The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 353: 1986: THE UNTOLD STORY

Episode Date: January 5, 2024

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act into Law, inadvertently setting the table for the pharmaceutical industry to become the most influential industry on earth. But that isn’t the whole story. Barbara Loe Fisher, a pioneer of the Vaccine Injury Awareness movement, was at the table, fighting for families and children as this controversial law took form. Listen to Barbara as she tells the untold story of the 1986 Act and how it came to be. Learn the betrayal that paved the way for vaccine manufacturers to secure immunity from liability for their products, opening the door for the complete capture of the agencies charged with regulating the vaccine industry and protecting the public trust. This is 1986: The Untold Story.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed 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 any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. Let me be the first to say to you, happy new year. We're really looking forward to 2024 here on the high wire. We got a brand new opening promo you just saw pretty excited about that. I had my nails done.

No, I'm just kidding. But, you know, here in 24, here in America, it's going to be, I think, a particularly interesting year. It's an election year. We're going to have presidential candidates slinging mud at each other. I hope not, but you know that's where it's going to go. And probably one of the most powerful three-way races we've seen probably since Ross Perot with Robert Kennedy Jr. in the mix.

So God knows what's going to happen there. But one of the conversations that comes up in the politics around vaccination, is liability. And if you're not sure what I'm talking about, maybe you've seen a little bit of the news. Take a look at this. In the rare case of a severe adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine,

who's liable for the medical expenses? You might have guessed the vaccine manufacturer. But according to a group of victims, that's not the case. These companies have special protection through the federal government. If you suffer severe side effects after getting the COVID vaccine, there's basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law. If you took the vaccine and had a severe reaction, you cannot sue the manufacturers or the distributor or the providers. If you take these experimental vaccines, then you're not covered as kind of a buyer beware at your own risk if you get injured.

They had to bake into the cake immunity against the vaccine manufacturers or else nobody was going to manufacture these vaccines. In 1986, Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Act, which established a federal no-fault system to cover. compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines. And Reagan is a president who I admire, many of us do. I think that reviving that spirit is in many ways going to be good for this country in so many ways. But one of the areas where he erred was this special form of lobbying to say that one kind of manufacturer, a vaccine manufacturer, cannot be sued for their product liability.

It wasn't a bunch of hippies who looked at the vaccines and said they're dangerous. It was the insurance companies who said, you are too dangerous for us. They went to the Reagan administration and to the Democrats in Congress. And they said, if you don't give us blanket freedom from liability, we are going to stop making vaccines. Of course, they're all talking about the 1986 vaccine injury compensation act. This is what it ended up being about. No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine.

It's gone on to be complete indemnification. You can't sue a doctor. You can't sue a manufacturer. You can't sue the hospital or a target. If that's where you got your vaccine, everybody's completely protected, no matter what happens to you. And when you have this conversation,

it's one of those things that comes up where when I tell a friend and they're like, I didn't know that. There's no, like, they don't stand by their product? I mean, doesn't that say it right? there that I shouldn't trust it. A lot of people, and especially in politics, are starting to circle around the idea of maybe getting rid of the 1986 Act, to be very hard to do with all the pharmaceutical lobbies that are in there. And I've talked about this a lot, and I've told the story about

Ronald Reagan and all of this. But what a lot of people don't know is there were, there was a group of parents with vaccine injured children that were actually in there trying to get the 86 Act passed two. One of them, and probably the most famous, was Barbara Lowe Fisher. My name is Barbara Loh Fisher, and I'm co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center. Barbara Loh Fisher is the president of the National Vaccine Information Center. I invited Barbara Loh Fisher. She's co-author of the book, D.P.T. has got in the dark. She has co-authored a book, which really lays down the whole controversy and is the fascinating book. Barbara Loh Fisher's son was a toddler when he had a reaction to a D.P.T. vaccine.

My son was two and a half, so I knew what he was like before, and I knew what he was like afterwards. We really don't know how many children are being brain damaged and dying from this vaccine every year because we don't have a reporting system that will give us that information. Therefore, we cannot make a benefit-risk ratio analysis of the vaccine. Bill is historic. We're pleading with President Reagan to sign it because it will not only help children who have already been damaged by vaccine, but it will institute safety reforms in the mass vaccination system. so that we can help prevent future vaccine damage.

When parents don't have the right to say no to vaccines that are highly reactive, we have no way of putting economic pressure on the system to bring in a safer product. Parents ought to have the option to become fully informed about the vaccine and the disease and then make a choice, including choosing whether or not their child will have the disease and have permanent immunity versus temporary immune. Parents have got to take responsibility for making these decisions in conjunction with their doctor. No longer can they just say, doctor, tell me what to do. Obviously, the system has failed us, and we have to take responsibility, become educated,

and then in the end we have to make that decision and live with that decision. I believe that society that has mandated a vaccine has the responsibility to provide for these children who have given their lives. Now, Barbara Loh Fisher has been a pillar of understanding and truth. She started NVIC, which is still one of the great websites for vaccine information, especially if you want to know what the regulations and requirements are in your state. But she was there in the beginning with the 1986 Act, actually sitting at the table, trying to make it happen. And when people are starting to say, we should get rid of the 1986 Act, she's saying,

wait, hold on a second, that may very well be the greatest mistake we could ever make. What? Record scratch? That's right. Now, I wanted to get to the bottom of that. What is it that she knows that we don't? What is it that happened there that gets excluded from this story? Well, I went and I interviewed Barbara Loh Fisher in her home in Florida, and I have news for you. I had some of this story wrong and I stand corrected. You want to know what that's all about? Well, here comes Barbara Lowe Fisher. Well, it's my absolute honor and pleasure to be joined right now sitting with the Barbara Lowe Fisher. It's really, this is honestly a bucketless moment and I've run into you over the years many, many times. We kept saying, you know, I want to sit down and interview you about the

1986 act. So I just want to thank you for taking the time today. My pleasure. I've watched your show and you've got a great show and I'm happy to be part of it. And you are. I mean, one of the things I say is I, you know, to around the country talk about this issue is that, you know, I feel like I was able to come along and really stand on the shoulders of giants. You know, you and Andy Wakefield and Sherry Tenpenny and people that, and all the mothers, you know, the war, you know, the your moms that just really were so dedicated to not only having to work through the issues of the injury in their family, but then warning the world this is happening. I think all that incredible work made it possible to sort of use media and build on that. And then I think we find ourselves

in a very different position today than we were even just when I first stepped into this seven years ago. Well, you came in and filled a void in the media because the media shut down. I mean, I did a lot of media in the 80s and 90s, mainstream media. Yeah. And those conversations were being held. And then starting around 2009, but certainly by 2015, with the Disneyland measles outbreak, done. That was the last time, 2015 was the last time I was ever invited to go on and debate a doctor on TV. And you came in and created this highwire and, you know, have done all this work, particularly, you know,

you and I were talking about following up legally on those safety provisions that we got into that 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. But there's a lot of myth that has been, has grown up around that act. Yeah. And what it really was, what it was intended to be, what happened. So I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. Well, that's what we are going to do here today. It's so important because it's probably the number one conversation that I now.

here you know as you tour the country after especially COVID you know and that pandemic brought a whole new set of eyes and ears to this conversation and politicians now opening up to this and so the conversation has always been we got to get rid of the 1986 Act we've got to get rid of this liability protection so before we even get into discussing what that would mean I don't think most of us really have a full understanding of how the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program started, how it happened. So take me back because you said we were a part of, I mean, you were right there.

You were in these meetings. And so again, a lot of people will say, you know, and one of the lines I'll use is the pharmaceutical industry blackmailed Ronald Reagan and the Congress by saying, we're going to stop making all vaccines, you know, if you don't protect us from liability. I think that it means clearly a very simplistic way to describe it, but it's not the only people that were at the table. Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Gosh, how did it all happen?

You know, I was a young mom, first-time mom, and my son had had a reaction in 1980 to his fourth deputy shot, bright, precocious baby. I didn't understand until I saw what had happened to him. until I saw DPT Vaccine Roulette, which was a documentary, a television, and eventually ended up being an Emmy Award-winning television documentary, produced by Lee Thompson at the NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C. And that, I can remember standing in my kitchen and watching that show,

and it gives me chills just to even think about it. And my mother called me in, and we both said, that's what happened to Chris. You know, that's why he's so, been so sick because I put it together. And the next day I called the station and I said, because I'd worked at a teaching hospital as a medical writer before I was married and I said, can I come down and get the medical literature that you used to anchor your program? And they said, sure. I said, do you have any other parents who have called? I'd never called a TV station before. But they said, sure, and they gave me the name of Kathy Williams.

And there was Jeff Schwartz as well, but I called Kathy. And I went down the station. I got the medical literature. And I sat in my living room. And there in the pages of pediatrics and New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal were descriptions of exactly what I had seen my son do that day. I walked in on this vaccine reaction within four hours of his shot. I witnessed his vaccine reaction.

But I did not know what I was witnessing. Describe it for me. people we have an audience now that you know isn't as familiar with vaccine injury or how it looks in children especially um you know autism and things like that so so what was that injury what did it look like well so he had had a a local reaction at the side of the injection after his third shot as a baby he's about seven months old big hard red hot lump that came up it stayed there for weeks i called the doctor's office the nurse said to me it was a bad lot of DPP vaccine, don't worry about it. And my reaction was, should I bring them down for another one?

Because I thought they meant, what she meant was it was expired, that it was not potent enough, that it somehow, it was defective in that way. It wasn't going to work. I never thought it was a safety issue. I thought my baby wasn't going to be protected. And she said, oh, no, no, you don't have to come down for another one, just come back the next time he's due. Well, he was a really healthy kid, bright, saying words at seven months, speaking in full sentences by the age of two. And we went everywhere together. He was this happy, go lucky, just an extraordinary child. And so I wanted to go to a Mother's Day Out program and get him socialized. So he's two and a half years old. He hadn't gone back to the doctor. So they had said, you have to have a fourth

DPT shot and fourth oral polio vaccine. So I took him to the doctor. my mother came with me. My mother had been a nurse. I came from a medical family on my mother's side, doctors and nurses. And for the first time in his life, this happy, cheerful kid fought with every ounce of strength he had in his body to get away from that nurse that was giving him the oral polio vaccine. He spit it out in her face. The shot, my mother and I held him down the table to give him that shot. Now he had had three weeks earlier he had a bet with the flu, 48 hour a bat with stomach flu they gave him antibiotics. He had come off of antibiotics. He didn't have a fever, he was he was fine except for he

had traces of diarrhea. Now whether it was because of the antibiotics and because he still had viral infection, I don't know. All I know he wasn't 100% well that day. Had had a reaction on his third shot. We go home and within a couple of hours I I realized how silent it was in the house. And usually he was around me. And I called his name, no response. So I went upstairs, and he was in his bedroom sitting in a chair, his rocking chair, and he was staring straight ahead

like he couldn't see me in the doorway. And I called out his name, and he didn't respond. And I called it out again, and his eyes rolled back in his head to like to see the whites of his eyes. And his head fell to his shoulder like you'd fall in the sleep sitting up. And I thought, that's really weird. And I went over and I tried to wake him up and I couldn't wake him up. I thought, he must be coming down with the relapse of the flu or something.

I picked him up. He was a dead weight. I put him in his bed and he laid there and I thought, he needs a nap. He needs to sleep, you know. My mother calls him several hours later and says, how's Chris? I said, he's still sleeping. He's been sleeping for hours. She said, that's not normal.

You need to go wake him up. So I went upstairs, I couldn't wake him up. And so I got in the bed and I put his back against my chest and I rocked back and forth yelling his name. And he finally like came to consciousness. He was basically unconscious. And he couldn't sit up. He couldn't walk. He said bathroom.

