October 29, 2025 • 42 mins
📍Investigative journalist Emily Kopp joins David Rutherford to break down her explosive findings from inside the FDA’s own reports, revealing how internal scientists repeatedly recommended warnings to pregnant women, only for leadership to bury the data and protect pharmaceutical interests.
They discuss the parallels to the opioid crisis, the redacted toxicology reports that raise new questions, and how deep-state bureaucrats like Janet Woodcock enabled decades of unaccountable decisions inside America’s most powerful health agency.
Next Steps:
- 🏫 Get coaching by David Rutherford: https://www.froglogicinstitute.com/
- 📕 Get David's novel, The Poet Warrior: https://www.ballastbooks.com/ballast-bookstore/the-poet-warrior
- 📰 Sign up for David's weekly newsletter for free coaching tips, updates, and more: https://davidrutherfordletter.substack.com/
Follow Emily on X: @emilyakopp
Timestamps:
00:00 - Emily’s Article Reveals The Truth About The Tylenol Story
02:52 - How The FDA Covered Up The Truth
07:41 - Shocking Evidence That Wasn’t Reported On Tylenol
15:20 - Janet Woodcock, Cover Ups & Silencing Scientists
18:08 - Janet’s Connection To The Opioid Crisis
23:24 - Financial Conflicts of Interest Between FDA & Pharma
30:55 - Class Action Lawsuit Scandal
37:48 - Antidepressant Side Effects & The Pattern of The FDA
41:10 - How To Follow Emily & Learn More
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Does tail and aw cause autism? You're gonna find out
today on the David Rutherford Show. I'm here today with
investigative journalists from the Daily Caller Emily Copp, who dropped
(00:20):
an article that absolutely just melted my brain around this
tail and aw autism thing.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So, Emily, thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Is this story true and is there a greater conspiracy
that we're unaware of?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
As you know, mind melting as this story is, it
is absolutely factual. Uh, you know, we at the Daily
Color News Foundation take factual reporting very seriously. This went through,
I'll be honest, a bunch of edits that was sort
of fresh writing for me as a reporter that wanted
(01:01):
the story out there, but we needed to make sure
that we had all of our ducks in a row
because of course, this story has massive implications.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
But I read.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Hundreds of documents related to ken View, the maker of
tail and all, and in this most recent story, looked
at FDA epidemiology report after FDA epidemiology report, several memos
and they all had the same conclusion going back to
(01:34):
twenty sixteen, that we need to issue some sort of
communication to pregnant women about the risk of taking this
drug in pregnancy, and instead FDA higher ups suppressed the
recommendation year after a year.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
I mean, that was the part in your article that
really just lapped out at me, and it was this section.
I'm just going to read it verbatim. An internal memo
reveals that the agency first began examining a seed of
NFL in pregnancy eleven years ago in May twenty fourteen,
after in April twenty fourteen study published in the Journal
(02:08):
of American Medical Association raised concerns about the drug and
ADHD like behaviors, prompting its sole statement on the issue
for the next decade, and in twenty fifteen FDA web
page that acknowledging that quote the FDA is aware of
concerns end quote, inciting that single study. Less than two
(02:29):
years later, in October twenty sixteen, FDA Senior medical Officer
Andrew Moseholder had a Mossholder had reviewed eight observational studies,
with seven showing an association between aceta menafin and issues
including attention deficits, delayed motor development, and autistic behaviors. When
(02:53):
we had the big press conference at the White House
with Kennedy, doctor Oz and the president. The pushback that
I saw media afterwards was citing this one report.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's one report. It's one report.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
But what you're saying is that this senior medical after
Andrew Moshholder, he reviewed eight other studies and there was
a much greater consensus that this was going on. Can
you talk through one how you found those what documents
and then where you started to see the string of
(03:34):
I guess cover up is the best word to use,
or or you know, using tactical language to push it
down the road, so to speak.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Yeah, absolutely, well.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
I think one thing that we should know is that
one report was actually a what they call it menta analysis,
So it looked at a bunch of different reports in
the scientific literature, said okay, which ones meet this rigorous
criteria and summarize the findings of them.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
And so that one Harvard report that Kennedy.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Cited in that a bunch of people, you know, as
you mentioned, were being critical of, was actually a summary
of a bunch of the scientific literature, which we can
see from these internal FDA reports were accumulating over the
last decade or so, and that very first report that
sort of kicked off FDA reviewing the evidence. It should
(04:27):
be noted, was published in the second most prestigious pediatric
journal in the country, so this is in some pre
print that hasn't been peer reviewed. The rigorous science published
in a journal that the FDA couldn't ignore. So the
FDA launches this internal review of the science, and their
(04:48):
top reviewer of drug safety for over the counter drugs
produces another meta analysis and shows the science is credible,
and he's he's very careful. He says, the association between
TAIL and all use and a parent neurodevelopmental damage is
(05:10):
consistent across these studies, but it's not yet causal, so
we can't say for sure. The studies simply aren't uniform
enough and they're not designed to suss out whether it's
the precise cause. But he says the association is consistent
enough that we really need to start informing women about
the risk. We just need them to make informed decisions.
(05:32):
At the same time, you know, we need to tell
them that these other over the counter painkillers have their
own risks, and that they shouldn't have high fevers and
you know, not be taking anything to treat their high fevers.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
So he's just he's not.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Calling for, you know, a public relations campaign against thailan
All or anything like that. He's just saying, we need
to we need to warn women about the potential for
a risk.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
And instead what happened is FDA did nothing.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
They released one statement in twenty fifteen about a bunch
of different over the counterpain killers, and they say, we're
aware of some concerns related to ADHD, and they cite
that first report in the second most prestigious pediatric journal
in the country. As more and more studies accumulate and
(06:21):
as privately the FDA is reviewing these studies and finding
them credible, FDA issues no further public communication. And so
the documents that I reviewed, they're the internal FDA reports
that were obtained via FOYA by this law firm that
launched a class action lawsuit against ken View. And the
(06:41):
reason I started reading them is because, you know, I
talked to lead attorney for the plaintiffs for the parents
who feel that their children were affected by tail and
All use, and he was like sort of citing certain studies,
and I was like, are those studies public?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Are those emails that you're mentioning public?
Speaker 3 (07:04):
And he said, well, we obtained them in discovery or
via FOYA, and I said I would like to read them,
and he said, are you sure. It's like hundreds of documents,
and I was like yes.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
So they just literally sent me their whole docket, whole docket.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They didn't point me to, you know, specific documents, and
in fact, just for my own integrity as a journalist,
I didn't want to work too closely with the firm,
So I just read every single document that I could
get my hands on. And these these FDA reports clearly,
you know, stuck.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Out wow, I I you know, for for me, you know,
as I looked and I thought, you know, one of
the things that is just really cool about your reporting
is that you do add in all of those those
counter arguments, right, it wasn't really clear how many doses
of tail and all were taken, you know, the the
(07:56):
amount of of how often were taken, you know, And
I thought that was brilliant reporting there. It was really
cool to see. But the other aspect, you know, to
reinforce what you're saying is, man, you know, when you
get access to something like a class action lawsuit, that's
got to be like gold for you as as an
(08:19):
investigated journalist. What what did you learn because some of
the some of the documents that you did post we
were incredibly redacted. How much of what you got access
to was redacted? Do you think there's incredibly there's a
lot more that needs to be unredacted.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
And hopefully you know, Kennedy will will you know.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
You will hear more about this and as the hopefully
growing storm grows from your reporting, that they'll come out
and release some of these what what did you find
in those documents?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Well, first of all, I appreciate your praise of be
trying to be even handed on the science. That's something
that we discussed a lot internally here at the Caller,
and I know that this is an important issue to
so many families, and I want to make sure that
the science here isn't ironclad, but it is concerning enough
that FDA, you know, scientists, rank and file scientists were
(09:19):
saying internally that we should issue some sort of warning
and FDA higher ups who you know, in many other
instances of FDA scandals, like the opioid crisis, you know,
did the public relations bidding of the pharmaceutical industry. That
same pattern to me appears to have occurred here where
(09:42):
where the concern about public relations and about a relationship
to the pharmaceutical industry outweighed a concern about giving the
public full information, and that definitely plays. And then documents,
as you mentioned, there are a lot of redactions. One
(10:04):
of the reports states that fd's toxicology division did their
own independent studies. So several of these epidemiology reports, they
were sort of collating and summarizing other papers, other scientific papers.
