The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 359: SAFEGUARDING VACCINE EXEMPTIONS: AARON SIRI TESTIFIES PT 2

Episode Date: February 16, 2024

ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., gives the second of two presentations to Arizona’s Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee titled ‘Safeguarding Vaccine Exemptions: Religious & Medical.’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. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Welcome, everybody. You know, one of the conversations that keeps coming up is what about the whole childhood vaccine program? What are the details on that? Now, we have all sorts of white papers and things on our website,

but some people just want to laid out very clearly. And that's exactly what Aaron Siri did when he was at the novel coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee in Arizona. Now, we played an excerpt of this during the Christmas holiday and it was our number one most viewed Christmas show of all times. There's two parts of this testimony. The first part was about informed consent. The second part is all about the childhood vaccine program.

So many new people are asking questions about the childhood vaccine program because they watch this debacle of the COVID vaccine get made right before the eyes. We've said it so many times. Finally, people got to see how the sausage was made. So we've decided to just give Jeffrey Jackson the week off so that for those of you that have friends that are just waking up to this idea that maybe they were lied to, about the safety of vaccines and the efficacy. No one lays it out better than Aaron Cudery.

There's a reason he's won all the lawsuits he has for I can against the National Institute of Health, Health and Human Services, the FDA, the CDC, and brought back the religious exemption in Mississippi. He's the best of the best, and this is him laying it out now. All right, so safeguarding vaccine exemptions. I don't think there should be any mandates of medical professionals. products. I think mandates are oppressive and illiberal. But the way the solution for that, unless as long as there is a mandate, is the ability to have an exemption. Is the ability to say

no. On the screen, you'll see a map of the United States and on this map are the exemptions that are available for K through 12 childhood mandated vaccines for school. I'm going to focus on mandated vaccines for school as a foil for COVID-19 vaccine mandates, just because it's been around a lot longer and it's easier to talk through that lens. All right, so let's get right into the argument for mandating vaccines, right? What is the argument that you always hear,

that they have to stop transmission? They've got to prevent a virus for bacteria, going from first to person. That is the reason they said they must mandate vaccines. And on your screen, you actually will see all the vaccines listed that are mandated for attending kindergarten through 12th grade in the state of Arizona. There are six vaccines on that list. And what we're going to do is we're going to quickly go through all six of those, starting with pertussis. We'll take a little longer on that one, then the rest of them real quick. And we'll take a look at this question. Do they prevent transmission? Right.

You know, why don't you mandate heart medicine? Heart disease kills 700,000 Americans a year. It's probably the biggest burden on our health care system. Why don't we mandate statins, exercise, eating healthy? We all intuitively understand that that is offensive to our basic rights or indivisible and civil rights. Right? Why? Because it's about personal protection.

Well, to the extent that a vaccine only affords personal protection, there really is no different. Right. Protustis vaccines have been around for decades. And for decades, there's been a worldwide campaign to try to eradicate protist from the globe. The idea was, we vaccinated everybody in the world for pertussis. We get rid of pertussis. The only problem was decade, decade, another decade past, and the amount of circulating

pertussis bacteria didn't go down. There was a sustained amount of circulating pertussis. How do they know? when you have less circulating pathogen, the inter-epidemic intervals get longer. But when you don't, they stay the same. The pertussis vaccine can reduce symptoms, so you had less cases of disease, but you didn't have less circulating bacteria. And they didn't know why. So the FDA actually conducted this study that you see on your screen.

On this study, what the FDA did is they took a group of bad boons because they're the most immunologically similar to human beings, and they took a group of baboons that had never had pertussis, okay, took a group of baboons that got pertussis vaccine, and they took a group of of baboons that had had pertussis. And then they exposed all three groups to pertussis. What did they find, those that had previously had pertussis, when they sucked the swab up their nose, they couldn't culture any pertussis. They had natural immunity, as we call it, right? They couldn't be infected. But the baboons. that had never had pertusses and the baboons that had received the acolid pertuss vaccine,

when they stuck the swab up their nose, they were able to culture virus, excuse me, bacteria, for about 40 days. In fact, the baboons that were vaccinated were shedding the bacteria for longer, a bit longer, not statistically significant, but in terms of the number of days longer in their nasal bearings than those that had never had puttuses. What that means is, and what they found was that the baboons who were pertustas vaccinated and then infected, they were able to shed pertussis. So the pertussis vaccine actually reduced the symptoms that the baboons were vaccinated had. They had less symptoms of pertusses, but they were equally as contagious.

Think about that. Those bad boboons were still more likely to go to where to baboon school. Why? They had less symptoms. They're equally as contagious. The baboons who had never had pertussis vaccine, they had more symptoms, but, and they were equally stages, but where were they more likely to go? Would they like to go to baboon school?

No, they're more likely to stay home. So who's more likely to have gone to school and spread pertussis? The baboons that were vaccinated ironically. And the FDA's finding was, I guess, I shouldn't say the finding was surprising. I would say that the fact they published it, I would say it's a bit surprising. But they did. And that's probably the bravest thing I've seen these three FDA scientists ever do. They published their findings that were contrary to.

You can actually see, you see the blue line over there in that chart. Those are the naive baboons or the baboons that had never. Those are the baboons that had never been previously infected, never vaccinated. You can see how many days they were infectious for about 30, right? Whereas the red line is the acolidate pertussis vaccine. You can see they were infectious for almost 35 days after being vaccinated and then once they were exposed to pertussis. So FDA does a study, releases the results, more science gets done. This is a consensus paper.

most of the authors of this paper are actually a pharmaceutical paid scientists and major universities considered world-leading protussis experts after they all met and on the pharma dime and wrote this paper. Here's what they reached the conclusion in a few years ago. They said accellular pertussis vaccine cannot avoid infection and transmission. A-cellular pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of borderthal protesteraseasease. and do not exert any herd immunity effect, end quote. Now my words, these are they consider the world leading pertussis vaccine experts, paid by pharma companies.

