The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Jack Carr & Dr. Steven Quay | 3/27/23

Episode Date: March 27, 2023

The Left is screaming fascism regarding the Parents Bill of Rights Act, so Glenn reveals what the act does and questions the Left's understanding of the word "fascism." Best-selling author and executive producer of "The Terminal" Jack Carr joins Glenn to discuss the Nord Stream Pipeline attack and the consequences if America was behind the sabotage. Atossa Therapeutics founder Dr. Steven Quay joins to discuss the link, or lack thereof, between raccoon dogs and COVID-19. Deborah Conrad, a physician assistant fired for reporting the injuries from the COVID-19 vaccine to VAERS, joins to explain why she risked her career to get the truth to the American people. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. Wow. Who would have guessed the raccoon dogs, right? I mean, I was so convinced that COVID came from those damn wet markets with the raccoon dogs.

I hadn't heard a thing about raccoon dogs until like two weeks ago. And now I find out that that's bogus. Now I find out that it looks like the White House pushed one of the scientists to release that, you know, raccoon dog thing. Wow. And it was in the Atlantic. I so trust the Atlantic, usually. Today we have one of the top 1%. of scientists.

It's going to go on and talk about the raccoon dog thing. Yeah, it's out now that it was apparently a scam. What a zanah one coming. We have so much on today's show you don't want to miss, including Jack Carr. We talk about

the possibility that it was some sort of break-off Ukrainian group that blew up the pipeline. Now, we don't have details, except we know positively Zelensky wasn't part of it.

Ah. Jack Carr, war games that with us in our number two of today's podcast. Don't miss a second. Brought to you by American Giant. In the 1960s, 95% of the clothing that America bought was made right here by Americans in America.

Now, 97% is made overseas. It's a complete reversal and then some. Just, I guess, for the insult over the injury. What has happened to us? We don't make anything anymore. And if we want to get back to an America that we understand,

we have to band together and start making things. I mean, we're not talking just about antibiotics. We don't make anything anymore. I want to welcome American Giant back as a sponsor this year because American Giant began in 2012. It was a clothing factory in North Carolina that was going to be shut down. And the guy who heads American Giant was like, we can't do this. We have to have the machines.

We have to have the talent. So they worked with a factory to invest in new machinery, skill development. And 10 years later, they make the best hoodie you'll ever own. Because at the time, you couldn't find the hoodie. Remember the one that maybe your dad. Had had? You can't find that. You can't find those sweatshirts like they used to be made. Because we got rid of all of the mills and we got rid of all of the factories and the machines that knit like that. They had to go over, I think, to Japan and bring them back. You pick the right place, right place to buy your clothes.

It's American Giant. I want you to go to American-giant.com slash glen right now. grab your clothes from American clothing makers. Everything's American. American dash giant.com slash Glenn. You're listening to the best of the blue. So last week we introduced you to our new book. It is called Dark Future. It is coming out July 11th.

You can order copies of it now, Barnes & Noble or Amazon, wherever you buy your books. But it tells about the important meetings that happen in 21 and 2022 when people all over the world from government, finance, media, business, all of them that support the World Economic Forum's plan for the Great Reset, launched a new call of action titled The Great Narrative. What they said was the narrative of the old world, meaning the story of America, the story of the world. West was no longer good. It wasn't useful anymore. And so they started a campaign that they could use that would continue to decay the traditional values through the West and use, you know, new and future advancements in technology to enhance this story and use the areas of artificial intelligence and automation and the metaverse and robotics, etc., etc.

