The Highwire with Del Bigtree - COURT DECISION FORCES CDC TO RELEASE V-SAFE ‘FREE-TEXT’ DATA

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

COURT DECISION FORCES CDC TO RELEASE V-SAFE ‘FREE-TEXT’ DATABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

One of the big legal wins that we have. And to do that, let me just sort of set the stage. I know many of you are brand new to this show. Tuning in for different reasons is the new year. You want to check out maybe a different way of thinking or a way of investigating. But we got involved with when the Pfizer and the COVID vaccines came out, the CDC decided that they need some sort of tracking system since we obviously skipped out of the safety trials with the emergency authorization. we got out early. So there'd be no long-term review of actually whether that vaccine was safe or not.

Or how about was it even a vaccine, but that's a whole other conversation. So they decided, created a system for your cell phone in which you could sort of check in on it and answer questions. How are you feeling today right after your vaccine? Do you have a fever? Do you have any aching in your joints and things like that? So they could track how everyone was doing. Well, the CDC had promised that they were going to be really transparent. Since we did not really know the safety protocol, this product, and was being given to millions, if not billions of people around the world without any real understanding the safety, they said, we're going to let you know everything we find out.

Well, when we used FOIA, which is the Freedom of Information Act Request, which is one of the things that we do with our nonprofit, the informed consent action network, which is, you know, who funds this show, our nonprofit, we used FOIA, which is we asked Pfizer and the CDC and every can you provide us with that data from the V-Safe data? We'd like to see it. We'd like to see how people are responding to this vaccine. Well, we fought them in court for over a year.

In fact, we had to keep bringing different lawsuits just to get to this data that was supposed to be transparent. A lot of work for transparency in this country these days. Anyway, we finally won that case, and they provided all of the filled-in data that had been checkboxed on this app by I think it's 10 million users of about 10 million users. Well, this was what that moment looked like on our show when we celebrated that win. Take a look at this. There were 10 million, 108,273 individual users. These are folks that actually signed up and registered to use VSAFE and to provide health check-in.

Okay. Here is the adverse health impacts. When they were showing it on the screen, right, there was check the boxes where you could check one So someone checked, unable to perform normal activities. And then in the middle, like the more moderate, missed work or school, did not go in. And then there was required medical care or hospitalization. Of the 10 million people in this system, 782,913 checked this box. They checked the box.

I went to a doctor. I went to the hospital. I was admitted into the ER after my vaccination. So that number, by the way, is about 7.7%. And most of the reports came in in the first week or so after vaccination that they needed some type of medical care. Yeah. Being a doctor, emergency room or hospitalization. Wow.

On average, folks who needed medical care that reported it, on average, needed it almost three times to do medical care. They made multiple visits, not just one. Oh, I was overreacting. I'm going home, they came back, you know, or went deeper into the medical system that your audience understand. Yeah. We've only received the data for the check the box fields. There was a bill in the blank box.

Right. We have not received that yet. All right. Well, there it was us announcing. We got incredible. We built a whole dashboard, which you can still find on our website that takes you through all of that data that we referred to there. and there it is in real time.

You can click on all the different things inside of there to ask different questions, you know, ethnicities, just different specifics about the people that signed into that registry. Well, I'm joined now by the lawyer that fights these cases for us and made it possible for the world to see this data, no one other than Aaron Siri from Aaron Siri in Glimstad.

Aaron, thank you for joining us. Pleasure. All right. So we were really excited. when we got that data, but, you know, from the very beginning, you said, Dell, they're holding something back from us, and it's really important. What was it that they were holding back when we received that data? Because it had a lot of incredible information. Yeah, they were withholding the free text fields. Those are fields in which individuals using the V-Safe system, those 10 million

individuals, could write in whatever they wanted. And the reason that those free text fields and the data in those free text fields are so critical is that the check the box information as as as incredible as it is in terms of what you've just showed right look at right now we're looking at that check the box on our screen this is what yourself right look like look at what they ask you to check you had pain redness swelling itching or none and then if you want to get deeper into it chills headache joint pains muscle or body aches fatigue nausea vomiting diarrhea abdominal pain rash um and that was it I mean, that was basically it as far as the types of symptoms they were looking at. Right.

