Speaker 1: Imagine being fired for telling the truth. That's exactly what
Speaker 1: happened to a friend of the show. So what I've
Speaker 1: gotten to know throughout COVID doctor Martin Kolder. He's been
Speaker 1: fired from Harvard University, where he's been since two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, twenty one years of dedication. This is a
Speaker 1: man who's a world renowned epidemiologist and biostatistician. This is
Speaker 1: someone for decades who helped the CDC and the FDA
Speaker 1: develop their post market vaccine safety systems. Why was he fired?
Speaker 1: He was fired because he signed the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 1: When he warned us against lockdowns, when he told us
Speaker 1: that kids should be kept in schools, that they should
Speaker 1: be able to continue their lives. He told us the
Speaker 1: truth about natural immunity. This is a man who warned
Speaker 1: us about vaccines too, only telling us that not everyone
Speaker 1: needed to get it. All of this has been proven right,
Speaker 1: yet still fired from Harvard. So how much of this
Speaker 1: is because he just didn't go along with the forced
Speaker 1: scientific status quo. We're going to get his tap on
Speaker 1: why he thinks he was fired also reflect a little
Speaker 1: bit about what we know now since COVID as well.
Speaker 1: He's a really good man. He is brave, he is honest,
Speaker 1: he is fearless. He told us the truth during COVID.
Speaker 1: He has faced big, big consequences as a result of it.
Speaker 1: Trust me, you're not gonna want to miss this conversation
Speaker 1: with doctor Martin Colder. Well, I'll start off saying, doctor
Speaker 1: Martin Colder. Doctor you've asked me to call you Martin,
Speaker 1: but just for the audience's purposes, I was going to
Speaker 1: fuck you, doctor Colder, but I'm going to call you
Speaker 1: Martin throughout the podcast as requested. So I just don't
Speaker 1: want people to think I was disrespecting you. But it's
Speaker 1: always an honor to have you on the show, Stir.
Speaker 1: You've been on before. You're just a truth teller and
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to get into in this episode.
Speaker 1: But I just appreciate you making the time.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for having me on. It's great talking
Speaker 2: to you again.
Speaker 1: You know, So, Martin, I was dismayed, I'm sure as
Speaker 1: you were, to see the news that you've been a
Speaker 1: professor of medicine at Heartard University since two thousand and
Speaker 1: three and they decided to fire you after twenty one
Speaker 1: years of dedication, you know, for more than two decades.
Speaker 1: You helped the CDC, the FDA develop post market vaccine
Speaker 1: safety systems. I mean, you're internationally world renowned and they
Speaker 1: decided to fire you. What was their explanation, Well.
Speaker 3: We had a disagreement with the fundamental issue of science,
Speaker 3: which is infection, the quited immunity. So we've known about
Speaker 3: that since the thetium plague in four thirty BC, so
Speaker 3: for almost two and a half thousand years. By putting
Speaker 3: in the vaccine mandates, they are the fact to denying
Speaker 3: basic science that we're known for a long time, forcing
Speaker 3: people all that it has superior unity to get the vaccine.
Speaker 3: So I argued against vaccine mandates both publicly and also
Speaker 3: privately in my own case. And for example, at Harvard's
Speaker 3: Bringing and Women's at Harvard's mass Teneral mass Dennal Brigham Hospital,
Speaker 3: nazis were working.
Speaker 2: Theyre any care of of.
Speaker 3: COVID patients, and then they get COVID, so they were
Speaker 3: all for a few weeks and then they go back
Speaker 3: to work and they take care of w COVID patients.
Speaker 3: But then when the vaccine came, they are fired because
Speaker 3: they didn't take the vaccine, because they didn't need it.
Speaker 3: They didn't they already had superior immunity from having had COVID,
Speaker 3: And of course that was a decision made by the
Speaker 3: bureaucrats hospital and University of Bureaucrats.
Speaker 2: So I was in the same situation.
Speaker 3: I didn't I never feeded the patients because a matter
Speaker 3: of physician, I'm a PhD, apnologist and the biostatistician, so
Speaker 3: I didn't need it. I have a genetic condition that
Speaker 3: makes me uh a very h uwione deficiency called off
Speaker 3: A one of the tryptian deficiency, so I didn't know
Speaker 3: what the risk was from the vaccine for me.