I picked him up, brought him to the bathroom. He had like, it looked, it was black diarrhea. completely now I know toxic, a toxic expulsion of toxins from his body, right? I cleaned them up, I put him back, he slept 12 more hours. When he woke up, he was very pale, but he was, he seemed to be okay, but he, in the succeeding days and weeks, he couldn't do the things he could do before. He couldn't identify words in the books anymore that we read. He wouldn't read the books.

He'd throw the books across the route. He didn't know his numbers up to 20 like he did before. He had memorized the deck of cards and he would play a, they had card sharks, was a game on television. And he would, he had memorized the deck of cards, would not play with his cards anymore. He cried at the drop of a hat. He was frustrated. He was angry. And then he had constant urine infections, constant respiratory infections, constant diarrhea,

became a macy to fail to thrive. I took him to the doctor. They said, it's just a statement. he's going through. Don't worry about it. It's just a stage. I went, but he's sick. Finally put him to another doctor, they tested him for cystic fibrosis, tested him for celiac disease, all the tests came back and they gave him and they said, we don't know what's wrong with him. Eventually he has diagnosed this bright kid, formerly bright kid, with minimal brain damage, multiple learning disabilities, ADD, dyslex,

FIna, fine motor skill delay, auditory processing deficit, so severe that he had to be in a self-contained classroom in the special education classroom throughout his entire 12 years. And you know, there are a lot of kids like Chris that are never recognized that their multiple learning disabilities, their ADD, their ADHD can be traced back to a reaction that their mother did not walk in on. I walked in on it. I had a two and a half year old that I knew what he was before and what he was after. When I saw that program and then I did the research and I see the descriptions in the medical literature, he had a convulsion when his eyes rolled back in his head. He had a classic hypotonic, hypersponsive episode connected with pertussis vaccine, collapsed shock. When he was in his bed not moving, he was having an acute encephalopathy, a brain inflammation.

and then he had chronic neurological dysfunction. And I thought to myself, when I understood what had happened, I said parents had been told nothing about this vaccine. No information was given to parents at the time. So when I called that station, I met with Kathy Williams and Jeff Schwartz, who was an environmental law attorney, who was working, would always be on the hill. He was part of a law firm on environmental law.

did part of the Clean Air Act amendments. His little girl, Julie, had had a seizure reaction after DPT. She eventually died in the process of this law being passed and she had grand mal seizures that weren't controlled by medication. So Kathy, who was actually a cosmetologist hairdresser, she she organized the organization. Okay, she were the people. Jeff was the main negotiator on the hill because he he had contacts with both Edward Kennedy and Henry Waxman's offices and their staff. He also had contacts with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the guy who was doing lobbying up in the hill for AAP. I was a medical writer.

In what year this show comes up? This is 1982. So, April of 1982. Okay. And within weeks, we got together. We met Kathy, Jeff and I. And Jeff said, there needs to be a congressional investigation. And I said, yes. And the first thing we wanted, we wanted a safer pertussis vaccine.

We wanted a purified pertussis vaccine because I already had found out in the literature that Japan had been using a purified, a cellular pertussis vaccine, for a couple of years. They took our technology from NIH and they created it and put it into their program. And they were, it was far less reactive than the whole cell pertussis vaccine. So we wanted a safer vaccine. We wanted information given to parents by doctors that would tell them how to recognize a vaccine reaction. Sure, yeah. We wanted the doctors to have to write down in the child's medical record the manufacturer's name, lot number, any reactions that occurred in the permanent record.

We wanted research done for to look into creating safer vaccines and finding out why some kids are vulnerable to vaccine reactions. Well, what led you to believe that those studies weren't being done? I mean, when you're setting out, was there any investigation into that? Or, you know? Well, I mean, I knew from the medical literature they weren't doing that. They were just reporting all these reactions in the medical literature. They were describing what these kids were doing. But clearly, when we went to Congress, when we found out, there was literally no oversight

on vaccine safety. And remember back then, we're talking measles, mumps, and rebella vaccine, MMR, which was the newest vaccine, oral polio vaccine that can cause vaccine strain polio paralysis, and DPP. Those were the seven vaccines being given. Both that polio and the DPP, as we know now, have changed out because they're very intense vaccines. And your child got both of those on the same day. Yes, he did.

In fact, she gave him a second dose of polio vaccine because he spit the first one out. Wow. You know, when I think about the universe and I think about how. for how he fought that only time he ever did that i feel like on some level he knew he knew you know yeah and uh you know i wish i could go back and and carry him out before that shot was injected but you can't go back you know you can only go forward and try to do the right thing so he's having these reactions doctor says it's just normal it's just a phase did you continue vaccinating him oh Chris never got another vaccine never did no because I had found out in time I found out I

there's no way I could give him another DPT shot that he didn't get any shots but did you I guess my question is did you know that it was the DPT that had done that to him before you even saw this show no no I did not know that's why when I stood and saw those kids who were much more compromised than Chris. Okay, they were mentally retarded, epileptic, you know, they were much more severe than Chris. But I knew that if the vaccine could do that, it probably had the capability of doing something less. Like what happened to my son, it was minimally minimally dysfunctional, brain dysfunctional. I can tell you that up until the time that I took him for testing when he was six or seven years old, when I finally got formal

testing. Even when that diagnosis came back so severe, I almost did, I mean, I had a hard time accepting it. I knew he was compromised, but I didn't want to accept the actual diagnosis. And you know, so I hear these people saying, oh, parents want kids to be labeled, you know, as learning disabled or whatever so they can get into this special treatment. No parent wants a child to be labeled as having to have a special ed you be in a special ed classroom i can tell you that yeah but uh again you know i feel blessed and he he and i have talked about it he could have been catastrophically brain injured i believe if i if my mother had not called me and i had not interrupted that is that evolving encephalopathy he would even if he died in his bed that night

or he would have been much more severely brain injured because he's an adult today He's married. He has worked really hard to compensate for his learning disabilities. He's a videographer. I'm glad to hear that. And for many mothers like yourself, a lot of work, I'm sure, to sort of detoxify, you know, the child get them to a place where they can recover, you know, recover. And that's something we could probably do a whole other show on recovery and all that's about.

But I want to stay focused here on the 86 Act. So you're setting out to go to Congress to see if we can get some investigations done. Was the reception to this conversation, were there, was Edward Kennedy open to the conversation? Well, he came in a little. Yes, it was really what happened was Congressman Dan Micah of Florida, whose nephews had reacted to the DPT shot and were severely brain injured. And Paula Hawkins of Florida was a senator who was known for her child health, she was interested in child health. They were the ones that held the first hearings. And we testified at almost every single hearing.

There were more than 12 hearings that were held during this four and a half years that these bills were being negotiated. It was a long process back and forth. But it was really, Micah was a Democrat, Hawkins, was a Republican. From the very beginning, it was a kind of a bipartisan interest. I mean, DPT Vaccine Roulette, that movie had caused a shockwave throughout the country. I mean, pediatrics would never be the same after that show. And it did win an Emmy for investigative news reporting, yeah, for Lee Thompson pioneering work. And, you know, when I started to look at the medical literature, I knew I wanted to investigate and I knew I wanted to do a.

a book. I wanted to write a book about what had happened to my child, but it got much more complex than that because I met Harris Coulter about eight months into it. Harris Coulter was a medical historian, Ph.D. And he called me one day and he wanted to do an article. And I said, you want to co-author a book with me? And he said, sure. And comes over and I realized he knew the library of medicine like the back of his hands. He was an incredible researcher. because back then there was no internet, there were no cell phones, there were no fax machines, private fax machines, there were no personal computers. So we had to go to the library.

And the library of medicine, of course, we were in the Washington, D.C. area. So we would collect quarters and send Harris over the library of medicine, and he would then Xerox the studies that he found and bring them home, and then we would sit there and analyze the studies. I also corresponded with scientists and doctors around the world. When I would find a doctor that was publishing in the literature, I would send him a letter or I would pick up the phone and call them. And I usually got them. They usually would correspond with me or talk to me.

So I then decided that I was going to interview parents, mostly mothers, whose children had reactions. And a shot in the dark is really a collection. And what shot in the dark really is, DPT at Shot in the Dark, which was published in 1985 by Harker Bracey Ivanovich, which was a blue chip publisher. Yeah. The L.D. Ivanovich was known for publishing dissidents.

The younger young Vonovich was in charge of the medical division because they published medical books. Well, it took two and a half years of research to create DPT a shot in the dark. And I said to Harris, I said, you know, we need to appeal to the brain. And we need to appeal to the heart. Because this issue is really about intellectually understanding information, but it's also about

trying to have compassion for people who don't get through the process of vaccination without being harmed. So I did all this interviewing and I created profiles of vaccine injured children. And I also supported the medical, the medical literature, what was found in the medical literature with these case histories. We did such a, I, I, I, I also asked for the medical records from all these parents so that I could prove that these were real people. Because I had to prove those to the Hart Caprice Yvanovitch lawyers. Eventually, the Institute of Medicine used cases in a shot in the dark because I had the medical records in their report on protasas and rebella vaccines.

It was published in 1991. We were acknowledged as having contributed to that analysis because of those cases and a Interesting. So I was very, very proud of that. And at any rate, so we had, what do we have? We had us going to Congress. We had a couple of a congressman and a senator interested. And immediately the drug company said, we're getting sued.

We're getting these lawsuits, these DPT vaccine in the lawsuits, we're getting killed with these lawsuits on DPT because of this show. and because of you paying attention to these parents. We are going to leave this country with no childhood vaccines if you do not protect us from liability. All liability. Do you remember the moment that, was there a moment that sort of happened? I mean, you're visiting.

In the beginning. Right from the very beginning. In the beginning. The second you show up, pharma jumps in there. No lawsuits. Right. Okay. Okay.

Well, we said, and the other thing that was said to Jeff, because he was the primary negotiator and he would come back to kathy and i and say this is what they're proposing and we would say yes or no and then send them up and the day being the pharmaceutical lobby or the pharmaceutical lobby and politicians like who is he meeting with okay here's how it happened the stakeholders they call them the vaccine stakeholders okay that would be medical trade that would be aAP in this case okay chemi pediatrics the vaccine manufacturers at that point there were four vaccine manufacturers in this country. Wyeth, Letterley, and Cannot were producing DPP vaccine. Okay. Letterly was a sole source for oral polio vaccine. Merck was a sole source of

MMR vaccine. Seven vaccines. Just so people know, literally is now part of Pfizer. Okay. Knaut is now part of Sanofi. Wyeth is now is now part of Pfizer and of course we have Merck. Merck really was on the sidelines on this. It wasn't their vaccine. One their vaccine. No one was looking at it. Nobody was looking at them.

But they were looking at, we had polio vaccine lawsuits. Okay. There were some very important polio vaccine losses and of course, DPD. So what do the manufacturers do? They say we're going to leave the country without any vaccine and the Congress said we've got to protect the vaccine supply in this country and they said to Jeff you can come to the table and fight for what you think the parents and the children should get or you could not come to the table but we're going to pass this legislation to protect the vaccine supply and we're going to do it with or without you and Jeff said what do you want me to do So Congress said we are going to protect this supply.

Absolutely. We know that you're coming up and talking to us. So you can either cry and go whine and not be involved or be involved in these negotiations. What would you have done? Right. Who would leave the room? I mean, we had to fight for what we thought the children and the parents should get. And we tried our best coming up against the government.

