The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 404: SIRI TESTIFIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE: THE TRANSMISSION PARADOX

Episode Date: December 26, 2024

In the final installment of Siri Testifies: New Hampshire, ICAN’s lead attorney, Aaron Siri, presents a powerful testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy. He tackles the critical question: do all vaccines stop transmission? With exclusive data and insights, this must-watch show challenges long-held assumptions and reshapes the public health conversation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready? Action.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. I hope you're having an amazing holiday. Hope your Christmas was absolutely spectacular yesterday. And I hope your Hanukkah is getting off to an amazing start today. What a beautiful time of year. What a great time to be alive. in this world. Of course, I'm taking a holiday too, so we have a very special show for you today. Now, we have talked about the COVID-19 commission and the 500-page document that they put out with all that was

revealed, all things we told you years and years and years ago in the middle of COVID has now proven to be true. I don't know. They'll probably still say we're spreading misinformation, but we're going to get to the bottom of it. One of the big, you know, lies that was told, or perhaps mistakes that were made. The mistake being that they didn't actually read the documents that the FDA produced right in the middle of the emergency use authorization when they all went to the televisions to proclaim, this is going to stop transmission. Now they say, no, they never said that. They said it was just going to stop the disease. How many friends have you said that, right? You'll say to them, they promised it was going to stop

transmission. It never did that. No, they didn't. No, they didn't. They said it was just there to reduced disease. I know you've had that conversation. That's why you need to give them this video. Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves, but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal. We can kind of almost see the end. We're vaccinating so very fast. Our data from the CDC today suggest, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. Getting vaccinated and getting a booster shot when eligible can save your life and protect you and your family and friends from getting seriously ill and spreading infection. What do you think the probability is 80%? Personally, I think it's 100%.

I think that there's a reduction in transmission. Essentially, vaccines block you from getting and giving the virus. If enough people get vaccinated, it actually halts transmission. You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. We have all the vaccines we need. We just need our people to take it, A, for their own protection, for the protection of their family, but also to break the chain of transmission. You want to be a dead end to the virus. So when the virus gets to you, you stop it. You don't allow it to use you as the stepping stone to the next person. Now we know that the vaccines work well enough, that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them.

The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this. Well, there it is. I've probably played that video on this show. And in almost every talk I've given around the world more than any video I play, I'm never letting them off the hook. They said it.

They're not allowed to change the history, not in my book. But today we really wanted to get to the bottom of this conversation. How did we know? And how is it? What exactly did this congressional commission see? This was one of the statements that came out of the press release of that 500-page document regarding transmission. The final report, COVID-Select concludes two-year investigation, issues 500-plus page, final report on lessons learned and the path forward. It said this about COVID-19 vaccine, contrary to what was promised, the COVID-19 vaccine did not stop the spread or transmission of the virus.

It's now official. It's a public document, a government document, if you will. But what do you think that testimony looked like? Well, we have some insight that you're going to get to watch today because our own Aaron Siri that brings all the legal cases for ICANN, which has made us the most successful. nonprofit in the history of the health space in winning lawsuits against the government and then for all the different private cases that we take on but Aaron spoke in front of New Hampshire's COVID-19 Commission which was looking into exactly this issue too this has been a multi-part series of a six-hour deposition I guess you could call it that he gave to this Commission this is how how he discussed transmission. Why we knew the vaccine wouldn't stop transmission,

and what about all the other vaccines? That's the question that maybe you and your family have been asking at the dinner table over the holiday. Sit down, this one's another mine blower by one of the great minds in the space, our own Aaron Siri. Have fun. That brings us then to the issue of transmission.

And obviously the whole reason that the, they said, you know, the underpinning argument for why they had to mandate COVID vaccines was to stop transmission. That's typically the argument for why they have to require any vaccine. And so, you know, because if you think about it, you know, heart medicine, for example, Hart C's number one killer of Americans every year, 700,000 folks, does that mean we mandate statins? Does that mean we mandate exercise, you know, you name it? No, because we all intuitively get it, that that would just be incredibly destructive to individual and civil rights.

Like, we have an intuitive understanding, but the moment, for some reason, you slap the word vaccine on something that's like, oh, yeah, well, you could throw all of your rights away now. I don't, you know, there's a, and that's an ethos that has developed over time, in part from what I discussed earlier, decades of pharma having its way with no opposition with regards to these products. what's incredible to me, frankly, is that regulators acted surprise that COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission. And we'll go through that in a minute. And the question is, should they have been?

Should they have been? Right. I want to be clear that even if COVID vaccines stop transmission, I want to be very clear. I don't take an ideological position about these products in terms of you want to get them, get them, don't get them. They're a product. But they should never be mandated, even if they stop transmission. That said, these products are. don't. And what's really interesting to me was that somehow the CDC director and all these folks

seemed surprised when that information came out. And so should they have been, do all other vaccine stop transmission? What is it that they should have already been aware of regards to other vaccines? And I think, again, we'll take a quick look at other vaccines as a backdrop on that question. So this is the New Hampshire school vaccine requirements. These are the vaccines required for school in New Hampshire. Basically, you have five vaccines here that require, D-TAP, T-DAP, polio, Hepi, MMR, and chickenpox. Okay, so I'll use those as the baseline, if I may.

Let's start with polio. Okay. Now, oral polio vaccine they used to be giving can stop transmission to a degree because polio proliferates in the intestinal linings. It's fecal to oral contamination. That's how it's transmitted. Okay. If a vaccine only creates immunity in the blood, IGG antibodies,

and creates no immunity in your intestinal lining, IGA antibodies, not going to stop transmission. In America, the exclusive vaccine for the last 24 years given to children is the inactivated polio vaccine. It's injected. Does not create immunity in intestinal linings. It does not stop transnational. transmission. That might sound incredible, but I'm not going to say it. Let's see the CDC say it.

Right here on your screen with the link to the CDC webpage, it says IPV protects people against all three types of polio virus. IPV does not contain a live virus cannot cause disease. It protects people from polio disease, but does not stop transmission of the virus. If you have only been injected with an activated polio vaccine, it is at best personal protection. that's all it's like asthma inhaler maybe we want you to do it but should we crush your rights if you won't do it so and there it is right on the cdc website that's because it only creates immunity in the blood it maybe will stop the polio virus from going from your intestines into your blood and then getting to your spinal column and causing myelitis you know uh damage to your spinal condom potentially

can i just ask i just want to make sure i understand this so if you get the polio If you were infected with polio virus. Right. If you're infected with the polio virus and you've had the... Inactivated polio vaccine. Thank you. You necessarily won't get the polio, but you can actually transmit that to somebody who hasn't been vaccinated. 100%.

It does nothing to prevent transmission. It's right there on the CDC website. It does not stop transmission of the virus, which is why the WHO and CDC guidelines that if polio virus were to return, everybody needs to get OPP vaccine. everybody in America today who's 24 and younger, or longer than that because you're giving it older, has never received a vaccine for polio that prevents transmission. That's decades of kids in this country with no, they may be reduced symptoms. Now understand, 95% of people who are infected with poliovirus are asymptomatic. They never show any symptoms whatsoever, CDC. Another 4% of

palsy symptomatic. A little bit of symptoms. One percent might have symptoms that are actually of concern and a tiny percent or even more, you know, can end up with an issue. With that said, yes, for, you know, the vaccine is potentially can reduce the symptoms, the disease, as, as you would call it. But it doesn't stop transmission. I'm not making any judgment on get the product, don't get the product. But the point is one of civil liberties about individual rights. Should you crush people's rights for using a product that doesn't prevent transmission? And obviously, the reality is, and then separately, should Michelle Willinsky,

the CDC director, been on CNN going, oh, nobody told me it couldn't stop transmission, maybe, right? Should she have been doing that? Or should she have maybe known? Wait a second. We got a lot of vaccines that don't stop transmission, including ones. So here is the Global Eradication Initiative, WHO CDC,

and they explained it in their own words. again, there's the link down there. IPV induces very low levels of immunity in the intestine. As a result, when a person immunized with IPV is infected with wild poliovirus, the virus can still multiply inside the intestines and be shed in the feces, risk in continuous circulation. IPV does not stop transmission of the virus. The reason we don't use OPP anymore in this country is because it can cause paralysis,

actually, the live attenuated version. So, okay, let's move on to the next vaccine on the schedule is diphtheria vaccine. Now, diphtheria is a bacteria. The bacteria itself doesn't harm you. Sometimes the bacteria can release a toxin that can harm you. The vaccine just creates immunity to that toxin. There is nothing in the vial of a diphtheria vaccine that creates immunity to the diphtheria bacteria. Nothing.

It's a toxoid vaccine. It only creates immunity to a toxin sometimes released by the diphtheria bacteria. Okay. So here's a CDC study. explaining diphtheria toxoid helps prevent symptomatic disease, but does not prevent the carrier state nor stop the spread of infection. The bacteria will still multiply and proliferate in your body, the known importance of carriers in the spread of the therethora and the demonstrated failure of toxoids to prevent the carrier state lead us included to constant herd of immunity.

It's not applicable to the prevention of diphtheria. Here's tetanus. Tetanus is just like diphtheria vaccine. It is a toxoid vaccine. It will only create immunity to a toxin sometimes released by that bacteria, okay? Interestingly, it has to be lifelized, meaning it has to actually, that bacteria should be infected by a virus to then release a toxin. It's a different story. Separately, Tetanus is not transmissible from person to person anyway, by the way, so it doesn't even matter.

So the vaccine doesn't create an immunity to the bacteria, and the bacteria can't go from person to person in any event, so it doesn't matter. So we've now done polio, diphtheria, tetanus. Now we're going to do pertussis, okay? Here's pertussis vaccine. Now, I think pertussis vaccine is the most instructive one, frankly, because it's kind of similar like COVID in the fall of vaccine in the following way. Protasus vaccine can reduce symptoms for sure.

Just like COVID vaccine can reduce symptoms for a period of time, just like tetanus effects. They all can. They reduce symptoms for some duration. I mean, tetanus and diphthemia wane so rapidly, you have to get six shots as a kid and then one every 10 years for the rest of your life. That's how quickly that immunity wane. So, again, I don't know why Rochelle Winski and we're surprised when COVID vaccine immunity

immune, but that's a separate story. Before pertussis vaccine was introduced in the United States, all the studies reflected that they thought protussis immunity was lifelong once you had pertussis once. That's because you were naturally continued to be infected afterwards. The thing was that when they started vaccinating people with pertussis, they realized something really strange. The level of circulating pertustis bacteria did not go down. They didn't know why.

Well, FDA did a study. And in this study, they started with baboons because they couldn't purposely infect humans. And if you look at this chart on the right, this is an FDA study, they found that naive, which means that's the blue line, those are the baboons that never had pertussis. They would stick a swab up their nose and they would culture the, to see if they can culture pertussis. They were culturing pertussis from their nasofarings for about 30 days, okay? AP, that's accellular pertussis, that's the only pertussive vaccine using the United States since 2000. Remember, the DTP one that kills more kids than it saves, that they don't use that here.

They were culturing pertussis from the nose of the baboons for almost 35 days. They were more infectious for a longer period of time because a cellular pertussis vaccine actually will reduce symptoms, but it does not prevent the pertussis bacteria from being able to proliferate and multiply in your nasal Barringson for you to spread it. The FDA was shocked by this finding, and what's the most amazing part is that for decades they claimed otherwise. That was followed on by an entire international convention of all the world-leading vaccinologists and pertussis experts. And here's their conclusion in a period study. They say, Aetella pertussis vaccine cannot avoid infection transmission. If pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization, consequently

they do not reduce the circulation abortateloportis. And did not exert any herd immunity effect if you take issue with that, talk to them, not me? That is what the data showed. Yes. So, I don't know, maybe I'm just naive. Yes. But if it doesn't reduce the circulation and it doesn't exert any herd immunity, what is the point of it? It reduces symptoms.