Speaker 2: And I also thought it was unethical.
Speaker 3: Because all the people they need the vaccines because they
Speaker 3: had the high risk of dying from COVID. So when
Speaker 3: there's a VACS see if short as if you're pro vaccine,
Speaker 3: suppose it's just a perfect vaccine that no side of
Speaker 3: vicine does that. But suppose it was a perfect vaccine,
Speaker 3: you wouldn't want to few pro vaccine. You wouldn't want
Speaker 3: to give it to people who don't need it. When
Speaker 3: there are people around the world, like my eighty seven
Speaker 3: year old neighbor, for example, who hadn't gotten it yet,
Speaker 3: so there was an unethical to take the vaccine if
Speaker 3: you don't need it, if the other people who do
Speaker 3: need it.
Speaker 1: But you were right. I just I guess I could
Speaker 1: maybe see at the very beginning of all of this,
Speaker 1: you know, when we didn't really have the full information,
Speaker 1: I still would think that was wrong. I would still
Speaker 1: disagree with it. But everything you just laid out we
Speaker 1: know to be true. I mean, that's just factual information.
Speaker 1: So they're firing you over stating facts.
Speaker 3: Well, it was true from four hundred and thirty BC
Speaker 3: until two thousand and nineteen, and then it wasn't true
Speaker 3: from twenty and twenty until twenty twenty three, I guess,
Speaker 3: and now it's true again. So so I guess that's
Speaker 3: one way to see it.
Speaker 1: Do you think this is Harvard driven or do you
Speaker 1: think they got some sort of external pressure because I
Speaker 1: know that, you know, Anthony Fauci went to war against
Speaker 1: you for speaking the truth and the other Great Barrington signers,
Speaker 1: which we'll get into a bit. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: do you think this is Harvard's decision or do they
Speaker 1: face some sort of external pressure?
Speaker 3: Well, it's the decision at that it's a decision by
Speaker 3: the Harvard's Mass General Brigham Hospital where I worked, don
Speaker 3: of Harvard Medical School, because they think they could have
Speaker 3: given me an exemption. They gave exemptions to other faculty member,
Speaker 3: other staff, so they could if they wanted, they could
Speaker 3: have given me an exemption. There was plenty of medical
Speaker 3: reasons to provide me an exemptions if they wanted to.
Speaker 2: But of course there's also outside pressure.
Speaker 3: The Mass General Brigham is the biggest recipience of research
Speaker 3: funding FORMMIA except the tune of a billion dollars, more
Speaker 3: than a billion dollars a year, and so of course
Speaker 3: they are very sensitive to what the Anthony Fautschelt was
Speaker 3: the head of the nationally City of Maggy and a
Speaker 3: victial diseases as what Process Collins things was the head
Speaker 3: of the NIH. So of course they're very sensitive to
Speaker 3: outside pressure as well among these things. So I think
Speaker 3: it's a combination. But I mean, I think Harvard was
Speaker 3: sort of a leading also institute in pushing for the lockdowns.
Speaker 3: That they were the first major university to close down
Speaker 3: announced to have a remote learning at which other universities
Speaker 3: and colleges sort of followed the Harvard lead. And also
Speaker 3: High schools and elementary schools, So that was done long
Speaker 3: before the government had any pressure to close schools universities,
Speaker 3: so they sort of took a leading approach to close
Speaker 3: down the educational institutions.
Speaker 2: And during the lockdowns.
Speaker 1: You do you think that this is about you telling
Speaker 1: the truth? Or do you think this is because you
Speaker 1: sort of challenged the scientific community? Right? I mean there
Speaker 1: is this sort of forced consensus that was going on,
Speaker 1: you know, led by the Fauci Anthony Fauci, led by
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, do you do you think this
Speaker 1: is about telling the truth or do you think this
Speaker 1: is because you just you wouldn't go along with the program.
Speaker 1: We wouldn't go along with the forced consensus.