But it turns out the FD did its own independent
science and toxicology reports are basically animal studies that look
(10:29):
at the you know, toxicity of a particular drug, and
there are certain signals that you can look for in
mice to indicate that something is dangerous. For instance, there
are certain studies that show that mice.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
And their.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Litter when exposed to see to benifit, the mother stop
nursing the infants, which could indicate, yeah, some sort of
damage there. So what did the FDA find. What were
their animal studies showing. We don't know because for some reason,
when the law firm submitted a foia to the FDA
(11:10):
to find these results, the FDA entirely redacted them. And
in my experience as an investigative reporter. Obviously I can't
say what's underneath those black bars, but in my experience
as an investigative reporter doing work on other issues like
the origins of COVID and floying NIH, it's usually an
(11:32):
inconvenient fact, right, or something someone's embarrassed of. And if
the science truly indicates that there is no risk here,
I think that's something that the FDA should inform the
public of. But if there is a concern, then the
public deserves to know that.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Too, one hundred percent. I mean that's trust me.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
I used to work for the Central Intelligence Agency, who
is probably the most notorious in terms of over a
billion classified documents redactions at that scale. Right, we still
haven't even gotten all the unredacted stuff from the Kennedy
assassination and all that, and you know, much less than
(12:16):
every other scandal they've been involved in. Now, I'd like
to get into some some of the key players that
are involved in this whole thing, But before I do,
I just I would be remiss if I didn't just
give props or one of our new sponsors an organization,
a university, a college that is really transforming the landscape
(12:36):
right now, because you know, here's the deal. They they
understand how many people are just mindlessly scrolling through their
phones and on watching shows and streaming platforms, and they
just seem to, you know, be you know, addicted to
this mind numbing content. Well, listen, you know what time
(12:56):
you have is so precious in this life. Don't waste
it on on things that aren't going to make you
more educated. And I'm telling you Hillsdale College is the
place to do this now. Hillsdale is offering more than
forty free online courses. That's right, more than forty free
(13:18):
foxtrot Romeo Echo Echo free forty three courses online all right.
You can learn about great works from C. S. Lewis,
stories in the Book of Genesis, the meaning of the Constitution,
the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the
ancient history of the Christian College. With Hillsdale Colleges online courses,
(13:42):
everything you want to get into is free.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
The one that always hits me so so.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Hard, and the one that I recommend for you my listeners,
people who I know are just really in this revival
moment and want to understand the power of Christianity. I
personally recommend that you say, for ancient Christianity. This is
an eleven lecture course. You'll study inspiring stories of Christ,
(14:09):
his apostles, and all the other faithful people throughout the
first four centuries of Christianity. You'll also learn the arguments
of key early Christian apologists who defended the Christian faith
in the face of overwhelming persecution.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Right, all you got to do is check.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Out you know how many times Christians have been persecuted
back in the day, including now. Right. The course is
self pace so that you can start whenever and wherever
you want in the course, simply and role now in
Ancient Christianity to discover the improbable and miraculous story of
(14:47):
Christianity itself. Go right now for your free online courses.
If it's not Ancient Christianity one of the forty free
ones they offer, go right now to Hillsdale dot eedu
four slash David to enroll. There's no cost again, it's free.
Use your time wisely. It's free and it's easy to
(15:09):
get started. That's Hillsdale dot edu Ford slash David to register,
or click the link in the show notes Hillsdale dot
edu Ford slash David.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
All Right, there were some key.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Players in this that really kind of jumped out at me,
and one was the former Food and Drug Administration Acting Commissioner,
Janet Woodcock. Can you talk about her and what you
found with her relationship to kind of the sequence of
this pr nightmare potentially that they had to manage.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
So, part of the documents that.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
We looked at were describing this meeting in twenty eighteen
where this rank and file FDA epidemiologist overseeing the safety
of over the counter drugs made a presentation to a
committee of FDA higher ups and said here's the science.
(16:11):
For reasons that remained unclear to me, they weren't even
considering a label change. Currently, you know, the the Trump
administration and Kennedy are issuing a label change or initiating
a label change with the which the drug company is fighting.
But they didn't even consider that. They just thought, you know,
should we as the rank and file FDA epidemiologists was
(16:35):
repeatedly recommending, should we issue some sort of nuanced communication
to pregnant women about the potential for risk? And this
FDA committee of higher ups, led by a long time
uh FDA bureaucrat, Janet Woodcock, decided to essentially do nothing,
kick the can down the road. They commissioned that toxicology
(17:00):
that we were just talking about that we don't know
the results of, and said nothing remained silent. I think
this is notable because Americans at this point, many Americans
have a healthy mistrust of the FDA because.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Of that's an understatement. I think they outright, I think
they suck.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
I mean, oh my god.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You know, I listened to Tucker's latest interview with doctor Huff,
who was a part of Eco Health Alliance. I almost
fell out of my chair. I mean, I already have
my own suspicions of where it came from.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Why.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
I mean, you know, I've been listening to doctor Malone
since day one on all That right, and had him
on the show talk about it a few months ago,
and you know, and to see this now, it's like, well,
I mean it's everywhere you look, right, It's not just
you know, the pandemic of COVID. Now it's tail and all.
Now it's the COVID, it's m R and A vaccines.
(18:02):
How many other drugs in the past have were you know,
hidden by these bureaucratic officials. And I think we're just
seeing another intense reality of I think a much deeper
basket of potential problems with with the Food and Drug
administrationist relationships with farm uh big pharma.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So what what did? What did? How? What were did you?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Were there some other things I thought I remembered in
in the article. There was some other I don't want
to say scandals, but there are other questionable uh drugs
and other things that she was a part of as well.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (18:43):
I think she fits a pattern of a lot of
longtime deep state folks who simply occupy a position of
power for too long, unaccountable to any election. Right Like
you think about a j Edgar Hoover, you think about
(19:03):
a Anthony Fauci, You're in the same position. Decade after
decade after decade. She was at the FDA for four decades.
You start to accumulate this bureaucratic power that seems almost
unaccountable to Congress, unaccountable to elected officials, because you have
been around longer and are more knowledgeable and can play
(19:26):
the Washington game better than anybody who could fire you.
And I think an interesting contrast is looking at some
of the people who are in positions of influence at FDA.
Now you have a Marty McCarey, you have a vende proisade,
folks who have been critical of the internch bureaucracy and
(19:46):
who want to shake things up, and you have the
Wall Street Journal calling for their heads. You don't see
that with Janet Woodcock, despite her being there for four decades.
