The Highwire with Del Bigtree - AARON SIRI BREAKS DOWN ICAN’S LATEST LEGAL WINS

Episode Date: April 7, 2022

Del catches up with ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq, on the recent legal win against Washington D.C., putting the kibosh on the outrageous law which allowed minors to get vaccinated without parental consent.#AaronSiri #WashingtonDC #ParentalConsentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We probably had one of the biggest legal wins we've had in our experience in working with Syrian Glamstad, with ICAN, the informed consent action network. You know we've won against the National Institute of Health, CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services. Well, we won in court against Washington, D.C. They had passed the consent, the minor consent for vaccination where 11-year-old children could consent to a vaccine without parental approval. is what that law look like in the news.

In March, a new law went into effect in Washington, D.C. that allows kids 11 and up to get vaccinated without parental consent. Children as young as 11. Child as young as 11 years old. Children 11 years and older. Age 11 and over. The law actually requires the doctor, the school, the health insurance company, and the health department to all.

actively conceal from the parent that the child has received the vaccine. To protect their privacy, health care providers would have to bill insurers directly and submit the vaccination record to the child's school. The legislation would potentially allow children to get a future coronavirus vaccine without their parents' consent. A child needs to be protected against the dangers of things like measles, other diseases that cause death, and the community. The community needs to be protected so that diseases that were once thought to be eliminated are not coming back. I am 100% against that. I think it violates my fundamental right as a parent.

I think people across the country are hearing this and they actually can't believe it. Well, that law was codified in Washington, D.C. It went into effect and children were able to start vaccinating themselves without parental consent. here it was DC law 23193 minor consent for vaccinations amendment act of 2020 well you might have seen that on any other of the networks you just watched in that sort of montage box MSNBC and then all of those just report on the news this is maybe where we're a little bit different and you're getting used to this right one of the things that we do when you are a recurring donor is that we make sure that we make a difference in this world that we don't just report on it and whine about it we set out to make a difference. Well, right when this law was going into action, I had on our show, one of the great attorneys from Siri in Glimbstan, Elizabeth Brem, joined me, and I called it out. I said, we are going to push back against this. Isn't this a lot of fun to be a part of a network, to be supporting someone where you get to say, you know what, we're going to do something about it? This is me announcing that back in January of last year.

December 23rd, D.C. passed a law allowing minors to consent to vaccinations, abstinence, any parental consent or knowledge. So this new law allows children who are 11 years or older to consent to any vaccine that the CDC recommends for their age. I mean, this is a horrific law. I know everybody that watches the high wire realizes that. So we're actually going to bring a case then against this. This is just one of the ways that the informed consent action network does the work that we do. And I think we can honestly now say to win lawsuits when it comes to mandates that go against human rights and in this case are dramatically in opposition to parental rights. We're excited to see what you do with this case in D.C. Well, it's probably one of the biggest

wins we've had, the biggest announcements we've been allowed to make when it comes to the legal cases that we've been a part of last week. We won this case in Washington, D.C. And by we, I mean, none other than the man, the myth, the legend, Aaron Siri, who joins me now. Aaron, first of all, congratulations, man. This is a really, really big win for I Can. And I want to thank you for your incredible work. Thank you, Del. So let's get down to the nuts and bolts of this.

I mean, these are scary laws. These are laws that I think prior to the work that we started doing, these things just went unchecked. laws were being passed, people were losing, you know, rights to exempting out of vaccinations all over the country. How did we approach this? I mean, there's a lot of different ways to fight a case, you know, sometimes you're outside of the box, but what was the argument we made and why was that the argument that we used against this case? So when we talked about addressing this law in D.C., that effectively let doctors. the school, insurance companies, and the health department all conspire to hide from the parents

that a child that received a vaccine. We wanted to approach it in a way, as we discussed, that would not only take away the law in D.C. that would permit that kind of really incredible conduct on the part of the government, but also have the same effect nationally because it's not just Washington, D.C. that's passing this kind of law. Other states are doing it, other cities are doing it. They are permitting doctors to, to vaccinate children in DC as young as 11. Without the parents having any knowledge of it and then in fact conspiring to hide it from the parents.

