The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 379: SIRI TESTIFIES: NEW HAMPSHIRE PART 2

Episode Date: July 6, 2024

Part 2 of ICAN lead attorney Aaron Siri’s expert testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy. In this installment, Siri drills down on the serious concerning missteps with regulators handling of vaccine safety.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?

Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to say, happy Fourth of July, especially here in the United States of America. But I think all of you around the world must be celebrating too that at least one nation has a constitution and a declaration that believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and we are fighting to bring that around the world. Of course, it's constantly under attack and came under a huge attack during COVID.

But I just want to say that, you know, this is still a great country. I'm still allowed to do this show and speak my mind. And even though the President of the United States did actually try to censor us and pushes off of YouTube and Facebook, we held strong, you held strong. kept tuning into the high wire, whether you had to go to our website or shift over somewhere to Rumble and thank God for Rumble that stepped up and started believing in freedom and did something about it. And thank God to Elon Musk taking over Twitter and turning it to X so that we have platforms once again that aren't censoring us. But this is the ebbs and flows of

a democracy, of a republic, if you will. Whatever you want to call it, it's about freedom. And that's what we celebrate every single week here on the High Wire. And we're living free. Independence Day is coming soon. But here at the High Wire, we believe in celebrating freedom every day. From tank tops to T-shirts, soak up the sun and let your patriotic spirit shine bright. Our most popular tumblers are perfect for those hot summer days. And as a special gift, you'll receive a free commemorative I-Can golf ball set with every order.

So embrace the spirit of freedom and make it a whole summer. in one this summer season at the highwire.shop. I'm totally jazzed. This is a great holiday. It's a great time to think about all that we should be thankful for here in the United States of America and all that we should be striving for all around the world. Now, last week, we had a very special episode where our own Erin Siri, who is our attorney for the informed consent action network that brings all the lawsuits against the government

of the United States. think about that. The fact that we're like, we're allowed to sue our government. And we've got something like FOIA, Freedom of Information Act requests, which actually says that the citizens of America get to read the emails of our elected officials. So it's just stuff like that that we love that we get to take advantage of and make a difference in this world. Well, last week, we were playing for you the part one of Siri testifies in front of New Hampshire. To understand COVID-19 vaccines, in my opinion, you have to understand vaccines in general. There was only five days of safety review for the hepatitis B vaccine given to a newborn baby.

If you told me that without showing me the proof, I wouldn't believe it either. There's a dozen studies that show that actually kids who get DTP versus not have increased overall mortality. This has actually been a big controversy at the WHO. In your expertise in research, is there any other industry that you know of? that gets a blanket liability like this. I'm not aware of any product, none. My daughter is a vaccine injured from the Hepi, so this was a hard one for me.

That was really the setup in the background. It's about to get really juicy. And before we dive right into it, I'm joined right now by our own, the very special, the one, the only, Aaron Siri. How you doing? Good, good to see you, Dale.

Happy Fourth of July. Happy 4th of July. All right. So last week, we got a lot of comments. People are really stoked. You really laid out sort of the background around vaccines and then ultimately how they're tested, what the liabilities are. But in this episode coming up, part two, you really start making it personal. You bring in the story of Maddie de Gary. You talk about the FDA and Peter Marks and the trials and what was or what was. or was not revealed. Why get personal like that? And did it have an effect inside of this hearing in New Hampshire? Well, the first part that you showed is really giving a backdrop, understanding the framework in which COVID-19 vaccines fell into.

So it was more general. It was more clinical, so to speak. And now we're finally getting to the part where I'm talking, I think, more specifically about COVID-19. vaccines. And that does require getting into who really is behind licensure of COVID-19 vaccines at the FDA. Who is in the clinical trials? What happened to them? Those specific personal stories really bring to life, I think, issues with that product. What was the response? I mean, it's one thing to sort of just think about the numbers. And I, and I, my understanding is even one of the representatives that is in this

hearing believes they were injured by the COVID vaccine. But when you started telling, the story of Maddie deGerry is just such an incredible tragedy, as is all vaccine injury stories. But that one specifically because it was under the watchful eye of the FDA, of the CDC, of those that are supposed to be having these great trials and nobody really cared. In fact, it seems like they wanted to bury it. What was the response? Just for the from your retrospectively back, you know, sitting in the room there? In that room itself, and I don't know how it comes across on the video, but in the room, the air was really thick.

The experience, you could feel the emotion, for me at least, you could feel the engagement of the representatives. Almost all of them were really engaged, leaning forward, asking questions, and appear to even get emotional at certain points, whether it's because they emotionally connected with the harm from the perspective of a parent, from the perspective of a legislative rep, or just a human perspective, watch a child suffer so greatly, and then having the incredible insult added to their injury by those who said,

go get the shot. It's safe. It's a fact, go do the right thing to then just completely turn their backs on this child. It's an incredible thing to watch. Sometimes you're in a courtroom. People don't see it. like you're speaking on a stage. How is this different than speaking on a stage we're actually presenting to elected officials? That's a great question. When these legislative bodies had these

committee hearings, the testimony that's given during these hearings, they almost always get entered into the official formal record of that legislative body. So that's six and a half hour testimony that I was fortunate enough to provide to those legislative reps, that is now part of the official formal, forever more record of the New Hampshire legislative body. And if you go into their formal records, whether it's a day from now, five years from now, 50 years from now, that testimony will remain part of their formal official record. And that's part of what makes it, I think, so important to do. It's part of why we set aside the time to do these testimonies before these legislative houses so that the record can then be referred to at subsequent hearings when they are

going to engage in other activities in the New Hampshire legislative house. The senators and assembly persons who want to can refer back to that testimony as part of the formal record. Well, essentially, you're, you know, you're planting these time capsules inside of the legislature across the country every time you do one of these hearings. Aaron, I want to thank you for all of your incredible work. I don't want to make our audience wait any longer. I know they're hanging onto the edge of their seat. So for those of you out there, this is part two. Siri testifies New Hampshire.