What time? Now we instill 85 your books. I mean, is this around? No, this is 82. 82 still. So already at 82, Congress is saying we're going to protect them. Oh, from the very beginning from the time that that show was aired. Okay. Gotcha. Oh, no. They were going to protect the vaccine supply because the companies were saying, you don't play. If you do not give us liability protection, we're out of. Okay. Got it. And parents, you can come to table or not, but we're going to do this.

So we said, we'll come to the table. But there is three things. We will never agree to complete liability protection for doctors or for manufacturers. Number two, if you're going to protect the vaccine supply, you have to protect the children by safety provisions. Safety provisions have to be part of this law. Equal emphasis. And the third, because they immediately went to a federal compensation program. Why? They had had a swine flu compensation program in 1976. The swine flu vaccine that was put out, which was a bogus, it was a bogus swine flu pandemic. It wasn't really, you know, and a billion. I think we don't do that anymore. Yeah, right. That never happens anymore, right?

So, so they paid a billion bucks because they indemnified these companies. That was when the indemnification, the first indemnification, Kerr was on swine flu in 76. Right. And they ended up paying all this money and because the manufacturer said this is safe, it's effective, and they fast track that vaccine, that swine flu vaccine. Okay, so immediately a compensation program was part of the conversation because they already knew how to do that. Okay. We said if there's going to be a federal compensation program, it has to be an alternative to a lawsuit. In other words, parents can choose to either go to court or they can choose to get compensation. We understood they couldn't do both, Right. But they could choose that.

So we said if there's a compensation program, it has to be fair, expedited, less traumatic, less expensive, more predictable than a court. Then going up against this monolithic drug company. And remember, I mean, at least back then, doctors weren't keeping records. They were giving kids shots. They weren't even saying what manufacturer it was. If you didn't, couldn't prove what manufacturer it was, you couldn't sue them. Wow. Same with doctors.

They were destroying medical records and you could never prove that the vaccine was given that day and the kid had those reactions. Records were disappearing all over the place. They weren't reporting reactions. There was two ways to report. You could report to the FDA or you could report to the CDC. Public health clinics reported the CDC. Private docs reported the FDA. FDA, manufacturers are supposed to report the FDA.

So we said you've got to centralize the reporting system. You've got to make it open and transparent so parents can report to. You've got to have a safety part of this law and the compensation has to work properly because if the compensation system doesn't work properly, you put no pressure on the companies. You keep the liability for the companies because then it makes it forces them to make a a better mouse trap. It's the only true market force you have at big business, right? You got to stand by your product. If you can't, then why are you ever going to fix it? So we're testifying in hearings. We're bringing the parents forward who had vaccine injured

children and we're fighting against the Reagan administration wanted no lawsuits. The doctor, the medical trade wanted no lawsuits and the companies wanted no lawsuits. And we were here saying that's not right. We won't agree to that. So what happened was the companies... Now, where was Reagan at? Because I always heard that Reagan was not a fan of, you know, of liability protection.

But you just said he didn't, that Reagan administration didn't want lawsuits. Oh, no, they didn't want any lawsuits. At the very end, they were the last. He was going to pocket veto, this omnibus health bill that the act had been put into in 86. Parents and their handicapped children in a candlelight vigil trying to get the president to help. One of the few pieces of legislation passed by the last Congress that is left to be signed by the president is an omnibus health bill.

That bill includes a provision that would give a lot of relief to parents whose children have been damaged by a vaccine in this century. But the Justice Department doesn't want the vaccine compensation bill saying it's not necessary. These parents say they are really struggling to make ends meet and they feel their children are the random victims of a hospital. society that mandates all children must be vaccinated before they can go to school. Jerry, tell us a little bit about Tracy. She reacted to the DPC vaccine. How's he doing now? Helpwise, she's doing fine, but Tracy needs constant care. Tracy has to never be left alone. But I guess we're rather lucky because we still have Tracy with us. My greatest concern is for Tracy and children like Tracy, once they reach the age of 21, I know the waiting list in this area

are over eight years long for programs. And I will have to quit work and stay home with her because I certainly can't afford the cost of hiring someone to come in and stay with her. So this bill would really help a family like you. Absolutely, absolutely. We have been given no indication that he is going to sign it. I think we have about a 50-50 chance.

That's why we're here. You know, the 75th parents together has worked very hard for four years to see this legislation passed. ever since your report in 1982 that alerted parents to this problem. And I really can't believe that President Reagan doesn't care about these children. I have to believe that he will in the end, sign it. So what happened though, here we are in 83, 84, and we've got S-2117, which was the original bill. Okay. That was, it was written by Jeff and by the American Cameo Pediatrics. They were actually, we were together with AAP in the beginning. Interesting.

wrote that bill it took two years and it had all the things we wanted it didn't have liability protection for the companies or the doctors it had the safety provisions were in there and what were the safety provisions like what was it what was it you were because that's really what you set out for right how is this thing getting into my kid and what safety's been done so we wanted a parent information booklet that described the disease and the complications and the vaccine the complications for each of the vaccines. So true informed consent? True informed consent so that it would be given, mandated to be given before the doctor injected a child. I actually participated after the law was passed. It had those safety provisions in there. I actually participated in the writing of the

original parent information booklet. Went down to Atlanta. Jeff and I went down. There were attorneys. doctors, there was the CDC, and we hammered out a peer information book on DBT, that after the bill was passed, was boiled down to one page through rulemaking authority. So when you got done, it wasn't one page. No, it was 15 pages. It was a complete informed consent. Right. The way it was supposed to be. How did they justify? Okay, go ahead. I'll get to it. Okay, so we're back in 82, 83, 84. Yeah. So what do the companies start doing?

Why this is we're dropping out. We're not going to make any more protest this vaccine. Causes a vaccine shortage. They go to Congress. You need to protect us from liability. So they put pressure by basically, it's a blackmail. We're just going to stop making him shortage of that. Now what do you want to do?

We have a shortage of this vaccine. Apparently because at one time, number three drug companies, manufacturing it to them said that they would no longer do so because of the high cost of fighting suits brought by parents and the high cost of insurance to guard against suits being brought by parents whose children had died or been injured from the vaccine is that not correct well actually in testimony in December it was brought out in hearings on Capitol Hill that all three manufacturers are manufacturing this vaccine

Cannot is stockpiling it. Wyatt is selling it to letterly and letterly is distributing it for Wyatts. Cannot made it very clear that they will not distribute what they have until the Congress passes legislation, absolving them of all financial liability for vaccine damage. Then, then, whooping cough epidemics, we've got whooping off outbreaks. You know, it's all because of these parents complaining about this vaccine and going to Congress and Congress messing around in this. they start to raise their prices. At one point, it was like a 10,000% price increase on Pratuss's vaccine. They did everything to put pressure, and the media carried the stories, and everybody blamed us.

In England, some years back, parents became alarmed about because there were several incidents of death and brain damage. and large numbers refused to have their children inoculated with the vaccine. And as a consequence, they had enormous outbreaks of hoop and mob and many more children died. While I would like to believe that no protracts will result from this hopefully temporary shortage, I'm not so sure that that's necessarily going to be the case. What happened actually was that we broke with the AEP over this issue. About two to two and a half years in, the collaboration between DPT or dissatisfied parents together, and AEP broke down because they put out a press release saying that eight states had Hooping cough epidemics.

This is an 85. And it was all because of this false information being put out about protestus vaccine risks. Wow, so they just turned. And I said, and I, and I, and I, and I, and I, I put out a press release and I said, first of all, I did an investigation. I contacted the health departments of the states. And I asked them for their cases, which cases were lab confirmed, which fluorescent antibody confirmed, which were epidemiologically linked.

And I did a full report. And I realized that over half of the people were vaccinated. That we had a problem with the effectiveness of this vaccine, not just the safety of the vaccine. Well, they were furious. And the other thing was, D.P.T. A Shot in the Dark was published in December of 1984. And we had a big press conference on Capitol Hill in February of 1985. And that press conference in the publishing of a shot in the dark, which was another shot across the bow. I mean, it was the first time anyone had really documented and made the argument that the mandatory vaccination system was broken and that this vaccine was very, very important. And that this vaccine was very

dangerous that have been allowed to not be improved for all these years. I mean, just right there, just for a moment, you were pro-vaccine. The first time you have a localized injury, you want to take your kid back in for another one because it may not be working. Was there a part of you that was worried that the work I'm doing now could destroy the vaccine program forever? I mean, had you lost all affinity to the vaccine program? Were you just trying to get it fixed? No, I was worried. You know what I was worried about? I was worried that that somehow there would be these horrible

whooping cough epidemics. I knew that the vaccine was bad, but I also was worried about the disease because I didn't know what would happen if everybody stopped using the vaccine. We did not call for that. We called for a safer vaccine. Right.

And we called for obviously informed consent and choice, but we did not say you shouldn't use it or, you know, nobody should get vaccinated. We never, ever said that. But I still worried. I didn't know exactly what was going to happen. Well, what happened was after the book was published, it almost didn't get published because the younger Yovanovitch didn't want to publish. And the medical community didn't want to publish.

It was sent up for review. You know how this gets set up for review? Yeah. They tried to stop it. And the elder Yovanovitch is no longer alive, said, I published dissidents. They've been waiting a long time. We're publishing this book. Wow.

He saved it. Wow. And actually, the editor of a Shot in the Dark, my editor, Paul McCloskey, who is also no longer here, he was an aide to Robert Kennedy, and he was there the day that Robert Kennedy died. Wow. He was an amazing man, Paul McCloskey. He actually had post-Polns. syndrome he had polio as a child and he fought for that book he fought for our book to be published

because he said that's a bad vaccine you know yeah and um at any rate so a shot of the dark comes out it causes a scandal the new york times in the wall street journal give it hysterical knee jerk reviews what were their claims like what were they saying new york times i made the cases up oh he made it up i made it up i made made those cases up. That was one of the charges. That we had totally, which was I had, I knew I had to document everything, you know, from the get-go. And that we had totally over, put more emphasis on the reactions than on the disease, that we, our conspiracy theorists, that we thought everybody was not conspiracy. Well, you know, when you lay the facts out, which is what we did, if people conclude that there seems to be something funny going on here.

Yeah. It's sort of like this COVID. It's three companies. It's like that's a conspiracy. It's a small group of people that are affecting a lot of people's lives making this product. And we were saying the government wasn't doing its job and the doctors weren't doing their job and they were all trying to cover everything up. Right. Basically.

And we documented it. So it was interesting. because that put pressure on Congress too, the publicity around a shot in the dark, and those lawsuits. So we've got the prices of DPT skyrocketing. We've got vaccine shortages. We've got Hippinkoff epidemics. And these bills are going through different incarnations back and forth. And when we broke with the AAP in 85, what do Waxman do? He'd been our friend. Yeah. He forwards a bill, no design defect lawsuits, no lawsuits if you comply with FDA standards against the manufacturers, no safety provisions, or very few safety provisions. The restricted

compensation program, and I'm looking at that and going, wow, he's mad. He was mad that that, you know, it had broken off. And in any, in forward, this is basically a manufacturer bill. Was he, do you think, I mean, the, and I'm guessing, I'm sure, but was he angry that he is being associated because he was working with, like, a cause of whooping cough? Was he always aligned with AAP?

And as soon as they broke, he just went with them. And what is your take on why this sort of about phase? You know, I brought a quote from Henry Waxman. During the whole thing in a congressional hearing. I recall the last time Congress was stampeded by the drug manufacturers into taking over liability costs. We were told there would be no liability because there is no problem at all with the swine flu vaccine and therefore we could take over their indemnification. We spent $1 billion for the injuries people sustained as a result of that vaccine.

And the drug manufacturers went on to make a price. profit without bearing the liability. This government should not be in the business of guaranteeing profits to the drug industry or protecting physicians from gross negligence. That was him in 1984. He proposes this crazy bill that was drug manufacturer bill. Yeah. The drug manufacturers loved it.

