The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 352: THE INFORMED CONSENT IMPERATIVE: AARON SIRI TESTIFIES

Episode Date: January 2, 2024

ICAN Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., gives presentation ‘What is Informed Consent’ before members of the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee in Arizona. He explains the imperative of Informed Consent, and pillars that make it an essential tenet of freedom and liberty.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 on the high wire for the last time in 2023. What an amazing year it's been. We've just done some incredible shows, had amazing guests and some unbelievable lawsuit wins, including bringing back the religious exemption to Mississippi. Truly, I think, a milestone for this movement and the informed consent action network. all the work that we've done. Just really so thankful for all of you that have shared this year with us. You know, last I checked, you know, in our million, $1.1 million match, we are so close. And, you know, usually right about the middle of the show, I'll touch base with it. I'd really love to see us just get all the way there. So if at this moment, if you haven't given, just very quickly just, you know, we have matching funds up to $1.1 million. million dollars. So every dollar you give will be matched right now. Maybe Santa is really good to you last week. And so perhaps you want to share the love. How about trying that? And let's see if we can get all

the way there. Either way, it's all been an awesome ride. Just go to www.Ican decide.org slash match and then choose your number. And remember, this is the last opportunity you can make a tax deductible donation in 2023. Let's be honest, this is the last time in 2023 that you can donate $23 for 2023. Guess what? The price tag is going up next year. 24. All right.

We've got a special show for the holidays here. And we know that when you're out and visiting with your families, you want to have this conversation, but how do you do it? And so we're going to show you Aaron Siri, the lawyer that has been at the forefront of winning these cases for us. He went to Arizona for a panel called the novel coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee and laid out basically the six

questions you should ask when it comes to really any medical decision you're going to make moving forward. What is informed consent? This is a really great step-off place for some family members that maybe over the holidays, you know, you realize that they're kind of starting ask the right questions, why don't you grab them right now and sit them down to this conversation. No one lays it out more clearly with, I think, just real reason and thought than Aaron Siri. He's the best there is. That's why we're going to play this section of his statement that he made in this incredible production in Arizona.

And while you're watching it, I want you to just remember as we think of like this year in review and all the work that we've done together, with the highway and I can just keep reminding yourself this is a state government agency that is bringing these people in to have the conversation that Aaron's about to have here. Man, we have come a long way when we have politicians saying this is what I want my whole state thinking about. So just this is a whole, this whole day is about celebrating the year that we've been through, the great strides that we've made. definitely celebrating the greatest lawyer on the earth. Take a look at this.

I'd like to thank everyone for being here today. I'm excited to continue this very important and informative eye-opening discussion that this committee has been engaging in and to welcome our esteemed panel of guests and my fellow members. So the theme of today's meeting is safeguarding our freedoms. And really the intent of today's meeting is, to truly educate the public on how you can safeguard your freedoms, how you can better inform yourselves, and to utilize the resources that are already available in order to make sound decisions when considering whether or not to get a vaccination. As citizens, we need to know what steps we can take to make sure that we are properly educated when it comes to making personal medical choices, and to know where we can find reliable resources and information that we can use to make our decisions and empower ourselves in a meaningful way.

It is in our hands to protect our medical autonomy. The good news is that we have the tools to do so. We just have to know how best to use them. We all know that information is power, but it's really only power if you're able to act on that information. There seems to be some activity in signaling from the Biden administration and others that we may be headed back in the direction of forced masking, vaccination mandates, school and business closures, and other government overreach, due to fears of another pandemic in the very near future. At our last meeting, we discussed how, as the coronavirus crisis unfolded, the hard science and data

demonstrating the efficacy of proposed vaccines remained woefully lacking. Meanwhile, the speed at which experimental and under-researched vaccine products were approved for use was rapidly progressed. Big Pharma and the federal government ensured that vaccines eclipsed treatment as a primary an almost singular approach to the virus, despite the availability of other successful treatment modalities and despite the continued spread of the virus. Today, we will continue this conversation and go deeper into the issues surrounding vaccine development, vaccine injury, and informed consent.

And that is so that we can all be better equipped with the valuable information and resources available to us moving forward. We are going to start with Mr. Siri. Thank you. Searing Limpsad is the firm that I work in, and we have, as I noted earlier, on 60 professionals, over half of which engage in vaccine-related work. We do vaccine exemptions, injury work, policy work. And as I noted earlier, we don't represent pharmaceutical companies.

Next slide, please. What is informed consent? So informed consent, when you really boil it down, means that you have the right, the ability to consent or not consent. Consent's really the critical word and informed consent. You're provided information by the doctor, the medical professional, yourself, you do your own research, and then you choose whether or not you want to consent. It's an idea that, in fact, really was born out of some of the most horrible atrocities,

some of the most horrible atrocities in human history. The world came together and in the Nuremberg Code, in the first provision provided that when there's an experimental treatment, the informed consent of the subject is absolutely necessary. You must say yes, I'm okay with that injection, pill, surgery. And so really at the end of the day, you know, how do you get consent? it's really somebody's got to persuade you. I can't really sit here today and teach you how to become, get informed consent per se, right? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not about me telling you, all right, here's all the information you need and now you should consent.

The whole idea is you make up your own mind. So what I'm going to do today is I'm going to walk through. Next slide, please. six questions that if I were deciding whether or not a medical product, and today we're talking about vaccines, whether or not to consent to a vaccine, I would ask. And so, of course, I think that, you know, those are the type of questions, those same six questions are ones I would encourage everybody out there to ask as well. The answers you find may vary. I will provide some resources during this presentation on where you can find answers to those six questions. But at the end of the day,

it should be your choice. What I'm telling you, the resources I provide, the information I'm giving, is just information. It's the informed part. It's helping to get informed. At the end of the day, you have to choose whether or not you want to consent. Next slide, please. Okay. So let's go through those first six questions. First one is, and I think this is a critical question, you should always ask for all products, not just vaccines. Does the manufacturer stand behind the product?

Right? You go into a store. What do you often ask? Is there a warranty? Is there a guarantee? What happens if it breaks? You can fix it? it, I'm going to buy this car. What happens if it just, you know, it's a lemon? What protections do I have?

You check that out about cars. You check that out about you want to hire a contractor. You want to know, you're going to build all this for me and, you know, what warrant you am I getting on my new house? Right? Important question to ask. Well, let's look at that question when it comes to vaccines. Next slide, please. The reality, again, my conclusion, maybe you'll reach a different one, is that the manufacturers of vaccines, most of them do not stand behind their products. How do I know that? Next slide, please.