And so the chosen path, the primary argument we made, ironically, is the 1986 Act requirement that a parent receive a vaccine information statement before a child is vaccinated. The 1986 Act is the National Child of Vaccine Injury Act. that was, as I'm sure most of your audience knows, it was adopted by Congress in 1986 due to incredible liabilities that pharmaceutical companies are facing because of injuries from vaccines.

And it gave those pharmaceutical companies effectively immunity. Well, it struck a balance. It said, okay, you, the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to pay for injuries, essentially, but we need to have some kind of safety checks. And one of those that the parent had to receive a vaccine information statement before a child was vaccinated,

the health care provider that was going to administer the vaccine that provides some very critical information, including what the parents should advise the doctor about before the child receives a vaccine because, you know, right, because the child may not, even according to CDC standards, may not be appropriate for the child. Right. It might have had previous allergic reactions, lived in different states, had different, you know, experiences with other doctors or some other history in the family, all of that super important information to. you relate to a doctor prior to giving these products, something that 11-year-old probably doesn't know their entire medical history? Right. Most vaccines are given when children are young,

and so they wouldn't know if they've often had a prior reaction into what vaccines and what action was. You'd need a parent to convey that information. And so to answer your question, the chosen approach was to use a federal law and say, hey, federal law says the parent must get the VIS, the vaccine information saying before the child is vaccinated. Well, if federal law requires that, state law or local law can't conflict with that. It can't say, hey, doc, you can vaccinate this child without the parents knowing because if the parent's not getting a VIS, that means the parent is not receiving the required information that the 1986 Act provided for. Federal law, Trump's state law, and that's basically was the core, the heart of the case that we brought,

and we're very heart in that a federal judge in D.C. agreed and joined D.C. from enforcing that law on precisely that ground. It said that, you know, the 1986 Act provides at least this protection for parents. And so we use the 1986 Acts in this instance to protect parents' rights. I love this about your approach. It's one of the things when we first spoke and I decided to do. you know, sort of work exclusively with you on the issues that I can was facing. But unlike many lawyers that I had spoken to, they're always like, oh, the 86 Act just ruined everything. We can't

sue the manufacturers. We can't do anything. You were the only person that ever said, sure, the 86 Act has some serious flaws and it is messed up the system. But there are ways we could use it to our benefit. And I think it really shows, you know, a different perspective. It's something that we've done. I mean, I don't think anyone, most people want to get rid of the 86 Act. I do too, by the way. I think that this thing is an abomination. Having no liability on the industry has created the problem we have. But while it's there to use it in our favor, there's something ironic and beautiful and powerful about that. And I think it's truly unique that that was the approach you took. And when you say a federal law, that's a federal law, right? The 1986 Act is the federal

law. And so a state cannot just over, you know, supersede that and say, well, we're going to break that law. And so and because of that, then, it really sets precedent. We see these other states. We started looking up right before the show. Many, many states are, you know, in some way or another looking to try and have this child consent for vaccine law passed. Now we have precedent to really go after those states, too, and say, now it's already been decided. you're breaking federal law. That is the hope. Obviously, we anticipate the appeal and we'll fight the appeal.

And we will, as I can, would like this to do in other places as well, to the extent that other states and other cities don't drop their, the laws that permit doctors to vaccine without parental consult. And to your point about, you know. Well, let me just make the point. You said, if I can't like and likes, I just want to say, I can like ye, like you very much. We want to go after all those states, okay? So consider yourself signed up to be very busy. Well, hopefully, like you said, if, you know, we expect an appeal and when an appellate court rules on this, we hope that other states and counties and cities will fall in line as well.

And you're exactly right. You know, sometimes my five-year-old gets a cupcake and he doesn't like, you know, anything other than the frosting, well, let's just use the frosting, even if we don't like the rest of the cupcake. Yeah, exactly right. So, and just for people to understand, when you said that, you know, the doctors, the insurance companies, the schools are conspiring against the parent, I mean, the law almost basically forces the doctor to lie to the parents, right? I mean, it, it even talks about the fact that the doctor has got to hide the fact that your child got this vaccine. The insurance company can't even show it in the building and the school in all of their records that the

records have to have separate records. So they're literally like this body of people conspiring with your child against you as a parent. I mean, what that is just, to me, it's so shocking that anyone of any political affiliation whatsoever would think this is what we want in our is our children working against their parents and giving them officials to do so? Yeah, I think one of the dangerous parts of the act of this law in D.C. was that it basically teaches children that those that normally view as folks with authority, it's okay that not only that they, but the child along with them, effectively engage in line to their own parents. That's a very dangerous thing to teach a child, 11, 12, 13 year old.