We opposed it. Jeff said it does more to protect the drug. company bottom line that it does to protect health of children. And what we also did is we did an investigation into what the drug companies were telling the Security and Exchange Commission about their liability problems versus what they were telling Congress and the public and the media. And it found that they were telling the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had no problems with these lawsuits. There wasn't materially affecting them. So they were crying liability all the way to the bank is what they were doing.

Got it. And so we continued to come up against this opposition on this bill and the various incarnations by the administration, the drug companies, and now the AAP was not playing well in the sandbox. So when Waxman did this and we blasted him, all of a sudden, everybody said wait a minute this is all going south we've got to do something and so they went back to a lot of the things that we wanted they created legislation that we had a lot of the stuff that we wanted okay the cock was ticking and a bill was put together that we were able to support

we had to give up some things but we never agreed to any full liability protection Okay. For the doctors or for the manufacturers. But we could not get past the administration. The administration refused. And the person who held it up the longest was Ed Meese, Attorney General Edmese from Justice. What was he holding up? What was the issue? He didn't want any lawsuits. The whole thing was about no lawsuits. No lawsuits being he didn't want the government being sued or he didn't want anyone to be able to be sued. He didn't want any suits. They didn't want any suits. They didn't want any lawsuits. They They didn't want anybody to have to sue manufacturers on vaccine injuries and deaths. The argument that was made by the manufacturers from the very beginning was, look, the FDA licenses the vaccine as safe and effective.

The CDC recommends the vaccine for universal use by all children. The states mandate the vaccine for school injury. We should not be liable for vaccine injuries and deaths. Right. And they never gave that up and they never have. You're making us give it to everybody, you know, whether or not that would be our choice or not, but since we have to give it to everybody and quietly they're basically saying everyone's different, like, you know, no product can be good for everybody, but why would that be our problem since you're the one making everybody get it? We can't be held liable.

Exactly. And the administration was agreeing with that saying they shouldn't be held liable. No. Nobody should be held liable. Is that the argument they were they were making? Yeah, they did not want the compensation program and they did not want the liability. No, they didn't, they don't want any of it. Wow. Okay. So what happened? What happened was we had this bill and, you know, they didn't want to pay the older children.

That was a sticking point for us. We said, you cannot withhold federal compensation. If a parent wants to choose to go to compensation instead of a lawsuit, because remember, Dale, back then, the companies had deep pockets. the plaintiff's lawyers did not in the parents. And what they would do is drag out the litigation. And they would on the courthouse steps, before they would go in for a jury trial,

they would settle for low amounts because the parents were so tired and had no money. And they settled for low amounts and they sealed all the court records so that nobody could see what had happened. So there's no precedence. You weren't able to go back and get any evidence like this has happened before.

they kept sealing it every time it was an issue. Yeah, and there were a couple multi-million dollar awards in jury trials where the parents didn't settle. They were few compared to the ones that were settled on the courthouse steps. Got it. So we held a press conference in October up on Capitol Hill and we brought a little girl in who was vaccine injured but she was MMR vaccine injured. She had a withered arm and she had a leg that had been hurt. She had had hemiparosis, I believe. And we're in Capitol Hill. We're up on Capitol Hill.

The press conference is about to take place in 20 minutes. And the AEP realizes this child is not DPT vaccine injured. She's MMR vaccine injured. And they said, no. You can't have that child be in this press conference. And I said, that parent has paid to come here with her child. with her child who has prepared a statement, an eight-year-old girl, and I said, she's giving that statement. And they said, no. I said, well, okay, that's fine. I said, I'm going to hold a press conference

out in the hall with her, and we'll see where the press goes. And they said, eventually they conferred and came back and said, okay. Orrin Hatch stood with her. And that little girl gave them a most amazing statement. And when she was finished, she turned and she hugged Orrin Hatch. And the picture that went around the world was Orrin Hatch with this little girl with Stacy. And we thought that the administration was going to drop their objection. By this point, Strom Thurmond and Robert Dole who got involved, opposing it, joining Ed Meese and Reagan. And they said, still wouldn't drop their opposition. So after the press conference, we held a candlelight vigil in front of the White House. Back then, you could go right in front of the White

House and demonstrate. And Dole and Thurman dropped away. They said, okay. Edmese would not, and Merck came in about 72 hours before and talked to Mace and said, I don't know what they said. I only know that Mies dropped his opposition. And in retrospect, what I believe is that they said, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. We'll fix it after it's passed. And that's exactly what they did.

So sometimes, you know, there's all sorts of myths and rumors about what happened in that moment and people will say, you know, Barbara Lofisher was actually in there fighting to get this passed when the government didn't want it, as though, you know, you were a part of this push to, you know, what ultimately what we now know was total liability protection. Okay. So first of all, nobody was back there then. They don't understand what the situation was. That's why we're here right now.

Okay. They don't understand what the situation was back then. Remember, we had no way to communicate with the public. We had radio, television, magazines, books, and the snail mail, and telephone. We were asked to either participate or not participate. We told them what our criteria was for participation. We fought through to the end, and we got in the The only law in this country that acknowledges that vaccine injuries and deaths are real,

and that vaccine safety should be a national priority, the only law that says that. And we got most of what we wanted. When that law was passed, the companies were still on the hook for design defect. When that law was passed, the doctors could still be sued for medical malpractice. We had the informing, recording, reporting, safety provisions. We had VAERS. We had the VIS. This is just for people know, VERS, so VAERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system,

which we hear so much about during COVID is introduced by this law. That's right. That tracking system of injury. When no one was tracking anything, nothing was happening, suddenly we were going to track injuries, a place where you could report what was happening. And not just doctors and manufacturers, but. parents, the public, and not only report, but see the reports. We insist that it be an open, publicly accessible database. That's not true. I don't think anywhere else in the world. There are

closed databases in other countries, but not like this. And researchers have actually, around the world, have used VERS to do vaccine research on vaccine adverse events. It's a really was a remarkable accomplishment. We got finally record keeping. They have to write down the manufacturer's name and lot number. We knew there were hot lots of DPT vaccine. We knew there were lots associated with more reactions than other lots. And that's one of the reasons we wanted them to have that lot number in the record.

They were supposed to report, it's a mandate to report, average events following vaccination. The one problem was we didn't get punishments attached for not complying with the safety provisions. So if the doctors don't want to comply, they don't have to comply, right? I mean, no one's going to punish them for it. We got a compensation program that was an alternative administrative compensation program that if it was today worked the way it was set up in that law would be providing compensation for children who are injured by that. And just to be clear, I mean, I've heard of it as like a no-fault sort of court system.

The idea being you can go for the big win and you can go up against the pharmaceutical industry and try and go and go for a big payout and have your day in court. Or you can use this government back system that's not going to be super challenging. It's going to recognize injury is real. It happens. You sort of fit the model of what we expect when these kids do. get injured and we'll just pay you out. It'll be pretty easy. It won't take up years of your life. You're not going to pay a lawyer to the end of time. We're just going to make this easy because we

know injury is happening. So let's take care of those families when it happens. Right. Okay. That was because the parents were mostly not getting justice in the judicial system. I mean, how many average parents could fight Pfizer right now, right? That could fight Merck right now. I mean, you're going up against like, you know, walls of lawyers. Right. And so we were trying to say, okay, you can either go to the court or you can have compensation. And that compensation system, if it worked the way it was designed to work, would put pressure because people would, it would do two things. It would protect the vaccine supply because people would go for federal compensation. They wouldn't sue the manufacturers. They'd go for the sure thing.

Yeah. It was kind of a, I thought it was an intelligent and rational compromise, you know. Did we get all the children and we want to know? Did we get everything we want to know? We had to, we had to, the failure to warn was put over on CDC with that VIS, which is why that VAS should be way more detailed. Faire to warn was the vaccine information sheet. Right, the vaccine information sheet should be because that was failure to warn. That should be 15 pages you wrote for the DPT that turns into one page. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the thing that breaks my heart is, it makes me so upset is that after the law was passed, they immediately gutted it.

Congress with amendments, HHS and justice with rulemaking authority, HHS basically with rulemaking authority, but justice is their legal arm. And they gutted it. They gutted the safety provisions. They gutted the compensation provisions. we had created a table of compensable events, and that is for the seven vaccines, because there was only seven back then,

of symptoms like my son suffered, the symptoms of a vaccine reaction and the injury that could occur within certain time periods, if you fit that table that you could have automatic compensation. It was something to help facilitate compensation. What's one of the first things they did? They gutted the table of compensable events. They took residual seizure disorder off as a beans to automatic compensation.

Did they justify that? How did they medically justify that? They said, well, we're going to go, we've gone back to the medical literature and we decided that they just did what they wanted to. Who was going to tell them no? So for people that don't like, there was this list of all these things get happened from a DTP vaccine. And so they were like, if this happens, if this is, you know, your child next day, has seizures or all these things then you're automatically you fit the criteria here's your check take care

your kid the rest of their lives you know and we'll all move on and then they go and start erasing all of these things that were you know symptomatic documented reactions to the vaccine and what's the most severe on that table well death certainly encephalopathy yeah they rewrote the definition of encephalopathy with a definition that does not you cannot find in the medical literature a definition that's so strict that my son even though he was out for a total of 18 hours it's with the exception of the one time I got him awake wouldn't qualify for because it was not unconscious for 24 hours they rewrote the definition of the most serious average event to deny those children

compensation oh so when you When I look back and when I was preparing for this interview and I went back over my documents and the history, I mean, it's so clear to me. They wanted to protect the company's liability. And they always knew they, do you feel like you were just sort of, you know, suckered in, like we'll give you what you want, sign off and then once it's in? They were always planning on just rewriting it anyway. I don't know the answer to that Dell, but all I can say is the way it's turned out, it was a huge

huge betrayal of the trust that we put in government, that we put in the people that we came to the table with, even though we knew we were at odds with each other, I at least thought that Congress would provide oversight on that law along the way. I testified in several hearings in Congress after the law was passed. In 1999, most notably, on hepatitis B vaccine when they, in 91, made that a newborn. recommendation and for all teenagers. The National Vaccine Information Center has received hundreds of reports of injuries and deaths following Hepatitis B vaccination. There's a clear pattern to hepatitis B vaccine reaction symptoms.

There are families with two or three members who have become disabled after hepatitis B shots, hepatitis B shots. Tragically for newborns and babies under two months of age, a hepatitis B vaccine reaction can end in death. When parents looked at the medical literature for answers, they find few studies. looking into hepatitis B vaccine reaction reports. None deal with newborns. Most of the studies look at vaccine efficacy, not vaccine safety.

And actually it was Congress and Micah's brother, I think, John Micah, who held that hearing. And that's where we said, show us the science and give us a choice. Is it possible that the preventive measure for this disease is riskier than the disease itself? We must ask ourselves that question. But our job

today is not to prove whether or not this vaccine causes illnesses or death. Instead, we've created a form for asking questions about what scientific evidence does exist and whether further studies should be completed. I realized after they gutted it. I mean, and honestly, Waxman and Kennedy actually kind of cooperated there too, but it was mostly Waxman. Wiping it out. Well, I mean, he was certainly was responsible for the tracking systems, the vaccine tracking systems in this country.

And for Donna Shalea, I mean, the Congress during that time was a Clinton administration. And they definitely were for everyone getting the vaccines and having mandatory vaccination and making it comfortable for everybody to keep the system going. And one of the things they were going to do is they were going to track all these children from birth so that they could keep track of their vaccines. And that's turned into a, I mean, MVIC has at the state level been opposing vaccine tracking systems for decades because we knew that that was a way you capture people and then you can punish them for not obeying them because you've tracked everybody. Right. You know.

