The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DID THE ARMED FORCES SUFFER A TOXIC EXPOSURE?

Episode Date: April 21, 2024

Navy veteran & founder of RealReactions.org, Crisanna Shackelford, PhD, speaks about her early concerns over mandating the COVID vaccine for the military, and her own injury from the shingles vaccine.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

From January through the end of April, the military administered 2.8 million doses of the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. More than 98% of all of the active duty force got at least one of the shots. And the Army has released a memo saying any soldier, active duty or national guard who refuses to get vaccinated will be forced out of the service. A new study on the COVID-19 vaccines found more cases of heart inflammation than expected among members of our U.S. military. Strokes, infertility, breast cancer, heart disease, dramatic spikes, and all of these ailments, and more have been reported among military members during the COVID-19 vaccine era. Healthy pilots, 20s, 30-somethings that suddenly get strokes, myracarditis, and all sorts of ailments, and they're going untreated, undiagnosed.

A fighter pilot who got paracarditis has been grounded for seven months. There was one enlisted service member that had four strokes after getting the vaccine. And so these are serious injuries. I witnessed firsthand the numbers of cases of young soldiers between the ages of 27 and 35 with neurologic events, cardiac events, a 30-something year old who I had to explain to his family while he was on a ventilator, why he had a stroke when he had just got his vaccine. And they're saying to me, what happened? He was fine yesterday.

We have in the military the single best data set we, that exactly, that exactly, that because we have baselines in there. And acute disease across all categories in the preceding years, five years leading up to the vaccination year was 1.7 million. They introduced and mandated a COVID-19 vaccine for our U.S. military when they had only lost 12 service members total to the disease. And in the 10 months of 2021 after that, it jumped from 1.7 million, all diseases to darn near 22 million. That was a 20 million increase. And unfortunately, I think that the Department of Defense is not being open about the number of service members that have potentially been injured by these shots. We here in the United States need to ask the question, did we mandate a toxic exposure when we mandated this injection to our entire armed forces?

Well, right at the end, there was Dr. Chrysana Schackleford. And 32 years, she was in the Navy in Department of Defense. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by her now. It's great. Doctor, awesome, awesome to have you here. Dr. Shaq, is that what the people call you? Shack. Dr. Shack.

All right, let me just take, let's start with your personal story. COVID vaccine comes along. How does that, I mean, you've been working for either the federal government or the Navy, but a part of, you know, our readiness, our national security, your whole career. certainly someone like you gets to opt out of that vaccine. Right? I mean, we always say, look, the heads of it never take it. It's just all the people that have no control over their own lives or own careers. Did you actually face a moment where you were being forced to take the COVID vaccine?

Right. So for those of us that were in the Department of Defense, for federal employees, as well as those who are of our service members, they came down and they said, same as everybody else, we're going to lose your job, threaten your employment. for those of us that held a security clearance, they came back and they said, not only that, but we're going to flag your clearance for failure to obey a direct order. So a personal medical decision is created to disobey an order. Right. Right.

So at that point, I decided, you know what? I think I'm done. I think that's my red line in the sand. You've now actually basically said to me, you know, you're not trustworthy or they don't believe we're trustworthy. So I thought it was time to get out. Why you per, why did you personally have an issue with this vaccine? I'm assuming you've gotten other vaccines throughout your career. I did actually as a result of my multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the anthrax series, all the exotic vaccines, you name it. We've had to take them for every single deployment. Like

I said, I had five to Iraq, one to Afghanistan, two to cross with one to Bosnia. And this particular injection was different. So, I mean, this is one of the things that we talk about. When I run into people out in the street, we hear, oh, well, you know, the people that are in charge, they're doing it to everybody else, or, you know, they're the ones not getting it. Certainly, you know, those high up and rank have some power over their lives, or that our federal government knows. Did President Biden get it? You know, did Bill Gates get the vaccine? I mean, all of these questions are sort of what we're dealing with. And what you realize is that they seem to believe in this thing.

