The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 347: VACCINE EXPERTS UNDER OATH

Episode Date: November 25, 2023

This Thanksgiving, ICAN CEO and Host of ‘The HighWire,’ Del Bigtree, joins ICAN Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., on the stage of Freedom Fest, in Memphis, TN, where they present ‘Vaccine Experts Under Oath: Shocking Revelations in the Fight for Transparency And Truth.’ Everything you thought you knew about vaccines, is wrong. Listen to Del and Aaron take you through court depositions and cross examinations of the world’s leading vaccine experts. Listen to shocking admissions by these experts, in their own words, when they are compelled to tell the truth, under oath. From our teams at ICAN and The HighWire, we give thanks for you, and we Wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving!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 Ican 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. I especially want to wish a happy Thanksgiving to everyone in the United States of America, this celebration of family of coming together of having each other's backs in difficult times. It's one of my favorite holidays. We've decided, you know, Thanksgiving is one of those times where you're really going to be spending time with family, watching football. But would be great to do a high wire that's a little bit more on the entertaining level. And maybe with some information that perhaps you can share with that family member that's just starting to open up their mind a little bit around this conversation of vaccines.

Probably because the COVID vaccine didn't go like they thought. You're starting to think, well, maybe I was not told all the truth. And if they're in that space, then this is the perfect time to sit them down to watch the high wire. What we're going to do today is actually play a talk that Aaron Siri and I did at Freedom Fest. It's all about, if you've been watching us, you know Aaron's out there and he's bringing lawsuits. Well, he's deposed some of the biggest vaccine superstars there are from Stanley Plotkin, who wrote literally the textbook on vaccines. It's called Plotkin on Vaccines. It's the Bible of Vaccinations.

along with Catherine Edwards, who's also an author, one of the authors on that book. She's one of the top people involved in making and distributing and promoting vaccines around the world. What happens when you get them on the stand under oath? That's why I think, you know, when I travel the country and every time I give a talk, I try to think what would be the most unassailable argument I would give to a jury of people about vaccinations and what's wrong with them and how were they tested and how would we know? Have we really proven that they don't cause autism? Well, all of those questions come up and you'd be shocked what you end up hearing the experts have to admit to once they've got their

hand on the Bible and are required to tell the truth. So this is an assembly of videos that we've put together around the issue of vaccines. We can say things. We can show you data. But what happens when you put the top experts in front of a camera under oath. That's what this is all about. It's a lot of fun. Some of it's incredibly outrageous, but I think you're going to enjoy it. So grab your turkey or maybe on the course of pumpkin pie and whipped cream, sit down and enjoy vaccine experts under oaths.

Here you go. Please welcome Dell Bigtree and Aaron Siri. All right. Well, what we thought we do, because, you know, the last year I was here and earlier today, we've talked a lot about the COVID vaccines and the issues that are becoming apparent to everybody. But one of the big questions really is, what about the other vaccines? What about the other vaccines we've been giving our children? We recognize that the COVID vaccine wasn't tested very long. It was kind of raced out and it didn't end up being effective. But that's an anomaly, right? Well, the truth is the reason my nonprofit has done so. well throughout COVID and we saw an explosion in my weekly talk show going from hundreds of thousands of viewers to millions of viewers was because we'd been on this investigation for about

five years prior to COVID. We knew how the whole game was played. We knew what was going on with the vaccine program. So all COVID was was a rehash of how all of these vaccines have been approved. You just finally watched how the sausage was made with your own eyes. So those of you that are maybe asking questions, maybe have really. relatives asking questions or you're hearing about the huge debate happening around is Robert Kennedy Jr. telling the truth or not, we thought we would give you some of the evidence that we've

collected in our work. And so to get this started, really my nonprofit, informed consent action network, I started after I'd been on tour for a year with a documentary about autism and vaccines. And that was one of the most controversial documentaries ever made. We got kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival. But when I wanted to do a deeper investigation, I wanted to know more than just the issues with an MMR vaccine, what about all of the rest of them? One of the issues you have when you're trying to look at vaccines as a journalist and investigate it is you've got this liability protection. In 1986, they took away all liability from manufacturers.