So what does that tell you? It tells you that
she was a cree sure of the status quo. People
will often mention FDA user fees that the FDA is
sort of funded by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
(20:10):
I think that definitely played a role in her behavior,
and you allude to other controversial decisions that she oversaw.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I mean, she was the head of.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
The division of the FDA that oversees opioids for.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
The beginning, middle, and up until very recently end of
the well, there's no end to the opioid crisis.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
But she was there at the beginning of the opioid crisis.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
She you know, led that division at the time of
the approval of oxygon and then subsequently oversaw the approval
of many other dangerous opioids, you know, sometimes overriding the
fd's own scientific advisors to do so, and then as
recently as twenty twenty offended that infamous decision of the
(21:02):
FDA to approve oxycontencying it followed all of their UH
standards and protocols. So what does that say about FDA
standards and protocols? So, as I said, you know, I
think Americans at this point post COVID especially have this
healthy skepticism of the FDA, And there's this attitude I
(21:24):
think in the mainstream press that how dare Kennedy.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Challenge the science?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
You know? But I think the responsibility is on these
institutions to prove that they are following the science. It's
sort of up to them to regain our trust because
there have been so many, so many scandals, And I
think top of mind for me right now is why
(21:53):
did FDA officials override the recommendation of one of their
top epidemiologists to warn pregnant women about tailand all? What
was the harm in just saying, hey, we're reviewing the
science and this is what the science is indicating right now.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
So I that is the multi million dollar question. From Thailand,
all's concerned for sure, and and you know, from all
the people whose children that potentially that this might have
harmed in some capacity. I mean, I remember, you know,
in my my four daughters when you know, two of
the new marriage. But when I when I was you know,
(22:28):
a young father with my first children. You know, they
get sick, they get a fever. For what's the first
thing I'm doing. I'm I'm giving them a dose to
tail and all right, the liquid you know, grape tail
and all that you buy in bulk from Walgreens and
all these other places.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Because there's a trust in the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And and had you know, had I ever been because
I'm a medic. I'm a classically trained civilian paramedic. I
was a medic in the sealed teams. If I, you know,
was going to administer a drug to one of my guys,
you know, I'm going to do the research and figure
out right, what you know, what are the marker what
are the biomarkers, What are the things I need?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
What are the dose sizes? What you know?
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Is there any you know, uh potentiality for uh a
negative effect efficacy in this? You know, you do all
those things, but when it comes to these mega corporations,
you just figure, oh, it's a no brainer. There's never
been a problem there's no whatever. But now we absolutely
know that there's a symbiotic relationship. Did you find any
(23:26):
type of money correlation uh to tile and all people
that worked that were in these studies. Did you find
any uh a financial uh integration with Woodcock or any
of these other people? I mean, like I remember in
the in the Peter Berg you know, uh documentary or
(23:49):
or or documentary or drama documentary whatever they call those things,
when he about the Sackler family, there was that one
FDA person that went into the hotel room for you know,
forty eight hours or whatever it is, and came out
on the other end and was like approved, you know what,
what did you find any other connections? I mean, obviously
(24:12):
as investigative journals probably like rule number one for y'all
is follow the money, right, did you find anything like that?
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I asked the drug company ken View, did you have
any communications with the FDA about this? They their strategy
when it comes to my reporting has just been to
ignore me.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
So they didn't answer that question.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
But we know that there's a financial relationship, and you
don't need FOYA or an investigative journalist to tell you that.
Actually you just you know, understand that user fees mean
that drug companies like Johnson and Johnson now can view
and other makers of a set of minifin are partially
underwriting the.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Budget of the FDA.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
So absolutely, you know, baseline, there is a final relationship.
Asked you whether the company was lobbying the FDA. You know,
I think one of the cool things about the new
leadership at the FDA is they've been doing these podcasts,
which has been an insightful way to get a sense
(25:19):
of what actually goes on. And they mentioned how drug
companies lobby the FDA. They don't necessarily do it directly.
They'll go to a lawmaker whose campaigns are you know,
in many cases underwritten by the pharmaceutical industry and say
we're really concerned about this FDA policy. And then the
(25:40):
lawmakers who of course set the FDA's budget, who are
in charge of their appropriations, will come to the FDA
and say, hey, we're hearing this from the industry, what's
going on over there, And that'll be sort of the
indirect way of putting pressure on the FDAs. So I
thought that was super interesting. I didn't realize that that
was how pharma sort of because it's influence on the
(26:03):
FDA often, but on the specifics of this case, I
think we're still learning more.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
I definitely hope to learn more.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
As you mentioned, you know, the opioid case is infamous,
and Janet Woodcock, overseeing ced the division of the FD
that oversees opioids, also overseeing this case. You know, she
doesn't have the best track record, So I think it's
a reasonable question to ask another parallel I think to
(26:38):
you know, the case of oxy cotton is there was
one letter that was cited repeatedly and it was really
more of an op ed that said this stuff is
not addictive, and it kept getting cited in the scientific
literature as this premiere evidence that this drug was safe.
In the case of tile and all, there's something very
(26:59):
similar where the American Academy of Pediatrics looked at liver
toxicity of a set of menifin and they said, well,
it doesn't seem to harm the liver, so we think
it's okay. And that sort of repeated and cited as
that in said it's safe. But then one point that
experts who are in favor of this hypothesis that a
(27:21):
seed of menifin causes neurological damage. They'll point to animal
studies showing that mice will die from a seed of
minifine overdose without their livers being damaged, and we're not
really sure how that happens.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
So so much like.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
The oxycotton letter, there is a similar sort of foundational
publication saying that this drug is safe that keeps getting
repeatedly cited. And I think it's time that we take
a second look at that the evidence there.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
I think you're one hundred percent right.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
I mean, I you know, I all I as you're
saying this thing, all I remember is during COVID, right,
every CNN commercial was brought to you by Pfizer, right,
or you know, it was just one constant from all
these organized news so called news organizations, and you know,
and you see, you know, the organizations that obviously don't
(28:20):
take money from big pharmers, such as the Daily Caller.
And you're able to do good reporting on this because
you're not constrained by by the influence there. Now, what
I'd really love to do is I want to dig
into this class action lawsuit for sure, But before I do,
I just got to bring back and touch on one
of our great sponsors in terms of Patriot Mobile, right,
(28:42):
here's the deal. Every choice we make is an opportunity
to stand for freedom. That's why I do this show.
Even something as simple as your cell phone service is
a representation of what your wallet means in what type
of American company you want to support. Here's the truth.
Most self phone providers don't care about you. They just
want your card earned cash. Patriot Mobile, I promise you,
(29:07):
is different. For over twelve years, they've stood with Americans
who believe in faith, family, and freedom, period right, contributing
millions of dollars to Christian conservative causes which are all near.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
And dear to my heart.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
The best part is with Patriot Mobile, you don't have
to sacrifice quality or service. Patriot Mobile offers premium access
to all three US major networks, so you'll never have
to worry about coverage.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Wherever you are.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Now, I know what most people are like, Hey man,
I hate switching.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
It's way too complicated. But I'm here to tell you
it is not.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
It is not. You keep your number, you can keep
your phone, or if you're feeling froggy, you upgrade everything
across the board. Patriot Mobiles one hundred percent US based
team will get you activated in minutes. Right, keep your number,
keep your phone, or upgrade across all systems. Right, Patriot
(30:06):
Mobiles one US based team will get you activated in
just a few minutes. Now, are you stuck in a
contract or do you still own money on your other phone?
It's not a problem at all. They even have a
contract buyout program. So you got to ask yourself what
am I waiting for?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
All right?
