The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 388: SIRI TESTIFIES: NEW HAMPSHIRE “POST-LICENSURE SAFETY”

Episode Date: September 6, 2024

The third installment of attorney Aaron Siri’s expert testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy. In this episode, ICAN’s lead attorney exposes the shortcomings of post-licensure safety, and shatters the claim that the connection between vaccines and autism has been ‘thoroughly studied.’Guest: Aaron Siri, Esq.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 to step out onto the high wire. Well, every week we have brand new people watching the show. I want to thank you all for joining us today. What many might find surprising is we're not just. a news program delivering information that you're not going to find anywhere else, totally uncensored, unmotivated by corporate profits. No money is coming in here. But we also have a legal team

that fights to get to the bottom of the issues that we have. We bring lawsuits against government agencies. We've won against the FDA, CDC, Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health, among many others. We fought for the military so that they didn't have to be vaccinated. At the heart of that, really is our lead attorney that has been working with us from the very beginning, the beginning of 2017 we got to work. And that is Aaron Siri. He has gone on to take the information that we're providing you here and take it in front of congressional hearings and state capitals to try and get the message out that vaccines and this program that you are involved in your states may not be everything you're cracked up to be. Today is a very special episode at the heart of it is just one of these hearings that Aaron Siri was at. Aaron joins me now. Hey, Doug.

Hey, Aaron. How you doing? Great. All right. So this is part two of the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID response and efficacy. In the first part, you really covered, which we played many weeks ago, you really got into pre-licensure phase of vaccinations. In this, you're getting now into post-licensure and really sensitive discussions like autism. A lot of people would say you should avoid autism.

There's plenty to talk about vaccine injury. That is just such a divisive thing. It's got a lot of evidence behind it. Why autism in this conversation post-marketing surveillance? What are we about to see? And why do this in front of a panel of assembly members? Yeah, well, I was asked to come and speak about COVID-19 vaccines and a committee was investigating, I think, the crush of civil liberties that occurred around that product, as well as what they saw as a lack of vaccine safety science around that product, both before and after, it was brought to market. So in the first episode, so to speak, the first part of my testimony there, which you guys made into an episode.

I covered the pre-licensure safety with COVID vaccines. And to really put it in context, I showed them how that compared to the clinical trials for other childhood vaccines, as well as the clinical trials that are typically done for drugs. Well, in this, the second part of what I presented to them, I went through how childhood vaccines are studied after licensure. And I used the claim that federal health authorities make that vaccines, don't cause autism as the litmus test, as it were, right? As a way to assess how well they study all the different claims that people make about injuries

from vaccines. The claim that vaccines cause autism is the claim that our health authorities claim to have most thoroughly and robustly studied. It is the thing they say they have studied better than any other vaccine injury claim, even though there are a hundred other, over well over 100 other, very serious injuries from vaccines that parents claim

occur from vaccinations. Well, that would mean we could look at the claim that vaccines cause autism, and if it turns out, if it turns out it's not really true or it's not true that they actually have studies

that vaccines do not cause autism, that claim before claiming and asserting it doesn't, then it gives you a, pretty good indication of how well they've studied all the other injuries. And that's the reason. It wasn't a presentation intended to show how vaccines or do vaccines goes autism. It was purely intended to show here are the vaccines giving them in the first six months of life. They say vaccines don't cause autism. We know autism can be diagnosed within the first six months, first year of life,

you know, often leading up to one year of age. Well, then you should have studies showing that all those vaccines given in the first year of life don't cause autism. And as you know well, Dell, we sued the CDC for those studies and they don't have them. They've never studied and they don't have studies showing that the vaccines given in the first six months of life don't cause autism. We confirmed the depositions of Dr. Plotkin, Dr. Catherine Edwards. And in many other ways, up and down, we have thoroughly and carefully researched. And we have given them so many opportunities over the course of the last five to six years.

It's incredible that they didn't just go and say, let's just make up a study at this point. These people won't stop. But no, they just don't have any. And they kind of make it really easy for us. And that's what I did in terms of autism. Just show the members of the New Hampshire legislature. Here, here is the thing they say they've studied the best, the most.

And they don't even have a study for the vaccines given in the first six months of life. That shows us how they all they've studied, all the other vaccines. And then I move on to like the Institute of Medicine report, which actually shows they really have to study. all that. I don't want to give away the punchline, but is it safe to say that, you know, this group of elected officials were expecting a conversation on COVID, and you brought in this out into the childhood vaccine program and a whole host of things that they weren't planning on hearing? Is that pretty much the gist of it? I said beforehand. Now, I even, I even let him know. I said, if you want to understand COVID vaccines, you got to understand the economic and regulatory

framework that those fell into. And that requires starting in the 80s. Are you okay with that? They were like, yeah, okay. I'm not sure they expected what they then got. And I, you know, they said they set aside the day. So I thought, okay, two, three hours. I was there all day because I think that they were really engaged with this.

I think when somebody actually sees this information, sees the evidence. sees the evidence. And I love doing that. I love having the opportunity to let them see the CDC and FDA's own information. Because as you know, it's all right there. Just nobody looks. But once shown it, it's like, you know, it's like, oh, my goodness, there was this train wreck right behind the curtain. I just missed it.

Well, let's watch it with our own eyes. Let's watch their eyes when they see it for the first time. Roll it. We went through the pre-licensure with regards to. safety, but also some efficacy components as well. And now we'll talk about post licensure because you might say to yourself, look, maybe the trials weren't great, but after licensure definitely studied, right? And in order to look at that, I want to look at how other vaccines are studied after licensure.

And I think that will give you a baseline to assess and think about how the CDC and the FDA approach post-licensure safety. Now, post-licensure safety is typically the purview of the CDC. So the FDA does the pre-licensure. CDC does the post-licensure typically. NAH has some involvement, but usually they just dole out money. And so as a proxy, basically, for assessing how robust is the, quote-unquote, science that studies vaccine safety after licensure, I'm going to use the, the claim that rest assured vaccines do not cause, and I bet you guys already know the word that's in the blank, it's autism, right? Vaccines do not cause autism, I think is a good proxy for how well

vaccine safety is really studied after licensure because it is the claim that public health authorities, federal, all 50 states, you name it, you talk to the average medical doctor, they will tell you that question has been thoroughly studied. and absolutely debunked. This is on the CDC website, vaccines do not cause autism, and we know it because we have studied that issue, period. And we have the science, the studies, the data to prove it.

We're not sure as a scientific community what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny in any way that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with

vaccines. Let me be clear, vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccines don't cause autism. Absolutely sure. Absolutely sure. Okay. Vaccines do not cause autism. So I'm going to use that.

I'm not trying to debate the question of vaccines cause autism. I'm just using that as a proxy to see. Let's look at what the state. of the scientists on that question as a proxy for what it looks like for the numerous other health issues that parents will routinely at least call our firm and will have complained about as vaccines potentially causing. Now, there are a number of peer-reviewed studies that have surveyed parents with children with autism and ask them, what do you think cause your child's autism? And despite the almost endless campaign by public authorities to convince the public vaccines

do not cause autism, 40 to 70 percent, depending on the child's autism, depending on the child's, the study of autism parents still blame vaccines for causing their child's autism. And when you ask them what vaccines they blame, all the ones that I just highlighted and read, if you could see those, are the ones that they will bring up. They will bring up all the shots in the first six months of life, Hep B, DTAP, Hib, PCV, and IPV, each given three times, as well as MMR. MMR is given no earlier than 12 months. We know autism can often typically be diagnosed before one year of age. So if you're going to study whether vaccines cause autism and your parents are saying they believe vaccines caused autism, you should probably study the vaccines given in the first six months of life.

At the least, if you're going to claim vaccines do not cause autism, you should have studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Well, let's see what's in fact been done in that regard. And I'm going to go through a quick little timeline here, starting with the 1986 Act. That's the National Child Vaccindri Act. We talked about that earlier that gave immunity to pharmaceutical companies, set up a vaccine court and so forth. Well, at the time that it was passed, it directed our federal health authorities to study what was then, presumably, the 11 most common claimed injuries from vaccine all the way back in the 80s. and one of them was whether or not pertussis vaccine causes autism.

And I'll read the language in the federal law at the time. Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information on the nature's circumstances and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing pertussis, including wholesale and specific antigens, meaning whole and attend, like the ones we have today. And the following illnesses and conditions, one through 11, number nine being autism. Okay. This is a decade before Andrew Wakefield.

This is a decade before MMR controversy. This is all the way back in the 80s. So the federal authorities went and they commissioned the national, well, the, what's then known as the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. and they paid them to conduct a review of all the existing literature with regards to those 11 conditions to see whether or not what does the literature, the peer-reviewed science actually show. And what they found was that for autism, there was no evidence bearing a causal relationship, meaning they did not find a single study that had studied the question. That doesn't mean vaccines cause autism.

didn't mean protist vaccine caused autism, but it means the question had not been answered. No category of evidence was found bearing on a judgment about causation. All categories of evidence left blank on table 1. dash 1. So here we are. They went, they looked, they looked through all of the studies, the science, the data, and they could not find a shred of evidence to inform the question of whether or not pertussis vaccines cause autism. That was 1991. Well, in 2012,

CDC and HRSA, the Human Health Resources Administration, that is another agency within HHS, that administers actually vaccine court, HRSA and CDC jointly funded a study by the Institute of Medicine to look at what they said were the 150-something-something most commonly claimed injuries from vaccines. That's they said, not me, CDC, HRSA.

And one of the claimed injuries continued to be whether pertustis vaccine caused autism, as well as diphtheria and tetanus vaccine. And so the Institute of Medicine convened a panel of, you know, an interdisciplinary panel that looked at all the science out there. And they looked at the epidemiological evidence. And when you read that section, if you, you know, have a moment, the epidemiological evidence, they only found one study by Guyron, and it actually showed there was a correlation between D-TAP vaccine and autism, but the IOM threw the study out as unreliable because it was based on VAERS data. So that was discounted. They could find no other epistudities.

They could find no mechanistic evidence, meaning it just wasn't looked at. And so their causality conclusion, again, this is the Institute of Medicine saying this, not me, is the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid or accellular pertuss containing vaccines and autism. That's not vaccines don't cause autism. That's, we don't know if vaccines cause autism. Well, let me be, let me be actually more specific. We don't know whether pertusses diphtas, if there are tetanus vaccines, which are vaccines.