And this is their conclusion, unavoidable. The science was just had developed to the point where they couldn't ignore that. In fact, we actually sent a FOIA request to the CDC, and we said to them, hey, can you provide to studies, please, that show, you know, that the pertussis vaccine only reduced symptoms and doesn't prevent infection transmission. Those two studies I just showed you, they listed them back to us. Next slide, please. And they had no science to show contrary.

So here's something that we did. Most people out there think that pertussis vaccine prevents infection transmission. Would everybody agree with that? Do you, I mean, do most people think that the average American believes protest vaccine prevents transmission, do you think? Right? Would you agree with that thing? Okay. So we thought so, too.

We thought so too. We thought that most Americans don't understand that the vaccine is personal protection. That's important to know, right? It's not preventing you from transmitting it. It actually makes you a asymptomatic spread. It's all good to know. especially because they tell you, hey, your grandma or grandpa, you don't want to spread pertussis to your baby,

well, you know, if you're not vaccinated, you're more like that have symptoms that know, stay away from the baby. But if you're vaccinated, you less likely to know, probably a good idea if you make, let people know that reality. Right. So we petition the FDA formally to ask them to add

on the package insert for the pertusses vaccine exactly that, that it doesn't prevent it. infection transmission. And what the FDA wrote back, here's what the FDA said. They didn't deny it doesn't sell infection transmission. They know it doesn't. They said, no, no, no. There's no widespread misconception about that. People aren't confused. Yeah, you can read it for yourself. As I just pointed out, reducing symptoms while remaining able to transmit makes one more likely to transmit. And in fact, there's even some data that indicates that inter-epidemic intervals of protocin is

gotten a little narrower, meaning there's even more circulating pertussis bacteria now than their previously was. And this is a study that talks about the interb epidemic impulse not changing and maybe even getting narrower. You can just, you can read it right there. It's a more high-impact journal, peer-reviewed science. So those that get the pertussive vaccine will have reduced symptoms potentially, but they're likely to determine. So they are more likely to keep going of school potentially spread the virus, right? Well, there's a second issue. It's called linked epithopeal suppression.

What this means is the following. And this is, again, not me saying it, this is the peer review literature. Anybody that gets the pertussis vaccine, the pertussis vaccine gives them immunity to five of the approximately 3,000 antigens of the protesterousin bacteria. Okay, only five of them.

That immunity imprints on their immune system such that the next time that they're exposed to the pertussis bacteria itself, their body doesn't then develop robust immunity to the other 2,095 antigens. Their body, every time they're exposed to the protustis bacteria, only has a robust immune response to those five antigens. That's it. because they took, they do serological testing of their antibody response when they're infected later

and they found that based on a biological study. Think about what that means. What that means is that they can be infected over and over and over because they never develop a proper immune response. In fact, Dr. Cherry at UCLA, who's also supportive you know and works in this area one of the suggestions was well what if we create a vaccine that's for the other 2,095 antigens to fix this defective immunity now given all americans who got this

product okay the child that has never gotten the vaccine gets infected once has immunity for years knows they had symptoms when they got it stays the child that gets this vaccine and has this immunity imprinted on them. One, the first time they get infected, they have less symptoms, don't know to stay on. But here's the thing. That infection doesn't then result in fixing their immunity. That infection doesn't fix the fact

that they still only get a robust immune response to the five antigens, which apparently does a job at reducing symptoms doesn't stop transmission. So they get infected, and then they can get infected, get infected and get a month later and a month later over and over again. That is what linked epitope suppression does. It's very bad. Because of linked epitope suppression,

all children who are primed by DTAP vaccines will be more susceptible to protestus throughout their lifetime and there's no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibilities. And now you understand why that is it, hopefully. So do we exclude children vaccinated from protesteris for protesters from school? Aren't they more? Isn't the whole idea I thought to make sure we have vaccinated and we have to exclude kids

that don't get the vaccine because they claim that more likely to spread it. Now we know. Now the science is definitive that the vaccinated kids are more likely to spread protestus in school.

Why? They have less symptoms. They don't know they're spreading. Do we exclude them from school? Of course not. Of course we don't. Of course we don't remember school because the whole idea

is that taking away people's rights is always the more dangerous thing to do. Throughout the long arch of history, it has always been taking away people's rights has resulted in more harm to humanity

than any virus or pathogen or any intervention of any kind. We don't do that. We don't take away. people's rights, certainly don't exclude children from school. Ironically, and you can, anybody who wants to read this later, the immunity provided by the pertussis vaccine to reducing symptoms wanes only within a number of years. After five doses between two months of age and five months of age and then a TDAF shot, so it's six dose.

After two to four years, according to this is in the CDC website, it's only 34% effective reducing symptoms. and after that, it quickly drops to 8.9% at just reducing symptoms. So the vaccine doesn't even last long in reducing symptoms. Okay, that's pertussis vaccine. So. And before you move on, pertussis, I want to get this quote in the meeting minutes. JAMA, 2016, first author is FADCII and colleagues,

looked at all the U.S. pertussis outbreaks after January of 2000. So in the modern era, 65 to 76% of everybody who, got pertussis in the United States was fully or partially vaccinated against pertussis. So if you wanted clear proof, it's clear that pertussis vaccine does not eliminate pertussis. And it's clear it's very possible to fully get the infection and get sick and be fully vaccinated. So the point is, as Aaron's going to point out, none of these vaccines are perfect. All I have to do is do an outbreak analysis and see who took the shots. And to put another point on that, from a legal perspective, the whole argument for throwing, excluding children from school for not getting the shot is because you need to prevent transmission.

But if the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, the entire underpinning for this illiberal rights crushing mandate, it's not even there in reality. Right. So the basis for excluding children of pertusses, it is no. different than excluding a child for school for not doing anything else. You think that eating healthier is good? Great. You want you taking an asthma inhaler, you think is important for a particular child? Wonderful. Maybe you want to encourage it. Maybe you want to encourage people to take pertussive vaccines because it can't reduce symptoms. But it's personal protection at best. And in fact, it might even be undercutting your objective by sending potentially asymptomatic

children at school. So the point is, is that the underpans, the, argument. We saw the same thing with COVID vaccine. COVID vaccines, they said it'll stop transmission initially, just like pertussis vaccine. And then after a while, it was accelerated with COVID because there's so much science and attention to it. Then they quickly started realizing, no, it doesn't stop infection transmission. And, you know, the consensus is now that it doesn't. But it took a while. Protestus took a lot longer, figured that out. COVID vaccine a lot quicker. nonetheless, they still try to mandate it. By slapping the label vaccines on it, somehow it gives them the right big thing to just take away people's rights.