And the doctor, according to the law, has to fill out the vaccine record without including that the shot was given. That then submitted to the school. The school then has a phony copy and a real copy. It has to hide the real copy from the parents. Then the insurance company is not allowed to send a statement of benefits to the parents' house so the parents won't know about it. And then the health department, which can find out the shots given, also doesn't tell the parent. So it really is a codified scheme to hide the fact that this was getting the vaccine was given to the parents. It's a very troubling way to approach law.

And, you know, but DC decided it wants to increase a vaccine uptake despite the fact that it has one of the highest vaccine uptake rates in the country for children. And so its chosen approach was let's just cut parents out of the equation. That is a very dangerous precedent to set that the government can do that. It's amazing. I mean, we look at that in education, the conversations and educations where parents aren't involved in the school process. That didn't work very well in Virginia when the governor made those statements. I think these politicians that think they're going to cut parents, you know, away from their children. And that's the way we're going to move forward in this country are going to continue to be shocked at the results that we have. So amazing win,

Aaron. And I know it goes beyond just having a great idea. You're writing. We get to read, you know, your cases, you're right. a spectacular in a courtroom. You're the best of the best. And we're so honored to have you working on our side. So we're glad you're on my team and not their team. Let me just put it that way. All right. I'm another question for you. San Diego. We again, another huge case. San Diego school district decided to bring a mandatory COVID vaccination for their students in San Diego. we said if California decides to mandate the COVID vaccine, we will go after them. We got on it immediately.

We brought that case and we won. Judd Rules against San Diego's Unified COVID-19 student vaccine mandate. That was when we won back in December 20 of 2021. But just last week, I was seeing this headline. San Diego Unified approves COVID-19 vaccination mandate for 2022 and 23 school year. I literally texted you when I saw this. said, I thought we won this case. So what's going on here?

So just to be clear, there is no COVID-19 vaccine mandate currently for the San Diego School District. Okay. That headline is that the school district is adopted one for next school year. So currently the case is on appeal. And their hope, I'm sure, is that they're going to prevail on appeal. And if they do, that that man. then can go into effect. As it stands right now, it's a mandate that's not going to apply until next school year.

So we'll see how the appeal plays out. Obviously, we hope we prevail and that the appellate court agrees with the trial judge that the school board did not have the authority to require this COVID-19 vaccine for its students. So we don't need another case. That original case will carry over if we win the appeal. That's dead in the water. right now, no parent in San Diego needs to run out and get their child this COVID vaccine

because of a mandate because that mandate doesn't exist until they win an appeal. So currently, they're safe and they're clear. Right. Currently, all parents still have their parental rights to make their own choice of what they want to do. Right. So this mandate doesn't, I mean, as the headline was, the headline was clear that you just showed, it doesn't come into effect until the next school year. So there's plenty of time for the appeal to be decided between now and then. All right, cool. I want to get into just very quickly.

I know your time is precious. We have a lot on your plate, and I want to let you get back to it. But when we look at sort of the legal updates, by the way, folks out there, if you are not just on our mailing list right now, you would have been the first one to find out, just go to the highwire.com. All you do is put your email into our mailing list right now. Now, not only do you receive all of the evidence we provide on every week's show on Monday, you get all of the documents, all the peer-reviewed science, but you're also the first one

to get the legal updates when we win. So you would have been one of the first ones to know in the world that we won the DC case. You get the updates on what we're winning, what we're working on. So all of that is free for everyone signed up to our newsletter. Why, you wouldn't be signed by that newsletter? I have no idea. but it's one of the favored emails that goes out, a huge engagement when we're sending out your legal updates.