Speaker 3: So I don't know what the ultimate decision was based
Speaker 3: on how they I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know what they were thinking in their brains.
Speaker 3: But there were all this long before before the vaccines,
Speaker 3: that they were unhappy with me about speaking up about
Speaker 3: the Great Brains To Declaration where we criticize school closures
Speaker 3: and other lockdown measures and we argue for that at
Speaker 3: detection of all the high risk people. So as soon
Speaker 3: as that there were there were they were unt happy
Speaker 3: about that. So and not not the colleagues that I
Speaker 3: work with on a day the basis that I still
Speaker 3: have an excellent relationship with everybody I worked with personally,
Speaker 3: but the leadership certainly were unhappy about and had some
Speaker 3: complaints about that and.
Speaker 1: Remind people, you know, why did you sign the Great
Speaker 1: Barrington Declaration and what did it stand for then? And
Speaker 1: sort of what do we know now about what you
Speaker 1: were saying then.
Speaker 3: So the when the pandemic started, there was sort of
Speaker 3: an artificial consensus, so they were trying to pretend that
Speaker 3: there was a scientific constensus for school closest.
Speaker 2: On lockdown, so there never was.
Speaker 3: I was one of several infectious to sea sechnologists who
Speaker 3: did not agree with it, but it was very hard
Speaker 3: to make our words herb because we were only one.
Speaker 3: So in October of twenty twenty, I met with Jay Bonacharia,
Speaker 3: who was a doctor from Stanford and doctor sat Gup
Speaker 3: from Oxcar. It was the world's preeminent infectious to cease
Speaker 3: at neologists. We met being Great Barrington, Massachusetts and the
Speaker 3: three of us after the Great Brington Declaration, where we
Speaker 3: argued for better protection of older people like less staffotation
Speaker 3: in nursing homes, they're more testing in nursing.
Speaker 2: Homes and so on, and.
Speaker 3: We argue that school should be open, and that we're
Speaker 3: still in closed down society with lockdowns because.
Speaker 2: Everybody can get effected.
Speaker 3: But there's more than a thousand full difference in the
Speaker 3: risk of mortality between the older people and the younger people.
Speaker 3: So that was against Fauci and sort of the narrative.
Speaker 3: But because there were three of us from three reasonably
Speaker 3: respectable universities who all worked in the infectious disease, they
Speaker 3: couldn't dismiss us completely. So then they sort of instead
Speaker 3: started a campaign against us, as the NIS director of
Speaker 3: Francis Collins wrote to do take tun of us, considering
Speaker 3: us fringe at pineologists.
Speaker 2: But I mean a lot of people agree with us.
Speaker 3: So we quickly obtain over one hundred thousand, hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of co signers.
Speaker 2: This almost a million by now, including.
Speaker 3: Tens of thousands of the scientists and health professionals.
Speaker 2: So the work clearly of big Yeah, it was clearly.
Speaker 3: Not a consensus for these in my view of very
Speaker 3: unscientific pandemic messure that went against the basic principles of
Speaker 3: public health.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick Commercial break more with Martin Kolder
Speaker 1: on the other side. What do we know now? I mean,
Speaker 1: we're still finding out about the harm that lockdowns had
Speaker 1: on you know, kids, on you know, people in general.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was just this information from the CDC
Speaker 1: showing that the annual average of death related excessive alcohol
Speaker 1: use increased twenty nine percent during COVID. We still don't
Speaker 1: know the totality of the damage. But what do we do?
Speaker 1: What do we know today?
Speaker 2: You're right, we don't know all of it.
Speaker 3: I mean, we know that test course has gone down
Speaker 3: for kids in the US, differ in different states that
Speaker 3: depending on how much the schools were closed. We know
Speaker 3: there's increasing the mental health issues in well used alcoholism,
Speaker 3: but also like opiate overdoses, we know there was less
Speaker 3: cancer screening and cancer treatments, and that doesn't show up
Speaker 3: in the mortality. Is the statics immediates with because you
Speaker 3: don't die immediately different cancers because you don't get the
Speaker 3: screened or treated. But that's something that will show up
Speaker 3: in in the mortality statistics for years to come.