Hence, it's hard to make the claim vaccines that'll cause autism. Okay. So, I had occasion, as you saw earlier, to depose the world's leading vaccinologist, and I actually had an opportunity to ask him about that exact finding from the Institute of Medicine. Maybe he knew something we didn't. Maybe he had a study we didn't know about. Let's see what he had to say and how he dealt with that conclusion in that Institute of Medicine reviewed. Just to really put this into context, these Institute of Medicine reviews, they are, you know,

usually funded things by federal health authorities. The purpose of these studies is in the vaccine court, HRSA wants to be able to defend against vaccine injury claims when we sue them. So they commission these studies hoping to find the conclusion that the vaccine does not cause X, Y, or Z issue, okay? This is an excerpt from the IOM's report, right? Yes. Okay.

Can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether D-TAP and T-DAP cause autism? The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject. a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or accellular pertusses containing vaccine and autism. If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it, to then say that vaccines do not cause autism? Do I wait? No.

I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child. And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that D-TAP-TAP does not cause autism even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim. Absolutely. So fine. Maybe Dr. Plotkin is not aware of studies that exist. I don't know. So what we decided is we're going to go straight to the source, and we FOIA the CDC directly

for all studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the D-TAP vaccine does not cause autism. It's on their website, vaccines don't cause autism. We also asked for all studies, the CDC relied upon to say that endericks B and recombos, those are the two Hep B vaccines. Remember, we looked at those earlier when we looked at recombavax. Previnar 13, Hib and IPV. as well as we asked for all the studies that show that cumulatively those vaccines don't cause autism. Those are each of those shots given three times in the first six months of life.

Okay. So we foyer the CDC. CDC says vaccines don't cause autism. They wouldn't provide any studies. We eventually appealed administratively. They didn't provide any studies. I sued them in federal court on behalf of ICANN. And finally, the Department of Justice offered up 20 studies.

And this is in a stipulated order. It's on your screen. You could see that it's signed by the Department of Justice, signed by me on behalf of I can, and it's entered as an order by a federal judge. And this lists the 20 studies that they say they rely upon to claim vaccines don't cause autism for those early shots. Here's the thing. I had to call at the Department of Justice.

attorney before this order was finalized. And I said, hey, listen, are you sure your client wants to sign an order saying that these are the 20 studies? It's like, why? I said, because none of them involve the vaccines in the first six months of life. I said, all of them involve the MMR vaccine, which is given at one year, or involve X Mercury, which was taken out of vaccines back in 2000. I said, so you're providing studies that are not relevant to the question in the FOIA request. I said, in fact, I said, and ironically, you cite the 2012 Institute of Medicine Review that found this. This is one of the 20 things they cited. I said, so the only study in this list of 20 that actually refers to a vaccine given in the first six months of life now on the current schedule is this study.

and it says it doesn't have a study to support vaccines and cause autism. Well, you could see what the DOJ and the CDC decided to do. They just wanted the lawsuit gone. They signed it. So I want to reiterate. And anybody can read these studies. They are in English.

They're available. There's a link down there. You could pull it up. You can just read them. Maybe they thought we wouldn't read. I don't know. But there they are. 18 involved the Marisol MMR.

One involved antigen, not vaccine. exposure and that study even says it doesn't assess whether vaccines cause autism. It can't because it doesn't study vaccines. And one involved MMR and MRSOL and DTAP. That's the 2012 IOM report we just looked at. Okay. And I want to put a finer point on this. That 2012 IOM report had a section on MMR and autism.

And it concluded that it throughout all the MMR studies except for, and it said based on those four EPI studies, its causality conclusion is that MMR does not cause autism. So it can make that determination. Science can conclude that a vaccine doesn't cause autism. It did in that 2012-in-R-M report, but it hasn't done it for D-TAP or IPV or Pregnar or PCV-13 or HIPB. Five shots, even three times each in the first six months of life. Okay.

So, okay, well, maybe the CDC doesn't know. I'll show you one more deposition clip. And this one again is Dr. Catherine Edwards. This isn't a lawsuit that actually involves vaccines and autism. Dr. Edwards was brought in as the vaccinologist, the expert on the question of whether or not this particular child ended up with vaccines from autism. Okay.

And here is my exchange with her when I deposed her on this precise question. According to your profile, you have done most of the predictable trials will I upon to license. many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay. So you're highly experienced conducting clinical trials, correct?

I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon to license, many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct? I am. Now, in the expert disclosures for this case, it asserts that among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote.

It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism. That's correct. It's your testimony that head B vaccine cannot cause autism. That's correct. It's your testimony that iPod cannot cause autism. Yes. It's your testimony that hid vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes.

Your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. It's your testimony that Previnar vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. It's your testament that DTAP vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. And do you have a study that supports a DTAB doesn't cause autism? I have, I do not have a study that DTAP caused autism.

So I don't have either. Do you have any study one way or another of whether iPol causes autism? No, I do not, sir. Do you have any study one way or another of whether Enderx B causes autism? I do not have any. evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about Hidtiders vaccine? Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism?

What about Prevonar vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir. And how about varicella vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one where another that's for whether it does or doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as varicella by itself. No, sir.

No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. Right. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible. Okay. which study you are you referring to when you say that? Well, why don't you show me the study and then I'll see whether I think. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received,

many of which are still on the market today? Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. You've badgered me into answering the question, the way you want me to. But I think that that I that's probably the answer. Is it is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. So you know, we have it from we have it in a stipulated order from the federal judge. We have it from the leading experts in in vaccinology. Honestly, I don't know where else to look.

It's not like we're not trying to hide run from the evidence or data or studies. We'd love to see the studies. Let's look at them, please. It seemed like she was quite upset that she had to answer these questions. I didn't and really didn't want to. I mean, and I guess the underlying thing was, is she couldn't say one way or the other that they caused autism. She couldn't say that it did, and she couldn't say that it didn't. Right.

But what we're hearing is that they don't. Right. They're telling you vaccines do not cause autism, categorically. End of story. They will tell you, they, instant medicine will conclude there are studies that MMR doesn't. But for the other vaccines, it's not like there's a debate, like, okay, we have one study that shows this. They didn't do the studies. And that's what you're hearing.

So my point that I want, you know, I'm trying to using autism. I'm not debating whether vaccines cause autism. I am just using vaccines cause autism as do not cause autism as a proxy for the state of the science, the science, with regards to how well our federal health authorities, the medical community, NIH funding, how much does it go to actually studying vaccine safety? And what I'm telling you is that you can look at the clinical trials we just did that. And if you want to go to PubMed and research vaccine safety, you're going to be really shocked at how limited and the dearth of studies are actually done, please. Yes. So for me, you know, we're supposed to trust what we're reading from the government.

And if they absolutely state that something doesn't cause something, then they should be linking the studies to that to prove that. Yes. But they're not. How do we know going forward that we can trust based on evidence that we, I'm not saying that they do, but I'm not saying, I mean, I don't know based on what I just heard today, right? So I guess the question is. I could say this much.

I do think vaccines are truly unique in my assessment. with regards to at least products on the market. And that's because usually, and I go back to my first slides, you know, you have moneyed interest pushing both ways. There's no conspiracy. You know, you have money to interest battling each other. So normally you have on the one side, you have the companies want to make money on the other side.

You have the product liability in class action attorneys. And you usually have the regulators who are sitting somewhere here on the side of the consumers. This is the only product that I know where you have the, that you have on one side, you have the, the pharmaceutical companies. The class action and product liability terms have been neutered. They can't do anything. So they're out of the game.

And the regulators have a statutory obligation to increase vaccine uptake. And we'll talk about later, they are who you sue in federal court in the entitlement of court. You name the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services when you bring a vaccine injury claim in the vaccine injury compensation program that's part of the federal court of claims. It's the only court in America where you typically can sue the federal government for money. So if they do studies that show vaccines cause harm, we use that as evidence against the government.

It's the only product I know where the government defends the companies against the consumers. If you're injured by a vaccine, government doesn't come and protect you. They defend the product. So when we sue the Secretary of Department of Health Human Services for vaccine injury for a little baby or a child, who's the defense counsel? It's a little law firm. It's called the Department of Justice. A lot of money, a lot of lawyers, and that's who defends against vaccine injury claims. They have an entire vaccine injury compensation division at the Department of Justice.

They have a lot of money. They hire all the experts. So when you say, what can I trust? I do think that your worldview doesn't need to explode over this at all, in my opinion. I think that this is a, this is really a, it's a unique thing. And it's ironic because the claim the vaccines cause all the saying anything about vaccines and autism makes you anti-science, makes you anti-vaxxer, makes you into a category of being a nut. But ironically, incredibly, and I understand it can be a bit, can cause cognitive dissonance.

I'm certain for many folks when they see this because you're like, like what you just said, well, if I can't trust that their vaccines don't cause autism and that claim because they haven't done the studies, what else can't I trust? I don't know. I really do put vaccines in their own kind of box when it comes to products because they are in that unique category. If you didn't have the 19th-Ax immunity, you wouldn't be in this scenario. To undo the issue with vaccines, in my opinion, all you had to do is lift them.

the immunity, let the market forces do what they normally do, and get rid of the government defending vaccines in vaccine court and so forth. Let them operate like any other product. Let them rise and fall on their merits, which is what we've always done. You rise and fall on the merits, not based on coercion and mandates and bullying and kick them out of school and kick them out of work. I mean, that's what bullies and thugs and dictators do throughout history when they can't convince on the merits. For perhaps the empty and thumb today, I'm somewhat shocked by some of what I've just seen. And I'd like to just offer a summary to see if this is accurate for what you're, what you're seeing and what you've testified and what you've shown us, which is trusted

experts within the field, making unqualified, objective claims as to the lack of a causative factor between this medical product and a disease, asserting it definitively, then admitting, in deposition that there is no, not just definitive, but no real evidence suggesting those claims are correct, which leaves you guessing why would they do something like this? But then again, we don't really have the guess because there was another deposition of a gentleman, in which case he seemed to suggest that the noble lie was warranted to manipulate people into increasing the uptouching. of this product because it was because he assessed that on the on the total scale of things they he believes people would be better off with it than without it is that generally what we're seeing here

i think the word belief is apt and i will tell you that is a lot of what i see in this arena about vaccines there's a lot of beliefs around the product and they really are in many instances like religious belief people get upset they get angry sometimes when you say things about vaccines that they think are right or they think they think they are wrong because they don't really have in my experience folks get upset in depositions because um you know uh i depose lots of different medical professionals and you know when they don't have a knowledge base to draw on they don't have the facts the data themselves they just believe it then they can only draw on their emotion to respond they can't draw on their intellect and that creates some of these uh more interesting