to seize control of the economies and societies in North America and Europe. This is an attack on the entire Western world. It's not just on us. And the elites behind these proposals even plan to impact the way people across cultures and the planet understand what it means to be human and have free will. We've told you before the leaders of the Great Reset and the Great Narrative movements

by the year 2030 say you'll own nothing and you'll be happy about it. There will be no privacy and you'll be happy. These are really highly influential,

extremely wealthy figures and institutions and governments that are behind the great narrative and they are building the framework now. I mean, what's going to to happen is we this is this collapse is happening with our economy slowly everything is going i think according to their design it's it's happening slowly and it will eventually bring us down

to just the four big banks or the five biggest banks which is the fed and then the fed we'll just take over and they'll lose the they'll lose the uh the shroud of these four banks dark future uncovering the great resets terrifying next phase it is on sale now be one of the first to get it uh and um protect your family and our country from losing liberty it it really isn't what's being done to us. It's what we do about it. Whose side are you on? And if you think you can stand on the sidelines,

you're mistaken. You're mistaken. By the way, people who are not standing on the sidelines, another good news from the House, another piece. But this one is incredible to me because the left and the Democrats are now calling this fascistic. And I'd just like you to pour. point out where is the fascism in the Parents Bill of Rights Act?

This is HR 5. Notice of Rights. A local educational agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each elementary school and secondary school served by such agency posts on publicly accessible websites of the school or if the school does not operate a website, it must widely disseminate to the public a summary notice of the rights of parents to information about their children's education as required under this act, which shall be an understandable format for parents and will include, at a minimum, these things. So this is Congress saying, you've got to post this. It's got to be everywhere. you've got to put it on your website.

If you don't have one, you just have to make sure it's widely distributed and clearly stated for all parents. You have the right to, A, review and make copies of at no cost the curriculum of your child's school. Does that sound like fascism to you? You have the right to know if the state alters the state's challenge. the state's challenging state academic standards. You have the right to meet with each teacher of your child not less than twice during the school year in accordance with a paragraph 5a. Does that sound like fascism? The right to receive the budget, including all revenues and expenditures of their child's school.

You're paying for your school. Is it fascistic to say, I want to see the receipts? How are you spending my money? Every parent has the right to a list of the books and other reading materials available in the library of their child's school. It doesn't say you can set fire to them. It says, I should be able to go into my child's library or receive a list of everything that is in there. and I should be able to inspect the books or other reading material that you're giving to kids. Why?

I'm paying for it. Every time you pay your taxes for your school board, you are the one paying them to provide a service for you. They work for you. It's not the other way around. Even though they want you to believe that, it's not. not the other way around. And if you believe that in your local school district, if you believe the teachers work for something else, not the people,

if you believe that, then we're completely screwed. Because obviously you believe that we should be subservient and working to a federal government. If you have to listen and obey and not get any of your questions answered by your school board, you have the right for charter schools schools served by a different local educational agency in the state

right to address the school board of local educational agency the right to information about violent activity in their child school are any of these things fascistic hey you know little Billy was clubbed in the head by somebody in the fourth grade I don't know maybe I should know that

the right to information about violent activity in their child's school, the right to information about any plans to eliminate gifted and talented programs in the child's school. Why would you do that now? Why would you get rid of the gifted and talented? Why? So we can dumb our kids down even more? The right to review any professional development materials. The right to know if they're.

child is not grade level proficient in reading or language arts at the end of third grade as described in the subsection C10 blah blah, blah. Wait, you want to, you want what? You want to know if your child can read? You want to know if your child is proficient? What? You're a Nazi. You have the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to change a minor's child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name. You as a parent have the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to allow a child to change the child's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathroom, rooms. You have the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to treat, advise, or address the cyber bullying of a student. To treat, advise, or address the bullying or hazing of a student. To treat, advise, or address a student's mental health, suicidal ideation, or incidents of self-harm. You have as a parent the right to know if somebody is treating, advising, or addressing a specific threat to the safety of a student. to treat, advise, or address the possession or use of drugs and other controlled substances. Treat, advise, or address an eating disorder.

If a child brings a weapon to school, you should know about it. You have a right to know and a right to the notice described in subsection before a person speaks in person or virtually to their child in class, school assembly, or any other school-sponsored events. It goes on, but there's absolutely. no surprises here. The rest of it is pretty much just restating the restating the rest. What I just read to you.

I mean, how is this? I don't understand. And by the way, we're the ones. We're the ones that are saying we want to burn books. No, no. Apparently, we're the fascist because we think some things are inappropriate. for some kids and at certain ages. But see, we're fascistic because we don't run the publishing houses.