Let's move on. Next is diphtheria vaccine. We'll go through the rest of them a lot quicker. Said I do protestus a little bit more in depth, but I'll do the rest a lot quicker. This is a CDC study. I'll just read you what they found when truth was original to them. Quote, diphtheria toxoid helps prevent symptomatic disease, but does not prevent. the carrier state nor stop the spread of infection.

The note importance of the caravan spread of diphtheria and the demonstrated failure of toxoid to prevent the carrier state, let us conclude that the constant herd immunity is not applicable to prevention of diphtheria. And do you know why that is? Because the diphtheria vaccine doesn't include any actual antigens of the diphtheria bacteria. It only includes antigens from the, it only includes, excuse me, a toxin sometimes released by the bacteria. That's all that's in the vaccine.

It's a toxoid vaccine. So there's nothing in the vaccine that actually gives you any immunity to the diphtheria bacteria itself. Just the toxin is sometimes released. So obviously if you're infected by the diphtheria bacteria, it's still going to multiply and so forth. There's nothing in the vaccine that prevent that. And the ethereal has a complicated history. We won't go into now. But the point is it doesn't prevent infection transmission according to the CDC authors in this study.

Tetanus. Tetanus, this is again the CDC. last I checked, not an anti-vaccine organization. And look what they wrote. Does not spread from person to person. You can't spread tetanus from one person to another. Again, is there a reason to exclude a child from school for not having tetanus vaccine to order to prevent spread?

No. Another thing about tetanus in Deuthoria, by the way, this is the adult vaccine schedule. The immunity wanes so rapidly the adult vaccine schedule provides you need to get it every 10 years. Next slide. And by the way, most adults in that study, a big percentage of adults don't get that every 10-year shot. But in any event.

Next slide, please. Polio. If I could just make one editorial comment as a doctor. Pertosis and diphtheria, we treat with azithromycin, ZPEC. How many of you taking a Z-PEC? You've already covered the infection, right? we clean deep tissue wounds and we give antibiotics in the emergency room. When someone gets a tetanus shot in the emergency room,

it's not protecting them from infection from the cut they just had. It's protection from a future cut. Most people don't think that. They think that actually they're getting something that's going to help them right now. So none of these bacterial vaccines, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, are ones where we couldn't treat anyway. The same is true for homophilus influenza B. So the point is, if one takes one of these vaccines,

it's only for their own personal concern and risk and not for the risk of anyone else. Again, no reason to exclude anybody from school for refusing it. You want to get them? Great. But don't crush people's rights for it. Polio vaccine.

The only polio vaccine used the United States since the year 2000 is an inactivated polio vaccine. It's injected into the arm. Polio, and what it does is it will create some immunity in your blood system, systemic immunity. What it doesn't do is create immunity in your mucosal surfaces in your intestinal tract, which is where polio proliferates. Polio is becal to oral contamination. So the vaccine is intended to create immunity in your blood to maybe prevent the polio,

virus from going from your intestinal track into your blood and getting to your spinal column. But what it doesn't do, what it cannot do is it doesn't create any immunity in your intestinal tract, IGA antibodies versus the IgG antibodies in your blood that actually neutralize the virus in your intestinal tract. You still, if you are infected with polio virus and you've been vaccinated with an activated polio vaccine, you are just as likely to shed just as much polio virus as if you were not vaccinated. You could go back one slide, please, and zoom in on the text. This is the CDC's own words.

IPV protects people against all three types of poliovirus. IPV does not contain a virus and cannot cause disease. It, thank you, protects people from polar disease, and here it is, but does not stop transmission of the virus. CDC's own words. Can I, as a show a hands in the audience, how many people knew that? A couple. I did not. So this is the global eradication initiative.

This is, you know, WHO, CDC, Reuters, UNICEF, and the world's leading health authority to Bill Melinda Gates Foundation initiative, and they explain it right here. IPV induces very low levels of immunity in intestines as a result. When a person immunized with IPV is infected with wild poliovirus, the virus can still multiply inside the intestines

and be shed in the feces, risk and continued circulation. IPV does not stop transmission of the virus. You know that's surprising to a lot of people. People don't believe it unless they actually see the CDC says it. Well, now for those out there who, you know, the Oracle has said it, the CDC has said it, it doesn't stop transmission. I'm not saying don't get the vaccine.

We want to get the vaccine. This America. It's a free country. But there's no policy reason to exclude children from school for not getting it. It's just puny. it. Next slide, please. The meningococcal vaccines. Now we're on the fourth vaccine required for school in Arizona. And by the way, these six vaccines are typically the same six vaccines required for K-12 in

almost every state in the country. Differes by one or two. This again is the CDC that says the rates of meningoccal disease have declined in the United States since the 1990s and remain low today. Much of the decline occurred before the routine use of meningococcal vaccine. Data suggests menager cocker vaccines have provided protection to those vaccinated, but probably not to the larger unvaccinated community, population or herd immunity, end quote. So that's the CDC also explaining this vaccine is not, it may be personal protection, but it's not community protection.

By the way, the number of people that die from meningococcal is so low every year under 100, they estimate it somewhere around the 100. They don't know. because the incidents is so incredibly low, the clinical trial couldn't actually do a comparison of, you know, how effective it is at preventing Minidococcal in the real world because they would need to have had 10 million people in the trial. So they just did, you know, some serological information. They assume it works. They don't know. Any event. The point that this is is that it's not, it doesn't, it's not providing community again. There's no reason to exclude a child

not having this. Oh, oh, and by the way, again, the CDC protection from a ninja cockle vaccination wanes in most of the lessons within five years. Okay. School's usually longer than five years, and so, you know, hepatitis B vaccine. So we're now, excuse me, now on the fourth vaccine. Now, the hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B is transmitted blood to blood contamination, okay? it would be very very, very hard sitting in a classroom for one student to give hepatitis B to another. It's actually almost very difficult to imagine, like I explained earlier in the day. Hepatitis B typically transmits through intravenous drug sharing, dirty needle sharing, or really permissible sexual intercourse.