moments and depositions, in my opinion. I don't know if that answers your question, but yes, yes, it is, it is a, yes, it's an unfortunate state of affairs. Thank you. And if I may just one follow up, would it then be your opinion that there is, at least at times, in entrenched sort of, I don't know, party line is the right word. It's not a party, but an entrenched ideological line that is expected of people in this profession to follow. Oh. Absolutely. And you can bring on a whole litany of folks who are medical professionals who, up until

the moment in time when they said something against the grain about these products were lauded in their profession, considered experts. But cutting across on this issue is very important. problematic. You know, car manufacturers do a very good job protecting their product. They have billions of dollars every year. They put that money into PR campaigns with Fifth Avenue firms to promote their cars to make sure that good things are said about them. And then when the headline comes out about car having this or that issue, they go into, the pharmaceutical companies do the same thing. It's smart. It's just good business. They spend billions of dollars every year promoting

their products. They have a kitty. They have PR firms. But they just do it through their chosen method is basically to do it through what they would they consider folks who are viewed as experts and trusted professionals and out there it's not a fairious it's just the way it works in the sense that they hold conventions they hold meetings they have symposium you know they're they law the products i mean your typical pediatrician i think is a good person they they don't they just don't know they've never looked at the clinical trial data i've deposed pediatricians who've gone their whole career, never looked at the package insert at one time. No clue. In fact, I don't think I've ever deposed a pediatrician who knew anything about the clinical trials of these products or any

or any of that. So they, yeah, you know, they're going through the day. They're just, they trust what, and the truth is, is that how could they get through their day without it? They've opened the physician's desk reference guide. There's a million things they got to do every day, diagnose and look at, right? And so they get through their day by just following what the guidance provides, it's similar in this product with regards to these products, except that they really just don't realize the complete imbalance in how these products operate in the real world that started slowly in the 80s with the immunity and has just, it's just gone, it's just really gone wild, in my opinion, over the decades.

So just while you're talking, I just did a little quick search. And this is a, it is a 501c3 organization. It's called immunize.org. And so I just want to read this. First, the title is evidence shows vaccines unrelated to autism. Medical and legal authorities agree that no evidence exists that vaccines cause autism. The Institute of Medicine is an impartial group of the world's leading expert that advises Congress on science issues. after reviewing more than 200 studies in 2004 and more than a thousand studies in 2011,

their report strongly stated that the evidence did not show a link between vaccines and autism. In 2014, researchers from the RAND Corporation published an update to the 2011 Institute of Medicine's report in a systematic review of the evidence published on vaccine safety to date, they found the evidence was strong and then they go into that the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. Now they didn't talk about this kind of goes back to what you were saying, how they jumped it to MMR, but why not go after? So if we've got the government that has, you know, or the vaccine manufacturers that have this blanket immunity, why not go after this? Why not we know that what was just stated here is a complete lie. This is a 501C3 organizations that is promoting that, and they are blatantly providing misinformation.

And this is just based upon looking at this quite a big organization. So that's just one example, I'm sure of probably over a thousand. I believe that the solution to speech that's wrong is more speech, never censorship. That's certainly not by the government ever. What you view is a danger today by speech. Everybody thinks the other person saying something that's dangerous. So I never, I think the biggest danger is always the central speech. Free speech comes with dangers, to be sure, for the greatest sense of it.

And that's a really interesting quote, actually, because they were talking first about the 2004 IOM review, which had didn't, which revolved MMR and the Marisol. Then they talked about 2011 or 2012. It depends on where you look and sometimes I call 2011. what we just looked at, it did not conclude that DTAP doesn't cause autism. And the 2014 one is super interesting because what they're talking about is an HRQ vaccine study. And I know that study, the one they talked about. And that study from 2014 was an update to the HHS one. And it again concluded that they don't have any evidence for DTAP.

But what was great about that one is that they looked at Hep B in autism too. And for Hep B, they only found one study, this Goodman study, that found a three-time risk. amongst kids that got happy and who didn't get happy. It's quite ironic that that's what they say. But that's what you'll typically get. You'll get these conclusory statements. If you look under the hood like we did, at the direct primary sources, you get a different conclusion.

Yeah. So there's a point where something's free speech, right? But then there's a point where isn't it, I mean, that is blatantly saying that there were 200 studies and more than a thousand. in which those don't exist. And then they're basically saying that what the report says is definitely saying that there is no evidence when that's not what the report said. So there's a point where it's lying.

It's not just free speech, though. I mean, this is affecting millions and millions of people that are making these decisions. And that's why people should always have choice in the end of the day. The solution to me in my mind is less government, not more. And they're just conflating and I agree misrepresenting because they're saying hundreds, thousands. They mean in the report in total, which covers lots of other things. And then they digress in that quote to talk about autism, making it appear as if those studies are all about autism. They're not.

The whole, the quote you read it is incredibly misleading, in my opinion. So I agree with you. But here it is. I mean, this is a private organization. Do we really want the government censor? Listen, in the same way that the government probably says, if you say vaccines, you know, just look at Maddie deGarry just for telling her story. They said that's false information.

And they censor her, her mother, and anybody that sought to repost just their own personal story. She said, this is what happened to me. It's always dangerous, in my opinion. It's the greater danger to censor speech always. Yeah, I did notice that they worded it very carefully so that they did not actually lie. They said there was no evidence to link them. What they didn't say was that there was no evidence to the contrary either, right? So it makes it sound like it's fine.

They're not related. But what we saw from what you had was, yes, there's no evidence either way. But they carefully just gave one. And so it wasn't a lie. It was just misleading. Is that what the language said? No link? Yes. The header is evidence shows vaccines unrelated to autism. And then it says medical and legal authorities agree that no evidence exists that vaccines cause autism. Yeah. But they don't tell you there's no evidence that it doesn't cause autism.

And I would tell you that there are a lot of medical professionals. who would take strong disagreement that there's no evidence that vaccines have potentially. I mean, look, we know this much. And really, I didn't want to debate vaccines in autism, but, you know, autism is a DSM-5 diagnosis. It's a psychiatric diagnosis, right? So really, yeah, it's in the DSM-5. So it's a symptomatology. And if you meet those three categories of symptoms, you get that diagnosis.

It doesn't, that tells you nothing about the ideology. It doesn't tell you anything about what causes it. If you have lead poisoning and you end up with those symptoms, you can end up potentially with that diagnosis, but they'll really just say you have lead poisoning, right? So, so saying autism is just, it's just a set of features, basically. So, for example, we know pertussis vaccine, you look at the package's insert, it will tell you, right, a contraindication is if your child has had. add, here, I'll pull it up.

So we go to FDA license vaccines. And if we go down and we look at, you know, at a deep tap vaccine, then we go to the package insert. Here it is. This is given a two, four, and six months. And it will tell you directly contraindications. So it says, encephalopathy, which means coma, decreased level of consciousness and prolonged seizure within seven days of a previous dose of pertussalcitational vaccine that is not attributable

to another identifiable cause is a contradiction to administration of any pertussicative vaccine, including DAPTCEL. That's the way DAPTCEL describes it. And then just to show you that the other one also, Infinerix, similarly has the same contradictions of both of the DTAP vaccines, also says in section 4.2, same thing. You can read it there. So encephalopathy means brain damage. That's what it means, right?

But encephalitis means inflammation of the brain. Encephalopathy means a pathology of the brain. So you have some actual brain damage. Now, coma, decreased level of consciousness prolonged seizures are the softer examples of encephalopathy. There's worse. And there has been a lot of cases compensated in the vaccine injury compensation program of children who have significant debilitating brain damage after a pertussis vaccine

containing vaccine, who have been compensated in VICP. And for those children, there have been a number, many of them also had autism because they have the features, the symptoms that give them that diagnosis. Now, the vaccine court's not compensating you for autism, compensate you for the depopathy, for the brain damage, right? Because that's the actual physical manifestation. The fact that you end up with a psychiatric condition that can be diagnosis, autism, that's not what can be considered directly compensated.

But, I mean, did the vaccine, which caused its epilepsy, result in the autism? Well, you can read a peer review. There's a law journal article by Mary Holland where she actually documents, she had her law students at NYU when she was a professor at NYU. They went through all the case files, and they found a few dozen cases were really, based on that law review article, they said, yeah, they were compensating for autism. but they just, they just hit it in other conditions, right? The important point, though, is, is really that, you know, when the medical community says, oh, we have, you know, we thoroughly study vaccine safety, like they do with COVID vaccines. Oh, don't worry, we thoroughly study COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Because, right, I use autism as the way to show that there's question marks when they make that claim. and I don't think that any government should force anybody to get this product. They should let them do their own homework because even with the most, the injury they claim that they, the injury they claim they have most thoroughly studied autism. They haven't done it. This is the childhood vaccine schedule right now, actually without COVID vaccine, and you could see they've studied MMR. It's the yellow. And that's of the ingredients. They've studied that one, themarisol.

That's what they've studied for autism. I can show you a video of why it's important to study this. If you would like, this is a family with triplets who all three of their kids develop autism shortly after a DTA. After a prevnar vaccine. Hi. Hi, we have triplets. Two boys and a girl. Richie, Robbie and Claire.

Every day in our life was a party. Every single day they were smiling and laughing and looking at each other, engaging in each other. On June 25th, 2007, we brought them in for the new moccal shot. My daughter still has the mark on her leg from the shot. She was the first one to get it and she screamed and never really stopped screaming after that. But we continued, we didn't know, we did the boys as well. By noon, Claire shut completely off.

It was as if she was blind and deaf and all she did at that moment was stare at the ceiling fan. So that was at noon. We had the shot at 10 a.m. 2 o'clock. We watched Richie shut off. They lost all their reflexes. I'm an educational audiologist. I actually did the test for the stipendial reflex, which is a little muscle in the middle ear, just to see if a muscle they can't control was still working, and it didn't. The stipendial reflex dampens sound, so your ears don't hurt from a really loud sound and both of them had no stupidial reflex. They stopped blinking, stop yawning, stops coughing, stop sneezing. The worst is when we saw the final one shut down. We were told it was genetic and then we were told by geneticist that there's no possible way

three children was shut off on the same day. So we had severe autism spectrum disorder for all three kids entering kindergarten. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to recover them. The only person that we got back is Rich and Robbie, the one that was last to shut off. Richie can only say single, maybe two words together. Claire is still completely nonverbal, not potty trained, and Robbie is approaching grade level, but severe OCD. What do you do? Property management. Um, let me tell you what a day in our life isn't.

