The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 326: SYSTEMATIC FAILURE

Episode Date: June 30, 2023

Jefferey Jaxen reports on the fall of Mainstream Media, and the push for Digital IDs in the US and abroad takes a new turn we predicted years ago!; Then, ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., presents the damning facts of America’s systematic failure to uphold its federally mandated duty to the public to assure vaccine safety, in a presentation you’ll never forget. Guest: Aaron Siri, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. Good morning.

Good afternoon. Good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. You know, a lot of you guys have written in over the years and you're really freaked out that they might be injecting us with microchips that can track us and things like that. And some of you even think you've already been injected with one. And I don't know, who knows? But my thing is, you know, I don't think you need one. If you have one of these, I mean, unless you've learned to live without one of these, no one needs to microchip you. They got you.

Right now it seems really convenient. gives you a lot of different movies and video games and anything you want to do you can text you can tweet you can get on you know fired out of tick talk video but what happens when this thing starts deciding what you can and cannot do where you're at and whether you're allowed to enter it's happening folks we need to wake up this is what the highwire is about take a look at this so look at this you're in london you're on a business trip you're staying in greenwich and you want to buy some food. So you're going to the local oldies, like this one,

and you think, I'm going to go in here and buy some food so I can feed myself. And then you approach the barrier. And look, you can't even get in the shop without having a QR code to scan here. Or to scan here. And then you can go and buy things. Now this looks to me like the beginning stages of the digital prison that we keep talking about.

What do you think? A digital prison indeed. And if you think about it, I mean, let's be realistic. We all just went through COVID, which means that almost everyone in our government thinks it's okay to block you from going to stores or even into your own place of business to do your job. They think it's okay to block that. and your cell phone could very well be the way that they do that. What if it holds all of your records? What if it has your vaccine records?

What if it has your health records? What if it has your social credit score? These are all things that as much as we would love to just go right back to sleep and say the world is just going to be hunky-dory, I don't think we should. I actually think we need to wake up even more, wake up the person next to us, and those on this side too and say, hello, everybody stand up, get up. We're needed right now. We got to wake up.

This is what the high wire is all about. It's why we have hired one of the greatest attorneys the world has ever seen so that we can sue when we think our government is getting out of control. And yes, we've won lawsuits against the National Institutes of Health, FDA, Health and Human Services, the CDC, and many others. We have stopped laws in Washington, D.C. that tried to allow kids to vaccinate themselves without parental consent. All of this is being done for you. All this is being done by a spectacular law firm. And today's show is really going to be featuring Aaron Siri, who gave an incredible speech. We're going to meet him, talk about that, and why he thinks that speech is one of the most important he's given yet.

But first, it's time for The Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, let's try to just put a nice little sweet spin on all this today, shall we? Because it's getting a little bit scary out there. We can do that. And it's actually good news here. So at the highway, we've worked to maintain the highest standard of transparency, and integrity and evidence-based investigative journalism. Something that's very hard to do in this landscape today.

One of the ways we do that is we put the power of this information that we have directly from the source as we find it into the viewer's hands. They can get that every Monday when they sign up for our newsletter. They get all the sources, all the documents. And this is called the High Wire Protocol. And this is something we really pride ourselves on here. And we have lots of core values, five of them. And particularly the ones I want to focus on, again, integrity, independence, transparency,

accountability. Why am I talking about this? Well, currently, we are in the middle of, I would, I would describe this as a century defining shift in the media landscape. And it's, it's no less than that. We brought to you just a couple weeks ago how Vice was shutting down. And I'm going to start going through what this means for the viewers. Vice Media prepares to file for bankruptcy. And that was the headline of Wall Street Journal. And from there, we keep going. L.A. Times. They're announcing now. Los Angeles Times announces 74 job cuts due to economic challenges. Wonder why they started making cuts. Could it be reporting that looked a little bit like this during COVID?

This is mocking anti-vaxxers, COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes, but may be necessary. Okay. You don't want to revel in someone losing their job, but I mean, it's a time has come if you're going to start keep talking like that with all the evidence that's out there. But looking at the whole industry and not just focusing on one or the other, the media industry itself, is losing record numbers. This is the headline of Axios, record number of media job cuts so far in 2023. So the media industry has announced over 17,000 jobs are being cut this year. Wow. So this is making it the highest year-to-date level of cuts on record. So this is what we're in the middle of right now. And there's a titanic shift of really the power base here, the center of gravity of media, of trust, of integrity. And one of the, you know, if you could really point to looking back,

maybe, you know, 10 years from now, you look back and go, what was the one symbolic defining example of what are we going to call it legacy media, mainstream media? That would probably be CNN. CNN is kind of like the California of legacy media. How CNN goes is how the rest of the mainstream media goes, because it's, it commands such a poll, such a, you know, such a funding base. We saw the writing on the wall at the end of 2022. And this is what the headlines started looking like there. And we really perk their ears up. CNN makes massive staff cuts as news industry prepares for a dark winter. Maybe that's a dark winter Biden was talking about it. It didn't have to do with us.

It had to do with the media, the mouthpiece there. And then we started seeing people drop one by one. So really one of the head anchors there, Chris Cuomo. He was one of their lead anchors, really one of the biggest voices there at CNN during the entire pandemic response. A lot of stuff happening that he was reporting on inaccurately. CNN fires anchor Chris Cuomo overroll in brother. ex-governor sex scandal that's out of reuters but then it starts you know though we talk about integrity in a newsroom then it starts getting kind of dark so cnn starts going down the wrong path

so quomo's out now his producer chris quomo cnn producer john griffin charge with luring girls and i'm going to keep going on these headlines tell me if you can see a pattern second cnn producer a senior staffer is under criminal investigation involving juvenile victims this was the producer for Jake Tapper. Wow. Another main voice at CNN there. So what they do, they brought in another producer for Jake Tapper. And lo and behold, Golden Boy producer for CNN, Jake Tapper, this is the new guy, fired

after inappropriate relationship with Staffer. And so you look at these headlines and you say, well, that's interesting because that guy must have been following the example of the former president who had to step down. And that was Jeff Zucker. Wow. And he stepped down just about a year, over a year ago. go. Sina and President Zucker resigns after a relationship with colleague that's out of Politico. And so what we're talking about here really besides integrity is we're going deeper here as this

shift happens and people are choosing the media that they decide to give their attention to. We need to introduce the idea of a moral compass. We need to talk about the quality of people and your organization and the effect that that quality has on information because integrity matters. And so we have a point here now where we enter. Chris Lick. He's the executive producer at the late show with Stephen Colbert of a year ago. He left. He goes into CNN to replace Zucker as the head there. And he was, he was trying to bring some sort of balance. And you kind of laugh. You know, our audience probably laughs. It says balance coming from Stephen Colbert. But that was really what he came in to do.

He tried to give CNN some balance in this space because it's a really bad space they were in. And he's out as well. This is the headlines recently. Chris Lick is out at CNN after centrist journalism. Trump Town Hall and tanked ratings. And you go into this article and he says, Lick was only in charge for one year, but he made several major and terrible decisions, including that CNN would attempt a more neutral, nonpartisan approach to news coverage. What a terrible decision. Right. I mean, I've been watching that too. And frankly, I was thinking, wow, CNN might actually move to the middle where most of America is at. And then you see he's getting fired. I mean, obviously they had some stumbles in that direction. But I mean, it just seems like we

have just extremists on both sides. You know, you just got Fox and MSNBC on two different sides. It just seems like a lot of America is sort of left in this middle space saying, you know, I'm kind of a little bit of both. Why is there no one here for me? Exactly. And this was the problem. This is the problem with censorship. The censorship we've endured over the last, especially during COVID for three years, it polarizes the conversation so far that this is what you get. And so it's outlets like ours. It's long format podcasts where people, really can have an open debate and discussion that are trying to relink, trying to square these two ends that are that have been pulled apart by really this the censorship that's been going on.

And we go back to the article, how bad was Chris Lick? Well, it says here in the article during COVID. And this is a serious article. Lick also believed officials may have overcounted the numbers of COVID-19 deaths. And that is hard to have difficult conversations without being demonized or labeled. I guess that's a, that's a really bad thing. Yeah. But what we're really looking at now,

And this is really the point I want to get to you for the audience. Where the mainstream, you know, whatever you want to call, legacy media, mainstream media, they're fallen. And they're beginning to infiltrate what was once called the alternative media. What was once called people that didn't have corporate backing. They're attempting to look like, you know, dare I say us, look like regular people. And to kind of just forget all that whole mainstream media thing happened and the lies and the inaccurate reporting. And so we bring in now the next version of this.

So we have a group called News Nation. Now, News Nation has been around for a while, but it hasn't been called News Nation. So the history, it started as a superstation out of Chicago, of the Chicago market, WGN. It changed its name to WGN America. But then Next Star Media purchased this superstation out of that Chicago market for $4.1 billion in 2019. Billion with a B? 4.1 billion, correct. Okay.

Yeah. And this is, you know, this is shocking. That's it. High wires for sale. But this is, people should understand this because where I'm going to go with this is really important now. So in 2019, okay, so Next Star comes in. They're the new owners. And they also own the Hill.

This is a large conglomerate media group. And they put out, they commissioned a survey because that was a cable news organization. And they commissioned a survey to their viewers and their listeners and their watchers. And they said, what do you want to see in a news station? And they said basically the audiences were tired of biased-leaning opinion-based news programs. So what they did was they started this News Nation group. And we can see here what type of profits Next Star Media Group is pulling in. This is from their press release.

Next Star Media Group reports record first quarter net revenue of $1.26 billion. This is a gigantic organization. And they're flying under the radar. What's one of the first things they do when they start their news organization? they throw out their casting hook and they reach out and grab Chris Cuomo shamed X CNN host an anchor Chris Cuomo to host a primetime show for News Nation so now they have somebody but apparently that didn't go too well and the people saw through that pretty quick because Chris Cuomo allegedly was complaining about his time slot because the viewership wasn't up this is New York Post

Chris Cuomo demands new time slot at News Nation as rankings tank sources so they don't want to see that they bring in Elizabeth Vargas she joined she was a former ABC news anchor. So again, they're stacking it with these, you know, dare I say, like legacy media rejects and they're packing them in here. And then we have another, you know, another data point here. We'll take a break from News Nation for a second. And we have a woman named Crystal Ball with people have seen her recently. She's in breaking points. That's her organization. But she came from MSNBC. That was her organization. And this was some of the headlines, you know, leading up to her switch to the alternative, let's say. MSNBC canceled.

the cycle, Abby Huntsman and Crystal Ball out. She then went to the Hill, Crystal Ball and Sajar and Jetty depart the Hill, start independent podcast. That podcast was breaking points. I was in 2021. And notice the date and the timing on this, 2019, 2020, 2020, 2021. COVID, you know, I've said it before. COVID killed the media, the mainstream media. Everyone was jumping ship here, trying to start their own thing. And the problem is, I'm still seeing slanted coverage on some of the most important topics similar to how the mainstream covered them. And it's like the legacy media outlets like CNN handled them the same way at some of these topics as these new alternative media outlets or whatever we're going to call them now because we're in a new space. We don't really

know what to call them. So what's different? Okay, they get to live stream on YouTube. They have some Spotify channels. All right, that makes them look different to the audience. That makes them look edgy. I guess one of the good things is they can have guests on that their former employers wouldn't let them have on so they can have conversations with guests that we've been talking to they can jump over there and have the conversations as well so that's i think that's really really good in that space but now let's talk about kind of like the big ship that's moving through this whole thing and that's tucker carlson formerly a fox and watching tucker carlinson you could see his trajectory was different than like a chris quomo who you know just was chris quomo until he was out from cnnn found a new place to go

back to Chris Cuomo. But Tucker Carlson had a trajectory, and his stories were different. They're showed kind of, you know, more of an analysis, maybe some braver news reporting for the mainstream. And so his first episode, he went to Twitter, Elon Musk, he had a situation to deal with Elon Musk, and he started streaming his show live from Twitter directly out on the platform itself. So no more Fox News, directly from Twitter. This was really a groundbreaking thing. First episode of Tucker on Twitter that's more than 70 million views and then what happens now he's he's racking up millions and millions of views and you know a lot of people will say well those aren't the same as the regular media counting views and that's

true because it Twitter counts them a little different the the reporting the Nielsen reporting and the other news rankings when they talk about Fox News and CNN they take a snapshot of a time frame and they show how many people watch during that time frame for Twitter you know arguably it's how many people scrolled over that and saw that So the county is a little higher, but nonetheless, this marks a huge deviation and a huge audience share. Eyeballs are on him. And Fox doesn't like that too much.

So Fox gave him a cease and desist order. So we have really one of the first big showdowns here as the legacy media is trying to claw back some of that audience through a legal, through legal means. So that's the report. Seas and desist letter. Tucker Carlson said he's not going to stop his show. His lawyers are backing him 100% here. So that's, you know, that's in a nutshell.

We have so many people in these spaces now. Obviously, we have the Joe Rogans. We have the Daily Wire has lots of people as well. We have obviously the high wire here with the health-based journalism. America's kind of health watchdog is what we've been throughout COVID as well. So this media landscape is really shifting. And as far as the old media is concerned, I'll call them the old media. I'm not sure where they're going to go.