Those are the typical ways that adolescents, school-age children would potentially get it. we in fact FOIA sent a FOIA request of freedom of information requests to the CDC and we asked them for documents sufficient to reflect any cases of transmission of

hepatitis B in an elementary middle or high school setting. What was the CDC's response? A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. They didn't have a single instance of hepatitis B being transmitted in a classroom setting that they were able to provide.

And in fact, the official guidance is even in healthcare school settings, where you are in contact with people that are hepatitis B positive, you know, with needles and so forth, students that have hepatitis B shouldn't be excluded from being able to work with those, you know, patients, so forth. In any event, let's put all that aside. The point is, in a school setting, hepatitis B is not a risk. And so excluding children who do not get the hepatitis B vaccine, who are hepatitis B negative, by the way, makes no sense.

Chickenpox vaccine, we have finally arrived, finally at a vaccine that can't prevent infection transmission to some degree in a school setting. And period. Chickenpox vaccine can. It is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning you actually are getting chickenpox.

You're just getting a version of it that's in passage through the culture cell line of abortive fetuses numerous times, to render it into a kind of a different form. And then so it replicates in your body when it's injected into you. Let's call it tens of thousands of times versus millions of times. Okay. And it's, you know, it's a Frankenstein version of it, having gone through, you know,

it's a cultured cell line with border fetuses and so forth. In any event, here's the thing about chicken box vaccine. According to the manufacturer's package insert and the, as approved by the FDA, transmission, quote, transmission of varicella vaccine virus resulting in varicella infection, including disseminated disease, may occur between vaccinated recipients who develop or do not develop a varicella like rash and contact susceptible to vericella, including healthy as well as high risk individuals.

What they're saying is that those who get this vaccine can give chickenpox, transmit the virus to others, and they explain that it can do so for up to six weeks after vaccination. to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individual for up to six weeks following vaccination of VARABAT. Do we exclude children from school after they get the chicken box vaccine in Arizona or in any other state? No, no, they don't. And that's reflective of the fact that there's not really a concern about transmitting chickenpox at school. There were a high-risk individual, if you were, you would exclude those children during those six

weeks. The reality is you don't because, one, those high-risk groups, they tighter pregnant women in four-inch see if they had chickenpox so they know. Two, if somebody is susceptible to harm from the chickenpox virus, that means they're susceptible to harm from the other over 1,400 known pathogens. They're not in school. This idea of a child who's susceptible harm from chickenpox, but not susceptible to harm from the 1,400 other known viruses is a fiction. The people who can be harmed with chickenpox virus are older adults that have never had chickenpox and never had the vaccine.

So the question on the table for the state is, is the chickenpox vaccine or prior chicken pox status? Is that mandated and assessed in teachers? That's a good question. So let's put it this way from a policy perspective. I understand your question. But from a policy perspective, if you're not excluding children after they get the shot for the six weeks, you shouldn't be excluding children who don't get the shot.

Well, the point is you could actually be putting people at risk with the shot. I understand. You see what I mean? These are the examples where states need to have doctors who are knowledgeable and have the intellectual range of experience and knowledge to ask important questions. You know, this is the purpose of having a state attorney general or having a Health and Human Services Committee with advisory committees. People ought to be asking reasonable questions.

I just thought we're supposed to just say safe and effective and stop there. But honestly, the purpose, what Aaron's getting to is what's the purpose of having public policy around mass vaccination and actually excluding kids from schools and what have you, if it's not thought through correctly. I've only seen serious chickenpox in my career earlier with chickenpox pneumonia, but it's exclusively in older adults. That's the risk. And ironically, the chickenpox program has created a situation where older folks are potentially

more likely to get chickenpox because the vaccine immunity actually wanes more readily, making them more susceptible, which causes, you know, maybe this is not the forum for it, but right, the chickenpox virus, flee storming in your nerves, and then is more likely to reemerge if you don't have enough community, reemerging as shingles, which has increased in society. Okay, but from a policy perspective, in terms of protecting exemptions,

makes no sense to exclude children with no chickenpox who don't have the vaccine. If you're not excluding those, get the vaccine at least for those six weeks. Okay. So let's just do a quick recap. All right. D-TAP. And on the measles of bumps from Revella vaccine, because of the time limitations, if anybody

wants to see the arguments and discussion about that, they can watch, I guess, what was discussed earlier today. Again, if you haven't had enough watching me and present. So here they are. Here are the six vaccines required for K-12 in Arizona, similar to most of your states. Detap, inactivated polio, meningococcal. They don't prevent infection and transmission, according to the CDC and FDA's own studies and data. There's no policy reason for excluding these people. These children from school,

people from work, and so forth for not getting the shot. Hepatitis B doesn't transmit in the school setting. The Veracella vaccine transmits for six weeks after the shot that you don't exclude those children canary in the coal mine as to really what's going on here. It's not really about the quote-unquote protection. It's about a policy, as we saw in the military. Okay, so policy, not about the science. MMR vaccine, when you really look close, to it, the data, it is not the end of the world that everybody makes it out to be. And in fact, there's a lot of good reason to think that it causes more harm than good based on the dispassion of review of available data.

So the entire underpinning for mandates to begin with is to prevent transmission to increase overall health. There's a lot of questions about whether it does either of those for every one of the six mandated vaccines. That said, we live in a world where they're mandated. So how does one exclude themselves from having to take these products if they want to? Well, there are two available exemptions currently. Well, in Arizona and the third one, there's three available exemptions in Arizona. There's philosophical, religious, and a medical exemption.

I'm going to go through a philosophical exemption speaks for itself. You don't like it. you have philosophical objection, you say no. Religious exemptions. Let's go through that very briefly. Next slide, please. What was the First Amendment religious freedom intended to protect?