So you got, say, a six or seven or eight year old child who's not potty trained. And at two or three or four o'clock in the morning they fill their diaper. Well, you assume that's pretty uncomfortable, so they take it off. Pretty soon, it's all over them, it's all over the bed, in short order, it's all over me, it's all over her. I'm snapping at her, she's snapping at me. at me, we're both snapping at the kid who is the only innocent party in the whole scenario. And the one thing that's conspicuously absent from that scenario is, is anybody who told you that shot was safe. They were all asleep in their bed. They haven't got a problem in the world.

I think that dad said it best. When you think about what the science community or the way the FDA and CDC and NIH, all of them approach vaccine safety vis-a-vis autism, it gives you a backdrop in how they approach COVID vaccine safety. And if you think autism is an aberration, even though it's the thing they say they've studied the most, I'll quickly run through just a few other things for other vaccines, and then we'll switch it over to COVID vaccine. Okay. So going back to the 2012 IOM report, we talked about earlier. So I noted to you then that the CDC and HRC paid the IOM to review what they said were the

158 most commonly claim serious injuries from vaccines. Now, these are the ones that they say are the most commonly claimed injuries. In that review, the IOM found that for 18 of them, evidence supported a causal relationship. These are serious reactions. Okay. So they said, yeah, vaccines are calls 18, which is troubling. Five of the issues, they rejected. including MMR and autism was one of the five.

But this maybe is the most troubling. For 135 of the most commonly claimed serious injuries from vaccines by their admission, the evidence was insufficient to reach conclusion. They didn't do the studies. They don't know because their clinical trial data is vacuous, as we've seen, and they just don't do the studies otherwise, for the most part, just like autism. There's a link to the Institute of Medicine report. You could see it directly.

And I would focus on the, there's a summary table where you can look at all of the conditions by vaccine and what the causal conclusion is. It shows, again, they're not studying even the most commonly claimed injuries. What injuries can vaccines cause? Now, in the package insert, we looked at section 6.1 before, remember, and that showed the clinical trial experience. Well, in Section 6.2 is the post-marketing experience. Okay? And that is, after it's licensed, the manufacturer, if they have a reason to believe there's a causal, not correlation, causal relationship between the vaccine and the injury, they're supposed to put it in Section 6.2.

They're not allowed to put stuff in. That's just correlation. How do I know that? I'll read you the Federal Regulation. This is the Code of Federal Regulation, Section 21, CFR, 2, CFR,000. 2-1.57, and it provides that package interest in vaccine should include, quote, only, only, those adverse events for which there is some, basically, there's a causal relationship between the drug and occurrence of the adverse event, not correlation, causal relationship.

And I can tell you in practice, in practice, from my experience, and you can go and look at the licensure documents and so forth, they really only put stuff in vaccine package inserts where they really see a causal relationship because under the 1986 Act for the most part, you can still get them for fraud. So if they have, they know it can cause and they don't put it in there, you can potentially sue them. But otherwise they're not really concerned about putting it in there. So really when they have evidence, and here's a,

let me show you the reflection of that. Here is spike facts. This is Moderna's COVID vaccine. This is the only issues they disclosed, at least when I took that screenshot. in section 6.2 post-marketing. They got myricotitis, paraciditis, right? Anaphylaxis and syncope, meaning fainting. That's it.

That's all they disclose. Now, we know a lot of the, there are a lot of other injuries, neuropathies, and so forth, but they're not in this because Moderna's didn't reach the point where they have, like, you know, they really only put stuff where they feel like they have to admit it. Okay. Here's what's disclosed for that hepatitis B vaccine that we looked at. earlier, a combo-vex-hb given to a one-day-old baby. These are serious conditions.

I'm not saying, I can't tell you the rate at which these happen, but I know they happen enough for the pharmaceutical company to believe, to have evidence, to believe they're causally related to disclose them in the package insert. I don't write the federal regs, that's just what they are. So unless you're actually, before you go to your pediatric, or your doctor or whatever to get a shot. Unless you actually do your research and read this data,

technically you have no idea because they don't really give you this information at the doctors. So they won't really disclose it. Is that correct? Pediatricians that vaccinate children, as far as I'm aware, do not provide this information to their patients before administering vaccines. They don't even provide, typically, there's something under federal law they're supposed to give called a vaccine information, sheet. The 1986 Act required the CDC create a short little thing called the vaccine information

sheet that has certain disclosures. And under federal law, pediatricians are supposed to provide that before they administer vaccines. And, you know, I don't have a survey, but I know that it's common for them not even to give that minimal disclosure. Yeah, I was just going to ask about that disclosure in relation with the COVID vaccines. There was, zero informed consent with the EUA vaccines, but were they given that kind of pass as well in regards with that? Because of course, every vaccine insert was blank, and it said on there, intentionally blank, I have those. And it's very, very hard, almost impossible to find anything on the internet for traditional vaccines without just saying, do it, do it, do it. So, but when it came to COVID,

even the minimal that we knew, right, was thrown out the window in New Hampshire. I mean, we had drive-through vaccination clinics in malls. We had it at the New Hampshire Motor Speedway, and you drive up in your car, and you get your shot. There was no informed consent. These people didn't even know what they were doing, some of them that were doing those injections. So I just kind of want to kind of understand where we were at, where we had something, and then we went into absolutely nothing. I mean, there is a VAS for COVID vaccine now.

Back then, there did have something that they had put together for when it was EUA for patients. There was a document. I'm not aware if it was distributed or I suspect it was given out as frequently as the VIS was before COVID-19 vaccines was given to parents for childhood vaccines. But those VASs are the approach that they, that the CDC takes in terms of designing them is they don't want to scare parents away. They have a policy for increasing vaccine updates. They have metrics for how many children, the percentage that they want to hit for children vaccinated.

They have no percentage for how many kids they want to make sure aren't injured from a vaccine. There's no focus on that whatsoever. That's not where the money flow. It's not where the focuses. The focus is on vaccine uptake. And so those VASs are specifically designed. In fact, you know, the VISs used to have a bit more disclosure in terms of harm. for example, the MMR vaccine package VIS used to literally say brain damage as a potential harm.

Those are the words, brain damage. Dr. Stanley Plotkin was not happy about the deposition, I think, that he had with me. And we have FOIA for all his emails with the CDC and the FDA. He went on a campaign to get them to update their VISs to remove a whole host of potential harms that are disclosed and to put them into broader term buckets. We have those emails. They're quite interesting. So, yeah, I mean, the disclosure pre-Vex, the disclosures that occur even before COVID were, you know,

I mean, you go into a typical pediatric office, they'll tell you safe and effective, nothing to worry about, don't worry whatsoever. And, you know, oftentimes what they'll say to you is, look, children have gotten healthier because of vaccines. Look, look around. Kids aren't dying every day, right? Well, let's talk about that for one second, and then I think we're ready to get back to COVID vaccines. You see in front of you the difference between vaccination schedule for the CDC from during pregnancy and up to 12 months.

You could go down there as a CDC link. That link down there has all the CDC vaccine schedules going all the way back to, I believe, 83. So you can go see them for yourself. And this is a representation of them. 86, there were three routine vaccines as we talked about, DTP, OPV. There was also MMR, but that's after one year of age. This is, again, up to 12 months. If we did all up to 18 years, we would need a lot bigger picture.

So this is up to 12 months. And then those are the rest of the shots. And I can tell you this thing is accurate. So quite a big difference. Well, you know, our kids gotten healthier since the 80s. Good question, right? I mean, that's what we've been looking to accomplish here. 1986, according to the available data, 12.8% of kids had a chronic health condition in America. We have now, in 2017, at least had 53 doses of vaccine.

54% have a chronic health condition in America as of 2011, according to one CDC study, take out obesity, and it's still close to 50%, so high 40s. So, you know, you've got a lockstep increase to be sure I'm saying correlation, saying correlation, but you have a correlative increase in the number of doses, right, administered on the left side to the percentage of children with the chronic health issue. And I can't say this much. A lot of the chronic health issues that have exploded are immune or immune-mediated issues, something as simple as asthma, which has exploded over the last few decades, is an immune.

system dysregulation. That's what it is. Your lungs improperly have an immune reaction in there. And so a lot of these conditions, something that's gone wrong with the immune system of our children's, including neurological issues that are immune mediated. You know, you would think the first place you would look is the product given to them dozens of times to modify their immune system. They tell you vaccines are powerful. They tell you they're effective. They tell you have systemic immunity, right? You inject here and you have immunity in your toes, right? They have a systemic reaction. Well, you know, what other effects can they have?

And so on your immune system. And there's lots of studies out there that can be concerned. We talked about the aluminum adjuvant studies a little bit earlier. And there's lots of others. The one thing public health authorities have not done is they have not compared vaccinated and unvaccinated. Well, they've not published any studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated. children. And it would be easy to do. Because you can just do it using existing health insurance data databases. You could do it retrospectively. That data is there. The Institute of Medicine

in that 2014 IOM report that was referenced in that website, that Institute of Medicine report will look at the safety of the entire schedule. That's what that report was for. They concluded there's no evidence to say it's safe. It's not safe. They concluded they don't know. Okay. But one of the things they said is that the CDC has something called the vaccine safety data link. This is a over 10 HMOs, de-identified ICD-9 and 10 codes. Those are the diagnostic codes that you bill insurance companies with. So it aggregates all that information for over 10 million Americans. And in that database, there are thousands of completely unvaccinated kids, zero vaccines,

and they've even validated their unvaccinated by doing sampling of the vaccines. their medical records and so forth. The CDC could in a minute simply run a comparison of all the kids that got one or more shots to the kids that got no shots. Zero and one or more, okay? Those would be the two comparative groups. And you would say, okay, what is the rate of neurological harm in this group versus this immunization asthma, this group, this group? Just pick your conditions, go down the list. Just run them all. with the differentialist. That study has never been published. After IOM said they could do it in 2014, the CDC spent oodles of money publishing a white paper on how they could do it. That study

and it's on the CDC website. Stanley Plotkin was one of the people, by the way, who is part of the white paper. And still, we don't have that study. If they've done it, they haven't published it. But the school, University of Jackson Department of Epidemiology did a study, small, based on surveys, retrospective epitone, you know, I mean, it's certainly could be far more robust studies, but it's something versus nothing. And it showed that vaccinated kids had 30 times the rate of rhinitis is unvaccinated, 3.9 times a rate of allergy, ADHD, 4 times, autism, autism, axioma, learning disability. neurodevelopmental disorder. So this is actually one of the only few VACs versus unVAC studies I'm aware of, and the findings on it are startling. And if the health department can certainly take shots,

I mean, you can take shots at any epidemiological. So you can say, well, you know, it's based on parental recall. It's based on surveys. How random is your sampling? Sure, you could do that. But you could take shots at it, but, you know, a lot of credit goes to these scientists who stick their neck out to do this study without NIH funding and knowing they're going to get care for doing it.