And I know you're going to get into it. But meanwhile, from the very moment these trials started, we were hearing things like anaphylaxis, people like almost dying from allergic reactions. We were hearing about myocarditis, swelling of the heart, you know, strokes, Bell's palsy. And for whatever, you know, why, you know, were they aware? I mean, we've talked about this before. they were aware that those were actually the really concerning issues, yet they weren't in this check-the-box fields.

No, all of the issues that we and now know are concerning from the COVID-19 vaccines, they well knew that those were issues of concern before the first vaccine was rolled out in December of 2020. The reason we know that is because we have a copy of the V-Safe protocol. That is the 50-page document that the CDC used to design V-VICEF. safe as far as we're aware. And on the last page of that protocol, it lists, as you could see on your screen there, the adverse events of special interests, pre-specified medical conditions. And on that list are the very issues that we now know the vaccine can cause like myricoditis, paracoditis, on the list also is transverse myelitis, stroke, a quadula, blood clotting, anaphylaxis,

Guillam-Barre syndrome, yeah. A whole host of it. The list is right there on the screen. Look at the date, everyone. That's November 19th of 2020. So that is in 2020. They know before, you know, anyone's really, you know, getting this vaccine and signing up, this is what they're saying, here's the issues we're seeing in trials and that we should probably be looking for with our, you know, tracking system. But did they put in the app? No, they did not. Instead, what they put in the app, as you could say, as everybody just saw,

are the symptoms that the CDC will tell you are totally normal to occur, especially in the first week after vaccination. They actually call that reactogenicity. They say that those are good to have. That means the vaccine's working. Right. So when those symptoms occur, they say great. They say great.

It's good. You have those symptoms. And in fact, 30, 40, 50, 60 percent of the VSAFE users reported one or more of those symptoms. And the CDC published studies going, oh, wonderful, the vaccine's working. So those symptoms, by their own admission, by the way, and we know this from FOIAs, other FOIAs, for the person who essentially ran the VCA program at CDC, he said, oh, yeah, these symptoms are meaningless for assessing safety, and they certainly are. The CDC could have easily, as they had in their very protocol in November of 2020,

Remember, the first vaccine was only EU8 in December of 2020, a month later. They could have listed. How about just chest pain? That would give you a sense of some type of cardiovascular, you know, of myocarditis, your pediatric carditis. They could have done numbness in your extremities that could have indicated Gianberrae syndrome. There's a whole lot of symptoms. They could have also just literally just listed those conditions, but they chose not to.

They chose instead to relegate those to the free-trial. text fields and that's what makes getting that data, those 7.8 million free text entries so critical so we could see what symptoms were reported. So out of 10, let me just make this clear. Out of 10 million people that signed up to this registry, by the way, clearly all fans of the vaccine, these are not people that were forced in the situation. These are the early goers. They're like, get me in there. And oh, I'd love to track my health. So these are people that wanted the vaccine to work for them. Out of 10 million people, you're saying there's over

7 million free text fields, meaning that the headache and the fever and the nausea and the rashes and things that were listed like that didn't actually cover the specificity of the issues that they were suffering from. Yeah, and you know, I mean, we live in an age where people don't like to read and write so much. Right. So I suspect actually the fact that 7.8 entries were entered is already, you know,

incredibly, you know, should be troubling because I don't think people are writing in, thank you. They're writing in symptoms. They're writing in issues of concern. And, you know, we even have, you know, one PhD who took the vaccine as a way to be a model for her students. Use the V-Safe system. We actually have, she shared copies of her entries with us. And, you know, man, they're really troubling. Oh, there it is on your screen. I mean, here's an example. She, you know, here it is, she's reporting to the CDC shortly after getting the vaccine, and she says, look, I've got nausea, vomiting, ER visits, plus two times urgent care, chest x-rays, EKG, referral to cardiologists, immunology, continued symptoms, 100 beats per minute resting heart rate

and more chest pain. She said, she's had no underlying health conditions, meaning she's all the only, the only issue that could be is the vaccine. She got an MRI, and she writes, help me, exclamation, Here it is. This is a person that went out, got the vaccine, purposely to kind of encourage her students to get it. As you pointed out, almost all those 10 million users signed up in the very first few months. They were not mandated. These are the enthusiasts. They were running out to get the shot. Right.