But it looks like a lot of their talent is seeing the writing on the wall and is jumping in to start to look like, you know, like we look, like normal people look, but it's about the messaging. You have to pay attention to the information about the messaging, the integrity, the transparency, and the accountability. And that's where that high wire protocol comes in. That's why it's really important. And, you know, I'm very proud of that highware protocol, the team. We design that and we put that out there. And that's something that we really need to hang our hat on because there's really no organization that's doing that. I agree, you know, and, you know, when we think about all of this, you know, that's happening. It's amazing to think that they got terrible

ratings on television, that they think they can come and do the same whitewashed, boring, you know, propaganda on the internet and somehow because they have, you know, cell phone shooting instead of real studio cameras or something that it gives them a different look. It'll be interesting to see how Tucker, you know, fares here. And he's, of course, a little different. He got fired, I think, at the top of his game. And that's why they're suing, trying to stop him from taking, you know, of that little bit more honest messaging to the internet. So very, very interesting. For those of you that don't know what the Highwire protocol is, it's just our commitment

to transparency. We provide you with all the evidence. Everything you watch on this show is available to put in your hands. Of course, we only get to pull one paragraph or a sentence or a headline, so you should be asking yourself naturally, well, what do the rest of the articles say? Or what are the rest of that science study, peer-reviewed studies say? Well, we put the entire thing in your hands. We want you testing us.

We want you making sure that we're getting it right. And all you have to do to be a part of getting all that evidence is your hand is just go further down the page on the highwire.com here and just put your email right there in and subscribe. That lets you know everything we're up to. You'll be the first to hear about our legal wins when we win them. And you'll get, you know, something that looks just like this. Literally everything we talk about on the show this week will be in your hands by Monday. So you can say, hey, I want to look deeper into one of the subjects that we were covering.

And also, when you go and talk to your friends, you're not stuck saying, you know, Del Bingtree on the High Wire said you can actually say, no, here's what this CDC study actually said. You should try it. It's a great party trick blows people's minds. Anyway, that's what the highwire protocol is all about. We're demanding that every other news agency do the same. Show us your work. We all did that in high school, right? Show us your work. Where's your information coming from? You said an expert says, where's that expert's information coming from? Where's the studies? Where's the graphs? If anyone had demanded this during, during COVID, maybe these news agencies wouldn't have gotten away with, you know, forcing us all into hiding. All right. Just amazing to see how this is all shifted. Of course, we're growing every day, and I just want to thank all of you that are out there that have shifted your addiction from the television over to the internet and joining us now on the highwire. Thank you for all the millions around the world that are making us such a big hit here. Right. And, you know, at the top of the show, you showed Aldi, which is the supermarket.

it was a video in the UK of a person going in there. And it noticed there was digital gatekeeping at the front of the store before you can even go in. And then also when you leave the store as you go out, you have to swipe your iPhone. That's that digital ID. And this is part of a concerning trend that's been going on. We'd be reporting on this for a while now. We really saw it during COVID.

And the WHO is at the center of this or one of the really big players in this. And they have something called the pandemic treaty. We've reported on this before, but this is some of the headlines just recently out of America. Biden's pandemic treaty with surrender power to WHO bureaucrats, House rep warns. This is obviously one of the big issues here is they're going to say, you know, we did it wrong this time. Next time we'll do it right. And the European Union's vaccine passport network during COVID, what they rolled out, what they really built out, the green passes in Italy and everything, that was one of the strictest outside China in order to move around in order to even enter stores,

shopping restaurants, you had to scan these passes. And these COVID passes show you were vaccinated. And so what's happening now is we thought COVID was over. We thought, okay, the digital vaccine passport has died. We really, we won. But the WHO has just made a really concerning announcement. Take a listen. All right.

While the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic is now over, investments in digital infrastructure remain an important resource for health systems. and for economies and societies at large. Like many countries, the European Union made significant investments in COVID-19 certificates to help people move around as safely as possible during the pandemic. The European Union's certification system was used by all 27 EU member states and more than 50 other countries. building on the success of the EU system,

WHO is proud today to launch the global digital health certification network. So thank you so much to European Union for the excellent certification system that you have transferred to us, and we have the chance to build on it. WHO will begin operations of the network today with the existing COVID-19 certificate as a global public good. Soon after, we will expand this infrastructure by incorporating other use, such as a digitized international certificate of vaccination, routine immunization cards, and international patient summaries. God, I wish these people would just go back.

to trying to like stop mosquito-borne illnesses in Africa and leave the rest of us alone. I mean, I just, you know, whoever thought we would be living in a time where the WHO is starting to say what the United States of America or England or France is going to do. This is, this is absurd. And what you've seen, you know, we've talked about. This is like Bill Gates is one of the top funders there. I'm sure he funds these, you know, vaccine passports and QR codes that are going to let us in and out of places. Man, we are getting, we're, we're, we're being. We're being attack from a very weird position. And that's a lot of what we're reporting here. That's all, I mean, I'm just like watching this mind-blown that we're seeing ourselves in this position.

And that was really a landmark speech by Tadros there because he laid it all out. He was basically saying, look, this whole infrastructure that the EU built, let's not just throw that away. Let's build upon that. Let's keep moving with that. Even though COVID's over, we're still going to use that. And he said it was a great success. It was a great success. You know, we've reported over, how bad the technology was, but not only that, people revolted in most of those countries because of the lockdowns, because of the strict digital access because they couldn't live their lives. I don't know if that was a success. I think I'd have to disagree with them, but we go into the, you know, just so people really understand this, we go into the press release, the digital health landmark digital

health initiative that the EU and the WHO are collaborating on here. And it says in June of 2023, WHO will take up the European Union system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from ongoing and future health threats. So we see this in the United States. People say, well, you know, that WHO pandemic treaty is just a conspiracy theory. It's not going to do anything to the sovereignty of the United States. It's going to change nothing, really. But that's not true because behind the scenes, it's already building built out. The agreements are already being made. So we have in 2022, the Biden at the G20 signed on to this. World leaders signed declaration, to adopt vaccine passports for international travel.

That was Biden signing on to that as well. So we have this. And it's already starting to roll out through the corporations. A lot of times this is how we see it coming. We see something that gets very little media attention, something that was a president or a leader signs onto. And then you hear nothing about it. And all of a sudden you see these corporations come in

and start building out this infrastructure. You go, that's funny. I thought that was something that happened for four years ago. It's not even important anymore. And so you see Apple now. Apple's TSA-approved digital ideas, now live in four states coming soon to many more so this is the tsa approved so are you going to travel without this then why is this a problem ultimately there's only two ways this can go for the

public they're going to gate keep you on your vaccine status or they're going to gate keep you on your your your carbon credit score or social credit score but carbon credit how many how much you know carbon you're giving off and through your purchases and track you with that and that's how these things will be gate kept and then the the vaccine specifically that's been in the works as well Tony Blair says this this was out of one of the organizations he was talking at Tony Blair calls for digital libraries to track vaccines you need the data you need to know so this is not just for you it's for everybody else that needs to do that and of course we have again that all the just give you some background on that we see these

companies building out the video that you showed at the top of the show about all the kind of gatekeeping at the front and back of the store can't go in to buy groceries can't leave without scanning. This is the headline. This was 2022 when they start building it out. All these shopping go brings technology to discount retailer in new checkout free store. So this is kind of a new prototype. Checkout free store. You can't go in and you can't leave without that iPhone that you talked about. So this is, you know, this is concerning. And I think it's really important. Again, we go back to what Catherine Austin Fitz said. Cash is king. We start paying for that. And we shop at the places that respect our digital freedom at this point.

Yeah. Wow, it's really amazing. I mean, and this is, I guess in some ways, we're going to have to figure out a way to work with all these technologies, but they should be benefiting humanity, not, you know, imprisoning us. And it's really going to just take all of us working together and getting the right people elected. We really need, I think, some younger people in government that actually understand what these technologies are, what they can do, and where they're going. I think so many people just signed dotted lines out of any concept of what we're really facing here.

So really interesting reporting, Jeffrey. As always, thank you so much. Fourth of July is coming up. So, you know, happy Fourth of July. I hope you and your loved ones have a really great time. Thank you, Del. And God bless America. All right.

God bless America. I'll see you next week. You know, there's so much great work that happens here at the Highwire. And one of the great things that we've done is we want to sort of give back to you. We want for those of you that support us, that make this possible, make it possible for us to be like one of the most successful nonprofits, especially when it comes to suing the government in the United States and winning, delivering, you know, data that they're trying to hide, whether it's the Pfizer data and the doctors that were behind that or when we brought you the V-safe data, We're going after the Moderna data, 180,000 pages.

Just a couple of weeks ago, it's official. The FDA is being forced to produce 180,000 pages of the trial data from the COVID vaccines every single month until we get it all. That's because of you. You made that possible. When you think about all of those elves that are running around at the FDA right now with their hair off virus saying, why did this happen? And I thought we lied. I thought we told him that there wasn't that much here. And now they're going after all of it.

You're going after all of it. You're making that happen. That's what donating to the high wire is all about. And that's why we created the informant. Because for those of you that make this possible, you deserve a deeper dive and look into the work that we're doing and to be kept abreast of all the action. And it comes out every month.

It's July 1st is the next drop. And you'll be the first to know before everyone else that is watching the high wire. you'll know it first. So if you want to be a part of receiving that gift and also be able to say, yeah, I did that. I made the FDA run around for the people of America and the world when they were trying to hide information from us. I made a difference. You want to be that person? Then become a recurring donor. We're going to gift you with the informant. That's how you get it. Thehighwire.com. Just go up and hit donate to ICA. Look how easy it is.

And then you just say, hey, you know what? Maybe instead of a cup of coffee, I'll just get a recurring donor and, you know, take it out of my account. We're asked for $23 a month for 2023. Or if you have done really well in your life and you want to be a part of a big special project that we're working on, then go ahead and reach out to us through info at Icandecide.org and we'll get back to you about something you may want to get involved with. We're helping change the world here and I will tell you this. This, you know, show and everything we do is awesome, but all of it was really started so that we could report on the incredible wins that our legal team was having. That's all that the highway was about. We were

winning in court. We were beating the government. We were revealing things that nobody knew was true. And then we were like, well, how is the world going to know about CNN's not reporting on, not MSNBC or Fox or anybody else? Well, we decided it's time to have our own show. That's how this all started. The high wire. Why did it start? Because one of our powerhouses is the lawyer, that works for us, Aaron Siri. He just gave an incredible speech on the Senate floor in Arizona on the novel coronavirus of the Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee. And Aaron Siri joins me now. Aaron, it's great to see you. How you doing? Good to see you, though. Awesome. Look, but before we get in this incredible speech that you just gave and, you know, it's being clipped and

going viral all over the country, first of all, I just want to say I'm getting really pumped for Freedom Fest. I mean, we're going to have this opportunity. It's the first time. It's the first time. you and I think will ever be on stage. Have we ever, like, been on stage and having a chat in front of an audience? I don't think we've done that yet, have we? I believe this will be the first time. All right, so there it is, folks. If you want to see Aaron, Syrian Del Beatry on stage, you better be at Freedom Fest.

We're going to be doing this on the main stage on Friday, July 14th. You can still get your ticket. It's going to be an awesome event. You have time to get in there and see this live. And by the way, let's bring our people. And we're about to take over Freedom Fest, right? We were there last year. It was awesome.

We're going to be doing a live show the day before from Freedom Fest, and then we're going to have this incredible panel. And I'm also giving a talk on the same day, so it should be a lot of fun. All right, let's get to this talk that you just gave recently on the state Senate floor in Arizona. First of all, what was the sort of setup? Why were you asked to give this talk to begin with? It was a two-day event that was hosted by the Arizona Senate, as I understand it, and was held in one of their official community rooms and it was an official part of the Arizona Senate deliberations, as I understand it, meaning it was read into the Arizona State Senate record.

Okay. And what they want to do was hold two days of effectively testimony by various individuals to talk about what really happened over the last few years vis-a-vis COVID in all its different, all the different issues. And I was asked to come and talk about COVID-19 vaccines. And when you were preparing for that, what was sort of your personal? You've done so much work for us. You're one of the most knowledgeable people now, just because the lawsuits we've had, you file, all the data that has poured in from that, you know, all the, you know, whether it's, you know, the V-safe data and the Pfizer-Moderna data that you've gotten. I mean, you have really been on top of this.

So how do you look at this mountain of information and, what, you know, narrow it down into a talk on the Senate floor. Yeah. Well, they asked me beforehand to present on a number of topics regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. And those topics were very broad. So to your question, how do you narrow all that down? Yeah. But all those questions really, when you think about them, v-safe, theirs, all the different issues around the vaccine, all the questions we're asking really came down to one question.