Speaker 2: Somebody who maybe.
Speaker 3: Will not die maybe two years from now that would
Speaker 3: otherwise have lived now ten twenty years. So these things
Speaker 3: is something that we have to live with for a
Speaker 3: long time and it's very tragic, I think. But we
Speaker 3: also have the verdict now in looking at overall mortality.
Speaker 3: So you can compare access mortality from twenty twenty to
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two to two so otherand twenty three, and
Speaker 3: we see that the major Western countries, Among major Western countries,
Speaker 3: the country that has the lowest access mortality is Sweden,
Speaker 3: which is the country that famously did not lockdown. They
Speaker 3: did the measures to protect other people and so on,
Speaker 3: but they didn't They never closed the elementary schools, they
Speaker 3: never closed the day cares, and they kept the businesses
Speaker 3: and restaurants open, so and and so on. So we know,
Speaker 3: as it's kind of so that's the combination in that
Speaker 3: the lockdowns didn't really prevent any death at the same
Speaker 3: time the lockdowns that it didn't prevent COVID desk at
Speaker 3: the same time it caused death on other aspects of
Speaker 3: public health like quadiovascular disease or or mental health or
Speaker 3: cancer and so on.
Speaker 1: Well, and our remember, you know, Sweden came out of
Speaker 1: a great scrutiny for you know, the way they decided
Speaker 1: to handle COVID, but you know, it looks like in
Speaker 1: terms of outcomes as you laid out, you know, they
Speaker 1: came out on top.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll see the same thing in the in the US,
Speaker 3: for example, Florida, they locked down in the spring there,
Speaker 3: but then they sort of took a different, more focused
Speaker 3: protection approach and the Florida did slightly better than California
Speaker 3: if you if you look at age just that COVID
Speaker 3: mortality even though California locked down very harshly, so sort
Speaker 3: of Florida to do well hasn't the lowest in the
Speaker 3: in the state, but it's on the on the on
Speaker 3: the positive half of states. We could also compare South Dakota,
Speaker 3: who didn't lock down much compared to North Dakota, not
Speaker 3: just next to it, and they.
Speaker 2: Have a very similar COVID mortality.
Speaker 1: Well, and we knew from really early on in the
Speaker 1: pandemic that young people were not as impacted as elderly.
Speaker 1: Yet you know, our public health officials never drew that distinction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's sort of shocking because.
Speaker 3: When the COVID reached northern Italy with outbreak there and
Speaker 3: in Iran, which was the two places also of China
Speaker 3: would where there was sort of outbreaks at the earliest.
Speaker 3: I got scared for about ten twenty minutes because I
Speaker 3: realized that, okay, this is going to reach.
Speaker 2: The whole world. Sooner or late, they will reach every
Speaker 2: corner of the globe. So I quickly looked.
Speaker 3: At the data from vu Wan because we didn't have
Speaker 3: any I don't think we had any mortality in the
Speaker 3: US by that time. So I looked at the Vuan data,
Speaker 3: and obviously people of all ages would have gotten affected
Speaker 3: in Wuhan, but of the people who died, it was
Speaker 3: heavily weighted towards all the people. So I did some
Speaker 3: back of the envelope calculations and I concluded that the
Speaker 3: difference in mortal at risk of mortality was more than
Speaker 3: a thousand and four difference between the old and the young.
Speaker 3: So then it was obvious that okay, we can. I
Speaker 3: was so I was relieved because as a parent, I
Speaker 3: care more about my chillers lives for my own life,
Speaker 3: so I knew they would be fine. I was never
Speaker 3: worried about them.
Speaker 2: So it was August done.
Speaker 3: We should let kids live their lives young and also
Speaker 3: go about their business while we sort of maintaining society
Speaker 3: was important society. While we let older people make sure
Speaker 3: older people are protected. Instead, we protected the laptop class
Speaker 3: who could work from home even if we are twenty
Speaker 3: five years old and miniscule risk. Or we had sixty
Speaker 3: five year old cab drivers out there driving cabs, and
Speaker 3: that's one of the professions where they are most at
Speaker 3: hirisks to be exposed. So the lockdowns was the biggest
Speaker 3: assault on the working class and the middle class here
Speaker 3: in the US since the segregation and the Vietnam War.