So let's talk about some of the things that haven't been updated recently. I want to get into, since we're talking about children, I want to get into the FOIA request. These are the Freedom of Information Act requests that we've submitted thousands of these things that you have. I mean, it's a lot of work. You have to write it out, put the whole request together, get it into our regulatory agencies. And for people that don't know what a Freedom of Information Act request is,

essentially our government works for us. They're our employees. So just like a boss can say, I want to look at all the emails that took place on my email server going out from our company under our company name, I'm allowed to see that. We're allowed to see that and those issues that are happening with our employees, which are our government. And so a FOIA request simply says, here's what we want to look at. We want to look at emails involving Tony Fauci and, you know, Robert Redfield or whatever it is.

we have questions about something that you've stated publicly or that's on your website. And one of the big questions we've had since they've been promoting this childhood vaccine, the childhood COVID vaccine, is how many children have actually died from COVID in the United States of America? And so we asked you to do that FOIA request. Take me through what that process has been. And have we gotten a response? Sure. So among the hundreds of FOIA requests that we send regularly to federal health agencies. One of them was we simply asked that the CDC provide, and I'll read the exact request, so is that documents reflecting all confirmed cases of a child, 11 years of age or younger, dying of COVID-19. Simple request.

Basically, hey, CDC, just give us the documents that you have. showing all the confirmed cases of kids, 11 young, dying of COVID. Right. And the response was that the National Center for Health Statistics, that's the CDC's department where they gather all this data, has not conducted the analysis requested for this age group and therefore cannot provide you with a data product. So basically what the CDC is saying is we haven't done that analysis.

So we can't provide any documents. We don't have any documents that are responsive. that reflect confirmed cases of kids 11 younger dying of COVID. Pretty surprising. So when Jen Saki or all of these spokespeople are saying increased risk of death in children, the vaccine reduces that, they don't really have any base number that they're working with then on this. Is that what we're to understand from that? All I can say is this.

Freedom of Information Act is the Federal, the official way that you would ask, ask the federal government for information. That is the way Congress set it up so that we, the people who pay the government to do the work that they do supposedly for us to get information. And so when we send a request under FOIA, unlike a news reporter asking a question or just a random email inquiry that go into federal agencies,

they gotta respond, right? They have a duty, a legal duty to respond and respond accurately. And they also know that we'll challenge them in court if we have any concerns about their response. Right. And so all I could say is that according to this response, they say they've never done the analysis to determine, confirm cases of kids 11 and younger

that have died from COVID. So, yeah, when Jen Socki and all those folks are making these claims about children and children dying and the need for COVID vaccines, I don't know what analysis they're relying upon because we just asked for it and they apparently don't have one. Isn't it a bit shocking

that we are two years into this. I know I remember we've talked about Joe Biden stating I'm going to put $4 billion into stopping vaccine hesitancy, meaning I'm going to fund propaganda. I'm going to censor people. But when it comes to actually knowing what the risk is for our kids and whether they need this damn vaccine or not, you can't just throw a billion dollars at that.

I mean, they didn't even throw a $20 bill at this. They did zero analysis of the hospitals across America. This should be so shocking to anyone in the United States of America right now, and frankly, anywhere in the world that looked up to the United States of America and our freedom and our transparency and our brilliant hospitals and doctors and medical systems, how is it they're getting away with just sitting on their hands? Unfortunately, I wish we could say that this FOIA response is an aberration. But as you and I both know, and on the ICANN website,

There's dozens of examples just like this of critical questions, critical statements that they make, that we then ask for the underlying documents and the responses we don't have any. It's really surprising. And I think it goes in part to the fact that there are dogma effectively akin to almost religious beliefs that permeate our health agencies. They believe certain things. And it's almost like there's almost nobody at the wheel anymore. because these beliefs then, you know, travel, gather steam, and then they all fall in line behind it.

And nobody seems to ever ask anybody else, who's got the data? Who's got the analysis? I think they all just think somebody there has it. They must have it. I'm in line. Someone's at the front of this line. Someone up there must have it. Amazing.

All right. So let me ask you this. What was the date of that response that we got on asking about child deaths? So that was on March 10th, 2022. So that we got the response. I saw a headline, and I think the timing is a little bit interesting. So on March 10th, they respond to us. This is March 18th, CDC-slashed COVID-19 deaths and children by 24% after correcting a coding logic error.