I mean, they seem to think that it really makes a difference. And so even, you know, beyond being a cadet, you should have been able or beyond, I mean, you're someone that has security clearance. And you're someone that actually understands science. You've been around this, you know, long enough. And you can't, I mean, that must have been a shocking moment. You can't find anyone to listen to you to say, this is ridiculous. No, not only that, we were actually actively, I personally was actively engaged, documenting the known and both unknown risks. at that time, we documented the known risk, sending out the data on the fact that the clinical

trial said, up front, we knew from day one, it wasn't going to prevent transmission, it wasn't going to prevent infection. We literally sending these out to the department, to the service secretaries, to the Secretary of Defense saying, hey, pay attention. This does not make sense. Let's take a look at the mechanisms of injury. Let's take a look at the fact that it says it's going to cause disease in the body. Then you'll have an antibody response. Are we really going to do this to our entire armed forces? Right. I mean, in experimenting on our armed forces, which is what this was, we warped speed of the vaccine. We're never going to know the long-term safety effects. This was a brand new technology. And we're talking about being military ready. What was morale like around that? Because it sure seemed like from my vantage point, you just, you had this huge dip in, I mean, I forget what the number was. I want to feel like, I feel like the headline. was something like 800,000 military about to be laid off?

Was that accurate? Was it that high? We've got numbers of those that we actually ended up forcing out. So that number was around 8,000 or 9,000 of known. They were actually forced out. Those that self-voluntarily, if you will, resigned. That's an even greater number. So we have a combination of folks that basically critically thought

about the problem set and said, hmm, can't continue to do this. Those that were forced up because they critically thought about the problem set and said no. And their religious exemptions were denied. Then what you end up with is basically you have a compliant armed forces. Those that were left didn't rock the boat. Like a lot of them just, and they were told this is just what you've signed up for. You don't have control over your body.

You're basically owned by the U.S. government and you just do what you're told. Yeah, and DOD has to do what the CDC says. We were beholden to CDC guidance. We were not allowed to go over to another organization to say, what have you got? Right. What is this other set of data over here that we really, really need to bring into the Department of Defense to say, hey, it's not just the CDC guidance that we need to start looking at and listening to.

We need to listen to this other data set over here that talks about the toxic spike protein, that talks about some of the other issues. Because then you bring us back into a question, number one, you bring us back into a defense readiness, question, but you also have to ask the question, did the Secretary of Defense mandate a toxic exposure? Well, I mean, that's the question I have, right? I mean, it seems to me, I know that there's a lot of conversations, you know, lately about taking care of military, right?

Taking care of military that, you know, we're around bunker buster bombs, that like, are you, you know, breathing in, you know, radioactive fragments, things like that. Certainly if you are in the line of fire being put in harm's way to have a permanent injury, you know, there's been some, you know, awareness, it seems to say you should be taken care of then for all of the health issues. In this case, as I just said before, you know, this segment, the spike protein is a known, I mean, it's the known sort of bioweapon. And I can say that because most science now, even the FBI believes this came from a lab. So whether or not they, what were they making for? Making it to make a vaccine or figure out how to develop a vaccine. And

but they were making the most dangerous form of a coronavirus to figure out how to, you know, deal with it. So let's say it escaped on accidents and people got sick and started spreading around. But the most, I've had this conversation with New York Times. I was talking to one, I believe it was New York Times in case someone says, no, it wasn't, but one of those types reporters. And that was where I got them. They said, oh, the virus is much more dangerous than the vaccine. I was like, well, let's just follow that out for a second. I said, let's just say that, let's say all things being equal, are we agreeing that the spike protein is the most dangerous part of the virus? It's what causes myocarditis. It's what causes periocarditis, blood clotting,

all of those things. Thrombo cytopania, it's the spike protein. And the reporter said, yeah, I would agree with that. I was like, okay, so all things being equal, if I'm walking around in nature, there's a chance I don't catch it. There's a chance I'm not around someone that, you know, I get the spike protein and it starts attacking my cells. But if I take that spike protein and I put it in a vaccine and I make it so that my body makes that bio weapon over and over and over again, let's just say it's the same amount of infection and let's put aside the fact that they brag that the vaccine is going to create far more spike protein than I'm going to come in contact with breathing it in or however,