I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding about what religious freedom really means. People say, well, I don't go to church on Sunday, you know, so I don't have a religious reason, or my organized religion doesn't have any objections to vaccines. That's not what the First Amendment was intended to protect. When the First Amendment was ratified by the States in 1791, you have to think back to what life was like back then. Religion wasn't something you did on Sunday.

People didn't separate the secular from religious in the way we do today. People live their convictions in many ways. When they talked about being able to have freedom of expression as the way it's described in the Constitution, right? free exercise clause. You were able to live your convictions. And those weren't something you did part of the week. It is a way of, it is following the convictions of your heart and mind. You're able to live your life.

And so when somebody thinks about, well, I don't have a religious belief. Well, it's a lot broader than that. Even if the organized religion you associate with doesn't have an issue or an objective. to the aborted fetal tissue or so forth with vaccines, but you do. The First Amendment recognized that. In fact, it would violate the Establishment Clause if a religious exemption was limited to organized religions. Many courts have held that. And in fact, there are only six states in America up until recently that had only a medical exemption to 10 school.

There's now five because, you know, we had a case that we brought in Mississippi where the judge ordered that. because there was a secular exemption, medical, and the state was able to accommodate for a secular reason, they also had to accommodate for a religious reason. Obviously, we're very happy with that ruling, and we tend to bring that, I can't support us to bring that same lawsuit in all the other five states that don't have any exemption of the medical exemption 10th school, which is Cali, New York, Connecticut, Maine, and West Virginia. This will be the one video I show. So this might give you a little bit of insight into why some people might have a religious objection to vaccination.

In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work? My own personal work, too. I'm going to hand you what's been marked plaintiffs, Exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article?

Yes. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct? Yes. You were at the Winstar Institute, correct? Yes. How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct?

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

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

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

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

in your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with? Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines. Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used aborted fetuses for? Oh, I don't remember how many. You're aware, are you aware that one of the objections to vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines? Yeah, I'm aware of those objections.

The Catholic Church has actually issued the document on that, which says that individuals who need the vaccines should receive the vaccines, regardless of the fact. And I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do. Okay. Do you know if the mother is Catholic? I have no idea.

Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs? Yes. You have said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God includes death and disease? Yes. You stand by that statement?

I absolutely do. Okay. Are you an atheist? Yes. I just want you to understand that when they talk about taking 76, completely normally developing fetuses, and they have to take them out, and they take pretty much every single organ,

they chop them up to three centimeter cubes and they try to culture and see which one is the best medium to grow vaccine virus on those cells have to be alive you can't culture undead cells so when those organs are coming out of those babies they must remain the cells all must be alive the tongue the heart liver the lungs everything and that baby was alive, the cells, and they have to remain that way. And what they do is they take them and they see which is going to be the grass medium to grow on because viruses only multiply in cells, in alive cells. So, for example, the chickenpox vaccine, to make the virus that goes into the vial, they grow the chickenpox virus on culture cell line of border fetal tissue. there are literally in every vial of chickenpox vaccine that's injected into every child in every vial. There are billions, not millions, billions of pieces of cellular debris and DNA from an aborted fetal cell line in every single shot.

Because part of the manufacturing process can't remove the virus, which is super, super tiny, from the cellular strubs straight that they're grown on. And I'll make one other point about religious convictions. then it really goes back to the military and the army. Members of our military swear an oath to lay down their lives to defend the Constitution. The very first, the very first freedom under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is freedom of free exercise to live your convictions.

And yet the members of our military who sought a religious exemption with the COVID-19 vaccine were being denied it and wrote. As many of you know, we brought a lawsuit against the Air Force that got a class-wide injunction preventing the Air Force from kicking out over 10,000 of members of the Air Force when brought one against the Army. And it really goes back to what was being discussed earlier, that it's a really, it is really a failure of leadership that those who are running the military can't even recognize that

the very freedom they're asking their soldiers to fight for and die for and bleed for, they're not even honoring for their own soldiers. And I could see how that would be very, very destructive to morale. Certainly in our clients, we understand that. Okay, one thing you hear, ever hear anybody say, I believe in planes, I believe in chainsaws, I believe in knives. Nope, but they believe in vaccines. You hear that all day long, and it's a very big trism.

It really is. It's almost an ideology, you know, and you also hear all the time. Vaccines are the only thing that can save us from the pandemic. It's not kind of the language reserved for religion. Right. If somebody said to you, the only thing that will save you is this product, what do you actually typically think was the only thing that's going to save you? Right. He thinks of something else. Now vaccines. Next slide. Okay. Nobody should be coerced to abandon their beliefs for the beliefs of quote-unquote health authorities.

And a lot of what you hear about vaccines is dog and belief. Next slide. Medical exemptions. That's the other type of exemptions available. Next slide, please. medical exemptions, like all medicine, should be based on clinical judgment. You go to your doctor, they know you, they know everything about you, they spent their life caring for you, they should be able to make a decision that you should or should not receive this medicine. But unlike virtually every other area of medicine, where we rely on the clinical judgment of doctors to treat patients, next slide, for vaccines that is taken away in virtually every state

where it has a mandate. The mandate, the medical exemption is not based on clinical judgment. It's based on a predetermined list made by the gun. government over at the CDC called the CDC contradiction of precautions list. And in fact, not only do they have a list of things that they say you can get an exemption medical exam for, which is extraordinarily narrow, typically requires you to have been injured by the same vaccine before, okay? But they actually have a longer list of all the things they say are definitely not contraindications of precautions, including you put the example there. You can review it later

for DTAP. You know, for example, it provides that. essentially if a parent has two children and one of them gets a detab vaccine and dies from it, that's not good enough for an exemption for their other child. Next slide. On ICAN legislate.org, that is why we are promoting a bill that is intended to take medical exemptions and convert it out of being something that is wrote and putting it back in the hands of doctors so that it does come down to clinical judgment of the doctor. It should be left between the doctor and their patient of whether or not the medical exemption should be valid, not left up to some bureaucrats.

Next slide. This is something I called an informed consent exemption. It doesn't exist anywhere in America. There is no such thing as an informed consent exemption to mandates, but it is something that I think should exist. So I'm going to quickly go over it. A lot of people say, well, I don't have any convictions against vaccines. I don't have any medical reason for it. and if some of you may know the signfall reference, you know, well, what about the rest of us, right?

