Up Next
Charlie Kirk Predicts Republicans Will Keep the House in 2018 Midterm Elections Despite Skepticism
2:30
Charlie Kirk and Dr. Ben Carson on Higher Education Indoctrination and Faith in America's Future
42:01
Charlie Kirk and Vaush Debate Critical Race Theory, Vaccine Mandates, and Reparations in America
2:21:11
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Tim Pool & Charlie Kirk Debates Leftist Commentator Vaush on COVID Vaccine Mandates, Pharmaceutical Profits, and Medical Freedom
Tim Pool sits down with Charlie Kirk and a leftist commentator Vaush for an intense debate on COVID-19 vaccine mandates, pharmaceutical industry motives, and the balance between public health and individual liberty. The discussion covers everything from the effectiveness of vaccines like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson to questions about alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Charlie Kirk raises concerns about experimental medicine, adverse event reporting through VAERS, and warnings from scientists like Dr. Robert Malone who invented mRNA technology. The leftist guest defends vaccine efficacy while simultaneously criticizing Big Pharma's profit motives, creating an unexpected dynamic where traditional political positions seem reversed. They explore Australia's strict lockdowns, New York City's vaccine passport system, and whether medical decisions should remain between individuals and their doctors.
The Vaccine Mandate Debate Begins
Tim Pool kicks off a substantive conversation on vaccine mandates by referencing the chaos unfolding in Sydney, Australia, where lockdowns have prompted massive protests and military deployment. The vaccination rate in Australia sits at a remarkably low 18%, and authorities have responded with increasingly aggressive enforcement measures. This sets the stage for a debate between Charlie Kirk and a leftist commentator about whether similar mandates could or should come to America.
The leftist guest acknowledges supporting certain vaccine mandates in principle, noting that standards already exist for vaccines like MMR for school attendance and travel. However, he expresses concerns about the haphazard implementation of COVID-19 vaccine passports, particularly in New York City, where people are expected to carry physical vaccination cards that were made too large for wallets and which many have already discarded.
Charlie Kirk's Position on Medical Freedom
Charlie Kirk positions himself firmly among the 100 million unvaccinated Americans, describing the COVID vaccines as experimental. He points to FDA and CDC statements from January acknowledging uncertainty, and highlights cases like Senator Lindsey Graham contracting COVID despite vaccination, and a fully vaccinated ship in the United Kingdom experiencing an outbreak. Kirk argues these vaccines function more like treatments than traditional vaccines.
Kirk emphasizes his opposition to what he calls "medical apartheid"—a two-tiered system that restricts unvaccinated people from Broadway shows and restaurants despite questionable vaccine efficacy. He points to Israel, which is 85% vaccinated yet facing renewed lockdowns, with most new cases occurring among vaccinated individuals rather than the unvaccinated.
The Irony of Political Positions
An interesting moment emerges when Kirk points out the irony of their debate positions. Traditionally, leftists criticize pharmaceutical companies while conservatives defend corporate interests. Yet here, Kirk finds himself questioning Big Pharma's motives—specifically those of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson—while the leftist guest defends vaccine effectiveness. Kirk notes with amusement that he's the one criticizing pharmaceutical companies while his opponent appears to be "peddling the Pfizer vaccine."
The leftist responds by clarifying that his support isn't for pharmaceutical CEOs or their profit models, but for the tireless workers who developed these vaccines. He even goes so far as to say he'd support nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, stating he would "unironically actually trust it more in the hands of our ineffective bloated government" than with the sociopaths currently running these companies.
VAERS Data and Adverse Event Reporting
Kirk raises concerns about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which shows over 7,000 deaths reported after vaccination. He notes that most submissions come from physicians rather than random individuals. The debate turns to how seriously these reports should be taken and what threshold of adverse events should trigger pulling a vaccine from the market.
The leftist guest explains that VAERS is a self-reported system where anyone can submit information, making it difficult to establish causation versus correlation. However, Kirk counters by asking what number of deaths would be concerning, noting that vaccines are traditionally pulled after just 15 attributable deaths. The question becomes: how do we know these 7,000 deaths were caused by the vaccine?
Both acknowledge this is a difficult question. The guest suggests that VAERS exists to identify patterns in adverse events, and 7,000 reports may indeed suggest something worth investigating, though he lacks the scientific credentials to make definitive claims.
Johnson & Johnson and Rare Nerve Disorders
The discussion shifts to specific vaccine concerns, including the FDA warning that Johnson & Johnson's vaccine might cause a rare nerve disease (Guillain-Barré syndrome). Kirk asks whether this worries his opponent. The leftist responds that while this deserves investigation, even if the claim proves true, unless the nerve damage is "apocalyptically severe," getting COVID would likely be far worse than potential vaccine side effects.