That's incredible they actually did it, frankly. More incredible it exists in any purpose literature. Long story short, there is no studies that rebut this. And in terms of the scope of the harm, so we've looked at what harms might be caused by vaccine, schools of pharma companies, we've looked at the fact that they failed to study. them. And we've looked at some of the evidence that might show what the health outcomes, what the impact might be of this increasing vaccine schedule. How many people are harmed potentially? To get an indication of that, a signal, we could look at bears, and I'm going to 2019 pre-pendemic.

And this is the number of reports to VERS of serious issues, deaths, permanent disability, hospitalizations, emergency office visits. And I will point out that back then, this was a federal government study conducted by Harvard. It found that fewer than 1% of adverse events reported to VERS. I think it's probably increased since COVID because people are more aware of theirs now. But if you, you know, this is terrible science, by the way what I just did. Terrible science. I just say that right now. But if it's 1%, okay, so let's multiply that by 100.

I'm not saying these numbers. That's right. I'm making clear this is terrible science. but this is kind of the best approximation I have. Somebody's got a better study. I'll take it. I'm happy to look at that data. Okay.

So I'm going to now switch over to COVID vaccines. Okay. So there are two systems and that the CDC basically says they rely upon primarily to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. same systems, by the way, that they primarily will say, well, not the same, but one is VAERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system, which is co-administered by the CDC and the FDA, and the other one is a new system that they rolled out just for COVID-called V-Safe, brand new. And if you look at the studies that the CDC publishes, they primarily focus on VERS and V-Safe to assert the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

And as we go through this, you know, I've, I've, I've took the time to go through all the other vaccines so that you're not shocked at the way that the CDC handle COVID vaccines. You will see that this is a bit of business as usual. Now, starting with theirs. The CDC, when truth was original to them back in December 4th, 2020. So that's before 16 days before the first COVID vaccine rolled out into American arms in December 20th. they published a guide right there is a link to the CDC website on how they were going to analyze bears data oh there we go science we come up with a plan we design a study plan and then we

implement it and we then we look at the results and we take them for what they are because that's science we don't change midstream we don't like what we're seeing that's not science that's the perversion of science. Okay? Or maybe, well, let's leave it at that. So here it is. Here is their report on how they were going to analyze various data. Let's just take a look at it.

Signal detection methods and data analysis. I'm going to read it. It's not the most exciting thing, but I'll go through it quick. The analysis for COVID-19 vaccine's safety signals will focus on identifying deviations from preliminary safety data and possibly from other vaccines using disproportionately analysis and comparisons of reporting rates. Next paragraph. Two main approaches to data mining are, here it comes, proportional reporting ratios,

PRR, okay, and empirical basing geometric means. So those are two different ways to analyze the data and VERS. Both have published literature suggestion criteria for detecting signals. PRR will be used at CDC for potential signal detection. Empirical basing data mining EB analysis will be performed by FDA. Okay. After initial licensure approval COVID-19 vaccine in the United States, initial reports may be too few to allow for data mining immediately as the data matures PRR and E-B data mining can then be used. Well, the data matured very quickly, I think too quickly for their liking. Okay, so here it is they said, the CDC said they're going to use PRR to a signal detect in bears.

Well, how are they going to do it? On this slide, on the left side, what they said is that they would consider or something a safety signal if there were at least three cases. The Chai Square was at least four and the PRR was at least two. Okay? So if you look at column one, two, and three, it needs to be in the first column above a three and the second column above a four and the third column above a two to be considered a signal by the CDC's standard for what is a signal on VERS.

Well, let's see what they found. Oh, and by the way, what you're seeing here on the right, this chart, CDC didn't just hand this over. This took a lot of demands fighting, and CDC finally coughed this over long after it had this data and demands were being made for it. All kinds of, I mean, we were not the only ones going after. Lots of folks were going after this data.

And they finally had to cough. Senators, newspapers, and so forth. Well, let's just look at it. Cerebral thrombosis, 194. That's a little more than three cases. The Chai Square is 69.78, a little more than four. And the PR was above two.

And the PR is really the main thing they focused on. Anything above a two is a signal. They had a 73 for cerebral thrombosis. Look down this list. These are all serious conditions. abnormal uterine bleeding 30. In fact, it's so long that actually I had to make a second page and then it keeps going. So this is the second page.

You can go through this list, but these are serious issues. And the CDC, based on the way science should be done, is you come up with the design, how you're going to approach it, and you live with the result. Well, the result did not fit the policy. CDC is a policy organization. These numbers do not fit. What did the CDC do about this? Very, very troubling set of numbers and findings and signals.

This is a letter from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, which I think Senator Ron Johnson is the head of. And he wrote them. And he said, now he used the January 2021. criteria, which is identical to the one you just saw from December, by the way. Okay? I don't know why he used the January one, but whatever. It doesn't matter.

SOP described the types of data mining analysis, CDC and FDA conducted to identify potential safety concerns linked to COVID-19 vaccines. These analyses included PRR, we just looked at that, and EB data mining, which is what the FDA is supposed to do. In a September 2-2020 response to my request, CDC Director, Rochelle, and can inform my office that. So here's the head of the CETA, CDC walking back the whole PRR thing because it doesn't look good.

And what does she say? Quote, CDC and the FDA chose to rely on EB data mining. Oh, so we're not going to use PRR now. A more robust technique used to analyze disproportional reporting. Really? Did it say that in the initial report? No. Rather than PRR calculations to mitigate potential false signals,

given the strength of the EB data mining method, and CDC and FDA plan to continue relying upon EB data mining. moving forward. Ah, PRR gone out the window. Now we're going to use EB analysis. Fine. Let's use EB analysis. You know what that looks like? Exactly. Don't know. You know why? The FDA won't give it to us. We have sued them now twice. I'm sorry, we sued them once. Somebody else sued them as well. And this is a federal court order, which says they can wait another a year and a half to give it to us. The federal judge, federal court order, you can look at these yourselves. The FDA complained that they're too busy to produce it. Data that's de-ident, to be clear,

de-identified data that discloses no personal indent file of information that is in a spreadsheet that they could literally go disclosed. And here's the best part. CDC has the data already in their possession, the EB mining data. And the FDA has it too, I know. They already have it. They've admitted they have it to us in federal,

when we were litigating with the DOJ on this. But this court decided they don't have to produce it for now. So let me understand something. Okay. The PRR data that you just showed us was from the CDC. Is that correct? Yes. This is their findings. Okay. And the numbers are off the charts based on their criteria. Their criteria, yes. But in the FDA, which is a separate branch of government that should be independent of the CDC,

because one does one thing, the other one does an other thing, they're now going to rely on just they're going to collaborate, it sounds like, because they're both going to come up with the same report based on what they're using. Is that correct? They're no longer going to rely on PRR because apparently it's unreliable. And now they're only going to rely on empirical Bayesian analysis according to the director of the CDC and her letter to the committee that I just read to you. Okay. I'm sorry to keep asking these questions. because I'm concerned, obviously, because here I keep hearing safe and effective, safe and effective.

But as I look at this information, it really, there's concerns. So, and now we're trying to push it as part of the childhood vaccine schedule. It is on the childhood vaccine schedule. It is on the childhood vaccine schedule. Yes. Starting at six months, two doses, six months and seven months, first two doses, COVID-19 vaccine. Representative Potenza. Now I have a different question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now I have a different question, but just based upon this, I just want to be clear. So these numbers, let's just, you know, all the yellows that are off the charts, are really all based upon veers, which, you know, there's been a couple different things that kind of studied veers for a while. you know, we're looking at probably still, you know, maybe 1% of the reporting. So or, you know, some people say it's less than 1%, but in all actuality, and we've had more VAERS reporting than ever before for COVID-19 vaccines. I just want you to speak to that. And then so if that's the case just based upon we're missing, you know,

over 90% of the population as well. Yeah, VAERS reporting pre-COVID, no doubt, was way, in my assessment, and Harvard's study by the government found it was less than 1%, was probably way less 1%. Reporting to VAERS is no simple task. If you've ever tried to fill, the government does not make it easy to submit a VAERS report. You should go try it sometime. It is very complicated.

they don't make it simple at all. Most folks who try to submit it will tell you they have to try numerous times. It takes a tremendous amount of time to do it. And so really it takes a really motivated clinician. And most reports pre-COVID certainly, you know, 70% were from clinicians or the pharma company. So, you know, this whole thing of like random people are submitting stuff. That's not what most reports are. You need a really motivated person to submit those reports.

I will suspect. I have no empirical data to show this. I've not looked at it. But I suspect that the number that for COVID vaccines, because there was so much attention on this product, there was a greater I don't know what it is, but I think there's probably more reporting to theirs than there was for other vaccines historically. I suspect it's, you know, but even if it's seven times as much, you might still be under 1% by the way. But I don't know. I don't know. I'm speculating.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. So what you mentioned is just another piece, too. And we've heard that. Our committee's heard it, but I've heard it for the last several years in regards with nurses, doctors, practitioners are not trained. I mean, you've got what the CDC puts out, right? But nobody's ever been trained in a lot of people.

people are not even familiar that are in the medical field of what VAERS is. Absolutely. Most medical professionals, in my experience, have no idea what VAERS has never heard of it. And understand that under federal law, the only obligation to report to VAERS is typically the administrator of the vaccine and only for certain conditions. So think about that. If you go through one of these drive-thrus, you're gone. So you go see another doctor.

that doctor arguably does not have, I say arguably because I'd like to report it, but they're not, they're not the administrator of the vaccine. So, you know, issues that arise that are not literally immediate, immediate, immediate antifalaxis. You may have, you know, the administrator is not there. Now, if you go, if you get the vaccine at the hospital, at a hospital, and you go back to the same hospital, most people don't get vaccines at hospital. you know, then might be, and you have a condition that's one of the mandatory reporting, then you might have a mandatory reporting situation. But for the most part, most adverse effects are no, you don't encounter a medical professional

when you afterwards that has an obligation to report to theirs. It's actually rare, in my opinion, in my experience. So what you just said is so important to because in, you know, and I know it was probably like this in most states, but in New Hampshire, that rollout was fast and, you know, furious and of course it was you know there were medical professionals that were first but when it was kind of this you know drive-through type of environment you had our our new hampshire national guard was activated in doing injections and there were reports of where people got slumped over in their car afterwards but that that speaks to none of that none of those things were it's not like a

computer no none of them were qualified they weren't doctors or or nurses or anything like that in administering these injections. So none of that stuff got reported. And we had, like I said, there was at malls and all of these other things. I mean, what is the percentage of people that went to really, like, whether it be a doctor or a hospital to have gotten a vaccine during that time, I really recall six months of it being this kind of massive in these vaccination clinics where these people wouldn't have ever reported.