Representative Potenza. Thank you, Madam Chair. based upon specifically the control group and keeping that, in a sense, pure, doesn't history compared to other, I don't call the COVID injections vaccines, I call them experimental gene therapy. I don't like using the word vaccine for it. But in any case, is there history of that happening? Does that usually happen? in any other, you know, in history with other, quote-unquote, traditional vaccines. I'm like where we're keeping things separate so we can have data stay in a pure fashion.

Because after 30 days, you're saying they injected the placebo or the control group? Once it was given EUA approval, the Pfizer-Moderna respectively, I'll say, you could say offered, but really, I mean, when you look at the way they were offering it, they were really, in my opinion, encouraging all of the participants to, if they wanted, they could go to Pfizer or Moderna and say, hey, I'd like to be unblinded. I'd like to know where I got the placebo or the vaccine. And because for the purposes, if they got the placebo to get the shot.

And so most of them did that. Follow up. Well, here's the thing. Here's part of the, I believe what the FDA was, I believe, was saying to him and said, look, we had the Institute of Medicine do this big study of who should get the shots because they're going to have limited supply at the beginning. So you recall the Institute of Medicine, which is now known the National Academy of Medicine, put out a report, and they assess, okay, first, you know, there was prioritization between the

elderly and health care workers and so forth. You guys remember that back in December 2020? And so different cohorts of Americans, depending on their station and what they did, were supposed to get in line, so to speak, and get the shot. And so one of the arguments that was even made, I believe, at the time, by I think the FDA, if not directly, at least insinuated this, that said, look, these clinical trial participants are not in that line. They're not the folks who should even be getting it now.

right December 2020 want to at least wait for them to get it in a normal course so when they're when they're up in the queue and let's say April after the elderly got it the health care workers got it school teachers got it I don't remember the queue by the way I don't know I might get the order wrong I don't remember who got what first I just I do remember there's a big report on it um so fine so if they're a health care worker they should get it when they get it but if they're like a a healthy 22-year-old, you know, and they're not up until July, then let them get it in July like everybody else. Why rush to go and vaccinate the entire placebo group? Why? It's a great question. Should ask whoever you have here testifying to answer that. It's a great question.

I don't have the answer, though. You should, but you should probably bring in a pharmaceutical representative of Moderna or Pfizer and ask them that question because it's a great question. I think the answer is pregnant, but we'll, I don't want to speculate. Okay. So, look, as we talked about earlier, and now we'll get into some of the data in the Pfizer clinical trial, when you do a clinical trial, the whole idea is you are evaluating a product that's new. You don't know the effects on the human body, and hence you want to avoid bias, and you do a statistical comparison, right? It's kind of like way you design, you do studies often in science. You have a study plan and you stick to it. You don't change it mid-course, right? You don't want to inject bias.

So what is the most important thing that we're trying to prevent with COVID-19 vaccines? It was debt, right? That was the idea. To be sure, 2019 versus 2020, I think, think something like an additional 400,000 Americans died all caused mortality. So in 2019, I think there was 2.7 million Americans died or something like that. In 2020, 3.2 million died. COVID presumably killed some of those folks, if not many. How much of it had to do with changes that we implemented as a society? That'll be debated probably forever. But what we want to do is avoid injecting that bias. And so in the clinical trial, here's a report from Pfizer in July of 2021. And it was in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And in that report, as of July 2021, remember, the vaccine was authorized in December 2020. So this is now seven months later. Clinical trial data is finally coming out in a published public form. And what it showed was that in the vaccinated group, in the experimental group, 15 people died, all cause, not COVID, all cause. And 14 died in the placebo group, all cause. They said, I believe, two died of COVID in the placebo one died of COVID in the vaccinated group. So the vaccine was, that wasn't considered statistically significant to reduce deaths.

So they never claimed it did. And you can look at the EUA and you can look at the licester documents. They don't claim it reduces deaths because it's not statistically significant finding. And I'm not saying that 15 to 14 is statistically significant finding either because it's not. But it, please. So what you're saying is in their clinical trial in July 2021, 15 people that were vaccinated died and 14 that had the placebo died. And it could have been for any reason. Any reason, all cause mortality.

Any reason whatsoever. Okay. And, but of those 15 that were vaccinated, one actually died of COVID, and in the placebo group, two actually died of COVID. That's my understanding. Thank you. Representative Potenza. Based upon that July 2021 report, the placebo, was it still truly the placebo? Yeah, it was the placebo group for the duration that they had a placebo group, right?

Meaning it was at this point really historical data. But that's when it was published in the New England Journal Medicine. And I was, you know, at that point, we were already fighting with the FDA to get all this data. And the FDA and the FDA fought us and said, no, we're not giving it to you. We'll give it to you at a pace of 500 pages of month, which would have taken 75 years based on the number of documents they had told us at that point. So, but here's the interesting part about this comparison. when you drill down, and this chart that you see in front of you is a, is a, uh, uh, shows the cause of death attributed for each one of these people that died. So when you drill down

into the causes of death, what you do find is that those that died from cardiovascular reasons were dying at twice the rate pretty much in the vaccinated group. So, you know, all the rose in red. I don't know if you could see it, but, you know, basically cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, and so forth, you know, heart attacks. There were two, six, seven, eight, nine, nine folks in the vaccinated group that died from cardiovascular issues. But in the Cibor group, one, two, three, four, five died of cardiovascular issues. Now, that differential in my, and again, you should, you want to have an epistatistician. Look at that. But that's quite a differential. And there's that one group that's did an analysis of that that does provide that it's significant that. But I limited

what I was citing here today to only FDA, CDC, and high impact journal sources for the most part so that folks, everybody can feel comfortable with the data they're looking at. I just want to get a little bit of detail to help paint this picture because we're talking talking, we're talking July of 21. We're talking the height, really, of, of fear and panic. Yeah. Over COVID. We're talking at a time where they were issuing an emergency use authorization for a drug to treat this pandemic that was a lot of fear of being struck into people's hearts. First, can you tell me, am I accurate that the total size of this study was, was roughly 60,000? thousand is that uh the total size is about 40 43,000 people okay 43,000 about 21 it's you could see it at the top there at the end there's about 21,900 each of these two groups okay and the total

length of the study was about how long um so the at least the safety review period was six months six months at least pursue into the the study plan so to really clarify at the the height of the pandemic in a clinical study in which over 40,000 people, a pandemic that was striking fear into the people's hearts that this was going to be rampant and kill tons and tons and tons of people, we had a total of 29 deaths occurring out of 43,000 over a six-month period. In the clinical trial, yes. Thank you. Thank you for taking question just to clarify. I understand so 21,000 people in the placebo group, they were observed for six months, but they were vaccine free only for first two months?