Well, that's because leading up to 1986, there were only three routine childhood vaccines. That's it, MMR, DTP, and OPV. And the amount of harm they were causing were so great, and there were so much financial harm to the companies from those physical harms to children that all the manufacturers making those products either went out of business or stopped making them to the point where there was one manufacturer

left in the United States for each of those three products. There's only three in the early 1980s. By the way, I just want to say there were only three routine vaccines in the old 1980s. There's currently 17 vaccines on the childhood schedule. Nobody got all those other shots. Luckily, some of us survived. That said, those three vaccine manufacturers convinced Congress effectively to give them immunity to the injuries caused by their vaccine products. Instead of them having to make a

better, safer product, Congress passed the National Child of Vaccine Adract in 1986, which permitted them to continue selling their product irrespective of the level of harm that they cause. The problem is not only did Congress give them immunity for the injuries that those three products were causing, pharmaceutical companies are very smart, they have a lot of really good lawyers and they have very good lobbyists and they actually got the bill to not the law to not only save for those three, but for any future childhood vaccines that are licensed. They also are protected from effectively being sued for injuries caused by those vaccines. Mr. Siri, I have a question. Please. Does that mean that for any future produced vaccines, it wasn't just for what was on the

childhood schedule at the time? That's right. It wasn't just for the three-wurts. vaccines then it was for any childhood vaccines at any point thereafter as long as they were added to the routine childhood schedule promulgate by the CDC and congress passed an excise tax on it next slide please i should also just say the other way there's there's no other consumer product that i'm aware of that has that kind of immunity planes chainsaws knives every product you see in this room. It harms you. You can see the manufacturer. That conforms their conduct. Their conduct. That's critically important. But childhood vaccines, no. Next slide, please. There's also for emergency youth vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccine, they also have immunity, but under a separate law called

the PrEP Act. I put that out there as well. Next slide, please. I'm not going to iterate why giving immunity to a manufacturer, disincentivize the safety. I went through that the last time I was here for about two hours. And so there's a link to my presentation. If you don't get enough of me today, you can watch another two hours of it on that link. And I go through the problem, the serious, serious consequences of not making pharmaceutical companies liable, responsible for the injuries caused by their vaccine products. It changes the way they conduct clinical trials. It changes the way they act after it's on the market. Next slide, please. So do the first question in terms of getting informed consent, if you're trying to get informed, should I inject this product in myself

for my child is a question you could ask is, does the manufacturer stand behind their product? Well, I could tell you that for most childhood vaccines and for the COVID vaccine, because that's emergency use authorized. In my opinion, well, they don't, but in my opinion, that's problematic. Maybe others think otherwise. If you want to find out which vaccines are covered by the immunity given by the 1986 Act, you could use that first linked up on your screen right now. If you want to know which vaccines are given immunity because of the PEP Act, you can use the second link. And if you would like to ask a pharmaceutical company to waive that immunity and stand behind their product, there's a form letter there in the third link. You can download

that letter. It's real simple. It's got about two sentences. It says, hey, manufacturer, considering giving this vaccine to myself or my child, will you agree to waive the immunity given to you by the 1986 in the Prep Act and stand behind your product if my child is seriously injured or dies, please sign below and return the letter. If you get it back, then, yeah, then I would say they're standing behind their product. If you don't, I would say they're not. Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the product. Again, it's your choice. All right, that's the whole idea of informed consent. You decide. Some might decide, next slide, please. And I've heard this many from many folks that the fact that you can't sue the manufacturer at the end of the road for

them, they're happy to participate with those products as soon as Congress lifts the immunity given to manufacturers. But it's all they do. They don't want to participate. Okay. Now, for some, like I said, that's all they need to get informed enough to decide they don't want to consent. For others, no. Let's go to the second question. Second question, and this is basic. Some folks might have guessed this was the second question, which is, did its clinical trial prove it was safe? Right? Seems like a basic second question to ask, fine. You can't sue the manufacturer for injury.

Okay. Maybe there's a reason for that. They don't have to stand by on their product. But maybe it was proven safe during the clinical trial, so we don't need to worry, right? Well, that's a good question to ask. Next slide. Okay. Before we look at some of the clinical trial.

trials and where you can find the clinical trial information for all the vaccines out there. Let's just talk for just a second of why clinical trials are so important. The reason a placebo-controlled clinical trial, product licensure, is so important is that you need that kind of trial to determine causation between an alleged harm and the product. and after the product is licensed, they say the medical community, those who have to approve a study called IRB boards, they will say it is unethical to conduct a placebo-controlled trial depriving a child or anybody of that product once it's licensed.

So you can't do a placebo-controlled trial after the product's licensed. You can only do it before it's licensed, so you better make sure it's a pretty good trial. Because if you want to know whether that product causes harm and what harm it causes, the only real way you're going to find out isn't a placebo control trial. All the other stuff that happens afterwards is called, there are typically retrospective epidemiological studies. Those are studies that, as Dr. McCullough will tell you,

typically can never prove causation. They can just show correlation. They can show potential issues. They can rise to real concern, to be sure. But they typically will not be used by health authorities to reach the conclusion of causation. So you can have an injury after licensure that's widely reported. But if it wasn't detected in the clinical trial, they'll say correlation. You have improved causation.

Next slide, please. Okay. I'm going to just, I'm not going to show a lot of videos today. I did last. I'm going to show this one on this presentation. And this is me deposing the world's leading vaccine analysis. And I think it in this three-minute clip really brings home the importance of a clinical trial. So please hit play.

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. This is the product, the manufacturer insert for 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 KamaVax-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? neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after five days? No. Okay. There is no control group, correct? It does not mention any control group, no. If you turn to Section 6.2, under immune system disorders, does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions,

bronchospasms, and Uticariah, having been reimb, having been reoceractivity, having been reported within the first few hours after vaccination? Yes. There have been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome? Yes, that's what it states. Does it reports of arthritis? It is mentioned. It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus,

arrhythmatosis, 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 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 Bells Palsy, radiculopathy. 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 vaccine and the vaccine. the condition, you need a randomized placebo-controlled study. But that was not done for this hepatitis B 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 different. And that's the importance of conducting a proper placebo control clinical trial before licensure. Because all of those serious issues that are reported post licensure, you can never really determine whether it's caused you related. And you'll always be told anecdotal correlation, not causation.