it anything. Well, I actually, I mean, it's bad news for those who got who had issues, but great news in terms of answering your question, which is I actually have the best and most reliable, robust data to answer precisely what percentage of Americans ended up in a hospital after COVID vaccine. And that's from the V-Safe database, and I'm going to get to that right after the V-S and I'll show that to you. I will point out that these numbers from VARs are considered signal detections. They're just supposed to be signals that's supposed to merit further investigation, but that'll be I may be too many things for them to investigate, which is why I don't think they want to do it. And if I would be, if I can, I don't know, make a bold statement is that, you know,

VERS really, for the most part, exists to help affirm vaccine safety, never really to find issues. They will publish studies saying they looked at bears and they didn't find anything, so it doesn't cause that issue, but they will never look at bears and say, based on VAR's, bears, it does cause an issue. They tell you it's a signal detection system. It can never prove causation. But yet, but yet, they will rely on it to say that a vaccine is safe. So it really, when you really step back from bears, you'll understand it only can prove one thing, safety. It can, they will once in a while say, well, it gave us a signal that we then investigated and found, yes, it's a problem, but they'll never say, Vair showed us there was a problem, but it can be used to

show safety. That's the way they use it. Representative Belcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. As far as that data goes, simple question is, obviously we don't have the, whatever, the EB method, the other method that was FDA originally was using. We don't have those numbers. I don't like the fact or reason we don't have those numbers, but we do have these numbers, the PRR method. So my question on this is, is there a history behind the PRR method? Has it previously been validated and utilized in such a manner? Yes, they both have existing literature and history of being used. They're not just made up for the purposes of COVID.

Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So moving on to V-Safe. So now we've covered VERS. So VERS didn't look good based on. on the PRR and we don't have the EB, and there's probably a reason we don't have it because I'm, you know, I'm going to assume it doesn't again align with the policy that they have regarding

these products. Well, that brings us to the other safety system, and that's called VSAFE. VSAFE was a safety system rolled out specifically to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. after decades of saying bears is their premier system, they kind of abandoned it. Interestingly, it was interesting to watch it happen. And with the December rollout, December 2020, they rolled out V-Safe. V-safe is not like V-SAFE. It is not intended for you to just report when you have an issue. It's intended for everybody to use and to start using basically right before you get your first shot.

So you sign up, you get your shot, and then you get a survey. So the idea is to get a baseline unconnected to, let's call it, user bias. Whereas VARs is really just there to report issues. VSAFE was there to just get a baseline of all users. And they have about 10 million Americans signed up for VSAF. about nine million of them signed up in the first few months between December and May. And remember, this was the period of time in America. There were no mandates.

This is when people were clamoring over each other. Dances were being done into vaccines. You know, there was no, nobody who didn't want one was getting one. In fact, people were getting arrested because they were trying to cut a head of the line to get them. And so these were the vaccine folks who were really excited about this product. They were running out. They were getting the vaccine. And in fact, this was part of that excitement was signing up for VSAFE.

This was, they felt as part of the civic duty. In fact, there's a survey that part of VSAV, why did you sign up? A lot of them said it was part of my civic duty. I wanted to participate in this. So, so it's far better than Vairs because it has a denominator where they say, well, VERS, we don't know. We have, yeah, sure. 30,000 people say reported death, but like, I don't know what's out of how many.

And, you know, and this many reported this condition, but out of how many, well, for this we have a denominator we'd have 10 million users if a million reported an issue that's 10 so way better than bears in that regard and i would argue way better than clinical trial data why how do you know there's an adverse event in a clinical trial you ask the participant they show up at the clinical trial site like mattie and you say hey i was injured and you know they do an excellent job of writing it down and transmitting it to the FDA i mean just perfect job So you get in a clinical trial, you're getting the data the same way. You're getting it from the clinical trial participant.

But unlike a clinical trial where the data goes to the pharma company, the sponsor, filtered through them to the FDA, and then from there, maybe to the public if we sue them in federal court for a year like we had to do to get the clinical trial data, here you have 10 million folks, not 30,000 in a clinical trial, doing the same thing. to a standardized survey, and we got access to the data directly. It took two federal lawsuits in two years, but we got it. Okay, and I'm going to show you what this data is right now. I'm going to walk you through it in detail.

Please. Good. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quick, yeah, I was going to ask about what the process was, because I remember the lawsuit, the first one, and about having to get this. like what was the, you know, kind of what was the brick wall that you had to go through? The V-Safe data?

Yes. Yeah. How did that just quickly like- What was the brick wall? Yeah. Oh, the Department of Justice said no. And then they said no. And then they said no like 600 more times.

Eventually they said yes. That's kind of the way those litigations go. I mean, look, the federal government has just a little bit of our money and our resources. And unfortunately, they forget that they serve the public and the people of this country. and they view themselves as their own independent entity to be defended. And so, you know, they are typically of the view that they'll just wait you out. They'll fight you and fight you and you and you don't have the resources to do it. But we're very fortunate because I can, the Importance and Action Network funds these lawsuits,

and they fund them and they make sure that we have the resources and the attorneys to fight these things for years. And we do. We don't let them go. So. Yeah. guys two years and I can't imagine the amount of money to be able to get it. So do they, are they, do they end up having to pay back those legal fees that because they, they stonewalled the whole time? So, um, so in a Freedom Information Act, yes, they do have to, um, if you're

successful and you meet the criteria, they do have to pay some, they do have to pay attorneys fees. But you can imagine, first of all, there are very high risk cases that most attorneys would not take on plaintiff's side purely on contingency. And two, you obviously have to carry the cost of your entire team for that entire time, you know, until that comes at the end of the day. So, you know, I would love if every lawyer in the country decided to go after the CDC and FDA for transparency. I welcome it. Please do so. I would be wonderful, but it's not, it will not be a lucrative practice. So, you know, eyes wide open. And they know that. That's why most folks aren't going to do it.

So I'm going to play a short video from the CDC that describes V-Safe. There it is. That's V-Safe. There's lots of these videos. You go to YouTube. CDC made a bunch of them. They have posters everywhere. I think they really regretted doing that because you will see very quickly why they think they regretted it. V-safe, like theirs, I think, was actually very much intended to be able to just prove safety. but since it was new, I think they kind of messed up. And I'll walk you through that right now.

Let's start with what did V-Safe gather? It gathered two types of information. Check the box data and then free text field data. All right. Sorry, this isn't more titillating. So in the check-the-box data, there's two types of check-the-box data that it gathered. First thing were symptoms. It had a list of symptoms you could check if you had those symptoms, all right?

That's the first category, check the box data. Here's the list of the symptoms. Chills, headache, joint pains, body aches, fatigue, nausea, okay? These are the very symptoms that the CDC tells you are totally normal to have for the first week after vaccination. In fact, they tell you it's good. It's called reactogenicity. it shows the vaccine's working, shows you're having an immune reaction.

So having these symptoms, having these symptoms means the vaccine is creating immunity in your body, and it's expected to happen at a high rate. Now, they don't want to have, you don't want to have, like, grade three or four or too many people, but they want, if it's fine, if it happens in grade one or two to most folks. Okay. And when you look at this list,

you might notice there's a few things missing. How about heart, how about chest pain from our chadesper? How about neuropathy, right? How about just tingling in your extremities, right? How about the symptoms, at least, of the things, how about transverse my life, how about GBS, or at least the symptoms of those conditions? You might say, well, maybe they didn't know the vaccine could cause those issues. Well, let's take a look. And before I jump to do that, I just want to make sure you understand that what they did ask was totally useless. This data that they collected for symptoms, and they only collected for the first week after each shot, that's it, was useless.

Here is who was the head of the CDC immunization office. He said, VSAVE just not, it's just not designed to directly monitor specific adverse events outside of reactogenic adverse events. And you can read that. There's a link there to this whole email exchange where basically they admit, like this stuff's pointless to gather. and in fact, when you look at the studies they publish, most of these conditions, 40, 50, 60, 70% of people reported them. So what was the point of gathering them? There really was no point.

Okay? Here is a CDC presentation to their vaccine committee from October of 2020. Take a look at what they suspected the vaccine can cause. This is the preliminary list of theirs adverse events of special interest. This is the CDC in their own vaccine ASIP, advisory community, anonymization practices, their own slide. And what did they say they suspected the COVID vaccine might do? Oh, Gianboray syndrome, seizures, strokes, narcolepsy, anaphylaxis,

acute heart attacks, myocarditis, paracodotiditis, thrombocytopinia. Go down the list. The very same issues we saw the vaccine end up causing. Did they put these conditions here? No. But they knew about them. Do you want to see something even more incredible? You ready?

This is the V-Safe protocol from November 19, 2020. Remember, the vaccine didn't roll out to December 2020. This is the last page of their protocol that they used to design V-Safe. This is their adverse events of special interest, pre-specified medical conditions. conditions. This is in their own design documents for VSAFE. Look at the conditions they listed. The same ones, again, anaphylaxis, blood clotting, GBS, go down the list, the very same issues that we saw Americans around this country suffering. But again, they knew these conditions could be an issue

and they call them adverse events of special interests pre-specified medical conditions but did they end up on this list? No. Did the symptoms of these conditions

that end of this? No. In fact, they just left that list with the things that I mean, were pretty much pointless. You know,

it's really hard to prove like mens rea. It's hard to prove like a bad state of mind like a premeditated bad conduct. To me, this list, they had this, they identified them, they said these were of concern, and they left them off at least the symptoms of these from their lists of symptoms in V-save. To me, that's premeditated. Potential, that's proof of premeditated conduct, yes. Represent Betenza. Thank you, Madam Chair. A quick question about

when people were filling that out, you had said that it was one week. So how did that... For the symptoms. Okay. So let's say, for example, I signed up. Yes. And I filled it out initially. If I wanted to go back and give other information, was I cut off from that?