He also notes that Guillain-Barré syndrome is actually a known side effect of many vaccines, not unique to the COVID vaccines. The guest emphasizes that Johnson & Johnson isn't an mRNA vaccine, offering an alternative for those specifically concerned about mRNA technology.
Dr. Robert Malone and Scientific Disagreement
Kirk introduces Dr. Robert Malone, who invented mRNA vaccine technology and has expressed concerns about dangerous spike proteins in COVID vaccines. Malone encourages people to think twice before getting vaccinated, warning that this technology was rushed to market and could have unforeseen side effects. Kirk asks whether this expert opinion moves his opponent at all.
The leftist guest responds that while he respects Malone's credentials, the scientist wasn't directly involved in producing these specific vaccines. He argues that Malone's concerns should be addressed by the broader scientific community rather than taken as definitive. When asked whether he trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci or evolutionary biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein more, the guest deflects, saying it's about the global medical community rather than any single figure.
Tim Pool interjects, noting that ultimately this becomes a question of trust—which doctors and organizations you choose to believe—since most people lack the credentials to independently evaluate the science.
The Question of COVID Death Attribution
The debate addresses how COVID deaths are counted. Critics argue many deaths are "with COVID" rather than "from COVID," often involving elderly people with comorbidities. The leftist guest responds that COVID rarely kills directly; instead, it causes systemic breakdown that leads to other vital functions failing. He points to excess mortality data, which shows deaths above normal patterns starting precisely when COVID began, tracking almost perfectly with COVID death waves.
This data, he argues, proves that deaths aren't being spuriously attributed to COVID-19. Over half a million Americans have died—more than the combined death tolls of every war since World War II, including Vietnam. These are facts that don't require a virology degree to recognize.
Alternative Treatments and Trust Issues
Kirk questions why there's such emphasis on mass vaccination rather than alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The leftist responds that hydroxychloroquine studies found it largely ineffective, with one French study stopping when people started dying of heart failure. He suggests the only reason conservatives champion hydroxychloroquine is because Trump mentioned it.
Tim Pool brings up that people have been taking ivermectin meant for horses, which the FDA explicitly warns against. He notes that just because an animal can take something doesn't mean humans can safely use the same formulation. Both agree that the fundamental answer is: talk to your doctor.
The Mandate Question and Individual Rights
When pressed on whether he supports mandating COVID vaccines the same way other vaccines are required for schools and travel, the leftist says yes, but clarifies he doesn't support requiring vaccine cards for restaurants or movie theaters as a permanent measure. He views that as a panic response rather than a sustainable policy. Long-term, he'd prefer integrating COVID vaccination into the same framework as other required vaccines.
Kirk and the guest find some agreement on yielding to individual rights when facing uncertainty. Kirk argues that as a 27-year-old, he doesn't consider COVID a disproportionate risk to his life, and he should have the right to decline an experimental vaccine. The American constitutional tradition, he argues, is to allow nuanced preferences and individualism for complex issues, not to bar people from restaurants for making different medical choices.
The Historical Context of Vaccine Mandates
The discussion touches on the history of vaccine mandates in America. The Supreme Court ruled on mandatory vaccination in 1904, establishing legal precedent. Even George Washington had his troops inoculated against smallpox during the Revolutionary War—though the process was far more primitive, involving blacksmith-forged needles and weakened samples.
The leftist argues that choosing not to vaccinate removes freedoms from others—specifically, the freedom to not grow up in a world plagued by disease. As COVID continues circulating and mutating, new strains will develop that could eventually overcome current vaccine effectiveness, threatening everyone. This makes it an international problem, not just an American one.
Long-Term COVID Effects Beyond Death
While acknowledging that death from COVID is most common among the elderly, the guest notes that younger people experience serious long-term side effects even when they survive. He knows people in their 30s who struggle to climb stairs months after recovery. Erectile dysfunction is listed among potential long-term effects for young, otherwise healthy men.
The current Delta variant represents just one mutation. If the virus continues cycling around the world for another year, there's no telling how severe future variants might become. This uncertain future, he argues, justifies aggressive vaccination efforts despite legitimate concerns about pharmaceutical company motives.
Finding Common Ground
Despite their disagreements, several points of consensus emerge. Both express deep distrust of pharmaceutical companies, acknowledging their role in the opioid crisis and their history of profiting from American deaths. The mRNA technology itself was developed through public funding—a collective effort both can appreciate.
They also agree that no one watching should take any participant's word as definitive truth. The most important advice: consult with your own trusted doctor. Tim Pool emphasizes this point, noting that YouTube is strict about COVID misinformation for good reason—these are complex medical decisions that require professional guidance.
The leftist guest makes a final point about alternative treatments: hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin haven't been FDA approved for COVID treatment. While people can ask questions, they shouldn't self-medicate with veterinary formulations that could cause serious harm.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.