So she says to the CDC, help me. Well, those health check-ins continue every day for seven days, then every week for five more weeks. And then at three, six, nine, excuse me, three, six, and 12 months. There's another check-in. Well, here, she also provided her checking at six months. Well, six months later, did the CDC routed out to help her? No. Here's what she writes.

She says she's had 100 plus days of speech, physical therapy, and vestibular therapy, and more to come. Still no help from SISA. That's the FCDC to help people at your vaccines. After six months of trying. Still no response. And by the way, Siss was run by Dr. Catherine Edwards, who you talked about in the past. still no response from the CDC, no help from public health, no help from FDA.

She's saying, look, nobody's helping me. And in fact, you know, further up in this same report, she lists a whole host of conditions where she explains that she's on full disability. She can't drive. She can't walk. So she has platelet activation, vascular inflammation, and cephalopathy, still full disability, not medically cleared to drive. Negative nucleocapsid tests.

Six months of testing confirming no underlying health condition. I mean, like, she's saying, my life is a disaster here. What's amazing is this is the CDC system. This is their system. And she's not one. There's, and obviously she's already, has several fields. We're not saying seven million people rode in, but there's seven million fields. She's making them about four or five of those.

But she's not alone. and yet we've heard all along the CDC FDA saying, we have had no complaints really. We see no evidence or red flags that there's any problems with these vaccines at all. I mean, if this woman was all alone, maybe you just ignore her, but seven million of these fields.

All right, so let's get to the punchline. You know, this is not the same case now. You had to bring a separate case now because they refused to give ICA and the work that we were doing these open text fields. So you and your law firm brought that case. and how's that going? Well, I'm very pleased to report that a federal judge

in an incredible 29-page decision has now issued an order requiring the CDC to make every single one of those 7.8 million free text entries available to the public over the next 12 months. Every month they have to produce a few hundred thousand of them there's a schedule last page of the order and um you know this is uh a huge win for transparency it'll be an incredible opportunity to actually see what was being told to the CDC by the public and the those who are probably the last people who want to say things the bad things of these

vaccines yeah these folks who went out to get the vaccines i always find it i always find it comical when when people say, well, you know, those people who complain about vaccine injuries, they're, you know, they just have issues with vaccines. They're always anti-vaxers, yeah. Right. They're not because you know what the people who have issues of vaccines do? They don't get vaccinated. Right, right.

These are people at the front of the line. They don't get the vaccine. Look, I don't want to make light of it because I know we're about to start reading some really horrific stories. And I remember when we were talking about this, the CDC was pushing back. They were trying to say things like, well, you shouldn't have to, you can't read all of those fields. we're going to categorize them.

We'll just categorize them and give them a code and put the different things, and they didn't want to let us read the writing. So you ended up getting around that. They didn't get to code this and say, well, there was like about 500 that were about some sort of chest pains, and I know that you wanted to fight for this. No, I want to read exactly how they described their chest pains.

Did they have EKGs? All the things written in the field. We read English. That's what we do. This is going to be written in English. And by the way, all of the names and one of the questions they have, Well, they will say, well, privacy, all of the names have been scrubbed from this data, correct?

This is just open fields. We don't know who these people are. There's no way to know who we're talking about. Is that correct? So the V-Safe system is designed to make it effectively, you know, the data that we got in the check-the-box was de-identified. You can't figure out who the person is. And so only additional data that we want did was the free text fields. Now, it is possible that somebody changed.

chose to put in, let's say, their name or their social security number. But as the judge pointed out in the decision, one, there are programs that can scrub for that type of information very effectively and do a quick initial pass and scan for social security numbers, for names with that kind of information. Second, reviewing this type of data to redact for information is something that happens all the time in litigation. At the end of the day, when you take those 7.8. million free text entries they were limited for the most part to 250 characters so you know we did a

lot of math in our in the lawsuit in which we explained okay let's convert that how many pages is that equal let's assume an average free text entry was 50 characters well then it's we're talking like a hundred something thousand pages right that's it if everybody filled out the full 250 characters so maybe you have 500 000 to 600 000 pages that is not too burdensome for a project remember that our public health authorities mandated we get, gave the company's immunity liability, took away our rights, kicked us out of schools, took billions of our dollars to give to the pharmacy companies to develop.