Basically, the pharmaceutical industry, blackmailed Ronald Reagan, said, we are losing so much money from death and injury cases, courtrooms, we cannot make a profit in our vaccine program, so either you protect us from liability or we're going to stop making them. And so you can't sue the manufacturer. It says right here, no person may bring a civil action against the vaccine administrator or manufacturer for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death. Total and complete protection. And I say that to friends and they say, that's amazing. Doesn't that mean right there? They must be admitting that there's injury? Of course they are. There's no such thing as a pharmaceutical product that doesn't injure somebody. There's a reason why you have multiple versions of drugs because if one is giving you

side effects, try another one. Vaccines are no different. They have all the same types of elements. I wanted to get into this. And so we wanted to investigate it. Well, what happens? What happens when you take a product, one of the only ones in America, made by arguably one of the most, you know, corrupted industries when you look at pharma, who's paid out more money for death and injury, billions and billions of dollars by Merck and Sinofia Ventis and Pfizer for having lied about the safety of their products. But they have one group of products that they cannot be sued for. Well, that created a gold rush. And ultimately what happened to this is in 1986, there's about three vaccines given in multiple doses.

So for all of you out there, they're saying, I'm just vaccinating my kids the same way I was vaccinated. No, you're not. You got maybe 10 vaccines by the time you were 18 years old. When we took liability way in 1986, this is what happened to our vaccine program. Suddenly it explodes. 72 vaccines your kids are getting or your grandkids are getting by the time they're 18. And none of these need to be tested for safety. Why? Why would you? Let's be honest. Why would you spend money testing a product for safety if you cannot be sued if it kills or integers anybody? You wouldn't do it. Why would you? Why would you spend money testing a product for safety if you cannot be sued if it kills or integers anybody?

You wouldn't do it. Why waste the money? It ends up being the perfect product. This is a product that we don't have to test for safety, and we don't even have to advertise it because the government's going to force it on every child in America. This is why this product became one of the number one biggest sellers, biggest gold rush money-making parts of the industry we now look at as the giant big pharma. So I went to Aaron Siri and said, look, they have total liability protection. What do we do? And we started discussing. What if we sue the government? Since the government's taking on the liability, they're saying to the manufacturers will handle this, so now you sue the government. Imagine this. When you're injured by a vaccine,

you have to sue health and human services. In fact, the head of health and human services is who is your naming as a defendant? So now the government's going to use Department of Justice lawyers against you, against you, and tell you you're crazy, you're wrong, that injury didn't happen. You have to prove that it happened. That's how the court system works.

And who was supposed to do the safety trials that you need to use in court so that you can prove this injury is caused by the vaccine? Health and human services. The same group you were suing is the one that's supposed to be doing the safety trials. This is literally like a murder case where your murderer is the one doing all of your forensics. And that's how the system has been designed. So I brought in Aaron's story to look at this and say, How do we handle this in law? And so when you start looking at it,

what really sort of jumped out at you, when we think about safety and how products are made? Well, one thing that really jumped out at me is that of all the products on the market, all the products on the market that you can't sue the manufacturer for injuries for effectively. It's not planes, it's not drugs, it's not all kinds of dangerous things

we know are out there. It's a product injected into babies that we say, that the health authorities say, are safe. Of all the products, that's the one product that effectively manufactured immunity for liability. That really struck me. That really struck me. Every other product is able to survive in the market, cars and so forth, they make them better. But for this product in 1986, manufacturers were given immunity liability, presumably they had a real issue in terms of being able to make them safer. And so what's the effect,

you know, in terms of safety to answer your question more directly, Del. As you know, we decided we're going to look at what's the impact on the clinical trials pre-licensure and what's the impact after licensure. So in terms of the clinical trials, I think that this chart might help bring home the impact that taking away a lot of the time. for manufacturers of vaccines has had on how the clinical trials relied upon to license those products were conducted. If you look up on your screen, you're going to see a chart. And in that chart, these are putting COVID vaccine aside, my understanding, this is a

site that explains these are the five top selling drugs, pharmaceutical products that Pfizer has in all time. Look at that list. Four of those are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. Take a good look. Which one looks a little different than the rest? This is like that Sesame Street game, right?