We have some numbers here that they're putting up. In the footnotes and additional information section of the CDC's COVID data tracker, the U.S. Health Agency noted on March 15, 2022, data on death were adjusted after resolving a coding logic error. This resulted in decreased death counts across all demographic categories. Before the change, the CDC's COVID data tracker reported 1,75 all-time COVID-19 deaths for Americans under 18 years old. By Tuesday, the all-time pediatric COVID death figure plummeted to 1,339, a decrease of 23.7%. There is so much that is wrong with this right now, Aaron. First of all, that this is coming out days after our request where they said they had no analysis.

I don't know. Did we inspire them to finally do an analysis, I think is a really good question. How much did we affect this? Which I know that we are having an effect. But also, when we think about these numbers, 1,700, 1,300, I don't want to undermine, you know, what it means to lose a child. But there are 75 million children roughly under the age of 18 here in the United States of America, whether it's 1700 or 1,300, that's a zero technically death rate.

And with a decimal point in there before you get to a number. So the amount of alarm and fear that's driving parents, I know parents that are terrified to go into public spaces around anyone that's not vaccinated. The kids aren't vaccinated or in schools. I mean, it's been driven to insanity. But 1,300 is now where they're at. They've obviously now done some analysis. do you think that our challenge made this happen?

Or did they just not want us to release the press release? They wanted to have it themselves, so they held on to it for a couple of days. What's going on here? I mean, it's possible that after they sent the response on March 10th, they decided to take a look. Obviously, those numbers are not necessarily confirmed cases. What we ask for are the confirmed cases of death. So those numbers, as you said, they're a pretty small numerator to the denominator that would be all children, they're not saying those are even confirmed cases, but maybe in searching for that data,

they came across there. It's possible. It's possible. And that was for 18 years of age and younger. We asked for 11 and younger, which is very important because remember, they're licensing the vaccine by age groups. We asked for 11 and younger is one. And then we also ask for ages 12 to 15, because that's also different age ban that they're licensing the vaccine for. And even for that age group 12 to 15, they said, we've never done that analysis. How is it you've authorized the vaccine for an ages 12 to 15, but never bothered to actually do an assessment of what are the number of confirmed cases of children that died from COVID that age ban? How did you do a proper risk benefit analysis between vaccinating, right, or the risk to COVID? Especially in the face of myocarditis,

which you've admitted, you know, was happening. Like, you would think we know. know kids are going to die from this vaccine, so we better know how many kids are dying from the virus so that we can make a proper analysis. I mean, just the fact that this is how our regulatory agencies in the United States of America are working, doing absolutely nothing. Just as you said, it's like a faith-based religion. Just give the vaccine, who cares what the actual risk of the virus is. All right, there's a couple more foias I want to get through. So what else are we got in the upcoming legal update? Here's another one that I think is interesting because it might answer your question about, well, how do the CDC get its information?

Okay. And in this FOIA request, which she thought was really interesting, you have Amanda Cohen, who's the lead of the vaccine planning unit at the CDC, and, you know, she wants to find out is aborted fetus cells using the development and manufacture the CDC of the COVID-19 vaccine, right? Well, this is the CDC. She's asking a whole slew of people in the CDC. You would think that they would know that already.

Right. You would think that at the least the FDA would know it. What do they do if you put the same? second page on. Yeah. They do what they say parents should never do. They go to Google. They search, they go to the internet and they go to a website that's run by CHOP, a private

hospital and a group of individuals there, the lead a doctor, who I believe is Dr. Paul Offutt, who's made millions selling vaccines. And that's where they pull the information from. That's surprising in and of itself. It is. It is. It's not how you... You'll have an legal update on that.

Yeah, it's not how you imagine that this works. The CDC is supposed to be the top of the top dog here dictating everyone else. And when you ask them a question, I know, let's go to Google. It looks like Chop's got some information, you know, a hospital outside of our system. Let's just go with that. I mean, crazy. Why would Chop have the information, the CDC not have the information? Should the CDC and the FDA know what's in the vaccine that they're going to recommend?