Because if we ran the publishing houses, I guess it's okay just to change things. I don't know if you've heard, but Agatha Christie is now being rewritten. Yeah, because she was very inappropriate. There were many things that are insulting. or references to ethnicity, as well as descriptions of certain characters' physiques. You are kidding me. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

One of her characters was complaining about pestering children. Now, I'm going to read some very triggering words here. So be very careful. You're on alert. If you're easily triggered, stand back from the radio. Maybe plug your ears and la la, la, la, la, just for a second. Okay, here I go. They come back and stare and stare and their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses.

I don't believe I could really like. What? What? Their eyes are disgusting, and so are their noses. Would it be Asians? No, because she was, well, yeah, no, she was a round eye, so maybe that's what she, no, it wasn't Asians. It's children. It's children.

They came back and stare and stare and their eyes are simply disgusting and so are their noses. I don't believe I really could like children. Now it's been rewritten. They come back and stare and stare and stare. I don't believe I really would like children. You've changed the essence of the character. The character with the eyes and their noses. You learn more about the character, not about the children she's talking about.

Oh, my gosh. So who is it that is the fascist? I mean, fascism really, when it's at its very best, is when it's infiltrated all businesses and the government. And so the government and the businesses just make the change. that those radicals want, just the few elites. Well, that's what you're doing. We're saying you can print the book.

We just don't think it's appropriate for kids in the third grade, but print the book all you want. Just not in the school library or as part of curriculum. You're saying we have to get rid of books. We have to get rid of words in books. I'm sorry, you keep using that word fascism. I do not think it means what you think it means. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Jack Carr is the bestselling author of the Terminalist series. He is also the executive producer and a host of the new podcast, Danger Close, with Jack Carr. Jack, welcome back to the program. How are you, sir? Thank you so much for having me on. How are you doing today? I'm great. I'm great.

I just let me just read the the the the the preface of your of your new book here or the synopsis now with the world on the brink of war and a weakened United States facing rampant inflation political division shocking assassinations and a secret cabal of global elites ready to assume control I mean with an exception of the shocking assassinations there's not a lot you just didn't need a lot of imagination on this one, did you, Jack? I mean, it sounds like today. And with the world's most dangerous man locked in solitary confinement, the conspirators believe the final obstacle to complete domination

has been eliminated, but they are wrong. Tell me this story. Tell me the story. It's going to touch on a couple things we're going to discuss today Nord Stream 1 and 2, of course. But these things are

almost writing themselves, and certainly are senior level military leaders and our elected representatives, and I specifically do not call them leaders, they're elected representatives, our employees in Congress and the executive branch. Give me a lot to work with these days as far as creating villains. And then on the geopolitical stage, oh my goodness, there's so much to work with that probably would not have been believable had I written these books 10 years ago, certainly 15 years ago. But today, all of those things are so much more plausible, which makes it fun for a thriller author, but also a little more difficult because you have to work with things that people are just going to accept as real.

And you have to take a little step further, one step further, think like the enemy, think like our elected representatives and our senior military leaders, and create these stories that have a touch point in reality, and in my case, in this military authenticity that I bring to the page from my past. But there's a lot to work with. So I don't think I'll ever run out of ideas. No, I don't think so either. We might run out of printing presses before ideas. Jack, when you say you have to take it a little bit further, that's really hard to do.

Do you think you have to bring it out of reality a bit? Or, I mean, are you just advancing the storyline to where it could go? You advance that storyline, move it forward by a degree, and then bring a perspective to it that maybe your readers or audience haven't considered. yet. And I do that by taking a breath and really thinking these things through, where a lot of people that aren't engaged every day thinking about these things might not be have time to do because they have to get their kids to school and go to work and do all these other things. But I can spend that time at deep thought and take it a little bit further and think about what is going to happen or the why be behind what is happening. So I have the time to do that and I love to do that and bring that into the pages of the story.