Which is how could this system that everybody relies upon be so broken? How could it fail us so badly? Most people who've never thought about vaccines a day in their life, right? Got a first, they got a first row seat into the rollout from beginning to end of a vaccine in a very, very narrow time frame where normally it takes decades to, you know, the whole idea of, you know, licensing and authorizing it and rolling it out. and public uptake takes decades until there's even though any significant portion of the society that has it. This happened very quickly in that regard. So to understand that, to understand the answer to that question,

you really have to understand how vaccines have been treated in this country, especially in 1986. And so what I tried to do, and it was a great opportunity, because sitting on the panel right next to me was the head of the, House Health Committee of Arizona, as well as deputy head and the head of the Senate Health Committee. So these are the two effectively most, you know, powerful folks in Arizona that are going to dictate the laws and what gets out of committee vis-a-vis health laws in Arizona. And I had an opportunity to speak directly to them. And so I wanted them to understand, not just about COVID-19 vaccines, because I think in many ways people, they see the problems

and they're left mystified of how this could happen because you can't understand what went wrong with the COVID-19 vaccines until you understand the paradigm in which COVID-19 vaccines fell into. And to understand that, you've got to understand how vaccines in general are treated from a regulatory perspective, economically, and so forth. And it's actually a really fascinating story because it spans of 40-something years. And I got an opportunity to tell it with a bunch of deposition videos and so forth. I try to make it as fun as I could during the two hours that they sat there and listened to me talk.

Well, it's an incredible tour to Forrest, Aaron, and we've decided to just play it in its entirety for many reasons. First of all, this is a conversation that we've had. A lot of the work that we did early on with ICANN was around the childhood vaccine program. COVID was just sort of this gift because, as you said, it woke up a lot of people to what you and I had discovered was a disastrous approach to making products and delivering them to our country. Just regulatory problems, manufacturing problems, you know, no oversight, no proper safety trials. But everyone thought this was an anomaly and I think that that's what you probably set straight here in front of the Arizona Senate. So without further ado, why don't

we just go ahead and let you take the stage here. And for everyone that's watching, this This is about to be one of the most thorough explanations of the entire vaccine issue you will ever get. It might make you uncomfortable. If you're new to this show, maybe this wasn't what you were prepared for, but this is something you have to see. You have to understand this because this is what we need to change and change it immediately. We are going to make these systems work better. That's what our lawsuits are all about on the work and our legislative work is all about.

Of course, Aaron, you've been at the center of it. So everybody grabs some popcorn. Here we go. This is called the novel coronavirus Southwestern Inter-Cron. governmental committee who's on the Senate floor in Arizona. Enjoy. My name is Aaron Sir, I'm an attorney. My firm has over 30 professionals that exclusively engage in vaccine-related work. I tell you that in full disclosure. Those professionals do vaccine injury claims, vaccine exemptions for military, immigration, school work, and vaccine policy work. I guess the unique nature of the vaccine policy

practice we have is that we don't represent pharmaceutical companies. We bring the cases that typically are seeking to hold companies and the government accountable with regards to their work and practice related to vaccines. I was asked to come today and speak with regards to the five topics that are on the slide in front of you on the top right corner with the relation to data transparency, V-Safe and VARs, clinical trials for MRNA vaccines, lack of informed consent, pharmaceutical community and injuries and death related to COVID-19 vaccines. And looking at these five topics, to me, they all really come down to the same question. I think I'm being asked to really talk about, which is, how could the system be so broken

when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines? And that is the question I get all the time from people. I've got family members come up to me and say, my son or daughter, my spouse, my parents, were either seriously injured or died after a COVID-19 vaccine. And how could it be that the very same people that I relied upon to get that shot, the very same medical organizations, medical institutions, public health authorities, who all told me, go get it. It's safe and effective.

After there was an injury, and I went back to them, and I pleaded, and I cried sometimes. And I asked for help. They then told me, nothing is safe. see here. Nope. It's an illusion. We're not seeing that signal. Your injury is anecdotal. And they don't get either help or not even recognition. These five topics that I was asked to talk about to me really do come back to that same question. How can it be that the injury is ignored? Because when most people go up to somebody and they say, I've been hurt, I've been injured, they get empathy, they get sympathy.

But you add the word vaccine before injury, and you often get a very different reaction. Why? Well, to understand that and to understand why COVID-19 vaccines and why public health authorities, why medical associations, why even cultural cognition around those products are so different than the way really most other products are treated,

you need to understand the framework, regulatory and market that COVID-19 vaccines fell into. COVID-19 vaccines didn't just fall into a vacuum, it's not like there was some tabula rasa plate that they just, no, COVID-19 vaccines fell into a very longstanding developed paradigm that exists in our country, in the United States and many parts of the world with regards to how vaccines

are treated and how they work both, treated by regulatory agencies and how market forces work with regards to those products. So we begin with a very simple question. How do we assure the safety of any product? Cars, planes, buildings, this microphone, that computer, in all forms, whether they're toxic, whether it can hurt you, whether they can leach chemicals, whether they can explode. How do we assure they're safe? The primary way we assure product safety in the United States and in all developed countries,

is self-regulation, market forces. Companies don't want to lose money. They want to make money. And when they are doing any act, conduct, they have a product that is going to cause them to lose money, they desist from those conduct, from those actions. But if there's conduct they can engage in to make money where there's no potential for liability,

well, they usually take the shortest route to make as much profit as they can. Okay, so market forces are critical for assuring the safety of every product in the market. It's why your cars are safer. It's why planes are safer. It's why pretty much every consumer product around you are safer. The second way we assure product safety in this country in most parts of the developing world is regulatory agencies. It's a far, far weaker and less effective way to do it, but it's there.

Next slide, please. So let's start with market regulation with regards to vaccines. Next slide, please. Here's the thing. When it comes to vaccines in 1986, Congress and its wisdom passed something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. And what this act did is it removed liability for injuries from vaccines, childhood vaccines, including if they're given to adults, so that pharmaceutical companies no longer were liable for injuries caused by their vaccination. vaccine products. That is the law in this country since 1986. I am not aware of any other product. I should, I can actually declaratorily say, there is no other product that has that kind of immunity, period, full stop. Not planes, not drugs, not all, not pretty much every product you interact with. Companies who make those products, sell those products,

you take them, they still have to be liable for the damages they cause. But when it comes to vaccines since 1986, the pharmaceutical company has not had any market force check of any significance on what they do when it comes to those products. We're going to talk more about that, but I just want you to really just absorb that for a second. Think of all the products out there that are dangerous, that could potentially hurt people. the product you give immunity to is one you give to babies over and over again an injection into the body next slide please why were vaccine manufacturers granted immunity for the injuries their products

cause well in 1986 leading up to 1986 there were only three routine vaccines given to children in america dt pmmr and opv two of those are injected one is given orally the amount of liability that those companies were facing from injuries from those products far exceeded the revenue that those products were bringing in. In fact, every manufacturer that was making them went bust or withdrew from the market except for one manufacturer's left for each of those three shots. And that's it. The manufacturers threatened to stop making their products. Now, what normally happens when a product's causing more injury than good that it's doing as measured by dollars, which for better or worse, is how we do it in this country. That's how we do it.

We measure it by dollars. Well, usually they go make a better, safer product. Congress decided, however, in its infinite wisdom, that, no, it's okay. You don't need to make your product safer. You don't need to make it better. We're just going to give you immunity so nobody could sue you. This way, you could still make money from selling these products. That was a solution. You can keep selling your harmful products. That's fine. and you don't have to worry now about anybody suing you. That is what broke the market forces that assured product safety with regards to vaccines. But here's the real sin of that act, and I'll call it original sin.

When they gave the immunity to the pharmaceutical companies, they didn't just do it for those three vaccines existing in 1986. They gave it for any vaccine that the pharmaceutical companies developed for children from that day forward. Okay? Next slide, please. What has the impact been? The impact has been actually incredible. And let's start with clinical trials.

On the left side of this chart, you could see that Pfizer's top five selling drugs of all time. Well, at least according to the website that I've linked to below, I've verified it. That's what that website claims. Take a look at the orange chart. You could see those five drugs, Emerald, Elyquist, PCB13, Lyrica, and Liport. You might notice that one is different than the others. For four out of those drugs, you had at least two years of safety review period. One had 4.9 years, 7 and 1 half years almost 6.6 years.

And four of them had a placebo control in their clinical trials that were relied upon to license those products. One of them did it. Guess what? You probably already guessed it. Which one's the vaccine among? There's only one vaccine on that list. DCB 13, that's right.

So when you look at that list, you can immediately see out of the top five drugs sold by Pfizer of all time, the only one of them is a vaccine, and that is the one that had the shortest safety review period of half the year and did not have a placebo control group in the clinical trial of the lives not to license that shot. Take a look at the chart to the right. That is a list of all the vaccines given to babies in the first six months of life. Each of those vaccines is given three times in the first six months of life, 15 total shots. Take a look at the safety review period, often days or weeks, and there was none of them had

a placebo control group, not a single one. By the way, you don't need to take my word for any of this. You can just go to the FDA website yourself, and we're going to do that in a second, and you can see all this data with your own eyes. That's the first impact. The first impact that getting rid of market forces had, and it's incredibly critical, was that drug companies no longer had an incentive to really understand the safety profile of vaccines before they were licensed.

With drugs, they want to know. If you put a drug on the market and it causes harm, the pharmaceutical companies have to pay. They want to know clearly what the safety profile is of a drug before it goes on the market. Because they put on the market and they sell $3 billion worth of it. But they cause $10 billion with the damages. They got to pay that $10 billion. That doesn't work out so well math-wise.

But when a vaccine, when they're doing the clinical trial, before it goes on the market, there is no concern about having to pay for damages. There is no incentive to look at it. It's not nefarious. It's not devious. It's just the economic structure that Congress created for them. Pharmaceutical companies are there to make money,

and they will take the path of least resistance to get there. In fact, if they don't do that, I'm not sure they're actually doing what they're supposed to do vis-a-vis their shareholders. These two charts, I think, make that crystal clear the impact on clinical trials by getting rid of market forces. Next slide, please. And why are clinical trials so important? Here's why. After a vaccine or drug is put on the market and licensed,

if you then want to do a placebo-control trial, they tell you it's unethical. It's unethical to withhold the vaccine from any child because it's now a licensed product. So you can't do a placebo control trial after its license. And without a placebo control trial, they tell you, typically, you can never establish causation between a alleged injury and the product. The only thing you can do after licensure typically are what's known as retrospective, typically epidemiological studies. You take historical data, historical data, you look backwards and do these studies, but they say those can never prove causation.

So it's an incredible system. You license a product without a proper clinical trial. And then after it's licensed, you say you can never do one because it's unethical. And anybody who claims an injury, you can just say it's correlation, not causation, because you don't have a clinical trial with placebo. Next slide, please. Just to be clear, I'm showing you all this not to take issue with other vaccines, but I want to explain the paradigm in which COVID-19 vaccines fell into.

Okay? Let's take a look at one of the vaccines, and we'll just start at the very first vaccine on the childhood schedule, Hepatitis B. That is the childhood scheduled by the CDC, and you can see in the very first shot there is hepatitis B given at birth, right when they come out into the world on the first day, then at one month, and then at six months. Next slide, please. This is the package insert for the hepatitis B vaccine given two babies on the very first day of life. This is from the FDA website. And in Section 6.1 of every package insert, that's that piece of paper and every drug and vaccine you get. It's a big piece of paper.

Well, blank one right there for if that means it must meant it was EUA. And in Section 6.1, under the federal regulations, the pharmaceutical company must summarize the clinical trial experience. It's required to do so by law. Let's read together exactly what the clinical trial was that was relied upon to license this hepatitis be given to one-day old babies. Now, think about this. You're given the shot to a one-day-old baby. Asthma is not usually diagnosed until a few years of age. Developmental disorders are not diagnosed until they're usually in school.

Autoimmune, all kinds of issues. Often take years to assess, especially with a baby. You've ever seen one really small? They don't talk. They can't really explain what's wrong. You'd expect the safety repair would at least be years. Well, let's read it. In three clinical studies, 434 doses of a combo vass HB 5 micrograms

were administered to 147 healthy infants and children, up to 10 years of age who monitored four, five days after each dose. There are three markers of a clinical trial that you typically look at to see if it's good. One, how many people are in the trial? How robust is it? Meaning, it's 147 folks, children, up to 10 years of age. It is not what epidemiologists and statisticians would call it properly powered to assess anything. Okay.

Two, even if it was properly powered by having enough children, five days of safety monitoring. Five days. If I was to try and make up, literally come up with the most sinister thing, you can think of a vaccine, just make it up. I would never have dreamed of saying that. I would never have dreamed to say, yeah, you know, the FDA license a happy vaccine for babies with five days monitoring after the injection. Nobody would believe you because it sounds crazy. It is crazy. By the way, don't be.

But there it is, black and wine on the FDA website. Next slide, please. In fact, I'd love to just, I just want to, because it's so unbelievable, I'd like to just walk you through this for a second. Can you kindly click on the Google link? We're going to go to Google because that's, you know, Dr. Google knows everything. Can you kindly type in FDA licensed vaccines? Everybody can do this at home. Anybody ever questions you about the hepatitis vaccine I just talked about?

You can do this. Kindly click on the first link. We are now on the FDA website. Can you please scroll down to Hepatitis B vaccines? Great. Stop right there, please. You can see there's four standalone shots. You can only give a standalone shot on the first day of life. Recombova Vax, HB, and then three other products.