I mean, let's admit they do a better job tracking the vaccine than tracking the injury is caused by vaccines. Right. Or investigating them after they're reported. Right. Yeah. So when I look back, I say, who do you trust? right? Who can you trust? You only really can trust your own ability to intellectually look at information, try to find the information the most that you can, and to be able to have the

legal ability to make a choice without being sanctioned for the choice that you bake. There is no justice in the compensation program. It's a joke. It's a cruel joke. It's an imitation, a poor limitation of a court trial in Washington, D.C., in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I've tracked some of those cases. When I first was working on VACS, there was a nurse who had documented brilliantly all the way through. Her child, it was like had these amazing books because she was just so into having a baby, wanting to use her medical background, and then when her child started having issues, she had it so well documented.

I followed her into the court, and I would call, you know, year after year, which I'm still in the system. It's not. Years and years. And the better the case, the longer it takes. It's true. And eventually they just waded it out and just sort of ruled against her. It was amazing to me. It took years to get that response. Let me, Reagan is a question for me, Ronald Reagan, because I think I've always had this assumption when I've heard Ronald Reagan was against the 1986 Act. My thinking was, well, he was probably, you know, pro-free market. And, and wanted there to be liabilities so the manufacturer would have to, you know, stand by their product. No, he wanted no losses.

That's what I'm surprised at here because I was thinking what, when I always said, old Reagan was, you know, against it, he was against, you know, the free market. He wanted protections for these companies so they could just have their way. And he thought that compensation were going to be too expensive. Wow. So many people have said that that law, the limit liability. Yeah. Well, all you have to do is look at the 1987 hearings on Capitol Hill after that law because as soon as this passed, the manufacturers are screaming, the doctors are screaming, you did not protect us from liability. We had testimony on behalf of the administration

by the Department of Treasury where the guy gets up there and talks about how, you know, they're still designed defect liability. This was in March 5, 1987, in the House Select Review Measure Subcommittee, Committee of Ways and Means. Not happy. They are not happy. He says, showing by the manufacturer that it had complied

with all material federal regulatory requirements would give rise to a rebuttal presumption that the vaccine was accompanied by proper warnings, but would not give rise to a presumption. that the vaccine was not defective in design. They knew that law did not protect design defect lawsuits. Cannot, of particular concerned, our so-called design defect cases. Without a government standard defense in this area,

it is possible that a devastating number of claims could be brought against U.S. manufacturers on the grounds that there are other safer, better, or more technologically advanced DPT vaccines available. want competition. I mean, that right there is say, we don't even want to have to compete. If you don't protect it, you know, you're forcing us to have to compete with a better product. So two market forces are removed. If they, if you take away liability and then you take away competition, right? I mean, they're saying, we don't even want to have to compete with a better product. How could the U.S. Supreme Court, how could the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, ignore the legislative

history of this law and say in 2011 that Congress meant to give the company's design defect protection. The history of the law shows that is not true. That was a tragic miscarriage of justice. That Bruceowitz. Are we talking about? Bruceowitz. Yeah. Versus Wyeth. And here, NVIC, Mary Holland writes this brief with NVIC and these other groups of vaccine, mostly representing vaccine and children and what briefs do we come up against in bruce wets versus versus wyeth a dpt vaccine injury case so so let's take this for a moment i want to get i want to get into to bruce worth versus wyeth but help me understand 87 comes along and congress starts having hearings it around the 86 act about like why who's who's forcing to have hearing where's it coming from because of

the funding they what happened was when all that was happening at the end in 86 and they really wanted a bill they didn't have time to create the funding mechanism for the compensation program okay so they just said there's going to be one yeah we really want one similar actually we have a lawsuit right now for prep act they don't have enough money that like this thing is not working because they set up the compensation but it's not actually working at all when you look at the money it's just the whole thing is just they started something they haven't finished but that's getting off the point but it's sort of a mirror of what we're talking about so they set up a compensation program it has no funding so they still have to now meet and figure out how we're going to fund it right and okay so it's

really important to remember that once you open up a law once you start to have hearings and that law is kind of fluid there were all these these amendments that can be made right so we're up they're fighting against weakening amendments because they wanted to say, oh, we're going to eliminate design defect. We want no medical malpractice. We want, we don't want all those kids to be compensated so much in the compensation program, because why? Because for every admission, every award is an admission that vaccines can do that. And that's been the biggest problem is nobody wants to acknowledge, in the system, wants to acknowledge the extent of the problem. with vaccine, NG, and death.

Right. So it's minimize, cover up, denying. And this is something I did an interview earlier for Epoch Times on this. And it's something that really, people are like, what is the motive? Why would they be covering this up? And I say it's simple. You have a product that everybody has to take in order for it to work. It's not like a drug.

It doesn't just handle the person that's sick. Everybody but the person that's sick. Everyone else in the world has to take it. So the confidence in the product has to be 100%. It has to be 100% because we want 100% of everybody take it because if people don't, then we're not protected and it doesn't work. And therefore, any admission that there are people being injured wrecks the confidence of the 100% and now people stop vaccinate because they personalize the idea that that could be my child. Therefore, I don't want to take that risk and the whole system in their minds, their whole system will fall apart. So as Bernardine Healy even said, 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. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. me, if you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. 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.

I remember that I had a conversation with her before she died. In 2009, a several hour conversation with her and told her everything that I had learned. learned, you know, I didn't realize she was sick. And, but it was a fascinating conversation, was a very intelligent woman. And she did really play her role before she died in, in talking about the potential, you know, association between vaccines and autism. But, you know, while you were talking about, um, why, I was reminded of a, with regard of the doctors and why they're in denial.

Wolfgang Aaron Goot was a. an early critic of DPT vaccine. He was a German immunologist. And I remember we put this quote in a shot in the dark because we said, why would doctors knowingly participate in giving a vaccine that they knew had so many risks associated with it? And Wolfgang Arreng Gutz said, the reason is they're thinking this when it comes to vaccines for children, what must not be, cannot be. there's a psychological disincentive, there's an emotional disincentive for doctors who have been schooled to believe that vaccines are safe and that they're doing something good for a child to actually get their arms around the idea that what they're doing is harming a child. And I'll never forget it because I really do think that is true for most physicians.

People at the top, doctors at the top, doctors sitting in universities and I can name a bunch of them, which I actually did in the recent report that I did. They know. They're working with vaccines every day. They know they're vaccine developers. They're vaccine patent holders. And they do know. And they're not telling the truth.

But I think the average physician who gives vaccines has been taught to believe in them. I agree. That's true. I actually, you know, I'm early on coming into this after, you know, vaxed was out. Robert Kennedy, Jr., called me in early 2017 when Donald Trump had asked him to run a meeting at the NIH and to bring all the issues of vaccine injury to the NIH. So I worked with Bobby on that and, you know, we put

together a whole PowerPoint. And after that meeting, it was an incredible meeting several hours. And we laid out, found out for sure they've never done a proper placebo study of any of the childhood vaccines. And they would, they basically said they would refuse to do a vaccination versus unvaccinated comparative study, which they easily could do with the database they have. And they said very clearly, we don't know how to do that study. Like it's the most incredible statement I've ever heard. We can't figure out how to do that study. Well, they say it's ethically. You know, you can't withhold the vaccine. But it's not an ethical issue when you're talking about a retrospective study comparing two groups that were already in your system. You know, the

Institute of Medicine looked at the whole system and said you have plenty of unvaccinated people in it to have all the power you needed to deliver a decent study. But, you know, I won't get into the details, and I've talked plenty on my show about that experience in that meeting. But it's interesting because I'd never heard of that statement. But my takeaway when I left there was there's about 10 people across the table from us. Tony Fauci was sitting almost where you're sitting from me right now. And right across from Bobby was Francis Collins.

And I honestly, I called my wife afterwards, and I said, it's the most incredible thing actually, you know, that my sense of listening to most of these people speak, is that they really believe in what they're doing. And when you ask them really obvious questions, like, why don't you just compare vaccines to unvaccinated? We could have the answers to all these things. And they look at you not like in some of a deceptive way, just like you just described finding a unicorn. They're like, I just, we have no idea how we would do that and it's and I said to my wife it's almost like there's an internal self-protecting like that that that sort of internal self-protective mechanism that we all have and I said it's beyond just

protect myself from danger we actually have a system I think that protects us from learning something that would make everything we've done in our life wrong what must not be cannot be what must not be cannot be is the best way of describing this exactly said to my wife except for one person I actually think Francis Collins seemed like the sweetheart a little bit dense in some ways, but I said to my wife, there was one guy that is not like that. There's one guy that was in that room that I don't think has a heart. I think he's sick and demented and this guy, Anthony Fauci that was sitting across from me. But that wasn't, I didn't know Anthony Fauci at that point. I mean, it wasn't what we now know from COVID. I just said, this guy's, I can tell he knows. Azela, yeah. Well, you know, I, you know, one of the things that that happened in 1986 before that law was passed is that we held the first demonstration. in front of the CDC that had ever been held. And we held it on the,

they don't know how many children are being hurt by DPT. And we were actually invited, and it's the only time it's ever happened. I was invited, along with several parents, to go into the ACIP committee and present our case for why we think that policy should be changed, et cetera. And I actually put a tape recorder in my purse, and I taped it.

And I went home and I just cramped. transcribed it. So I have a transcript of that meeting. And the same thing happened as you were facing Fauci and Collins. You know, we were facing the ACIP committee and questioning. We were asking questions of them. I was able to question them about, for example, well, what's the criteria for separating a protussis vaccine death from a death that's not caused by protasus vaccine? Well, we don't, We don't really have a criteria. I said, so coroners don't know how, they don't have any guidelines for how to distinguish a DPT death from a SIDS death? Right. No, not really. Yeah. I mean, and that situation still exists for all the vaccines, including COVID vaccine. These coroners don't

have any, any guidelines. And it's, and the thing is that there is no oversawks, sight on these people. Congress passed that law and walked away. Burton, Dan Burton held some hearings in the late 90s, early 2000s on autism and vaccines, but it's been nothing. They won't touch it. In fact, I've been told this issue is so radioactive that Congress will not go near it. Well, you know, because they wouldn't go near it and because the FDA and CDC and those people wouldn't do their jobs. I told them a long time ago in public meetings, I said a system that will not bend will break. And if you do not listen to us right now and what we're saying to you and do the science

that needs to be done to find out who is at risk for having these reactions, you're going to have to deal with younger generations coming up behind us. And they are not going to be, they are not going to be the same as we tried to work in the system. I stand on government vaccine advisory committees for more than 20 years as a consumer rep. I tried to work within the system to get it to change. And by 2010, I said, they're not going to change. They're not going to do the science. And I remember calling Don Richardson and she and I had worked on getting a conscience belief exemption in Texas. We worked for seven years in the late 90s to 2004 to get a conscientious belief exemption.

Only time it's been done in my, this is I've been doing this work. And I said, Don, let's do this in the rest of the states. Let's hold the line on these vaccine exemptions. And so she came in and she created the portal, the vaccine advocacy portal, the NVIC advocacy. Great portal. NVIC advocacy. and we work the states because vaccine laws are state laws. Yeah.

The Supreme Court said that in Jacobson, 1905, affirmed vaccine laws are state laws, the government licenses and recommends the vaccines and the states mandate or don't mandate the vaccines. Right. Jacobson basically said you have the authority to mandate vaccines or they don't have to mandate vaccines. or they don't have to mandate vaccines. I think after 40 years of stonewalling and denying and turning away from the victims of vaccine injury and not doing the science, no liability, no mandates.