then could we agree all things being equal that if you make everybody get the vaccine, more people are going to come in contact with this bio weapon than they would have naturally with random selection. And I swear it's one of the only times the light bulbs going off. I heard a gasp on the phone. They were like, oh my God, I've never thought about it like that. And this is the point. If this spike protein is a weapon,

if it causes long-term injury just in nature, the version that came from Wuhan Lab, certainly injecting it, we now know for a fact that it causes might be. Myocarditis in some people. We can discuss rare after you've tracked every single, every person and said we know that happens. Paracharditis, long-term effects, heart damage that never goes away. Isn't that in fact then the same as being put in harm's way of a bioweapon or some, you know, chemical exposure?

Only we made you inject it. Yeah, we mandated it. We didn't, yeah, we mandated that you take this inject. that your body creates trillions of copies of this synthetic toxic spike protein with both known as you just described and unknown yet to be learned, harms and injuries to the individual.

But it gets worse than that. We've actually now said to our complete armed forces, as you transition out with your injuries, you show up at the VA. The VA should, in theory, based on the 2020 PAC Act, which is, I think, something that we should talk about. Let's talk about it. Start their pact.

What is PAC? Right. So PACT is PAC Act. It was passed in 2022. And with that, the administration said, we're going to take care of our veterans. We're going to take care of the veterans that have been harmed by those toxic exposures. Have you been exposed to Agent Orange? Have you been exposed to the burn pits in Iraq? Have you been exposed to the oil wells that created all this toxicity? The IEDs, all the toxicity that a service member would have been exposed to. When you transit, out, you go over to the VA, you get something called a toxic exposure risk activity screening. It's a mouthful. I appreciate that. Yeah. T-E-R-A. That is the provision that the PAC Act allows for you as a veteran now to go in and say, we're going to give you a screening based on all of the different things that you may have come encounter with when you were in the service. That's fantastic.

I'm a vet. I think that's fantastic. You feel like you've been exposed to things like that? So I know for a fact I have, but again, I'm completely aware of where I was during my time and in the Navy and so on and so forth. But the issue then becomes, I think, important for us to ask the question, how is the VA going to handle that disability claim? The problem is we actually know through whistleblower, we actually know that for the VA,

for the purpose of a terror screening, the VA has come back and they have said there's no such thing as a long-term side effect of a vaccine. And in fact, you've got that right there. There we go, in general BASOP. Vaccines and medications in general are not considered participation in a toxic exposure risk activity, Terra, because there's no scientific or medical evidence that supports the conclusion that vaccines and medications administered to service members have resulted in long-term adverse health effects.

So just look at that again. There is no long-term... evidence right no scientific or medical evidence it supports the conclusion right that there's a long-term adverse effect from a vaccination right how about the I mean I and I say this when I argue with in in layman's terms with anyone every vaccine including COVID comes with a list of side effects that are on it right and we now know for a fact increased risk especially in young men which is a big part of the military of myocardous periative

Cardiase, I mean, all these lists of injuries. And this is the problem. I mean, maybe the military is the same. One of the things I try to explain to doctors and people that are just trying to figure out, how would this happen? Why are they saying to me that there's no studies? Because they don't do the studies. They never do a comparative study. They never do the studies to say, we can't find a study that backs up that claim.

Because you were refusing to do that study. I was many years ago when Donald Trump first took office, Robert Kennedy Jr. asked me to join him to go to the NIH. Donald Trump sent him there and we presented exactly that. Show us any double-blind study ever done of any childhood vaccine. They couldn't, has never happened. Then show us, you know, the comparative study that shows taking all these vaccines makes you healthier. Hasn't been done, never been done. We're never going to do it is what they said.

We refuse to do that. And so this is what they're getting away with. Well, there's no science that shows that, but you're not doing the science. It's the same troop of the military because you have the best records in the world. You literally are tracking. Nobody has a more thorough background check on their health than people going to the military. We track them every day. Somebody must be seeing a dramatic change in the health outcomes of the military that are all forced to get.