Only Recombovax HB and Ender XB, by the way, are licensed for first day of life. The other two are only 18 and older. We'll take a look at RecomboVXHB. Before we do that, by the way, just, you know, EnderXB was only safety monitor for four days. So let's look at the long report. Let's look at the longer period, you know. Can you kindly click on hepatitis B for combo of XHB?

Excellent. Thank you. Scroll down, please. Can you click on the package insert, please? Walla. And zoom in just a little bit, make it bigger so folks can see it. Now scroll down a little more to the table of contents. There we go, section 6.1, adverse reactions, clinical trial experience.

Can you kindly scroll down to section 6.1? Perfect. And that is all of the text in Section 6.1 other than some of the reactions. And you can see right there it is, in three clinical studies, 434 doses, what we just read before. So there it is. On the FDA website, last I checked, not an organization that is opposed to vaccines. When we saw this years ago, it seems so unbelievable. We, on behalf of the ICANN-Form CNAX Network, which is a nonprofit that we regularly represent in vaccine policies,

who matters and supports our work. We FOIA the FDA for the clinical trial reports use the license as product. And when we finally got those reports, including requiring a lot of legal work and a lot of action on our part, it confirms it was five days of safety monitoring. And then we actually formally petition the FDA to withdraw this product until a proper clinical trial was conducted. That petition was done in the same formal manner that Moderna, Pfizer, and other barren pharmaceutical companies used to license vaccines, and the FDA was required to respond in six months. It's been over a year. They keep providing excuses because they don't have anything else to support the

license product. There is no way you can say this product was safe and effective when it was licensed, which is the standard they must support that they must hit. We're going to get to the question of how the FDA could do this, I promise. I know people must be thinking that. We're going to get there. Now, can we go back to the slide presentation, please? Thank you. My only point is I really just want to drive home how drugs are treated and how planes are treated and how vaccines are treated because of the lack of market force.

Next slide, please. Thank you. This is a little excerpt from a deposition that I took of a doctor named Dr. Stanley Plotkin. He is really the godfather of modern vaccinology. The textbook for medical textbook for vaccines is called Plot. sector for vaccines, it's called Plotkin's vaccines. At the CDC, the vaccine committee, the gavel there is the Plotkin gavel. He's invented like six vaccines. And in a deposition that I had the opportunity to have with him, I went through this with him with regards to recombavax-HB and how, you know,

it's something's probably, isn't it problematic that you can only assess causation with a proper clinical trial, but then you let these vaccines get licensed without a proper clinical trial. Is it not problematic. Please play the video. Dr. Plotkin, earlier you testified that there are two Hep B vaccines in the market. One by Glaxo GSC, that's Enderix B, and the other one is by Merck, recombavax, HB, right? Yes. Okay.

This is the product, the manufacturer insert for a recombavax HB, correct? Yes. And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct? Yes. Okay. In section 6.1, when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre-licensure for KamaVax-HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose? Five days.

Okay. Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five days? No. Is five days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after five days? No. There is no control. control group, correct? It does not mention any control group, no.

No. If you turn to section 6.2, under immune system disorders, does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions, anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, and utacaria having been reported within the first few hours after vaccination? Yes. Have there been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome? Yes, that's what it states. Reports of arthritis?

It is mentioned. It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus, erythematosis, lupus-like syndrome, vasculitis. There have been reports of Guillamboree syndrome, correct? Yes. As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, muscle weakness, hypophthesia, and

insephalitis, correct? Correct. But these are events that are reported after vaccination, and as we've just discussed, in order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the condition, you need a randomized placebo-controlled study. But that was not done for this hepatitis B vaccine before a licensure, was it? No. Okay. And given that the vaccine now appears on the CDC's recommended list, isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today?

It would be, yes, it would be ethically difficult. That problem is repeated with vaccine after vaccine after vaccine. It's become the norm and it's what you saw effectively with the COVID-19 vaccine. You got a guaranteed market when it comes to childhood vaccines, just like COVID vaccines, add no liability, and this is what you get. In 1986, you could see what the CDC childhood schedule was. That is the childhood schedule in 2023. To really drive this home, next slide please.

Those two are interlaced with each other. So you could see all the red are the vaccines that are currently given. You can see the time period to children on the CDC Child of Schedule. The green ones were the ones that were given in 1986 before pharmaceutical companies had immunity when they actually had to pay for damages, harms from their vaccine products. Next slide, please. So what is that done? What it's done is it's taken vaccines as a percentage of the revenue portfolio. pharmaceutical companies from a very small percentage in 86 to a very significant

percentage depending on the pharmaceutical company over time that has generated a few billion dollar what I call kitty for the pharmaceutical companies to do what they are supposed to do what every company does promote their product car companies advertised to you that their cars are great all day long with all kinds of snazzy ads from some sort of companies just use indirect messengers to do the same thing when you see an issue by the way with a car, how do you normally see? When does the news finally report an issue with the car?

It's usually if there's a class action lawsuit, right? You never see that with the vaccine though. You see it with drugs, we're not going to see it with the vaccine, because you can't bring those suits. Pharmaceutical industry has taken those few billion dollars and they spread that money around very efficiently to medical journals, medical associations, medical schools, public relations firms,

news advertising, lobbyists, there is all kinds of books and all kinds of peer-review. studies that document all this you need not take my word for it and it has the all of these professionals and intermediaries that are viewed as reliable authorities essentially repeating the same mantra over and over again everybody may have heard this phrase before it's three little words that's right safe and effective safe and effective right you hear it over and over you you

probably some people think it's from God by the way I mean that's how often you you hear safe and effective. I'm not sure the organizations that really parrot this mantra ever really looked that far into the substance. But that is significant, that is part of what the pharmaceutical industry has been able to do because they've just basically nobody pushing back on them. They take their money and they make sure their product is well received and well regarded. Next slide please.

Okay, so we looked at the pre-licensure safety. issues and we looked at the money that they've been able to use to influence various organizations. Some have said to me, okay, fine. Well, look, maybe before it was licensed, they didn't do the proper studies. But, you know, the CDC tells us all the time that they really rigorously study vaccine safety. We need not worry at all. You know, they are sure COVID-19 vaccines are safe. Just like they're sure every other vaccine is safe, worry not. We study them. Now, let's use an example to look at the post-licensed or safety studies, right? Because you're not assessing the safety before it's licensed. We just saw the hepatitis B vaccine. After it's licensed, what is the

injury that the CDC, FDA, and all NIH have claimed that they have studied more than any other alleged injury from any vaccine? They say vaccines do not cause. That's right. They say that. Okay. If it's true that, in fact, they haven't really studied. whether vaccines cause autism. And that's the injury they claim they've studied the most. Then it really will cast doubt on whether they studied the hundred other serious injuries that parents routinely claim vaccines cause injury.

So we're going to use autism as the litmus test. But what does the post-licensure safety literature look like? I can tell you we have nine professionals that are from that just do vaccine injury work, three of them are medical professionals, lawyers, paralegals. You can sue for vaccine injury. You just sue the secretary of the department of helping them in the services. You sue the federal government.

Same people will tell you the vaccine safe, by the way. And in those, we have to, you know, when we get a call, we try to look into. My kid got to have B shot within 15 minutes, started seizing. Within 20 minutes, a emergency room, had a grand mal seizure, and then ended up with some kind of seizure disorder, blah, blah, blah, some other issue. And we then would say, okay, usually we want to look at the clinical trial literature. Clinical trial studies, use license it. That's pointless.

Then we look at the post-licensing safety literature. Okay? And I'm going to use autism as the example. Now, let me make clear. I'm not saying vaccines cause autism. But I am saying is that if our federal health authorities claim it doesn't, they definitely should have the studies, I think. Right? Next slide, please.

In that regard, we did something very serious. simple. We send a Freedom of Information Act, again on behalf of my client, InformCless an Action Network, I can, asking the CDC to produce the following. All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that D-TAP vaccine does not cause autism. D-TAP is given the two, three, four, and six months of life, three times first six months of life. Same thing for endericks-B and recombax HB. Remember those two, that's the Hep B vaccine we just looked at. Again, given three times in the first six months of life. Prevnar-13, Hib vaccine, IPV, as well as whether or the cumulative effect that these vaccines cause autism. Simple request. This is the most thoroughly

studied issue with comes to vaccine safety in the history of the world, apparently. That's what I've been led to believe. So you would think that the CDC would have endless studies to support that these vaccines don't cause autism. After all, these are all the vaccines injected in the first six months of life into children. They are indeed vaccines. And if you're claiming vaccines don't cause autism, you should have studies to show that these vaccines don't cause autism, because we also know that autism can be diagnosed before, you know, within the first year of life. Well, they did not provide a list of studies, and we finally have to sue them in federal court. What you're looking at right here is actually a order signed by a federal judge after a federal lawsuit we had to bring

against CDC demanding those studies for those six to five vaccines. The CDC finally provided a list of 20 studies and you can see them listed in that order in this court order right there you can you can just take a look on the on the right side you can see i signed on behalf of i can you can see the department of justice signed on behalf of the CDC and you can see at the bottom right there in the third page that's a federal judge signing it as a as a binding order of a federal court here's the thing about those 20 studies they provided they have words that make sentences and we could read them so we did and when you're you're read the studies, okay?

Here's the crazy thing about it. Not one of them provides a single study that supports that the vaccines we asked about do not cause autism. 18 of those studies involved the Marisol, which is an ingredient that is not in any of the vaccines we asked about, or an MMR vaccine, which is not given in the first year of life. One other study involved antigen exposure, which not vaccine exposure, and that study explicitly states it cannot prove one way or another whether vaccines cause autism or not because they're not studying vaccines. Finally, there was one last study. It was actual review by the Institute of Medicine that involved MMR, not a vaccine we asked about, the marisol, not an ingredient of the vaccines asked about, but the DETAP vaccine. Ah, finally, finally.

There's a review of at least one of the vaccines given in the first six months of life. All right. So again, we used that little skill we learned in third grade, first grade, kindergarten. We opened the, and we took a look at it. Next slide, please. So what did it say about DTAP vaccine? Well, here it is. Here's the Institute of Medicine review.

Its conclusion, it says the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between Deferiotoxia, tetrata, toxic, or a cellular, pertusses, a detainive vaccine, and autism. We don't know. And when you actually look at the summary above, it does not identify a single study to show that DETAP vaccine does not cause autism. Remember, this is a survey by the Institute of Medicine

looking at all the medical literature, trying to answer the question of, does DTAP vaccine cause autism or not? commissioned by our federal health authorities. Okay? And why did they look at this? because D-TAP, autism, remain one of the most commonly claimed injuries from the D-TAP vaccine, which is why our federal health authorities commissioned Institute of Medicine to review that question.

If you look closely at this summary, there actually is one study they did identify. Right there, it says, Geyer and Geyer, 2004. Guess what? That study actually did find a correlation between autism and D-TAP, but the Institute of Medicine threw the study out. You know why? Said it's unreliable because it relies on theirs data. Irony, isn't it? We'll get into bears later.

Just to recap that very quickly, we formally asked our federal health authorities for the studies using the mechanism Congress provided for members of the public to get answers out of our government, right? Federal government and those employed in those agencies, we pay the bill. I'm not sure they remember that. We pay the bill. They work for the public. When somebody works for you, you got to have a way to check up on them. In Congress, the way that they designed was the Freedom of Information Act. That's how you get.

That is the legal way to demand answers, to demand documents out of the federal government. We use that mechanism. We ask for the studies they relied upon to claim that vaccines don't cause autism for all the vaccines given the first six months of life. They did not have a single study to produce. Here's the worst part. That's not bad enough. And again, I use that as an example for all the other injuries that are claimed from vaccines,

just like you see with COVID vaccine, what the science probably looks like out there. I'll tell you from our work, it's vacuous. It's almost non-existent for the most part. There isn't these robust studies that they do to assure vaccine safety. Not before licensure, not after licensure. Again, we'll get into why it's like that, but a big part of it's the market forces. Here's the thing. and you've seen this with COVID vaccine,

and this is the part that, frankly, is the most troubling, is that when there is no evidence, like you just saw with autism, they use, they is in terms of federal health authorities, they use the lack of evidence to claim it doesn't cause it. I'm going to say that again. Vaccinologists, and I've deposed many of them,

you just saw me depose one, you're going to see another clip of that deposition in about a second. I've deposed vaccinologist, immunologist, infectious disasters, pediatricians, part of what I do for my job. And I will say that I encounter this over and over again. They use in vaccinology. I don't think they do this in other areas of science because it's nonsensical. But in vaccinology, the lack of evidence is used as a base to say there does not cause the issue.

Should be used to say we don't know, but it's not. Kids might call that lying. I won't use that term, but kids might call that lying. Just to drive this home, here's the childhood vaccine schedule. The one in yellow is the one vaccine they studied for autism, MMR. And those are some of the vaccine ingredients, and that's the one ingredient they study, just to bring home. When they say vaccines don't cause autism, this is what they did. Kindly hit play.