What about those of us who are subject to a mandate? Have no medical reason not to vaccinate, no conviction, no religious reason not to vaccinate, and those are the only exemptions available. What about the fact that we don't like that we can't see the manufacturer? We don't like the clinical trial. We don't like some of the basic facts, right? We're parents, want to safeguard our children. And so this is a bill we've been working on, and you can see some of the states,

that actually has been proposed, and it's not been passed anywhere yet, and we're working on having it proposed. It's called an act to increase vaccine confidence. And the reason that this bill should increase vaccine confidence is that what it provides is that there should always be an exemption available to any mandate if there isn't a vaccine that meets certain very minimal criteria. This way, the elected representatives in every state can assure their constituents. Look, we're putting our money where our mouth is. Don't worry. Every vaccine that you're mandated to get,

you'll never, never be in a position where you can't say no. You'll always be able to say no if there isn't a vaccine that doesn't meet for minimal requirements. I just read you the title and act to increase vaccine confidence. The purpose is it assures the public that an exemption exists for required vaccines that do not meet certain minimal requirements. The justification is that adding this. exemption will increase confidence and mandated vaccines, and the text provides that notwithstanding any other law, a person who is required to receive a vaccine for any purpose may claim an

exemption from the vaccine requirement if there's not a vaccine approved by the FDA to fulfill the requirement that meets the following criteria. Four simple criteria. One, the clinical trial, the FDA relied upon to approve the vaccine evaluated safety for at least one year after it was administered against the control group that only received either a placebo or another vaccine license is provided in this paragraph, meaning the other vaccine was licensed one-year safe review against placebo control. Basic, right? Number two, the department posts on its website the injuries or diseases caused by the vaccine and the rates at which the injury or disease occurs in the vaccine.

Three, the risk of permanent disability or death from the vaccine has been proven to be less than that caused by the infection it is intended to prevent, which of course exists for every vaccine, right? no legislative rep should be opposed to that. And four, the vaccine's manufacturer has liability for the deaths and serious injuries, if any, caused by the vaccine, which of course we know is the case. You know, we can all be confident that manufacturers stand behind their product. So as long as these four conditions are met, okay, fine. But if they're not met, you get to claim an exemption. Part of the reason what that does is it takes it also out if you can,

if this thing, if this is part of the law of any state, you know, People can quibble over religious beliefs and quibble over medical exemptions, but it creates an exemption that's also based on some minimal safety standards. It actually puts the discussion about the science, about the safety, about the clinical trials in a way that I think is productive. And so while it doesn't exist now, I do think there should be an informed sense exemption. And this is an initiative that's a big part of it's called the Medical Liberty Pledge, a lot of wonderful representatives here in Arizona have signed it.

It's a very simple pledge that's got one sentence that's based. basically says that I as elected representatives, elected representative hereby pledged not to, you know, vote for any law that's going to coerce any or mandate any medical product, heart to say over 350 elected representatives around this country or in a few running for office have signed this pledge and state houses around the country. And they should be commended for doing that. So I read my pin tweet earlier. I won't read it again because we're out of time, but it basically says mandates are for bullies, and they really are. Mandates really are only needed when something's not safe or effective,

and you can't persuade on the merits. You know, we consume consumer products all day long, like food and water, and nobody needs to coerces to do it. The only nearly need to course people when there is questions about safety and efficacy, like COVID-19 vaccines. You shouldn't need an exemption. You really shouldn't. You need to be able to convince people on the merit,

and if you can't convince them on the merit, then that should be the end of the discussion. period. COVID vaccine. You can only get 2%. Well, there it is. People have spoken. That's freedom. And if most people want to get an MMR vaccine, great. That's freedom too. They should be able to convince them on the merits. But let people choose. Don't punish bully people. But we live in a world where there are mandates. And while vaccine mandates exist, exemptions really are the last line of defense. So the last line of defense, if you have an issue. And so it makes it critically important that we assure that those exemptions remain in place. And one of the ways everybody can do that, everybody listening to this can do that in Arizona and every state around the country is take this presentation.

And if nothing else, show your, make a point with your state elected representatives. They love when they hear from their constituents, don't they? I do. They do. They love it when they hear from their constituents. It's not like everybody's running into the state representatives offices every day, right? And when a constituent, especially three or four show up, it's like, wow, here they are. Okay, what do they want to show me?

Show them how most mandated vaccines don't prevent infection transmission. Just show them that if nothing else. Show them how illiberal rights crushing it would be to get rid of exemptions, let alone have the mandate. Keep the mandate. Certainly, don't get rid of exemptions because there is a concerted effort around this country right now by pharmaceutical lobbyists and the pharma industry and others to eliminate. exemptions everywhere in America. And we have to make sure that we have to fight against that. They are organized and they do that.

Fighting it's going to require everybody stepping up and going to their local like representatives and at least showing them the information that some of the information I showed here are numerous other presentations that I've given if you're inclined to sit through all of them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. It really important.

It is very important. I mean, there's so much information that isn't out there that we didn't know. And it's on our own government's website, but we're not being told this information. And I think that that doesn't do justice for anyone. So yeah. Yeah, well, nobody's got a financial interest to tell you. The pharmaceutical companies have billions of dollars to make every year. They're not in interest in telling you in the federal health authority mandate, which

trips down to the state health departments, which are funded to believe by federal dollars in large part for their programs have a actually are statutor required to promote these products. And the federal health authorities have have staked their reputation on these products. They've gone out there. They've recommended the mandate. It's kind of hard to go whack and say, oops, after they've done. Right. So, you know, their promotion efforts and their defense effort in the vaccine court have totally overtaken any safety functions that they've, that they have, unfortunately.

Is there anything that anyone would like to say? In closing. Sure. I'd love to say something. Start down there and we'll make our way down. Work our way down. Hey, Arizona's great to be here. I'm heading back to Texas tomorrow

and back to the Rio Grande. But just remember this, that there's a saying, at 480 BC, Heraclitus wrote this of the Spartans. That out of 100 soldiers, 10 shouldn't even be here. 80 or nothing but targets. Nine.