And we have now a VA that will disenfranchise every single veteran if they show up and they have been harmed by this injection. that we have an SOP that will disenfranchise all of our veterans, because they've just blanket decided that there's no evidence of harm for the purpose of a toxic exposure, which is why it's important to talk about the toxicity of the injection and why it's important to link it back to whether or not the Secretary of Defense actually mandated a toxic exposure, which is shocking in and of itself.

I mean, if you think about it, what has he done to the totality of our own forces? Right. And all of our allies and all of our partner, nations that did the same thing. So do you think every, do we know whether or not all the militaries of the world to force their military to take this vaccine? It's a great question.

I think it's a great question that we need to ask and just ask the question, which, which militaries out there did not. Right. Did China line up all their military to get the vaccine? Did, you know, Russia line up all the military? Iran. Iran, China. Sure.

Russia. Right. Yeah. Those are great questions to ask. And so then when we think about military readiness, this is one of the arguments that are let Aaron Siri did make. We fought for the military for many people that donate to this show. They were a part of winning cases for Air Force and others like them. But we talked about we got the VSAFE data.

The VSAFE was sort of the tracking data for people that got the vaccine that asked certain things about their health records. And we have a dashboard on our website. Here it is, folks, if you haven't seen it, the B-Safe COVID vaccine adverse health impacts. go to I can decide.org and just type in VSAFE, and you'll get this. And you can look at all of the different. It was over 10 million individuals put in their data. But one of the things that popped up right away is if you see that bar at the top, 1.2 million, 1.3, the yellow, pink, and red. That means about 33.2 percent of the people that got that vaccine reported that in the yellow, they were unable to perform normal activities. In the pink, they couldn't go to work. They weren't able to go to work or school.

And in the red, nearly one million people required medical care. So 33.2 percent right there would be defined as not military ready. For every bag. If this matches the military, we wiped out one third of them who certainly in the days and weeks following couldn't perform, you know, their duties. So when we think of ready. When we think of where our military is at, are we ready for, I mean, as I said earlier, if we're going into World War III and everyone's going to jump into a NATO war, where are we at from your perspective? So if I put a warfare perspective on, if I put a warfare spin on this conversation,

then I would probably have to step back and say, at what point is our adversary, adversary is plural, looking at us and thinking we're softening the battlefield, the battlefield has been softened, deep, to you it into warfare language. Yeah. Arguably, the answer is yes. We've softened our battlefield. We softened our battlefield. Yeah.

I mean, that transgender story, I don't know if you caught that early on is just, is, I mean, that's, and again, I want to be careful not saying everyone should be allowed in the military, but if you're going there to get a sex change operation, I think we're, what is it when you're on the wrong mission? It might be on the wrong mission, right. Yeah. Yeah. So, so now when I look at it. when I look at things like this, you look at the Secretary of Defense has mandated a known by a weapon in this spike protein that attacks the body in so many different ways and has done it to our military and now won't even take care of those that are injured. Probably is continuing. I'm sure they're continuing vaccine programs, all of that.

Absolutely. And I look at a military that is now saying, come on in. If you're going to, you want to have sex change operation, all things that clearly are, I mean, obviously softening our military, making it so, as we pointed out, I don't know how anybody after sex change operations is going to be able to rush into battle, so they're not ready. They're obviously having, you know, as Tracy Beans pointed out, having psychological that require more than the acceptable amount of counseling. And so my question then becomes, from just an outsider looking at it, it does not feel like the leadership of our country is acting in the best interest of our country. So I have written in the past and proposed that what the Secretary of Defense needs to do is actually take a different look at how to think about our defense readiness posture.

I was talking to you earlier about the fact that I wrote an article asking the question, what is the autism epidemic? have to do with now security and defense readiness. Right. So this is a, we have to add to all of these discussions, to get to the totality of defense readiness, we have to add, there's an additional layer. If we have an autism rate today, let's say it's 1 and 36. I think the stats are roughly 1 and 36 with the diagnosis.

If you project that out, I believe it's to the year 2030, we're looking at a number somewhere between 1 and 2. Right. Of that population, they'll largely be boys, and they'll be nonverbal. That's just the data. That's the trend that we're taking right now. So we're saying by the year 2030,

we're going to have one and two that will potentially have a diagnosis of autism. Then we have to step back and ask the question, Secretary of Defense, by the year 2030, how many people will be enlistment eligible? Yeah. So that's just another component. Just so I can protect it.