On average, they were, yes, that's right. They, when they crossed over, so they turned it into a crossover study, first of placebo when they crossed over into the vaccine, became vaccinated, they continued to follow them. So actually within the folks in the placebo who became unblinded, there were five additional deaths in the vaccine group. But obviously, it's hard to compare that to anything because there was no, they were the placebo group. But yes, on average, two months. Yeah, they continue to observe them. Interestingly, when the FDA apparently crunched the numbers, they issued a report on this data.

So what I just showed you here, this is what Pfizer told the public in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. You can read the article yourselves in New England Journal, Madison. Then you can go, and on the bottom left there is the link to the FDA report. So this is the FDA summary report with regards to the Pfizer trial. And in the FDA report, it said 21 people died in the vaccinated group and 17 died in the placebo group. During the period that they were, meaning they matched them up so that they were looking at them in like durations, right? Meaning it's not the vaccinated group, the 21 deaths were not continuing to look beyond when the, essentially, the placebo group was vaccinated.

So here you are in November of 2021 and the FDA is finally releasing what the clinical trial data shows. and from a statistical comparison, which is the way these trials should be done. You had 21, according to the FDA deaths in the vaccinate group, 17 in the placebo group, all-cause mortality. If the purpose of this product was to reduce deaths, the trial certainly didn't show that on an all-cause mortality basis.

Now, what's extremely concerned, and there's the quote, from dose 1 through March 31, 22, and one data cutoff date, right? There were a total 38 deaths, 21 the command of group, and 17th, super group, another deaths were considered related to vaccination. Well, who did that? Who considered them unrelated?

Pfizer. It is under the FDA's regulations for conducting clinical trials. It is the sponsor. So the WHO guidance would actually have left it to the principal investigator of each clinical trial site, which would also be paid by Pfizer. But in the U.S., the FDA actually leaves it to the sponsor themselves to make a causality determination. Here's the interesting part from my perspective for what it's worth. When it came to, for example, determining this vaccine was efficacious at reducing symptoms, right?

What did they license it based on? Not reduction in mortality. Remember, if anybody read the EUA documentation at the time. Not reduction in serious harm, but on the reduction of symptoms. And they did that by doing a comparison where they said there was about, I forgot the number now, six, seven, or eight folks in the vaccine group that had symptoms that tested positive with some symptoms. And there were about 100 something in the placebo group who tested positive with symptoms. Putting aside that there were about 600 other people who were never tested who had symptoms.

And there were a few thousand people's symptoms in the study that they put us, and this is all done by Peter Doshi at University of Maryland, we got all the data from the clinical trial from the FDA. You could see that there were thousands of individuals in this trial who should have been tested, too, and who knows what the outcome would have been. But they did a statistical comparison between those numbers, and they said 95% effective because you only had about, you know, whatever, six or seven in the vaccine, in the vaccinated with some symptoms that tested positive, and about 100 in the placebo that had some symptoms of tested positive. they didn't look under the hood there. They didn't do a individualized, inject your judgment bias into the study to make that comparison. They said, nope, 95% effective.

But when it came to the deaths, the more important number, then they let Pfizer inject its bias and do a death-by-death assessment of whether it's related. And lo and behold, despite 21 deaths in the vaccinate and 17 the placebo, get out my numbers, FDA's numbers, it's on their side. site, you can look at it yourself. They let Pfizer conclude that none of them are related to vaccination. Yes. Excuse me. So when did the FDA know? I mean, they're saying that this report was November 2021 and the other one was July or 2021, but when did Pfizer? I mean, the FDA actually know what the numbers were. Do we know that? that? I don't know the precise state that Pfizer submitted the data to the FDA or when Marks, Gruber Krauser, their statistical reviewer, EPI teams finally looked at it and crunched it.

But I mean, this is also, just to be sure, not uncommon in the sense that the assessment of causality, unfortunately, it shouldn't be this way. And I don't know why it is, but is left to the sponsor. for things like this. Has any follow-up been done as far as who those hundred people were and who those six or seven people were and their characteristics and how they were chosen, any of that? Yeah. Yes. The British Medical Journal, the BMJ, consider one of the most prestigious journals in the world. not in a peer-reviewed studies in that journal, to be sure, but in pieces published by at least one of the members of the editorial staff, Dr. Peter Doshi, who is a pharmacologist at the University of Maryland, he took an interest to his credit in looking at those numbers carefully. and what I was saying to you earlier about how when he looks at the data, let me put it this way. We had millions of Americans test all day long every other day, right?

They could have easily just had all 43,000 participants tests once a week. Done, easily, right? Then you would know whether the vaccine stopped transmission. You would know every instance of somebody who had symptoms, whether or not they had, whether they were in the vaccine, whether they had COVID or the vaccine or the vaccine or unvaccin. But they didn't do that. They didn't do that.