It reduces symptoms for a limited duration of time. So, like I said, after you get a two months, four months, six months, 18 months, four years, and then you get one at 11 years of age, that's six doses. And within two years of that, your antibody levels are basically down to like 10%, basically only 10% of people are still considered protective for symptoms. But pertustis is really only of concern to little babies. Protasus is not really of an issue for adults. I mean, you can get pertussis.

You might have a bit of a cough or whatever, but it's really only dangerous. for little babies, and there's a whole discussion around that. But, yeah, I mean, it's a great question. They tell you to get pertussis vaccine to protect, for example, they'll tell you, oh, get it before you see a baby. But actually, if you get it, you're more likely to transmit to the baby because you have less likely to have symptoms, but still as likely to transmit it. They did all these studies, what they called cocooning, where they were like, okay, let's

get protester vaccine to every, the grandma, the mom, the cousins, everything. everybody around the baby, and did that have any effect on pertussis in the babies? And they found no. Coquining doesn't work. If anything, cocooning made it more likely give it to the baby because it reduces symptoms. Wonderful. Then you don't know you have it. You're not staying home.

You're not stopping holding the baby because you don't know you're infected and you're transmitting it in your nasal pharynx. Anyway. Represent it, oh, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just, you kind of just answered that. I was just going to say, wouldn't that be more likely that the baby would be in fact then? Yes. Yes. It would. Yes. So, you know, we actually, we FOIA the CDC again, asking them, come on, do you have any documents show? It doesn't prevent transmission. They sent us the two studies I just showed you guys. We also, this was my favorite one. We petition formally the FDA to change the labeling on the pertussis products to add. the warning that you could be more likely to transmit. It doesn't prevent transmission. And they wrote us back. And it's right there as a link. You can read this FDA's response.

And they said, oh, we don't need to change the lane. There's no confusion in the marketplace. Everybody knows it doesn't stop transmission. Read it yourself. It's incredible, actually. Okay. Just like what we said, reducing symptoms while remaining able to transmit makes one more likely to transmit. And, you know, in this article, it explains that, you know, the way that you know how much circulating bacteria there is, is you look at the inter-epidemic intervals, okay? The inter-epidemic intervals, meaning how many cohorts you have that are not folks who've never had it, basically, has either stayed the same or has gotten shorter. Now, there are less cases of disease because the vaccine can't reduce symptoms, but there's

actually apparently more circulating pertussis bacteria out there. and the problem is that is that the pertussis bacteria has five, about 3,000 antigens on a surface. The vaccine has only about five of those antigens in the vial. Okay. So it creates this defective form of immunity called linked epitotechop suppressions. So the next time you're infected with pertussis, your body has a robust immune response to those five epitopes. But not to the other 2,995 approximately. So your defective immunity results in you actually being able to become infected over and over and over and over.

And studies like this one have discussed this issue. And in fact, one of the premier vaccinologists on this issue, according to the medical community, UCLA has proposed that the only solution, I think, apparently is to make a vaccine that vaccinated you for the other 2,995. You don't have to fix your immunity that they've created, which renders you susceptible. If you've got pertussis, if you actually had pertussis once, now you have immunity and you do not transmit it. And we saw that in the Baboon study. Done.

One and done. Except, you know, the studies show that, you know, like vaccine immunity, national immunity, apparently, at least some of the studies reflect it too can wane. But if you're continued to expose to it, then it stays. robust. Now, do we exclude those vaccinated for pertusses from the work school military? After all, aren't they more likely to spread it? I mean, the kid with symptoms knows to stay home from school. The kid without symptoms doesn't. Does that mean we exclude vaccinated children from school who have pertusses because they're more likely spread it? Of course not.

Of course we don't. Because we shouldn't exclude anybody for making a personal medical decision. Okay. Those give us, so, you know, we did polio and we did D-TAP, T-DAP. Those are just some. There are other examples. We could look at him in the Giacal vaccine and other ones, but let's just stop there. The point is that they really shouldn't have been surprised that COVID vaccine couldn't stop transmission because that's true of many vaccines. Now, measles vaccine can stop transmission. Chicken box vaccine can stop transmission. But these most other vaccines, most of the vaccines required for school in New Hampshire, for example, do not stop transmission. As we noted earlier, they could have easily tested in the clinical trial whether or not COVID vaccine stopped transmission.

They just had to basically test everybody every week in the trial. That's just 30, 40,000 people. They were testing millions of Americans every week, every five days, every three seconds. But yet they couldn't do it in the trial. Come on. I think they knew there would be a problem most likely. Here is the FDA itself saying the FDA's authorization and licensing standards for vaccines do not require demonstration to prevention, infection, and transmission.

This is what they told us when we wanted to add indications in the labels showing that various vaccines don't stop transmission. They said, well, we don't license on that basis. And in fact, vaccines are not licensed on the basis that they stop transmission. They're just licensed on the basis of reducing symptoms for some. period of time. And so they knew they did not have the support to say that COVID vaccines did not stop transmission, but that didn't stop them from saying it, did they? Because as I said earlier, there's religious beliefs around these products, despite the evidence, despite what they even

say themselves, they will often argue, we'll have to stop the spread. We got to stop. We got to kick kids out. We've got to do all these things. We got to, you know, fire everybody from work who don't get a COVID vaccine. It's not really about it. It's about an ideology. to some degree. Okay, here's Rochelle Walensky, August 5th, 2021, and she gets on CNN and she says, quote, our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe disease, illness, and death. To put that portion aside, they prevent it. But what they can't do any more is prevent transmission. Oh. What they can't do anymore is prevent transmission. She was apparently surprised. Why did she say that?

She said that because this is a study from the CDC the next day. Amaze they published this, in which they went out and they carefully studied this outbreak of COVID. And what they found was in a place that had a 69% COVID vaccine coverage, 74% of people who were infected had COVID vaccine. So it was disproportionately within the vaccinated. And then they did the swabs like they did with the baboons. And they found that the vaccinated had on.

average more virus in their nasal cavities than the unvaccinated that were infected. That's the CDC's own publication. Amazing they actually published this. And then here's another study, just August 24, 2021, and not long afterwards, they reviewed swab specimens from 24 counties, and they found a high viral load in 158, meaning of 232 unvaccinated, 68% of the unvaccinated had a high viral load in their nose. But 69% of the vaccinated had a high viral load. their nasofarings. And they, similarly, and there was a high viral load of 7 to 24 unvaccinated 29 and 11 of the fully vaccinated asymptomatic individuals. So the first black bullet point is for symptomatic individuals. The second one was for asymptomatic. And frankly, it's the second

bullet point that should be the most concerning. Among the asymptomatic, they had no symptoms. So vaccine was doing great. It was reducing symptoms. But 82 percent, nine of a 11, 9 had a high viral load unknowingly spreading COVID in the vaccinated, whereas only seven of the unvaccinated, 29% amongst the unvaccinated had that asymptomatic spread. This study was, I think, just a watershed. And in fact, it's a great study because we foyered for all the, there was a CDC author, which we forward for all the internal communications. the internal communications on this study are incredible.

Journals didn't want to publish it. They went round and round. And because, you know, they were like, why aren't published? It's just an important finding because it didn't fit the policy. But they knew. They knew before they went out and they went and crushed the rights of 100 million Americans with, you know, with the OSHA requirements, picking people out of the military, going

down that road. They knew this product did not stop transmission. There was no public health imperative to do it. I'm sorry. Representative Leckis. Fauci saying, no, you have to still wear masks because the vaccine won't stop transmission. Yes. Do you recall when that was compared to all of this?

I think it was when Michelle Walenski said this in August, I presume. There are many situations where fully vaccinated people do not need to wear a mask, particularly if they are outdoors, as shown by the graphic. on the right. If you are fully vaccinated and want to attend a small outdoor gathering with people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated or dying at an outdoor restaurant with friends from multiple households, the science shows if you are vaccinated, you can do so safely unmasked. On the CDC website, we have posted examples of numerous outdoor activities that are safe to do without a mask if you are fully vaccinated. Generally, for vaccinated people,

outdoor activities without a mask are safe. However, we continue to recommend masking in crowded outdoor settings and venues, such as packed stadiums and concerts, where there is decreased ability to maintain physical distance and where many unvaccinated people may also be present. We will continue to recommend until widespread vaccination is achieved.

She said, oh, you can all take your masks off. We're all free. And then they had this study in Massachusetts. And then they all went, and they did a 180 on that. I think it was very early. This, by the way, those are just two early Canary in the KOMON studies. There were large giant studies that followed, all showing the same thing. We had a huge exchange with CDC on this point.

It was clear as day this product would not stop infection. And what also made it super clear was just look at the rates of infections in highly vaccinated, developing countries and other highly vaccinated countries versus the rate of infection in countries that did not participate in these products. It's incredible. Okay. So again. Representative Belcher. Please. I've got a couple of questions that I think will help with our investigation.

I'll, of course, ask you between to make sure I'm good to continue. But the first one, it was a position of the government. and pharmaceutical companies that the EAUA vaccines prevented contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It was their position that the EUA vaccines prevented transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus. It was the position of them that they were safe and effective. It is still the position of the government and pharmaceutical industry that these products reduce mortality and that they are safe and effective. My question then is, given the totality of all the circumstances that you were aware of

have evidence for, do you believe there is a reasonable possibility that the legal immunity of either the government and or pharmaceutical companies should not stand due to fraud, censorship, disinformation on efficacy or risks, or any other reason? Politically, absolutely it should not stand. It shouldn't have been there to begin with because it just creates an incredible moral hazard. Hey, you know what? Let's, Let's go into business and we're going to create a product and the government's going to mandate it, really. What is the product? Oh, you inject it.

Oh, what if it causes harm? Don't worry. You'll have immunity. Who the heck would take that? Don't worry. They'll mandate it. Well, what if people cry out? Don't worry.

They'll censor and they'll promote it with billions of dollars. Yeah, absolutely. That is essentially what we entered into. Politically speaking, it should never have been there even absent fraud if you're asking me. With what we know now, it absolutely should all be rescinded to the extent the government can. They contractually agree to the immunity. And these products should just be treated like any others. I mean, you could sue people, you could sue the maker of this pen for issues.

I can't sue companies that inject a product into babies over and over and over again. when they swear to you are safe and effective? Really? How does that make any sense? They're so safe that they had to take away the ability to sue them for harm? I mean, if that doesn't create, like, cognitive dissonance, I don't know what does. It's like, you know, your head's got to spin from it. So, yes, politically, absolutely, legally, that's a more complicated question, whether that is,

it would need to most likely happen in it from an act of federal legislation. But there are things, I think, on the state level that can be done. And I'm happy to talk about those afterwards. So the next related question is the state of New Hampshire has a little bit of ambiguity with our current COVID childhood recommendations for injection. Currently, we hear there is no official recommendation. that is the position taken by the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the official website has a section on childhood COVID vaccination

that directs the user to the CDC guidelines. They do so without explicitly stating those are CDC and not New Hampshire guidelines, and they do officially the CDC guidelines that it directs you to take your recommendation on childhood vaccination. So based on your legal expertise, would you agree that DHS in New Hampshire, by linking directly to the CDC website, which recommends vaccines under the New Hampshire website, where it talks about childhood vaccination for COVID. Would you agree that they're taking no position, or do you believe that they are taking a position?

Based on what you just said, they are, in my opinion, based on what you just said, taking a position that would promote the COVID-19 vaccine because that's apparently, of a parent goes to their site, and it leads them to the CDC's recommendation. Most folks will assume that is the New Hampshire Department of Health on Human Services position with regards to that product. I don't see how it could be otherwise. We've learned from previous testimony, and I'm going to ask if you're familiar with this and if you have anything to add to it.

