The Highwire with Del Bigtree - “FEDERAL HEALTH AGENCIES AND THE COVID CARTEL: WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?” ROUNDTABLE

Episode Date: March 6, 2024

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and a panel of experts share testimony on how the COVID Cartel – federal health agencies, Big Pharma, Legacy Media, and Big Tech – engaged in censorship and coverups. This discussion will also shine light on the failures and corruption of the global elite and their institutions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Members of the audience and in particular the participants who have journeyed a long ways in many cases and spent some time and effort preparing for this. In preparing for this event, I was reminded of Lewis Brandeis' quote in the Supreme Court decision, Whitney v. California. To quote him, if there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not in force silence. I think that quote is completely applicable to what's been happening over the last three, four years during the pandemic. To me, the COVID pandemic has opened my eyes to the failure and corruption of the global elite and their institutions, including government. Unfortunately, many eyes remain closed, and the global.

elite will use all of their power to keep them closed. They maintain power by controlling information. They relentlessly push their narrative while at the same time suppressing and marginalizing dissident voices. In this case, they overhyped fear over a virus they helped create in order to push a profitable gene therapy platform and gain greater control over our lives. Along the way, they sabotage early. treatment, denied natural immunity and vaccine injuries, caused trillions of dollars of economic devastation, and destroyed an untold number of people's lives. Unfortunately, they remain in control. Today, I've assembled some of the dissident voices. Many have paid a heavy price for exercising their right to free

speech to offer a different perspective, a perspective that was not allowed. Some on the pot, panel will be familiar to the audience. Some will be new faces. They come from diverse backgrounds, but they all share one attribute. Their eyes have been opened, and once opened, they will not be closed. The title for today's event is federal health agencies and the COVID cartel. My eyes have been opened over the last several years, as I became aware of certain facts that have largely been suppressed, as well as policies pushed by the elite that made no sense to me, and were contrary to the common good. Two weeks ago, I received an email with an all-too-common story of heartbreak and despair.

It was from a young man whose 36-year-old wife's periods stopped within a couple of weeks of receiving her second COVID vaccine. They were recently married and planned on having children. I recommended they contact the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, FLCCC, one of the few groups of doctors attempting to treat vaccine injuries. Let me quote from his last email to me. Quote, we had already gotten COVID in February 2020. Alas, unless they can bring her ovaries back to life, I'm not sure Dr. Corey can help. It breaks my heart.

She chose career, got the baby family bug, and now she can't have children. She cries all the time. Apologize to me like it's her fault. Someone needs to make them pay, and we need safe. so that this doesn't happen again." That pretty well sums up the purpose of today's public event, exposing the truth of what happened and holding people accountable, so we can prevent a travesty like this from ever happening again. Now, I'm sure the response from the COVID cartel would be something like, quote,

Senator, fertility problems and 36-year-old women are very common, unquote. Just like former NIH Director Francis Collins told me when I asked about all the deaths being reported on veers, quote, Senator, people die, unquote. The fact that both of these statements are as true as they are callous highlights the challenge we face in exposing the truth. On Thursday, February 15th, the House Select Committee on the coronavirus pandemic held a public hearing on the COVID vaccine. The subcommittee was not on what I would consider a fact-finding mission.

Instead, its purpose appeared to be rehabilitating, federal health agencies that have lost the trust of many Americans and reinforcing the mantra is that the vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccine injuries are rare, that benefits outweigh the risk, and that the science is clear and overwhelming. And anyone challenging this narrative is an anti-science conspiracy theorist. In other words, second opinions are not allowed. To me, this attitude is the antithesis of

science. True scientific inquiry starts with skepticism, challenging what we think we know, but might not be so. I believe the growing corruption of science, scientific research, medical journals, federal health agencies, and as a result, the practice of medicine, has been exposed in the failed response to the pandemic. To repair the damage that has been done, we must honestly and relentlessly pursue the truth. I am grateful to today's participants and to all the those who are fiercely doing just that. One final point. I am amazed at the knowledge mankind has obtained over the millennia, but I would argue that what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know. So as we pursue truth, we must pursue it with the humility that that reality

demands. Now, that's my opening statement. The title of this hearing is, what are they hiding? My own evidence of that is, for example, over 60 oversight letters that I have written to the federal health agencies. This is just a small number covering two issues, hot lots and the standard operating procedures of their analysis on theirs. But some of my first oversight letters were prompted by the emails that were released under FOIA in June of 2021. These are Anthony Fauci's emails. Again, they were released under FOIA. In other words, somebody had to go to court. Even though members of Congress, we have the right to see these things.