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Go to Patriotmobile dot com forward slash Rutherford or call
nine to seven to two Patriot. Use promo code rutherford
r U T H E R F O r D,
and you will get yourself one month of free service.
That's an entire month of service for free if you
switch today. All right, that's Patriotmobile dot com forward slash
(30:49):
Rutherford or call nine to seven two Patriot. Okay, Emily,
I want to go back to this, the class action lawsuit.
I saw that they have some another big hearing in November.
Can you talk a little bit about that and what
they're hoping to accomplish in that upcoming trial?
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (31:13):
Yeah, So briefly on the ad point, if you map
when direct to consumer advertise advertising started by the pharmaceutical
industry and Johnson and Johnson, the maker of Thailand all
former maker of tailand al Uh before they spun it
off into this separate, legally separate company called ken View
a couple of years ago.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
You know, they were a big driver of that, and
you map.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
It against autism cases. You know, again it's it's it's
not a we can't prove causation, but it's interesting that
they dovetail. So yeah, so there's this class action lawsuit.
They were unsuccessful their first go round. Essentially the judge
(32:01):
said that the evidence doesn't prove causation and thus were
throwing out all of the plaintiffs experts in this case.
They thought they the firm was overseating its case.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
And where where was that? Where was that case litigated? Initially,
I'm sorry to interrupt you. Where was that case litigated?
And do you know the name of the judge the.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
Southern District of New York, Denise Cote, I think is
the name of the judge.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
So folks can independently look to.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Evaluate our record, which is a whole nother system that
we have to evaluate right now with the justice system
might to not allow your you know, the class actions
experts to testify, I mean, and then to and then
to you know, in discovery, to get you know, a
(32:59):
stack of you know, redacted information for your case.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It's just it's it's a sham, the whole thing. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Well, and one thing I'll mention, Well, I'll be even
handed here. So, like the FDA documents we reported on,
the experts said pregnant women absolutely need to be warned,
but they also said we don't have causation yet repeatedly.
And my understanding from scientists is that causation is hard
(33:29):
to prove, and so there is the possibility that the
firm was overstating its case when it said that there
is causation simply because it hasn't been studied in the
way that you would need to in order to prove it.
And part of it is difficult because there are major
ethical challenges with you know, studying pregnancy.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
So I'll say that to be absolutely fair here.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
One thing that's curious is that Biden's Department of Justice
weighed in in the case with a letter where they
mention all of these fd reports that we describe in
our story, but they only cite one of them, and
it's this twenty twenty three epidemiology review. The person the
(34:19):
expert who wrote that first initial report saying pregnant women
should be warned, and then said that again and again
in these other internal reports. He had moved on, he
had started tore. So it was this other official who
wrote this twenty twenty three report. And unlike every other
(34:39):
prior FD report that I reviewed, it didn't have a
recommendation section at all. So it just said the association
has not proven to be causal and then didn't say
anything else.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
So and that was.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And that was the only one that Biden's Department of Justice,
you know, quoted from in its letter in this case.
And so the defendant, the pharmaceutical company ken View, was
able to say, you know, the FDA says that there's
no causal relationship here, nothing to see here. And in fact,
the drug company has since in battling the current FDA,
(35:17):
the new leadership at FDA, has said the FDA has
said in prior reports that there's no puzzle relationship here,
of course, omitting the giant red flag that every other
report recommended that pregnant women be warned. So so that's
a curiosity, you might say, I do wonder how that happened.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Oh, man, I I I think it's it's now so
systemic of of of a tactic that it just I mean,
you know, once you once you figure out how to
generate liability for vaccines, you generate how to destroy these
(36:01):
class action lawsuits through holding the trials and specific areas
with specific judges. You know, I mean, the whole idea
of law fare and how to play that game is
become you know, a multi billion dollar business of it
in itself. So you know, these are are our tactics
that you know, all these companies have become you know,
(36:24):
invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and so
you know, only by the grace of God and tenacious
reporters like yourself does it does it begin to percolate
to the surface? What what is that you said there's
going to be a follow up hearing? Is that?
Speaker 2 (36:45):
Do they have what's the word I'm looking for?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
They appealed the judgment, I'm assuming, and so they're getting
up a follow up hearing in November.
Speaker 4 (36:55):
Yeah, so the judgeal or another judgell.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Here in appeal and we definitely plan on covering those
proceedings so so stay tuned. I think it's possible both
sides will have surprises that weren't available in the discovery
documents that I reviewed. So more to come and hopefully,
you know, no matter what side is successful, the public
(37:23):
gets more clarity on this.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Well, I'll tell you what, Emily, if if you're up
for when when that next trial or or hearing goes
down and something pops out of that, we we'd love
to have you on Just there's just a real quick
I'm just so I have to just hit this because
this caught my eye as I was going through your
page and just look reading through all your articles you
(37:48):
there's one you reposted about an article from what is
It a Garden Air? Harris uh An excerpt uh speaking
about antidepressant and how a new finding is saying that
potentially there's a link to suicide in kids for long
term use of antidepressants. Are you covering that? Are you
(38:11):
doing a story on that? When's that going to come out?
And where can people like follow you and pay attention
because you're just doing great work.
Speaker 5 (38:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
I'm glad you asked about that because it's sort of
a nuance that I couldn't get into in depth because
I didn't want people to sort of totally lose the thread.
But I think it's important in telling about the culture
of the FDA. So this actually happened in two thousand
and three. The epidemiologists I keep mentioning the rank and
(38:43):
file head drug safety over the counter drug safety expert
at the FDA, who kept saying, hey, we need.
Speaker 4 (38:49):
To warn pregnant women about thailand all use.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
He you know, twenty years earlier, fifteen years earlier, put
together this report about children on antidepressants having a higher
rate of suicide than children who were not depressed, children
who were not taking antidepressants, so essentially antidepressants having any
opposite intended effect, and he was greeted by his higher
(39:19):
ups at the FDA with.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
Harassment.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
He was not able to present his science at an
advisory committee meeting. Those are open to the public, so
this would included in the public to what was going on,
and higher ups even tried to pressure him to change
the conclusions of his report so that it, yeah, so
it wouldn't find this association. This all became public, there
(39:48):
was a major congressional hearing and the FDA sort of
through having their arms twisted was forced to issue a
black box warning about this risk. But you know, you
kind of wonder an institution with that sort of culture,
would it be capable of being responsible for a cover
(40:11):
up of neurological damage of a major drug like tail
and all.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
I think it's safe to say they would be capable
thing like that.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
So I think they're capable of all of this and more,
because every it seems like every every ten years or so,
we see where there's you know, catastrophic fails on their
oversight for the American population of people.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
And I think they're over it. We're over it. We're
just sick of it. Now.
Speaker 1 (40:41):
We don't know who to trust, We don't know which
doctors to go see, who are going to push drugs,
more vaccines, and more drugs on us, and who's going
to support these things, And because that's a huge component
of their fund how they make money is what they
sell in terms of you know, prescriptions, and it all
just seems like it's it's gone on to the place
where that moral flexibility has been you know, you serve,
(41:05):
or that moral construct has been usurped by the power
of the dollar.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
And man, I'm just.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Grateful that you are out there pounding the pavement and
digging into these stories. Emily, where can people follow you
and if and how can they get in touch with
you if they have tips or our ideas that they
want to share with you about great stories involved in
what you're reporting on. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Absolutely, so you can read my reporting at the Daily
Caller and then I'm on x at Emily and A
N N. E. Cop Kopp and my dms are open
and love to chat with folks about story ideas.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
So awesome, Emily, Thank you so much for what you're doing.