One of these drugs is not like the other. You're right. Except this one can have lethal consequences. And if you look, Enbro, Eloquist, Lyrica, and Lipitor, safety review periods during their clinical trials into the years. PCV-13, Pramodont13, that's the only vaccine on the list. Look at the safety review period. And look at the control.

Was it a placebo control? No. This is a list of the vaccines administered to babies three times each by the time they're six months old. I mean, think about this. And why don't you think about the placebo controlled trial? This is something that's really starting to make in the news. They're saying, we have done these placebo-controlled trials. They haven't.

And why is it important? When you're testing a drug, one group gets this testing drug, the brand-new drug, another group gets what's a placebo, something that has no effect on the human body, but we don't know who got what. It's double-blind. They both get it. In the case of the drugs, six years, seven years, five years, at least two years, we track both groups all the way through and ask obvious questions.

Who had more diabetes or autoimmune issues or cancers or mutants? mutagenetic effects. And obviously at the end of it, you unblind it. The scientists find out who was who because they shouldn't be manipulating it. And then you see, was the safety profile the same? The group that get the saline injection or got the sugar pill have the same amount of health issues as the ones that got the product. So in the vaccines, there are no placebos.

This is the only way to prove causation. When they say to you, well, we've never proved causation of this injury. whether it's multiple sclerosis and vaccines or autism and vaccines. We don't have any evidence. There's no causal relationship because you never did the trial, which would be the only way to prove causation, which is a placebo-based trial. You skipped it.

And this is what they're doing on all these vaccines. And Pfizer wants to know the safety profile of their drugs before it goes on the market. Why? What happens if the drug causes injury? They can be sued. and they're sued all day long on their drug products. Drugs come off the market all the time, but they can't be sued for the vaccine products.

Let's show you some evidence. There's a hepatitis B vaccine given to a baby in the first day of life. First 24 hours, they're getting this vaccine. We're not making this up. If you look at the vaccine, if you asked your doctor, I want to see the insert wrapped around the vaccine, look what it says about the safety trial. This is how we licensed it.

This is what the FDA saw and said, good enough for us put it on the market. In three clinical studies, there was 434 doses of Rukovac's HB that were five micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age. 147 was the size of this massively tested trial for the fate of every day one old baby in America and probably around the world. How long did that trial last? no placebo, they were monitored for five days.

Five days. And to put what you're looking at in context, just to understand, this is the FDA website. This is the package insert for the hepatitis B vaccine. Section 6.1, you can look at every single, don't take our word for this chart on the right. Those safety review periods seem incredible. And in fact, I wouldn't believe them if you showed them to me. But all you have to do... Would you take any drug that had five days, three days, 28 days safety trial?

That would be insane. And by the way, we've brought lawsuits against CDC and FDA on this. We said, if there's a safety trial longer than seven days on the hepatitis B vaccine, we'd like to see it. FOIA request, right? Right. So for all of these clinical trials, in Section 611, they summarize the safety review period, the control used, and how big the trial is, how powered it is. And those numbers seem so unbelievable that we actually FOIA, Freedom of Information Act,

sent requests to the FDA to get copies of clinical trial reports, and that, in fact, for example, for this, hepatitis BVACC, it is five days of safety review after injection with 147 children. And that doesn't determine anything. And the only reason I think the company that sells this product, Merck, is okay with this, why the FDA is we'll get into, is because they don't have to worry about paying for injuries after its license. Let's get to some videos. Okay.

We plan on this going faster. I'm like, wow, that clock's moving quickly. I want to show you what some of these people are saying on the stand. So this is Stanley Plotkin. Yep. Right? So Stanley Plotkin is arguably the leading voice in vaccines in the, world. He's on almost every vaccine company's board of directors in one way another across

the world. And if you go to the CDC and you sit in one of their meetings at the ASIP, the advisory committee on immunization practices, the gavel is called the Plotkin Gavl. And the book written on vaccines that's this big is Plotkin on vaccines. When he was asked... Am I play it? Yeah. Go ahead. Now this is just the world's leading vaccinologist and vaccines when I asked him about, and I confronted him, about the hepatitis B vaccine that we looked at. Under oath. And when they're under oath,

you get a little bit of a different answer than when they're on TV or they're doing commercial. It is my great honor to use the Stanley Plotkin gavel to open this meeting. Our good friend and colleague, Dr. Stann 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. Rebella 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 Hillman 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 impact 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. Dr. Plotkin, earlier you testified that there are two Hep B vaccines in the market,

one by Glaxo, G.S.K, that's Enderix B, and the other one is by Merrick. RECOMBVAX HB, right? Yes. 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? Correct?