Yep. There should be no vaccine mandates. And if anything proved that, it was what happened with COVID. When the federal government tried to come in and basically override state laws and say everybody's, you know, if you are in a corporation, there's more than 100 employees, you've got to mandate the COVID vaccine, and all federal employees have to get it. And the contractors of federal employees have to get it, or federal agencies have to get it. No, there should be no vaccine mandates. And that will

put pressure on the companies to make a better product. I also. I also believe if I could wave a magic wand, that that 86 act should go back to the way it was when it was passed. Why should the companies get protection for failure to make a safer vaccine? Why should negligent doctors be protected from medical malpractice lawsuits? Right. Why is nobody who makes markets, makes profit from, develops, regulates, makes policy foreign mandates vaccines, why is nobody accountable in a court of law in front of a jury of our peers? There's no other product that has that kind of protection.

And what has it been like to live these last, you know, since 1986, oftentimes you get blamed for that liability protection. I mean, I'm not putting that on you. I'm just saying there are people like, you know, Barbara was there. I mean, and clearly we now know you had the, you know, it wasn't full liability protection. That must be difficult to be accused of the exact opposite of what you set out to do and did. Well, I appreciate this interview. because I have made presentations, public presentations and conferences and things.

I've never had an opportunity to really do it nationally. I've never had an opportunity to sit down and talk about this law with anyone like I'm doing with you. So, you know, I hope people will see we were parents of vaccine-insured children who were told you can come to the table and fight for the parents and the children. children and as hard as you can, but we're going to pass this law. I mean, I believe that if that was done today, that the parents of vaccine and children would do the same as we did. You're going to come up against the same people, like in Bruce and Witts v. Wyeth. That DPT case, which was argued that they, Wyeth could have made a vaccine safer.

All right. So let's focus on that. Bruce versus Wyatt is an attempt when they're trying to say this is really one of the last attempts is going to be before they get rid of design defect design defect let's run a case yeah okay so you so so they ran the you know it was a design defect case and here we have the government hHS justice all the government the administration saying we side with wyeth you have all of medical trade All of public health, all of industry. We side with Wyeth. You have MVIC and vaccine injured groups, groups of vaccine injured children. We side with the plaintiff. The child has been injured. And the Supreme Court majority went with all of them. Against the child.

All the power brokers. Right. To protect the system. And they got to. the legislative history wrong. Saying that the Congress had intended with this law to protect, you know, even designed defect that you couldn't bring a case. That you couldn't bring a case. What they really meant, what Congress really meant was no lawsuits at all against the drug companies. Now, remember I was talking about that funding, the funding bill that they were having hearings on in 1987? To fund the compensation program. The fund the compensation program, which they did in 1988. Well, in 1997, the first amendment that they put in was to give the doctors medical

malpractice liability protection in the dark of the night in December of 1987 in a budget reconciliation bill, which we knew nothing about. Nobody told us. All of a sudden, the doctors didn't have any liability. And then in the succeeding decades in the 90s, they got the safety provisions and the compensation provisions, you know, took the, you know, we wrote the definition of encephalopathy, took away the presumption of injury on the table. There's just the entire point. The whole thing started to just deteriorate. And then the cases weren't being compensated. The lawsuit stopped. No one can win. It's costing a fortune being in there. It's being dragged out as though you are up against the pharmaceutical industry.

And then the Supreme Court put the final nail on the coffee. And is that the same Supreme Court that we always hear the famous quote, Supreme Court says vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. And you'll say that to anyone in the world, like any friend, you say, you know, the Supreme Court has admitted vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. So this statement that all vaccines are safe and effective should really be erased by that statement. But what they mean it as is, therefore, you cannot. sue these manufacturers it's not their fault the nature of this product means some people will be

injured right so i'm going to go to the waxman statement okay in march of 1987 so here we are in this year after the law has been passed and the companies and the doctors are screaming we need liability protection you didn't do it so waxman says in his statement he says a lot of things but but he said in his statement they're inherently unsafe that's what he says And then he says, if an injury is the result of a bad vaccine or one inadequately researched or warned of, then the courts could still make awards. And he says about the tax on the vaccines that will fund the vaccine program. The tax was to be set by how dangerous each type of vaccine is known to be.

And then he says, the act was no one's first choice. The parents group wanted fewer restrictions on litigation and more children eligible for compensation. The manufacturers wanted more protections from tort action and less specificity about awards. They all wanted to limit the awards. The doctors wanted to close off malpractice lawsuits. Again, everyone knew that the law didn't give total liability protection.

But almost everyone agrees that the Compensation Act would be better than the current problems. Now, we didn't know they would gut the law. We didn't know that. We were worried. I mean, we were worried the whole way through because they kept saying no lawsuits, no lawsuits. But we kept thinking that Congress, you know, would protect us, I guess.

They're people. They're just mothers and fathers themselves, right? They're supposed to be representing the people, that they would hear the people, not the corporate interests. Right. Yeah, we thought Congress would protect us. And we didn't expect that the same people who had supported the law would come in and participate in the weakening of it. We certainly didn't think the support.

I'll never forget in 2011. I was in my car. And someone called me and said, we lost Brissowitz. I was just stunned. I'd never thought that the Supreme Court would do that. So, Dale, you know, again, I really feel that this has come down to an ethical, it's a moral issue, the right to, I mean, the choices that we make in this life about risks that concern our physical body or the bodies of our children are among the most important choices that we make. Because our physical body houses our mind and our soul. And if we can't make choices about our physical body, protection of bodily integrity, autonomy,

we're not free in any sense of the word. I say publicly upset it to news cameras. I believe you have the same rights as the farm animal. If you do not control your body and the government can inject you just like the farmer injects his cows and his pigs, then you are a farm animal. You've lost any freedom there is. I mean, forget about the freedom of your land, your airspace, your land space, your water rights, what difference does any mean when you can't control the water of your own body flowing through, you know, your blood, elevate, you have no control over that. You're not a free person. And that's why I will fight

this till, you know, the day that I die, this is the most important issue, I think, in humanity. I agree with you, Del. I remember I always quote Albert Einstein who said in the 30s and he risked arrest to say something like this. He said, never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it. And I said the quote that I'm probably known foremost is if the state can tag, track down, and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow. If we cannot make these things, choices were not as I said free in any sense of the word and I'm I'm really

glad that when you created your organization you know that you put the word informed consent in informed consent became my sort of rationale or reason Ranzalmdhra in 1996 when I went to the Holocaust Museum and I went to the first conference that they held at the Holocaust Museum and it was about pre-war Germany and how the public health community and the medical community had worked with government, the Third Reich, to do what was done during the Holocaust. And I sat there in that room and I realized I was sick for a week after that conference. I was sick in bed for a week.

I had come out of the conference and I'd looked up at the, at the inscriptions on the ceiling. And one of them said, the first to perish were the children. children, from these a new dawn might have risen. And I thought to myself, there is no difference. Yes, the Nuremberg Code was about scientific experimentation on human beings. That was what the Nuremberg Code after the doctor's trial was about. But after that code was issued, the informed consent principle became the central ethical principle of the practice of modern medicine.

All medicine, I agree. including for patients. Now they're trying to say that's not true. There was an article written a couple of years during the pandemic saying that I had tried to make the false equivalency between scientific experimentation on children and practice of medicine. No. No, it says it all. How is it not experiment if the product hasn't been through a safety trial, which it has not? So this is an experimental product no matter how you slice it. And it's experimental on people that, you know, we didn't And even COVID, we watched the same thing. You didn't have obese people in your trials.

You didn't have pregnant people, but you, once soon as the vaccine was available, you told them it was safe for them and you had no idea that that was the case. And I would also say, and I'll take it a step further, which is, to your point, the Holocaust, the doctors in many ways were the foot soldiers of that atrocity. They, you know, designed, they designed the gases. They were part of the experiments. They absolutely carried it out. And I wonder, now today, the more I've gotten into this if Nazi Germany happens without doctors. In fact, I've lost a lot, almost all of my faith in the practice of medicine. And I think COVID proved it. To me, when you look at what just happened with COVID, when you watch them take products that

world-renowned doctors said were working on their patients, you take away hydroxychloric, you take away Ivermectin. I don't care what anyone says. The point is, is these have already been proven to be safe products. So even if they didn't work what difference didn't make, you had no other option. You were giving no other option to people saying we don't know how to deal with this, but we know you shouldn't go near these drugs. Why? They are being used for every, you know, river blindness and lupus and you name it, malaria, everyone is taking these things and they've never had a problem. Why would you take a product that's perfectly safe out of the way? And then for the first time in medicine, doctors across the United States of America, for the first time that I know of in modern

medicine decided that there was no early treatment. In the world where we know, the sooner you treat anything, cancer, diabetes, any of it, the sooner you treat, the better outcome you're going to have, suddenly we found something that we say, don't treat it at all. Send everybody home. But you're assuming that they still are engaging in rational thought. Well, they're not. We've all recognized that, but what I'm saying is the doctors of the United States of America throughout COVID just murdered at least a half a million to 750,000, maybe more, people. I think that could be argued. Just like, I mean, and so to not make the comparison

to what we've been through before, they put people, they took away the drug that worked. They said, go home to your lips turn blue and you're running out of oxygen, then come back, we're going to put you on a ventilator where nine out of 10 of you will be dead at the end of this is all over, and did it over and over and over and again,

even worse in black communities and minority communities forget about, you know, almost no one's walking out of their life. And so once again, we sit here and I think we have been holding doctors up on this pedestal like they've had this brilliant education and they care about us. And I know that a lot of them do. I'm not taking that away. But there is something wrong with these people that they can follow through with mandates that they're watching people die right before their eyes by their own actions. And honestly, I agree with you.

But I think we've participated because we have put them on that pedestal. and because we have substituted what used to be reverence for God. Right. Okay. And they have, they believe their own, their hubris is so huge. They have forgotten to think rationally. I don't think most doctors want to kill people and injure people. I do not believe they do.

But I believe they have a bad and rational thought. I think they are engaging in mass delusion. I agree. I think they are engaging in mass denial. What must not be, cannot. be and guess what I am the smartest guy or gal in the room and you don't have the right to not listen to me or believe what I believe or think what I think or get out of my office and don't through this hospital ever again they're throwing parents out of these offices when they even ask a question

about a vaccine risk or they want to delay one shot and not adhere to the schedule they are the aAP has sanctioned and given its blessing to doctors to throw these parents out of the office if they do not salute smartly and roll up the sleeves of their children. But soldiers. And you know what? Like I said, a system that will not bend will break and you can see the disintegration of the public health system because these people are so full of ego and so unwilling to exercise rational thought and do something about this disaster that we've got. Look, I remember when I debated Neil Halsey from Johns Hopkins on the Today Show in 1997. And I remember them calling me and asking me, would you come on the show and talk about vaccine risk?

And I said, yes, but I want the biggest, most formidable, most famous public health official or doctor that you can find. Yeah. And so they picked Neil Halsey, who was pretty damn well known at the time. You know, he was somebody out of Johns Hopkins, which is, of course, a very famous hospital. anyway, university. I get on there and, you know, how you do when you go to these interviews, you know, you know there's going to be millions of people watching. And you go, oh, please, let me keep it together enough to sound smart.