They're the warriors, and they the battle make. and the one, the one is a leader and leave the others home. I'm asking to at least be the nine or the one. And this isn't about putting on a uniform, a military uniform. This is in your, whatever walk of life you're in. Be a leader, stand up, be an advocate for those that are oppressed and stand in the gap. Because if it comes again, where I live, it won't.

Not on my watch. Thank you. I want to finish and conclude by just citing one more piece of information, which I think is the most important paper that I'm aware of that's come out in the last year. And the first author is Schmelling and colleagues from Denmark. And I had a chance to talk to one of the authors regarding the data firsthand. So I feel very confident in what they've found. They found, of all the people who took the COVID-19 vaccines, 30% of people had zero side effects, not even a sore arm. And many of you who have taken the vaccines, your family members, you're worried about them,

those who had no initial symptoms, and now we're two years into it, and they are perfectly fine, every bit of information we have suggests they're fine. And they probably got a shot that had relatively little messenger RNA in it, or it was free of other problems. That's a third. It's a third of the batches. just under two-thirds of the batches, there was some moderate side effects, got a sore arm, felt sick initially,

and nothing else ever happened. And we're now two years into it. It looks like nothing will happen, honestly. And then there's a final batch, 4.2% of all the doses, where the initial reaction was pretty severe. People had a sore arm, they felt pretty sick, they couldn't go to work the next day.

it's in that group that we're seeing the side effects emerge later on, the myocarditis, blood clots, immune system abnormalities. But the initial reaction seems to really matter. So what I ask my patients all the time, they ask me, Dr. McCullough, I took the vaccine, I'm fine, and do I have to worry? I start with the very first thing. Did you feel any of these shots? Or were they essentially like taking nothing?

That's the first point. So all of you have taken the shots or you're worried about your family members, your friends. Ask about the initial symptoms. It really appears to matter. There are websites that say, how bad is my batch? You can actually look up your lot number on a website and see how it's rank ordered. Some of them are ranked from one to over 150 of batches, and one can get an idea how many side effects have come in on each one of the batches through the reporting system. Those are rough proxies of whether or not you have.

have anything to worry about. Those individuals with symptoms, though, that actually have symptoms, they feel sick after the vaccines, and it's roughly 15% in total of people who have taken the shot feel sick. And again, I think a smaller subset is at risk for severe illness. They probably should see doctors who are developing skills in helping people go through what's called detoxification, or at least treating the vaccine injury syndromes. And they're popping up all over the United States. And so I want people to understand the message is a large fraction of people, thankfully, are fine.

It's now been over two years since they've taken the shots and they're fine. There's a smaller group who have had high-risk batches, symptoms initially, or have ongoing symptoms now, or have had one or more catastrophic events. We've heard about one today by Ms. Garner. Those individuals we need to focus our attention on from a medical concern and ongoing surveillance and protection problem.

I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. McCullough. Senator Schult. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our panel who is here today and for the information that was disseminated

to those of us who are here. I just want to thank the Chair for putting this on again. I know that she works very hard, and our staff, who you see in front of us, works extremely hard on putting this together. So I definitely want to thank them as well. But much like the first one,

this has been very informational. I appreciate, as I mentioned, the doctors being here and helping with the information, especially what was just last discussed. Because I think that even if this room is made up of people who perhaps chose not to, odds are you are related to somebody who did. And you need to hear that information as well. So with that, I want to thank the chair one more time of putting this together and look forward

to future discussions on this. Thank you. Oh, sure. I guess I'll conclude by maybe I'll point out really the importance of being able to have informed consent, given the theme of the day, medical freedom. It really is a fundamental right because if, you know, even if you love every vaccine right now and you love masks and you love staying at home orders, right? You love it all. Yeah? Great.

It's America. It should be free to get three shots a day, where 16 masks live in your basement and never leave. That's fine. It's freedom. But what happens when the day comes when there's a product that you don't want to receive? You're like, no.

But then you can't get a job. You can't go to school. You can't get on public transportation. If you don't stand up now for this right, then you won't have any rights. Because if you can't get a job and you can't go to school and you can't participate in civil society, what good are all your other rights?

So you have freedom of speech by yourself in your house, freedom of assembly, by yourself in your house, pray to the wall, freedom of religion by yourself. You can't participate in civil society. That's why we can never let our rights be contingent on what some other agency, government health authority, says. We should never be coerced, mandated to see what products.

You need to always convince people on the merits. So I just gamble. stress, go meet with your elected representatives. Everybody explain to them the importance of this right and why even if they love every vaccine, they should stand on the side, freedom, form consent, an individual of civil rights and choice. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to start also echoing starting my comments by thanking you, Madam chair for your heart. I've been behind the scenes. We've had these conversations with Senator Schope, with Chairman Schope and yourself, and your heart really does shine as to

doing this. And so I do want to thank you for for carrying it out. I do want to say really quick, I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Health Committee as well, Senator Schope for your help and lending your time, your expertise and the authority to do this as well. You know, both the Senate and the House, we've had these conversations where it's important for us, for this information. Let's talk about it. This is the greatest, I believe this may be a matter of opinion, but it's true. This is the greatest country on the face of the planet.

And one of the reasons it makes us so great is because the flow of information and communication, the First Amendment. And so I do want you to know that it's hard to do this, Dr. McCullough. you for lending yourself to I know that all this is is out of your heart and is to inform the public. Dr. Chambers, thank you for being here as well and providing us with tremendous information and Esquire, Siri, thank you for being here. Honestly, it's powerful information that it goes to the heart of choice and I'll say a little bit about that more, but thank you for everything that you're doing as well to inform the public. I'll say that clearly based on

the information that we've heard today and we've been examining through this committee we know that a one size fits all approach doesn't does not work during a medical crisis or ever quite frankly government should not be infringing on the rights of individuals to make their own health care decisions and I'm often asked why this you know why we need to bring this up over and over. Well, government has an obligation to be honest and straightforward with the public, no matter what the situation is. That's something that we, I take seriously. We want to make sure whether you agree with me or not. You are, we, government should be transparent and share with you