Correct? Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. In section 6.1, when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre-licensure for Recombovax HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored? after each dose? Let's see.

Five days. 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 group, correct? It does not mention any control group, no. No.

If you turn to section 6.2, under immune system disorders, disorders, does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, and uticaria 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... It is mentioned. It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus, erythematosis, lupus-like syndrome, vasculitis, and polyteritis, nidoza as well, correct? Yes, that's what it states. And also it states that under the nervous system disorders, it states that after that,

after that have been reports of Guillambore syndrome, correct? Yes. As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bells Palsy, radiculopathy. Thank you very much. muscle weakness, hypopheasia, and encephalitis, correct? Correct.

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, vaccine before 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. And there you have it. That's how every vaccine has made it through the process. Imagine how many of us gave the day one old baby with all of those. side effects that were known, but the reason they get away was saying that there's no causal

relationship as they refused to do the study that would have allowed you to say they were causally related and therefore it gets approved. Five days of safety, that is the massive amount of studies that have been done for products given a day one old babies. And let me point this out. We have more babies die on the first day of life of the United States of America than every other industrialized nation combined. That is a terrible death rate for the greatest hospital system in the greatest nation in the world. And can they explain it? And why does their baby need a hepatitis B vaccine? A sexually transmitted disease that you usually only get if you are involved in multiple partners, prostitution, or sharing heroin needles? Why does our baby on

the first day of life need to get that vaccine? And they might say, well, the mom could be hepatitis B positive. Yeah, but every mother in America is tested and gets a blood test and we know whether she has it or not. So then why is every baby getting it when we know that the only mothers where the baby might even need it? This is how ridiculous this entire system is and it starts there. Let's continue on. Post-licensure, right? We talked pre-licensure. That's like what happens before it's licensed.

What happens after his post, you know, out there in the market? So if, you know, before licensure, you don't have proper clinical trials that review safety for long duration against a control group that you can really compare it against, you'd at least hope that after licensure, that studies are being conducted to assure the safety of childhood vaccines. Well, as we all know, and you've probably heard the CDC and other health agencies say all the time, all claimed harms are thoroughly studied. And you'll hear this always, you know, rest assured, if you say vaccines cause X, they'll tell you it doesn't.

And probably the most famous claim, they'll tell you. tell you that don't worry vaccines do not cause. Right, you know that all the time. And so in looking at this issue, you know, I remember Dell, we discussed, well, if we're going to start to see how well do our health authorities, how well do the pharmaceutical companies really study the claimed harms the vaccines? Let's start by seeing how well they've studied the injury that they have told us, they have studied more thoroughly than anything else. This one we have definitely covered. We've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism.

We have no idea what causes autism, they'll say on the news, totally blind to that concept, but we do know what doesn't cause it. We're not sure as a scientific community what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. We know that vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. I do not deny in any way that we need to do more about autism,

but it has nothing to do with vaccines. Let me be clear, vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccines don't cause autism? Absolutely sure. Absolutely sure. Well, then great. The studies must be prolific. They must have studied every vaccine to assure that, in fact,

vaccines don't cause autism. Here's the thing. Despite the fact that they're on the news and they're constantly telling everybody out there vaccines don't cause autism, studies surveying parents with children with autistic children, to this day, still 40 to 70% according to these studies of these parents say they believe that vaccines, one or more, cause autism. And when you ask them, what vaccine, what vaccine are you attributing to your child's autism? These are the vaccines that they'll typically list, the ones that it just got highlighted in red. This is the CDC vaccine schedule. And you could see it's the hepatitis B vaccine given three times by six months of age. And the DTAP, Hib, IPV, these are the vaccines that they will look at

as well as the MMR vaccine, which is at the very bottom, which is given no earlier than one year of age. So if you're going to study vaccines and you're going to say vaccines don't go as autism, you're going to study the vaccines that parents are claiming and causing autism, right? The vaccine is given in the first six months of life. And just to be clear, this claim that these vaccines are causing autism goes way back. This is, this, what I'm about to show you is a decade

before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism. This is the National Child of Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, the law that Dell referred to earlier, that gave manufactured immunity liability. When it did that, the law itself, Congress required our health authorities to study

the 10 or 11 most commonly claimed injuries from these products. One of them on that list was autism. It said to our health authorities, study whether pertusses containing vaccines does or does not cause autism because it is something that is one of the

most claimed injuries from this product. Again, a decade before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism. In 1991, the Institute of Medicine did that study. They reviewed all the literature to see whether or not vaccines, the pertussis vaccine, caused autism.