It is my great honor to use the Stanley Plotkin gavel to open this meeting. I saw a good friend and colleague, Dr. Stan Plotkin. Dr. Plotkin. Virtually every country in the world is affected by his vaccines. He was involved in pivotal trials on anthrax, oral polio, rabies vaccine. The Robella vaccine, the rhodovirus vaccine, rabies. He has earned the Distinguished Physician Award of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society, the Finland Award of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, the Hilleman

Award of the American Society for Microbiology, the French Legion of Honor, and the Bruce Medal in Preventive Medicine. He's a member of the Institute of Medicine and the French Academy of Medicine. One of the very special things about him is the global influence. that he's had, not just from the products, but from his book. He developed the standard textbook for vaccines in 1988. Bill Gates calls his book a Bible for vaccinologists. I hope you all have, indeed, have read the book, and I hope it's more accurate than the Bible.

He trained just a generation of scientists, including myself, to think like he thinks. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report, right? Yes. Can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether D-TAP and T-DAP cause autism? The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or accellular pertusses containing vaccine and autism. If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the signs to support it,

to then say that vaccines do not cause autism? Do I wait? No, I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child. And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that DTAPT does not cause autism even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim. support that claim. Absolutely. Let that sink in for a moment. Think about that. Really.

I mean, it's, it can be funny, but it's serious. I mean, this is, you've seen the same exact thing with COVID-19 vaccines. They use the absence of evidence to claim nothing to see here. To tell you, it does not cause that injury. There is study after. study after study that surveys parents across this country with kids with autism. And they will tell you a significant proportion, a majority in those studies often will tell you that it's vaccines. And they don't point to just MMR. They point to all kinds of vaccines, often prevenor vaccine, DETAP vaccine, and they say

that they believe that's what to cause their child's autism. When do we stop listening to parents? When do we stop listening to mothers? We stop listening to them when we let the market forces disappear and we let the market forces disappear and we let vaccinologists and statistics take over how we treat these people rather than actually listening to the individual people who are telling you what harm them. Okay. So that's all I have on the market forces bit.

There's a lot more to say, but I hope that drives at home. What happens when you eliminate the most important safety check on a corporation that is powerful, makes billions a year, has to be? incredible reach pharmaceutical companies have 1,400 lobbyists. I'm not aware of a single vaccine safety lobbyist in Congress. Okay, I'm not aware of any, there's, you know, they can go out, they can pretty much do what they want, and they do not have to worry about class action lawyers

or product liability attorneys, because they have been neutered, cannot go after them for the most part, for any of their vaccines. And that is an environment in which COVID-19 vaccines fell into on the market, regulation front. They're used to having the run of the mill. So let's now talk about the second way we assure product safety. Far weaker and less effective way. No knock on government, far less effective way, which is regulators. Next slide, please. So I actually had the opportunity to depose a Dr. Catherine Edwards. You saw the vaccine book right there. It's on the screen. This is the former medical

textbook. She's one of the four editors. She's one of the leading vaccine knowledge in the country. she actually is in the head of one of the four safety systems for vaccines in America that CDC runs called SISA. You know, she is probably one of top three vaccinologists in the country. Some call her the godmother of vaccines, vaccinology. This is a case involving vaccines and autism, and I had an opportunity to pose her, and you can hear what she has to say about the state of the science regarding vaccines and autism. Please say, play.

What is your profile? You have done most of the predictable trials relied a month. license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay. So you're highly experienced in conducting clinical trials, correct? I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon to license, many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct?

I am. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines at gates received, many of which are still on the market today, were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that I, that's probably the answer. Is it is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. In the expert disclosures for this case, case, it asserts that among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism. That's correct. It's your testimony that

HEPB vaccine cannot cause autism? That's correct. It's your testimony that iPod cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that HIP vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. Your testimony that Varysel of vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that Prevnar vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. And it's your testimony that DTAP vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes.

And do you have a study that supports a DTAP doesn't cause autism? I have, I do not have a study that DTAP caused autism. So I don't have either. Do you have any study one way or another of whether iPol causes autism? No, I do not, sir. Do you have any study one way or another of whether Endrix B causes autism? They do not have any evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about Hiditititia's vaccine?

Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism? What about Prevnor vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir. And how about Veracela vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that's for it whether it does or doesn't cause autism?

Part of of MMR, but not as varicella by itself. No, sir. No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible. Okay. Which study are you referring to when you say that?

Well, why don't you show me this study and then I'll see whether I agree with it. The point is, is that parents claim all kinds of issues and injuries from various vaccines. Most of them, by the way, are immune issues or immune mediated neurological disorders. I could tell you that chronic health issues among children, according to public authorities, went in 1986 from around 12 percent to around 50 percent today. most of those are immune neurological, immune media neurological issues. I'm not saying vaccines caused all those that rise in injuries. I'm saying that if you're, though, you should probably start and study a product given to babies over and over again to model for their immune system as it may be ruled that out first before you say that you don't have any concerns of those products in terms of safety.

And so, so that is on the market foreside. Let's move on to the regulators. Next slide, please. when it eliminated the market forces recognized that it left the vacuum with regards to assuring the safety of these products. And so what it did was it put the Federal Health Authorities, the Department of Health and Human Services, that is the Department of our federal government under which CDC, NIH, FDA all exist, and it made the Secretary of HHS responsible for vaccine safety. Thank you. You can see it on that chart right there. Next slide, please.

The 1986 Act actually has a section called the mandate for safe for childhood vaccines. This section is literally the section that underpins all vaccine safety in our country. This is the section of law that mandated the secretary of HHS, which stepped into the shoes of the pharmaceutical companies, to assure that vaccines are safe. And it's a very simple section.

It's got three parts. The third part will start at the bottom. Section C requires that every two years, the Secretary of HHS informed Congress and provide a report how it made vaccine safer. Simple enough. Simply creating a report. Well, we foyer for those reports. And you could see they advise us they've never submitted that report once to Congress. Neither. Not one time.

That's the easy part, by the way, of making vaccine safer. Just tell Congress over two years what you did to make it safer. Then let's look at the next part going up the list, Section B. Section V is a task force comprised of the head of the FDA, CDC, and NIH. That's supposed to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS how to make vaccines safer. Yeah? Well, we FOIA for all those recommendations. The response we got, they disbanded the committee in 1998.

The first part of this mandate for safe of child of vaccines actually provides, when you read it, that the Secretary of HHS shall make and assure improvements in otherwise use a secretary with respect to the licensure manufacturing, goes through every possible aspect of vaccine, manufacturing, marketing, and so forth in order to reduce the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines, meaning it made the Secretary of HHS responsible for vaccine safety. If the Secretary of HHS is not doing the easy parts,

just submitting a biannual report to Congress and doesn't even bother to keep a task force to make recommendations, you think the Secretary is doing the hard part? And we just saw what some of the vaccine safety science looks like pre and post licensure. Let you judge whether you think he's doing his job. Next slide, please. Now, you might say, well, why?

Why did HHS abandon its vaccine safety duties? I believe most people who go into public health are good intention. They mean well. They want to help people. The problem is that HHS is hopelessly conflicted. Congress made HHS, again, which includes CDC, NIH, FDA, and so forth, not only responsible of vaccine safety, they've also made them responsible promoting vaccines.

And when an agency is responsible for both promoting and safety, they come into conflict. And one of them wins out. And here, promotion function one out. For example, when it comes to transportation in America, there's a department of transportation. They're responsible promoting more air travel, more airplanes in the sky. Well, you've got government officials glabhanding with industry saying,

hey, get more planes in the sky. Do more, you know, we want more transportation in America. It's hard to at the same time shake somebody's hand and slap them for safety issues. So Congress created a completely separate agency independent of the Department of Transportation called the National Transportation Safety Board, completely independent. Similarly, nuclear power plants. The Department of Energy promotes nuclear power plants in America. They try to get more built.

It's hard to try to make more built and slapping them at the same time for safety. So they created a completely separate agency called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But when it comes to vaccines, there's no sense. separation HHS responsible both promotion and the safety function and the promotion function has one out within those agencies second reason they've abandoned is because not only is HHS responsible for the motion promotion of vaccines as I mentioned earlier you can sue for a vaccine injury in America you just don't sue the pharmaceutical companies you sue the secretary of the Department of HHS

you can see it on your screen under number two that is the quote and we have an example there of a petition you file in the federal court of claims. You file in the federal court of claims in Washington, D.C., that's the only court in America typically you can sue the federal government for money. You are suing the very same federal health authorities that are telling you vaccines are safe. Think about that. And they're represented, by the way, by little law firm, you might have heard of them called the Department of Justice.

That's some of our money. And they vigorously fight these claims because they have to. That's their duty under the law. And when you go and you file these claims, but you don't even get, an Article III, Judge, I mean, Article III of the Constitution, you get a special master. You've no discovery, pretty much as of right. We can't oppose pharmaceutical companies. We can't take dispositions.

We can't do any of the things we normally do in a lawsuit. We have our hand ties to hire back, where we're supposed to provide years of our records to the DOJ so they could hire, you know, with our money, all kinds of experts to try and pick them apart. The important point is this. HHS is responsible for depending against any claim of vaccine injury in court. If they do a study that shows that vaccines are responsible for 3% of this serious issue, what will lawyers like my firm and a few other firms that do vaccine injury claims this program, we will use it as an admission against interest.

We would use it against the federal health orders to establish liability. That is an incredible conflict that should not exist. But it does. There it is. And you can read it in black and white right down the screen and you have the citation to the law. Finally, there is a revolving door between the federal health authorities and pharmaceutical companies. If you look at all the labs, you know, the former heads of the FDA and HHS and where do they go work afterwards? They usually go to work in pharmaceutical companies making a lot of money.

So the leadership in these agencies are, you know, they know if they don't behave and they don't tow the line, they're not getting that lucrative job when they go out of government positions. It's a real big problem. So we've actually tried to work with members of Congress to pass, to try to get legislation adopted that would prohibit the public officials that work for us, get paid by us to then go work pharmaceutical companies against their interest when they leave government that that hasn't gotten much traction. 1,400 lobbyists versus zero. Maybe that's something to do with it in terms of pharmaceutical lobbyists. And what this done over the last 37 years, because this has been going on since 1987, it's really, it's turned the federal federal government. health authorities, they don't view themselves as regulators.

They really view themselves as partners with the industry to get these products out there. And I think when you look at COVID vaccines, you really see that in action. I'm going to go through a few examples in a minute. Next slide, please. I'm going to go through a few more pieces regarding the bigger picture, and then I'm going to move on and talk specifically about COVID-19 vaccines. So here, by the way, is in terms of the incestuous relationship between pharmaceutical companies the federal health authorities, you don't need to take my word for it.

Here is a congressional report from 2000 that specifically looked at the FDA and the CDC's vaccine committees. And look what they concluded. Quote, the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants, have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, end quote. They're talking about Verbe Act. That is the FDA Advisory Committee that effectively decides on whether the license a vaccine. You've seen them in the news regarding COVID vaccines.

This is in 2000 when most vaccines on the child's schedule are already on there. Again, I didn't say this. Congressional report said this. Next button, please. You would think they'd clean up their act, right? Kind of an embarrassing report. You should read that congressional report. It is extremely embarrassing.

Nope. Here is a 2009 report by the HHS Inspector General again finding the same conflicts persisted. They didn't clean up their. act and in fact do you remember you would think that after 2009 finally they clean up their act Congress has harpooning them their own inspector general is writing reports just showing like I mean they're they're embarrassing reports you think they care well I can tell you now much has changed and I'll use an example to show that you many people in the stream already seen it clearly with COVID-19

vaccines and I'm gonna use that the example in the following way dr. Catherine Edwards where you saw me to post a minute ago, right? You saw that little clip. She was also the vaccinologist, the vaccinologist, on the five-member independent data safety monitoring board for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. She is the person who was responsible when the COVID-19 vaccine for Pfizer was going through its clinical trials for assuring the safety while the trial was ongoing. Well, I had an opportunity to ask her few questions to see is she really independent when i had her on the stand and this time it was in trial what you saw was in a deposition this was when i was cross-examining her on the stand in

front of a jury next slide please isn't it true that you've also been an advisor to fiser yes sir i've been an advisor to fiser and i've been working very very closely with fiser particularly with their COVID vaccines in and going over lots of reactions and adverse events. So yes, I am working and being paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety. You're part of the data safety monitoring board for the project COVID vaccine that which you meant when you said that. You're one of the only five members of that data safety monitoring board over the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, right?

Yes, here I am. That's supposed to be an independent data safety monitoring board, correct? It is an independent data safety monitor. That's the board that all of us in America are hoping on and relying upon is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed as the clinical trial for that Pfizer-COVID1919 is ongoing, correct? That's true, and let me tell you that we have worked very hard to lay over this and very hard to do that as comprehensively as we possibly can.

And since it's supposed to be independent, it's critical that the members of that independent data safety monitoring board are in fact independent of the pharmaceutical company whose product is being evaluated, correct? That's correct. But isn't it true that directly before becoming a member of independent data safety Monitor Board of the Pfizer and COVID-19 vaccine you were an advisor to Pfizer? Pfizer pays me to evaluate the safety of their vaccines because I'm an expert. So I do get paid to do the work that I've been doing but I've been doing the

work conscientiously and comprehensive. My question was before you became a member of the independent data safety monitoring work with Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Isn't it true that you were separately, before you held that independent position, you're an advisor to Pfizer? Yes, sir, but I think what you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor

makes me on their dole, or makes me going to say what they want me to say, that is not, and has never been a part of my. being I say what I believe based on my expertise. You don't think that financial incentives can sway people's judgment at all? It does not sway my judgment, sir. Why, while I'm having an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board, why doesn't Pfizer just have some of its employees on it?