Let me preface it with this. Back when I was a paramedic years and years ago, I was trained to a minister, injured muscular, injections and part of that training process was to locate the injection site, spread the skin out, plunge the needle, syringe, aspirate to make sure I wasn't in a blood vessel before administering the shot. Now, this information changed at some point shortly before the COVID pandemic. And to my knowledge, the COVID-19 vaccine was the first that was if issued official guidelines to not aspirate before plunging the syringe to administer it a shot.

Looking at the recommendations from the guidelines on this, I believe it was the CDC website. Correct me if I'm wrong. The rationale given for suspending the long process of aspirating to make sure you weren't in a blood vessel was done based on no evidence, but the argument that there had been no previous data suggesting that you needed to, and further that it may cause, may, not evidence, may cause

additional pain that could put people off from vaccinations, so you should not do this practice. Is that something you're aware of or having comment on? I'm not aware of that, actually. That's interesting, but it does fit with the normal rubric when it comes to these products in terms of how safety is approached, which is in the absence of evidence that it causes harm, you say it doesn't. And you may be coming to talk about this. I don't know.

But I want to ask you, is this something you're aware of? Because I've heard this. I don't think we've received testimony. I may be wrong again on that. But I believe that when these COVID vaccines became officially licensed as an approved by the FDA, the manufacturers continue to provide only the the emergency use versions of them up until the point that they were adopted by the childhood vaccine schedule, which conferred a different legal immunity to them. So there was no period

in which the FDA version was given where they could have might not had immunity. Is that something you're aware of? Yeah, I think there's a bit of confusion out there in terms of the applicable legal protections. The Prep Act immunity applies whether the product is emergency use authorized or licensed. So it didn't matter whether it was on the child's schedule or not and whether the 86 Act applied or not. As it stands right now, you can't go into vaccine court for a co-vaccine injury. You can't go into the VICP, the program created by the 86 Act. You need to go into the program created by the Prep Act, the CICP.

So the Prep Act community applies whether it's authorized or whether it's licensed. In terms of after it was licensed, what was available, I can tell you that one of the regulations that's crystal clear is that the military is not allowed to mandate a product on its soldiers that are not. licensed. And so there were lawsuits that were brought after the COVID-19 vaccine was authorized because there still wasn't actually vials that were authorized vials. There were still emergency use, excuse me, licensed vials. There were still only EUA vials in circulation. There's so much of it. That's pretty much what was available. And when the military was sued by a soldier saying, hey, you offered me an EUA product. The government responded by saying either one, you were offered a bio-equivalent. There was a list that when the COVID vaccine was licensed,

the FDA put out and said these batches of EUA, not all of them, just these are the same as the licensed and can be treated as licensed. And where the soldier was offered something not in that list, the military somehow magically produced an actual licensed vial. There were some that they had available, and they would then offer that to the soldier. And we encountered exactly that scenario. So, yeah, for the most part, for a long time, there was only, you know, I actually don't know the state of affairs right now, because I know for a long time there was no EUA, only EUA product available in the United States.

Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. So reducing symptoms while remaining able to make one more likely to transmit, we've covered that. And that was true of COVID vaccines. Should states have crushed the rights of those that refuse this medical procedure? I think that's self-explanatory. Should never do that. As I pointed out earlier, they could have easily tested for weather prevention. They didn't do it. And actually, I have a, a little video. Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves, but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal. We can kind of almost see the end.

We're vaccinating so very fast. Our data from the CDC today suggest, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. Getting vaccinated and getting a booster shot when eligible can save your life and protect you and your family and friends from getting seriously ill and spreading infection. What do you think the probability is? 80%.

Personally, I think it's 100%. I think that there's a reduction in transmission. Essentially, vaccines block you from getting and giving the virus. If enough people get vaccinated and it actually halts transmission. You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. We have all the vaccines we need. We just need our people to take it, A, for their own protection, for the protection of their family,

but also to break the chain of transmission. You want to be a dead end to the virus. So when the virus gets to you, you stop it. You don't allow it to use you as the stepping stone to the next person. Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus.

the virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this. What's incredible to me if there's a lesson to be learned from this is that these all these claims about, you know, public health. We have to do it to protect the public. transmission, they should have known early on. It was unlikely to, there was, there's never been

a respiratory virus I can think of that prevented transmission. Think about flu shot. Think about Tustis vaccine, respiratory infections. If you, you know, typically they do not stop transmission. And then they could have done a trial that would have shown it stopped transmission. They didn't. All the studies early on showed it didn't. All the big studies showed didn't stop transmission. but yet with all that data in hand, and even with them admitting it, they went ahead with, on the federal level, the OSHA mandates, the military mandates, in the face of all that. It just shows you that we can't make civil rights, individual rights, the ability to participate in civil society contingent on what public health authorities say. That leads me to a final few slides. And, you know, the other argument, and I'm going to go real quick because it's a little bit later, I think.

but the other argument that they made about COVID-19 vaccines that if you don't get, everybody will die, right? We saw what the clinical trial data show regarding deaths already, and we've looked at the all-cause mortality. So, you know, that already undercuts that entire argument. But I think it's also instructive to look at, again, some of the other vaccines on this point, because they make the same claim, but other vaccines. For example, you know, they say everybody's got.

to get a Hep B vaccine to go to school. Well, we foyer the CDC because we said, hey, hey, can you give us one, one documented case of hepatitis B being transmitted in a school setting? You know, hepatitis B is typically transmitted by promiscuous sex workers and intravenous drug addicts who used dirty needles. Not the kind of thing that I assume, I don't know what goes on in New Hampshire schools, but I'm assuming that's not common. And so we ask them for documents sufficient to reflect any, any cases of transmission of Heppe in elementary, middle, or high school setting. You know what the CDC told us? A search of our records fail to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.

But that doesn't stop them from the hysterics of what, that everybody must get a happy vaccine to go to school. Or how about chickenpox virus? Here's what the package insert says for chickenpox virus. It says that the transmission of Varicella vaccine virus, meaning the vaccine strain in the vial resulting in varicella infection, including disseminated disease, may occur. Meaning, after you get the vaccine, the vaccine virus that you've just gotten in your arm, okay, between, it can be transmitted between vaccine recipients who develop or do not develop

a varicella like rash, meaning symptomatically or asymptomatically, and contact susceptible to varicella, including healthy as well as high-risk individuals. Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipient should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with very Vax. A chickenpox vaccine is one of the few vaccines that actually can stop transmission. To be sure, it's not endemic anymore. The chickenpox virus has receded from society.

Now, a lot of people can argue that's a good or bad thing, and I'll show you some studies that show maybe that wasn't a good thing. There might have been an evolutionary biological reason why we had chickenpox. But the important thing here is that people who get the chickenpox vaccine can actually give it to high susceptible individuals according to the packaged insert. But yet, do we exclude children from school for six weeks after the get chickenpox vaccine? Of course not. We don't do that. You know why we don't do that?

Because any child who could really be injured by chickenpox or measles or mumps or rebella or whatever, they're not in school. If they're really that auto, really that immunocompromise, there's over 1,400 other recognized human pathogens. That means they, you know, the fact that they, if they can be injured by chickenpox, they can be injured by any one of those. Yeah. May. I'm talking about the chickenpox vaccine. So, what do you think that a school teacher who may be pregnant would be very concerned? concerned about the children, as they may have just been vaccinated with the chickenpox vaccine?

I don't, I think typically no, because in the pre-vaccine era, everybody would have chicken pox while the time they're pregnant. So they would have robust, complete immunity. And today, they have to rely on either having had chickenpox or having had the chickenpox vaccine. I guess my question is, is that if they're shedding the virus, it could affect the... Not if they're immune already. Okay, thank you. Yeah. If they're immune, then they shouldn't, which is, yeah, which typically not a concern. In fact, all pregnant women are typically tested for immunity to those various... So if they're not immune, they would, they should, they would typically know it. That brings us to, really, we've covered now every vaccine required in New Hampshire. We did

we did polio, we did detap, we did Hep B, and we did chickenpox, that leaves us with just MMR. And I'm sure you've heard this, everyone's going to die without MMR vaccine. Well, let's take a look at the veracity of that claim and see, and I think it's instructive to how COVID vaccines are treated. Based on the CDC data, the first chickenpox vaccine, excuse me, measles vaccine was in 1963, and of only around 1 and 500,000 Americans died of measles when there was no vaccine. 400 Americans on average a year died.

And the death rate between 1900 and 1962 had declined by 98% without any vaccine. You know how I know that? There was no vaccine. So it couldn't have done that reduction. Then you've got mumps and your rebella. So you've got a grand total. And to be sure, every death is a tragedy. Absolutely.

but 440 deaths total for measles, mumps, and rebella in the years before there was a year before there was a vaccine back when they were still doing lobotomies, okay, back when medical care was still in its infancy, acute care was still being developed. I mean, I mean, it's amazing because, you know, modern medicine, it takes a lot of pride in the advances they've had since the 60s. When it comes to vaccines, they don't seem to want to recognize that, not sure why. many of these folks probably would would be fine today if they had these conditions with that said it's far from the idea of everybody would die right there said hundreds of thousands died from covid 140 died they say a year uh 440 40 40 40 40s dated about a year again not to minimize

any deaths but to put i'm just trying to put it in context because that's not what they tell you that is not the impression they leave you with. They don't leave the public with the impression that only 400 people here died in measles before those a measles vaccine. They leave you with the impression that millions would die from measles. And to be sure, in third world country,

developing countries where there's poor nutrition, there's poor sanitation, there's poor issues, people die, kids die far more frequently of measles as well as lots of other things. Absolutely. And they still do even with vaccines. In the United States, This is an official CDC chart, by the way, published in 1960.

There is no way this would get published in the post-vaccine measles era, okay? But, you know, 1960, they weren't expecting the vaccine yet. This is their own, this is a CDC, at least the predecessor of CDC's chart. And you could see this is the standardized per 100,000 people, the rate of measles mortality from 1900 until 1960. It went down over 98% without any vaccine again. I've had so many discussions with medical professionals, and it's hard for them to accept that reality, but it just is. And there's no reason to think the same factors that cause a reduction in decline in mortality of measles between 191960 would not have continued. I'm not saying that maybe vaccines haven't saved some of those folks, but some of the 400 folks probably would also not die based on the natural progression of where that disease was going as well.

But that seems to be a hard thing to accept. Well, what have we traded that all for? Things to consider. And, you know, this I think is also reflective COVID vaccines. They only look at one side of the picture. They don't want to look at the rest of it. So, for example, here is a study, a prospective study of 100,000 people in Japan. Only study of its kind I'm aware of.

And they track them forward-looking, super reliable. And what they looked at, and this is incredible finding, actually. I don't even know why they did this. but they looked at those who had measles and mumps versus those that did not have measles and mumps. People who had measles and mumps died far less frequently from cardiovascular issues, statistically significant.

To take a look at all the yellow statistically significant findings, total cardiovascular disease and total stroke, you are far less likely to have stroke and cardiovascular disease and die of it if you had measles and mumps and if you didn't. And you can't say, well, that's because people that have measles and mumps died. No, the only... a tiny number of them died.