They only tested in certain instances in the clinical trial. And so that's why you ended up with those small numbers. To be sure, a lot of, like I was saying before, there were hundreds of people that had symptomatologies consistent potentially with COVID in the trial that were not tested. That's, that's just what the clinical trial doctor. document show. Why? That's another question. Maybe you can ask, you know, you should bring in your marks here and ask him. Why would they do that? It would have been so easy to just test everybody

once a week. I think what you just brought up in regards with testing is huge. Just to kind of, I'd have to go look it up. But when did the, whether it was the CDC or the FDA come out with, and basically pull the PCR test. Wasn't that in, was that December of 22 when they came out? I know they came out with a statement several months earlier because they knew that the tests were not accurate. Of course, it depended on how the cycles were, you know, you could test positive for COVID,

even though you might have had COVID and you had antibody, all of that kind of stuff. So kind of understanding that. Yeah. It's a great question, actually. I don't know the interplay between the timing of these studies, these trials, and when they updated and corrected the PCR testing. I don't know. Good question, though. I don't know. Thank you, Madam Chair. My other question is, okay, so this report came out November 2021. And from their quote, from dose one through March 13th, 2021. So do we know when that dose 1 was? So yeah, so what was the time frame from dose 1 till March 13,

2021? And since you're from answering before, you said it was historical, are we sure that those, that that placebo group was not injected from dose 1 to March 13th, 2021? They were, there were folks in the placebo group that were injected during that period. But this comparison is is is doing a comparison basically on a time sensitive basis between the placebo and the vaccinated group it would be invalid invalid to compare the vaccinated group for the entire duration of the trial against just the placebo group for a limited which because it was a more limited time period so they you time adjust it to add to end up with basically apples compared to apples. So these are supposed to be comparison. Now, also this wasn't, to be sure,

this wasn't retrospective in that the trial itself was prospective and had they just done a straight statistical comparison, that would be what you're supposed to do in a prospective trial. By letting Pfizer inject its bias, it basically converted it into a retrospective study. Like going back to this chart from July where you could see you had nine deaths from cardiovascular issues amongst the 15 that died and the vaccinated and five deaths in the placebo group from cardiovascular issues like that should have been a statistical comparison that should have been done and it wasn't it's just teased out we teased it out but it's in there it's sitting right there in the reported data because they just say they just let fidegger conclude none of these are related

shouldn't have done that in my opinion they should have done is just four statistical comparison okay we had nine cardiovascular deaths in the vaccinated, five in the placebo group, that's a pretty big differential. That's something we should, you know, that could be statistically significant. Or at the least, say, look, whole point is to reduce mortality. And if we're having more deaths in the vaccine group, that's an issue. Maybe we shouldn't let Pfizer determine causality. You know, it's not like these, it's not like 10 folks in the placebo group were in a plane crash. Okay.

They were dying of things actually that you could, and we now know can be ascribed to the vaccine in some degree, right? Cardiovascular issues, for example. Okay. So we sent a letter to the FDA, and there's a link to it. We said, why are the death data from a randomized controlled trial treated like a clinical case series, like a retrospective study, rather than an RCT when it comes to assessing causality? Right? They didn't do that for the other stuff, but they did it for death. Why? So the FDA's response was, we're unable to respond substantively at this time due to resource constraints and the ongoing pandemic response. And now that was years ago. We followed up numerous times since then. They still have no answer to that really important question. And of all the questions you don't have time for, they should have had an answer to this question. They should have had it like this. It's not something. you should have to look into. But they still no response to that.

They also went on in the letter to complain about how much we sue them and FOIA them. But, you know, in any event, I want to quickly return to kind of what I was trying to get at before, which is we have this study, 43,000 people over a period of six months at the height of the fear of the pandemic. We have a grand total of, I believe it was 29 deaths during that. period of time, of which three were attributed to COVID. Now, I understand, because as you mentioned, there was some perhaps somewhat convoluted rationale given for approving the emergency youth authorization for the drug, but I'm actually want to go one step back from that and say,

in six months, 43,000 people being studied three died of COVID. What was the justification for the emergency in the first place? I mean, I'll answer like a lawyer. The justifications are set out by the president in his declaration of emergency, the secretary in his secretary of H.S. And then the FDA in their rationale for granting emergencies of authorization.

I mean, they do lay them out why they believe these were emergencies at the time. You've been laying out a lot of really helpful information. So what I'm wondering is a couple things. things is were there other clinical trials? And then by July of 2021, how many people had received a COVID vaccine worldwide and what kinds of impacts did we see? And then related to the last question, what was the sort of population of participants in the

clinical trial versus the people who were actually dying from COVID? Let's focus on the United States. Because we already agreed there were people who were more at risk. Yeah. You know, age, other things. Yeah. I mean, according to the CDC, I believe the average age of somebody dying from COVID is pretty close to the average age of people who just die in general on all-cause basis. So obviously, the average age of death from COVID was really high. So to answer your last question in terms of what is the demographics of those in the clinical trial versus the demographics of those in the general population, The clinical trial.gov would have a copy of the should have stat information.

How much of a one-to-one it is, I don't know offhand. But that can be easily assessed. I mean, I do know that certain high-risk groups are not included in the clinical trial because that creates complications, though there were some folks. In terms of your other two questions, I think my next slide might answer. Two slides might answer that your question. And that is, if you look over here, you know, you can debate all day long whether or not somebody died of COVID or did they die of COVID vaccine or did they die of lockdown or,

you know, I'm sure you're all familiar with this debate out there. There's been a lot of debate about how do you attribute the deaths? did we more people die because they now did not have ancestors to cancer care did they die because they didn't have access to what have you um one number that's hard to debate typically it's typically binary is death either you died or you didn't die and so looking at all cause mortality just meaning all deaths period i think helps provide uh not a perfect way to look at the answer to your question representative, but I think a window into an answer to your question. So in 2019, this is all CDC data and got the link right there. It said that pre-COVID, there were 2.85 million deaths registered in the United States.

In 2020, there were 3.3,8 million deaths. So, and that's when COVID was raging through the country, if you watch the news. And presumably those who are most susceptible to COVID would have died during that period. That's when there was the nursing homes and a lot of folks were dying who were elderly. The first COVID vaccine was authorized in December of 20, December, December, 20th, I believe, of 2020. And pretty much nobody got the shot until basically 2021. And so if COVID vaccine was going to have a significant reduction in mortality in America,

you would presumably see it in the all-cause mortality number, right? I mean, look, you did, there were, what is that? Like, about 500,000 more deaths in 2019, 2020. it's a lot more deaths, right? So that's way above baseline. You'd expect a reduction, especially because presumably those who are most susceptible to death from COVID would have succumbed in 2020. But yet in 2021, when we went and we vaccinated most of America,

and to answer your question, if you look on the left, that's a chart of the daily COVID-19, vaccine doses administered. So every, it's supposed to be a daily data point. I mean, there was one day alone a few months into 2020 where they vaccinated 3.5 million Americans. This is just the United States. So, you know, in the first few months, they vaccinated. I don't know the number exactly, but it was a lot of folks.