Keep up the great work. And uh just I'm looking
forward to I'm going to be paying attention if you
if you get another big break, I'd love to have it.
And one last thing, I do want to say that
Secretary Kennedy did reach out to you and compliment you
on one of your reporting, didn't he.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
He did, Yeah, his knowledge is pretty impressive. He was like,
there's this guy most shoulder. He knew the specific name
of the FDA epidemiologist. So they're paying close attention to
the science. And I hope you know you mentioned doing
your careful research. I think that's sort of where the
(42:31):
corruption leads us as us doing our own independent research
in these things, and I hope, hope folks continue to
do their own research too.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
Very well. Thank you so much, and God bless you, Emily.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
Thank you so much.
Does tail and aw cause autism? You're gonna find out
today on the David Rutherford Show. I'm here today with
investigative journalists from the Daily Caller Emily Copp, who dropped
(00:20):
an article that absolutely just melted my brain around this
tail and aw autism thing.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So, Emily, thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Is this story true and is there a greater conspiracy
that we're unaware of?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
As you know, mind melting as this story is, it
is absolutely factual. Uh, you know, we at the Daily
Color News Foundation take factual reporting very seriously. This went through,
I'll be honest, a bunch of edits that was sort
of fresh writing for me as a reporter that wanted
(01:01):
the story out there, but we needed to make sure
that we had all of our ducks in a row
because of course, this story has massive implications.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
But I read.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Hundreds of documents related to ken View, the maker of
tail and all, and in this most recent story, looked
at FDA epidemiology report after FDA epidemiology report, several memos
and they all had the same conclusion going back to
(01:34):
twenty sixteen, that we need to issue some sort of
communication to pregnant women about the risk of taking this
drug in pregnancy, and instead FDA higher ups suppressed the
recommendation year after a year.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
I mean, that was the part in your article that
really just lapped out at me, and it was this section.
I'm just going to read it verbatim. An internal memo
reveals that the agency first began examining a seed of
NFL in pregnancy eleven years ago in May twenty fourteen,
after in April twenty fourteen study published in the Journal
(02:08):
of American Medical Association raised concerns about the drug and
ADHD like behaviors, prompting its sole statement on the issue
for the next decade, and in twenty fifteen FDA web
page that acknowledging that quote the FDA is aware of
concerns end quote, inciting that single study. Less than two
(02:29):
years later, in October twenty sixteen, FDA Senior medical Officer
Andrew Moseholder had a Mossholder had reviewed eight observational studies,
with seven showing an association between aceta menafin and issues
including attention deficits, delayed motor development, and autistic behaviors. When
(02:53):
we had the big press conference at the White House
with Kennedy, doctor Oz and the president. The pushback that
I saw media afterwards was citing this one report.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's one report. It's one report.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
But what you're saying is that this senior medical after
Andrew Moshholder, he reviewed eight other studies and there was
a much greater consensus that this was going on. Can
you talk through one how you found those what documents
and then where you started to see the string of
(03:34):
I guess cover up is the best word to use,
or or you know, using tactical language to push it
down the road, so to speak.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Yeah, absolutely, well.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
I think one thing that we should know is that
one report was actually a what they call it menta analysis,
So it looked at a bunch of different reports in
the scientific literature, said okay, which ones meet this rigorous
criteria and summarize the findings of them.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
And so that one Harvard report that Kennedy.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Cited in that a bunch of people, you know, as
you mentioned, were being critical of, was actually a summary
of a bunch of the scientific literature, which we can
see from these internal FDA reports were accumulating over the
last decade or so, and that very first report that
sort of kicked off FDA reviewing the evidence. It should
(04:27):
be noted, was published in the second most prestigious pediatric
journal in the country, so this is in some pre
print that hasn't been peer reviewed. The rigorous science published
in a journal that the FDA couldn't ignore. So the
FDA launches this internal review of the science, and their
(04:48):
top reviewer of drug safety for over the counter drugs
produces another meta analysis and shows the science is credible,
and he's he's very careful. He says, the association between
TAIL and all use and a parent neurodevelopmental damage is
(05:10):
consistent across these studies, but it's not yet causal, so
we can't say for sure. The studies simply aren't uniform
enough and they're not designed to suss out whether it's
the precise cause. But he says the association is consistent
enough that we really need to start informing women about
the risk. We just need them to make informed decisions.
(05:32):
At the same time, you know, we need to tell
them that these other over the counter painkillers have their
own risks, and that they shouldn't have high fevers and
you know, not be taking anything to treat their high fevers.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
So he's just he's not.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Calling for, you know, a public relations campaign against thailan
All or anything like that. He's just saying, we need
to we need to warn women about the potential for
a risk.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
And instead what happened is FDA did nothing.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
They released one statement in twenty fifteen about a bunch
of different over the counterpain killers, and they say, we're
aware of some concerns related to ADHD, and they cite
that first report in the second most prestigious pediatric journal
in the country. As more and more studies accumulate and
(06:21):
as privately the FDA is reviewing these studies and finding
them credible, FDA issues no further public communication. And so
the documents that I reviewed, they're the internal FDA reports
that were obtained via FOYA by this law firm that
launched a class action lawsuit against ken View. And the
(06:41):
reason I started reading them is because, you know, I
talked to lead attorney for the plaintiffs for the parents
who feel that their children were affected by tail and
All use, and he was like sort of citing certain studies,
and I was like, are those studies public?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
Are those emails that you're mentioning public?
Speaker 3 (07:04):
And he said, well, we obtained them in discovery or
via FOYA, and I said I would like to read them,
and he said, are you sure. It's like hundreds of documents,
and I was like yes.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
So they just literally sent me their whole docket, whole docket.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They didn't point me to, you know, specific documents, and
in fact, just for my own integrity as a journalist,
I didn't want to work too closely with the firm,
So I just read every single document that I could
get my hands on. And these these FDA reports clearly,
you know, stuck.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Out wow, I I you know, for for me, you know,
as I looked and I thought, you know, one of
the things that is just really cool about your reporting
is that you do add in all of those those
counter arguments, right, it wasn't really clear how many doses
of tail and all were taken, you know, the the
(07:56):
amount of of how often were taken, you know, And
I thought that was brilliant reporting there. It was really
cool to see. But the other aspect, you know, to
reinforce what you're saying is, man, you know, when you
get access to something like a class action lawsuit, that's
got to be like gold for you as as an
(08:19):
investigated journalist. What what did you learn because some of
the some of the documents that you did post we
were incredibly redacted. How much of what you got access
to was redacted? Do you think there's incredibly there's a
lot more that needs to be unredacted.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
And hopefully you know, Kennedy will will you know.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
You will hear more about this and as the hopefully
growing storm grows from your reporting, that they'll come out
and release some of these what what did you find
in those documents?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Well, first of all, I appreciate your praise of be
trying to be even handed on the science. That's something
that we discussed a lot internally here at the Caller,
and I know that this is an important issue to
so many families, and I want to make sure that
the science here isn't ironclad, but it is concerning enough
that FDA, you know, scientists, rank and file scientists were
(09:19):
saying internally that we should issue some sort of warning
and FDA higher ups who you know, in many other
instances of FDA scandals, like the opioid crisis, you know,
did the public relations bidding of the pharmaceutical industry. That
same pattern to me appears to have occurred here where
(09:42):
where the concern about public relations and about a relationship
to the pharmaceutical industry outweighed a concern about giving the
public full information, and that definitely plays. And then documents,
as you mentioned, there are a lot of redactions. One
(10:04):
of the reports states that fd's toxicology division did their
own independent studies. So several of these epidemiology reports, they
were sort of collating and summarizing other papers, other scientific papers.