Cardiovascular disease kills 700,000 Americans a year. If having measles and mumps and eliminating that increased the number of deaths of of cardiovascular disease by 2%, well, you just went upside down in terms of the benefits of this product. I'm not saying that's the case. I'm not saying that's good science, what I just did. I am saying, though, that if you look at this, this study by mainstream researchers in Japan looking at a huge cohort found an incredible reduction. I mean, when you look at measles

and mumps, you are, I mean, and you can look at the, if you look at those two line curves, and you could see the percentage of folks of the men, for example, after 22 years, you could see that about 5% of those that had measles and mumps died of cardiovascular disease, but something like 15% of them died from cardiovascular disease that didn't have it. Incredible finding. But it doesn't fit the policy. Never seen a study that contradicts this. Never seen this study debunked, so to speak, because it's nothing to do with vaccines,

really. They just happens to be out there in the world. Really troubling, though, for those who the proponents is, and this is a huge body of science, back when all of these childhood infectious diseases, and maybe God put them on the planet for a reason for being, you know, eliminated. Like I said, measles, mumps, rebella, and check a box vaccine, they can stop transmission. So they do end up reducing the amount of circulating virus for those four viruses. As those viruses receded and children didn't have those infections, these studies looked at the rates of childhood cancers. For example, 66% increased rate in non-hoclonifona and 233% increased

trade of Hodgson's lymphoma amongst children that did not have measles according to the International Agency for Research and Cancer. And then you can look through it into ovarian cancer, double the rate of those who didn't have measles and so forth. It's true of, and what they find these studies are, they're consistent and they were all done often back in the 80s and then they stopped doing them. And they were sitting there in PubMed, but they don't fit the narrative. what they show is that fervbral childhood infections, meaning childhood infections of those that have

fever, for whatever reason, afford protection later based on these studies from various cancers and other cardiovascular disease and other issues. I'm not saying this, just to be clear, that's what these studies all reflect. There might be a reason that while, for example, certain viruses and bacteria come and go throughout history. When you look back on human history, lots of virus bacteria, they come and they're gone. These particular ones have been with us for forever. And it might be an evolutionary biological reason that they've been here because they might actually help increase life expectancy potentially. You know, there's no reason I think that somebody shouldn't be able to look at this data

and make a health decision and have a, a reasonable discussion about this. I mean, I think it would be wonderful to have one side of folks come and present the studies that debunk these and the one side that looks at these studies because the body literature, I've not seen a body literature that contradicts these findings. And so, you know, when you talk about saving 400-something folks by getting rid of these diseases, you might have ended up causing far more death through cancer, heart disease, and so forth. is the balance worth it.

The problem is that I'm just a lawyer. I shouldn't be doing that analysis, but public health already should, but they're not going to do that. I can assure you. There are things that is a speculation I'm willing to walk on a ledge on and say the FDA is not going to do that,

and the CDC's not going to do that analysis. And if you can get your State Department of Health, that'll be wonderful. So, and you might say, well, you know, the MMR has been carefully reviewed and studied, has it? Really? I mean, we're already done, we've already looked at this issue. Well, I'll just take a super quick peek. Here's the clinical trial relied upon to license the

MMR vaccine. 834 children, not properly powered. No control. Forty-two days of safety review. And by the way, a third had gastrointestinal issues and a third of respiratory issues in the trial. I don't know what the point of doing that trial was. Similar trial for the 1971 original version when they licensed the 71 version, which is basically the same of the 78 version, except they changed out the Rebella component. Okay. This is what I was telling you earlier. Here's the, by the way, the vaccine information chief from Musil, Mumps and Rebella.

It includes a disclosure to seizures, deafness, long-term seizures, coma, lower carriages, and brain damage. But they took, they got rid of that now because, you know. So anyway. And these are all, remember we looked at this, these are all of the conditions that are disclosed that the manufacturer's state can be caused very serious conditions. separate from the cancer stuff, separate from the heart disease stuff. These are the ones they have a causal basis to include.

And this is my favorite slot in MMR and then we'll move on to another topic, is that there was only one MMR vaccine for forever by Merck with that clinical trial just showed you that which was underpowered, no control, and not enough safety review. Well, GlaxoSmithKine finally, they went and they licensed an MMR vaccine. Well, what did they use as a control in the study? they use the Merck vaccine. So we finally could see what is the adverse event rate

amongst the healthy childhood population of getting these products? Buried in a supplemental table, not in the primary study, it's right here. Okay? So you could see that serious adverse events

amongst those getting MMRRIT and MMR2, so MMRIT is the GSK version 2 is the Merck version, around 2% had a serious adverse event. But here's an interesting thing, by the way. I've never seen this before. This is, they took adverse events prompting an ER visit and NOCDs. This is a new thing, new onset chronic disease. They remove those from serious adverse events. I don't know why.

So you've got to look at all three of them and add them up cumulative. Okay. So you've got two percent with a serious adverse event. We looked at what those are earlier. Those are serious. You have another 10% that needed an ER visit prompted from the vaccine. And you had another 3, about 3.4% that had a new onset chronic disease during the review period for the vaccine, which was unsolicited 42 days, and then AEs were done for 180 days. So to me, that should be really concerning. If every few months, every child, 3.4% of children in America had a chronic disease that arose, every person in America would have a chronic disease over a longer enough period of time.

So, anyways, I'm not looking to cast dispersions on the MMR vaccine. I'm really just pointing out that in the same way that the federal health authorities do not have any issue, in my opinion, giving an impression of what these products can do, how harmful they were before those vaccines, and misleading the public with regards to MMR vaccine, I don't think they have an issue of misleading the public with regard to COVID-19 vaccine. I think it's kind of the same type of approach.

I should say, for what it's worth, I think most public health authorities and medical professionals are well-meaning. I think that they really, they believe that they are, you know, they don't know, they just, they have assumptions about these products that well-meaning, they think that they are, they really need to, no matter what, get you to take it, because that's going to save everybody. But, you know, when you step back and you're not emotional or religious about these products and you just look at the data, they paint a very different picture.

And it's unfortunate that we can't have those kind of objective discussions. And so, you know, as I point out, same hysterics apply to COVID-19 vaccine. I say, you know, say it again. Everyone should be free to get one. Government should be free to persuade the public. But when they can't, that's where it ends. And think about it. After all, did our government tell us the truth about the deaths in the clinical trial of COVID-19 vaccines?

No. I don't think they went and publicized that. But all, remember, here it is. Again, this, this, this, this. The conflicted regulators, I feel like we've really covered this pretty well. So I'll just go super quick. Who's responsible for vaccine safety? Not pharmaceutical companies. They're immune.

So all of that responsibility was transferred over the Secretary of HHS. It's actually included in one section of the United States Code. This was part of the 1986 Act. It's called literally, mandate for safer childhood vaccines. That's what it's called. It's got three simple sections. Section 1, make them safer. Section 2, form a task force, the head of the FDA, CDC, NIH, and make recommendations to the head of HHS and how to make them safer.

In Section 3, every two years, submit a report to Congress describing how you made him safer. Okay? Well, guess what? Let's work backwards. Did they submit that by annual report to Congress was required by Section C? Never once. We sued them because they wouldn't give us any of their reports. never once have they submitted this biennial report to Congress as required by the mandate for safer childhood vaccine section C.

How about section? Department search do not look at any records. How about the task force? Well, again, we sued them. The task force was disbanded in 1998. So they had it for a while, but it doesn't exist. So they're not doing the easy stuff. If they're not submitting the biannual report to Congress and they don't have a task for how to make it safer,

you think they're doing the hard part of actually making it safe during Section A, I think the presentation up to this point probably answers that question. Why do they abandon safety? I would argue to do because they are conflicted. They're utterly conflicted. They're responsible promoting vaccines as well as safety. So, you know, when the Department of Transportation was responsible for promoting transportation, they said, oh, wait, you can't also be responsible investigating disasters because you can't

like be glabhanding with industry, like, go make more planes, go fly more routes, and then say, oh, you're very bad in what you do, right? So they created the National Transportation Safety Board. They separate the promotion from the safety function. Same thing with energy. Department of Energy promotes nuclear energy power plants to be created. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates their safety. I can't walk into nuclear power plants.

I say, build more power plants. Hey, buddy, how you doing? You know, slap them in the back. Give them incentives and then slap them around when they're not safe. But with vaccines, we keep them in the very same. They're both within HHS. Okay. So one of them is going to win out and the promotion function wins out. But if that weren't bad enough, as I mentioned earlier, the 1986 Act created a vaccine injury compensation program where you sue, there it is the quote from the law. In all proceedings brought by the filing of a petition of vaccine court, the secretary shall be named as the respond to the secretary of H.S. You're literally suing federal health authorities for vaccine injury. They're statutorily required to defend against any claim that a vaccine court will be named. You're literally suing federal health authorities for vaccine injury. They're statutorily required to defend against any claim that a vaccine court will be named. causes injury. If they create any studies that show a vaccine causes injury, is an admission

against interest. It's the most incredible conflict you can imagine. It's bad enough to get rid of market forces. You have utterly conflicted the regulators. And if that weren't bad enough, there's a evolving door between regulators and pharma. It's all over the internet. You can look at it all the former heads of the CDC and FDA and regulators and where they work now and where they're getting paid. And obviously, we have that government report. In terms of COVID vaccine, one more thing I would point out in that regard is that I mentioned the vaccine injury compensation program, that at least offers some modicum of compensation for those injured by vaccines, even though you have to fight the DOJ, you don't get Article III judge, you get a special master, you don't get any discovery as of

right, I can't depose any of the pharmacovies, I can't get discovery. So, you know, you fight with your hands behind your back against Department of Justice that gets full discovery, gets everything that they want in terms of experts. Nonetheless, they paid out over $4 billion. damages with a $250,000 cap and pain and suffering and for death claims. But when it comes to COVID vaccine injury, when it comes to COVID vaccine injury, basically there's all you, the only remedy right now is the counter injury conversation program. Who is the trier of fact that's really deciding your claim? You do not know. What is exactly as a standard? Not sure. Who's the expert they're going to lie upon? You don't know. Can you confront them? No. Is there a hearing? No.

Is there any due process? No. It is the equivalent of fill out a piece of paper, go to your backyard, dig a hole, put it in the ground, cover it up, water it and wait for money to grow. I mean, that's essentially what the CICP is. We've already sued in federal court where right now in Louisiana and in Texas to declare it unconstitutional because, you know, when you afford a remedy of some kind, right, a process, it's got to meet basic constitutional due process. If you don't know who the tri-a-fay, you don't get a hearing, you can't confront. You can't who's making the decision. You can't rebut their evidence. I mean, it's the most, I cannot think of something more offensive to due process. You basically submit something and you just wait. How long? Indefinite. You have no idea. Oh, you only have one year to file, but they can take five years to decide your claim. And to date, since they only have a few million dollars, by the way, you don't have any, you have no chance of getting any real compensation. They've adjudicated only a tiny fraction of the Cames and they've only agreed to compensate even a, I forgot some tiny, tiny percent. And each of them got about an average of a few

thousand dollars for devastating lifelong injuries. That's what the CICP program is. It's designed. It's basically a policy organization. Our hope is to strike it down. And I think that I'm hopeful that we'll be able to do that as unconstitutional. All right, hey, everybody. I just want to interrupt this amazing program just for a moment to talk about how we make programs like this possible. is through your sponsorship, your donations, is all that comes in. There's no Pfizer or Exxon or Pamper's or, you know, ice cream companies. You name it, it's you. It's the people.

This is a show for and by the people, just like our country is supposed to be running. And so we're able to send Aaron all over the country. Every time he needs to speak to a state capital like yours, we send him. Every time someone needs an expert in a trial, we send him. Every time we want to sue the government, we send Aaron Siri and you make all of that possible. We've been celebrating all the incredible legal wins, bringing back the religious exemption from Mississippi that have been gone since the 1970s, still working on freeing the five. All of these things are happening. But of course, this is made possible by your donation.

And this week we have a legal update to just show you all the more that we're accomplishing on the legal side. So take a look at this. A lot of the medical policies and practices around the country really come down to what Medicare and Medicaid will cover. There's an agency called Medicare Medicaid Services, CMS, and they will set policies with regards to what services they will cover. If they will cover that medical service, it often will become the standard of care. We took a look at some of the standards they were creating, and one of them was what vaccines adults to receive. Well, where does CMS get the list of adult vaccines? It's going to say it will cover.