The most studied issue there is with vaccines, autism. The Institute of Medicine looks into it. How many studies have been done? What do we know about it? So in 1991, zero. No studies have been done. Okay, early days. No studies.

Zero. That's what they conclude. And then when you think about this, Imagine you're a scientist or a doctor. You care about this issue. Well, one of those was Bernadine Healy, head of the NIH, the most powerful research institute in America and for the entire world. She got in. She's running the place.

She's the top doctor in the United States of America and looks into the autism vaccine connection. She's asked in 2008 in a CBS interview by Cheryl Atkinson what she thinks. Remember, oh, we've figured this out. The science is settled. Top scientist head of NIH, former head of NIH. of any age. This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial

disorder, immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural or to one particular vaccine or to a component of vaccine like mercury. So we now, in these times, have to, I think, take another. look at that hypothesis, not deny it. And I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, that we didn't have 20 years ago, to try and tease that out and find out if indeed there is that susceptible group. Why is this important? A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good. What a susceptible group will tell us is that maybe there is a group of individuals or a group of children that shouldn't have a particular

vaccine or shouldn't have vaccine on the same schedule. It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say, yes, we can make it safer because we are able to say this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in a way that we think is safer. Do you feel the government was too quick to dismiss out of hand that there was this possibility of a link between vaccines and autism? I think the government or certain public health officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick.

I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine. The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they're afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. It sounds like you don't think the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism is completely irrational.

So when I first heard about it, I thought, well, that doesn't make sense to me. The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in animals, If you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered. What? Head of NIH 2008? What? The question hasn't been answered?

What am I hearing on the news every single day? And I want you to remember, if you take one thing away, listen to what she said. We are so afraid that if we do a study that, find a... a small group of children that are susceptible, not the whole group, just a small group that are having a bad reaction to this. We're afraid that no matter how small that group is, that if we discover it, it will scare everybody away from taking vaccines, and therefore we are not doing those studies. That is the fact.

You want a motive? It's not evil. It's not money grubbing. It's that they are so afraid that they will hurt the vaccine program by investigating and finding the truth that they refuse to find the truth and no studies are being done on these issues at all. In 2012 to that point, our health authorities again hired the Institute of Medicine to look again at whether or not protustis-containing vaccine, this time as well as diphtheria and tetanus-containing vaccine, do or do not cause autism. The Institute of Medicine then created this massive panel that

reviewed all the scientific literature out there, and they only can find one study relating to D-TAP, again, the vaccine given it two, four, and six months of life, and autism, this Guyron-Gyrie study, which actually found that there was a correlation between D-TAP vaccines and autism, but they threw out the study because it was based on VERS data. The important point is not that study.

The important point is, here we are in 2012, over two decades after the 1986 Act told our health authorities study whether pertussis containing vaccine does or doesn't cause autism, and there is still not a single study conducted. The biggest complaint parents have across the world of this vaccine, the number one biggest complaint, moaned dangerous complaint, our government is saying study it, In two decades, they've still refused to do a single study, and you're told this has been handled extensively.

So I had an opportunity, again, to ask the world's leading vaccinologist about exactly that finding. I'm going to hand you what's being marked as Exhibit 22. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report, right? Yes. Okay. And this is where the IOM discusses the evidence with regard to where, whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, correct? Correct.