Okay, next slide. So, all right, so here you are. You're trying to get informed consent. You're trying to decide. You've decided I don't care about the immunity of liability. I'm okay with that. I want to assess the clinical trial. How do we do that?

Well, there are three features of every clinical trial that you should look at. These determine how robust, how reliable the clinical trial is. The first one is, and this is intuitive, how long was the safety reviewed in the clinical trial? Was it days, weeks, months, years? You're going to inject a newborn baby. I mean, asthma is not diagnosed until years later. Developmental issues, learning disabilities. I mean, it takes years for a lot of the issues that might, maybe they cause.

I'm not saying they do. Maybe they cause to be assessed. So, you know, you probably want to track a child for a few years to see the safety outcomes, right? So safety period of review. That's factor one. Two, was there a proper control? If I give one person, you know, a harmful substance and another person, a potentially harmful substance, and I compare the health outcomes, it's not much of a comparison.

Maybe they're equally as harmful, but they would be deemed equal. is safe, the outcomes are the same. The idea of clinical trials, you don't know biologically what that product is going to do. So what are you doing? You're comparing it to a group that gets it, the exposed group, to a group that gets an inert substance, typically a placebo. And you're just looking at total health outcomes. Statistical comparison, right? Not including bias, introducing bias by letting, you know, some, you know, the pharmaceutical company decide, did it cause it, did not cause it? Oh, you just do a raw statistical comparison. So you need a group that got it and a group they have a placebo control.

You don't have a placebo control group. What are you comparing it to? What are you going to pair it to? The background rate? Good luck. Well, what is the exact backer rate for, you know, Gianborrae syndrome in a two-year-old, you know, it's really difficult. It leaves it then to the clinical judgment. The pharmaceutical company is doing the clinical trial.

So you really need a proper control group so you can do a statistical comparison. Finally, you need enough people. so what epidemiologists would call it, needs to be properly powered. If you don't have enough folks in the trial, you can't detect signals. You can't find the harm. So those are the three things you want to look for, okay? We're all going to be armchair epidemiologists for a second, statisticians. We want to see how long was the safety reviewed, what was the control, and was there enough people?

Okay, let's move on to the next slide. Mr. Siri, can I ask you a question? So the pharmaceutical company is the one that's going to conduct the manufacturer of the vaccine is the one that is going to conduct the study? Yes. What oversight is there over that? So in conducting a clinical trial, the pharmaceutical company is one that pays and conducts the clinical trial.

They hire investigators at various hospitals often, or now they're using more and more these professional clinical trial companies that just conduct clinical trials, more or less, and they're paid by the pharmaceutical companies. there is something that's supposed to be, it's called a data safety monitor board, an independent data safety monitoring board. It's supposed to be set up to monitor, for example, the ongoing clinical trial. I could tell you, for example, for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, I could show you a video later, actually, on this. So the, the vaccinologist, Dr. Catherine Edwards, like, Veeley on that five-person independent data safety monitoring board for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine,

directly prior to being on the independent data seat mining board was a consultant for Pfizer, paid by Pfizer, right before. So, you know, that, you know, but I'm sure that didn't bias for judgment. I'm sure that was not a concern. So there's that. And then there is, if something does come up during the trial, there are instances where they do need to report to the FDA and, you know, advise the FDA of certain things. You know, the FDA can and whatnot. But the FDA works pretty closely. You know, more than half the budget of the FDA does come from pharmaceutical companies directly.

Every time they want to license, conduct clinical trial license a product, they pay fees to the FDA. So really, FDA is, you know, and there's a revolving door between the FDA and pharma. I'm not saying that that also influences their judgment in any way. I'm just saying that maybe it does. So the congressional members maybe would be looking at how the board. board is appointed how the board is regulated the rulemaking process of the board, much like what we do at the state level. So that is something that would be or may need to be reformed with rulemaking on. Well, the data safety monitoring board you made. Even if it looks like impropriety,

that's that's not good for confidence. Certainly not. Certainly not. And that's why the consent part of so important. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So in looking at these three factors, let's let's let's take a look and we'll look at two examples and then I'll show you where you can find this information. So here's the CDC's childhood vaccine injury, excuse me, childhood apologies, the childhood routine vaccine schedule. And let's take a look at the first vaccine listed on their hepatitis B given in the first day of life and then a two and six months. And we'll look at the last vaccine listed, the Dengue vaccine. Next slide, please.

So for the hepatitis B vaccine given to babies, the clinical trial relied upon to license it. And the link to the FDA package insert is right there. You can look at this yourself. It was five days of safety monitoring. There was no control listed, and there was 147 participants. So, you know, if you're a parent and you want to decide whether you want to inject this vaccine into your child, you may decide, maybe, that five days of safety monitoring, no control, and 147 participants is not a robust enough clinical trial to rely upon to license that product into your newborn baby.

You might conclude that. If you have any uncertainty about those stats, because they do seem incredible, and frankly, if I try to think of something most nefarious say about vaccines, I don't think I'd even say that because it sounds so ridiculous that they'd license a vaccine for babies of five-day safety monitoring. But those are the links to the FDA sources. You could show it. We've even on behalf of our client, the Infocusing Action Network, we FOIAed for the clinical trial reports that were submitted to the FDA. And I can confirm it is five days.

In contrast, the Dengue vaccine, licensed by Sanofi, the safety duration was five years. It had a placebo control group and it had over 30, 2,000 participants. One might conclude that that is sufficient. I'm not saying you need to, but you might, that that's a better clinical trial and more reliable. Interestingly, can somebody kindly click on the link right below the 32,000 plus? When they did conduct a more robust clinical trial, let's take a look at what they found.

So in conducting this clinical trial, they included also children far younger than six years old, right? They wanted to vaccinate everybody with this. Look at what they found. In person's younger than six years of age, regardless of previous infection by dengue virus, an increased risk of severe and hospitalized denge disease can occur following vaccination with dengevacs and subsequent infection with any denge virus serotype. And person is not previously infected with dangle disease. virus and increase free of it dengue disease can occur following vaccination with the product

and subsequent infection with any dengue virus serotype. So this product, what they found was that those under six years old in the clinic they found eventually when they really looked at this product, they didn't license it for under six years old. Why? Because it was killing and hurting more children than it saved. Had that clinical trial been five days? With 147 kids in no control, would they have found that?