So if you replace shocking assassinations with mysterious bombings of the Nord Stream pipelines, you would have summed up what we're going through right now. There are three competing theories on who did this. The first, the majority of the West initially said the Russians did it. Do you believe that? The people putting that forward are counting, I think, on the U.S. citizenship, the dumbing down of the population. And if one were to spend time on Twitter or in the comment section of YouTube, it's not a bad strategy. If you were to base this off of those types of comments,

but if you connect some dots and you don't have to have a background in strategy or geopolitics or military tactics or anything along those lines, you just have to look at this with a little common sense and connect a few dots as Seymour Hershey said in his article last month. But if you connect those dots, you can go back to January 2020, not that long ago when Victoria Newland, Undersecretary of State of Policy. And this is, you can find it a video online and she says, I want to be clear. This is verbatim. If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.

Then one month later, February 22, President Biden, verbatim, if Russia invades, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring it to an end. Okay, that's pretty clear. And these concerns, though, just don't lie with the Biden administration. They go back to the Bush administration fearing that European independence on natural gas would weaken NATO and naturally stopping a European stance toward Russia. But even President Biden, he said, we pay, or Trump, he says, pay for your defense.

You should buy gas from us. So this is a 20-year issue right here. So then Russia invades Ukraine, late February 22. And September 22, what happens? Nord Stream 2 is, as President Biden and Victoria Doolin said they would be months or probably the largest man-made environmental disaster in history. So that natural gas is 90% methane, which destroys the ozone later. So for an administration that tax climate change is the greatest threat to national security,

that could be an issue if it is tied back to the Biden administration, even though they said they were going to do it. So we're not dealing with the brightest people perhaps. Okay, so hang on. Before I go back to the Biden administration, let me take you to the third. idea of how it, of how it happened. They're now saying that, I think this is kind of the West's response after nobody believed the Russians did it, that they had, you know, a group of five people. They know that it was, you know, four men and one woman. They rented a yacht. They don't know whose yacht it was.

but they know definitely no one was involved with Zelensky, but they were probably some sort of a rebel group from the Ukraine. Is that plausible? It is quite fascinating, and it would probably be one of the least believable parts of a novel, if I put it in there. But one of the things that makes me believe that this was certainly Russia is that former CIA director John Brennan was trotted out on CNN and NBC. to offer his expert analysis, and he said it was for sure Russia.

He didn't offer any evidence of this, of course, but his track record, very solid of Russia and being wrong on things. So the only thing on that side, like if I was to think it through, and he didn't offer this up, but maybe Russia would think this would be their motive for doing it, that they would get some insurance money, that the U.S. would work out of deal with Germany and Europe, but Germany in particular to get more natural gas in the United States, decrease their dependence on Russian natural gas. And so if that was going to happen anyway, maybe we get some insurance money.

That's the only thing that I could think of. But yes, you're right, this pro-Ukhanian group, I got to talk about this pro-Ukrainian group. Because it's pretty interesting. And this is in response, of course, to the Seymour Hersch article, which came out in February. This is a March article by the New York Times. And it's, so other than what, so we can infer this, this pro-Ukrainian group, and I'm doing air quotes, there. We can infer that they were exceptionally skilled in technical diving, okay, and the use of high explosives. So we're talking about these five people, five or six people that you mentioned. Two of them

are divers. So they have to go down about 250 feet, so they need some technical diving skills to do that. Probably a thousand pounds of explosives. They're using timers, initiators, blasting caps. But first they have to find it, of course. So I don't know if this sounds like a typical pro-Ukrainian paramilitary group like New York Times said. But they also have... Hang on, hang on, hang on, just on what you're explaining. Just on what you're explaining. Add the difficulty level to this. So, because I don't know anything about diving.

How many people could do what you just described? Right. So regular diving people know you can go down a little over 100 feet on regular scuba stuff. If you go past that, stay down too long. You need a mixture, a mixed gas. So not the typical thing that you go when you go to see people diving in the Bahamas or Hawaii or that sort of thing. So you need some. technical diving skills there just to get down. And then you add the complexity of the demolition

training on top of that. So we're narrowing down the number of people who can do this. So Russia has that capability. We have that capability. A pro-Ukrainian paramilitary group, not so sure. But then you add this on top of that. You add that they had this high-level trade craft. So they chartered a luxury yacht in Germany from Ukrainian owners. And I'll get back to that. So as a captain, in, it's two divers, a couple assistants, and a doctor. One, I think it's five men and one woman. They had fake passports, these technical diving skills, navigation skills, boating skills, demolition skills, and they're apparently expert foragers because they have or have access to one, because in a day, when forge passports aren't really a thing unless you have real passports