But it turns out the FD did its own independent
science and toxicology reports are basically animal studies that look
(10:29):
at the you know, toxicity of a particular drug, and
there are certain signals that you can look for in
mice to indicate that something is dangerous. For instance, there
are certain studies that show that mice.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
And their.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Litter when exposed to see to benifit, the mother stop
nursing the infants, which could indicate, yeah, some sort of
damage there. So what did the FDA find. What were
their animal studies showing. We don't know because for some reason,
when the law firm submitted a foia to the FDA
(11:10):
to find these results, the FDA entirely redacted them. And
in my experience as an investigative reporter. Obviously I can't
say what's underneath those black bars, but in my experience
as an investigative reporter doing work on other issues like
the origins of COVID and floying NIH, it's usually an
(11:32):
inconvenient fact, right, or something someone's embarrassed of. And if
the science truly indicates that there is no risk here,
I think that's something that the FDA should inform the
public of. But if there is a concern, then the
public deserves to know that.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Too, one hundred percent. I mean that's trust me.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
I used to work for the Central Intelligence Agency, who
is probably the most notorious in terms of over a
billion classified documents redactions at that scale. Right, we still
haven't even gotten all the unredacted stuff from the Kennedy
assassination and all that, and you know, much less than
(12:16):
every other scandal they've been involved in. Now, I'd like
to get into some some of the key players that
are involved in this whole thing, But before I do,
I just I would be remiss if I didn't just
give props or one of our new sponsors an organization,
a university, a college that is really transforming the landscape
(12:36):
right now, because you know, here's the deal. They they
understand how many people are just mindlessly scrolling through their
phones and on watching shows and streaming platforms, and they
just seem to, you know, be you know, addicted to
this mind numbing content. Well, listen, you know what time
(12:56):
you have is so precious in this life. Don't waste
it on on things that aren't going to make you
more educated. And I'm telling you Hillsdale College is the
place to do this now. Hillsdale is offering more than
forty free online courses. That's right, more than forty free
(13:18):
foxtrot Romeo Echo Echo free forty three courses online all right.
You can learn about great works from C. S. Lewis,
stories in the Book of Genesis, the meaning of the Constitution,
the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the
ancient history of the Christian College. With Hillsdale Colleges online courses,
(13:42):
everything you want to get into is free.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
The one that always hits me so so.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Hard, and the one that I recommend for you my listeners,
people who I know are just really in this revival
moment and want to understand the power of Christianity. I
personally recommend that you say, for ancient Christianity. This is
an eleven lecture course. You'll study inspiring stories of Christ,
(14:09):
his apostles, and all the other faithful people throughout the
first four centuries of Christianity. You'll also learn the arguments
of key early Christian apologists who defended the Christian faith
in the face of overwhelming persecution.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Right, all you got to do is check.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Out you know how many times Christians have been persecuted
back in the day, including now. Right. The course is
self pace so that you can start whenever and wherever
you want in the course, simply and role now in
Ancient Christianity to discover the improbable and miraculous story of
(14:47):
Christianity itself. Go right now for your free online courses.
If it's not Ancient Christianity one of the forty free
ones they offer, go right now to Hillsdale dot eedu
four slash David to enroll. There's no cost again, it's free.
Use your time wisely. It's free and it's easy to
(15:09):
get started. That's Hillsdale dot edu Ford slash David to register,
or click the link in the show notes Hillsdale dot
edu Ford slash David.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
All Right, there were some key.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Players in this that really kind of jumped out at me,
and one was the former Food and Drug Administration Acting Commissioner,
Janet Woodcock. Can you talk about her and what you
found with her relationship to kind of the sequence of
this pr nightmare potentially that they had to manage.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
So, part of the documents that.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
We looked at were describing this meeting in twenty eighteen
where this rank and file FDA epidemiologist overseeing the safety
of over the counter drugs made a presentation to a
committee of FDA higher ups and said here's the science.
(16:11):
For reasons that remained unclear to me, they weren't even
considering a label change. Currently, you know, the the Trump
administration and Kennedy are issuing a label change or initiating
a label change with the which the drug company is fighting.
But they didn't even consider that. They just thought, you know,
should we as the rank and file FDA epidemiologists was
(16:35):
repeatedly recommending, should we issue some sort of nuanced communication
to pregnant women about the potential for risk? And this
FDA committee of higher ups, led by a long time
uh FDA bureaucrat, Janet Woodcock, decided to essentially do nothing,
kick the can down the road. They commissioned that toxicology
(17:00):
that we were just talking about that we don't know
the results of, and said nothing remained silent. I think
this is notable because Americans at this point, many Americans
have a healthy mistrust of the FDA because.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Of that's an understatement. I think they outright, I think
they suck.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
I mean, oh my god.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You know, I listened to Tucker's latest interview with doctor Huff,
who was a part of Eco Health Alliance. I almost
fell out of my chair. I mean, I already have
my own suspicions of where it came from.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Why.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
I mean, you know, I've been listening to doctor Malone
since day one on all That right, and had him
on the show talk about it a few months ago,
and you know, and to see this now, it's like, well,
I mean it's everywhere you look, right, It's not just
you know, the pandemic of COVID. Now it's tail and all.
Now it's the COVID, it's m R and A vaccines.
(18:02):
How many other drugs in the past have were you know,
hidden by these bureaucratic officials. And I think we're just
seeing another intense reality of I think a much deeper
basket of potential problems with with the Food and Drug
administrationist relationships with farm uh big pharma.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So what what did? What did? How? What were did you?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Were there some other things I thought I remembered in
in the article. There was some other I don't want
to say scandals, but there are other questionable uh drugs
and other things that she was a part of as well.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (18:43):
I think she fits a pattern of a lot of
longtime deep state folks who simply occupy a position of
power for too long, unaccountable to any election. Right Like
you think about a j Edgar Hoover, you think about
(19:03):
a Anthony Fauci, You're in the same position. Decade after
decade after decade. She was at the FDA for four decades.
You start to accumulate this bureaucratic power that seems almost
unaccountable to Congress, unaccountable to elected officials, because you have
been around longer and are more knowledgeable and can play
(19:26):
the Washington game better than anybody who could fire you.
And I think an interesting contrast is looking at some
of the people who are in positions of influence at FDA.
Now you have a Marty McCarey, you have a vende proisade,
folks who have been critical of the internch bureaucracy and
(19:46):
who want to shake things up, and you have the
Wall Street Journal calling for their heads. You don't see
that with Janet Woodcock, despite her being there for four decades.