Speaker 1: Well, and and to a point that you made earlier,
Speaker 1: I mean, there is a real deep and twisted irony.
Speaker 1: And you know, we were praising all these nurses and
Speaker 1: healthcare workers who worked during the height of the pandemic
Speaker 1: and got sick with COVID as a result, and then
Speaker 1: we fired them if they decided not to get the vaccine,
Speaker 1: when when they already had built up immunity, which, as
Speaker 1: you pointed out, has been a thing since the beginning
Speaker 1: of time.
Speaker 3: It's it's astonishing and tragic, I think, and I think
Speaker 3: all those nurses should be higher and back, they should
Speaker 3: be off with their jobs back, so as well as
Speaker 3: everybody else was fired.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I.
Speaker 1: Think in you know, having had a lot of these
Speaker 1: conversations with like truth tellers and people like you and
Speaker 1: doctor Badicharia and doctor Atlas, who I've all had, you know,
Speaker 1: on on my show, it seems like COVID in its entirety,
Speaker 1: you know, and obviously was never about the truth. It
Speaker 1: was never about the facts, it was never about the evidence.
Speaker 1: It was more about people getting in line and then
Speaker 1: punishing any dissenters. And that really was across the all fields. Right.
Speaker 1: If you're in the media, you spoke out, they try
Speaker 1: to punish you. If you're in the scientific community as
Speaker 1: you are, they try to punish you. And it seems
Speaker 1: like it was more about just shut up and cement.
Speaker 3: It was a very authoritarian mindset, yes, And to me
Speaker 3: that's sort of shocking. I thought that freewa speech was
Speaker 3: sort of a pillar that everybody agreed on, and I
Speaker 3: guess that's no longer the case, which is tragic. And
Speaker 3: I think if we don't get back to the mindset
Speaker 3: of fido or speech, I think that's the end of
Speaker 3: Western civilization. I know, and I mean I know scientists
Speaker 3: who were fired, I know physicians, nurses was fired.
Speaker 2: I know journalist who was fired so on.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it hit a lot of people, So I'm
Speaker 3: not I'm not surprised that a lot of people just
Speaker 3: to say it.
Speaker 2: Don't going to shot my mouth. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: risk my.
Speaker 3: Income and my family for this, So I fully understand
Speaker 3: that people would not speak out.
Speaker 1: No, I like you in the sense of I can
Speaker 1: see why people did not, but you know, like you,
Speaker 1: I just I can't be one of those people. I'd
Speaker 1: rather you know, if someone tells me you can't press
Speaker 1: the red button, but pressing the red button is what
Speaker 1: needs to be done, or is the right thing to do,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna do it, and I guess take the
Speaker 1: consequences as they come.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Lisa.
Speaker 3: I'm glad that you have that attitude, and I think
Speaker 3: that's important to have people like you so well, You're.
Speaker 1: You're much more brave than me because this is my job.
Speaker 1: You know, Like, I think you were a total coward
Speaker 1: if you work in the media and you're unwilling to
Speaker 1: be honest. But like you risked your career at Harvard
Speaker 1: to speak out. I mean you didn't. You didn't have to,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I think what you guys did
Speaker 1: is what's brave.
Speaker 3: I have to disagree with that. I'm a scientist. If
Speaker 3: I was a chemist, I could keep quiet, But I'm
Speaker 3: I'm an affection to SASE scientists, so it's my job
Speaker 3: to speak up. I have no other choice in my view,
Speaker 3: you know, That's all.
Speaker 1: I read the column that you wrote. You had mentioned,
Speaker 1: I know you're the CDC. You're briefly on the COVID
Speaker 1: vaccine the Safety Technical work Group. It didn't last long
Speaker 1: because again, you know, they don't they don't like people
Speaker 1: who tell the truth or raised questions these days. But
Speaker 1: you had mentioned that something that didn't sit right you
Speaker 1: with you was that the randomized control trials for the
Speaker 1: COVID vaccines were not properly designed. What do you mean
Speaker 1: by that and how does that impact I guess the
Speaker 1: safety of a vaccine or what we know about a
Speaker 1: vaccine safety.
