In light of this video:

You Won't Believe What's Really In Vaccines | Gavin de Becker #456 | The Way I Heard It

Our favorite criminologist, Gavin de Becker, has written a new book, and it's as terrifying as it is controversial. It's also laugh-out-loud funny, absolutely maddening, and guaranteed to make you wonder about who to trust in these incredibly uncertain times. The book is called Forbidden Facts, and in my life, I've never seen such a short book so thoroughly researched and footnoted. And for good reason. Forbidden Facts outlines a long list of undeniable but inconvenient truths about our medical profession, our pharmaceutical industry, and the reality of why the list of recommended vaccines has more than quadrupled in the last couple decades. Gavin is not an "anti-vaxxer" and goes to great lengths to prove it. But he is outraged by the way in which we've been deceived and manipulated by the institutions we rely on to tell us the truth, and he's brought the receipts. 

Again, every single page of this book contains QR codes that footnote every claim therein. The result is a stunning indictment of our strangely incurious media, Big Pharma, and an assortment of experts who continue to argue—even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary—that the science has been settled. 

Our conversation went on a lot longer than usual, for obvious reasons. Here is Part 1.

Mike Rowe posts a comment made by Ryan McWeeny on his facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe):

Off the Wall

Ryan McWeeny writes…

Sadly, Mike is one of many demonstrably intelligent and reasonable people that has somehow been captivated and caught up in the crossing over from healthy skepticism to conspiratorial mysticism. I will never understand how this happens, but they all eventually become convinced of some thing or another and put the burden of proof on you to disprove their "evidence" which deceptively looks as though it supports their claim by the sheer nature of its unfalsifiability… which is a far cry from it being true.

Ryan McWeeney

Hello, Mr. McWeeny, and thanks for your comment. I found it this morning on a flight to LA, buried in a flurry of similar disappointment regarding my recent conversation with Gavin de Becker about his new book, Forbidden Facts: Government Deceit & Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines." In spite of my "demonstrable intelligence" (thanks for that!), you seem to believe I'm mistaken to be curious about the role vaccines might be having on childhood illness. Obviously, you're not alone. There's a great hew and cry in the comment section today, and more pearl clutching than usual. But I wonder, Mr. McWeeny, what else you might have in common with those who believe the science is settled. Four possibilities come to mind.

1. You didn't read the book (which you can get here. https://bit.ly/4oMAxsz)

2. You didn't watch to the interview (which you can watch here. https://bit.ly/4oKIXRg)

3. You have no intention of doing either (which you can accomplish pretty much anywhere.)

4. You believe, like so many others who actually spelled it out for me (often in CAPS and with multiple exclamation points,) that with respect to all things vaccine-related, "THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN SETTLED!!!"

To your credit, you didn't use those actual words, but lots of others did, and I'm wondering if you share their desire to throw the scientific method out the window at a time when both science and skepticism are so critical to our country. Forgive me if you already know this, but I feel it needs to be said, even from a non-scientist like me.

The Scientific Method has less to do with "settling" and more to do with "testing." This is because scientists are always learning and, therefore, often mistaken. It's the essence of the job. Once upon a time the best minds in science believed the sun revolved around the earth. Later, the finest doctors in America drained most of the blood from George Washington in a failed attempt to save his life. Like bloodletting, lobotomies were very common,l not so long ago, as were tonsillectomies and radical mastectomies. Physicians used to recommend smoking and diets high in sugar, and it was the scientific community who put poor Iggy Semmelweis – the man who paved the way for modern germ theory - into an insane asylum for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands before performing surgery.

Honest question, Mr. McWeeny, for you and all the others who believe Gavin is a "science denier" and I'm some sort of conspiracy nut. Would you have supported Galileo's arrest and imprisonment for daring to question the way our solar system actually worked? Would you have accused him of "putting the burden of proof on you to disprove the evidence by the sheer nature of its unfalsifiability?" Most people alive back then did exactly that I wonder if you'd be among them? I wonder the same about myself.

Not to belabor the point, but scientists are not supposed to be certain; they're supposed to be skeptical – especially when they think they're correct. They're supposed to doubt their own findings, and then, if their findings are peer reviewed and accepted as fact, and a consensus forms, a proper scientist - like a proper journalist - will keep his ego and his personal opinion out of it. They will remain objective, ever mindful that new evidence or new information might demand a new conclusion. Science requires humility, along with curiosity, and most of all, doubt. Your position, Mr. McWeeny, requires arrogance, certainty, and a level of institutional trust that seems naïve in today's environment. And no, you don't need to be a scientist to know this.

Of course, there's another reason I'm open to the possibility that we've been misled, and that's because we've been misled before. Many times. Do you not recall the cover-ups around Agent Orange, Johnson's Baby Powder, the water in Flint Michigan, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Thalidomide Crisis, the Opioid Crisis, or so many others? Have you forgotten the countless experts who assured us that masking, social distancing, and endless boosters were all scientifically sound? Have you forgotten the way our elected officials, our media, and so many of our top scientists demanded – in the immortal words of Eric Cartman - to "respect my authoritay!!! I fear that you have, Mr. McWeeny. And I worry that lots of other people have, too.

I doubt repetition will help my cause, but I'll say it again. I haven't said we've been lied to about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. But I'm certainly open to that possibility, because the evidence is compelling. Childhood diseases have exploded in the last two decades. Is it really "conspiratorial mysticism" to wonder if the exploding vaccine schedule might have something to do with that? I know, correlation does not equal causation, and yes, I'm familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, another popular accusation leveled at me in the comment section. (What else would you expect from a "demonstrably intelligent" non-scientist like me?) But why is it so hard for an educated man such as yourself to understand that we can no longer persuade the masses to believe a claim simply because it's supported by people with the proper credentials? What's the downside of challenging the status quo, especially in light of new data, or conducting new studies to see what the latest research yields?

It's true that Gavin's book is controversial, and it's also true that he is not a scientist. Indeed, he makes the point repeatedly throughout his book and our conversation. But it's also true that he's earned the trust and respect of several dozen world leaders, including several US presidents and countless CEOs who have trusted him with their lives and the lives of their families. He's not some hack writer trying to get rich by riling up the masses. Gavin is already rich. He's also concerned that a lot of Americans have been misled about something profound and consequential. Yes, he is skeptical of the claim that all vaccines are "safe and effective," but every single claim in his book is backed by an astonishing amount of research and data, all of which are accessible through hundreds of QR codes throughout.

So, what's the problem, exactly? Why are you and so many others threatened by a book that encourages people to look beyond the credentials of an expert and a conversation that encourages people to assume a measure of personal responsibility? And why do you suppose there's never been a large, robust, and completely transparent study that compares the health of thousands of vaccinated kids to the overall health of unvaccinated kids? Moreover, why do you think there's so much opposition to conducting and publishing such a study today?

I don't know the answer, Mr. McWeeny, but unlike you, I'm curious to find out.

PS. Gavin's book is #1 in three categories, and he sends his thanks to you all.