So what does that tell you? It tells you that
she was a cree sure of the status quo. People
will often mention FDA user fees that the FDA is
sort of funded by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
(20:10):
I think that definitely played a role in her behavior,
and you allude to other controversial decisions that she oversaw.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I mean, she was the head of.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
The division of the FDA that oversees opioids for.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
The beginning, middle, and up until very recently end of
the well, there's no end to the opioid crisis.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
But she was there at the beginning of the opioid crisis.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
She you know, led that division at the time of
the approval of oxygon and then subsequently oversaw the approval
of many other dangerous opioids, you know, sometimes overriding the
fd's own scientific advisors to do so, and then as
recently as twenty twenty offended that infamous decision of the
(21:02):
FDA to approve oxycontencying it followed all of their UH
standards and protocols. So what does that say about FDA
standards and protocols? So, as I said, you know, I
think Americans at this point post COVID especially have this
healthy skepticism of the FDA, And there's this attitude I
(21:24):
think in the mainstream press that how dare Kennedy.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Challenge the science?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
You know? But I think the responsibility is on these
institutions to prove that they are following the science. It's
sort of up to them to regain our trust because
there have been so many, so many scandals, And I
think top of mind for me right now is why
(21:53):
did FDA officials override the recommendation of one of their
top epidemiologists to warn pregnant women about tailand all? What
was the harm in just saying, hey, we're reviewing the
science and this is what the science is indicating right now.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
So I that is the multi million dollar question. From Thailand,
all's concerned for sure, and and you know, from all
the people whose children that potentially that this might have
harmed in some capacity. I mean, I remember, you know,
in my my four daughters when you know, two of
the new marriage. But when I when I was you know,
(22:28):
a young father with my first children. You know, they
get sick, they get a fever. For what's the first
thing I'm doing. I'm I'm giving them a dose to
tail and all right, the liquid you know, grape tail
and all that you buy in bulk from Walgreens and
all these other places.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Because there's a trust in the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And and had you know, had I ever been because
I'm a medic. I'm a classically trained civilian paramedic. I
was a medic in the sealed teams. If I, you know,
was going to administer a drug to one of my guys,
you know, I'm going to do the research and figure
out right, what you know, what are the marker what
are the biomarkers, What are the things I need?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
What are the dose sizes? What you know?
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Is there any you know, uh potentiality for uh a
negative effect efficacy in this? You know, you do all
those things, but when it comes to these mega corporations,
you just figure, oh, it's a no brainer. There's never
been a problem there's no whatever. But now we absolutely
know that there's a symbiotic relationship. Did you find any
(23:26):
type of money correlation uh to tile and all people
that worked that were in these studies. Did you find
any uh a financial uh integration with Woodcock or any
of these other people? I mean, like I remember in
the in the Peter Berg you know, uh documentary or
(23:49):
or or documentary or drama documentary whatever they call those things,
when he about the Sackler family, there was that one
FDA person that went into the hotel room for you know,
forty eight hours or whatever it is, and came out
on the other end and was like approved, you know what,
what did you find any other connections? I mean, obviously
(24:12):
as investigative journals probably like rule number one for y'all
is follow the money, right, did you find anything like that?
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I asked the drug company ken View, did you have
any communications with the FDA about this? They their strategy
when it comes to my reporting has just been to
ignore me.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
So they didn't answer that question.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
But we know that there's a financial relationship, and you
don't need FOYA or an investigative journalist to tell you that.
Actually you just you know, understand that user fees mean
that drug companies like Johnson and Johnson now can view
and other makers of a set of minifin are partially
underwriting the.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Budget of the FDA.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
So absolutely, you know, baseline, there is a final relationship.
Asked you whether the company was lobbying the FDA. You know,
I think one of the cool things about the new
leadership at the FDA is they've been doing these podcasts,
which has been an insightful way to get a sense
(25:19):
of what actually goes on. And they mentioned how drug
companies lobby the FDA. They don't necessarily do it directly.
They'll go to a lawmaker whose campaigns are you know,
in many cases underwritten by the pharmaceutical industry and say
we're really concerned about this FDA policy. And then the
(25:40):
lawmakers who of course set the FDA's budget, who are
in charge of their appropriations, will come to the FDA
and say, hey, we're hearing this from the industry, what's
going on over there, And that'll be sort of the
indirect way of putting pressure on the FDAs. So I
thought that was super interesting. I didn't realize that that
was how pharma sort of because it's influence on the
(26:03):
FDA often, but on the specifics of this case, I
think we're still learning more.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
I definitely hope to learn more.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
As you mentioned, you know, the opioid case is infamous,
and Janet Woodcock, overseeing ced the division of the FD
that oversees opioids, also overseeing this case. You know, she
doesn't have the best track record, So I think it's
a reasonable question to ask another parallel I think to
(26:38):
you know, the case of oxy cotton is there was
one letter that was cited repeatedly and it was really
more of an op ed that said this stuff is
not addictive, and it kept getting cited in the scientific
literature as this premiere evidence that this drug was safe.
In the case of tile and all, there's something very
(26:59):
similar where the American Academy of Pediatrics looked at liver
toxicity of a set of menifin and they said, well,
it doesn't seem to harm the liver, so we think
it's okay. And that sort of repeated and cited as
that in said it's safe. But then one point that
experts who are in favor of this hypothesis that a
(27:21):
seed of menifin causes neurological damage. They'll point to animal
studies showing that mice will die from a seed of
minifine overdose without their livers being damaged, and we're not
really sure how that happens.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
So so much like.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
The oxycotton letter, there is a similar sort of foundational
publication saying that this drug is safe that keeps getting
repeatedly cited. And I think it's time that we take
a second look at that the evidence there.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
I think you're one hundred percent right.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
I mean, I you know, I all I as you're
saying this thing, all I remember is during COVID, right,
every CNN commercial was brought to you by Pfizer, right,
or you know, it was just one constant from all
these organized news so called news organizations, and you know,
and you see, you know, the organizations that obviously don't
(28:20):
take money from big pharmers, such as the Daily Caller.
And you're able to do good reporting on this because
you're not constrained by by the influence there. Now, what
I'd really love to do is I want to dig
into this class action lawsuit for sure, But before I do,
I just got to bring back and touch on one
of our great sponsors in terms of Patriot Mobile, right,
(28:42):
here's the deal. Every choice we make is an opportunity
to stand for freedom. That's why I do this show.
Even something as simple as your cell phone service is
a representation of what your wallet means in what type
of American company you want to support. Here's the truth.
Most self phone providers don't care about you. They just
want your card earned cash. Patriot Mobile, I promise you,
(29:07):
is different. For over twelve years, they've stood with Americans
who believe in faith, family, and freedom, period right, contributing
millions of dollars to Christian conservative causes which are all near.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
And dear to my heart.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
The best part is with Patriot Mobile, you don't have
to sacrifice quality or service. Patriot Mobile offers premium access
to all three US major networks, so you'll never have
to worry about coverage.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Wherever you are.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Now, I know what most people are like, Hey man,
I hate switching.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
It's way too complicated. But I'm here to tell you
it is not.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
It is not. You keep your number, you can keep
your phone, or if you're feeling froggy, you upgrade everything
across the board. Patriot Mobiles one hundred percent US based
team will get you activated in minutes. Right, keep your number,
keep your phone, or upgrade across all systems. Right, Patriot
(30:06):
Mobiles one US based team will get you activated in
just a few minutes. Now, are you stuck in a
contract or do you still own money on your other phone?
It's not a problem at all. They even have a
contract buyout program. So you got to ask yourself what
am I waiting for?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
All right?
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Go to Patriotmobile dot com forward slash Rutherford or call
nine to seven to two Patriot. Use promo code rutherford
r U T H E R F O r D,
and you will get yourself one month of free service.
That's an entire month of service for free if you
switch today. All right, that's Patriotmobile dot com forward slash
(30:49):
Rutherford or call nine to seven two Patriot. Okay, Emily,
I want to go back to this, the class action lawsuit.
I saw that they have some another big hearing in November.
Can you talk a little bit about that and what
they're hoping to accomplish in that upcoming trial?