Speaker 3: So whenever drag or vaccine is approved by FDA, they
Speaker 3: have to do this. You need to do randomized trials
Speaker 3: to show that it works. And so the good thing
Speaker 3: with the COVID trials was that was randomized. That's a
Speaker 3: good thing. The bad thing was that the outcome they
Speaker 3: looked at was symptomatic disease. Now at all of this
Speaker 3: on artless. But I don't really care if you're homesick
Speaker 3: for a few days because I have to be in
Speaker 3: bed for two days. What I care about is if
Speaker 3: you die. I don't want you to die. I don't
Speaker 3: want you to a little hospitalize either, So but that's
Speaker 3: what matters. But these trials, the randomized trials that was
Speaker 3: designed by fire Cera Moderna, they evaluated symptomatic COVID disease.
Speaker 3: They didn't evaluate mortality or they recorded it. But they
Speaker 3: recruited mostly young and middle aged adults, so they were
Speaker 3: going to survive COVID no matter what the vast majority,
Speaker 3: whether they were on the vaccine or the placebo. So
Speaker 3: therefore it's not very informative in terms of seeing if
Speaker 3: it prevents mortality or not. It's the informative in terms
Speaker 3: of symptomatic disease, but that's only relevant or very little importance.
Speaker 2: So they designed it wrongly.
Speaker 3: And then and then they stop the trials too soon also,
Speaker 3: so they only monitor this for a few months, and
Speaker 3: we usually had trials that can go on for years
Speaker 3: and years for cancer drag or something like that. So
Speaker 3: that's also inappro inappropriate because that means we don't know.
Speaker 3: We don't have strong randomized evidence whether for the long
Speaker 3: time effect, both of efficacy and address reactions. So they
Speaker 3: should have done designed these differently. And then they did correctly,
Speaker 3: I think, decide not to recruit people who had already
Speaker 3: had COVID and too when they had they had a few,
Speaker 3: but they sort of removed that from the analysis, and
Speaker 3: I think that was correct because we don't need these
Speaker 3: vaccines for those. But then what was wrong was even
Speaker 3: though it was tested on people without who hadn't had COVID,
Speaker 3: it was also man that for people who had already
Speaker 3: had COVID. But you don't think it would would would work, Uh,
Speaker 3: we don't need So they were also using those trials
Speaker 3: to do extrapolation that we didn't know. They also didn't
Speaker 3: look at transmission. They could have done that if they
Speaker 3: wanted to, but they didn't. But CDC was anyhow arguing
Speaker 3: that this will stop transmission, which of course it didn't.
Speaker 3: So the trials were designed were flawed. That doesn't mean
Speaker 3: that the vaccine didn't save some people's life. I think
Speaker 3: the vaccine did say in twenty twenty one, the lives
Speaker 3: of older people when it comes to yago people, I
Speaker 3: think is the big question mark, how what the benefit
Speaker 3: this creature was?
Speaker 1: Quick break stay with us? You Also, the CDC sort
Speaker 1: of continuously changed the definition of what it means to
Speaker 1: be vaccinated, changed the definition of it, you know. I
Speaker 1: mean they kind of like twisted these things to meet
Speaker 1: the criteria of what they knew the vaccine was doing.
Speaker 1: Should we be worried about future vaccines? Has the process
Speaker 1: been like taged and diminished in the kind of vaccine,
Speaker 1: like the the what vaccines need to go through to
Speaker 1: be put out to market? It just seems like the
Speaker 1: rush nature in this sort of the failures and making
Speaker 1: sure these were as safe and effective as they could be,
Speaker 1: sort of the twisting of definitions like should we be
Speaker 1: concerned about future vaccines? That sort of the approval process
Speaker 1: has now been diminished.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I think.
Speaker 3: I understand why people don't trust vaccines anymore because the
Speaker 3: way that the COVID vaccine was handled was very poorly.
Speaker 3: So I understand that then people start questioning.