You know, going through 2020, they basically have fully vaccinated. I mean, majority of Americans had got. the shot, a super majority of Americans have gotten the shot. But yet you did not see all cause mortality go down. You in fact saw it go up. The CDC registered in 2021 after we vaccinated the whole country, 3.46 million deaths. And the part that I think should have been alarming to health authorities

is that the average age of deaths skewed towards a younger curve. So you had more younger folks as compared to 2020 dying. But even if we put that aside, if you want to argue that COVID vaccines reduce mortality, I think these numbers make it a harder case to make. And, you know, I use these numbers because, you know, when you look at all the studies out there, You've got the clinical trial data. That clearly shows far more people died in the vaccinated group.

Then what are you left with? You're left with, again, people taking historical data and introducing their bias to it, epidemiological studies. And there's lots of them out there. And they, by the way, they cut both ways. There's all kinds of studies about mortality and COVID vaccines. Some of them, huge cohorts, some small cohorts, some more robust than others, but most of them historical, except for a number of countries who were publishing weekly or monthly statistics on mortality, hospitalizations, cases, and transmission, like England, like Scotland. And when the numbers inverted between the vaccine, on-vaccinated group, all those cohorts disappeared.

We have copies of those if the committee would like them. And they stop publishing those numbers. Again, that's just a historical fact. So the numbers, interestingly, in my assessment, that you see all cause in a population basis in the United States comports actually with the clinical trial data on a statistical level. And you also, if you look at the, you might say, okay, well, maybe more people died overall, but maybe we had less COVID deaths.

This is also far from, I wouldn't get on a stand and testify to this under a Darboat standard in federal court, but you can eyeball this chart. You know, and you can look at the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths according to our world and data. Okay. That's reliable. That is. They say it's WHO COVID-19 dashboard.

So they're sourcing from the WHO. And they're saying, and you can look actually starting when they started the vaccination, the death curve doesn't flatten. In fact, if you look at it after, you know, the peak in COVID vaccine. So in any event, you can make any epidemiological study show anything you want. But large numbers on these statistical basis, I think, are probably more reliable to look at. Okay. And really, you know, I'm not going to say this again, but really, why bother conducting a clinical trial?

If the numbers you, when the numbers don't show what you want, then you do a subjective assessment. But when they show what you want, you do it statistically. it doesn't make sense to me. And I'm going to show you just, I'm going to go through a few more little data points here about the trials. One is, and then we'll wrap up the clinical trial piece of this. So the Pfizer clinical trial, there was one for 16 and older. That's what we just looked at.

Separately, and that's what it was authorized for in December 2020, 2020, for 16 and older. separately to get an authorization and licensure for 12 to 15-year-olds, there was a separate clinical trial. In this clinical trial, they vaccinated a grand total of 1,131 kids. Maddie de Gary, our client, is one of those children, okay? You could see a picture of her in October 20th doing a handstand. January 16th. This is her doing a TikTok video.

And this is January 20th. she goes in for a second, Pfizer dose, not as just a person in the public, as a clinical trial participant. Do you know how I know her parents were not against vaccines? She participated in a clinical trial. Forget, just get the vaccine, right? They wanted to do their part. They wanted to step up and help. This is Maddie.

She had within 24 hours she was in an emergency room, a cascade of emergency room visits. that eventually resulted in her being in a wheelchair and have a feeding tube. She basically has a form of, you know, neurological disorder, which is common type of injury, at least when there's a vaccine injury, right? So a lot of vaccine injuries that we deal with are immune or immune-mediated neurological issues, like Yombo-Rae syndrome, transverse-myelitis, you can go down the list. It's basically where your immune system attacks your nerves, you know, In the case, for example, GBS starts in your periphery, works your way up.

You could recover. You can get paralyzed. We have all types of GBS cases at our firm that we bring. So now, the fact that Maddie was injured by vaccine is, okay, drugs injure people. It happens. The real concern from a regulatory perspective is how the FDA dealt with it. That is the real travesty. not in any way to minimize the pain and harm to Maddie.

So this, now that we got all of the documents that Pfizer submitted to the FDA to license, it's COVID vaccine, this is what, this is what the FDA report, excuse me, Pfizer reported Maddie's injury to the FDA as. They reported it as functional abdominal pain. They did not say she's in a wheelchair. They did not say she couldn't walk. They did not say she has a feeding tube. They basically said it's in her head and she's got a tummy ache.

And it's a, the reason that it's a Siri LLP link, not a FDA link, by the way, is because we had to file a lawsuit in Southern District of Ohio to get these documents from the FDA. What did Pfizer tell the public about Maddie? Well, here's its published report in May 27, 2021. It says there were no Viettaxie. vaccine-related serious adverse events in its trial. That's what I told the public. I believe that's, again, the New England Journal of Medicine.

At our firm, I mentioned earlier, we do vaccine injury cases. We have three medical professionals on staff. We have lawyers and paralegals, and we litigate vaccine injuries all day. We don't do them against pharma companies. You can't because of the 86 Act. We do them in a little federal program, Paul, the Vaccine Indie Compensation Program. I'll tell you about that later. But we review medical records all day long to assess causality.

and whether we can prove causality in court. If I could bring a case from Maddie in court, I could easily prove that no question the Pfizer's vaccine is the causal reason. There's no differential diagnosis. There's no other reason. And there's a biological reason, plausible reason for how it was caused and all the records showed that the ideology was from the vaccine.

In any event, we sent numerous detailed letters with access to all of Maddie's medical records to the FDA. saying, hey, hey, hey, hey, FDA. You know this, this is what the Pfizer's telling the public. And here's what Pfizer told you. And we're telling you this is not true. This is not true. Fisor, Maddie, was seriously injured.