No, they would enough. And that product, and after its license, how are they going to figure that out exactly? Without really robust data. It would be difficult. If we could click it back to the slides, please. And by the way, for those over six years old, they also found that those that never had Dengay shouldn't get the shot either, because they also are increased risk with serious harm.

So it's only licensed for those over six who've previously had denge infection. So they quantified it based on clinical trials, based on the data. A large data set. Large data set. Right, which you, you know, and clinical trial type data, which really doesn't exist for most of these products, amazingly. You'd think this would exist for all of them. Pretty much all the, and you don't really take my word for next slide, please. And here it is. You can just go to this link. So if you want to see, to answer your question, the duration, control, and size of the clinical trial, you could just click on that first link right there. If we could click on it for a second, why not? And what you'll find is it's a great resource. It's all linked back to the FDA documentation. So you can, this lists every single product on the CDC Childhood Schedule, which includes a lot of adult vaccines.

to because they're given to adults too. And it provides the control that was used. It provides the safety duration. And it provides the link to the FDA documentation that supports exactly what's written there. So you can go and with your eyes see the primary sources and make your own decision. You will find that for all of the vaccines on the childhood schedule, there really are only, essentially the only vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo control was the COVID-19 vaccine. and also the dange vaccine.

For all the other ones, there was no placebo control group. The safety duration is mostly days or weeks, and often they're underpowered. Next slide, please. Who decides that that's appropriate, Mr. Siri? The FDA. So the FDA chooses to license it. But again, the FDA licensing, it should never mean you have to take it just because the FDA decided the COVID-19 vaccine was safe and effective. the whole idea of informed consent.

The topic of this discussion is, you should get to decide whether you consent. And so looking at that clinical trial data, you might say, okay, I'm okay the fact that Merck won't stand behind its Hep B vaccine and pay for death or serious injury. And you know what? Maybe even the clinical trial wasn't good enough

to really assess safety prior to licensure. But maybe after licensure, they figured out it was safe, right? And so I'm going to rely on that. I'm still not done with making my consent decision. I still want to be more informed. Well, I'll give you, you know, looking at the post-licensure literature, there's, I'm going to give some suggestions on where to look, but obviously everybody should do their own research and they should look any place they think they might be able to find data that supports, whether or not

the product was shown to be safe after licensure. I can't say this much from my own, our own experience at our firm. You know, as I mentioned earlier, we represent people injured by vaccines. And so, you know, I don't have a Ph.D. I don't have an MD or DO or any other credentials. I don't have the like 17 credentials Dr. McCuller here has. In fact, we, when we had listed his name, we ran out of space to the right. I'm just a lawyer. So when I go to court about a vaccine injury, I don't get to just draw on credentials. I got to prove causation in virtually every case we bring on vaccine injury. So even in the and you might say, well, who you sue? You can't see the manufacturer. We actually sue the federal government. When the Congress gave immunity to the pharmaceutical companies,

they recognized it left the void. And so what they did is a set up something called the vaccine injury compensation program. It's part of the federal court of claims. And you sue the secretary, the Department of Health and Human Services. That is the Department of the federal government in which the CDC, FDA, NIH is located. They are literally statutorily required to fight any person who claims a vaccine injured them.

And we fight against a little law firm called the Department of Justice. You might have heard of them. They got just a few lawyers and a few dollars, mostly ours. Just saying it's not ours. Yes, our money. It's the only product I know of actually

where the government defends the company against the consumer versus the consumer about company. It's the only product I'm aware of. And so if you're injured by a vaccine, you can't bring a claim, you've got to bring in the federal court of claims. You don't get an article through judge, third article of the Constitution, get a special master. There's no discovery as of right. I can't depose people.

I can't get documents. So when we go in there, I got to walk into court, basically, with the proof that I need to support X injury, X vaccine. And so we spent a lot of time looking at clinical trials, which is why we're so familiar with them, including the work we do on behalf of I can. and they're pretty much useless for virtually all vaccines because they fail one of the three prongs. Either they're not, they don't safety long enough, they're not control, they're not properly power. So then we look at the post-licensing literature, and I can tell you that's vacuous. There's very, very little. Nobody's doing it.

Government's not doing it. Farmers not doing it. Yes, I'm sorry. So the studies that are conducted cannot actually be used to prove. Yeah, so the clinical trials. So let's say, for example, a mother calls me up and says, hey, you know, my child has this neurological issue that arose, you know, three weeks after hepatitis B vaccine. The clinical trial is useless to making a determination of whether or not that vaccine can cause that issue. It only had monitored safety for five days, not weeks.

And even if it did, what are you comparing against? There was no control. And even if it had a control and even if it had a control and even if it had a monitor safety for a few days, if it only had 147, kids that's not properly powered to detect the signal to have a statistically significant comparison between the control and and the and the group so when we walk in you know the DOJ is going to hire which they do the world's leading experts because they have all our money so they'll roll in with you know the epidemiologists statisticians the experts in that field of neurology that were claiming an injury and if i'm not walking in with a really good robust study they'll just take it out on

on that basis and they should they're right the government's experts are right that that clinical trial cannot be used to establish whether that vaccine caused an injury because it's not useful to answer that question so then you got to look at the postmarking literature and there's not a lot of it there's actually very little of it and i'll show you that right now not by and you don't have to take my word for it from our experience as attorneys but actually next slide please there was actually a review conducted in 2012 commissioned by the CDC and HRSA, which is another government agency that's within the HHS that oversees the vaccine compensation program. And what this study did, next slide, please, is they looked at the 100, the CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to look at the 158,

what they say will 158 most commonly claim serious injuries from vaccines. Okay. The Institute of Medicine is a creation of Congress. It was created by statute. It's not technically part of the government. It's actually independent of government, but it is created by statute. And so they convened a panel of 30-something experts around the country to review all the existing scientific literature, clinical trials, post-licensure trials, to assess whether or not those 158 commonly claimed

serious syndrome vaccines are either caused by vaccines, not caused by vaccines, or they don't know because the science hasn't been done. So here's what they concluded. And there's the link to the study. I encourage everybody to look at it themselves. For 18 of them, the evidence supported a causal relationship, including, you know, a brain swelling brain damage and so forth. For five of them, the evidence rejects causal relationship. But the most disturbing finding, probably, is that for 135 of those conditions, of the most

commonly claimed injuries from vaccines, as they said, there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. They just don't know. They don't know. Nobody's done the studies. So how do you, as a nurse, informed consent is weighing the risks and the benefits to know whether you're moving forward? How do you make that decision if you can't compare the risk reward here? And that's a decision for everybody to make on their own, whether they believe they have sufficient information to determine the risks. That's right. I mean, if they don't think they can, it's true. How do you determine, even if you know the benefits clearly, crystal clear what the benefits are?

