ed that BARDA, I guess that must be a government entity that funds a bunch of medical stuff, is cancelling 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts, saving half a billion dollars. And RFK Jr. said the mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. And he says the reason the mRNA is no good for respiratory viruses is that it only takes one mutation which you know is going to come, you know the viruses mutate reliably it’s not like you wonder if they’ll mutate they do and as soon as it mutates by just one thing the mRNA technology just stops working. So he says that even if you did the best mRNA job you could ever do, it still wouldn’t work because there’s such a thing as the virus evolving and it just makes it not work. And he believes that there are other platforms that are non-mRNA that have more potential.

Now, here’s the part where I’m trying to understand the story. As far as I know, he has not banned the giving of the existing COVID shot to adults. Right. I feel like they may have pulled their recommendation for young people and for pregnant women. I don’t know the details of that, but I think that’s not recommended anymore. And we’ve known that for a long time. But is it true that RFK Jr. has cancelled a bunch of vaccine development contracts? So that would be for stuff that’s not rolled out, but that he’s keeping the mRNA based current vaccination recommendations. Is that true? Because there’s more to the story and it gets really murky.

So Steve Bannon had on the War Room HHS special advisor Dr. Stephen Hatfill and he says something RFK Jr. did not say. So it makes me wonder if he has the right narrative on this but he says that RFK Jr. pulled that mRNA funding after the data showed that getting vaccinated was more dangerous than COVID itself. Now, I listened to RFK Jr.’s statement and he didn’t say anything like that. Did you hear him say anything like that?

Now, I’m not saying, let me be careful here because I know that whenever I talk about this topic, many of you will confuse talking about it with promoting it. All right? So we’re not promoting. And I’ll tell you in advance, I don’t know what’s true and what’s not true about this story or about the science. I don’t know what’s true. So I will neither debunk nor recommend anything medical, which is my way. All right? I just don’t do that.

So let me go on. So this guest on Steve Bannon’s War Room, Dr. Steven Hatfill, he said that there was a meta-analysis. Now what have you learned from me when an expert goes on TV and says there was a meta-analysis? What have you learned? What you should have learned is oh it’s not science. A meta-analysis is not science. And they are so susceptible to misuse or being done wrong, a meta-analysis, for reasons I’ve described many times that as soon as your so-called expert says we’ve done a meta-analysis that’s when you should stop believing what they say. They could be right because the meta-analysis will either say something worked or it didn’t work, you know only two possibilities. So even if it’s wrong, it might be wrong in the right direction because there are only two directions, right? It’s a coin flip. So even the wrong analysis could half of the time get you the right answer. It’s only two possibilities, yes or no.

So do you believe that the meta-analysis concluded, as Dr. Hatfill said, that quote it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to get COVID and be hospitalized with it and that the idea was that getting the vaccine made you have worse hospitalization outcomes than if you had not been vaccinated at all.

Now remember, I gave you the warning. I’m not saying that’s true. I’m just reporting to you what other people say is true.

Now, I want to do a little test of your reasoning ability. How many of you said to yourself, those experts who recommended that vaccine, I don’t believe any of those experts, you know, they’ve got their own motivations, etc. So that you rejected the experts when they first told you to get the shot and you said to yourself, “Well, I’m glad I didn’t trust those experts.” And then when you hear this story about the meta-analysis, do you say, “Aha, finally we know the truth.” How many of you did that? How many of you said, “I was sort of just using my instinct to resist the shot.” But now that this meta-analysis is out and people within RFK Jr.’s domain are saying, “Aha, everything was opposite of what you were told.” And the reason we know it’s opposite is because we have all these studies. Okay, that would be bad analysis.

Here would be the correct analysis. You ready? The correct analysis is on day one, hey, I don’t trust all these experts. They haven’t tested it enough and I don’t trust their motivations and/or their competence. Would that have been a reasonable view on day one? Yes. Yes, that would be completely, that was my view. So it’s the reason I didn’t get my shots until months had gone by and I saw who was dying and who wasn’t and all that, but that’s another topic. So it would be totally reasonable, totally reasonable if you said, “I don’t trust these experts.” But would it be reasonable that you trust these latest experts? Why would you trust Dr. Steven Hatfill? I’m not saying he’s wrong. I’m saying that if you don’t apply the same filter, then you’re not being rational. You’re just guessing.

The correct filter is you should not have trusted it when it was first rolled out. You may remember that I predicted it wouldn’t work when it was rolled out. So that was the correct take. The correct take was not trusting it. What is the correct take when you have a whole bunch of new science that says the opposite, that it was really bad for you and they knew it the whole time? Don’t trust it. One of those is probably closer to true, but you don’t have any way of knowing. You and I have no way of knowing if anybody did the science correctly. They’re just claims.

So to round out the story, I will say that at the moment the CDC and the World Health Organization and other experts are still saying that the mRNA technology was a miracle and it saved millions of people’s lives and the science on it is crystal clear. Is that true? I don’t know. It’s either true that it worked or it’s true that it didn’t work. And y