And you know what? Even if Pfizer doesn't think it's from the vaccine, the reporting requirements required to provide that information. That's the whole idea of a clinical trial. You assess, you gather all the reactions. Now, you want to then say it's not the vaccine fine, but you got to report it. We said, either way, even if you conclude the vaccine didn't cause it, which I don't know how you do that, Pfizer should be in huge trouble, huge trouble for not telling you about this, not just not telling you,

misrepresenting to you that this was functional abdominal pain. That first link, you can read all our letters, and they're detailed, their medical, I had our medical professionals detailed all of it, you know, and we finally got a response in February 26th, 2022. So months later. And you can go and read that response yourself. The response from the FDA was have Maddie Fowler's report. I literally can't make that up. I encourage everyone to read it. That was their response. Here's what's incredible. an onslaught of folks kept contacting the FDA about Maddie. And in June of 2021, and this is from our lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio, we sued the FDA because they wouldn't give us the documents.

Thank God for FOIA, Freedom Information Act. And we finally got all the internal emails within the FDA regarding Maddie to Gary, including email communications where somebody who's very, very, very wealthy emails Janet Woodcock, who was then the acting director, commissioner of the FDA. And so that apparently finally prompts her to then email Dr. Peter Marks the head of the vaccine division who then emails a bunch of other folks and say, can you guys look into this? Our letters didn't do it. Maddie being on national news didn't do it. But apparently this did it. I don't know why.

they email Pfizer and they say, Pfizer, what's up with this situation with Maddie? Pfizer emails back a detailed report for the first time explaining all the issues she had, okay, for the first time. If I'm at the FDA, my response should be, what the heck? Why didn't you tell me this before and what else are you hiding for me? but that's not the exchange. That link at the bottom, I encourage everybody to read. You want to see how the FDA works. You want to say the sausage is made.

You should read this internal email exchange about Maddie deGarry. When you read this assessment by Pfizer, you would think, oh, my God, there it is. Pfizer's admitting it was the vaccine because that's the way it reads. And at the very end, it says the PI, the principal investigator, who's paid by Pfizer, did not feel, did not feel. The subject's symptomatology, that's how they spelled it, was consistent with a vaccine-related adverse event. And that was it.

That's where the chain ends. They email that back up the chain, and they just accept that conclusion. There's nothing in the communication to see that Pfizer is going to be investigated. Pfizer's going to be in trouble for this. Are they going to do another audit of its documents? Are they going to look further into this?

Are they going to contact Maddie's family? they're going to contact us, nothing. I'm sorry, please. What do you mean he did not feel? He didn't feel. I didn't feel like having coffee this morning. I felt like having two. He didn't feel that her injuries were consistent

with the vaccine with the outage of the... It isn't incredible. It's incredible because, remember, you're talking about a product that's new. The whole point of the clinical trials is to see what issues it could cause that are unknown. And he says, well, this doesn't fit with what basically I understand a vaccine to be able to cause.

So it's not vaccine related. So just to follow up on that. So as an investigator who's paid by the company that's making the vaccine, isn't his job to assess and not feel? That was his assessment. I just kind of wanted you to repeat this because I think it's so important for it to be said. This is, was authorized under emergency youth authorization. It was done in a way that pushed things out before really having enough knowledge, I believe. And it's not, doesn't fall under any sort of traditional quote unquote vaccine.

So you're telling me they based it off of, let's say, for example, an MMR. of adverse effects because it didn't follow some of those things. And that's what they based upon, in a sense. Well, I think you might be giving Dr. Frank too much credit there. It's his assessment of what he feels is a vaccine-related adverse event. The documents that came out that Pfizer was withholding for a period of time that was, I believe, most nine pages long of different side effects that you could have. Was that released at this point? So it wasn't Pfizer withholding, by the way, was the FDA, because it was Pfizer has no obligation

to produce documents to the public. The only reason the FDA had to produce those to the public was because of the Freedom Information Act. And I don't think our lawsuit had yet received an order to produce the documents at this point. And I'm testing, yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure if that page of potential adverse events that Faser had listed was public yet. Thank you. I'd have to check. Representative Belcher.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for interrupting. I just wanted to take just a second. I have up here a website article. I wanted to quickly note in the record, statenews.com, August 9th, 2021. indicating as the FDA was searching for a new commissioner, there was a letter writing campaign undertaken by those who statistically had significant financial contributions from the pharmaceutical industries indicating significant pharmaceutical industry support for Commissioner Woodcock to be named as head of the FDA. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, for what it's worth, my assessment is actually that when you look at all the internal emails, person really calling the shots in terms of authorizing and licensing these vaccines at the FDA was

Dr. Peter Marks, not Dr. Woodcock. To be sure, she actually had to sign it at the end of day, I believe, though actually I think it was Dr. Peter Marks who signed the authorizations of my recollection surgeon, but he was the one really, when you look at the internal documents, my assessment is he's the one who really made that decision. I mean, he's the one who decided really at the end of day. I mean, there is the, there's Verbeck, which is the advisory committee. I mean, within the FDA, that it advises the FDA about whether or not to license or not license and so forth. But at the end of day, it's Dr. Peter Marks, who made the decision of whether or not there would be a Verbeck hearing or not. And then really what would happen.

And when Gruber and Strauss, for example, his two subordinates would not, I think, would not as the internal, email show license, excuse me, authorized and then a license on a timeline that he wanted, that really is what led to, I believe, there going out. The internal communications reflect them emailing and taking significant issue with Dr. Marks trying to move up the licensure timeline because, among other reasons, he believed that once it was licensed, that there'd be more mandates. And so he wanted to try to accelerate the licensure process and Grubin-Strauss push back. ended up on the outside of the, on the other side of the FDA front doors.

But going back to Maddie. You might get to here in your presentation. I just, and I think it's really important because it's kind of like there were, no one's talking about the J&J, the one shot at all, which of course fell under emergency youth authorization. Our committee had someone here that was vaccine injured or daughter was from that. I know several other people here in the state that were injured from that shot. And we promoted that a lot here in New Hampshire.