I think that there's ways to look at the science, and I don't want someone to report. Del Biggs from the high wire said by 2030, you're going to have autism. It's certainly stats like that are in the movie Vax that I made. Anything can change yet. There's a lot of variables, but you are right. When we see a trajectory that started at 1 in 10,000,

and we now find ourselves at 1 in 36, I think there's even stats showing more like 1 in 28, certainly boys 1 in 18 to 1 in 20 are now suffering from autism. So already, already you've reduced the amount of population they're going to be eligible to be able to join the military. And nothing is stopping this. Let's just say very generally, this is what's happening with autism as we speak. Nothing is slowing it down.

We still, you know, and so to your point, and let me add this, that I'm pretty sure if you have asthma, you're not really ready to rush into battle either. If you have, you know, if your body's all covered with eczema and you need a shower every day in order to handle all the scales and things that are in your body, all of these things, lupus. We have a population now of children that more than one and two already have a chronic illness, a chronic disease, either a neurological disorder or an autoimmune disease. They're not military ready. So we're already there. I mean, there's the stat that just came up right there. We're already there where one and two Americans is too sick to go into battle. We can't have

people pop in a bunch of drugs and where I need another asthma inhaler out. the middle of the battlefield. And so that is a question. Is the military addressing it? Right. Are they looking at it? If you're sitting there and you're the Secretary of Defense, I think it would be very smart to look right

and to look left and say, I need to bring in some folks that are gonna bring me some alternative data. We need to consider that data that is considered, quote unquote, alternative in order for us to have a comprehensive picture of what our defense posture looks like going into the future, especially when we're going into dramatic changes around the world that are becoming much more integrated. When we talk about the nation state, we talk about the supper state, we talk about all of these issues that we've covered, the World Health Organization, the IHR amendments.

You talk about fundamental changes in global power structures. These are the challenges that our Defense Department is going to have to go into. Those are the environments. When we talk about... If they see them as challenges, which is back to my question. If we're being led by a nation's like, yeah, let's follow WF. Globalism rocks. Let's tear down our border.

Let's just make sure everybody that wants to come in, criminal or not, come on in. And let's force our military to take vaccines and get sex change operations. It sure does it look like anyone is saying that the goal is to protect us, to protect our interests. You were in there, Department of Defense. Is it still sitting around going, how do we make America stronger? Well, I think to be fair. Please. Yep, to be fair.

We have a defense department that will look at our big, big, big China, big Russia, big Iran, and we'll sit there and we will have a concerted defense strategy that says, I need to think about how I'm going to potentially go to war with a big, big adversary. But I think at the same time, it's important to understand how these conflicts are changing, how we think about global interdependencies in terms of global fights, and from the local to the global, what does it look like in terms of our ability to go step into that new space, develop that foresight picture, our adversaries think about warfare much differently. When I think about nonlinear warfare, our adversaries think about how do you look for the

potential that's going to unfold in the future environment? Sounds very zen, doesn't it? Yeah. It's kind of like, how do you watch water flow? Right. But our adversaries think about warfare that way. The Russians think about warfare that way. In fact, they have a doctrine called nonlinear warfare.

So if we're busy talking about, and again, I would talk about the fact that it's not fifth generation warfare, this is not an evolutionary, linear process of how we're going to transition and develop change in the future or be a part of that change in the future. We have to stop and consider how our adversaries also think about the future that they want to shape, because that's what we have to be able to step into. It would be almost like a really good way to attack America would be to accidentally release a man-made bio-weapon into the world, then have the government of your enemy call you and say, could you give us the genetic code of what that bioweapon was?

Yeah, here you go. Put that in a vaccine and give it to everyone that didn't come in contact with our bioweapon. That would be really, would that be non-linear? So if I wanted to be an evil mastermind and plan my own war game on how to go about defeating my adversary, and I would want to soften that battlefield, and I want to create chaos, And I want to have people that are totally focused on things that, quite frankly, I'm not concerned about at this point because I'm going to be able to put this apparatus in over here.

