BUCK: Are you ready to get your shot every year? And I mean every year. And by “shot” I mean the covid vaccine that they’re gonna keep updating. I know a lot of you are shouting “No!” But the CEO of Pfizer, he’s got a different plan in mind. We’ll talk about this in a second. We’ve been calling this out for now over a year. This was gonna be the plan. More on this one. And, yes, we were right once again. We’re joined on this issue of where we stand in the fight against covid tyranny by our friend Ian Miller of OutKick.com. That’s right. He went to work with Clay at OutKick. Smart man. He also is the author of Unmasked. Ian, is Clay being nice?
MILLER: (laughing) Absolutely. He’s been great so far. Been thrilled. It’s really exciting.
BUCK: Fantastic. Expect nothing less. So, tell me, my friend, this has… Let’s play the CEO of Pfizer, Bourla, telling everybody yeah, shots every year. Let’s play that, that audio.
BUCK: Ian, you’ve been on this all along doing great research. They’re straight up telling us — and now the head of Pfizer says — yeah, your mRNA shots forever. That’s the plan.
MILLER: Right. And it’s kind of absurd that he says it that way, because they haven’t updated it so far, even though we’ve had multiple different variants. And, as we’ve seen, sometimes there will be three or four different variants that emerge in a year, and so is he saying he’s gonna update three or four times a year?
You’re supposed to get three or four shots a year, or is he gonna update for the first strain that emerges, which will then be too late, because we’ll have two other ones by the end of the year? You know, on top of the fact that the effectiveness of the vaccines has clearly been waning, not just in terms of infections but in terms of hospitalizations as well. So, it’s just kind of absurd and it honestly feels like they’re just trying to sell more product going forward.
CLAY: Yeah, that’s the part, Ian, that really jumps out to me. If you had a federal mandate that someone had to buy a for-profit product — and that they had to do it every year as far into the future as you could see — wouldn’t that raise a lot of red flags for many people and/or shouldn’t it, in addition to the fact that it’s not working very well?
An annual subscription vaccine — and “vaccine” is in quotation marks — is probably the best recurring profit margin that Pfizer could ever hope for, given how large the addressable market is and how many places are requiring that that market continue to buy that product? Take it outside of just covid shots; it feels incredibly dirty to me that we’re even in this situation.
MILLER: Absolutely. It’s hard to imagine a better business model than saying, “We have to update our product every year and the federal government’s gonna mandate that you take it for many contractors or employers, government employees.” On top of that, you see things like colleges that are mandating booster shots for healthy 18 and 19-year-old college students and I recently read about a story.
A Stanford student was gonna be banned from receiving his diploma, banned from graduating because he refused to comply with their booster mandate, even though he’d already had covid. That’s another aspect of this that is completely forgotten often is that CDC has estimated 75% of kids have already had covid, and yet a lot of schools are gonna be mandating the full series of vaccinations, then a booster, and now presumably boosters indefinitely for kids that have already been exposed to covid and have some natural immunity and protection.
BUCK: We’re speaking to Ian Miller of OutKick.com. Also got a great book, Unmasked, and he was the going for any of you on Twitter who was sharing out the graphs of mask mandates all along and where they went into effect and how they didn’t work, over and over again. In fact, they didn’t work anywhere, and yet we still have people — I saw people today, Clay, even down here wear masks. People are still voluntarily, not under mandate, but the Democrat Fauci apparatus still believes in this stuff.
Ian, I want to ask you also what your sense is about this. From the very beginning of the covid pandemic we were told — and it’s become I think seared into our brains — that this was a once-in-a-century pandemic, they spent trillions of dollars. All of that money, as we see now, was poorly spent, didn’t actually help anything, and has created massive inflation. But Biden’s out there telling everybody, “Well, it’s time is to set up more spending for the next pandemic,” as if it’s right around the corner.
Here’s what the Biden White House is saying about this. Play that cut, please.
VOICE: How many of the nation’s kids will you be able to get vaccinated from you need more money from Congress?
BIDEN: Well, we’ll get through at least this year. We — we do need more money. We don’t just need more money for vaccines for children eventually. We need more money to plan for the second pandemic. There’s gonna be another pandemic! We have to think ahead.
BUCK: So, first of all, you need more money for shots for kids that kids don’t actually need based on the data and Biden seems very certain that the next once-in-a-century pandemic is right around the corner.
MILLER: (laughing) Yeah. It’s very concerning to hear them say that. And of course that money will be distributed to the same public health bureaucrats and supposed experts that have completely failed during this once-in-a-century pandemic. All the measures they did, the interventions have completely failed. That’s what the book is about. It’s what a lot of my writing’s been about, showing that all the things we did that we’re now experiencing has had huge, tremendous unintended consequences and side effects, they all failed.
So in response to that, which most people now universally kind of agree that it was a failure. In response, we need to give them more money to prepare for whatever next once-in-a-century pandemic is coming — and that’s a major concern that all these measures that seem don’t work are gonna continue to be brought back in the future now because the public health experts and bureaucrats have decided they work based off of no data whatsoever.