I mean, it's incredible. If there's anything that there should be transparency for, it's this product, this judge had it exactly rights. I mean, Judge Kesmerich, I mean, if anybody wants to read the decision, I encourage them to do so. I think we have an excerpt right from this case, just a statement by the judge, notably plaintiff points to several studies published and presented by CDC that rely upon on the V-Safe data. All but one of these studies considered only the first seven days after receiving a vaccine, and the only study that looked beyond the first week considered just two weeks.

Defendants do not contest this at 10. Rather, defendants dismissed the limited scope of the published studies as just the time period that some scientists have chosen to use in their research studies. I mean, this is amazing, right? What the judge is saying, are you telling me that the CDC is all this data and the only thing you've looked at is the first two weeks when the entire question with an emergency use authorization is what about the long-term side effects? What about two years down a row? What about six months?

What about all these issues of blood clotting we're seeing? And they only look two weeks. This judge, I mean, anybody with blood moving their brain would have to be saying, oh, my God, this is insane. Yeah, one of the things we pointed out to the judge was, look. look, Your Honor, we said, listen, here's here's an example of why it's so important for the free text field to be made public. And what we pointed out to the judge is that the CDC and other authors using the VSAFE data published over 40 studies using the VSAFE check the box data.

And in every one of those studies, except for one where they looked at, they reported the rate of medical care seeking for two weeks after the shot, they reported the rate of medical care seeking for only one week after the shot. And that rate they kept saying was 0.9%, 1%, whatever. As you showed earlier at the beginning of this segment, when we finally got that data, after a year, two lawsuits. So people understand, other than the checkbox, it asked those questions that we said in the earlier piece,

which is, did you miss school? Could you go to work? Did you have to seek medical care? That was a checkbox also. And that showed us, we looked further down the road than anyone the CDC did. And that's where we show that 7.7 of these people said, I needed medical care, which is an insane number for a medical product. And I just want to say to people that are maybe watching this show for the first time, and I know it's going to be, this show is going to blow your mind because you're saying to yourself, the CDC cares about my health.

They do thorough studies of vaccinations. All the vaccines ever given to my kids have been thoroughly tested. Well, now you're looking at the most rushed vaccine you've ever witnessed with your own eyes. they're telling you we looked at everything, and I'm telling you this. You now know, a judge just saw, they only look two weeks down the road. Beyond two weeks, if you open those gates and you push your way into the CDC campus, what would you see would be hundreds and hundreds of scientists where their heads stuck in the ground and their ass is sticking up with you, not looking at anything. That's how the CDC works, and if you keep watching this show, it's going to scare the hell out of you.

Well, I know, Erin. I know, I know. You don't have to talk like I do. I'm going to say it. I don't have to appear in a quarter. I'll put it a little different to say this. I'll say this. If that one, when they publish those 40 studies, what makes it so incredibly concerning is that those are the same 40 or so studies that the CDC points to to say COVID vaccine is safe.

Don't worry. They're safe. But, and one of the main data points they use, they use theirs for the most. part and v safe well then they say theirs is useless right so then there's v safe and then they only use the first week and and when we pointed this out to the judge here's what the judge wrote okay and it's it's really great if i can read it yeah he said because the cdc came back in their papers and they said well some scientists chose to do a week but you know that's what they chose to do and the judge picked up on that and you know we responded to that and the judge wrote quote if quote unquote

some scientists sponsored by platform by defendants by the way there are many of them were cdc scientists okay right have chosen to use quoting the cdc's words from their papers only the first week or two of data to report the vaccine is safe and effective then other scientists should be permitted to access the data to quote pierce the veil of administrative secrecy now he's he's quoting the language for why the foia exists open agency action to the light of public scrutiny and promote the disclosurement of information. Many of the policies previously addressed were enacted because of guidance from defendants and the judge there means the policies regarding mandates and immunity liability and so forth. The judge continues. With billions of taxpayer dollars expended to develop,

distribute, administer, and fund messaging campaigns, plaintiffs assumes a hefty and viable public interest in examining the raw clinical data. Production of the free text data will permit independent researchers to put the government agencies to their proof by considering all of the available data. So the judge, through the analogy we hope, which is in the same way, with the check the box, you only want to report one week, and that was misleading. What are you trying to hide with the free text data? And, you know, if I could draw a comparison to what really the CDC was arguing here, they said to this judge, it would take about 150,000 working hours to review this 7.8 million free text fields. If you divide by 2,000 hours a year working, so one person,