If you don't know the risks, how do you make that decision? That's why the consent part is so important. That's why it's so important. It should never be taken away. You know, we can click on that link for a second. Let's just take a quick look at it. So, we'll stop right there. So here's actually, this is a summary chart of those 158 conditions.

You can go to this yourself, and you can actually see on the left side, the, you know, all the adverse events that they looked at. If you could keep scrolling down this list. If you go down this yourself, you will see these are very serious conditions, most of them. I mean, these are devastating, many of them, harms. You can keep going all the way down to the end of the chart, okay? You'll notice a lot of eyes. Keep going.

CS as it means causality was just keep going down right there, right there. And you zoom into the eye. It says CS, it says it convincingly supports a causal relationship. So when you see a CS, that means the data out there showed convincingly supports a causal relationship. F.A. means it favors a causal relationship. F.R. means it favors rejecting a causal relationship. And I means inadequate to accept, reject causal relationship. Okay.

So scroll back up, please. You can just visually see all the eyes on this chart on each of these. issues, and these aren't just issues that are somebody pulled out of a hat. These aren't even issues that, you know, these are issues that the CDC and HHS itself said are the most commonly claimed injuries from vaccines, and you could see the state of the science in that. Let me go back to the slides, please. So, you know, I bring you this study because you could go to PubMed, and you could just try to do this yourself. You know, you go to PubMed, and you go to PubMed, you could just try to read all the studies on vaccine safety up until 2012.

Or you can go to this one report, and at least for these 158 conditions, and a study commissioned by the CDC done by the Institute of Medicine, which is, you know, in a panel that is, let's just say, a lot of which is, you know, aligned with the CDC and, you know, wants to get jobs again, doing this work again. this is what they were, I guess, in many ways, forced to conclude. Next slide, please. So that's one way to approach the post-licensure safety.

Here's another way to approach it. You can review the studies that were conducted for the harm that health authorities claimed to have studied more than any other. Okay? So there is a harm out there that health authorities have claimed they've studied more than any other harm there is. And if they haven't really studied that harm, then that might give you an indication.

of how well they've studied all the other harms. There's a link down there to a presentation I gave in South Carolina. Again, if you haven't had enough for me today, you can watch that. And I go through that for about 40 minutes. I go through that harm and I talk about the science that exists. Third approach. Next slide, please.

So the third way to maybe approach the post licensure and getting informed consent is this. In the package insert, for every medical product, both drugs and vaccines, you know, when you pull it out, Section 6.1,

and we looked at it a little earlier on HEPB, that's the clinical trial safety data. Section 6.2 is the harms that are reported after licensure. And most people think that those harms and a lot of folks will tell you,

well, pharma companies just throw everything on that list. They just throw it all on there to protect themselves. Well, first of all, they don't need to protect themselves for vaccines. But second of all, that's not what the federal law says. Federal law says that the package's interest for vaccine should include, quote,

only those adverse events for which there are some basically, there is a causal, not correlation, causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse events. And you have the code of federal regulations provision right there. So when you see that list of average, adverse events in section 6.2 of the, whether any drug, by the way, not just vaccines, any drug that lists all those injuries that could be caused by the product. They're not there because the pharma company just decided to wake up one day and have fun with their package insert.

It's there because federal law says when they believe they have a basis to believe it's causally related, they need to include it. And you could see right there, actually, that's section 6.2 on your screen right below there for the Moderna vaccine. And I think this gives you a good indication of how pharma companies approach this. What's Moderna listing? They list three things. They list myracoditis, paracoditis.

They list anaphylaxis and then they list syncope, fainting. That's it. Those are the three things, the three harms, that they are willing to put in their package insert because it's risen to the level, finally to them, that the vaccine, that it can have a causal relationship. There are so many other injuries that can be caused by COVID vaccine in our estimation from the theirs data, from the V-safe data, from the calls to our firm, but this is what they're willing to do. Can you click next one time, please? Just to show you, remember that hepatitis B vaccine that we talked about earlier on five days of safety monitoring?

Next one more time, please. That is what section 6.2 looks like for that shot given to a one day old baby that has five days of safety monitoring, no control. as far as you can tell package insurance. So we're comparing the package insured between the Moderna COVID-19 original is the moderna COVID-19 vaccine and the hepatitis B vaccine right now that's that we look the same hepatitis B vaccine that we looked at earlier. So one could say that the reason why one has more has it definitely in more detail would be because there's been more relationship proven, causal,

I don't know if it's more. I have no reason to think that the pharmaceutical companies use a different standard for the Hep B vaccine, Section 6.2, and the Moderna vaccine. I don't see why they would. I was using it to show that, look, in the Moderna one, look at all of the data, look at what we know about the COVID-19 vaccine, and you're going to hear a lot more about the medical side from the two great doctors that are here today. And nonetheless, those are the only three conditions they would list. I'm saying, I believe, the same standards applied when they decide to list these injuries for this Heppe vaccine given to babies. Do they list the benefits in the package insert?

The indicated use would say that it's intended to prevent the disease. Yes. Okay. Yes. And we'll go through benefits because that's something obviously when you're doing for a percent you consider the benefits too. Right, because we know that many, many children have died from childhood illnesses. adults have died from any illnesses, and that's the whole point of vaccines, right? So to, I mean, sitting here and listening to what you're saying, I want to know if we can compare

how many children have been affected that, you know, I've, yes, no, it's a great question. This isn't about being anti-vax or pro-vax, right? This is about what are the benefits? How many children has it saved versus how many children have had an adverse reaction and how severe? and is it worth it for a parent deciding what they're going to do? And the same token with the COVID-19 vaccine, because we knew that it had a 99.7x% survival rates. So I may have it. I may have an answer to your question with my next slide.

