Michael Shearer

He believes you have to prove before you give a vaccine to a healthy person that there is no harm.

Whereas the scientific community for the last century has basically said, well, look, if we can prove there's enormous benefit, that's enough, and then we'll monitor for harm.

But it's a different sort of framework he's bringing to it.

Yeah, I think that, you know, there's a lot of topics that are talked about here.

And I think a number of the things he's pushing forward on, including the chronic disease stuff, are very popular, broadly embraced.

I mean, like the idea that food stamps are used to pay for sugary colas, which are clearly causing health effects.

That's now a broad bipartisan view.

And I think a lot of the scientific community is fully on board with that.

On the question of vaccines, there are scientists who—you know, everyone will admit that we don't know everything about these vaccines.

Billions of doses are given of these vaccines.

We don't know everything.

But we don't know everything about—

almost everything in our lives.

And the question is, how skeptical do we want to be about vaccines?

How much do we want to devote our resources and time and to pull back on using vaccines while we find out?

And there were vaccinologists I talked to who said, look, I am open to...

you know, a new study about autism and the first-year vaccines.

We can do that.

We just have to structure it in the right way.

There are confounding variables we have to account for.