Because we are independent. meaning folks who were never advisors to Pfizer. We are independent from Pfizer in this assessment. I don't think I need to say anything. So there it is. But she believes it. Understand. Understand.

The folks in the federal health authorities, these vaccinologists, she runs one of CDC's for safety systems for vaccines in this country. This is what I said earlier. They really view themselves as partners with this industry. And that is something that didn't happen with COVID-19 vaccines. It happened over 37-year period in which there's been no check on vaccines. There's no moneyed interest, if you will, pushing back on pharmaceutical companies.

For all of those years, they get to do what they want, to get to influence who they want. And the normal market forced check, class action and product liability attorneys can cut out of the mix. and the regulatory agencies because of the way the 1986 infrastructure are hopelessly conflicted. Okay, let's move on to COVID-19 vaccines. With that paradigm in place, okay? That backdrop, let's specifically look at COVID-19 vaccines. And hopefully things will make more sense now

when I talk about COVID-19 vaccines. Because honestly, I think without understanding that backdrop, it's harder to understand how federal health authorities, how the eight, you know, how, how, folks who've been injured by COVID-190 can be treated the way they've been treated, and how COVID- vaccines will be treated the way they were. Next slide, please.

So, with COVID-19 vaccines, you got the same exact problem. There is no market forces that assure the safety of this product. Why? You can't sue Pfizer or Moderna or J&J for injuries from the COVID-19 vaccine. The only reason I bring up the safety and efficacy of vaccines is not to take issue with safety and efficacy of vaccines. They're just a product. There are statins, heart medicines. They have safety and efficacy profiles as well. I'm not talking about those today because nobody mandates you to take heart medicine. Nobody mandates you to take other products.

When the moment that they coerce and mandate you to take a vaccine, they make the question of the safety and efficacy of those products no longer just a medical issue. They make it a civil and individual rights issue. So I'm not talking about this from a medical perspective. I'm talking about the safety necocacy from a civil and individual rights perspective. Just to be very clear, everybody should be free to get as many vaccines as they want,

wear as many masks as they want, hide out in their basement forever if they want, because that's America, that's freedom. But nobody should be coarse to do that. Okay, so moving on to COVID-19 vaccines, taking the backdrop of what's been happening, over the last 37 years and let's apply it to COVID-19 vaccines. Just like with other vaccines, the 1986 Act,

the National Childhood Vaccinejury Act also applies to COVID-19 vaccines once it was added to the childhood schedule, and so you can't sue for injuries from COVID-19 vaccines. There is actually an additional layer of protection for COVID-19 vaccines that doesn't exist for other vaccines, not that it frankly makes much of a difference because pharmacosumans are immune anyway. immune anyway, but it's a little bit even more pernicious, so I think it might be worth pointing out.

That when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, not only do they have the 86 Act protection, they also have something called Prep Act immunity. That is an immunity that is given by a declaration from the Secretary of the Department of Health Human Services that says that basically you can't sue for injuries or not only injury issues, but efficacy issues from, products developed to respond to what they secretary says an emergency in this case COVID which would include COVID-19 vaccines and so under the PEP Act not only can you not sue for safety and efficacy issues it actually makes it which is that you can't even sue for willful misconduct that if there's willful misconduct you can't just go bring a lawsuit against Pfizer or Moderna if

somebody walked into this room here today and presented us with clear convincing evidence of pharma, you know, those executives, pharmaceutical executives, talking to each other, plotting scheming, clearly committing, you know, intentional misconduct, the HHS itself would have to first bring an action against those pharmaceutical companies before you can even bring a claim civil attorney like myself. And the odds of the federal government, if they told you this product safe and effective and convinced 270 million Americans to go and get it, the odds of them admitting there's an issue are kind of low.

So anyway, the more important point is market forces, gone for COVID-19 vaccines. Next slide, please. And by the way, not only market force is gone, the federal government, when they purchased COVID-19 vaccines, contractually agreed and assured Pfizer-Moderna that they would have prep act immunity for the use of their products, which is something

I've never even seen before. The whole idea of prep act immunity is that if there's, you know, a reason to have it, it shouldn't exist because of a contractual pre-guarantee by our federal government, again, just, emblematic of the way our federal government views their relationship with these pharmaceutical companies, that they would contractually agree for a product that hadn't even been developed yet, not even created yet.

Don't worry, we assure you nobody can ever see you. Not only under the 86th, the Prep Act as well. So that's market forces on COVID-19 vaccines. Let's move on to the regulators. Okay. Let's start with the FDA. This is the FDA homepage. Does this look like a regulator to you?

What does this look like? Looks like a marketing ad. What is the FDA's job to assure the product is safe and effective to its standard? And let's not let's just put that issue aside to its standard before it is, right, put on the market. What product is it advertising on its homepage? The bi-valent. Is that licensed? Oh, they're advertising an unlicensed vaccine.

You think the FDA, I mean, it's only been authorized, only emergency is authorized. It hasn't been found to be safe and effective to the FDA standard such that it could be licensed yet. Do you think the FDA, after telling 270 million Americans, go get this shot, advertising like this? Next slide, please. Dr. Peter Marks, who's the head of the vaccine division

of the FDA doing cutesy videos on YouTube, telling you just a minute, and giving you basically trying to to convince you to vaccinate you and your kids, again, for an unlicensed vaccine. When it finally comes time for the FDA to actually evaluate the clinical trial data in which Dr. Catherine Edwards, you know, independently, by the way, oversaw that it was safe while it was going on. Do you think the FDA is in a position to truly independently and objectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine to determine whether to license it?

After telling everybody get it, advertising on his homepage, putting out these YouTube, videos and go maybe after looking at it if they find an issue go oops sorry you remember we told you to get that shot it's kind of a problem no that just creates a real problem the FDA does not stay in its lane so to speak it should be a cold hard independent regulatory agency that clinically looks at the data decide whether it's safe and effective to its standard nothing more but instead it views itself as a partner with industry and goes out and it promotes these products even before it's licensed. Just want you to really think about that for a minute.

It's no, it's normalized. If you saw the atomic nuclear agency responsible for the safety nuclear power plants doing something like this, people would freak out. Next slide, please. Another example of the FDA not doing its job. We asked the FDA after it took 108 days to license the COVID-19 vaccine for Pfizer to also release all the data relied upon to license that shot. The FDA refused. We have to do it. to sue them in federal court, they took the position that they're only going to produce 500 pages a day, which would have taken at least 75 years, probably longer. And as some of you might know, the federal judge and an excellent decision agreed that

no, that's not going to accord with the purposes of the Freedom Information Act and ensure transparency and ordered that it produced that 55,000 pages a month. The FDA had to be ordered by a federal judge by a separate branch of government to timely, just Produce information, just the data it relied upon to license the COVID-19 vaccine. Next slide, please. And you would think, by the way, the FDA would learn its lesson

because when we went and we asked for the Moderna data, the data that the FDA relied upon to license the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer vaccines were told 15-year-olds that they produced that in a timely manner. In a lawsuit, we brought on behalf of a doctor's group as well as the DeGarry family, which I'll tell you about in a second.

The FDA again took the position that they wanted decades to produce that data. And this is a decision actually from the court we just got a few, about a week ago, a week or two ago, and the judge decided no, no, you gotta produce it all within 24 months, which is about, on average, about over 180,000 pages. I'm hoping the FDA's starting to get the message,

but I'm not sure they are, because they have all our money and they, really, they view themselves as antagonistic to the population. They view themselves as partners with the industry, is the only product for the federal government, instead of actually siding with consumers and protecting consumers, sides with the companies to defend against any claims

made by consumers as the product caused injured we talked about earlier. Next slide, please. So two more examples of the FDA and how it conducts itself with regards to COVID-19 vaccines. Maddie-Deghary was only one of 1,131 children in the Pfizer clinical trial 12 to 15 year olds. I bring her up because she was also plaintiff. Her parents were a plaintiff

in that lawsuit. I just told you about seeking the Pfizer data for 12 to 15 year olds. Young Maddie was dancing in TikTok videos, as you could see before she got the COVID shot. And within 25 hours of getting her second dose, next slide please, she was in the emergency room and a slowly descended to cast aid of health issues that landed her in a wheelchair to this day and a feeding tube. The fact that the COVID-19 vaccine vaccine caused her to suffer these incredible harms, you know, is tragic. But drugs, vaccines can cause harm. It happens.

What's really problematic is that when Pfizer reported that injured to the FDA, did not report that she was in a wheelchair and a feeding tube, but reported it as functional abdominal pain. It basically reported that she had a tummy ache. We sent letter after letter to the FDA with all Mr. Gary's records, medical records showing clearly. I mean, a dozen emergency visits. All the initial digits documenting that it was a reaction to the vaccine. And the FDA finally, by the way, after over 100 days, eventually responded to us. You know what they told the DeGarry family?

Told them to file a VAERS report. Yeah, I'm not kidding. Can't make this up. We foyer then for the internal communications that Pfizer had, the FDA had with the FDA had with Pfizer about Mr. Gary and we finally got them, took a whole federal lawsuit to get them. And what you see is eventually, finally, the FDA demand is too strong. Asked Pfizer, can you please give us more information about, you know, Maddie to Gary? Because, you know, we're getting all these letters and so forth.

And Pfizer submits a report to the FDA. In that report, it finally discloses all the harms that we just talked to you as far as from the records that we have seen. Now, on that basis alone, if I'm in the FDA, I'm going, whoa, wait a second, you told me functional abdominal pain. There's a whole lot more than that. Why didn't you tell me that to begin with? No, I didn't see any communications of saying that. Instead, there's this report, and when you read it, the first time I read it, I was like, oh, wow, here it is. Fisor's admitting their vaccine caused Maddie's injuries. And when you get to the very bottom of that narrative, then you have the Pfizer paid principal investigators say that he does not, quote,

unquote, feel, that's the word, feel, doesn't feel that Maddie's injuries is related to the COVID-19 vaccine. And then if you, and these, read them the communications within the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks, remember Mr. Just a Minute, right? That's his communication, Mr. Just the Minute. He goes, oh, basically, he goes, great. Pfizer says they don't feel it's related to the vaccine. He sends that to the director of the FDA, and that's the end of the story from what we can tell from the documents we got. I don't feel that that's appropriate, by the way. I don't feel that was a good idea.

I don't feel like that's a good oversight. I don't feel that's what a regulator should do, but, you know, we make decisions based on how people feel, then they should immediately recognize autism and all the other injuries that the parents who are with these children are saying they feel caused their children. their children's injuries her parents who are in the best position to judge what happened to marry feel it's related to vaccine in fact they have the medical records to show it but that's not good enough but if Pfizer paid

the principal investigation feels it's not related then it's actually accepted just an incredible reality I don't think that would exist any other product that I'm aware of next slide let's look at one other thing with the FDA and let's move on to CDC and then we'll wrap this up one other example of how it could be the FDA is acting the way it does. Let's look at the clinical trial that was conducted regarding the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. And what is the worst outcome that you're worried about from COVID and in the clinical trial? Death.

And when you look at the FDA report of the number of deaths in the vaccine group, those who got the Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccine, and those have got a placebo. And folks here might remember they vaccinated the whole placebo group after about two months of safety on average. So for the time period, they had that data. And there were 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group. I'm just a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure 21 is bigger than 17 by a lot. That's a pretty big differential. And when you do a clinical trial, the whole purpose of a clinical,

clinical trial is a statistical comparison. It's a new product. You don't know how it affects the human body yet, which is why you're doing the clinical trial with a placebo. So what you do is you look at those who got it, those who got a placebo, and you compare the rates. It's a statistical comparison because you don't know exactly how the product affects the body. That's the point of a placebo-controlled clinical trial.

So you can sauce that out statistically, blindly, without a product affects the body. the influence and corrupting judgment of the company who's conducting the trial, right? When they looked at efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, do you might recall, and they said it was 95% effective, putting aside how they got to those two data points of how many had a, you know, the eight that had a, in the vaccinated group that they say, you know, had COVID and 100 something in the unvaccinated in the placebo control. That was a statistical comparison. They just compared the numbers. But when it came to the deaths, when there was 21 deaths in the vaccine and 17 deaths of placebo, they decided to do something different. They decided to, quote, unquote, assess

each death to see if it's related potentially to the vaccine. And who did that assessment? No, not the FDA. Pfizer's paid investigators. Dr. Catherine Edwards and all the other folks the same guy who didn't feel the principal investigator for a Maddie Gary situation they're the ones who did that assessment and provides it to the FDA if there were less vaccinate deaths in the vaccine group and more deaths in the placebo group you think they would have done that I don't want to speculate but they didn't when it was the wrong way when it's the right way then they accept the statistical comparison.