Okay. If you turn to the second page, 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. So the IOM reviewed the available evidence with regard to whether T-DAP or D-TAP can cause autism, and their conclusion was the evidence doesn't exist to show whether D-TAP or T-DAP do or do not cause autism, correct? Yes, but the point is that there are no studies showing that it does cause autism except one study by two well-known anti-vacarcts.

vaccination figures, Geyer and Geyer, who have no legitimacy whatsoever. So what they're saying is that there's no evidence and the important point from my point of view is that there is no positive evidence to do a proper study as we've been discussing, which would disprove it, would involve the controlled administration of vaccines and withholding vaccines from children who should have them. But since there's no evidence that D-TAP or T-DAP don't cause autism, you can't yet say that vaccines do not cause autism, correct? I cannot say that as a scientist or a logician, but I can say as a physician that, no, they do not

cause autism. So what you're saying is, as a physician or logician, then you couldn't say vaccines, you could not say vaccines do not cause autism. But as a pediatrician, you're saying that you would say that to a parent because you want to make sure they get the vaccine. Is that right? You know, I can't be sure that DTAP doesn't cause leprosy. That doesn't mean. that that stops me from using a DTAP vaccine. Are people claiming that DTAP has caused leprosy? Are you aware of any such complaints? I'm not aware of any such complaints,

but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the web one of these days. Okay, but people have made enough complaints about DTAP-TAP causing autism that the Institute of Medicine at the Commission of the Commission mission of HHS thought it was serious enough to do a scientific review, correct? Yes. 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 science 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 it. into account the health of the child. And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that D-TAP-TAP does not cause autism even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim? Absolutely. Okay. I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy. Okay.

Again, did the I-O-M review whether D-TEP cause leprosy? No. Okay. You know, I will say that in my experience deposing vaccinologists, immunologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, particularly vaccinologists, when there isn't any evidence one or another, their conclusion is it doesn't cause it. I've not experienced that in any other area of science. Let's move on before we ran out of time.

So, you know, one of the things we wanted to do was we said, fine, maybe the Institute of Medicine couldn't find it, maybe the head, you know, the leading vaccinologists in the world doesn't have these studies. But the CDC surely should have these studies. the CDC on its website says vaccines don't cause autism. So here we submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC asking them, please provide all studies relied upon by the CDC to claim that DTAB vaccines don't cause autism. We did the same for Hep B vaccine, Previnar, Hib, an activated polio vaccine,

as well as all those vaccines combined. We said, please give us the studies. Guess what? They didn't give it to us. So we had to sue them in federal court. And here is the conclusion of that federal law. The CDC finally listed 20 studies that they rely upon, they say, to claim that vaccines don't cause autism for the vaccines given in the first six months of life.

I can only assume they think we don't read or something, but we do, so we read the 20 studies. Here's the thing about them. Eighteen of them involved the marisol, an ingredient not in any of the vaccines we asked about, or the MMR vaccine not given until at least one year of life. One of them involved antigen, one of the studies, not vaccine exposure, and that study even says it cannot tell you whether vaccines don't cause autism because it didn't study them. Just studied a component of it.

And then finally, the last thing it provided, incredibly, was a review from 2012, the one we looked at before, that looked at MMR, the Marr, the Marr not a vaccine we asked about, demerosal, not an ingredient in the vaccines, and DETAP. That's the DETAP review we just read from 2012. So the only review or study they provided us that actually involved a single one of the vaccines given in the first six months of life was a study by the Institute of Medicine that found we don't have a single study of whether DTAP does or doesn't cause autism. I had an opportunity to depose maybe the second or third leading vaccinologist in the world today, Dr. Catherine Edwards, in a case. specifically about vaccines and autism, actually.

You see there, you can see the medical textbook on vaccines. She's one of the authors on the same Plotkin book. You can see her right there listed as one of the editors. And you can hear when I confronted her about this issue, what she had to say about the state of the science with regards to whether vaccines don't cause autism. Again, the issue they say they have studied more thoroughly and robustly than any other claimed vaccine injury.

According to your profile, I've done most of the period of trials relied upon the license, many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay. So you're highly experienced 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 that Yates 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 disclosers for this 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 Head B vaccine cannot cause autism? That's correct. It's your testimony that I poll 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.

It's your testimony that D-TAP vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. And do you have a study that supports a D-TAP doesn't cause autism? I have. I do not have a study that D-TAP 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? I do not have any evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about Hidtiders vaccine? Any evidence one way or another of whether it causes autism? And what about Previna vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir. And how about various cellal vaccine?

Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that's support whether it does or does? doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as baricella 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, 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. Ultimately, here's what it comes down to. Of all the studies, they've told you, they've done all these studies of the vaccine program. They've only ever looked at one vaccine, truly, that's the MMR vaccine. None of the other 16 vaccines given in the 72 doses. And they've only done studies on one of all of those ingredients.

And that's the mercury that's no longer in most of the vaccines. And you still have 50 to 70% of parents saying, I'm pretty sure it happened right after the vaccine. That's when I lost my kid. And I want to point out, get to the next video and you can set it up, but I want to point this out. They will tell you, well, that's just a knee-jerk reaction of a parent. They need something to blame.

They blame the vaccines because vaccines are something you're giving your kids every day. I will assure you I have interviewed thousands of these parents and these stories. And what they will end up telling you is it was the last thing that they ever wanted to blame. They listened to their doctors. They chased every other red herring they could find for an excuse. They wanted it to be their DNA. Please let it be my DNA so there's nothing I had involved with it. When they finally come to the conclusion that it's a vaccine that they chose to give their child,

that is one of the darkest days for every one of these parents that's ever been through it. Because now I did it. I gave my kids something that I could have opted out of. I could have been against. I could have done some reading on it. and now the guilt is with them the rest of their lives. I assure you, this is not a go-to jump to. I just want to blame vaccines because the day you come to that conclusion,

you're going to be blaming yourself the rest of your life, and no one makes that their first choice. So when you have up to 70% of parents saying it's the vaccine, these are parents in pain that have looked for every other reason there could have possibly been, and they're only left with one obvious conclusion. So a lot of people say, well, how could this happen? How can our regulators allow this to happen?

2000, there's a congressional report that found that most of the members of the CDC and FDA vaccine committees have substantial ties to pharmaceutical industry. 2009, they find it again. And here's the deposition again of Dr. Edwards, who was one of the members of the five-person Data Safety Modern Board for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Isn't it true that you've also been an advisor to Pfizer? Yes, sir. to Pfizer and I've been working very very closely with Pfizer particularly with their

COVID vaccines and going over lots of reactions of adverse events of yes I am working and being paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety. The part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for the climate code vaccine that you meant when you said that they're one of the only five members of that data safety monitoring board over the the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, right? Yes, you're right. And that's supposed to be an independent data safety monitoring board, correct?

It is an independent data safety monitoring board. 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-COVID-19 vaccines on going, correct? That's true. And let me tell you that we have worked very hard to go over this and it's very hard to do that in the E class 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 the Independent Data Safety Modern Board of the FISA and COVID-19 vaccine, you were an advisor to FISA? FISA 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 to be conscientiously and comprehensive. My question was, before you became a member of the independent data safety monitoring

board for the Pfizer-MCOVID-19 vaccine, isn't it true that you were separately, before you held that independent position, you were 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. So you don't think that financial incentives can sway people's judgment at all? It does not sway my judgment, sir.

Why following having an independent data safety monitor 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. The one thing to think about though, it's comical in a way, but it's also, it's deadly serious because Dr. Edwards was the vaccinologist on that five member, independent data city monitor board who sat there evaluating the data while the COVID-19 vaccine,

Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, that's been given to about 200 million Americans as being assessed before it rolled out and we should put into the arms of people across this country. You go and you inject almost every healthy person with something, you only need to mess that up one time, one time to break our society. Well, we'll move on to, I guess we're almost at a time.

Final issue of abortion, which we're going to Mississippi tomorrow because Aaron Siri managed to win the biggest lawsuit in this space and return the religious exemption to Mississippi. They lost that ability to opt out of the program in 1979 and just a couple of months ago, you managed to win that.

Why is it important? It's important for people, especially in the Bible Belt, that maybe don't want aborted babies being used in the processing, development, and manufacturing of vaccines. You're told, well, it was one baby, in the 1960s, Aaron Siri put Stanley Plotkin on the stand. Let's see if it really was one baby. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work?

My own personal work, too. I'm going to hand you what's been Mark Plaintiffs, Exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article? Yes. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct? Yes. You were at the Wynstar Institute, correct? Yes. How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article?