While they're looking left, I'm doing something on the right. I think if our adversary thinks that way, then we probably need to say to, oh, by the way, our Department of Defense, make sure we get in that. How do we think the same way? How do we make sure that we're actually focused on the non-linearity of warfare as a, as a, set of behaviors as things that adapt, they co-evolve, they have emergent characteristics. I recall Brett Weinstein made an observation about his observations in the Darying Gap. He was talking about the illegal immigration issue. These camps in the Dary and Gap.

Absolutely. I've had Michael Leone on the show. So this idea that we're building these, we're funding, Americans are funding these giant camps to help these immigrants fly into Panama and accelerate their trip. They're free ride right across our border. And it was a comment that Brett Weinstein made, he made too. Number one, he too observed something about our military, which was now have a very, very interesting dynamic,

which is we forced him to become compliant, but it didn't have a thing to do with his observations about how did he think about the problem? And as an evolutionary biologist, he actually makes a very, very interesting statement, which is we need to think about all of these adaptations in the environment, how they change, how we think about the problem set.

Because it's not just the issue of illegal immigration coming up to the border. It's all of this tacit support, both from all those UN organizations, NGOs that are being funded. So now you've got people that are thinking about, if you wanted to say, again, in my language, how do you soften the battlefield?

You have to understand where these threats are coming from as well. Right. It's just, it's a different way of looking at warfare, and then it folds all the way back into, bring it all way back into a defense readiness posture, are we ready? Right. And then just go ahead and unfold into the middle of that.

Are we ready? Will we be ready from a health perspective? What do we do to our own armed forces with regard to the toxicity that we know is in the shot? So all of this comes into play and will impact our defense readiness posture in ways that we just haven't even began to have a conversation about? What are the mechanisms by which we can out this?

Secretary of Defense has been, you know, went and poisoned the troops from my perspective. Now it's obvious. I'm not standing. I'm not like stepping out on some third rail here. All science is adding up to show increased rates of myocarditis by CDC's own numbers. I mean, just that alone, God knows the turbo cancers and everything else we're talking about on this show. What is the mechanism by which we either demand an apology, but certainly a shift? What would have to happen?

because the military seems out of touch. I don't even know that, I mean, I can't, I don't have standing to sue. Does the military cadets have a standing to sue? Or did they, it seems like to me, they've signed away their life enough that it's like, hey, man, you know. I think there's two things at play.

Actually, there's three. When you think about demanding military accountability, you've had Brad Miller on the show. He's talked about the effort that a group, a very, very prominent group of folks have stepped up and said, we are publicly going to ask the public for accountability. Go to military accountability.netter.com and actually, you know, pledged and sign that petition.

But at the same time, we've also got to say, what were those violations? Let's have a really, really concerted look at the violations that have occurred. The Secretary of Defense is actually prohibited in law from actually harming service members through the use of a biological agent that can cause disease. Let's take a look at some of those other violations that we know are known within the Department of Defense tie them to regular statutes, deceptive medical practices is an example. I think for those of us that were in the military and those of us that were paying attention early on, it was hashtag, kill the virus, you know, get your vaccine, hurry up, get your shot, hashtag kill the virus, protect the force.

Hashtag kill the virus. There was no way that if you got the shot, you're going to kill the virus. That's a deceptive medical practice. So there are a number of things that I think are in play, that there are a group of folks that have sat down and itemized and said these are the alleged crimes, these are the alleged violations of law, and that effort is ongoing.

And then just to have some public awareness on the fact that the Veterans Administration is disenfranchising every single one of our service members that will have potentially been harmed when they show up at the VA, and they need that disability compensation, which we know the programs are broken. So where do we have, how are we going to help our vets,

how are we going to help the vaccine injured? You know, I mean, when nonprofits have to stand up, in their stead, when a service member doesn't get what they need, and they have to go and say, please, can you help me? Because CICP is broken. Right. You know, when we have so, when the disability compensation programs are so broken

that service members have nowhere to go, I think that's also important. But to raise awareness on the secretary, the VA secretary, Dennis McDonough, and then to raise awareness of the fact that the sect-def in tandem has potentially harmed our entire armed forces. It's a very bold statement. Yeah. It's a very bold statement to say, did you mandate a toxic exposure?