Somebody had to take them to court. once they released about 4,000 pages, we requested unredacted versions of these things on June 11, 2021. By July, we received basically the same 4,000 redacted pages. In September 2021, we requested only 400 of the 4,000. We narrowed our request. In October 2021 through January 2022, they allowed us to look at 50 pages at a time, and we narrowed. in a reading room. We couldn't take copies, we could just take notes. We are down to the last 50 pages. They will not release these. It's been now going close to two years. This is what has been provided to us.

Do you think there might be some incriminating information in this? Now again, these are government documents. This is government, federal, federal records. This should be made available to Congress. This should be made made available to the American public, but it is not. So that's the Fauci emails. My letters on hotlots, I've written four of them, starting in December of 2021, the first letter compared 25,000 lots of COVID vaccine to 22,000 lots of flu vaccine. One COVID lot had 5,297 adverse reactions associated with it. The worst flu lot had 137. So 5,3,3,000. So 5,3,000. 300 versus 137. 365 COVID lots had more than 100 adverse events.

Only 10 flu lots had more than 100. And 80% of the serious adverse events, those with emergency room visits, hospitalization or death, were associated with only 5% of lots. So again, to me, I'm from manufacturing. That shows, to me, a manufacturing process out of control. It took us a year to get some kind of response and basically response from the agencies was, we don't see any variation in lots.

Okay. On January 29, 2001, shortly after the emergency use authorization, the FDA and CDC issued a standing operating procedure on their VAIRS analysis. They were going to do what they call proportional reporting ratios. I've written eight letters to the agencies on this. First of all, the CDC said the PRR wasn't done. Then later on somebody in some context admitted that they were done. So we contact them about that contradiction. They admit, okay, we did them.

But what we're really doing is we're going to rely on a much better analysis empirical basian data mining. But we don't do it. The FDA does it. So the runaround continued, and so we go to the FDA. To this day, we have not received any of the empirical basian analysis that they said they're relying on. Why not? What are they hiding? Again, we pay their salaries, we fund their agencies, we fund these studies, the American

people have a right to know, and they're not being given that knowledge. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Malone is a Maryland licensed physician and science with over 30 years of experience in the biotech and biodefense industry, federal contracting, regulatory affairs, and project management. He is a named inventor on nine U.S. patents covering the initial invention and use of MRNA as a drug for vaccines. Dr. Malone. Thank you, Senator. I'll be succinct. The SARS COB2 modified MRNA-based vaccine products were deployed via emergency use authorization without adequate non-clinical and clinical testing and without full disclosure of known patient risk and efficacy

data. This violated, well-established, legislatively mandated patient-informed consent requirements. The FDA and HHS justified these actions as necessary due to reliance on deeply flawed modeling data, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an infection fatality rate of 3.4 percent. 3.4 out of every 100 people in the COVID-2. infected would die. That was what the modeling was. That was the justification. Subsequent clinical research experience has revealed a number of problems with the genetic vaccine technology-based SARS-CoV-2 products, which have been marketed as vaccines. In most cases, there has been an effort to obscure or deny facts in public communication by government and pharmaceutical industry

representatives. These inconvenient facts include the following. First, the modified MRNA and adenoviral vector products employ cutting-edge gene therapy and gene delivery technologies and should be regulated as gene therapy products. Number two, these quote, leaky products did not prevent infection, replication, and spread of SARS-CoB-2. and indiscriminate mass administration of these products contributed to evolution of more antibody-resistant viral strains. In contrast, number three, to official HHS communications, these products distribute throughout the body after injection and are not localized to injection site and associated draining lymph nodes. This wide distribution contributes to product toxicity and risk. Number four, the viral, quote, spike protein, which these products cause patients' bodies to manufacture, is a genetically engineered toxin.

Number five, the lipid nanoparticle formulation used to deliver the modified MRNA has intrinsic toxicity in humans. Number six, these products do not deliver natural messenger RNA, but rather a synthetic, chemically modified form with extended stability, which causes the body to produce, quote, frame-shifted, unnatural, unintended proteins in addition to the spike protein. And number seven, these products are contaminated with previously undisclosed short DNA fragments, which are also delivered into tissues and cells of patients, and which may damage patients' genomes. That concludes my testimony.