Well, apparently, it looks to an organization called the National Committee for Quality Assurance. This is not a government organization. Rather, is effectively a private organization. And who funds it? Our investigation revealed that is funded by Pfizer, GSK, Merck, AstraZeneca, Snofi, and others. All the major vaccine manufacturers. CMS literally takes the guidance from this pharma-funded organization regards to what adult vaccine should be covered,

and it just covers them as if it has done its own independent assessment. That is all CMS is doing is essentially taking a pharma mouthpiece and relying on what they have to say. That's not the way our government should operate. That is not independence. That is not transparency. And it shows yet again why no government is, No government policies, no government pronouncements, and apparently not even their recommendations,

should ever be trusted without looking under the hood to see exactly where they came from. Well, this is just part of all the amazing work we do. All of these legal updates, so many of them start with Freedom of Information Act requests, which is a huge part. I think we've sent in over 2,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Just asking for basic information, where do you get that list? That one came back and now we know basically you have Farmer to Marketing Arms that are funded that just give their list

of the favorite things they'd like to just inject to you and get paid for and that's what CMS is using. Not exactly how you thought the government was working. Who else has revealed more things like this than I can and the high wire? You make this possible. We've been celebrating the dashboard that we built for the open text fields in the V-save data.

That is literally we were getting reports from scientific, all around the world that are now using that dashboard. You've made that possible, but all this is very expensive. These lawsuits sometimes to get that V-Safe data take years, meaning we're spending millions of dollars fighting our own government for what should have been free. And hopefully that changes as we move into the future, but we are not going to take it for granted. We want to keep our foot on the gas, pedal the metal,

and keep bringing you the truth and keep fighting for medical freedom. and, you know, for scientific transparency, only you can make that happen. I don't know what other group you could give your money to or what other issue is more important. COVID-19 taught us that perhaps the greatest freedom we have is our own medical freedom. If you don't control your own body and the bodies of your children, then you don't really have any freedom at all. If that freedom matters to you, I hope you'll take the last opportunity we have in this year. We were given a couple of months to match a $2 million donation that came in. You've been amazing.

And as of this week, let's take a look at where we're at. Wow. Holy cow, we really did well over the last week. $1.5 million. That's spectacular because that means $2 million once it's matched that we can go out and keep doing the great work that we're doing. But I think you might have noticed something there. There's room to grow.

There's room that we can still go. and we only have one more week left to the end of the year. We really love to use all of this opportunity. So please, if you're still in a giving mood and Christmas is behind you and you realize, you know what, I bought a lot of presents, but I got a little room to change the world. I hope you'll donate now. We'll make it easy. You can click on that QR code that is in the banner.

Or you can simply check the email at the bottom there, which is I Can Decide.org slash legal match. And you can also text in. In fact, we'll take anything. You know, the truth is I was just told we will absolutely Bitcoin, your house, your car. We'll figure it out. Here's all the different ways that you can donate to ICAN, trying to make this as easy as possible for you.

And just text donate to 72022. And we will send you the easiest form we've ever seen to now take part and change. in the world. And speaking of changing the world, what better time than to donate right now, because for any donation of $5 or more per month or $60 for the year, you get access to Highwire Plus. And we just dropped the bombshell documentary series Jeffrey Jackson investigates with his episode on polio that's going absolutely viral right now. If you haven't seen it, then you're out of the loop. So join right now, High Wire Plus. Check out this. incredible documentary is part one of a polio investigation it's all the talk everyone's wondering

what about polio what about polio geoffrey gets into and i assure you this one even blew my mind take a look at this polio is a highly highly effective vaccine and historic victory over a dread disease you meet people today right in their 80s who limping from childhood polio it's good that we don't have that and vaccines played a major role in that i'm grateful that we have the opportunity to have polio vaccine but i also want the truth. We're doing a deeper dive into the historic story of polio. Polio is a virus. It's something that's always been in human intestines. No matter how remote you go out into the countryside or to remote Indian villages,

it's been there not causing any disease at all. What was this childhood disease? Where did it come from? And how can it be treated? Rockefeller Labs was studying polio. There's documented gain a function that was going on at Rockefeller Labs. At this point, we have the rise of the chemist class. They figured out a new pesticide called lead arsenic. called lead arsonant. They're spraying everything with DDT. There was zero concern at the time for toxicity.

What we thought was polio sounds like it was actually an environmental toxin. Parents lived in fear of polio's sudden attack. Thousands upon thousands of children and adults fell prey to the crippler. Would you say this disease had the best PR campaign to date of any disease known a man? Mass media never existed before this disease reached its peak.

And there would be the march of dimes. Give every dime and dollar that you can spare to the 1954 March of Dimes. The entire nation was mobilized against polio. The medical system has this great invention and it's an iron lung. There's that picture that you see with all the iron lungs and the gymnasium.

That was actually a movie set. They now start looking for a vaccine. It was so daunting creating a vaccine for a virus they couldn't even see. There was something called the Cutter incident. They weren't careful about their men manufacturing standards, they weren't careful about the testing. The fact that they were making vaccines with monkey kidney cells, they discovered the

presence of SV40, which is a mutation that can cause cancers in animals and humans. Polio was caused by both, the injected and the oral polio vaccine. And if you think that they stopped polio, you should realize that the total cases from the year 2000 to 2017 of acute placid paralysis in India is 653,000. Polio will exist, whether we like it or not, forever. Failed regulatory oversight, contaminated vaccines, causing massive harm and even death. Imagine if the American people were told the truth. Would we have had better regulatory guardrails going into the COVID response?

Everybody will say, well, what about polio? And even parents that don't want to vaccinate their kids. The one vaccine they gave polio. So let's talk about polio. Well, I'm telling you do have to see this. And especially, what a great time to join Highway Plus. Over the holidays, you can bring your family in for New Year's or whatever. Or just say, hey, take a look at this.

while you're over at my house. You want to just join Highwire Plus, a donation of $5 a more per month or $60 per year gets you access to have your mind absolutely blown. But speaking of getting your mind blown, no one does that better than Aaron's series. So let's get back to his testimony in New Hampshire. Here we go. This brings us to the last part, which is the idea of informed consent. And I think it's really, to me, wraps and wraps.

everything we've talked about today, what is informed consent? And to me, this is, it's the lack of respect for this basic principle that led to so many of the issues. If they didn't mandate masks and stay at home and vaccines and this stuff, I don't think you'd be having this hearing. Persuade folks, tell them if they do it if they want to do it great. If you're 90 years old and you have a million comorbidities and you want to still go to the coffee shop, it's America.

You should be able to do it. You're 16 and you're 18 and you're totally healthy and you want to live. live in your basement and wear seven masks and vaccinate every day, you should be able to do that too, because that's freedom. It's America. Informed consent is where you get informed to whatever degree the doctor's going to give you. Then you decide whether to consent. And that's it.

That's what it should be. Saying, I don't consent, but now you can't get a job and you can't go to school. You can't go in the military. You can't go in public transport. What the heck is that? That's not informed consent. I'm going to inform you and you better consent or else. That's what that is.

That's not informed consent. That's not freedom. Seven basic questions that you would ask, I think, in my opinion, before you decide whether you should do a medical intervention and that the government should respect your right to do. One is, will the manufacturer stand behind its product? Does the manufacturer stand behind his product? And on this thing, there are links where you can see which vaccines are covered by the 86

Act, which are covered by the PRACT Act, and a letter you can send to your pharmaceutical company asking them to waive that immunity, because if they won't stand behind their product, do you think it's wise to inject it in your body? I don't know. Some people don't, and they should be free to make that determination in this country and say, you know what, if the makers of this product won't stand behind it and compensate me if I'm injured, why should I take that risk? Two, did this clinical trial prove it was safe?

I've looked at that pretty closely. should be able to say, that's not good enough to inject that product into me or my child with that kind of data. I want a better trial. And until you do it, no. Did the post-lacenture studies prove it safe? We reviewed that. Same principle. Should be able to look at that. I'm educated enough to look at PubMed and read the studies. I shouldn't even say educated enough. They're in English. Anybody can read them. Anybody can figure this stuff out. I should be able to say no without penalty. What are the benefits probably? Be able to look at them and decide it's not for me, for whatever reason.

Can you determine if the risk outweigh the benefits? Well, if you don't know the safety profile, how do you do that? And a lot of these products, you don't know the safety profile. And I should be able to say I don't want it on that basis alone. Whatever the benefits are, until I know the real risk profile. I should be able to say no without penalty. Can you trust the people recommending the product? Can you trust Dr. Peter Marks at the FDA who's going out making just a minute,

everybody get the shot before it's even authorized. Don't worry. I won't have cognitive distance if I not tell you, oopsie, I just told you to take a shot that hurt you. Or how about Dr. Edwards, who's on the de-vaccinologist in the DSMB, who was a Pfizer consultant, advisor right before she was on the DSMPB? Or the members of the advisory committee that Congress and other reports have found are conflicted. I should be able to say, you know what? I'm not sure I trust those recommendations.

without penalty. And maybe you have a moral objection to the product. I'll show you one more video and I'm pretty much done. So you might say, listen, I don't want to participate. I believe abortion is murder. Some people think that. Some people don't. It's America, but it's free to their opinion.

And for those who think that, maybe they don't want to participate in products that involve abortion. So let's take a look at one video for it's a few minutes on exactly that topic. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work? My own personal work, too. I'm going to hand you what's been Mark Plaintiff's Exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin?

Yes. Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article? Yes. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct? Yes. You were at the Winstar Institute, correct? Yes.

How many feet of the Wistar Institute? What fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. This study involved 74 fetuses, correct? I don't remember exactly how many. Turn to page 12 of the study? Yeah, 76. 76.

And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct? Yes. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct? Yes. What organs did you have? harvest from these fetuses? Well I didn't personally harvest any but a whole range of tissues were harvested by co-workers. Okay and these pieces were then cut up into little pieces right? Yes. And they were cultured? Yes. Okay. Some of the

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

Yes. And tongue? I don't recall, but probably yes. So, I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career, and this was just one study, so I'm going to ask, I'm I'll ask you again, in your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with? Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines.

Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used a border fetuses for? Oh, I don't remember how many. Are you aware that one of the objections of vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines? Yeah, I'm aware of those objections. The Catholic Church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccine. vaccines regardless of the fact. And that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go

the hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do. Okay. Do you know if the mother is Catholic? I have no idea. Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs? Yes. You have said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God includes death and disease? Yes. You stand by that statement? I absolutely do. Okay.

Are you an atheist? Yes. The MMR vaccine and the chicken box vaccine each have in each vial, in each vial, in each vial, in each vial, the millions of pieces, millions of cellular debris and DNA from the aborted, from the culture cell lamin aborted fetus, every single dose. Some people don't, some people have moral objection to that. They don't want to inject a vaccine into their child where the injection will result in the cultural cell line reboarded fetus, millions of pieces of cells and DNA from that baby being

injected into their child. And they should be able to say no again without coercion. Yes. That is listed in, is it always listed in the ingredients? Sometimes you don't see it, but it's usually listed as MRC, correct? MRC-RC-5. And then also WI-38 would be. what it would be listed as, but sometimes actually in the, for example, in the, in the CDC's

Excipient list, it's explicitly stated as MRC-5, I believe it says DNA and cellular debris. What about specifically to, do you know for COVID, for the COVID injections? Yes. So for the COVID vaccines, the J&J vaccine had, in the vial itself, it had aborted fetal cell line cultured material. For the Moderna and the Pfizer, COVID-19 vaccines, there's nothing in the vial from the abortive fetal cell line. And it's not part of the manufacturing process. But when they were developing those two vaccines, they did use border fetal cells in the testing and development of the products. So they would use, so they wanted to see how the vaccine would work. And within human cells, they used the border fetal cell line

cells, including in humanized mice. So they're, you know, so they take a, they'll take a border fuel cell lines and they will essentially inject them into mice. And so they quote unquote humanize them and then they infect the mice and they see how it works. So like for example, you know, and this is a huge industry. I mean, I'm aware of, you know, just, just $100 million contract from HHS NIH to create humanized mice, for example. So there's, you know, there's an whole industry around it. And it's a big part of the testing that occurs. There's also a lot of testing, of testing create new border fetal cell lines. You need to grow a virus in something, okay?