Okay. I might. Maybe. Maybe. Okay. I should say that they're just, they are products at the end of the day, right? So, you know, I know there's a lot of emotion around the products, but they are products. and you know and and approaching them with data is however one comes out is is I think the right

way to proceed irrespective of what label one ends up having you know attributed to them by making their own informed decision right what you're teaching us right now and how to do this is it is in order to so that we can look at what the COVID vaccine how it progressed through the process yes versus how the normal process happens but you have to understand the normal process and there are some things that most people don't know i didn't know about the 1986 act i don't know how many other people did but i didn't until i went to nursing school i guess i would put it this way if i may i would say this one might choose to be informed purely by what their doctor tells them in that room and they're free to do that because this is america that's freedom

and if that's sufficient for you to be informed and you want to consent on that basis should be able to do that. What I'm doing here is just providing for those who want to take a bit of a deeper dive and look at some of the sources themselves, some of the things that they can look at to then make their own decision if they want to do that. Obviously, they're, you know, free to approach it and however they want. But yeah, and all of this is intended to give a framework for not only for approaching COVID vaccines and, you know, easier for me to use other vaccines to, to, to, to, to give those examples, gives a wider array of examples to use. Yes. Perfect. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Next slide, please. So, you know, a fourth way to, you know, one of the things that I often hear, and is, you know, as the senator pointed out, well, vaccines are there to, you know, help make children healthier, make children of society healthier. And, you know, one of the is that in 1986, there were 11 doses given. And in 2017, there were 53 doses. In 1986, according to the CDC and government data, 12.8% of children had a chronic health issue. By 2011, about 54% of children in America,

have a chronic health issue. I am not saying vaccines cause those, okay? Be clear, not saying vaccines cause those. I am saying this, though. many of those increase most of those issues that have increased are immune, immune mediated neurological issues, neurological issues, you know, asthma, some of them serious, some of them more serious and less serious. But, you know, something is definitely going wrong. Genes don't change that fast over a few decades. There's an environmental factor that's impacting the health of our children in America over the last 30 years that has caused in this precipitous rise in chronic health issues. issues, and the CDC to date says they don't know the reason for the most part.

Though I would suggest that if you want to study what might be causing a rise in immune, immune-mediated issues, chronic health issues, and children, you might want to start the product given 70 times to them to modify their immune system. Again, I'm not saying vaccines cause those issues. I'm just saying it should be properly studied. The few studies that have been done have been small retrospective epidemiological studies, they all do find a correlation between those studies, find a correlation. You can look at the Mawson study and others between vaccines and many of these chronic health issues,

but they're not big studies. They're not, you know, there haven't been many large, robust studies. And in any event, I was just pointing out that, you know, another, a reasonable way, I think, a parent could look at the issue when they're told, well, but child of health has increased. that's not actually statistically valid. Again, not to say vaccines or cause it, but to say that's not a valid way to say that vaccines have improved, you know, made children healthier

because there's a lot more chronic health issues prevalent in society today. So that's a two-way street. You can't claim one without claiming the other. Without sufficient data, I don't reach a conclusion. Right. One way or another. Absolutely. Don't reach a conclusion.

Okay. But you can't exactly. But you also can't. You can't say vaccines have made, have reduced chronic health issues in children because statistically that hasn't happened. Right. That you can say. Next slide, please. Okay.

So those are kind of four general approaches and how to try to get a handle on the post-licensure data that's out there that they say is so robust. But when you take just a little look under the hood, incident medicine. Now, you might say to yourself, okay, well, look. Immunity, fine. Clinical trial, okay, not so good. Post-license literature, fine, not really done. But, you know, the benefits are so great. They're so amazing from these vaccine products. I'm going to take them, even if I'm not sure about the risk. Well, obviously, making even that decision requires you to understand what are the benefits. So here, a few quick questions you can ask yourself.

Well, first one you should always ask is, you know, before you take any medicine, is do I need it? Am I at risk? So, for example, you know, a two-month-old baby that doesn't have, you know, has no risk factors pretty much for hepatitis B. Hepatitis B typically is blood-borne. It's transmitted, you know, typically by promiscuous sexual conduct or a sharing, you know, heavy sharing of dirty needles, drug use. And so most two-month-old babies are not at risk for that. A newborn baby's born to hepatitis B positive mothers could be, at risk, but they do check for surface antigens on all pregnant women. So essentially, if you're a pregnant woman and you're negative, your newborn baby risk, that'd be virtually zero. So you might conclude, maybe I should wait on that one, for example. Next slide. You also want to check to make

sure that probably whether or not the product's licensed for your use you're using it for or your age. right so for example um the second shot on the on this list we just talked about head be rotavirus vaccine is only licensed during the first year of life so babies two years old you don't need it or the detab vaccine is only licensed up till six years of age right so forth you might conclude that you know and so they don't give it they don't give detab vaccine after six because the full dose of it can you know increase the risk of can increase the risk of seizures for example adults to pull those apparently is fine and babies. Next slide. So, but let's just go to the one that people always talk about, the M.R vaccine, everybody's died of measles. I mean, the thing you always hear

is, you know, measles going to kill everybody. And, you know, I think that one thing that's critical to do, and this is something everybody can do, is you should really take a look at the mortality data for each of these diseases before there was a vaccine, before there was anybody had an interest one way or another, the raw data. And I think that when you look at that data, it tells a very different story than the fear mongering approach you often here. It, you know, it is, it can be emotional when a child is injured or harmed by a disease. It can be emotional when a child is injured or dies from a vaccine. But none of those anecdotal bases are a great way to make a decision.

A little bit more of a dispassioned look at the data is a better way. And when you look at the MMR vaccine, measles, bumps, rebello, when they talk about everybody's going to die. These are the numbers of deaths. In 1963, and this is averaging the last three years, about 400 people in America died from measles. That's the death rate of 1 in 500,000 Americans before there was any vaccine. 963 was the first licensed measles vaccine. First licensed bump vaccine was in 1967. In the three years prior, there was an average of 3,000.

35 deaths a year in America. And for the Rebella vaccine, there were an average of 15 deaths per year. So basically, one in 450,000 Americans died for one of these three diseases. Every death is a tragedy, to be sure. But we have to use rational, logical ways to view this. And remember, measles can't cause harm in children are malnourished and children living in bad conditions and lots of pockets of America back in the early 60s. We're still like that. Can you click on the next slide? Let's take a deeper dive into measles. By the way, go back once

to slide. That link at the bottom is to the CDC mortality chart. You can click that and you can look at this data yourself with your own eyes. You don't need to trust this little fancy red chart on the screen. You can look at the actual data. Next slide. Okay, here's a, and again, You know, here's a CDC chart created, by the way, before measles vaccine exists in 1960. I doubt they'd create this today. And this shows you the mortality from measles. Again, measles vaccine came out in 1963. You could see the precipitous decline in measles, the mortality from measles from 1900 to 1963.