Speaker 2: You the vaccines.
Speaker 3: Like tribate vaccines, but I mean sound vaccines are very important,
Speaker 3: like the musle vaccines are very important, and the poorio vaccines.
Speaker 2: But I don't know what the future.
Speaker 3: I don't know if we will go back to doing
Speaker 3: it in a more thorough way that we used to
Speaker 3: do it, or if this is the new the new
Speaker 3: way of doing things, And if this is a new
Speaker 3: way of doing things, then nowahouldn't test that? And I
Speaker 3: think think CDC has an enormous trust problem, and I
Speaker 3: realized it themselves.
Speaker 2: Now I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't think that quite realizes what is due to
Speaker 3: but we have a trust problem. My thinking, my principle
Speaker 3: is basic that if you have a scientist who refuses
Speaker 3: to debate other scientists of of who have a different perspective,
Speaker 3: you simply trust them.
Speaker 2: We should always.
Speaker 3: Trust scientists who are willing to put themselves out there
Speaker 3: and discuss and debate their views with other scientists who
Speaker 3: think differently.
Speaker 1: Well, I think what's scary and where we are now
Speaker 1: which is not a good place to be in it
Speaker 1: And it's because of her, the failure of our public
Speaker 1: health officials and also mind you you know higher education
Speaker 1: like have Harvard firing people like you. Is that they've
Speaker 1: lost all this trust and lost all this faith over
Speaker 1: a virus. It even the CDC acknowledges now is essentially
Speaker 1: the flu right you know, even you had mentioned polio. Okay,
Speaker 1: so adults for polios at fifteen to thirty percent fatality rate,
Speaker 1: that's a real fatality rate, right. So what happens if
Speaker 1: we have a virus in the future with a real,
Speaker 1: real fatality rate and you have an entire population that
Speaker 1: doesn't trust your public health officials now has a fear
Speaker 1: of vaccines, has a fear of what we're told. So
Speaker 1: it's like, you know what happens, then.
Speaker 3: Well that's a problem. Supposed that comes a very serious pandemic.
Speaker 3: I suppose we come up with the vaccine that's perfect,
Speaker 3: no flaws. There are people who are not going to
Speaker 3: take the vaccine because they don't trust CDC or FJA anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you tell me to get it, I'll
Speaker 1: get it. But if the faucies of the world tell me,
Speaker 1: I'll tell them to pound stand. You know, I what
Speaker 1: if a thing I want to get you on because
Speaker 1: I thought this was interesting and totally a side note
Speaker 1: you had written in the column that you wrote in
Speaker 1: the column that you had about that you worked for
Speaker 1: human rights organization in Guatemala in nineteen eighty and you
Speaker 1: had two colleagues that were stabbed and a hand grenade
Speaker 1: that was thrown in the house where you all lived
Speaker 1: and worked. Tell us about that story.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So after it was a student, I worked as
Speaker 3: the human rights observing Guatemala in nineteen eighty nine, and
Speaker 3: this was during the military dictatorship there, so people who
Speaker 3: were opposing and was trying There was no freedom of speech,
Speaker 3: for example, so people who were speaking up, they were
Speaker 3: sometimes killed. Sometimes that just disappeared, was taken from the
Speaker 3: street and nobody knew what happened to them.
Speaker 2: So there were several very brave Guatemalas.
Speaker 3: There was the mothers of the disappears, for example, whose
Speaker 3: sons and daughters had been disappeared and who were sort
Speaker 3: of demonstrating and trying to find out what happened to
Speaker 3: their children. There were campusenos who was working against enforced
Speaker 3: military conscriptions. There were trade unionists, student groups, women's groups
Speaker 3: and so on who were oppressed because they didn't have
Speaker 3: the feedom of speech to speak cup. So we were
Speaker 3: there to accompany them as the international because the military
Speaker 3: had were concerned about the international reputations. So I was
Speaker 3: walking around with these people. It's very brave Guatemalans to
Speaker 3: help protect them from something happening to them, and we
Speaker 3: were a nuisance to the military dictators. So at one
Speaker 3: point they tried to scare us away from the country.
