Dr. Simone Gold
speaker
456 appearances
3 recordings
2 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard Jun 2025
Dr. Simone Gold’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
So we, you know, they started bringing out the shots for kids. Yeah. And we sued to stop that. Sued who? That specific lawsuit was probably the CDC. I brought so many, it's hard to recall. That was our very first one in May of 21.
There's none. I'm still bitter.
I'm so glad you mentioned that. So, there's so much to say here. Public Health 101 says you don't inoculate in the middle of a respiratory pandemic. Public Health 101 never held that you inoculate everybody. It was always the high-risk group. And you let it kind of travel through the society. And the lower-risk group, like the kids, kind of spread it. And then grandma, maybe you inoculate grandma.
Like everything was thrown out the window. And so the trust should be lost from the public health because they completely sold out the public health. Right. Well, we don't even know how bad yet. Oh, I think trust in doctors went from 70 or 80 percent to 40 percent. And I think that that's completely appropriate. So in May of 21, they start saying that they want to bring the shots out to the kids.
Now, this is horrific. Why? Because kids were not dying from SARS.
Jesus. Right. The average of four comorbidities and it was like 77 age of death. Longevity was like 76. It was criminal and it was very criminal to do it to the kids.
Why are they doing it to the kids? So there's a whole financial motive, which is if you put it on the vaccine schedule, there's a lot of money involved, et cetera. But we fought that very hard. And I'm pretty proud because we brought that lawsuit in May of 21, and we had been told that they were probably going to release it right around May or June. So we worked really hard to get it out.
And in fact, they didn't release the kids, the shots to the kids until a few months later. So I know we delayed it by a few months. Nonetheless, the moment they rolled it out, you asked why they did it. As soon as the shots were legally able to be given to kids, you then in America saw local jurisdictions that took the power from the parents and gave it to the kids.
So if a kid wanted to get a shot, but the parents were awake and didn't want to have the shot, the kid was able to get the shot themselves. I think the age was 14 in certain local jurisdictions. that became very clear that this was Marxism, which is to take away the parental rights and give them to the state. The state was subbing in for the parents. Now, that's never happened in America before.
In America, you know, the parent has a shine.
Well, fascism, maybe not... I think of Marxism-Fascism as the same. I would say that I was influenced a little bit by my father growing up in a communist nation. So in Russia, a child who went to school, they're 13 years old, might come home from school one day and tell their mom, oh, the dentist pulled two teeth today. Mm-hmm. In other words, the parent wasn't involved in the decision.
Well, it's obvious. You asked me how I thought because it only took two weeks. So in other words, the CDC said you could give it to 14-year-old kids. And then two weeks later, San Francisco and I think Baltimore, but there was a few jurisdictions that allowed 14-year-olds to do it. And I was like, well, isn't that nifty? Parents are expendable now.
That's why I said it's Marxist, because you're separating your parents from each other.
Yeah. So I felt that, and then I kept... Even though we couldn't stop the shots, I was very... heck hell-bent on stopping mandates. So we sued the Department of Defense. We sued UCLA. We sued on behalf of the COVID-recovered soldier, the COVID-recovered college kid. They were saying ludicrous things like natural immunity didn't work. Yeah, right. So we had these really robust arguments.
That's when I learned that judges were really just also quite incurious. And judges... We're very afraid, I think, to even look at what we were writing.
But from a status quo perspective, a judge's natural tendency is to keep the status quo.
Depends on how progressive they are. Or in medicine, it's to be risk averse. Most doctors were telling pregnant women, don't take a bite of sushi, don't have a smoke, don't drink a glass of wine. But all of a sudden, roll up your sleeves and take the new stuff. I'd never seen that in my career. You didn't have doctors saying that. It was bizarre.
I thought it was like, you know, invasion of the body snatchers. It made no sense. It was completely the opposite of how doctors usually acted. And then when we went to judges and we said, judges, look at these, we've got these world-class experts saying, whoa, halt. They were just not doing the job, in my opinion.
and said they couldn't decide, they couldn't figure it out, so they deferred to the executive branch agencies. This is all relevant to being a doctrinal lawyer because last summer, the Supreme Court has pulled away from the executive branch agency deferrals the judges acquiesced to. There was a very important case called In Lope or Bright where the Supreme Court reversed 40 or 50 years
of judges just deferring to the executive branch agencies. It wasn't the NIH or the CDC, but other executive branch agencies. Judges had been given permission in their mind, oh, you know, the executive branch agency, unelected bureaucrat, said to do this, I'm just going to do that. Well, that's what we were coming up against in COVID. We were asking the judges, in retrospect,
Showing 361–380 of 456 · page 19 of 23
← Previous
Next →