It actually declined by over 98%. You know it didn't cause that decline? Anybody got to guess? Yeah, vaccines. Why? Why? Why? Because there was none, right. Exactly. There was none. So it couldn't contribute to it. It declined for other reasons. I could speculate what those were. I mean, a lot of people have written about it. But whatever those reasons were, they were certainly continuing this country. Well past 1963. Next slide, please. This is actually a study. We talked earlier about clinical trials. And one of the things that makes them more reliable is that they're false affected. You start the study, and then you're looking going forward.

You're not looking at existing data. When you look at backwards, it's existing data, it's always easy to have confounders and manipulate it. This was a 22-year study in Japan when they tracked over 100,000 people in Japan for over 22 years, and they looked at all kinds of variables. One of the things they happened to look at, don't know why, was measles and mumps and cardiovascular risks, stroke, death. And what they found incredibly was that after 22 years, those that had measles and mumps died at far less, had a far less rate of mortality from cardiovascular issues than people that had, that didn't have measles and mumps.

I can't explain to that to biologically. I just know statistically that's what they found. And when you think about what is the number one killer of Americans today, it's heart disease over 700,000 Americans. if not having measles and mumps increased mortality. Not my conclusion, by the way. This is the Japanese government. Their study, take issue with them.

You know, if, you know, we saw 400 deaths a year in the early 60s from measles. If getting rid of measles increased, you know, caused a few hundred more deaths from cardiovascular issue, that kind of tips the balance that on itself. Next slide, please. And I recommend everybody reading that study. It's a fascinating study, and I have never found any study conducted that contradicts its finding. And like I said, it's highly powered, prospective 22 years, forward-looking, very reliable finding and very, very concerning finding. These are a bunch of other studies that are done, not as robust as that one, but they look at the risks of cancer and other issues in children that had measles that didn't.

For example, Hodgiscusophoma and non-Hodzisophoma, they found a 66 or 233% increased risk of Hodgastod and non-Hodotosophoma. and children that did not have measles versus those that did. Studies right there, again, I didn't reach that conclusion. The International Agency for Researcher Cancer reached that conclusion in that study. These were all done, by the way, back most of these studies in the 80s, the findings were not good for the vaccine program, and nobody's really done more science on this since. But those studies exist.

They're there. Read them. Next slide, please. Here's the clinical trial used to a license the MR. vaccine because you might say, well, did they know all this before? No, how could they? The clinical trial will license for a lot of the MR vaccine only had 8-134 children, no control, 42 days of safety review.

Again, the link to the trials are right there. Next slide, please. So again, so again, that is approved by the FDA after they have asked for licensing, done the control studies that are regulated by the board. That is the clinical trial. The FDA relied upon to license vaccine. If you go back one slide, the reason I know that is that, is that, is that, um, half of the, you know, I can, we foiled the FDA for the actual clinical trial.

The FDA relied upon to license the current MMR vaccine. And you can see the clinical trial report. It's right there in that link. And you can see exactly what the FDA relied upon, like literally exactly what the FDA relied upon. And that's the clinical trial they relied upon to license this product. It's underpowered. It has no control. And the safety review is too short, even if it was properly powered.

and had a control. I want to make sure that we talk about the reason, the reason why we're doing all of this is to understand where we get to with the COVID. And obviously, we all know we started with emergency use authorization, but at this point now, the FDA is saying that they have a licensed and approved product. So is there a clinical trial? For the, for the license. For the COVID vaccine.

Right. And data is accessible. Yes, the COVID-19 vaccine for Pfizer, you know, had about a 30,000 index. individuals did have a placebo control for an average of two months. They vaccinated the control group, and they looked at safety for six months. You know, one of the things, one of the suits we brought was against the FDA to release all the data that was relied upon to the Lysa Pfizer vaccine. And that production is almost complete. I think next month all those documents will be released in a proper statistical review by independent scientists can finally be conducted as an example.

But yes, that there is. I'm just going through this as an example. This is an example. This is just an example of things you might look at for one particular disease. I pick measles just because it's been around for a very long time. There's more data. There's more information. It's been decades. Unlike the COVID vaccine, it's been around a lot short of time. And I'm looking at just some of the big picture data points.

Obviously, everything I'm showing you is all CDC and FDA data. And so what I'm saying to you is just look at the CDC and FDA's own websites regarding this product to help you get informed. If you want to hear that they're amazing and great, and they're from, you know, they were given to Moses and Sinai, all you got to do is just type vaccine into Google, and they'll make sure that's what you see, right? You open the TV, you'll see that. I mean, the federal government is billions of dollars.

They have a mandate to promote vaccines from suit companies, like every product, like car manufacturers, they promote their product. And they're very good at what they do. But if you want to get information from the, from those same CDC and FDA, that's not gone through that filter of marketing to get informed, I'm just showing you some of the sources you can look at. Yes. Okay, thank you.

One of what's done with this. As I mentioned earlier, Measles, MMR was one of the three vaccines in the early 1980s. Next slide, please. Resulted in the 1986 Act. Next slide, please. And this is, by the way, in the 1986 Act, I found this really interesting. In 1986 Act, they actually required the CDC to create something called a vaccine information statement. And on that vaccine information statement, if you could please zoom in to the yellow part, again,

This is a CDC document. It was compelled by Congress. And they had to list the adverse events that they concluded, in fact, were caused by the vaccine. And you could see some of the things that they listed. Seizures, deafness, long-term seizures, coma, lower consciousness, brain damage. That's not my word. That's the CDC's language on their own document when compelled by Congress.

But most people actually never even bother looking at these vaccine information statements. Though even though technically under federal law, a doctor has to give this to you before they vaccinate your child, most doctors still don't even do that. So, you know, even that most basic contributor to informed consent is not happening. So you can find these vaccine information statements on the CDC website. I encourage everybody to do so before any vaccine is as a minimal step in getting informed. Next slide, please.

Okay. Next, click one more time. We talked about this earlier. This is all of the stuff that Merck reports is potentially being caused. that they believe had a causal basis to disclose that the MMR vaccine caused. These are very serious conditions. Next slide, please. And by the way, this is, and we'll wrap this up.

This is another way to potentially get informed about COVID vaccine. And I'll use the measles vaccine as an example for doing that. There is actually another measles vaccine, another MR vaccine that was recently licensed by GSK. So when they did that clinical trial, unlike the initial clinical trial for Merck's, they did review safety for six months. They didn't compare it against a control group. They compared the new GSK MMR against the Merck-MMR vaccine. Ah, so we can see at least the rates of harm. And when you find the comparison, you can reach your own conclusion of whether you think these rates are concerning.