So viruses replicate in cells. You can't grow a virus in a petri, like you can't just grow a virus. It doesn't just, it needs to grow in a cell. It takes over the cell and machinery. So if you're gonna grow a virus, you know, the Rebella vaccine, for example, a doctor style and Le Plot can create,

which is why he used so many aborted babies. He was trying to find a cellular medium to grow the Rebella virus. So they try, like the heart, they try the eye, they try the tongue. They take, and they use lots and lots of lots of babies to try to figure out what to use. And so a lot of times they'll use cells, human cells, to grow them in. So either cells that have senescence or don't. So they'll take either cell lines that, meaning they'll replicate for a certain number.

They have a seed stock, and eventually they'll run out and then they've got to make more. or in some instances, they actually modify the cells and render them immortal. So they make, basically like they're like cancerous. So like there's a kidney, a canine, there's a dog cell line that they use that they've rendered immortal that basically will replicate for forever. And they use that to create a certain flu shots, for example. When I was deciding back in late 2020 and early 21, whether I would move. forward with receiving any vaccination. I did have to tackle this idea. I am a Baptist. And I am looking here at a fact check from the Washington Post, a subheadline, Democracy Dies in Darkness.

As says, the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cells is false. This information I also heard from the government to assuage people of any concerns before they took this, particularly with the M RNA vaccines. So just to be clear, were there any aborted tissues utilized in developing the MRNA vaccines? Yeah, it's exactly in the manner I just described. And it's categorically, I mean, I've litigated around this issue. We got an injunction against the Air Force, as I mentioned at the beginning, on behalf of over 10,000 service members who refused COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds,

preventing the Air Force from expelling them. And one of the primary objections they had was the involvement of the then-existing COVID-19 vaccines, which were J&J and Modern NPR's MRNA vaccines. And I can tell you categorically that the MRNA vaccines have, as I said earlier, in the development and the testing, they involved port of fetal cell lines, They're not in the ingredients. They're not in the formulation. So if that argument, if that article is fact-checking the point that they're not in the ingredients and in the formulation, then it's correct.

But they're wrong that it did not involve the border fetal cells. It categorically 100% did in the testing of those products. Thank you. And just to clarify, the article, the claim that they are saying is false is the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cells, which is, apparently patently untrue. The same claim I do recall being made by government officials at the time because, again, I was tackling the same issue. And I would just have to go back to the testimony that from the deposition we heard earlier

where it was suggested that it was okay to tell a noble lie in order to get the population to take up this vaccine. Let's put it this way. The Department of Justice did not contest that there was a border fuel cell line involvement with the MRNA vaccines. when we were litigating this issue. So this was the Washington what? December 8th, 2020, Washington Post. Yeah, yeah. So the Washington Post, the purveyors of all truth,

they're just wrong. So I can assure you of that. And I will tell you the one that they did contest was Novavax. The only vaccine the Department of Justice in our lawsuit, they claimed was not involved with the Board of Fetal Seas. cells with Novavax, they did not contest that the MRNAs weren't, by the way.

And they said, because one of the arguments they made is, well, they should take the Novavax vaccine. But the Novavax vaccine actually does involve abortive fetal cells in development as well. If you just go simply online and you just search for MRC-5, you know, you can find basically, you know, here, you can buy some of it, apparent from this place. And they'll just usually describe what it is. it says right here MRC feldon was derived from a normal lung tissue

of a 14 week old male embryo by J.P. Jacobs in September of 1966. So there it is right there on the internet for you everybody to read. All right. Are you aware of whistleblower

who came out from Pfizer and was sharing that there was some blinding made too early and the the process of double-blind study was not followed.

Do you have any information on? Yeah, I believe I know the case you're talking about, and there was a review of that evidence, also published actually in the British Medical Journal in an article. I am aware of that, but here's the thing. I mean, I would argue. You don't even need to go and look at claims that are contested about these products, you just go look at the FDA's own source material

that we went through today. That's not contested. Nobody can argue against because that is their own documentation. I mean, those claims they dispute, obviously, and they're disputing it in that whistleblower action. But some of the other stuff we've looked at is uncontestable. But yes. And obviously, they're trying to get their product license as best in this.

easily as quickly as it can. You mentioned only data from England and Scotland that they were sharing some weekly data comparing different populations. Could you expand what it was and what the data was showing before they removed it? Yeah, absolutely. So the data was typically from some of these countries was standardized, so meaning, you know, one in a, you know, five in a hundred thousand. It wasn't just raw numbers.

It was standardized on a population basis. And they were comparing the rates often of death, hospitalizations, and cases between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated or the one dose are two dose and unvaccinated. And over time, you know, for example, and I know, for example, I believe it was in Ontario, Canada. initially they were just comparing those with no vaccines to those with, you know, who were vaccinated. Well, the case numbers for the vaccinated started exceeding the case numbers for the unvaccinated on a population, meaning on a standardized per 100,000 individuals.

So that did not look good. So then they changed the definition. I have screen grabs of all this actually. on my Twitter feed, I screen grabbed this as they were doing it, and so they're there. Then they change the definition to make unvaccinated meant up until the second week after the second dose. So unvaccinated eventually became at least one dose or maybe even two doses compared to those who had two weeks after the second dose. And then eventually the data, even that didn't work after a while. and then they just got rid of the whole thing.

England had similar data as well, and they were reporting it weekly until the numbers again inverted, were not looking, did not show what they wanted it to show. Scotland, too. Those are the two I have a distinct memory of. They were not favorable

to the policy pronouncements of those agencies. The data stopped being published. So on population level, there was Israeli data released by Israeli government that was showing on a country level that there's a spike in mortality about four months after COVID vaccine injection and also there were some data again it could be disputable but in New Zealand there was a whistleblower who released their countrywide data. So could you comment if you know of it and how reliable the data if we can on country level

they identify that data but basically follow every person injected, not injected, and see if they were injected. Like, some anaphylactic shock could happen quickly, but some effects, as you showed, they could take weeks or even months to kill a person. So if we could see it on a state level or on a country level, does it prove anything? I think it contributes to the data from the biggest whistleblower out there, which is the WHO and our world in data. because if you go to those sites,

just take a look at the COVID number of deaths from COVID in the countries that were highly vaccinated versus the ones that weren't. Look at the hospitalizations. Look at the cases. There were studies that have been done on exactly that. You know, I've heard the argument that, well, you know, developing countries don't have as good health tracking data.

That's not true. They can tell you down to the, the 0.0001% the D-TAP vaccination rate in their country. Because unlike the United States, they have centralized health care. They have a central, all health care is provided by one source. It's a single source health care system. Everybody in their country is all in one database. Actually, our health care system is fractured.

The American data is probably the worst data in the world in terms of tracking this stuff. But look at a lot of these developing countries. They have centralized. They get money from international organizations. They have pretty robust, especially when it comes to actually vaccination tracking because there's a ton of money gets poured into doing that. And so, you know, to your point, New Zealand and these other places, yes, you do have these whistleblowers who put data out.

And I think that data confirms what we already see vis-a-vis the death rates overall in these countries that are highly vaccinated versus countries that did not, that are not highly vaccinated. And you would expect to have the worst outcomes because they have less, they don't have as good nutrition, they have, they don't have acute health care. They don't have, you know, ventilators. They didn't have all the medical and acute care we have here, the standard of the nutrition that we have, the sanitation, but yet they had better outcomes.

I'm not saying that, I'm not just saying, just fact, I'm not just saying, I'm just saying that from a statistical perspective that raises a lot of questions, just like the data put forth by these whistleblowers. Just to kind of follow up on what the representative just asked you, I'm sure you're familiar with in Israel specific, because I believe, I mean, they were in an uptick of over 90% of vaccine compliance. And their prime minister bartered, brokered a deal, and they had an exclusive with Pfizer. And I don't know where their data is or not, but isn't that like the, because we had multiple, we had, Moderna and Pfizer and then even J&J early on and stuff. So we had, you know, there was, it's mixed. But they had like a, like a perfect one, you know, one, one, one vaccine. So I don't know what their data looks like, but that is, that's a wealth of information, correct?

Yeah, I mean, they are one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world and also have one of the highest case rates in the whole world. And like you said, they were one of the first to vaccinate, vaccine almost everybody in the population. You mentioned that there are several different technologies behind different vaccines and even different technologies for COVID vaccines. So as a state, New Hampshire is looking to expand the authority of our government and add new biological product, for example, to New Hampshire Vaccine Association. Next week, this body will probably approve adding RSV vaccine, which is not a vaccine, but more like monoclonal antibodies. So do you have any thoughts about like expanding definition of vaccine and also about this new technologies when we keep adding like so it looks like we change definition to add the MRNA vaccine MRNA technology to definition to vaccine now New Hampshire

will be adding RSI vaccine maybe they wanted to change change definitions. They won't change definition. Anyway, what are your thoughts on new technologies? So the RSV monoclonal antibodies, which is, you're right, it's interesting. It's on the CDC vaccine schedule, even though it's a monoclonal antibody. It's the, you know, if you open the Plotin Vaccine textbook, the medical textbook, they do consider monocl antibody as a form of immunization, not vaccination, but immunization, because it does provide immunity for a certain period of time. There is also, they added an RSV vaccine for pregnant women to the schedule. So they actually have both on there. I would urge strongly anybody considering pushing that vaccine,

I can't imagine mandating it in any place to just look at the summaries of the pack of the clinical trials in that for those products and look at the rates of issues and complications amongst the pregnant women that got it who didn't and amongst the babies that got them in a clinical antibodies and who didn't and I mean it speaks for itself on your question about what is a vaccine what is the definition of a vaccine in my opinion you know a vaccine what what makes something a vaccine is is really whether or not it falls within the framework of the what what are the traditional features of a vaccine and in my opinion those are one you you claim either truthfully or not it stops transmission true you give it immunity to

liability three you say you need to get it to protect yourself to me that's what makes something a vaccine because it falls within the rubric of what's uh the what i consider to be the problem so to speak with these products which is the lack of market force is protecting them and the regulatory one-sidedness and and covid vaccines whether they're j and jvac's whether they're novaks whether the mrnas fall into directly that rubric if they would have put the MRNA product and they said it's not a vaccine and they would have said, no, this is a gene therapy, and they wouldn't have given it immunity, and they wouldn't have mandated, and it wouldn't have given it.

Then, yeah, I think it would have been, you wouldn't think of it as a vaccine, but that's not what they did. And, you know, I can make an argument for why Tetanus vaccine shouldn't be a vaccine. Why? It's for something that's not even transmissible. How about protusses vaccine? It's like the opposite of a vaccine. It actually makes, I mean, you know, it has the opposite effect, right? So a lot of these vaccines are only personal protection.

Well, does that mean they're not vaccines? What makes them common? It's the features I just said. So to me, as long as they gave them immunity liability and they create that regulatory structure, that is what makes it a vaccine, whether you like it or not, whether you want to call it something else or not. I mean, that is the, that's the box of the problem in my mind. We talked today about how CDC and FDA pushes this message and certain doctors.