with aliases created by a government entity. So they have all this trade craft, yet they rent their boat from a Ukrainian out of all the people they quit. So once again, you don't have to be an expert in geopolitics or tactics or have worked for the CIA to come up with. This might, this isn't adding up. There are a couple questions here. So it's, I think that the New York Times story was a response to that Seymour Hersch article, which was very detailed. It could cause problems for the Biden administration. And in the past, it would be the biggest story in the country.

Oh, yeah. It should be the biggest. It should be the biggest story in the country right now. because we should know one way or another. So before I get back into that, let me just ask you, what was the motivation of the person who would create a story like that to put a Ukrainian boat on it or a boat owner?

Why? I mean, that sounds like something that Russians would do to make it sound like that. Why would the right or the West do that? To divert attention from the president of the United States, to house climate change as the greatest threat to the history of mankind and divert attention away from that because the base seems to be very focused on climate change. And yet we don't seem very interested in even investigating this. I don't even think that the president has

ordered or they haven't said anyway that he has ordered an investigation into this. Neither has the UN for some reason. They declined to do an investigation in this, into this. So it's all very interesting. But it seems to be to divert attention. away from the present of the United States causing the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in history. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Dr. Stephen Quays with us now.

Doctor, how are you, sir? I'm great, Glenn. It's great to be here with you. Thank you. I really appreciate everything that you've done and your willingness to stand. You know, you have the credibility maybe to survive it and you have done quite well. I want to talk to you about this confusing raccoon dog

story that came out last week, we find out now that they left out some pretty important stuff, right? Well, Glenn, I guess they left out a virus. Would that be important? Well, they said that it was a carrier of it, right? But they, if I understand the story right, they swabbed the surface of, I don't know, the raccoon dog pen in the wet lab,

right? No, no, this is in a market, Glenn. This is in a market that sells live animals in China. It's a common event. Okay, okay. They swab the surface. It has raccoon DNA. It has tiny fragments of

SARS-CoV-2, but it doesn't have the virus. It doesn't have an infectious virus. So it just means that there are people in the market who are infected. The environmental specimens that are true have an entire virus that you can grow in the culture and they have human DNA.

So that's the part they left out. Okay. So it's not even the same COVID virus. Right? It's tiny pieces of it. It's tiny pieces of the COVID virus. So the virus is 30,000 letters long. And when you have an environmental specimen that's positive for it, you'll have thousands

of little segments of that 30,000 letters. They won't tell us how many segments they have. My mass prediction is they have less than 10. And you have, you know, thousands to, to show you had a real virus. Holy cow. So how inaccurate is this? Well, it's completely misleading in the sense that as a scientist, you're supposed to present

all the evidence you have. You can come to your own conclusion, but you present all the evidence. And the fact that they won't tell us, though we've asked, how many 150-letter sequences of the virus are in there? My prediction, it's less than 10. They won't tell us. Usually you need 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 to confirm that it's a real virus. And they're hiding the ball.

And they made a big deal out of it. And they also happen to steal someone else's data to do it. The person who did this that issued this, is it true? Her name, Dr. Christian Anderson? Is that right? Well, Christian Anderson is a man. Oh, sorry. This paper has, I'm not looking at it now, but I want to say it has a dozen or more authors.

So it's a real, it's a community, or misspoke, it's a committee effort here. But what happened was they saw, they saw some data that came out of, that should have come out of China a year and a half ago. They saw it appear on a database in Germany. They started to interrogate it. And then the Chinese found out there,

and the Chinese took it offline. Throughout science, what you do when that happens is you pause your own analysis because you can't analyze someone else's data unless they have made it public for you. It's theft, essentially. So, but they went ahead with it anyway. And, of course, the Atlantic picked it up, and it just went from there. But it's the wrong way to do research, and the research doesn't show the raccoon dogs were infected.