And I just was wondering, do you have any information on that specifically? Because it was like here, it got pulled, it got put back, and then now it doesn't even exist anymore. Yeah. I mean, I focus on the Pfizer, Moderna, and particularly Pfizer, because that is what most Americans receive, very small percent of Americans receive the Jane. and J shot. And then there's the Novavac shot, which even smaller percentage got. And AstraZeneca was never authorized a license here. So, yeah, I mean, J&J use a bit more of a traditional platform, but it had similar issues. I mean, look, again, from my perspective, I don't really view the, what you're

called, you know, the MRNA vaccines is any really different than most of the other vaccines or like the J&J. I mean, to the extent that, you know, I mean, using DNA technology, like I said, recombinant DNA vaccines are used. use DNA technology. I mean, they take basically snippet of the DNA. They take it yeast DNA. They take out a slice. They slice in the, the, the, the antigens that they want to create. And then they, I mean, it's, it's kind of a DNA technology too. And we've been doing that since, you know, for 30 years. So, I mean, if we're going to differentiate vaccines based on the technology that they used to make them, then it's hard to actually label. There's a lot of silos for vaccines. And I, I guess,

Again, my assessment is not that they were rushed. The J&J vaccine had also had different types of issues, in particular TTS, right? And what made TTS so interesting is that it's not normal to have reduced platelet counts, right, but yet increased clotting. So normally if someone comes in with clotting, you give them blood thinner because you figure they're having too many platelets. The problem is that people presenting with blood clots who are giving them blood thinners, not realizing their platelets already low and then killing them in a hospital by mistake, unintentionally, using, you know, they thought they're doing the right thing. And because it's not a common event, it's not going to hide in a background rate.

That's stuck out like a sore thumb TTS. And that's why it made the news right away. It was identified. And adverse events that are common in the background rate are. are far harder to tease out, so to speak. But on J&J, at least, TTS was obviously recognized, which is why they pulled in, then it came back. Okay.

So anyway, I think I'm about to wrap up the clinical trial section, almost. By the way, Maddie to Gary, adding insult to injury, was censored all over the Internet for just telling her story. All of her posts were, you know, censored, you were throttled, people were kicked off for doing it. And you might say, well, why? Why would the FDA do this? I can't answer completely.

And I think I've given some snippets as to it. But here is Dr. Peter Marks. This is the man who really decided whether it authorized and licensed COVID-vaccine. He's the one in that email chain I just told you about with Maddie. Way, way, way after what? After he'd already gone to the American people and told them, you should all get this shot. Before, who's even licensed. This is Dr. Mark's in a YouTube video.

this is him. He made this. The FDA made this. Doing just a minute, this is the person who's supposed to impartially, objectively, coldly look at this data, decide whether millions of Americans should get it, and he's out there promoting the vaccine. That creates an inherent conflict. He goes and he tells everybody to get it. Is he really then going to go, oops, sorry? I messed up. He should have been nowhere near promotion of this product. No place. The FDA doesn't go out and promote drugs. That's why they don't have as much of an issue to pull those products. They say, oh, yeah, Ompic, yeah, boopsie. Yeah, we messed up. We license it, but we didn't know this. The FDA doesn't go and create advertisements. It doesn't have this on their homepage.

This is the homepage of the FDA. This does not look like a regulatory agency. This looks like an advertisement. And amazingly, it was for the bivalent vaccine. It wasn't even a licensed product, meaning it hadn't yet been shown to be safe and effective, just to make sure where we understand each other, when you, EUA, when you authorize a product, emergency use authorization, authorize a product, it has not yet been shown to be safe and effective pursuant to the FDA standards.

Later, if it's licensed, it's met that as FDA standards. So this didn't even meet the FDA standards yet, and yet here it is being promoted, it creates a real serious conflict for the FDA to then say, oops, sorry. And separately, forget what the FDA itself does. It has an advisory committee that advises the FDA, and you probably have seen those.

Those are what we're all over TV with Paul Offutt and some of the other, you know, vaccinologists. They even have a whole, you know, interdisciplinary committee of medical professionals that sit there. And this is a congressional report that looked at the FDA's advisory committee, and this is what the federal, this is what the congressional report concluded. The overwhelming majority of members, both voting, members and consultants, have substantial ties to pharmaceutical industry. I've deposed a number of these vaccinologists and folks who sit on these committees, and it is incredible, actually. The same people who conduct clinical trials are paid by farmer, consultants for them are also sitting on this committee, despite the fact that you often hear that it's independent.

And here's this, not me, that's a congressional report reaching that conclusion. You could read the report and you can read in detail the incredible amount of conflicts. and then you think they'd clean up their act, but here's, again, this is the HHS Inspector General, again finding nine years later the same type of systemic conflicts going on. I'll show you this one video and then I'll wrap up the clinical trial section. So this is the, so we talked about the FDA itself from Peter Marks. We've talked about the Vaccine Safety Committee, the Advisory Committee. There is also when a clinical trial is ongoing, there's something called a data safety modern

Boarding, independent data safety modern board. The purpose of this board is supposed to be objectively and independently review the safety of the product while the vaccine is undergoing clinical trial. Okay. Dr. Catherine Edwards, she's the third author on Plotkin's vaccine, the editor. She is a world-renowned vaccinologist. She runs the CDC's CISA program, which evaluates specific vaccine injuries. She's done probably, I don't know, involved in half of the clinical trials involving childhood vaccines that are on the schedule. I could be wrong about that, but I think that's what she told me in when I deposed her. And here's a case where she's on the stand, and I'm asking her specifically about her role in the data state to monitor board with regards to Pfizer's COVID-19

vaccine. Isn't it's true that you've also been an advisor to Pfizer? Yesterday, I have been as advisor to Pfizer and I've been working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly with their COVID vaccines and going over lots of reactions of that person, so yes, I am working and being paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccines. The part of the data safety modern work for the piloted code vaccine that you meant when you said that, they're one of the only five members of that data. safety monitoring board over the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, right? Yes, you're right.

And that's supposed to be an independent data safety monitoring board, correct? It is an independent data safety and monitoring board. That's the board that all of us in America are hoping on and relying on is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed as the clinical trial for that Pfizer for COVID-19 actually gone going, correct? That's true. And let me tell you that we have worked very hard to go over this and look very hard to do that in the heat as comprehensively as we possibly can.

And since it's supposed to be independent, it's critical that the members of that independent data safety monitoring board are, in fact, independent of the pharmaceutical company whose product is being evaluated, correct? That's correct. Is it true that directly before becoming a member of the independent Data Safety Body Board of the FISA and COVID-19 vaccine? You were an advisor to FISA?