CLAY: Ian, you just mentioned that 75% of kids, based on data from the spring, have already been exposed to covid. Yesterday kids ages 6 months to 5 years old became eligible for covid shots. And again, some of them are gonna have to get three shots. This is, as you heard from the Pfizer CEO, potentially going to be going forward for years to come. You wrote about the data at OutKick and did a great job there. What would you tell parents out there listening to us right now the data shows about the efficacy levels for six months to 5-year-olds’ covid shots given the fact that 75% of these kids essentially have already had covid at least?
MILLER: Right. Well, I think the data has shown pretty conclusively that natural immunity provides better protection against infections and severe outcomes than the vaccines do for all age-groups. But especially for children, there’s really been no benefit and the trials didn’t even present a benefit. Their own estimates of vaccine efficacy for these age-groups — for, I think it was 6 months to 2 years — was something like 14% against infection and then 30% against severe infection for the slightly older age-groups.
That would have failed the initial standard that the FDA set. They initially wanted 50% of case to emergency authorize the vaccine. This would have failed for kids. But they approved it anyway, because they changed how they measured many it by using something called immunobridging. It’s really ludicrous. And they try to justify it by presenting covid as a leading cause of death for these younger age-groups except the way that they measured the fleeting cause of death ranking was completely misleading.
Which is what I wrote about for OutKick, that they kind of conflated two different ways of counting to make it appear that covid is deadlier for young kids than it actually is. So it’s concerning. It’s another concerning incident of the CDC kind of manipulating data to try to get the outcome that they want. And for parents I would be very hesitant. We don’t have a lot of great, long-term safety data for this age group, and there really was no significant benefit shown by the FDA.
BUCK: Speaking to Ian Miller of OutKick.com. Has a great book on the failure of mask mandates called Unmasked. Ian, I just want to know, based on… You’ve been following the covid issue very closely for a long time now, and it seems to me that when they’re talking about vaccines for kids, covid vaccines for kids and also Omicron-specific vaccines, that we have to assume that it’s gonna be a new, then, multiple dose, right?
Or if not, why not? Because it seems to me that the vaccine that is currently approved for children is a three-dose vaccine as I understand it because the first two showed no real efficacy whatsoever. So they said, “Let’s just give another shot!” Well, if they’re gonna do an Omicron specific shot, wouldn’t that then also likely be three mRNA doses — and, oh, by the way, won’t we probably be facing a non-Omicron new variant this fall again. If not, why not?
MILLER: Yeah, exactly. That’s a great point. This series of three doses, but it’s based off the same vaccine that they’re giving to adults, which I think is different dosages. But it’s three shots and, exactly as you say, if they need to update it for Omicron, is that gonna be another three-dose series, and then for the next variant another three-dose series after that? And, again, by the time they even get the Omicron variant up, there will likely be another new, dominant variant that has popped up.
As we’ve seen, it moves very quickly with strains of the coronavirus. So, again, it’s like we’re trying to do something that doesn’t really have a demonstrable benefit for this age-group, who’s at an incredibly low risk for serious illness from covid anyway. I mean, covid was something like 25-time less likely to cause death among young children than accidents. But and down the road we’re gonna keep adding more and more shots to this series when we don’t really have any long-term data on it yet and we haven’t demonstrated clear benefit. It’s really… To me, it’s inexcusable.
BUCK: Clay, it really is the sixth or the ninth or the 12th shot, though.
CLAY: That will solve it forever?
CLAY: Ian, you wrote a great book about masks and how poorly they worked. By the way, I’d encourage all of you, go follow @ianmSC on Twitter. He does a fantastic job giving you data and analytics surrounding this. Broadway plays — Buck basically lives on Broadway — starting July 1st, no masks.
BUCK: I do. I live above a Broadway theater, essentially, yes.
CLAY: July 1st they are going to end the mask mandate on Broadway plays. Why in the world are they randomly deciding to do this, and has there been any justification whatsoever for wearing masks inside of Broadway plays based on the data that you have seen across the country?
MILLER: Well, of course was not. It’s funny because we’ve had NBA events that are essentially the same thing — 20,000 people in an enclosed arena — going on for months with no negative impacts with no mask requirement. We just saw the NBA Finals with nobody wearing a mask in either of the venues. It’s kind of ludicrous that they’ve conditioned it this thing this is what they do they’ve taken arbitrary date.
“Oh, it will be safe July 1st.” Why not June 28th? Nobody has an explanation. What’s also concerning is they said they’re gonna reevaluate that decision every month. So, you could buy a ticket for a Broadway show expecting to have it be mask free and then the next month they could decide, “Actually we need to bring it back now,” based off of nothing, and then you could have spent $300 on a ticket and be forced to wear a mask. So it is another episode of this kind of ludicrous, arbitrary thinking that the mask fanatics do. And it’s kind of crazy — no matter how much data accumulates — that there are still some segments of the population just can’t give it up.
CLAY: He’s Ian Miller. We’re excited to have him writing at OutKick. You can go check him out at OutKick.com. You can follow him on Twitter @ianmSC. Appreciate the time, my man. Keep up the good work.
MILLER: Thank you very much.