And it's say what I need to say. There are 33 doses of nine different vaccines that our children now have to get in order to attend school. There are 200 vaccines being created, including an AIDS vaccine that Dr. Halsey said should be used. by all 12-year-olds. The issue is not whether or not we should use a few vaccines to control a few serious diseases, but whether or not we're over-vaccinating our children and setting them up for chronic disease later in life. But in the particular case where a parent finds that there are risks associated with a particular vaccine, should that parent flatly refuse to administer the vaccine? Parents should be fully informed about all risks and then be able to make an informed

consent decision. The issue is whether or not we're going to have the right in this country as Americans to freely choose the kind of preventive health care we want for our families, including which vaccines we use or whether or not we're going to have that freedom taken from us by public health officials. Dr. Halsey, what about there? Are there too many vaccines out there that parents are required to give their children? Absolutely not bad. Parents are always concerned about doing what's safest for their children, and they really

should be very confident that the safest thing they can do for their children is to protect them against those vaccine preventable diseases. And I remember it was, it really actually was easy at the end of the day because he was so arrogant. Yeah. And so absolutely sure of what, you know... With no evidence. They just refer to a, like there's a body of science that you've proven and my nonprofit we've proven does not exist.

Well, that's right. We have demonstrated time and time again the importance of having all children immunized in order to prevent these outbreaks of disease. Dr. Holsey. ago, the 1990-91 epidemic of measles with thousands of cases, over 50 deaths from measles in children who were not adequately protected, and will have resurgence of those outbreaks if we don't maintain very high levels of immunization, and it's important that parents should be fighting for more laws that require children to be immunized when they're in school, in daycare centers.

And I decided I was going to, for the first time, bring up the connection between vaccination and chronic disease, the chronic disease and disability epidemic among children. This is America where we have the right to have choices and to make decisions about the health of our children and our families. I think it is wrong to suggest that those of us who are fighting for the right to have full information about vaccinations and full information about diseases and make an informed consent decision are somehow contributing to lessening the health of our society. society we do not know whether all these vaccines were giving our children are contributing to chronic illness later in life we're becoming a sicker and sicker society and then I was going to talk about Nuremberg and the in the

informed consent ethic and that was the first time that had ever been done on national TV what it's about is are we as Americans going to have the right to inform consent to any medical procedure which carries the risk of injury or death including vaccination informed consent has been the gold standard in medical practice ever since the Nuremberg codes were passed after World War II. There should be no exception for vaccination. It was only supposed to go four minutes. I think it went seven. And then I actually at one point talked about communist China. You got that into seven minutes? I did. I barely can tell someone my

name in seven minutes. And I said this is not communist China where the greater good is invoked to take away human rights and to commit human rights abuses. This is America where we are allowed, to make choices about the health of our children and the health of our families. Look, this is not communist China where the collective good is invoked in order to commit human rights abuses and devalue the life of the individual. And that's really is what it comes down to. We have the right in America or should have the right to decide how we want to stay healthy and we shouldn't be punished for making decisions for ourselves and our children that are

in our own interests because if we all do that, the public health of be really good. Not as bad as it is right now. First we've ever seen. I mean, this is the sickest nation of children in the industrialized world. Sickest generation of children this country has ever seen. Yep. We know we're, I mean, we were told we're at 54% chronic illness rate up from back before the 86 act, before it turned into 72 vaccines. You're getting 10 vaccines, 11 vaccines, chronic illnesses is at about 12%, including neurological autoimmune disorders, now 54%. And that number really is, that data comes from, I think, 2006, analyzed in 2012, and we have not seen where we're at in the last 11 and 12 years.

God knows how much the autoimmune and chronic disease epidemic, how much has grown. So more than half of all kids are permanently sick, their whole lives. And I say this, Barrow, I said, well, look, how do you know it's not the food? I mean, they're spraying glyphosate and all these things on all of our crops. 90% of our crops have this toxic chemical. Yeah, really good point. How do you know it's not our water and the fluoride in our water and all the drugs that we're finding in the water system

that aren't getting cleared out with the filtering? How do you know it's not all the hormones and the things injected into our cattle? And I say to people, I am investigating all of those things. And you're right, they're all a problem. But let's be clear. Every one of those things are being approved by the same regulatory agencies that I have an issue with. FDA, CDC, EPA are allowing these products to go into everything we do. And then your argument is, well, it's going to be one of those and not the one you're focused on.

I said, either way, the CDC and the FDA and the NIH have overseen the greatest catastrophic drop in public health the world has ever seen has ever been documented. Absolutely. And Tony Fauci's been there the whole time. He is fully to blame for the sickest generation of kids we've seen in this world. And lastly, this is what I say. But let's talk about autoimmune disease. We talk about autoimmune disease. This means for some reason, for some reason, we've been on this earth as human beings for, you know, God knows how long.

And suddenly about 50 years ago, our immune systems started attacking our own bodies and we have no idea why. Just out of nowhere now immune systems are attacking our own bodies. And we're trying to figure out what is. Is it the food? Is it the water? Is it the air? Could be those things. But how about let's focus on the one product, the one thing and all those things you just listed, that by definition is designed to trick your immune system.

If you stop someone on the street and say, what does the vaccine do? Well, I don't know. It's like it takes a little part of a virus, I guess, and it tricks my immune system to thinking I've had a disease. And so we tricked the immune system. That's what I say in every interview. We don't trick that immune system in a child one time, not five times. not 10 times, not 20 times, not 40 times, not 50 times, not 60 times, 72 times right now. We are tricking the immune systems of our children and we are shocked that suddenly that immune

system is so confused it's attacking their own bodies. I'm going to add to that what you just said, and that is what do vaccines do in the body? They cause an inflammatory response. By design. By design, an inflammatory response. And if you have genetic predisposition to not be able to resolve inflammatory responses, which is very much part of, they know now science knows that chronic inflammation is at the root of most chronic disease. So almost all modern health practitioners, we're all trying to get rid of our inflammation.

So here you go. You have a little baby in the womb, and now they're giving the mother vaccines. And that's causing an inflammatory response in that mother's body. And the fetus is developing. God knows what's happening with the fetus. They're not looking at it. Or if they are, they're not telling. The baby is born at 12 hours of age in the newborn nursery. The first immunological assault, they inject that baby with hepatitis B vaccine,

even though in 1991, we had almost no hepatitis B here, one of the lowest rates of hepatitis B in the world. Mothers are tested for hepatitis B before they give birth, so there's no reason. We're going to give the babies. And I'll tell you why that happened. I was at in 1985, I went to the ACIP committee with a mother whose baby had died after DPT. Her name was Leslie Chapman. And we were going to talk to them about that.

And I had to listen to all of the talk before we got the chance to talk. And Mark was there. And the rep was saying to the doctors, to the ASIP, look, we've got this hepatitis B vaccine. If you can't get it into the high-risk populations, which at that time was those who sexually, who had multiple sexual partners, IV drug users is number one, though, okay, you're just going to have to pass a law. make sure to pass laws to shoot in the arms of every high school kid in the country because we're not going to have an orphan drug on our hands wow we didn't make this drug for nothing and we can't get the the adults to take it that should be taking it so give it to the kids he said high school kids

when the policy came out it was newborns at 12 hours of age and the vaccine will never last the time they know that it wears off in the first few years so it's never going to get to the time that they're an adult. And it was allowed to happen because nobody has any oversight on this. The scientists and doctors in this country are the most powerful individuals in the country. In the world. And that sure showed. I think COVID just proved in the world. It absolutely showed with COVID. All right. We've laid out there's so much, but I do want to talk about one thing. You know, before I let you go, the 1986 Act, I think now hangs in the balance. More and more people now recognize. you know, what it's become at least. You know, we've cleared up what it was and how it became

what it's become. And I recognize while you were at the table and I agree with you, I would have been at that table too. And people get upset with me when they see me talk to sometimes. I'm pragmatic. Like, I'm trying to fix a system. You know, everyone gets blamed. You watch someone when Robert Kennedy Jr. will say, I'm not anti-backs. Why is he saying that? He's trying to make sense in a situation and trying to get in a room and deal with him. with science. And by the way, I think to say that your anti-vax is like saying the science is settled on the opposite side. You know, you're saying I'll never touch anything no matter what. I think the science, if I'm going to ask the other side to say, I need you to open your mind that the science

has never settled. I have to be able to say, my science has never settled. I'm pretty sure where I'm at, but I'm open to a conversation. And I also say this, talk to me when Ebola is sweeping across the United States of America and you have a vaccine that actually went and was tested against placebo then let's talk right so i completely agree with you i completely agree with you and i think it's really important for everyone understand who has watched this this is that you know nbic and i know you're in the same position we do not tell people what to do right we we support full and accurate information and the ability to make an informed and voluntary decision without being sanctioned that is not anti-vaccine that's anti-forced vaccination right there is a different

because I agree with you, I have always said, you know, if there was hemorrhagic fever and then people were bleeding out in the streets, I'd have to take a hard look at it. Sure. You know, I mean, so pragmatism, rational thinking has been completely suspended here. Yeah. You know. Well, what I think is beautiful about COVID and all this is finally, slowly but surely, more and more people realizing that we're on the rational side, that we're on the reasonable side. And we're just asking for decent. science. I mean, that's exactly really the case. I mean, when someone says, you know, is there a vaccine, you have to admit there's some vaccine you like. And I say, I'll tell you this, there's not a single vaccine that's been through a safety study. And until that happens, I will say, I don't, I just make a habit. I don't inject myself with products that don't go to safety studies. And I definitely don't put those in my kids. When you're talking about the science and the issues of the Institute of Medicine who issued a series of reports between 1991 and 2013, because, you're because we put that research provision in that law for the IOM to do a study of the

evidence on vaccine safety. Okay, in their 2013 last report that they did, they looked at the childhood vaccine schedule for kids from zero, from birth to age six. And here is a conclusion they came out with because there were only 40 studies in the medical literature that looked at the schedule. And here are the outstanding questions about vaccines and chronic illness. The 2013 IOM report concluded that there is not enough scientific evidence to determine if the recommended child vaccine schedule for under sex is or is not associated with the development of the following brain and immune system disorders prevalent among children today.

Asthma, atoppy, allergy, autoimmunity, autism, learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorder, tics and Tourette syndrome, seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy. And that is a scandal. That is a mic drop right there. It is a scandal. That's a scandal. It's the heart of, and so that work that you did is what ICANN has used in, you know,

in the provisions that there was supposed to be a task force put together by NIH, CDC, FDA, never happened. Or was disbanded. Well, they only went through, they did a couple of reports, but they didn't continue it. And HHS is supposed to be reporting to Congress every other year on all the work that's being done to make vaccines. They never met not a single report. We FOIA for them, not a single report.

So all the provisions, as you said, that you had, and I didn't realize this when we're doing this work, really that those provisions we were using to show. the government is lying to us, that they're not being transparent, they're not doing the proper work that was mandated, you know, upon them by the 86 Act, that was what you were doing and you were in the room. And so your being in that room has allowed us the ability to bring a fantastic lawyer in Aaron Siri and really start using that. And that was, that was, that's what changed. I think that was what made I can different is that everyone prior to I can, as I was coming into this, I'd made backs, it was like the 86 acts, the worst.

We've got to get rid of it. We've got to get rid of it. And Aaron and I sat down. I said, how do we sue? He says, we're going to do something no one's ever thought. We're actually going to use the 86 Act. We're going to use the provisions that were written in it to out the government of the United States because they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

So here's my question. You know, we've done that work. We have taken the words that you put in there and shown the government never, ever fixed the problem, which was you had a defective product that is injuring certainly a group of children. How large that is is for another debate. And I don't even think there's enough science, clearly not been enough science to actually come to a conclusion on that. But now there are crosshairs on the 86 Act. There's politicians that are now reaching out to me that I can and the law firm. We want to take a look at the 86 Act. And, you know, either amend it or change it

or get rid of it altogether, what do you think when we think about abolishing the 1986 Act? The way I feel about it is that this is the only law on the books, the 86 Act, is the only law in the books that says vaccines that are licensed by government and recommended by government and mandated by government cause injury and death. And that vaccine safety should be made a national priority.