Speaker 3: So two of my college were stabbed as they were
Speaker 3: working on the street, and at one point they threw
Speaker 3: hangunade into the house, our house where sort of everybody
Speaker 3: lived and worked. So at that time, I guess I
Speaker 3: sort of risked my life to support the freedom of
Speaker 3: speech and democracy and the lives of people. So it
Speaker 3: was an easy decision to do the same other wriddle
Speaker 3: pandemic because while I was landed and there were takedowns
Speaker 3: from highest sources of them as director against me, I
Speaker 3: never I never risked my life to do during this pandemic.
Speaker 1: So I guess what do you think the toughest part
Speaker 1: about that, about just going through COVID has has been
Speaker 1: for you? You know, I assume it's it's got to
Speaker 1: be really disheartening to have spent you know, your entire
Speaker 1: career really trying to help the public, inform the public,
Speaker 1: keep the public safe, and then to be slandered in
Speaker 1: the manner in which you've been, that's got to be
Speaker 1: that's got to be really frustrating.
Speaker 3: I think the hardest part is so in the past
Speaker 3: when I meet new people and we talked and so
Speaker 3: what do you do? And I say, I'm a scientist.
Speaker 3: And I was always so proud to say, oh, I'm
Speaker 3: a scientist, and that was sort of my self identity
Speaker 3: and private entity. And now people ask I can no
Speaker 3: longer say that, I'm not long proud to say that
Speaker 3: I'm a scientist because I think science has failed, the
Speaker 3: scientists community has failed during this pandemic.
Speaker 2: So and it's.
Speaker 3: Disheartening that that the scientific community was not able to
Speaker 3: to to to sort of stand up and do the
Speaker 3: right thing during this pandemic. But uh basically did while
Speaker 3: they were told by the by the leadership in that
Speaker 3: of Foucy and others.
Speaker 2: And that's true.
Speaker 3: That's that's that's that's sad that we cannot be proud
Speaker 3: to be of being scientists anymore.
Speaker 1: Where can people stay on top of your work? Where
Speaker 1: is the best place for them to find you?
Speaker 3: So together with well they can reach They can see
Speaker 3: me on Twitter or LinkedIn other social media like cab
Speaker 3: or ghats through social but also with the able to
Speaker 3: try and Scott Atlas, we we have the sort of
Speaker 3: the Academy for Science and Freedom together with the Hillsdale College,
Speaker 3: which is an attempt to sort of restore the integrity
Speaker 3: of the scientific community. And that's maybe a long.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: I never doubted that we will eventually prove the right
Speaker 3: about the pandemic when it comes to academia. I think
Speaker 3: it's the fifty fifty child that we're able to sort
Speaker 3: of steer the right ship in the right direction, versus
Speaker 3: is sort of going further downhill. So we'll see how
Speaker 3: that works, but at least you have to try it.
Speaker 3: So I've Kennedy for Science and Freedom.
Speaker 1: Martin Colder, I just want to thank you. I've got
Speaker 1: to know a lot of you guys throughout COVID, and
Speaker 1: I just it really is brave what you guys have done.
Speaker 1: I don't think people really fully understand just what you
Speaker 1: guys have been put through, the thing, you know, just
Speaker 1: even attacks for your family, just all of it. And
Speaker 1: you really are a brave man, a good man, And
Speaker 1: I just want to thank you for the bottom of
Speaker 1: my heart for being so brave and really just fighting
Speaker 1: for the truth so fearlessly.
Speaker 3: And thank you Lisa, because to be honest, I haven't.
Speaker 3: I don't have a very good esteemed to most journalists anymore,
Speaker 3: but you are shining light in the dark a professional
Speaker 3: there right now.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. That means the world to me. I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you making the time. I'm looking forward to
Speaker 1: saying all the things that you guys accomplish at Hillsdale
Speaker 1: and just everything moving forward, and just really appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: That was doctor Martin Kolder. Just really appreciate him making
Speaker 1: the time. He's a good man, he's a brave man.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you guys at home for listening.
Speaker 1: I also want to think John Cassio and my producer
Speaker 1: for putting the show together. Until next time,