FISA pays me to evaluate the safety of their vaccines because I'm an expert. So I do get paid to do the work that I've been doing, that I've been doing, conscientiously and comprehensively. My question was, before you became a member of the independent data safety monitoring board for the FISA with COVID-19 vaccine, isn't it true that you were separately before you held that independent position? You were an advisor to FISA. Yes, sir, but I think that you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor makes me

on their door. It makes me a point to say what they want me to say. That is my, and it's never been a part of my feet. I say what I believe based on my expertise. So you don't think that financial incentives can sway people's judgment at all? It does not sway my judgment, sir. Why, while I'm having an independent data safety monitor board, why doesn't the firefighters have some of its employees on it? Because we are independent. Meaning folks who are never advisors to five. We are independent from privacy in this assessment. I think she really believes she's independent.

She does. I have no reason to doubt that she sincerely thinks she's independent, but, you know, we all know that bias can creep in, right? it can corrupt in ways that are conscious and often unconscious. And so now we've gone through the regulators, the independent board, the data safety monitoring board, also the C FDA, we've talked about this, fought us forever in court to release the data. And that really brings us to the end of clinical trials. And I'll stop there, and I'll just say this much to be clear, to be sure. I'm not, you know, the whole reason of showing all this is not to take, I genuinely,

believe anybody who wants a vaccine should be free to get one. You know, if you want to, you know, stay at home and wear six masks and vaccine every day should be able to. That's freedom. That's America. Should be able to do that. But I think that those who want to, let's say look at some of this information, who understand, let's say, clinical trials are done, who look at this and want to come to their own conclusion should also be free to do that. Amen. Man, I have probably seen that Catherine Edwards video now 20 times. I use it in a talk. Much like Aaron's using it, you know, in front of audiences and with politicians all across this country. It never fails.

I never get tired of it. It's just amazing how these people are sort of blindfolded to their own sort of weaknesses, if you will. But, you know, that evidence, that video evidence that you just saw is only made possible because we were able to fly Aaron into very important. important cases where in this case, Catherine Edwards was going to be deposed and on the stand. It wasn't a case of ours, but we offer Aaron into those situations where top officials, remember, Catherine Edwards is on, she's one of the authors of the most important vaccine book in the world Plotkin on vaccines. And of course, Stanley Plotkin, the head of that book has also been on the stand, as you well know, because of Aaron's serious.

incredible work, and all of that's made possible because of you. And so I just want to say right now, this has been a very special couple of episodes to just show you what is happening behind the scenes that you're not seeing here on the show. It's constant. There's over 50 legal professionals now working at Syria and Glimstad. So many of them are there doing the work for I can that you are funding. But right now, I'll be honest. right now, we are really looking at having to sort of pull it back. We have to pull it back right now

because we've gotten a little overzealous. We've had so many successes. We just wanted to win more and more. And we may have stretched it too thin. I'm being honest with you. Aaron and I are looking at the books right now and see if maybe we have to pull out of a couple of these cases, maybe wait till next year. Hopefully, you know, the world hasn't changed. But if you want us to stay on track, If you really want to see these victories, if you want to see these hearings in your own state, then I really need your help right now. And specifically, those of you that have been watching all this time, but are, you know, just haven't really taken that next step, which is getting involved. This is the informed consent action network. This is literally like you are our network, right? We're not, you know, we're not syndicated all across the world or by different agencies or different television sets. You're tuning in. You're sharing it.

and you also are our sponsors in this whole situation. So I really implore you. I know it just seems like, oh, my dollar won't make a difference. It's not worth my time. It really is. It really does make a difference. And that's part of the beauty of what we're doing here. It's not gigantic donations that make this happen.

It's just donations by regular people like yourself deciding to get involved. And the more of you that get involved, the more we can do. to make sure that we never get locked down again, that we break this system that allows our regulatory agencies to push products through without them being properly tested, that ultimately has, you know, corrupted individuals making decisions and saying things are okay for the rest of us. As Aaron Series said, it's a free country. If you want to vaccinate, you want to wear six masks inside your head, it's inside your house, go right ahead. But for those of us that don't, we deserve to have that right. And that's

what we are fighting for every single day here in the United States of America. And that is representing that around the world. So please help us out if you can. And I want to remind you next week, we're taking the high wire on the road live in Las Vegas. This is a great reason to visit Las Vegas. I'm talking about Freedom Fest. There it is. Are we entering a brave new world July 10th through the 13th. You can still sign up. Go to freedom fest.com. Not only we're doing a live performance of the highway right there in the middle of the show. I'm also speaking, you know, at 1030 on the 12th, I'm speaking about fascism via help on the main stage at 1.30, deeper look, fascism via health, a deeper look. A panel at 3 o'clock.

I have a vaccine stories that didn't make the news. I'm on a panel there. So just tons. then bravely resisting the New World Order. I'm on a panel on Saturday. So much to be involved in and what an amazing lineup of speakers the Freedom Fest always gets. So you can go, have some fun, and get informed and meet a lot of other people that are just fighting for liberty and justice and freedom for all, which is what this week is all about. I want to thank you for taking your time on this 4th of July to really get down into the weeds. I hope you brought friends and family members to really see what's going on here. We need to wake up as many people as we can

because this holiday that we're celebrating right now today, the 4th of July, you know what it really was? It was just a handful of really brave individuals that decided, you know what? I would rather, you know, die standing than live on my knees under tyranny. And they pulled out their pens and they signed their names, so that the entire British armada and the king would know,

here I am, present and accounted for, you know where I live, come and get it. This is what we're doing here on the high wire. This is what you should be doing as an American citizen. Frankly, any citizen around the world, the World Economic Forum, the WHO, the UN, the IOM, Gavi, are all working to take every right you have away from you. They see you as farm animals.

And if they get their way, if we don't end up having enough people ready to stand up for our truth, for our sovereignty, then they will win. It's really coming down to it. Guaranteed you get to see this battle unfold in its finality in your lifetime. How do you want that to turn out? You want to win? Then act accordingly. Get to it, and I'll see you next week.