So, I mean, Rocky Raccoon is singing in the background here, I think. Are we ever going to find out where this came from? Or, I mean, do you feel it's pretty safe to say it was man-made in a lab? So, Glenn, what I have done is, you know, I'm a scientist. I've also been in business, so I've been involved with litigations over patents. I think I've 88 patents and had to defend it five times. So I have treated my approach to this as if I'm in a courtroom and I have to enter evidence into the room and then I have to explain it to a, you know, a jury of my peers.

And with respect to the fact that it came from a laboratory, with respect to the fact that it was engineered, my evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard you would use for a criminal investigation. It has bioweapon components, which I don't have as much confidence in, but they are a preponderance of the evidence. So it also has those aspects. And I've tried to stay in the discipline because the courtroom is a truth-finding machine that is really useful. You can't get things into the courtroom unless you have good evidence. And then in there, there are rules about what you can and can't conclude from them. But doing that process, it gets very clear that it came from a laboratory, it was manipulated, and it has some aspects

that could be considered by a weapons. I am stunned to hear you speak about this with such authority that you absolutely would present it in a courtroom. I'd love to, I know you have to catch a plane, so I'd love to have you back and present that evidence. Go ahead. I would. There's actually a paper I wrote it's 189 pages long.

It's been downloaded about 240,000 times on this analysis. So I start with the preposition that it came from nature with a number. 98% probability. And I end with the, after 26 pieces of evidence, you end with the conclusion that's over 98% from a laboratory. Oh, my gosh. And the idea that we are covering this up, why would we cover this up? Because we were doing gain of function research, because it was being weaponized.

What do you think the motive is? Well, I don't want to get inside other people's heads because I'm a scientist. But we do know that the technology was developed in the United States. that created this virus. We know that the humanized mouse on which the virus was trained to infect humans went by World Courier from North Carolina to one laboratories. So those two pieces tie it together. And we know that, you know, we don't have to talk about Dr. Fauci because I don't want to get into the personalities here, but he believes in his heart that gain of function research will save mankind. I've looked at 2,000 gain of function papers and I find no evidence that it

contributes to the public health issues around spillovers. So we just have a strong, strong scientific difference there. But Glenn, if I can just get one more point across here, because I was in Washington, D.C., talking to people, it's important to get to the origin, but the other thing that's happened in the last three years is I've collected a team of international scientists. We put together what we call a forensic analysis. So we can sit at a computer anywhere in the world and interrogate what's going on inside the Woon Institute of Rerology. Right now, as I'm talking to you, they are doing research on a 30% lethal virus, a 39% lethal virus, and a 60% lethal virus.

The Black Plague, which was a 500-year setback of civilization, was a 30% lethal microbe. So we have three cases going on right now of more deadly viruses. Are we involved in it this time? Are we involved? Well, we weren't involved with SARS with our own hands in the laboratory, and we're not, as far as I can tell, involved in this experiments. These experiments are we found are post-pandemic. So if you imagine a laboratory, okay, you've had a leak, you've killed 20 million people. Do you change your behavior and do other kinds of research?

Well, no, let's do even more aggressive research. But we need to do something because it'll be a civilization-changing event. Oh, my gosh. Dr. Quay, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Glenn. I'd love to explain this more because I'd like to have a grassroots effort. It's not going to come from the top down.

It needs to be people saying, we need to stop these signs. And I don't know anybody, left or right, Republican, Democrat, Independent. I don't know anybody who thinks, you know, we've all been to the movies. We've seen what happens with things like this. And since it's just happened, I think maybe. we should stop. I think the scientists are on the verge of madness. Just madness. Well, as I like to say, you know, if you're dead, you can't vote Democrat or Republican unless you're from Chicago.

You don't belong in Seattle. Thank you so much. Dr. Stephen Quinn, I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again. So we have Deborah Conrad on. She is a physician's assistant, and she was working at a hospital, and she started to see some trends. were disturbing. She reported them to the people that she was supposed to report them to. And she was fired for that. Deborah Conrad is her name. Welcome, Deborah, how are you?