Do they have computers? Maybe we have to introduce them to this concept of a computer. Hey, CHD, here's what it is. This is a laptop. All you have to do, you can all get programmed in here and just at the touch of a button, just a query like a search on your own computer, it should pop up in your database.

Amazing. Let's remember, too, they took billions of dollars of our money and they gave it to Pfizer-Modernia and these other companies to create, develop, and get these vaccines out there. But they don't even know what the ingredients are. Anyway.

Amazing. You know, usually you look, I mean, I would say that when it comes the vaccine, that's not even looking at the hood. That's just looking at the paint. Right. Like, you don't even know the color of the car you're buying. You don't forget what's under the hood.

Anyway, another FOIA response we got that there'll be in another upcoming legal update is during the Pfizer clinical trial, there's something called an independent data safety monitoring board. Yeah. And this is the board that all Americans and billions of people around the world are relying upon to assure that when that vaccine was going through clinical trials, the Pfizer COVID, COVID-19 vaccine, there was a truly independent board that was overseeing safety because that is what most Americans assume is happening. That is what most people in the world assume is happening.

Now, while the clinical trial is going on, the names of those folks is not disclosed because they're worried that people might pressure them and unduly influence them. Okay, fair enough, I guess. Well, once the vaccine is licensed, we're able to get their names and we have now obtained them through a FOIA request. And here they are. There's seven names. There were initially five, and somewhere along the way they added to OBGYNs. Query why that is, that's for another day.

But here's the part that's really, really concerning. And it will also be in a forthcoming legal update, is that when you look at these individuals, the conflicts that they have with pharmaceutical companies, and including Pfizer, prior to getting on this quote unquote independent data segment data security monitoring board are extraordinarily concerning. Can we get a taste? I know you love to have these updates and be a

surprise. We're going to give the sort of background of all those players, but how about just give you one of them? Sure. So Dr. Catherine Edwards, for example, who is one of the four authors on Plotkin's vaccine books. She's considered one of the world's leading vaccinologists.

I guess Plotkin would be the godfather of vaccines and she'd be the godmother of vaccines. You've deposed, you've stood across from Catherine, too. And I mean, I don't know. Is that private information? But in some of these lawsuits, she's been brought in as a witness. So you've stood toe to toe with Catherine before. Yeah, that's not. It's, it's public information. Yes. I have deposed Dr. Edwards and I've also cross-exambed her on the stand. And I can tell you that at least vis-a-vis this, you know, here she is. She's sitting on the Pfizer independent data state tomorrow. She is the vaccination. She is the vaccinologist, probably the premier vaccinologist on this committee.

Yeah. And literally directly before she got on this quote unquote independent Pfizer board, she was a paid advisor to Pfizer. So she went from being a paid advisor to Pfizer to to then apparently relinquishing that. To then being on the independent data safety monitoring board. She's all, I mean, I don't, I can't. I can't think of a worse conflict.

She's also been an advisor, consultant, and received personal fees from Merck. She's had payments for giving lectures and been on the advisory board of GSK. And then to round out the big four vaccine manufacturers, she's also been a consultant and has been paid for lectures and has paid to take trips around the world by Sanofi.

She's basically been a consultant advisor or an advisory board of every one of the four major vaccine manufacturers. She's also been a consultant advisor to numerous other pharma companies. I mean, just, you know, so basically, you know, the leader of team pharma there, as far as going out and speaking engagements and promoting these companies, we took a top-level promoter advertiser for pharma and put her onto the safety commission that's supposed to be challenging the scientific method, really going after these companies, going at this product, and really making sure that it's gotten through the safety gauntlet properly.

I would say that if you were trying to find somebody more pro-vaccine, that has more of those preconceived beliefs in vaccines that we were talking about earlier, that dogma, they couldn't have found probably, they probably one of the best folks out there, I would say, who's got some pretty strongly held beliefs regarding vaccines. And one has to question how impartial one can be when they hold those pre-existing notion. There are so many scientists out there. There are so many professors.

