Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

I'm talking about population-wide. I'm not talking about the individual.

And I think probably that's why they go in there. But scientists are corruptible. And the way that I can tell you that is that I've brought over 500 lawsuits, and almost all of them involve scientific controversies. And there are scientists on both sides in every one. When we sued Monsanto, on the Monsanto side, there was a Yale scientist, a Stanford scientist, and a Harvard scientist.

And I think probably that's why they go in there. But scientists are corruptible. And the way that I can tell you that is that I've brought over 500 lawsuits, and almost all of them involve scientific controversies. And there are scientists on both sides in every one. When we sued Monsanto, on the Monsanto side, there was a Yale scientist, a Stanford scientist, and a Harvard scientist.

And I think probably that's why they go in there. But scientists are corruptible. And the way that I can tell you that is that I've brought over 500 lawsuits, and almost all of them involve scientific controversies. And there are scientists on both sides in every one. When we sued Monsanto, on the Monsanto side, there was a Yale scientist, a Stanford scientist, and a Harvard scientist.

And on our side, there was a Yale, Stanford, and Harvard scientist, and they were saying exactly the opposite things. In fact, there's a word for those kind of scientists who take money for their opinion, and the word is biostitutes. And they are very, very common. And I've been dealing with them my whole career.

And on our side, there was a Yale, Stanford, and Harvard scientist, and they were saying exactly the opposite things. In fact, there's a word for those kind of scientists who take money for their opinion, and the word is biostitutes. And they are very, very common. And I've been dealing with them my whole career.

And on our side, there was a Yale, Stanford, and Harvard scientist, and they were saying exactly the opposite things. In fact, there's a word for those kind of scientists who take money for their opinion, and the word is biostitutes. And they are very, very common. And I've been dealing with them my whole career.

I think it was Upton Sinclair who said that it's very difficult to persuade a man of a fact if the existence of that fact will diminish his salary. And I think that's true for all of us. We find a way of reconciling ourselves to truths and worldviews actually benefit our salaries.

I think it was Upton Sinclair who said that it's very difficult to persuade a man of a fact if the existence of that fact will diminish his salary. And I think that's true for all of us. We find a way of reconciling ourselves to truths and worldviews actually benefit our salaries.

I think it was Upton Sinclair who said that it's very difficult to persuade a man of a fact if the existence of that fact will diminish his salary. And I think that's true for all of us. We find a way of reconciling ourselves to truths and worldviews actually benefit our salaries.

Now, NIH has probably the worst system, which is that scientists who work for NIH, NIH itself, which used to be the premier gold standard scientific agency in the world, everybody looked at NIH and said, today it's just an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs. And the That is that gravity of economic self-interest.

Now, NIH has probably the worst system, which is that scientists who work for NIH, NIH itself, which used to be the premier gold standard scientific agency in the world, everybody looked at NIH and said, today it's just an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs. And the That is that gravity of economic self-interest.

Now, NIH has probably the worst system, which is that scientists who work for NIH, NIH itself, which used to be the premier gold standard scientific agency in the world, everybody looked at NIH and said, today it's just an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs. And the That is that gravity of economic self-interest.

Because if NIH itself collects royalties, they have margin rights for the patents on all the drugs that they work on. So with the Moderna vaccine, which they promoted incessantly and aggressively— NIH on 50% of that vaccine is making billions and billions of dollars on it.

Because if NIH itself collects royalties, they have margin rights for the patents on all the drugs that they work on. So with the Moderna vaccine, which they promoted incessantly and aggressively— NIH on 50% of that vaccine is making billions and billions of dollars on it.

Because if NIH itself collects royalties, they have margin rights for the patents on all the drugs that they work on. So with the Moderna vaccine, which they promoted incessantly and aggressively— NIH on 50% of that vaccine is making billions and billions of dollars on it.

And there are at least four scientists that we know of, and probably at least six at NIH who themselves have margin rights for those patents. So if you are a scientist who work at NIH, you work on a new drug, You then get margin rights and you're entitled to royalties of $150,000 a year forever from that, forever.

And there are at least four scientists that we know of, and probably at least six at NIH who themselves have margin rights for those patents. So if you are a scientist who work at NIH, you work on a new drug, You then get margin rights and you're entitled to royalties of $150,000 a year forever from that, forever.

And there are at least four scientists that we know of, and probably at least six at NIH who themselves have margin rights for those patents. So if you are a scientist who work at NIH, you work on a new drug, You then get margin rights and you're entitled to royalties of $150,000 a year forever from that, forever.

Your children, your children's children, as long as that product's on the market, you can collect royalties. So you have, you know, Moderna vaccine is paying for the top people at NIH, you know, some of the top regulators. It's paying for their boats. It's paying for their mortgages. It's paying for their children's education.