So we actually wrote the FDA, and we said, hey, FDA, you're doing statistical comparisons for other stuff in this clinical trial. Why aren't you doing it for this debt data? This is highly concerning. Because if you're going to allow the pharmaceutical company to sponsors paid investigators to basically exercise their judgment to determine whether the vaccine calls

or doesn't cause, I was like, why do a clinical trial at all? What's the point? Next slide, please. So we wrote the FDA. And we ask, you can see up top, why are the death data from the randomized controlled trials treated like a clinical case series rather than a randomized clinical trial when it comes to assessing causality with regards to the death? Question mark. And everything on these slides, by the way, has got links so you can look these up yourself. And here's the FDA response.

We're unable to respond substantively at this time due to resource constraints and the ongoing pandemic response, end quote. I thought that stopping deaths from the COVID vaccine was pretty important, but apparently it's not that important. I don't know what to say about that, but there it is. Black and white, you can read the FDA letter yourself. They just don't want to answer because they don't really have a good answer. That's the FDA, in my view. That's my experience with the FDA when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine.

So if you think the FDA is out there, acting like a regulatory, assuring the point of the product is safe, really doing a proper safety and efficacy, you're ignoring what's really going on. Don't judge by what people say, judge by what they do, look at what the FDA is doing. Next slide, please. Let's move on to the CDC. Okay. So with regards to the CDC, let's start with the VAERS data. There's two safety systems that they really relied upon to say that COVID-19 vaccines are safe after they came on the light on the market.

is bears and one was B-safe. The CDC put out a report with something called proportional reporting ratio. That is a it's a statistical method that the CDC decided they were going to use to determine whether or not there were safety signals in the VAERS data. CDC came up with this ratio and it's a long-standing methodology they have before the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled out. Then they apply that preset method of determining whether there's a safety signal with the VAERS data and I don't think they like what they found because they wouldn't release it to the public it took legal action to get it

and you can see a sampling over there in the yellow column for some of the issues that are denoted in the first column one would mean that there's you know essentially no signal two would mean that there's a you know a significant significant signal, that's like 100% increased rate of than expected. You could see here that there's 60, 70, 30, 40 times the rate that they expected for some of these issues. When we confronted the CDC and we said, what, aren't you highly concerned about these ratios that were the result of your own predetermined way to analyze various data?

They told us, no, no, no, don't worry. FDA did something called empirical basing analysis. and they looked at the same VAERS data, and they concluded there's no issue, there's no signals. So we're good. Don't worry. Everything's fine. So we said, okay, fine. Then can we please have the empirical basing analysis data? The FDA won't give it to us. We're actually in federal court in Washington, D.C. right now trying to get that data. If they don't want to produce it, I wonder why. Well, guess we'll have to wait and see what that data shows when we finally do get it. Next slide, please. So that's the VAERS data, in my view, in a nutshell.

They applied a statistical methodology. They found serious signals. When those signals came about, they decided to do a different methodology that they now want to hide from the public. All right, what about VSAFE? This is the other safety system that they said that they used to assure the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. V-safe is the premier system that the CDC relied upon to assure the COVID-19 vaccine were safe. It was specifically designed to review the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. It was rolled out in December of 2020 at the same exact time the first COVID-19 vaccine was rolled out in December of 2020.

It wasn't like theirs. It wasn't there for you to just report an issue from a COVID-19 vaccine. It was there to sign up the day you got the shot and then submit a report daily for a week and then every week for six weeks. and then at 12, 24, and 52 weeks. And it provided information as well. And most of the 10 million people that signed up for VSAFE signed up in the first five months of the vaccine was rolled out. When everybody was enthusiastic, when people were mandated to get it, these are the folks who wanted the shot. Remember, this was the time when they were clamoring over each other to get the shot because you have to wait in line and have to be of a certain type to get the shot.

So these 10 million people sign up for VSAV, almost like a patriotic duty. They want to participate in this exciting new vaccine. And they're filling out these surveys, okay? Here's the thing about the V-Safe data. In some ways, it's definitely better than V-RES data because V-VERS you don't have a denominator. It's from an unknown population size. So it's hard to determine the rate of harm.

V-Safe, we know there's 10 million users. So if half a million report myocarditis, that means we know that there is a 5% myracoditis rate. We can get a rate, but you can't do a VAERS. So in that way, it's way better than bears. Second, it collects data in a systemized manner that is the same for every user, just like a clinical trial. How do clinical trials collect data? They ask the participants questions and they record it. That's how they collect the data. How else are you going to get the data? That's what VSAFE does. Ask the participants questions in a systematic way.

It's difference between V-Safe data and clinical trial data. And the clinical trials are about 30,000 people for COVID-19 vaccines. Here you got 10 million. And there, the data is collected by the pharmaceutical company, filtered through them, given to the FDA, and then you've got a fight in court because they want to hide it to 75 years to get it to the public. Here, the data is not filtered through a pharmaceutical company. It's just standardized data.

As you can imagine, the CDC didn't want to just give it to us. We spent a year and a half in federal court fighting for that data. Let me show you what that data finally showed him. And I think you'll quickly see why the CDC fought so dang hard in federal courts. Two federal lawsuits until they finally capitulated and provided this check-the-box data in the V-Safe system. Next slide, please. Let's start with what was collected. There are actually only two things collected.

to check the box data types collected and be safe one symptoms two what they call health impact next slide please let's look at the symptoms there's a list of about 10 symptoms and if you you could call 13 15 14 if you because there's a number of sub ones that are in there but when you look at these symptoms okay which were collected for only one week after the shot they're the exact symptoms that the CDC tells you are totally normal to have after the shot. Because they call it reactogenicity. It means you have an immune response, which is good. It means they believe that the vaccine's working.

They tell you these are the symptoms you should have. These are good to have after the shot. Don't take my word for it. Here's the director of the CDC immunization safety office, Tom Schumer Bikuro, saying exactly am us in a document in an email that we had to FOIA, that we came in one of our FOIA requests. We have over 1,000 FOIA requests to CETNIH on behalf of the Informant Action Network, so we get a lot of their internal emails.

And here it is admitting exactly that. When you look at this list, like, you know, pain and, you know, the symptoms that that really just don't matter, when you look at it, you might say, you might quickly realize what's not on this list. What's not on this list are the, you know, issues that you actually would care about. How about myocytitis or paracotides? Or at least, how about chest pain? Right? Or all the other issues that we are seeing with the COVID vaccine. At least if they were not there when they started the roll out of B-Safe, why not add them?

So you might say to yourself, well, maybe the CDC didn't know the COVID-19 vaccine could cause trans trans trans myelitis, blood clotting, all of these issues we're now aware of from the COVID-19 vaccine. Next slide, please. Yeah, they don't get that pass because this is an October 2020 CDC presentation. Preliminary lists of theirs adverse events of special interests that they themselves denoted as potentially being caused that they were worried that COVID-19 vaccine could cause. Look at that list. That list includes all of the issues, many of the things.

many of the issues that we now see from COVID-19 vaccine. October 2020, remember, the first COVID-19 vaccine wasn't authorized and rolled out until December of 2020. That's two months before. Next slide, please. It's even worse. This is version one of the V-safe protocol from November 19, 2020. Let's take a look at this list. And what is this list?

It is the adverse events of special interest. This is CDC's own document. This is their protocol for designing V-safe. What they call pre-specified medical conditions. And what do they have on the list? Anaphylaxis, cugulopathy, Guillamboree syndrome, myrcanis, percaditis, seizures, stroke, transvis myelitis.

So many of the issues and harms we are seeing. The CDC itself identified all of these harms as adverse events with special interest in a table they call three specified medical conditions before the safe was rolled out. That's their document. There's a link right there. Go see it for yourself. But yet not one, not one of these ended up. Let's check the box options. neither these actual conditions nor any of the symptoms of these conditions.

Not one. You know, it's hard to show premeditated bad conduct. Like when you want to charge a criminal defendant, it's hard to show Sient or like a criminal state of mind, purposely doing something. When they identified themselves in version 1 of V-saf, all these potential harms, and chose, chose to then not include them. This is their own design protocol for V-SAID. To me, that shows premeditated conduct on their part in terms of how they chose to design

V-SAFE, but it is directly in accord with how they do vaccine safety for 37 years. Next slide, please. Okay, so to check the box symptoms, that first category stuff, totally useless to assess safety. Now, in a system called VSA, you would think that it should be able to assess what? It does how they're safe in it, right? Okay. And the V, I assume we're vaccine, safety, okay. So you would think.

So it's not going to be in the check-the-box symptoms. Data. The only other data they collected check-the-box is what they called health impact, in which they asked users, one, you could check-the-box. Unable to work. Two, unable to do your normal daily activities that go to school. Or three, get care from a doctor or other healthcare professional. And if you click that you needed care from a doctor,

then it had a sub list that you could see there. Did you need telehealth? Was it urgent care? Was it emergency or was it hospitalization? Okay. So here you have it. This must be where they figured out. Safety issue, right?

You design Zsafe. You put it out there. You said to the American public, We're using millions of your taxpayer dollars to create this massive system called VSA. We're going to roll it out. We've got 10 million users. And we're going to ensure you, don't worry, America, this product is safe. We're going to assess it with the data in this system.

Well, it's not the symptoms checklist because that was collected for one week. And by the way, the numbers were like 60, 70%, 40% of users reported those symptoms. And CDC said, all good. Okay? So then it must be here. It's got to be here. This was collected for that first week, every week of the first week. up to six weeks and then at 12 24 and 52 weeks so maybe the CDC had to have some threshold

where people said hey I had to seek medical care after the shot and they're not reporting medical care because they're reporting medical care because they believe it's related to the vaccine and remember these are the vaccine duties that's on to previsate so what was that threshold 100 100 1,000 1 in 50 one in 20 like there's got to be a number where the CDC goes that's it we got to pull the plug we got to pull the plug too many people are reporting needing medical care, hospitalization, the emergency room, right? You would think there's got to be some threshold. Okay. Let's look at what the CDC disclosed to the public regarding this data for a year and a half first. When we were fighting with them in federal court together. Next slide, please. And then we'll look at what the data showed.

These are over 40 studies relying on V-Safe and various data that the CDC put out. You can click on all these links. You can read them yourself. as every single one we can find, all of them. This is the body of science that the CDC relied upon to say COVID-19 vaccines are safe. Don't worry. And almost all of them rely upon theirs data and V-SAFE data. Here's the thing, though. For the V-safe data, they only disclosed the very first week of people reporting those health impacts. That's it.

They never disclosed second week, third week, fourth week, fifth week, sixth week. And anybody who does vaccine injury work in the federal court claims knows vaccine injuries numerous, accepted, uncontroverted vaccine injuries like Gianbrae syndrome, transomilellae, COPD, often take at least a week, and weeks to manifest. You're going to have an autoimmune reaction. it takes a while before you have auto antibodies, self-antibodies to build up in your body to have that reaction. It doesn't happen within 24 hours after the shot. It takes time.

They knew that one week of safety data, limit one week was not going to be reflective of actual safety. They limited it to one week. Study after study, after study, after studying, which they told you this shot was safe. while we were in federal court for a year and a half fighting to get them to release all the check-to-box data. This is all the American public was told. And when they finally capitulated, next slide, please. This is what the data showed.

7.7% of V-Save users reported needing medical care. 7.7%. By the way, half a million of those users never filled out a single survey. I'm not even backing those out, but if you did, it would be over 8%. So said they needed medical care. And on average, they sought it two to three times, not just once, two to three times. And 70% of the time, over 70%, they reported needing urgent care, the emergency room of hospitalization. The rate's 4.2% in the first six weeks for those who don't like the fact that they collected a 12, 24 and 52 weeks, by the way, even though they're pretty clearly only asking if the person thinks it's related to the COVID-19.

Does that maybe help explain why they didn't release that data during the year and a half and the over 40 studies they published regarding B-Safe data? Apparently, that wasn't the high enough rate for them to pull the plug on the shot. That number represents probably the very best data point that you're ever going to get on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines because it's over 10 million users. It's collected from people who are in a standardized form, unfiltered by the pharmaceutical companies, and that is the rate of people who are sitting in medical care two to three times on average and over three out of four approximately needing to go to the hospitalization emergency room or urgent care.

There was another, by the way, 25% reported missing school or work or not being informed normal day of the activities. So in all, that's 32% of VSAFE users reported a health impact. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments for why they had to mandate this out like a member of the military was to make sure people didn't miss work. and didn't, you know, could be a, you know, we could have a stand-up ready military force. We've got 32%. I don't think that, you know, young fit men in the military and women in their 20s, I don't think 32% were taken out because of COVID from being able to perform normal data functions.

But apparently on average, 32% were after the COVID-19 vaccine. Next slide is. This is just one example from that data and then we'll move on. So when you data mine in the V-safe data, you can actually see this. is Pfizer's vaccine. Okay. And what you can see here is that for three years and older, that's just the way they stratified the data. Thank you. That reported seeking medical care after the first dose. Now, between days one and seven, which is all the CEC would have told you, all it told the public, 0.32% sought medical care. Between days 8 and 14, this is not cumulative. Okay, this is not cumulative.