We know that there are some federal funding that comes with it, but we heard some testimonies that insurance industry also involved in promotion of certain shots. And my understanding is, ideally, it's what you said, like, market should regulate it. So if they see better health outcome and less spending, they should be promoting it. But in this situation, it looks like counterintuitive. So they should see that health outcome in their statistics is getting worse. But they still incentivize doctors to keep, high rates of keeping vaccination rates high.

So I wonder if there are some additional findings, if you are aware that comes to insurance companies to do that, or if there are some disconnect that doesn't allow them to see, like, what product is helping population and what product is not. Yeah, I mean, if reducing injuries from vaccines would help improve the profitability of insurance companies, then yeah, I think they might have an interest in what you just said in looking at that issue. But it wouldn't, as far as I understand the insurance industry. First of all, the federal government vaccine for children's program basically getting, guarantees payment for anybody who can't pay for a vaccine.

So these insurance companies are guaranteed to get paid and they're guaranteed to get reimbursed with federal dollars. There's also some state programs. About 50% I think between federal and state programs of vaccines are paid for with public money, something like that. So the insurance company, that's guaranteed payment, right? They know they're going to get paid. They don't have to worry about that, period.

Separately, my understanding, and you really should talk to insurance experts about this, but, you know, they have, depending on the state, because insurance law is obviously state-dependent, it varies by states, but, you know, they make a profit margin, basically, you know, a certain kind of often regulated profit margin. So in some ways, the more that you have to pay for insurance, the more that medical care needs to be provided, the greater the premiums. And as long as the market will bear it, it actually ends up resulting in a greater increase in the percentage that they can make. But I'm no insurance expert. You know, that's my, that's what I, I've been told,

but you should verify that with somebody who actually was looked at this directly. I'm giving you secondhand information that I, that you shouldn't rely upon for that point. But yeah, I'll add this to. You said one other thing I forgot to address. Absolutely, that the insurance companies are sitting on the, on data that could help elucidate the injuries caused by these products. They are sitting on, we talked about earlier the ICD-9 and now 10 codes. And so within every, for each person that they insure, especially if it's a captive pay environment,

meaning if the insurer is also providing the medical care like a Kaiser, right, then they have presumably really good data for every person in their network. They can really do comparisons, good comparisons between those who have gotten the product and those who haven't since seeing the health outcomes. But I'm not really sure they're in the business of doing that. So we had an infectious disease doctor in here testifying before us. And he made a statement, and I don't know if the committee remembers, but when we're talking about the COVID vaccine, et cetera,

and he said within the next five years, he believes the cancer rates will rise exponentially. And based on some of the information you showed in your previous slide, I think that your data may support some of that. Well, let's hope he's wrong. Do you think there's any pathway for that getting that data, because I never really thought of that. That would be, gosh, that would be everything that we would need to know because, of course,

especially the largest insurers in the country, you know, whether it be Blue Cross Blue Shield or etna or whatever the largest are. And, you know, this is something obviously you need to talk to ledge counsel about, but, I mean, could you pass a law that says that they have to publicly disclose de-identified copies of all their ICD, 10, and nine data of at least all New Hampshire residents. I like that. Just make it publicly available and the scientists do studies. So, you know, we were going through informed consent and, you know, I said eight questions.

The seventh was maybe you have a religious objection. The good news is that right now there's, there were six states where there were only medical exemptions, but now there's five because Mississippi has a federal judge has ordered in Law Street that we were grateful to be able to bring, has ordered that Mississippi restore a religious exemption in the same way that, you know, if you can keep Walmart open during the pandemic, you should let churches stay open. If you can have a secular exemption to vaccines to attend school, then you should be able to have a religious one. And the judge agreed with that. That's the tanned and fault.

and so forth, the Supreme Court precedent. COVID has brought certainly some good precedents in that regard, and we're thankful for that. So, you know, Mississippi has affirmed that, and we're bringing that same case in West Virginia right now, and we've got cases in other states as well. So our hope is to, you know, restore the right to inform consent,

even if it's just on a religious basis, at least everybody should have the ability to make that choice. They shouldn't have to adopt what I'm, would consider to be often the beliefs, and they are beliefs, no different than any religious beliefs, that you will often hear about these products. You'll hear this. I believe in vaccines. They'll say, vaccines are the only thing that can save us from the pandemic. I thought that was the kind of language usually reserved for, you know, for God and so forth. The only person that can save us. Apparently, it was only the vaccines, and you heard that all the time. Some

people found that to be even offense to their core beliefs. Again, nobody should be coerced to abandon their beliefs or the beliefs of health authorities. And the last question is, can your doctor exercise true independent medical judgment when it comes to these products? And I think we've seen a lot today about why that potentially may not be the case. And in particular, when it comes to medical exemptions, and this is a true problem nationally, which that medical exemptions should be like all other medicine. It's based on clinical judgment. You let the doctor decide. Most of medicine involves clinical judgment. You go into your doctor, you refuse your symptoms, and he makes a judgment, or she makes a judgment call. What medicine prescribes you, whether you should

get a medicine, not get a medicine. Medicine, to be sure, involves a lot of science, but it also involves a lot of art. And that involves making a judgment call that we let doctors do every single day for virtually every single medical procedure that you get. But when it comes to vaccines, that's pretty much the only arena that I'm aware of where we tell the doctor, states literally tell the doctor, no, you don't get to exercise medical judgment. You want to grant a medical exemption. It must meet the CDC's contradiction of proclosure list, a narrow policy-based list of what is or is not a contraindication and precaution. It should not be that way. And I urge all states to address that issue. So, you know, wrapping it up, what's informed consent. Again, you get informed, then you decide

what are the consent. And at the end of the day, you should, if the state should not compel above that. And this is my last slide. It's my own tweet. How about that? It's my PIN tweet because it's my favorite one, and I'll read it to you. It says, mandate to the tool of bullies, criminals, and dictators. A patient refuses a medical product after being conveyed its benefits and risk, then that is called informed consent. They were informed and did not consent. Mandating over this objection is immoral and the liberal. And let me really drive this point home, because I mean this, and I, you know, I think of all the issues that we confront in society, this is probably one of the most important civil rights issue that we're going to face going into the next few decades, okay, because your body

is the commodity of pharmaceutical sales. Literally your body is, right? Your body, your children's bodies are. And throughout history, you know, to be sure freedoms, we talked about this earlier, they come with their own risk. Freedom of speech comes with risk, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, right? They can be risky. People can say things that are wrong. You looked at the website earlier that gave wrong information. Yeah, sure, it can lead people astray. But throughout history, when we look at what has caused the most harm in humanity, in my opinion, the greatest harm humanity has always been governments that believe that they know better than you how to live your life and that it was a dictator it was a king it was a central authority that was going to decide for you

what you can or cannot do that has wrought more destruction and harm throughout history on on on the world more than any pestilence or disease and and when you look back through the course of history and we and you know one of the wonderful things especially as the principles of this country have developed over the last 200 something years is we're come to understand that principle here. And I think up until recently, it was a basic part of, you know, the ethos in this country, which is that we protect the rights of even the most vile speech in order to protect the rights of everybody to have every speech, right?

We let the, you know, neo-Nazis walk through Skokke, Illinois, Jewish community, because protecting their speech, protect all of our speeches as reprehensible as we found that speech, right? As long as there's no violence is involved. We protect it. And, you know, how quickly that ethos was lost over the last few years, how quickly we abandoned the basic principle for a little bit of safety. And it was very scary for me personally to see happen. It was very hard when it went the other way as well.

But dictators and those throughout history, the resort to mandates, to censorship to bullies, always happens when what, when you can't convince on the merit. You think dictators immediately just start beating you? No. They first tell you what to do. It's only when you don't listen that they beat you. They mandate. They censor you. Put you in the gulag or whatever. Throw you out of your job, throw you out of school. They shun you. That is what dictators. That's what bullies do. We, in a free democracy, old school, liberal ideas, right? Versus being illiberal. Government should try to persuade us. on the merits. That's what you should do. Health authorities, take this vaccine, you should take it. It's great. It's safe, effective. Here's the data. But if they can't, and you say, no, that should be the end of the story. It should be true for masks. It should be true for everything. Because people are smart on a population level. You know why you need to resort to mandates? Because when there's real questions about safety and efficacy, that's why you need to resort to mandates. Because there's real issues. if there were no issues, you wouldn't need mandates.

So that's my, you know, that's my ideological bend and my bias in terms of these products, which is that, you know, if we let the pharmaceutical industry continue the lobbying efforts, I know they do on all 50 states to get rid of exemptions to get rid of to vaccines, to add more vaccines to the schedule. To first it was preschoolers, then it was elementary school, then it was high school, then it was college, then it was health care workers, then it's preschool teachers, right? Then during the pandemic now, it was going into a store. If that system could have, if that stuck during COVID, and thank God it didn't, there's no

doubt that you would load more products onto it. Why not? Right? Think about it. It's a mandated, guaranteed market, liability-free. Why wouldn't you add more products to it? It would be silly from a business perspective not to. And for all those out there who say, well, I love vaccines and I love masks and I love all those products.

Great. You should free to get them. But if everybody doesn't stand up and say the line is you can't mandate it, the day will come when maybe there's a product that that person doesn't want. and now they can't get a job or go out of their home. So what rights do they have left? Right? So now they're home. They can't get a job.

They can't go to school. They can't participate in civil society. So they got a right to freedom of speech by themselves, assembly by themselves, religion to the wall. That's why I really believe that this is such a critical civil rights issue, this idea that the government can tell you what you must inject or put on your body to participate in civil society. whatever dangers it might present not wearing a mask, the greater danger is letting the government have that authority because I don't think that it will stop. And if you're going to do it, at least remove the liability protection. It's incredible that the most, the products that have the most protections in terms of

to be able to sue pharmaceutical companies are the ones that you would mandate. So in any event, that's in terms of New Hampshire's approach. to COVID vaccine, which is far better than most states, and to be commended for that, for sure. That would be my, what I would testify to in terms of thoughts going forward, in terms of reflecting back on what did happen during COVID, and in the future, in terms of what should be thought of as the primary issue to avoid, which really don't mandate, just let people choose. Thank you. So I agree with your assessment on pro-parole of government and civil liberties,

but we hear from the opposite side that we need to consider benefit to society, and if too many people experience symptoms and get sick, it put too much pressure, for example, on medical industry. And similarly, one example is smoking and indoor smoking, people used to smoke inside New Hampshire State House, but now government stops it so you don't get secondhand smoking here. So the same argument that sometimes some government intervention and some government intervention and some mandate is needed to prevent pressure, for example, on medical industry. I appreciate those two comments, actually.

I think they're great points, and let me address both of them. In terms of the first one, the idea that, well, we have to reduce the burden on the medical care system. First of all, if you accept that argument, I want to remind you that the number one killer during the entire pandemic was not COVID in America. Number one killer was heart disease. It was heart disease. That was the greatest burden on our medical system. So is the argument that in order to reduce the burden on the medical system, we're now allowed to mandate statins?

Should we allow to mandate exercise? Should we allow to mandate folks from eating too much saturated fat? I mean, if you're going to argue that we could take away civil liberties in order to reduce the burden on the medical system, then I don't, then, then there's nothing that the government really can't mandate. Again, I'll say it again, absolutely. There might be some harms in giving people freedoms, right? Maybe it's true.

Maybe it would have been a bit more of a burden on the medical system if we let people choose the COVID vaccine. Remember, it doesn't mean you can't get it. It just means for those that don't want it, you can't coerce them. That's what it means. Persuade them. If it's so great, if the product is so good, then why can't you persuade people to take it? Do I need to persuade you to eat, to drink water, to go to sleep? No, why?

Because there's really no question about safety and efficacy. You don't need to mandate me to engage in basic functions. And if the medical intervention is going to be one that really will have cost benefit, that's par better, then wonderful. Persuade on the merits. This idea that you have to crush civil liberties in order to protect the medical system is a very dangerous slippery slope. And I don't think it holds up to scrutiny because what it does is it means that they can mandate anything. Second, I do not view prohibiting smoking the same as mandating a product.