And what were the effects of that? You've got to ask that question, which is why on that clip, I said, start bringing in the issue of national security and defense readiness into the issue of the mandate, the toxicity of the mandate, bring all those other issues at play and bring this into a much different conversation. It takes it out of the vaccine safety discussion. Right. Brings it into the Defense Department discussion. So the Defense Department listens to this conversation. Yeah. And they're going to have some concern, perhaps, about what do you mean? What are they talking about, the toxic spike protein? Right. is that. Right. And hope, by the way, what happens if all of a sudden the Department of Defense is compelled, or the VA is compelled to acknowledge that they're going to have to compensate the service members for that toxicity?

You certainly would have, you know, a totally different response. I mean, would certainly, you know, once the government had to pay, once you started realizing this was going on, then you would think you would have a huge knowledge growth, which is maybe we should have the whole vaccine program. Yes. Maybe we should look at what readiness is. Someone that spends their life in the military, Department of Defense, obviously you must really be into national security on some level. Do you miss it? Is it hard to walk away from? You know, it's interesting. You're kind of stumping there. I don't miss it. I enjoy what I'm doing now. I had an opportunity to step into this space in a way that I was already passionate about the topic. But it gives me a chance to speak about it in a way that I would have never had from the inside. I mean, I was very active in war game, and it was very active in actually playing through defense scenarios,

whether I went down to Socom and sat there and worked with the guys to think about how do you think about warfare, you know, and how do you bring, you know, resources to the fight? I'm very much involved in that. But being able to speak about it on this side, I think, is much more important at this point. We've got too much at stake. What's the work that you're doing now? How do we follow the work you're doing and get involved? So there's been a couple things that I've done since I've been out.

The primary one, of course, is follow me in terms of my work, making sure that our veterans get taken care of. Raising awareness on that. I'm on X. And I started a nonprofit, similar to RAC 19, said, hey, if you guys have been injured, come to it. Here it is, realreactions.org. Yep.

Right. And what is the work you're doing there? What is it doing with you? So what I wanted to do was raise awareness for the fact that it wasn't only the COVID shot that we were trying to help people with. If you've been injured by the shingles vaccine, if you've been injured by the MMR vaccine, As we both know, the disability compensation programs are broken. So we're able to provide basically what we call a grant.

React 19 calls it a care fund. We're able to go ahead and help that individual that is financially harmed, medically harmed severely. If there are donations there, we'll be able to support them. So I started that after I got out and then just went straight into the work over at Children's Health Defense as their military fellow. So I did that. And then we're able to get the Children's Health Defense. Defense Military chapter up and running. So I've done a lot of work on the military side

with regard to the vaccine safety issue and all of those discussions. So really, really got a tight network of folks that are focused on this discussion. But it's the national security piece. It's the most interesting. Is national security military readiness? Is that something that, like, as we, you know,

I'm not gonna tell people who to vote for, but when we think of, is this responsibility of the civilian, you know, of those of us that are voting? Is this something we should be thinking about? like who's actually going to make sure that our military is ready, who's going to like really ask the right questions about what happened here? Because if we were injuring our, you know, our military, are they going to have, you know, are they going to be protected and taken care of

and given the right way forward? Is that something that we can even figure out as a voting population? I think every single America needs to ask that question. I think they absolutely need to ask the question again, going back to the very first shot, what's the nexus between national security and defense readiness and the harms that we've committed, potentially committed on our armed forces. And it's not just, oh, by the way, it's not just the U.S. forces. It's all of our partner nations who did the same thing. Yeah. All of them. Right. So this is very much a global concern in terms of the the partnerships

that we have, the allies that we have, if we're all in the same boat. So I think for the average U.S. American this is this should be in in my humble opinion our number one concern are we soft I think we're way too soft way too soft right now seems that way to me too yeah dr. Krissana Shackleford thank you for joining us today thank you appreciate it thank you