0.67% of V-safe users sought medical care. And then look at the increasing intervals. Okay? Again, those are not cumulative numbers. That is the percentage of V-safe users in each of those time intervals that were seeking medical care, according to the V-safe data.

That should have been, that should have made alarm bells go nuts. Instead, they hid this data from the public and forced, only reason they gave it out was because of two federal lawsuits demanding it. Next slide, please. So that's bears and that's be safe. I was asked to talk about those two safety systems, and now you have my view and my judgment

on those. Again, I'm not judging the CDC based on what it said. I'm judging a beta based on what it did regarding those two safety systems. I'll talk about one last topic, and then I'll close this out. So the other, so we talk about deaths. And now, you know, let's talk about the other thing that they claim justified the vaccine mandates in particular, and that's that it prevents transmission. right here's the thing and eventually as everybody here knows they eventually effectively

capitulated no COVID-19 vaccine can't prevent transmission right and so here is a Rochelle Wyninski soon to be the former head of the CDC you saw them going out and acting surprised that the COVID-19 vaccine oh my doesn't prevent transmission the reality is almost all most of the non-live vaccines like COVID-19 vaccine don't prevent transmission this should have been absolutely no that this vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. Look at the other vaccines that are non-live for respiratory infections. And they should have well known. In fact, it would be really difficult for me to believe they didn't know that it was highly unlikely this vaccine would prevent transmission.

Next slide. For example, here's the pertustis vaccine. This is the other common respiratory infection, non-live vaccine we give in America. Protestis vaccine does not prevent infection and transmission. It just doesn't. That's not me saying it, by the way. These are all the premier, you know, pharma-paid, many of them, pharma-funded and paid scientists regarding pertusses vaccine in effectively what you call a consensus paper about whether pertussis vaccine does not prevent transmission. You know, what was happening is that the way you judge how much circulating pathogen there is is the inter-epidemic intervals.

When the inter-epidemic intervals get narrower, that means there's more circulating pathogen. When they get wider, that means there's less. with pertussis, they seem to be staying the same or getting narrower. So the FDA finally did a study, but they tried to look at whether the vaccine prevents infection transmission. And, oops, they concluded it does not. And all the studies afterwards reconfirm that. And here you have, quote, this is a consensus paper from, you know, Dr. Captain Edwards, by the way, is one of the authors on this. And she would not put her name on almost anything that says something bad about a vaccine.

But there she is. She's considered a pertussis, a vaccine expert, by the way, as well. She says, acular pertussic vaccine cannot avoid infection transmission. A cellular pertussic vaccine do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce colonization of fortuitalloportosis and do not exert any herd immunity effect. End quote, there's the citation to the paper. Not to bore anybody, but the pertuss bacteria has about 3,000 antigens on its surface.

The vaccine has five of those antigens. Having immunity to those five antigens apparently reduces symptoms. All the studies show it definitely reduces symptoms, apparently. But what it doesn't do is it cannot prevent colonization, multiplication of the bacteria in your nasal pharynx. You shed it. You're transmissible for just as long whether you had the vaccine or not have a vaccine, and even worse. You've had the vaccine, that first immune response that you've been primed with with the vaccine. Causes something called linked epitope suppression.

You will have that same defective immunity over and over and over again. It makes you a chronic carrier to shed protussus for the rest of your life versus the people who have actually had pertussis. They have immunity to the entire pertussis bacterium. They do not, when they come here, infected, are able to then transmit. Again, read the study. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying. I'm just a lawyer.

I just read. That's what they all say. You can read it for yourself. Next slide, please. They knew this about other vaccines, too. Polio vaccine, the holy grail of vaccines. There are two types of polio vaccines. There's a salt vaccine developed in 195 that's injected in the arm.

It creates immunity, systemic immunity, what they call in the blood. bloodstream. And then there is the Sabin vaccine developed in 1961 that is the oral vaccine. Okay? The oral vaccine creates immunity in your intestinal tract, IGA antibodies versus the injected vaccine, which only creates immunity in your bloodstream. Here's the thing about polio. It's infected from fecal to oral contamination. So if you want to stop transmission, you've got to stop the virus to be able to multiply in your intestinal tract. The inactivated polio vaccine, the only vaccine given children in this country for over two decades, does not. in any way stop the infection and transmission of polio, the virus. You have only received an

in an activated polio vaccine, an IPV vaccine, which is only given in America for over two decades now. You develop IgG antibodies in your blood. You do not develop immunity in your testinal tract. Don't take my word for it again. I'm just a lawyer. I just read. That's what the study show. This is the collaboration between the CDC and WHO to eradicate polio. Here's what they say, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you got to believe everything they say. UNICEF, it says, quote, IPV induces very low levels of immunity in the intestines as a result.

When a person immunized with IPVs infected with wild poliovirus, the virus can still multiply inside the intestines and be shed in the pieces risking continued circulation. IPV does not stop transmission of the virus, end quote, not my words, that's the CDC, the WHO, Rotary, Unicef, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If you have an issue with that claim, take it up with them, not me, please. And I'm not trying to take issue with the folio vaccine.

I'm just pointing out, again, it doesn't stop infection transmission. It shows that they know these vaccines. Let's just do two others. They can see they quote about the theory of vaccine from CDC scientists. Again, the theory vaccine only creates immunity to something released, but it doesn't matter. In Chicago vaccine, same thing. The point is, those are just examples. going into this COVID-19 vaccine universe,

these pharmaceutical companies health authorities are well aware that most inactivated vaccines don't stop infection transmission. They don't contribute to herd immunity. They should not have been surprised unless they're, I guess, like, I mean, maybe Dr. O'Sheuvelinsky. Maybe she, you know, I'll actually give her the benefit that she knows nothing about vaccines, okay? And they didn't know this,

but they shouldn't have been surprised, but yet they are. Next slide, please. And here's the part that's really problematic from my perspective. They could have easily tested for whether or not COVID-19 vaccines prevent infectious of transmission in the Canucal trial. They were telling every American to test. Millions of test kits were being, remember, shipped to everybody. They were giving out free test kits.

Remember this period of time when the Canoalcan Trail was going on? all you had to do in the clinical trial is pick a few thousand people in the vaccinated group, a few thousand in the placebo group, and just test them every few days or once a week for two, three months and then check the rates of positivity between the two groups. You would have known. You would have known whether or not prevents perfection transmission, and you would have had data on whether or not it causes the linked epitope suppression. For example, once you roll the vaccine out, will it increase cases?

you know, because when you look around the world, look at developed countries that use the shot versus countries that didn't use the vaccine. Where do cases explode? Oh, listen, that's just correlation. Come on. Correlation doesn't mean anything, right? Exactly. Countries that used the COVID vaccine had exploding cases. Countries that did not, many of them, you did not see that explosion curve. Could it be that the COVID vaccine not only caused increased circulation because think about it,

if it reduces symptoms, but it doesn't prevent infection transmission, who's likely to more walk around the unvaccinated person that gets COVID and spreader or the vaccine person? The unvaccin person has got more likely to have symptoms, right? They say, where is that person? At home, in bed. The vaccinated person is they're not having symptoms. Where are they? They're roaming around.

was a lot of likely to spread. And if the COVID vaccine caused linked epitope suppression, meaning that immune response to just the spike protein results in you being able to have less symptoms, but does not, but, but, but, but, primed you such that you always had that same defective immune response over and over again. It made you a constant, basic potential being infected and transmitted every time you come into contact with COVID. They knew about that sign. Why don't they rule it out?

They could have. Millions of tests. They didn't have a few extra thousands of spare in the trials. All right. Last slide, please. With all of that said, the critical issue from my perspective is this, is recognizing these are just products. Vaccines are not given by God at Sinai.

They're just products. There is what public health authorities tell you about their safety and efficacy. And then there is a reality. to what that it actually is. There is a reality. It exists out there somewhere, but I know where you can't look to find it. And why that's critically important is this.

They use the claim that these products are safe and effective to mandate them. So make you get them under penalty of losing your job, not being able to go to school, not being able to participate in civil society. Like I said before, you want a COVID vaccine? Great. You should be able to get it. As many shots as you want,

But if somebody has concluded they do not want it, and they cannot leave their house, and they cannot get a job, and they cannot go to school, and they cannot participate a civil society, that they don't have any rights. What good is the right to freedom of speech alone in your house? The right to assemble alone in your house. The right to religion alone in your house. You got all your constitutional rights, but you'll only exercise them by yourself. That's why informed consent, the ability to say no is a fundamental right.

No government should ever coerce anybody to have to take a medical product. Period. Ever. So here's the thing about mandates. You don't need to mandate something that's safe and effective. You don't need to. We'd all die if we don't drink water. Nobody needs to mandate us to drink.

We would all die if we don't eat food. Nobody needs to mandate us to consume food products, buy them, go to supermarket, get them, bring them home, cook them, consume them. It has always been the tools of those in power that when they cannot persuade you on the merits, they resort to what? Coorsion. Billying. Mandates. When you look at the long line of issues with vaccines that I've just gone through,

maybe some of those resonate you. Maybe they don't. You're a parent. You're making a decision for yourself. Maybe you look at the clinical trial data and you say, whoa, I don't know about, five days of safety, maybe, maybe I don't want to use that product. Or you look at the post-license or safety studies and you say, whoa, I'm not comforted by those. I'm not comforted by those. Or you look at the lack of immunity and go, you know what, if the company that makes this product

won't stand behind its safety, maybe it's unwise to consume that product. There might be a myriad of issues you have with one or more products. At the end of that long line, that long, litany of issues is the ability to say no that's what that is the last stop on the train that you can use to protect yourself and your children and your family when you go into a doctor's office you've now been informed and you don't consent overriding that decision with bullying mandates coercion is what dictators and bullies and thugs have done throughout the ages it's exactly what this country is founded against whole

idea of individual and civil rights in the Constitution was a rejection of the idea that somebody else, some dictator, monarch, king, central committee knows better than you on how to make decisions about your life. When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights and they were adopted in 1791 in the United States of America, times weren't easy. You think 1791 in America was an easy time? There's no running. water, no plumbing, electricity. Times are hard. And those rights were written, not only for that time, they were written for the harder times than that.

And Americans cast away those rights with abandon. As soon as some fear came about in the early 2020, we got to remember how fundamental the American experiment, individual rights are to the American experiment. it is, in my view, the central core feature of what distinguishes America from everything that preceded it. It is the idea that we respect individual rights. Individuals can cast off, choose their own risks, cast off, make their own destiny, not decide somebody else make decisions for them.

Because once you do that, who makes that decision? Always a couple of it. Some central authority, the FDA, the CDC. and you can see exactly what that's raw during this pandemic. And if we let the idea that you can coerce a medical product take hold on the adult population, pharmaceutical companies are really smart. They're going to load as many products as they can into that model. That is something that needs to be fought against, in my view, tooth and nail.

Not the products, the mandate of the products. The products themselves leave that to the medical folks to take issue with. But the mandates are what need to be. you stood against. Even for those, and I'll end with this, even for those that maybe like the COVID , maybe sitting in this audience who say, you know what, I love the COVID vaccines. They're great. I love every vaccine. I love masks. Wonderful. The day may come when you don't like a medical product. Maybe you love every mandated medical product today, so you don't have an issue. You can participate civil society. You can have all your quote-unquote rights in that context. But the day may come

when you don't want a medical product. And if you see those rights now, rights, are rarely returned. That's why everybody, whether you love mandated products or not, you should really appreciate and understand, you can't let these things be mandated. You've got to always persuade on the merits. And if you can't, that's the end of the story. Thank you. That's our boy. That's who does all the fighting for ICANN and courtrooms across America and really is even getting involved in cases around the world. You make that possible. All of that information that was shared there in many ways was because of all of your support that allowed us to bring the lawsuits that we could get to the truth and figure out how this entire system was being run.

You know, as we look into the future, we look at Fourth of July right around the corner, and we think to ourselves, what does freedom actually mean? You know, what are my rights? What are inalienable rights endowed to me by God? Certainly control over your own body. And that is that the heart of that is this notion of informed consent. That is a fundamental right. That's why we named our non-profit, the informed consent action network. We are in action for you to make sure that no matter what it is, whether it's a piece of food or a drug, a stimulant, a mind-altering substance, a vaccine, water itself, whatever it is, it has to be your choice to say, yes, I'll take that or no, I won't. If you do not have that power, you cannot tell me that you are a free man or woman. You're not. You're a

farm animal. The farmers just decided to give you something you have no control over, and that's just the way it's going to be. They attempted to do that during COVID, and I assure you they're going to attempt to do it again. We need all of your thoughts. We need all of your support. And most of all, we need you to Stand up like our founding fathers did as we celebrate this 4th of July, they stood. They signed the Declaration of Independence and said, I'm standing here, you know where to find me. I would rather die standing here next to my brothers and sisters in freedom and my right to informed consent and all that happens to my body and my children. Stand up. Be a part of society. Be a part of fixing this problem. Stop judging it. Make a difference.

Let's celebrate this Fourth of July like we never have before, but take it in inside of ourselves. And think about what John F. Kennedy said about this great nation. Ask not what your nation can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It's our time. We're needed now. For this, we were born. For this, we celebrate the Fourth of July. I'll see you next week.