for one person to review this at the CDC, and they say they don't have 13 analysts, so they can devote one maybe, I don't know. That would take 75 years. That's an interesting number. Let's not bring the back to what the FDA tried to do. Yeah. Oh, man. Aaron, amazing. You've won the case. Now, just so people know, we're only, we have not, you know, received, you haven't received any of this data yet, but we will be posting it on our website as it comes in for people to analyze. This is what we do, making it available. Just go to Icanacide.org forward slash v-safe, and you can access now. Right now, it has our dashboard. But as this data starts pouring in to Aaron's law firm, we will be posting it there. And so all of those scientists out there in the world. I know Naomi Walsh, got a huge group of people that are looking into this data as we put it out. People like that, we're making it available to you so that it's easy to find. Really incredible win, Aaron. I'm, I think this is going to, I think this is going to be the death blow to this cover up. It is clear that they've been hiding something and now the world

is about to see what people wrote in after they were getting the vaccine. This may change this whole conversation forever. As I said, this is going to be a really, really, really interesting year. Before I let you go, another legal victory, right? You were able to sort of run down the hot lots. This is a conversation. A lot of people watching the high wire have asked about are some of the vaccines, you know, lots worse than others. Well, we saw high rates of injury with certain lot numbers, but there's no way to know if it was a hot lot because we don't know how many of that lot there were. So you don't know, is it one in a hundred the injuries or one in a thousand? We had to know. how big was the lot, right? That was the big issue. So tell me about this legal win.

Sure. So when the, you know, when a vaccine is distributed, it's distributed in what they call various lots. So it's this, you know, Pfizer's COVID vaccine has lots and lots of different lots. It's just a different number assigned to different batches as they roll over the production line. While they take those lots, they distribute them around the country. They actually kind of randomized where they send them. And then people will then report to theirs, as we know, when there's potential issue. And they report as well, often, not always the lot number. And so sometimes when, so some folks who are looking at the VAERS data said, whoa, wait a second, this lot has like way more reports of death than other lots. And so they said, well, maybe this lot has a problem.

Maybe there was a contamination, you know, as, as we're going to release very soon in a, an ICAN is going to soon release a legal update in which we actually have uncovered serious contamination issues, for example, at a Moderna facility. In any event, when you look at that VAIRS report, reported numbers of number of, you know, of a lot with lots of deaths, the problem is you need to know how many doses of that lot went out. maybe that lot had 10 times the number of doses that were distributed versus other lots. So it's not surprising that they had 10 times a number of deaths. If they had the same number of dose distributed, then you can draw an inference that maybe

there was more of an issue with that lot. So there's been lots of reporting over the last year about maybe this lot's hot, maybe that's hot. And I know ICAN has gotten a lot of requests to get the data of how many lots distributed in the United States. I mean, we got people want to know. And we got to have this answer, right? So we had a lawsuit. We had a number of appeals.

And it's been a long road. But we have finally now received from the federal health agencies the number of lots of doses, excuse me, distributed by lot. We got it for the Pfizer COVID vaccine, the Moderna COVID vaccine, as well as the J&J COVID vaccine. And ICANN is, I understand, is not doing the analysis itself, I understand, but it's choosing, but it's choosing to release to the public that data and letting others out there conduct the analysis. Open VAIRs, I know, did an analysis of this data and has identified what it believes to be a number of hot lots. I will tell you, you know, from our quick review of it, you know,

over here and at ICANN, there's one of the things I think that stood out is that there's so many lots that appear to be, so to speak, hot. Right. Which makes one conclude, you know, when you got, when so many lots are hot, maybe the product's just hot. I don't know. Right. Right. Hot product. Aaron, thank you for your incredible work. It's still bringing, you know, in victories over the holiday when everyone else is resting. You've just been delivering for us all these years working with you. It's just a powerful part of what we're doing here with the Highwire and our nonprofit, the Informant Consent Action Network. We couldn't do it without you. So many people. I know it's

thankful for this work and now scientists around the world are going to be getting real science in their hands real data that they can start crunching so all of us in the world can actually know what happened here so keep up the great work i think 2024 is going to be amazing we're going to be seeing these open fields you know pouring in uh that is going to be a fascinating read so i'm going to let you get back to it thank you so much for joining us today erin thank you del