Really, you couldn't find any that have never received money from Pfizer before. They didn't receive money from other pharmacy companies. This is the independent data safety monitor board. And that's supposed to be reflective of somebody that's supposed to be independent. That's concerning. It doesn't stop with Dr. Edwards, as we'll provide them legal update. A number of these other individuals have been paid consultants for Pfizer before they got on this Pfizer independent data safety monitoring board.

You can't make this stuff up. Again, if you want that list, you want to be the first one to be able to see how entrenched these people are in pharma as they're supposed to be looking out for our best interest. Just be on our newsletter. There's so many free gifts on the newsletter information you don't get anywhere else when it's breaking, when it happens. Just take this opportunity to sign up. It's super easy.

All right. We got one more, right? One more up thing? All right. Let's let it rip. You asked you to break. I did. I did.

I love it. The responses are that are forthcoming legal updates that we haven't put out yet, that we haven't sent over to you guys yet to put out. Yeah. So I'll give you one last one. And, you know, this feeds into everything we've been talking about. on the CDC website, they have a section called facts about COVID-19 vaccines. Yeah.

And here's a bunch of facts. I'll read them out real quick. I'm looking right here. COVID-19 RNA vaccines cannot give someone the virus that causes COVID-19 or other viruses. They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way. The mRNA and the spike protein don't last long in the body. It says MRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell where our DNA genetic material is located, so it cannot change or influence our genes, all of those types of issues.

All right. So what does this have to do with our legal update? We took four of those statements, the four main ones in there. We quoted them. We sent them to the CDC and we said, hey, please provide us the documents that you relied upon to make these statements, right? Yeah. And actually, quote, it says all documents relied upon by the CDC to claim the following statements. And then we quoted the exact words of the CDC. And what was their response?

Well, hold on. Let me read it out so we know what we're asking for. They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way. All right, where's the proof of that? The genetic material delivered by the viral vector does not integrate into a person's DNA. Okay, sounds good. They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way. And MRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA genetic material is kept. And then it says, a search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. They have zero documents referencing their facts. I mean, it wasn't like theories that we're like moving with or, you know, hopes that we have. It's literally facts and nothing to back it up with. Like, doesn't a fact need some evidence, prove, study, something?

The CDC and especially the CDC, which claims the science-based organization, they do everything based on the science and the data. You would think they would have at least some data, some study to support each of these statements. The fact that they don't have any is concerning. And they know it's concerning. And the reason you know that is that when you read their entire response after saying, we don't, we can't find any records. I mean, they go on to say, we conducted a search of their records and found no records relating to request, you know, increases health security. Let me read it really quick. This is beautiful.

Please note, CDC is a public health organization. CDC increases the health security of our nation. CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats and responds when they arise. The sole agency responsible for the safety, efficacy,

and security of human and veterinary drugs is the Food and Drug Administration. I mean, this idea, like, this idea, like we're the ones. We're on top of this except when we're not like how you just got us now. But don't forget, just because we said we haven't done any of the science you just requested, remember, we're the ones that do the science that's protecting you. Yeah. Right. And look, they don't have to even do the science to support their statements. They just need to have some science, some support for it. The fact that they state these things,

they didn't say on their website, we think this is true, or here's the theory, or, We believe this might break. They say, here are facts about it, and they have no support according to them after they reviewed their records for those statements. That's concerning. When the surgeon general was saying they wanted to sort of, you know, get on to vaccine misinformation, I said start with your own regulatory agencies. Where are the fact checkers, go fact check the CDC. These are not facts. Facts have evidence.

They have proof. They have something you can reference. This is wishful thinking. This is dreaming. is not science. Aaron, you're all over them. I am sure they love you. I would guess that there's probably a big photo of yours hanging, you know, in the offices over there at the CDC and the FDA. Look out for this guy. Don't let him in the door. I think that photo might be next to yours, Dow. Okay. Well, at least we're somewhere together. All right. Awesome. Aaron, so amazing.

I want to thank you for taking the time. Not only all the work you're doing for us every single day. It's just truly off the charts. I think you are, you're going to make your place in history, and rightfully so. But I want to also thank you for taking the time to sort of carry us through some of these amazing developments this week. Thank you. We love the work that we do for ICAN, and we appreciate that we can do it every day. All right. Sounds great. Take care. I'll talk to you soon.