I'm good. Thank you for having me, Glenn. I can't thank you enough for having the guts to stand up at this time. Tell me your story. You were just trying to do what the hospital instructs you to do on everything else, right? Well, pretty much. I mean, what's grilled in our brains and medicine over and over again is about keeping patients and the community safe. And when the emergency use authorized vaccines were kind of released to the public in December, they were under emergency use.

In fact, they still are. But, you know, the very system, the vaccine adverse event reporting system has been there since 1990. And it is a system enacted by the federal government to assure that vaccines are safe post-marketing. And it is a federal law. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act had provisions in it that health care workers are required to report certain adverse events to the various system. And that's all I was doing. So after the vaccines were rolled out and we started getting patients coming into, to the hospital reporting adverse events after their COVID vaccines, I reported these patients

to the VAIR system, as I am legally required to do. And in the ultimate end, about 10 months later, I was walked out of my medical institution for doing this thing. It's insanity. Wait, how did they justify that? So the ultimate justification is because by acknowledging that these adverse reactions are happening, it was creating vaccine hesitancy amongst the staff and the patients and the family members. And then they didn't want to go and get boosters. So it was affecting the company profit margin. And I was told as somebody in leader,

I should be towing the company line. That was part of my job. You know, and I said, but this is a legal requirement. There are certain adverse side effects that can occur that are reportable events. This is not something that, you know, I'm making up. I mean, on the VAIRs website, if you go under what is required reporting for health care workers, basically what we are to report. an inpatient hospitalization following a COVID vaccine and or death and or COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization portable events.

These are under the required reporting. And my hospital did an audit of my VERS reports, and I gave them patients that met these exact required reporting requirements. and my hospital administration came back and said, you're over reporting. And from this state forward, you can no longer do any VAERS reports for the hospital, even if you know about these patients, only do VAERS reports on patients you directly took care of. And I said, well, then who is going to do these other reports?

And they basically told me it's none of my business. See, the problem with VAIRS reporting for health care workers is the reports take about 30. minutes because they take a lot of information about the patient, their medical conditions, so on and so forth. No time in your working day, especially during this whole COVID situation, to do these reports because we would get, you know, 10, 15 of them a day. Fiders in the hospital knew I was doing this. So they gave me patients to report because they knew I had become an expert in doing this.

I was efficient. Let Deb handle it. But the problem is, is I was doing it on my own time, unpaid, on my shifts off. And it just got to be to the point that I said, I can't be the only provider doing this. So I asked my administration to create some sort of a position or some sort of a thing in the hospital that we could efficiently get these reports done, maybe a paid position, something like that. And my hospital just comes out. I'm looking into it.

We're looking into it. And it never got done. multiple meetings and email exchanges and nothing ever seemed to get done. And then, like I said, they audited me and then blocked me from reporting further patients. And I had told them by knowing that there are patients out there that need these reports done and that meet the required reporting and not doing it myself, I'm an accomplice to a crime, right? Because I know what's going on and I'm doing nothing about it. So I'm just as guilty.

So I said, I can't do this. I can't commit fraud. I can't do this. So I ended up getting some help from an attorney and we wrote letters to the CDC and the FDA and their state accrediting body, all sorts of stuff to try to let them know what's going on and to see if we could find a solution. And there was never heard anything back. Not a word.

Not a word. Because, you know, every day we were getting people coming in. And these patients prior, and they would get their vaccine and then get hospitalized for some new issue. Reports done. It's not to do a report as an individual. The website is not very user-friendly. There's a lot of information that's needed. I want the health care providers to do the reports.

And I'm hearing more and more from patients telling me they ask their doctors or their PAs or whoever to do a theirs report, and they're told no. We'll say, in the whole, all the people can be a guy of the finance. Not need to have a gross world in art,

to play to golf or to be a pro of the crypto. Not even no way, you have always did you know what and the appellee

negotiat-tit-t and the appellate-tit-titre T-D you can't to renewing with your instinct of your

support 24-hour per day, no amount of minimum, any fray-mensuel. You're made for negotiate,

and the apply the appellate-tit-tit-tid- and made you'll help. Telecharge it right now.