Quite a few. So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct? I don't remember exactly how many. Turn to page 12 of the study? Yeah, 76. 76. And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct? Yes. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct?

Yes. What organs did you harvest from these fetuses? Well, I didn't personally harvest any, but a whole range of tissues were harvested by coworkers. Okay. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces. right? Yes. And they were cultured? Yes.

Okay. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland that were chopped up into pieces to . Okay, included the lung of the fetuses? Yes. Okay. Included the skin? Yes.

Kidney? Yes. Yes. Yes. And tongue? I don't recall, but probably yes. So I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career, and this was just one study, so I'm going to ask you again, in your

entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with? Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines. Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used aborted fetuses for? Oh, I don't remember how many. You're aware, are you aware that the, one of the objections to vaccination by the plaintiff

in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines? Yeah, I'm aware of those objections. The Catholic Church has actually issued the document on that, which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccines, regardless of the fact, and that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do. Okay. Do you know if the mother is Catholic?

I have no idea. Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs? Yes. You have said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God includes death and disease? Yes. You stand by that statement?

I absolutely do. Okay. Are you an atheist? Yes. That's just some of the truths. You can find at the highwire.com and the great work that Aaron's series has been doing, getting the truth exposed. Hopefully this will help you understand as you hear this conversation.

You hear attacks on people like Robert Kennedy Jr. being said that he's lying when he says that the safety trials haven't been done. Now you know the truth. Spread the word. Thank you. Thank you. Well, there's an audience of almost a thousand people there that day. And I just want to take this moment to just express how thankful I am for you as an audience. And how thankful I am to seeing the journey that the high wire has. has been on over this last six, almost seven years of bringing the truth in this very, very complicated issue. But when we look back now, when we look back, when we started this conversation,

no one wanted to talk about it, no politician would go near it, you certainly went and get to any sort of a political convention that would allow the anti-vaxxers onto the stage, that label they like to put on us. But now you have libertarian conferences, we have Republican conferences, I'm looking forward to seeing some Democratic conferences open up to this conversation about health freedom and body sovereignty.

But we now see the concept of medical freedom and untested vaccines and right to choose when it comes to vaccines coming out of the mouth of politicians on our news channels. This is now a conversation that has opened up. You're no longer totally ridiculed any longer. and the headlines are saying exactly that. So many of these news agencies that have been towing this line that vaccines are perfectly safe, perfectly effective.

There's a mountain of evidence showing how safe they are. It's fallen flat. People don't believe it anymore. They're recognizing that they've got to return to critical thinking. So I am so thankful on this Thanksgiving here in America, but also this is an international celebration

of the rebirth of critical thinking, of skepticism, when it comes to science and medicine, especially where billions of dollars are to be made. Anywhere there's billions of dollars being made, I think you might find someone tucking a couple of inconvenient problems under their mattress. Well, we're not going to allow that to happen.

You haven't allowed that to happen. And by sharing the work that we're doing here at the High Wire, you have helped make the world a smarter and better place. We're gonna continue that work. I wanna express how thankful I am for the increasingly I have here at the high wire. Literally, we could not do this. I could not do this show without my incredible team, both here in the studio and the international

team of scientists that contribute to all the evidence and things that we bring. And of course, Aaron Siri and his legal team that, you know, do such a brilliant job. And there's no one better capturing people on the stand than Aaron Siri. And I hope you had as much fun as we did. sort of watching how he really, you know, strings them out and then just drops them off a cliff of their own lives. There's so much work to be done. We all, you know, we should take this moment to look around our tables, at our families, at our children, and ask ourselves, am I going to leave this world with the same opportunities that I came into it with? That's what I ask myself

every day and I am on a mission every day to do everything I can to know that when my time on this earth is over that my children are inheriting freedom and liberty and the ability to pursue their dreams and their happiness the way they see fit not mandated on them by any government or international organization. We have more work to do on that front and we're going to continue to do that work with your help, we are going to make sure that humanity is the beacon of light and hope and not governments. To that, I want to say thank you all for taking your time. I hope it's probably about time for that stuffing sandwich with a side of turkey and gravy. That's where I'm at now. I'm going to enjoy that. Have a happy and beautiful Thanksgiving all

over the world. Let's celebrate our families and dream into the future together. I'll see you next week.