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (31:13):
Yeah, So briefly on the ad point, if you map
when direct to consumer advertise advertising started by the pharmaceutical
industry and Johnson and Johnson, the maker of Thailand all
former maker of tailand al Uh before they spun it
off into this separate, legally separate company called ken View
a couple of years ago.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
You know, they were a big driver of that, and
you map.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
It against autism cases. You know, again it's it's it's
not a we can't prove causation, but it's interesting that
they dovetail. So yeah, so there's this class action lawsuit.
They were unsuccessful their first go round. Essentially the judge
(32:01):
said that the evidence doesn't prove causation and thus were
throwing out all of the plaintiffs experts in this case.
They thought they the firm was overseating its case.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
And where where was that? Where was that case litigated? Initially,
I'm sorry to interrupt you. Where was that case litigated?
And do you know the name of the judge the.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
Southern District of New York, Denise Cote, I think is
the name of the judge.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
So folks can independently look to.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Evaluate our record, which is a whole nother system that
we have to evaluate right now with the justice system
might to not allow your you know, the class actions
experts to testify, I mean, and then to and then
to you know, in discovery, to get you know, a
(32:59):
stack of you know, redacted information for your case.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It's just it's it's a sham, the whole thing. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Well, and one thing I'll mention, Well, I'll be even
handed here. So, like the FDA documents we reported on,
the experts said pregnant women absolutely need to be warned,
but they also said we don't have causation yet repeatedly.
And my understanding from scientists is that causation is hard
(33:29):
to prove, and so there is the possibility that the
firm was overstating its case when it said that there
is causation simply because it hasn't been studied in the
way that you would need to in order to prove it.
And part of it is difficult because there are major
ethical challenges with you know, studying pregnancy.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
So I'll say that to be absolutely fair here.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
One thing that's curious is that Biden's Department of Justice
weighed in in the case with a letter where they
mention all of these fd reports that we describe in
our story, but they only cite one of them, and
it's this twenty twenty three epidemiology review. The person the
(34:19):
expert who wrote that first initial report saying pregnant women
should be warned, and then said that again and again
in these other internal reports. He had moved on, he
had started tore. So it was this other official who
wrote this twenty twenty three report. And unlike every other
(34:39):
prior FD report that I reviewed, it didn't have a
recommendation section at all. So it just said the association
has not proven to be causal and then didn't say
anything else.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
So and that was.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And that was the only one that Biden's Department of Justice,
you know, quoted from in its letter in this case.
And so the defendant, the pharmaceutical company ken View, was
able to say, you know, the FDA says that there's
no causal relationship here, nothing to see here. And in fact,
the drug company has since in battling the current FDA,
(35:17):
the new leadership at FDA, has said the FDA has
said in prior reports that there's no puzzle relationship here,
of course, omitting the giant red flag that every other
report recommended that pregnant women be warned. So so that's
a curiosity, you might say, I do wonder how that happened.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Oh, man, I I I think it's it's now so
systemic of of of a tactic that it just I mean,
you know, once you once you figure out how to
generate liability for vaccines, you generate how to destroy these
(36:01):
class action lawsuits through holding the trials and specific areas
with specific judges. You know, I mean, the whole idea
of law fare and how to play that game is
become you know, a multi billion dollar business of it
in itself. So you know, these are are our tactics
that you know, all these companies have become you know,
(36:24):
invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and so
you know, only by the grace of God and tenacious
reporters like yourself does it does it begin to percolate
to the surface? What what is that you said there's
going to be a follow up hearing? Is that?
Speaker 2 (36:45):
Do they have what's the word I'm looking for?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
They appealed the judgment, I'm assuming, and so they're getting
up a follow up hearing in November.
Speaker 4 (36:55):
Yeah, so the judgeal or another judgell.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Here in appeal and we definitely plan on covering those
proceedings so so stay tuned. I think it's possible both
sides will have surprises that weren't available in the discovery
documents that I reviewed. So more to come and hopefully,
you know, no matter what side is successful, the public
(37:23):
gets more clarity on this.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Well, I'll tell you what, Emily, if if you're up
for when when that next trial or or hearing goes
down and something pops out of that, we we'd love
to have you on Just there's just a real quick
I'm just so I have to just hit this because
this caught my eye as I was going through your
page and just look reading through all your articles you
(37:48):
there's one you reposted about an article from what is
It a Garden Air? Harris uh An excerpt uh speaking
about antidepressant and how a new finding is saying that
potentially there's a link to suicide in kids for long
term use of antidepressants. Are you covering that? Are you
(38:11):
doing a story on that? When's that going to come out?
And where can people like follow you and pay attention
because you're just doing great work.
Speaker 5 (38:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
I'm glad you asked about that because it's sort of
a nuance that I couldn't get into in depth because
I didn't want people to sort of totally lose the thread.
But I think it's important in telling about the culture
of the FDA. So this actually happened in two thousand
and three. The epidemiologists I keep mentioning the rank and
(38:43):
file head drug safety over the counter drug safety expert
at the FDA, who kept saying, hey, we need.
Speaker 4 (38:49):
To warn pregnant women about thailand all use.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
He you know, twenty years earlier, fifteen years earlier, put
together this report about children on antidepressants having a higher
rate of suicide than children who were not depressed, children
who were not taking antidepressants, so essentially antidepressants having any
opposite intended effect, and he was greeted by his higher
(39:19):
ups at the FDA with.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
Harassment.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
He was not able to present his science at an
advisory committee meeting. Those are open to the public, so
this would included in the public to what was going on,
and higher ups even tried to pressure him to change
the conclusions of his report so that it, yeah, so
it wouldn't find this association. This all became public, there
(39:48):
was a major congressional hearing and the FDA sort of
through having their arms twisted was forced to issue a
black box warning about this risk. But you know, you
kind of wonder an institution with that sort of culture,
would it be capable of being responsible for a cover
(40:11):
up of neurological damage of a major drug like tail
and all.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
I think it's safe to say they would be capable
thing like that.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
So I think they're capable of all of this and more,
because every it seems like every every ten years or so,
we see where there's you know, catastrophic fails on their
oversight for the American population of people.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
And I think they're over it. We're over it. We're
just sick of it. Now.
Speaker 1 (40:41):
We don't know who to trust, We don't know which
doctors to go see, who are going to push drugs,
more vaccines, and more drugs on us, and who's going
to support these things, And because that's a huge component
of their fund how they make money is what they
sell in terms of you know, prescriptions, and it all
just seems like it's it's gone on to the place
where that moral flexibility has been you know, you serve,
(41:05):
or that moral construct has been usurped by the power
of the dollar.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
And man, I'm just.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Grateful that you are out there pounding the pavement and
digging into these stories. Emily, where can people follow you
and if and how can they get in touch with
you if they have tips or our ideas that they
want to share with you about great stories involved in
what you're reporting on. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Absolutely, so you can read my reporting at the Daily
Caller and then I'm on x at Emily and A
N N. E. Cop Kopp and my dms are open
and love to chat with folks about story ideas.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
So awesome, Emily, Thank you so much for what you're doing.
Keep up the great work. And uh just I'm looking
forward to I'm going to be paying attention if you
if you get another big break, I'd love to have it.
And one last thing, I do want to say that
Secretary Kennedy did reach out to you and compliment you
on one of your reporting, didn't he.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
He did, Yeah, his knowledge is pretty impressive. He was like,
there's this guy most shoulder. He knew the specific name
of the FDA epidemiologist. So they're paying close attention to
the science. And I hope you know you mentioned doing
your careful research. I think that's sort of where the
(42:31):
corruption leads us as us doing our own independent research
in these things, and I hope, hope folks continue to
do their own research too.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
Very well. Thank you so much, and God bless you, Emily.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
Thank you so much.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.