Once you submitted, you would have to do it in the next reports. So it was every day for seven days, including the symptoms. and then the other stuff I'm about to show you. And then once a week, up to six weeks, and then at three, six and 12 months. After each dose. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

So that was the first category of check the box data. I don't know why they bothered collecting it. And all the studies that they published show those rates were crazy high and they don't care. Second category data. So here it is. This is the only other check the box data that they gathered. It was three things at the top there. Were you unable to work?

were you unable to do your normal daily activity or did you go get care from a doctor or other healthcare professional if you check that you needed medical care it then would open up that other list of options that you can see on your screen did you need telehealth outpatient urgent care emergency room or hospitalization and then you could check those okay so remember the system is called v safe it's here to assess safety so presumably this is where they were going to assess safety where else would they assess it, right? So I assume then, and the most concerning one of these is seeking medical care. So you would assume there was a number, there was a level at which they said, okay, if we hit that number,

problem with the product, we'll pull it. So one of a thousand people say medical care, one in 100, one in 50, one, I don't know what that number is, but you would assume there's a number. I don't think there was a number. And I'll show you why. Okay? the CDC while I was fighting with them for two years to get this data, this check the box data from those 10 million users, they published over 40 studies. They said COVID-19 vaccines are safe. These are the body of literature that the scientific community says they rely upon.

And when they did that, in every one of those studies, this is what they did. They only reported the number seeking emergency, seeking medical care for the first week. after the shot, that's it. That's it, just for the first seven days. Even though they know, even though they had the data for two week, third week, fourth week, fifth week, six week, why collect the data if they're not going to report it? Obviously, they did it for, they did it because they know COVID injuries, vaccine injuries can occur with weeks after vaccination. Just like we talked about earlier, for example, if you're going to have an immune system dysregulation to a vaccine, it often takes a while for your immune system to have that

issue just like it takes it a while for it developed, you know, immunity that's intended to be created by the vaccine, okay? And if you look at vaccine court, they know that issues for vaccines arise well after week all the time, known issues, accepted issues. But yet they only reported the first week, like in this study, five to 11 year olds, they say, they reported that 1.2% needed medical care after dose 1 and 1.1% by the way, I don't know why that's comforting. That's one in 100 kids who needed medical care after the shot. But apparently they thought that was okay. Here's the list of all the 40 studies.

Each of those are hyperlinked. You get these slides. You can go and look at every single one of them. They're all there. Here's the deal. These are the two lawsuits we had to bring to get that check the box data. And when we finally got the data, what it showed was that 7.7% of these safe users needed medical care. 7.7% and on average, two to three times each. Okay. And three out of four of those instances

were urgent care, emergency room, or hospitalization. That's what it showed. That is what the CDC, no doubt, no doubt did not want to disclose from the public. In the first six weeks was 4.2%. Remember, these were the vaccine enthusiasts. These 10 million Americans, the last place these folks, I think, wanted to go was to a hospital. They didn't want to leave their home, I think, typically. They wanted to wear their mask, stay at home, they were worried about COVID. To get them to go to an urgent care emergency room or hospitalized, they probably had something real serious and that they went on average two or three times, meaning there were about 700 something thousand unique individuals sought medical care, but there were 2.1 or 2 million instances of seeking medical

care, right? You don't go back to the doctor or hospital two to three times because you have something that's not very concerning. And separately, another 25% who did not report needing medical care reported missing school or work or being unable to perform normally daily activities. That brings us to 32% of folks who are adversely affected. Remember, they said the military has to get this so we have readiness. COVID did not affect individuals at that rate and disable them from school or work performing normal daily activities, let alone send 7.7% of people to the hospital. Okay, two to three times on average. Right there is the link to this link you can use to go to,

to look at this data yourself. ICANN has done an incredible job of taking all this data and putting it on their website. It's right here. We can just take a quick look at it. Anybody in the public can do this. You can go to ICANDECID.org, backslavvvv-safe-safe dash data. On this, you can, it's a, is all of the data. It's got the raw data there too, and it also has a dashboard.

Would you can manipulate the data? So after we broke this, you know, and ICAN broke this and I had the opportunity to go on national news and discuss this data, actually, Reuters reached out to me and said the CDC at contact

and spoken to the CDC about it, and they said, well, the 7.7% is something or other. And I said, I'm going to put it in writing, the 7% percent, 100% is active. And here's the raw data and the CDC had to back off. In fact, I have a whole substack I wrote just about that. It was incredible because they were hoping Reuters would just say it's misinformation without actually verifying it. It was actually incredible to watch it in action. So here it is. You could see right here health impacts. Here's the 10 million individuals. You could see it on your screen. And if we limit it just to required medical care, you could see again, 782,000 unique individuals and 2.1 million total health impacts. And you can

break it down by vaccine, by anything you want. Okay. So I'll leave folks to go through that. The important point is, the important point is that, again, that not necessarily even that the vaccine caused harm, but the fact that the CDC, they did not, they tried to hide it from the public. And when they finally got caught with it and had to admit it, the number is really concerning. I've just told you about Reuters. There's the link to the article where you could look at that. So just to put a fine point in this, if you're looking for the data back to your question earlier, what percentage of Americans have got a co-vaccine end up in the hospital? That is the best data you're ever going to get on that question. The best data. It's not 30,000

people like in a clinical trial. It's 10 million. They're all filling out a standardized form. They're a cross-section of Americans. There are folks who went out before mandates. They're folks who We're enthusiasts to get the vaccine. Anything, anything, that number is underreported based on those confounders. And so that's really your best indication of what impact this vaccine has. I'll point out one other interesting data point from this data. And I actually point this out to Reuters, and I think the CDC didn't know what to do with it. But this is, for example, when you do some data mining, and this is what the CDC should have been doing with ESA. This is the number of adverse events that were reported.

This is the number of, excuse me, of individuals three and older from the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine that reported needing medical care, okay? This is not cumulative, which we're looking at on your screen. Okay. And anybody can go and download the VSAFE data for ICAW website and do exactly this. Between day one and seven, 0.32% of those who got the Pfizer vaccine reported going to the hospital or needing medical care or emergency or urgent care of telehealth. Point through 2%.

Then, in the second week after the first dose, 0.67% of V-Safe users reported needing medical care. Again, not cumulative. It's not cumulative with the first week. Look at what happens in the third week. Look at the fourth week. Look at the fifth and look at the sixth week. You have an increasing crescendo of individuals who reported needing medical care after the first dose of Pfizer's vaccine. Reporting only the first week is incredibly misleading, but that is what the

CDC did in over 40 studies. And that data point that you're looking on your screen, that should have been terribly concerning and investigated. But I don't think that was the point of VSAFE. I think the point of VSAFE was to just confirm safety, unfortunately, which shouldn't be surprising because the CDC is not a medical organization. They're a policy organization. They're an agency. They have a policy. They said their policy, just like any agency. agency, and then they make sure everything conforms to that policy. Okay. That's V-Safe.

Yes, please. Representative Potenza? I just had a question concerning the V-safe, and I don't know if you, I guess when you got all the data dump, you might have it. So, you know how, like, let's say somebody signs up for something. They might have just reported within the first week, and then they drop off and they didn't, like, do you know, like, okay, so 10 million signed up, right? Yes. How many really went all the way through? Because that kind of speaks to this as well.

So if 10 million signed up and then they dropped off from day 36 to 42, right? And that percentage of people that were affected by things obviously goes a lot higher. You mean like those who died? Correct. Right. Yeah. And that was one of the limitations the CDC figured out in there in this BeSafe protocol documents. Obviously, yes.

Yes. So in the data set, you can, I mean, if you do, if you crunch the numbers, you can see that obviously there was some trailing off. But if anything that either those, it could be because they're not interested or because they were too sick to report or because they passed. But if anything, that can only reduce the percentage, not increase because remember, we have a denominator. The denominator stays 10 million. Okay, I'll give you an example. We use the 7.7% figure, even though we know, for example, about 500-something thousand of those folks signed up Review Safe never filled out a single survey.

Okay? They never filled out one survey. So we could remove them, and the 7.7 number would go up. But I don't want to include any, and it'll be valid statistically to do that. but we chose the most, the most conservative number that required virtually no explanation, including the one I just gave you on, taking those folks out. Because we knew that, that Reuters, CNN, all of them would attack this data, attack the fine, even though it's right there in black and white in the data set.

So that it would be super easy to explain. That is the number of unique users who were signed up, 700-something thousand, divided by the total number of of users without backing. If we did what you said, if we backed out, for example, the 500,000 and we did it, yes, the number would go up. So I'm just looking at this. And so to me, it's saying somewhere between 16 and 17 percent of the people within the first 42 days had to seek a medical care.

Is that correct? It could be the same person. Okay. So it could be the same person in week one. week five and then seven, which is frankly more concerning. I would be more comforted if this was everybody saw it medical care one time and that was it. The fact that I there will be folks potentially saw it seven, eight times. You know, one of the folks that we we know of, and I don't have her, it's too bad I don't have it here, but she gave me permission to disclose it. I wrote a

substack about it and I put it out. She shared her V-safe entries. She was a professor who went got the COVID vaccine to teach a lesson to her students on civic duty to go to get a COVID vaccine. And after she got it, she had a cascade of horrifying medical condition. And her submissions on V-safe are, please help me, please help me. She does that over and over and over. Her six-month submission, still nobody's reached out to me. Nobody's contacted me. Help me. She can't drive. She can't engage in normal functions. I mean, she was in a, really, she had really serious adverse events. So she's an example, somebody who saw medical care over and over again and would have

potentially been in a number of these. So I understand it could be a person doing it one or more times. Well, it doesn't mean that they're reporting the same hospital incidents more than once. It means, right. Right. That I understand. But I guess, and I know you probably can't answer this question. And I guess I'm looking at the childhood vaccines and everything else.

At what point do we say this is affecting public health? And if we're in supposed to be looking out for public health, how can we even say that these are safe and effective? I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but to me what this screams is exactly why civil liberties, individual rights should never be contingent on the opinions, policies, deductions, pronouncements of any public health authority ever. They should persuade on the merits, and if they can't, that should be the end of discussion. That's the idea of informed consent. Representative Betenza?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, of course, most of this was anecdotal, but, you know, being very involved when kind of the whole COVID thing was going on in the vaccine rollouts. There was so many people that I talked to that missed work. And I'm talking about people in the medical profession as well as folks that were, you know, being pressured into it, whether it be from family members. and just in your time in research, you know, the whole point was to get back, right? And I think that that was so striking to me. And they asked that question. So I just thought that that was, you know, I can go on there and pull like specific data about like people, how they missed work. There were some friends of ours that were very sick. Like people that had had COVID

and still ended up getting an injection, and they missed work for a long time, some probably that have not gone back. So, you know, just in your research, did you see that as well? Oh, yeah. Again, the V-safe data is going to be the absolute best data to show what that number is. 25, putting aside, remember, had those three categories where you could check, right? I'm going to go back to it. So you could check your unable to work or school, unable to do your normal activities or you saw medical care, 25% of people, there were 25% of the V-safe participants checked being unable to work or perform normal activities who didn't check needing medical care.