New onset chronic disease, 3.4% or 3.7% of children, previously completely healthy children, because that's what they enroll in these trials. They'll exclude you, exclude you if you have a serious health issue. 3.4% of them ended up with a new chronic health condition. 10% approximately each had an adverse event that required emergency room care, and another 2% in each had something called a serious adverse event, which they broke out from the new onset chronic conditions. I don't know why.

It's a new way to do it for some reason in this trial. Maybe it looks better because the numbers look smaller in each group, But a serious adverse event is something very, very serious by the FDA. You just Google it. Look on the FDA website. You can read it for yourself. It's usually death, something very serious injury. And so that's another way to do it is, you know, sometimes you may not have a, you may not be able to get a placebo control trial that will show you the adverse events rate.

But what you can do is find subsequent vaccines that compare the older vaccine with the new vaccine. Because from the FDA perspective, that's safe. If the rate between the old product and the new product is the same, the licensed product and the experimental product is the same, that's safe. Now, is it safe from the perspective of a parent deciding for their child? Maybe not. But it is meets the way the FDA does safety. But it's a great way to look at the safety profile of this product from data that wouldn't undercut the GSK's ability in this instance to license. and in other instances.

And so it's a great way to get a good window into the real adverse events, right, from one of these products. So do we have that with COVID-19? Because we know that there's different manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccine. So has that kind of study been done? Not yet. And truly how valid is a study where you compare one to another when you don't have a placebo control group study?

All you can say, the best you can conclude is that they're equally as safe, which also means you have to conclude they're equally as harmful. Okay. Because if the initial vaccine wasn't licensed based on a placebo control trial, you don't know if that baseline is the right baseline for safety. Right? That's the problem. That's the problem. If the first, if you have a vaccine that was properly trial, proper, robust, placebo control, clinical trial, properly powered, long-term safety review, and they found it was safe, I could see. how then that vaccine could be used as the control for a subsequent vaccine for the same disease,

right? Because you have a baseline for safety. But if you don't have that baseline, what is that comparison doing? Right. Right. Which is why it could be good for it informing you, but it's, you know, yes. Right. So why do we have this discussion? Why do we talk about this? Why do we have all of this data presented to us? And the reality is at the state level, what can we do? What we can do is we can make sure that we're talking with our congressional members, and it's very unfortunate that they haven't, we're not able to be here. I'm sure most of you know what D.C. is a little, they got some work to do right now. So, but the, we need to look at that at a federal level. So what can we do at the state level? What can the state legislators do? And that is to help the public inform themselves

to go find the data to make their own decisions. It is about informed consent. It's about educating ourselves to make sure that we look. And we need to personally weigh these options, whether we're talking about the measles and mumps rebella, or we're talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. So data, data, data, we have to be able to look at it. But we also, it's not always so easy to find or understand. And so thank you, Mr. Siri, very much for bringing that and breaking it down on where to go and why. Happy to do that. The fifth question is, you know, can you determine if the risk outweigh the benefits? Next slide, please. And if the risks are not clearly established, how do you judge with the risk that way the benefits to the

point we discussed earlier? And that's a fifth question you can ask yourself. Next slide, please. Sixth question is, can you trust the people recommending the product? Obviously, very important question. Even if you decide all the stuff we just looked at, right? You say, I'm not going to look at any of that. I don't have the time. And I'm just going to look at the recommendations about the CDC or my doctor. Then the question is, can you trust that recommendation? Next slide, please. and this will require you to then go watch me for two hours somewhere else. Because I went through all this, but I went somewhere else. I'm not going to do it here.

But there's the link, and you can see me discussing exactly that question here for two hours a few months ago. Next slide, please. Though two quick data points. One is this is a congressional report from 2000 that found that the CDC and FDA committees that license that decide effectively licensed of recommending vaccines, They said they found that the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants, have substantialized from Succal industry. Next slide, please.

In 2009, the HHS Inspector General found the same issue. Next slide, please. This is my pin tweet, and I think it sums up everything that I ideologically believe, so you can know my bias clearly. And it's that mandates are the tool of bullies, criminals, and dictators. If a patient refuses a medical product after being conveyed its benefits and risk, then that is called informed consent. They were informed and did not consent.

Mandating over this objection is a moral and a liberal. That is my bias. I stand by that bias. I believe in that bias. Everybody should be able to choose and have the right to make their own decision without coercion, without being bullied. Coercion mandates really are only necessary when there are questions about safety and efficacy, when they cannot convince you on the merits. Never be bullied a coercion to a medical decision. That would be the only advice, I guess, I would firmly say, do your homework, get informed and then make a decision.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Siri, very much. Well, there's a reason why we named our nonprofit the informed consent action network. I think at the heart of everything is informed consent. You should always be able to walk away after you've heard all the facts and make your own decision for yourself. I agree with Aaron. It's immoral if they try to force anything upon you at that point. Then we're not a free country.

We are really nothing more than farm animals. We don't have a choice and we don't have the decision to make. And so that's what we are dedicated changing. So we've been dedicated all this year and all the years that we've been here. I want to thank Aaron Siri for all of his incredible hard work this year. And what an amazing testimony that was. And to see that happening in the halls of government as so invigorating, and I think a brilliant way to end this year.

So without further ado, for the last several weeks, we've been talking about the $1.1 million match. You guys have all really stepped up. And so we're going to take a stroll over. And, you know, honestly, I don't know how this ends up. We were so close in some ways I thought what difference does it make. But we'll see how we did. How many of you guys actually checked in only you know at this moment. But I want to thank those special angels that made this million dollar.

$1.1 million match possible. These are the types of gifts that make it possible for us to help you change the world, to win in cases like Mississippi, to bring informed consent back to this nation and then hopefully be that beacon of light and hope for the year. So I know we're all anticipating it. We started at $0 just a few weeks ago, and I guess we're going to find out if we got there. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And we, yeah! We did it! You did it! You made it possible! What a brilliant ending to this incredible year, 2023. Thank you for all of your support. This is really amazing. Our passionate team so excited about it. We couldn't do this without you. This is what it's all about. So go ahead. The New Year's coming. I hope you have a happy new year. Celebrate. Bees.

careful but we have so much to look forward to here in America it's going to be an electoral season things are going to get interesting I'll see you there on the high wire