4× higher

• Otitis Media (Ear Infections) – 2.9× higher

• Conjunctivitis – 2.4× higher

• Eye Disorders (Other) – 1.8× higher

• Asthma – 5.2× higher

• Allergic Rhinitis (Hay Fever) – 6.9× higher

• Sinusitis – 4.3× higher

• Breathing Issues – 2.9× higher

• Anemia – 5.5× higher

• Eczema – 4.5× higher

• Urticaria (Hives) – 2.1× higher

• Dermatitis – 1.4× higher

• Behavioral Issues – 4.1× higher

• Gastroenteritis – 4.7× higher

• Weight/Eating Disorders – 2.5× higher

• ADHD – 0 cases in the unvaccinated group

(Data based on how often children visited the doctor for each condition)

Instead of investigating his findings, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas’s license just days after his study was published. Months later, the study was retracted.

This set the stage for the recurring problem behind the vax vs. unvax dilemma: these studies weren’t rejected for weak data — they were rejected because the data was unwelcome. Time and again, the findings were dismissed simply because they didn’t come from top-tier institutions or appear in major medical journals.

That reality led Bigtree to recruit Dr. Marcus Zervos to run such a study. Dr. Zervos was one of the leading infectious disease doctors in the country, and Henry Ford Health was a respected medical center with one of the nation’s largest patient databases.

Bigtree saw Dr. Zervos as the perfect candidate to conduct a large-scale vax vs. unvax study that could track children over time. He told Dr. Zervos this was his opportunity to prove the anti-vaxxers wrong — an angle that convinced him to take on the study.

Dr. Zervos agreed, and the study was completed in 2020. As Bigtree anticipated, the results were devastating for the vaccinated — but there was one major problem: Dr. Zervos chose not to publish the study.

In 2022, Bigtree convinced Dr. Zervos to sit down and explain why. Knowing the importance of the moment, he recorded the conversation on hidden camera.

There, Dr. Zervos openly admitted on tape why he chose not to publish the data. He said bluntly, “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

Here’s what the study revealed:

• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to have asthma.

• Three times higher risk for atopic diseases (like eczema).

• Nearly six times higher risk for autoimmune disorders — a category that includes over 80 different diseases.

• 5.5 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

• 2.9 times more motor disabilities.

• 4.5 times more speech disorders.

• Three times more developmental delays.

• Six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

• In nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders.

• The study’s conclusion is devastating. It states: “[I]n contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.”

The film also highlighted a revealing graph that mirrors national data showing 54% of American children have at least one chronic condition.

Vaccinated kids: 57% chance of developing a chronic disease in the first 10 years of life.

Unvaccinated kids: Only 17%.

In simpler terms, the study showed that children who are vaccinated are more than three times more likely to have a chronic disease than unvaccinated children after a 10-year period.

That’s a result Bigtree says “should shock everyone.”

Read the study for yourself and watch the film at aninconvenientstudy.com

Share