That is saying you can't do something. That's totally different. You can't equate saying you can't smoke in the state house building with you must get an injection of this product into your body. to come into the state house building. Or you must wear, you must wear a mask on your face to come into the state health building. They're not the same at all, in my opinion at all. One does not require me to do anything. Sure, it prohibits me from doing something in a certain environment,

but you can't equate the infringement on civil individual rights between those two actions. I just, I had a couple questions just, I know you must be familiar. and I'm on the CDC website right now in regards with the COVID-19 vaccines. So you have the 2023, 2024 formula for ages, six months to 11 years. But that formula, even though it's weird because all the documents that go with it, and I've been reading them since I've been here, are all say that they, they still have EUA on it, even though then they say authorized. So they're not, they're still using, of course, the EUA formula. So it's not approved, correct, for that group, six months to 11 years?

Yeah, it depends. Yes. So depending on the age and the product and whether you're talking about the initial version, the bi-valent version, the new updated version, some are EUA. A, authorized, and then some are licensed. And some are now being basically treated like a flu shot. I'm sure you're aware of that, where they're going to update it now annually and release it. Essentially, if you look at the guidance, we're going to have a new COVID vaccine every year at this point. It's going to be treated like a flu shot, and they're now developing a single dose flu plus COVID vaccine that they're intending to give to everybody. Yes, I'm familiar with that dual shot. And so I just, when we were going through some stuff here in New Hampshire, in regards with, you know, mandates that were coming down really from, you know, what we consider private business, even though, you know, hospitals, you know, they're open to the public. They're taking in tons of government money. You know, I know that argument. There's not really any such thing as a private business anymore. But one of the, the

largest hospital in the state sent out a memo to all of their employees because there, a lot of the arguments were, you know, this is not a, it's EUA. So it is, of course, you know, it hasn't been approved yet. And the CEO of the hospital sent this out to the employees. And it stated, hey, you don't have to worry about it anymore. this was when, and I can't pronounce it, Comerity, or... I call it Comerati. Everybody pronounced it differently.

Okay, Comerati had been approved. But lo and behold, that got approved, but there weren't any of them. And there weren't any of them that were going to be out and be ready to be injected in anybody's arms for months. And that wasn't talked about at all. So it was kind of like, oh, you don't have to worry about it anymore. Everybody that's concerned, you know, it has been authorized. Go get it.

But when they were going to go get it to be able to keep their jobs, they were actually still getting the same exact thing. So, you know, I just, that, I mean, misinformation lies in a sense to encourage people to have that uptick was really for the medical, for all these health care workers was huge. Did you see that type of things happen? happening because you're in Arizona. That happened a lot in New Hampshire, especially in our, in our medical field. It happened across the entire country because the CMS mandate, the federal CMS mandate on health care workers was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you remember, there were

two cases that went up, the oath one, which we filed it on behalf of a car dealership that had more than 100 employees, where all the other car dealers were less than 100 employees. We were one of the cases up in the Supreme Court of the oath, but I didn't. And then there was the CMS case, which we weren't involved with. And then the CMS case, the Supreme Court upheld that mandate on health care workers. You know, when you think about what I was saying earlier about religious beliefs with regards to these products, here is the medical profession for a product they knew and not stop transmission, nonetheless. And was saying can't over it in the health care system was willing to throw out doctors, nurses, and health care professionals over a product that was at best personal

protection. I mean, you know, it requires a leap of faith to do that because they don't, it makes no logical sense. It's not logical. You know, it only makes sense if you're making emotional belief-based decisions that don't comport with, you know, just reason, logic, or evidence. So, yes, we did see that all over the country. Now, the, the CMS mandate did not annul the potential to get a Title VII religious exemption under federal law. So Title VII requires employers nationally to give accommodations for religious beliefs. And different states and different employers were more or less accommodating during the pandemic. Our firm helped hundreds, thousands, I don't know, the exact number.

Thousands overall, I don't know how many of our health care workers can get exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates on Title VII grounds, on religious objection grounds, often because of interaction with the border fetal cells, despite the Washington Post's claim from December of a number of years ago. So, yeah, we did see that. And I would suggest to you that a potential solution could be that if you wanted to, if there were a New Hampshire law that said that upon the receipt of a relationship, religious, an exemption for religious accommodation, it cannot be questioned, that it just must be accepted, then that would create the exceptions in that scenario for those medical health care workers.

Actually, in Arizona, Bill went all the way, went through on that, and I believe it ended up getting unfortunately vetoed by the governor, but it did pass to create what I just said, to protect those health care workers who wanted to make evidence-based decisions. Are you familiar with any cases and do any people have standing who actually tried to get medical exemptions and were denied when they could show that they were actually verifiable, I mean, religious exemptions, such as for the aborted fetal cells, et cetera? Oh, yeah. Oh, we have lots of cases. So obviously our case against the, the Air Force and the Army. We didn't do the Navy or the Marines. We did the Air Force and Army,

and we got injunctions in both those cases for individuals in both branches, the military, who on religious grounds, did not want a vaccine. We represent, we also have an employment practice at the firm, and our employment practice is heavily focused on representing individuals who have been fired for a fusing COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. Actually, that's almost all our cases. We have numerous class actions against employers around the country. They're all Title VII. cases and obviously we brought the case in Mississippi to restore religious exemption so we do a lot of work in that area i mean listen the first freedom under the constitution in the bill of rights in the first amendment and the first freedom in the first amendment is the freedom of religion right i mean that is

what this country's founded on was the idea that you can come here and you can live out your convictions and you know back back when that amendment was written you know religion was something far broader i think the most americans think of it today people think of religion today as like sunday but really back then it was your it was um it was how you lived your life right it was you be able to come to this country and be able to live your convictions right and and and and that's not just going to church on sunday that's being able to live my convictions and as a free person not have the government crush them and so you know if i'm you know somebody should be able to say look you guys are treating this product like it's you know like it's a deity i mean you know if i'm going to attribute you

properties to something that it doesn't have, you know, I could say, well, look at this product subs transmission when it doesn't. I mean, I'm not saying that's idol worship, but I'm saying that, I'm saying that, you know, it's akin to taking something that's just an inanimate object and giving it properties it doesn't have and saying this is the only thing that will save us. Some people say, that's not where my convictions lie. believe in something else. And she should be able to do that without, you know, penalty and, and, and punishment. So people, I know there are people in the state. I know there are people in other states who were fired and had asked for religious exemptions. What should they do? Okay. So,

without giving legal advice to anybody individually, okay, just speaking generally, if you have, if somebody has, for example, sought a religious exemption. They have a limited period of time to file with the EEOC, which is the, or the state equivalent of the EEOC in whatever state they're in, a claim for religious discrimination. They don't do that. Unfortunately, they could be barred from then bringing a claim. The EOC or the state equivalent typically has six months to then investigate

and they will then issue a decision on whether they believe there has or has not been discrimination. At that point, there's often a potential discussion with the employer and the counsel for the employee. And if they can't resolve it, the employee gets a right to sue letter and a case is brought in federal court. And like I mentioned, we have cases like that around the country. We even have it against pharmaceutical companies who fired employees for refusing religious exemptions are some interesting cases. So absolutely. I mean, employees should be well aware that Title VII. protects their right to have a religious, to live their faith, to live their beliefs.

And if they have a religious objection to vaccination, Title VII requires their employer to provide them a reasonable accommodation, which was thankfully recently clarified the U.S. Supreme Court to be, you know, they really have to try and accommodate those individuals. I mean, some of the folks that got fired are so ridiculous that we represent, like, they work from home. they work from home and they were fired because they wouldn't get a co-vaccine. I mean, you want to talk about religious beliefs. Wow. That requires an amazing level of belief, ideology.

I don't know what you want to call it. So unfortunately, these products can't just be treated as products because that's what they are. I can assure you they were not given to Moses at Sinai. They are just products. And, you know, and unfortunately, I think for some folks, they have taken the place of something to believe in. you know, they maybe don't have a lot of things that. And so, you know, they really, they believe in these products in a way that people have religion in other areas of life.

And I see it all the time. People get very upset and worked up when they talk about these products very quickly, even though they're just products. I'd love to see people get that excited about, you know, some other products. Anyway, please, sorry. Thank you. Seeing any other questions? 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. And I thank you. Yes. Call this meeting adjourned. What an amazing testimony there by Aaron's series. It's so much fun to watch how he puts the story together, how he uses facts. I've, too, have learned so much from working with him over the last, you know, seven years now. Truly spectacular, and it's interesting, isn't it, just the lens of looking back on what happened there. And remember, you know, we can never forget. We really

cannot forget this history, or we will be doomed to repeat it. Our government told us that they rushed a product on the market. They promised us it would stop transmission. In fact, went beyond that they shamed us if we didn't protect our neighbor by taking it. When that didn't work, they started taking away our jobs. They took our way, our ability to travel, and in many cases took our ability to go into restaurants and sit with each other and then made those that didn't think this vaccine had been properly tested or didn't think it worked. We became the scourge of the earth. We must never forget that those of us that stood our ground, We were right. We were right. The vaccine didn't stop transmission. It did increase blood clotting and all sorts of myocarditis and paracyditis and many, many other issues, which are just becoming apparent now. But this story today was about transmission. And really, what is a vaccine if it can't stop transmission? Don't forget, they change the definition during COVID of what a vaccine is because when we grew up at kids, it meant that I get a vaccine.

It means I cannot catch the disease, therefore I cannot transmit the disease. And then they really got specific in recent years of saying, you're going to protect that individual that's too sick as cancer or too old that they can't vaccinate. We put a cocoon around them. Well, what good is a cocoon of people that just spread and transmit the disease and don't know they have it? In fact, it makes it worse. They don't stay at home, they run around, and they infect everybody. The definition of the vaccine was changed because it was a total and complete failure.

Instead of admitting that, they changed our language and our understanding of the science. That is what happens when the government is in charge of truth. This is why our founding fathers were so brilliant when they said, do not ever let them touch the First Amendment. We didn't make it the Second Amendment, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth, the 10th, the 20th. We made it number one. Number one, government must never. be trusted with your words. Your words must always remain free. The news and the media must

always remain skeptical. It should never be paid for by your government. You should make sure that it is challenging the industries and the governments that are out there. And in the case of COVID, they censored doctors. They censored scientists. They changed the story. They rewrote definitions. They took drugs away that were working. It is one of the most demented moments. in American history. It must never be forgotten. But let's also remember in this holiday season as we go into the new year that this has been an amazing year. And I guess as we look at it, God is everything, I suppose. For some reason, I can tell you, as I've spent a little bit of time in West Palm, around some of the people like Bobby Kennedy and those that are trying to imagine,

you know, a new government, or maybe the way the government was supposed to be working from the get-go. So many people sit around and say, you know what? God must have had a hand in this. Because without that pandemic, even the Trump team, some of the people said this to me, you know, Donald Trump wouldn't have been the same Donald Trump if he just got reelected. He wouldn't have been able to do the same things. You wouldn't have had the same mandate. It seems like the American people needed to see what it felt like and looked like to live under an authoritarian regime that literally shuts down your church. but keeps your bars open, shuts down your business, but keeps the Walmart open.

We went through that together. Maybe it was God, maybe it was evil, but the world has changed for the better. Let's continue to make sure that we are on the rise, that we as humanity are the phoenix coming out of the ashes of insanity. It's time for America to soar and fly and lead the rest of the world to the greatness that our people are capable of. That is my wish for this new year. Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, to everyone out there.

Whatever you celebrate, this is a time to celebrate humanity. We're winning. Let's keep winning next year, and I'll see you in that year on the High Wire.