Have they fulfilled what the act said? No. Did they gut it? Yes. Did the Supreme Court do the wrong thing? Yes. Is the answer to scrap a law that is the only one that says vaccines can injure and kill and has a number of safety revisions and is awarded more than $5 billion, I think, even though it's not enough? I don't think the answer is to take down that law. I think the answer is to go back to what it was. If it were, if it, if it would be the way it was supposed to be before it was ruined, you would have lawsuits. You would definitely have lawsuits on MRI vaccines.

I would just caution you to take a look at the history because past is prologue. And I think it's very, very important for this generation, those who are looking at that law and thinking that should come down to, really be careful, look at who you're coming up against, look at pragmatically at the chances for success or failure. Once you open up a law for amending, certainly if you take down the law, I think it's going to be very difficult in Congress to do that. But say you open it up and you try to amend it, you have to understand that anything can happen. And the forces that you'll come up against or the same forces that you came up against in Bruce Bruce versus Wyeth. And I would just urge caution about that.

That's a the 86 Act is a federal law that sort of oversees what you have described as a state issue. States decide mandates. Right. Do you think there's a danger tinkering with the federal law because it seems to me, and I've had people come up to me and say, we should pass a federal, um, exemption law and it's actually you that I just think we shouldn't mess with the federal law at all because if pharma moves in there which they will the backfire would be you get a federal mandate and then all is right I mean you know a federal power over you don't want the the federal

government right now only has control over the borders and interstate commerce actually I was worried during COVID that they were going to maybe pull the trigger on the ability of not be able to cross state borders without getting vaccinated. That is something they could have done and they still can do in the future. But certainly 1905 Jacobson versus Massachusetts affirmed the constitutional right or authority of states to mandate vaccines or not mandate vaccines. And that's why I never wanted to see a challenge to Jacobson because we've done pretty well lately in the states like there was no COVID mandate for children. Because the legislative, had been educated on this issue. We had done 13, well, 10 years of work on it. And so I feel

very good about that. And I think that we have a chance in the states to not only add more exemptions like conscience exemption, even though there have been exemptions that have been taken away, I think there is an educated public now. I think that the states are ready to really take a hard look at some of these mandates because there's more vaccines coming. I mean, there's hundreds of vaccines being created. With MRI, they can make them overnight. Oh yeah. start seeing a vaccine for everything that crawls on the earth. So I'd like to really see a concentration on protecting these exemptions.

And, you know, I wrote a commentary last year about weaponizing COVID to promote collectivism. And I wrapped the argument around the Alancet article where HOTES and some of these public health officials from around the world and scientists basically attacked the United States of America for our individualistic, individual freedom rights in this country that are attached to the U.S. Constitution. I mean, really, when you know, there's been a lot of talk about a world government that would be centralized in the United Nations,

the World Health Organization, being able to pass laws that would apply to everybody, regardless of the country's laws that would be applied, you know, like a world government. They cannot stand the U.S. Constitution. They cannot stand our form of government, which is federal, state, and local. We have decentralized government here. We don't have just one powerful federal government.

And you see, if you look back at COVID what's been going on, you can see the federal government wanting to get the power from the states into the federal government. So we must protect this idea of this decentralized government at all costs. They hate our First Amendment. That is a thorn in their side. The U.S. is too individualistic. They respect individual rights.

And I always say the individual has rights, which limit the power of the state. That is really the definition of, well, should be a definition of democracy, but we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. And there's a difference in the democracy majority rules. In our government, in our Constitution Republic, the minorities have power as well. Yeah. And individuals have power as well. So we need to protect what our founders of our country gave to us this amazing system of government.

You've been on an incredible journey. And I would imagine moments of, you know, celebration and then watching those celebrations get dashed. probably real pain accusations. Yet you've always stayed there delivering information to the masses. The work that I do would not be possible without the incredible work that you have done. What is your dream? Oh, my dream is that when I take my last breath, that we have freedom to make medical decisions, including vaccine decisions, without being punished by government, or doctors or anyone else.

To me, that's basic natural right given to us by God to make those kinds of decisions. And I, like you, will continue to do this work until I can no longer do it. Well, I'm gonna do my best to make sure that you see that day, we're in this together. And I'm really glad you came on the scene. You know, I really am, Dale,

because you have created this big megaphone And you have this great show. And I'm really glad you invited me to be on to clear the air and clear up some misconceptions about that act. I feel like I've, you know, kind of been liberated a little bit. I'm glad. You deserve that. I'm glad that I could do that.

So, Del, I want to take you over to show you the Truth and Freedom Monument that we dedicated in March of 2023 on property that was donated by Dr. Joseph Marcolla. It's at the Marcolla market. The monument has quotes, but also the centerpiece of it, is an angel, a bronzed angel, silver-bronzed angel with a child, and she's carrying a torch in one hand, which is a torch of truth, and the child is a symbol of humanity, the future of humanity, and the angel is a guardian angel. I get emotional because my daughter actually designed it. She's an artist, and she designed it. It's a celebration of civil liberties, but it's also in me. memory of the children who have been harmed by vaccines. Well, let's go take a look at it. Okay.

All right. This came March of 2023. We dedicated the Truth and Freedom Monument. And here's the angel. It's beautiful. She's standing on the globe of the world. And on each side is a civil liberty, freedom of speech and assembly. This is no forced vaccination, not in America.

They had no voice. They had no choice. We wanted to dedicate to people who believe protection of civil liberties and who understand that we don't need forced vaccination in America. He has such a sweet look on her face, you know. Determined but not angry. Warrior moms, so much like that built this movement. That's one of the neat things to see is how men and families getting involved.

Like people will say to me, you know, thank you for your sacrifice, you don't have skin in the game. I have the most, you know, basic instinct there is, which is to protect my kids before they're injured. So I'm why men go to war. Like, I'm fighting to protect my kids. I actually have great respect for those who haven't had an injury or personally touch who do join this movement, especially on the civil liberties issue. I've always felt mandatory vaccination issues transcend the issue of vaccination. It really has to do with something much bigger. I'm glad you made it over and got to see our angel.

I want to thank Barbara Lofisher for obviously inviting me in and sharing all that she did there, but also for the incredible work she's done. That interview could have honestly gone on for another few hours, so much I want to talk to her about whether you know her to not, also some of the things to achieve beyond having the VAR system, which is something that, you know, for all the attacks on VERS, is we use it all the time on this show to show you what's going on. When we've seen these numbers go in COVID,

it's one of the big arguments we're able to make because of that VARIS system. It exists because of the work that Barbara Lofisher did at that time. A lot of her work led to safer vaccines for those people that are taking them, which is something that I'm all about. I've told you I'm not here to eradicate vaccines from the planet. If you believe in it, one of the things that I can is going to do is make sure it's properly safety testing that you're going to the safest, most effective version.

version of that that there is. That's because I care about everybody. What we're really fighting for here is freedom of choice. But what I was going to say is you don't realize that the work that Barbara L. Fisher did led to a change in the DTP vaccine. The DTP vaccine is proving to be one of the most dangerous vaccines ever. It is really, in many ways, what caused the 1986 Act. That was the vaccine that's being sued so much. It's also the vaccine being used in the third world that Dr. Peter Abe, one of the great vaccinators of third world, did his own study and found out, oh, my God, we're having 10 times the death rate with those children that are receiving DTP in a study in Guinea-Bissau Africa to those that aren't getting it.

And now he's crusading against several vaccines, not all of them, but some of them that work like that. Well, Barbara L. Fisher made sure that we aren't getting DTP here in America. She was influential in getting it switched over to the ASTLER pertussis, which turns it into D-TAP. That was a huge victory for those people that are getting the vaccine. I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch of imagination and I haven't given it to my kids, none of them. But I will say this, for those that do believe in vaccines, it is got a better safety record. And also another dangerous vaccine was the polio vaccine.

It was an active polio virus vaccine, which is being used in third world is what is causing outbreaks of polio around the world, which is getting to be a problem. I said before this polio conversation isn't over. But she was able to take that active polio vaccine and turn it into the inactive polio vaccine that's given to children now. So at least it's not causing polio to spread in America. It has some other issues that we have discussed many times. So to credit, you know, Barbara Loh Fisher, she was in there. And I believe courageous in so many ways, both for those that didn't believe in vaccines and those that do. I think we should listen very carefully to her words.

There is the potential to be reckless. We want to just fix this was one, some sweeping federal order. But I am listening very intently to what she's saying. In fact, my views of government have changed throughout this experience of working, you know, in the vaccine area. I have said many times before that I grew up a progressive, liberal Democrat. I believed in big government. I thought that people were stupid and government needed to step in there and take care of everybody. I've since gained a faith in humanity and a belief in individualism and our ability to do great things when we are free enough to, you know, challenge our creative minds and express in ways that only we can.

And I also see that this giant, you know, centralized government is what the world wants. It's what the UN wants. What's the WHO wants? It's what the WEF wants. And what we want is our power to be as close to us as possible. I think we should also think about the idea of opening up the 86 Act, you know, to a federal, you know, conversation again. Well, who are the biggest lobbyists that are going to be at the table, it will be pharma all over again. We're going to continue to do investigations like this.

As you've seen, we don't just, you know, take debate. We don't just share the story everybody else is on. We don't go with what's easy to talk about. We look at all sides of the story. That's what makes the high wire special. Because of your funding and your donations and your investment in this, I think we have one of the most powerful science teams across the world. We have international scientists that we weigh in with all the time on every perspective,

giving us advice, whistleblowers coming forward that you never see that are providing information. All of this is made possible. And then we take that information and we go to our legal team who then takes and says, wait a minute, we may be able to sue on this. Or maybe we should send out a FOIA request and put the government in the hot seat. This is this incredible, you know, experiment that we've had going on here at the high wire, which is maybe it comes from me in a way. I remember, you know, when I was in Haiti after the earthquake, I was working for the doctor's television show.

And I was trying to set up, you know, a shoot. and there was people that were injured and one was trapped in the house and they needed medical attention. And instead of just waiting for someone to come and, you know, show the video of, look, no one's saving this person, which is really what a journalist is supposed to do. I threw down my camera. I went over and I grabbed that person and I got them to safety. And I think in that moment, I realized I actually have to do something about it. I have to make a change.

And that's what the high wire is. We're a little bit different. Some people have said, New York Times has said, you know, to me, journalists have said, well, you're not a journalist. an activist. I don't care what you call it. What the high wire is, is we are transparent about what we're doing here. When we see an issue that we're reporting on, we go and we use the legal system to do something about it. And whatever you call that, what I call it is the highwire protocol, totally transparent in front of you. You are making this happen. We're changing laws. We're rewriting things. We're setting precedents where none has ever been set before.

And should a conversation about the 86 Act be on the table, I assure you, we will have representatives and lawyers and scientists at that table making sure it's done right. That's what you can expect when you're part of this. And so right now, as the first show in 2024, I want to ask you to help us get this year off to a big start. We've got some huge lawsuits we want to bring. There's so much that needs to be revealed. Our government is entrenched, and especially while all these politicians and a couple of them were driven. directly involved in locking us down and rushing vaccines on the market. We want the truth to be revealed so that when people finally vote for whoever they vote for,

they have all the facts on the table. I hope you'll do that with us. And so right now, just go to the top of the page. Hit donate. And for the first time ever, we're going to ask you for $24 for $24 for 2024. We'll hope you'll become a recurring donor so that we can keep doing this great work. That extra dollar is going to make a huge difference. I can feel it.

Welcome to the new year. Welcome back to the high wire. We're bigger, we're bolder and better than we've ever been before. And we can't wait to see you next week.