all that information so that you can make those decisions. This is what, this, what we experienced with COVID-19 was an experimental vaccine that was forced on the masses without care about how it would impact the future of health or their future health. We should

be able to find a way to address this or any future pandemic without infringing our people's rights. I'll tell you that today I heard some comments that really impacted me. Dr. Chambers, when you said it's not about the science, it's about

the policy. I was piercing. That's not that's something that should never be uttered in an American system of governance. It's it's heartbreaking to hear that. Especially when two years later, those mandates are gone. It is no longer required for you to join the military to get a vaccine. Why? Because it was an experiment. And this is where I'll finish with this. this by saying policy matters so much. And as legislators, we aren't here to force our activism on people. We're here to protect people's rights, to be arbiters of the oath we take for the Constitution as well. And so the reason we want to have these type of hearings is because we also want to examine what our authority is as legislators and within those confines,

how we can make sure that we're sharing this information and protecting people's rights so that they can make their informed decisions. It's about choice. And look, for those of you that are, one thing I do want to say with my heart is I've noticed, we've noticed that this has crippled people in their hearts. Who do they believe? Who do they trust? It's broken the trust. That is valuable. And there's people in, you know, we can bring it light up.

but there's people at home that are, they're paralyzed with fear, not knowing who to believe. Well, this is why this committee is here today so that they can hear information and make their own decision. I've said enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for bringing up. Yeah. I'll just take one last comment, which is I actually think that that holding committees like this, hearings like this, help restore trust, hearing from doctors, will speak the truth, who will speak against what is a narrative at incredible personal cost. And also, having elected representatives like the three of you up here are willing to hold hearings like this,

you should be incredibly commended for doing it. I know that it is not easy to hold hearings and to let people speak in a public forum that cuts against what the mainstream believes. I'm sure you're not going to make a ton of friends for it. So thank you very, very much for doing it. Wasn't it cool to get a little bit of an inside scoop of how Aaron Siri delivers information when he's in these trials and court cases that we hear about the wins, but we don't know how they're happening.

Well, now you get a sense of how brilliant he really is. I really want to just thank Representative Steve Montenegro and Senators Janay Shamp and T.J. Shope that were in the room there bringing the novel coronavirus southwestern intergovernmental committee together. This is what government should look like. This is what governance looks like, bringing ideas to the table so that people can be informed and come to a decision. Come, you know, have a debate on a topic.

I'm so proud of Arizona for moving this direction. I hope it's just, you know, the first state and things that come as we start to wake up to the truth and get empowered to be a part of our government. You know, when it comes to the vaccine program, I believe in choice. It's your choice to decide. It's a free country. If you want to vaccinate, then. Go right ahead.

You're allowed to do that. But if you do not believe in this process or in these products or want to raise your child in, you know, more of a natural way with vitamins and good food and exercise, you should have that right. That's what we stand for here at the informed consent action network, which is the parent of the high wire. That's our nonprofit. Informed consent references the Nuremberg Code. That's the sort of code that came out of the trial of the Nazi doctors. We decided that no free country should ever allow any atrocity like that to happen, driven by doctors that were experimenting and trying vaccines and drugs and surgeries on innocent children and people.

And so the first rule of the Nuremberg Code is the voluntary consent of the patient is absolutely critical. They should be informed of all the benefits and all the potential side effects to any procedure or product that they get involved with. And then once they are fully informed, guess what? They still get to choose. You don't just inform them and tell them they don't have any choice. That wouldn't make any sense. And that's what these forced mandates do, especially in these states that don't have religious exemptions.

And that's about five states. So that's a part of our goal right now. We won back the religious exemption in Mississippi. It's time to free the five. So the five holdout states, Maine, New York, Connecticut, West Virginia, and California, we're coming for you. Freedom does not exist in those states. If I do not control my body, if we can't control what is going into our children's bodies, then we are nothing more than farm animals. We cannot let that stand. If you want to be a part of freeing the five,

then why did you become a recurring donor now? All it takes is going up to the top of the screen, hit the button that says donate to I can, and then we're asking you to become a recurring donor. When we go into these cases, sometimes they're a year long or even longer. So $24 a month helps us know how much we have in the bank and how many cases we can take on. It's a part of what we're doing here. Not only do we present this incredible show, but we also have this amazing, powerful legal work that's being done to protect your rights, your children's rights, and the future rights of all the citizens of America and hopefully beyond. around the world as I believe we're a beacon of light and hope for the rest of the world.

Now, when we look at things like vaccines, people will try to scare you. They will say, if you don't vaccinate, you're going to get people killed. Well, as errands so clearly laid out, so many of these vaccines don't even stop you from transmitting the virus to others. So this whole idea of cocooning or herd immunity really is a bunch of bunk. In fact, the opposite is happening. If you are infected, but you don't know it because the vaccine is taking away your symptoms, that you are going to be infecting those that cannot vaccinate themselves. They will be around you.

All of these kids with pertussis are all over the schools. They're putting everybody at risk, putting their grandparents at risk, and certainly the immune suppressed. So much of this story is changing. And when you think of things like measles, and there's all sorts of fear porn going on out there around measles, here's the facts. The death rate of measles was one in five.

500,000 in the 1960s, the United States of America before a vaccine ever came onto the market. One in 500,000. People say it's a deadly disease. And when reporters say that to me, I say, really? Then how are you here telling me that? Because the truth is, is every one of our grandparents caught measles. It was one of the most infectious childhood illnesses there was. They considered a trivial childhood illness.

There was even Brady Bunch episodes making fun of the time when the whole family was getting the measles. If you have to get sick, you sure can't beat the measles. That's right. No medicine. Inside or out. Like shots I mean. Don't even mention shots. Yuck.

So what's happened? Has the virus gotten more deadly or has the news gotten more propagandized and is trying to make us afraid? In the end, we are here on this planet because measles did not. kill any of our grandparents or we wouldn't be here talking about it. I think we have to take that into account when we think about what we're going to do and the decisions we're going to make. Let's put it all on the table and in the end, you get to choose. That's what the Highwire is all about fighting for your rights to vaccinate or not vaccinate. To be or not to be. That is the question. And we'll continue to ask that next week on the High Wire.