So that's 25%. Obviously, if you need medical care, you're also not able to do that. Add in the 7.7, 32% of individuals were needed medical care or unable to form normal activities or miss school or work. 32%. That is what the V-safe data shows. And again, you know, nobody needs to take my word for it. It's all right there on that web page, all the raw data,

as well as this incredible dashboard where you can run it. 32% school of work unable to form mobile activities. So, yeah, that is going to be your best indication. And yes, you're exactly right. The idea was, you know, to get everybody back to work or to slow the spread. better. But this product had a lot of what they would call reactogenicity and potential issues. Of course, part of the thing that the federal authorities would do is they would often look at a lot of things, if I can use that term, with regards to COVID vaccine, only after the second, two weeks

after the second dose. So all that stuff, again, if I can use that term, between the first dose, the second dose, and two weeks after the second dose, just kind of fell into this. like Nether, Netherland. You could see it in the V-Safe data very clearly that they did not want the public to see and fought vigorously to hide. Representative Belcher? Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has been some difficult testimony learning about all of this. I didn't even really know anything about V-Safe until today. As some of the people here have known as I've divulged, at least in part before, I received a single dose of Pfizer in April of 21. Within about 48 hours, I was unwell enough

to seek urgent care. Within a week, I'd followed up with my primary. Within another week after that, roughly. Neurology, it took almost four weeks before I was finally hospitalized. So, obviously, I have that experience that you're seeing

right here on this slide. But my question is actually, I'm not even sure you have this information, but it would be interesting to know. Do we have any indication? on what date did the federal government through CDC, FDA, or anyone else, know that the data exceeded a safety signal for the very first time for anything? I don't know the precise date, but I would suspect it was very early. For PRR, I mean, that's given the pace and the number of airs reports, that signal, I wouldn't be surprised that they knew it with.

weeks of the rollout in terms of V-safe. Let's just call it two to three months. It's hard for me to imagine they didn't have this data in hand and analyzed. I'd like to just follow up on something we had touched on earlier based on what represent Belcher just spoke about. When we're talking about this data and when did they know, it would seem to me that they knew knew pretty early on based on their November 2020 list of things that they omitted from the V-safe form of potential side effects that these could be possible issues or there would have been

no reason to remove them. I'm just speculating here, but what do your thoughts? Yeah, the whole reason that the whole reason that that this list exists is because, I mean, that's the title, adverse events of special interest, pre-specified medical, you know, pre-specified medical conditions. I mean, this is their list. This is the CDC's own protocol for designing V-SAFE. I mean, I don't know if it could get any clearer in terms of then identifying what the COVID vaccine could, what harms it could cause. It's right there on this list in their own design document for V-safe. You know, and it follows on to this October list that they had. And there are other, you know, I mean, I, I mean, maybe you guys want me here for days. I don't know. But there are, there are numerous studies that preceded this presentation and that support why the CDC listed these that you can look at, you know, they were, well, there it is right in front of you, clearly aware. these were conditions of special interest that the vaccines could cause.

But yet, you know, the only place in V-Safe that you could record those specific harms was in a free text field that they limited 250 characters. And they fought like, heck, to not disclose that. And I can tell you that we actually just prevailed in a lawsuit, separate lawsuit than the check the box data. They really fought for the free text field data. And federal judges ordered them to produce it. all six point something million free text entries over the course of 12 months we've gotten the first two to three we got first essentially um they've done the first two that when we've taken a look at those

tranches about 300 something thousand entries it's an increasing number we'll have all around seven million entries by the end of like about another 10 months from now and um there's a reason that the CDC really really didn't want the public to see that for example what I told you earlier of that professor who's saying, help me, help me, disclosing a crescendo of really, really concerning issues. And also, they tell real stories of real people with real harm who all went out and thought they were engaging in their civic duty by going to get this product. And then when they went back to the same health authorities who told them it's safe and effective, you should go do this, pleading, begging for help disclosing these harms, they were just ignored.

Representative Polisoff? Thank you, Madam Chair. So you testified that some of those symptoms are blamed on normal immune response expected and desired reactogenesis. So what is the expected period for normal reactogenicity? I would think it was supposed to be limited to just a few couple first days or, Is it normal? Is it expected for it to last weeks? No, it's supposed to completely resolve within the first week.

And they're supposed to generally be mild. You know, obviously it's going to hurt for most folks when they get a needle put in the arm. There's going to be some swelling in the arm for many, for a large percentage of folks. Those are the type of things that they expect and they expect them to decide. They don't expect things to continue after the first week. but they didn't track any symptoms after the first week, did they? So. So I have two questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. One was the, and you answered it, which was the free form. And what did you say was the character limit? Well, it was generally 250 character, character limit for individuals. And there were a number of spots you could put in. information. What we have seen is that some folks, they'll just use any of the free forms to try and put in and tell their story to the health authorities.

Not these folks don't know where to go or what to do. You know, they go to their doctor. They say, I got an injury from a COVID vaccine. And as, you know, the typical medical professional does, they say, no, no, can't be, you know, vaccines are safe and effective. So then they're left, you know, looking for help. So they often will turn back to the very health authority who told them to get it. They were signed up a visa if they try to report it to there. Okay. So my other question was if, let's say I was a V-Safe user and I did the, the app or the program throughout, can I go back in and see what I submitted? Good question. I'm not certain. I'm not certain. But if it's, but if you know your user ID, you can go to

I can't site and you can actually pull up your reports and see all the check. the box data you submitted and by the end of about a year from now you'll be able to also go in and see all the free text forms that you submitted yeah because i'm just thinking right when you're in the middle of something these people were gung-ho they wanted to do the right thing and and then stuff is not happening you're not going to think to screen capture or whatever and and you wouldn't if you're not able to go back in to see that would be um yeah you know what and i think about it the the professor who sent me hers i you know what? It's a good question. I'm not sure. I could get back to you on that for sure.

Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So there we've got the two premier of safety systems and what it is we've uncovered regarding them. And, you know, and if you look at other vaccines, I don't think it should be surprising, frankly, about how they've dealt with post-licensure safety review of these products. In many ways, you know, religion comes in all four. and there really do have religious beliefs with regards to these products I find. A lot of the folks who engage in promoting them on the federal level in particular. This is just one group called React 19, started by Brian Dresson, who was injured as a participant in the astrozenical clinical trial, as well as Joe Wascogh, who was an orthopedic surgeon who got the Moderna vaccine,

and could no longer perform surgery because of his injury from the Moderna. COVID vaccine. That group, that one group in America says it has over 36,000 Americans who are seriously injured from COVID-19 vaccine. They're an amazing organization. Their focus is to help people injured with COVID-19 vaccines. And I know that they have regular calls and trying to interact with the federal health agencies and trying to get help. So I use that as an example of, again, just one group that is out there and to show the scope. of the potential issues. Our firm as well, you know, we can't, we don't bring claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries

because it's not really any place to file a claim that's worthwhile. But we get calls all day long, email submissions and forums from folks injured by COVID-19 vaccines. And then I can as well gets, you know, folks injured with COVID-vaccine content them all day long. I mean, we're just, you know, three, three group, one, you know, two nonprofits and one, one law firm, and between us, the number of seriously injured individuals of COVID-19 vaccine is, you know, equates to a cascade of pain and suffering crossing the entire country. I would truly like to thank you for being here today. I have learned so much about vaccines and clinical trials.

and it's been a wealth of information. I think it will go a long way in assisting us with our report for the state. Thank you for having me, and thank you for holding these hearings. I mean, it's so important, really. I mean, what happened during the pandemic could have easily just been forgotten, and everybody could have just moved on, but you're not doing that. You're looking back, because if we don't learn from history, as we all know, we're bound to repeat it.

So thank you all of you very much. Well, it's amazing, isn't it, to watch, you know, legislators now across this country. Aaron's been doing many of these hearings, even in front of the congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. recently. But I just want to give everyone a shout out that is watching this, that has been a sponsor for the informed consent action network or a nonprofit and the high wire. Because when you watch that evidence that's being laid out, all that he lays out on the lack of studies and trials around all. and the things that were said that were studied, the lack of a Vax versus unvaccinated study, which would clearly be one of the easiest studies to do in the world. But we can say these things, and Eric can go out there in public now and say these things with authority

because he is the authority, and what's made him the authority is your funding. Your funding has allowed us to bring lawsuits against government agencies so that we're not just guessing. We've got a feeling. we have a sense, but then we say, hey, we have a sense that you've never done a vaccine versus unvaccinated study. So send us any evidence you have if we're wrong on that. And that's how FOIA, Freedom of Information Act's request works. We just come up with a question, hey, tell us what studies you relied upon to say that no vaccines in the first six months of life cause autism. And then they push back for a year. And then we bring a lawsuit and drag them in a courtroom.

and the judges, like, I don't understand what the question. Imagine the judges that are having to deal with Aaron, series, saying, I don't understand what the question is. Certainly you must have a mountain of science that's led to the point that vaccines don't cause autism. And they're like, well, actually, sir, we don't. This is what's happening in courtrooms. This is what's happening where they have to come out and say, yeah, like those six first vaccines in the first six months of life never did any study whatsoever.

We have zero science to be able to say to you, vaccines don't cause autism. This is that sort of cathedral that has been built on sand, this religious fervor around a product that has never been properly safety tested. As we saw today, after it wasn't safety tests, and I've gone over and over the fact that Stanley Plotkin's now admitted we didn't test them for safety in the pre-licensure phase. So if we're not doing any testing, we just heard in the post-licensure phase, what are these things? What are they doing to our kids? And as Aaron so clearly put out, look how sick we are now. All of this is changing in real time. It's changing.

We have government agencies now starting to discuss this. It's one of the biggest discussions happening right now in this election period. All of this because of your help, by you helping us get the word out, by sharing all the information that we are finding as we win these lawsuits. and your donations make it possible for us to stand in those courtrooms, even when they try to kick us out. It makes it possible to bring this great program to you so that you can share it with your friends. Today is a victory lap once again for truth. Truth happening now in judicial systems and now in front of legislators around the country. We're making an impact.

The truth will prevail, especially when you stated as strongly as Aaron. in Siri. Aaron, I just want to say a shout out to you. We would not be here without you and your amazing team that makes all of this possible. Our research is impeccable. We have scientists around the world and one of the best legal teams there is fighting for you. And that's where our evidence comes from. Yes, I mean evidence that you receive every single week. We're not going to stop. I hope you'll stay with us until the very end. I think in our lifetime we'll be looking back and saying, remember when they used to inject our kids with toxic chemicals they never tested? Yeah, that was a crazy time. Until then, I'll see you next week on the high wire.