Dr. Malone, I think one of the things that always bothers me is so much of what we're learning in terms of the harms of these vaccines was clearly known before they were rolled out. You kind of went over a list of a number of things, but what was known before it ever got the emergency use authorization? We have the artifactual evidence of what was known in the form of the Pfizer common technical document that was first obtained by Byron Bridal from the Japanese. It was prevented from being distributed by the US FDA. And it revealed extensive understanding that we had this widespread biodistribution of these products, that they caused the encoded protein.

protein to be manufactured in virtually every major tissue throughout the body. It was known that there was strong inflammatory and toxic reactions associated with these lipid nanoparticles. This is fundamental knowledge. It was in the field of these cationic-based lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. It was known that these particles will deliver both RNA and DNA into cells and tissues. It was known that the modification, the pseudo-uridine, altered the immune response to the RNA. That's the whole reason why the incorporation of pseudo-uridine was performed. It was known that the pseudo-uridine would increase the longevity of these products, that this was not natural RNA. It was not known and not investigated as to whether or not these products

would be, quote, shed. It was not known and not investigated whether or not these products would cause reproductive toxicity, whether they would be secreted in body fluids, a number of things that should have been investigated under normal FDA protocols and procedures, not the least of which is characterization of the contamination or adulteration of the short DNA fragments which are intrinsic to the manufacturing process and which in prior FDA regulations have always been considered to be a risk for a form of genome toxicity called insertional mutagenesis. Let me ask because you obviously did a lot of development of the MRNA platform.

It had always failed, correct? And can you describe when it was tested? Again, it seems like it could be a marvelous invention, and it could be used for specific applications, but why was it never successfully rolled out before the pandemic? So that's a good question, and it's a complex, tortured pathway having to do with politics, patents, different companies, their financial interests,

and academia. there was basically a lag prior between the initial discoveries and when the accelerated development was largely sponsored by DARPA that had to do with the patent half-life. So when the patents were finally expired that had originally been filed in 1989 and 1990, then there was a rapid increase in development effort, but repeated failures in terms of the toxicology, inflammatory responses, and inadequate immune responses. There has been major... Let me just stop right there. So what you're saying is they noticed that this caused inflammation.

They noticed that it was not particularly effective. So they knew this from previous testing in different applications. This didn't come as a surprise to any of it. Correct. So it didn't come as a surprise to you. Correct. But I was, when I called colleagues early on, I was reassured, including Peter Culles, at the University of British Columbia, who really should have received the Nobel Prize.

I was reassured that these issues had been addressed, that these particles would remain localized at the site of injection. It turns out that was, let's say, a triumph of hope over data. Wasn't that a lie? Yeah, I think that's... I mean, if they'd are... already done the bi-distribution studies in Japan knew this. They knew it was going to bi-distribute, accumulate in every organ of the body. They knew that the vaccine would not stay in the arm, would not stay localized, and that these inflammatory responses and all the

other problems of DNA would be an issue. Correct. And what's fascinating about that is that the FDA allowed the use of the least sensitive method to detect that distribution. This is a akin to some of the artifacts that Dr. McCurnan has found in the DNA analysis. So the FDA knowingly allowed the least sensitive method, and I actually had a Zoom teleconference with Dr. Marks to discuss this and was reassured that the new data package, which is the one that was blocked by the courts for 70 years, demonstrated that there was no risks and I should not be concerned about these things. So I actually attempted to communicate

to the FDA and Peter Marks about my concerns and about the meaning of the data and the apparent use of a least sensitive method to analyze the distribution and I was, you know, casually dismissed. Thank Dr. Malone. Our next participant is Dr. Jessica Rose. She has a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics, master's in medicine, immunology, PhD in computational biology, and postdoctorals in molecular biology and biochemistry. She is currently an independent researcher and scientific writers sharing her work on our website and substack platforms, and so does Dr. Malone, a lot of the participants here, are using that platform to be able to speak freely. Dr. Rose, you apparently like school a lot better than I did, but please go ahead.

I'd like to thank Senator Johnson for this incredible opportunity to speak today. It is in fact a third invitation extended to me, but only the first that I could attend due to draconian impositions on freedom of movement that we've all been subjected to over the past four years. Thank you all for attending and caring so much about each other and injured. Today I speak for the people injured by the COVID-19 injectable products through VERS data. Analysis of the Various pharmacovigilance database in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products has revealed strong emergent safety signals from myocarditis to death that are not being acknowledged by the owners of the data. This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the question, why are the injured being hidden?

Fact, the Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess causality in epidemiological data, such as the various pharmacovigilance system. fact the proportional reporting ratio is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug if the pr r is greater than one a causal effect is indicated fact the pr r calculation for death from veres in the context of the covid-19 shots using current ver's data is 3.6 fact the underreported number of deaths successfully filed to veres by january 20th 2020 was 634. Based on historical guidelines, this was sufficient as a signal, not only to prompt an investigation, but to shut down the rollout of the COVID-19 shots. Fact. In 1999, a rhodovirus vaccine designed to prevent rotovirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an interception signal emanating from theirs, which comprised 584 cases. question if 584 cases of interception were enough to prompt product removal then why weren't 634 cases of death not enough to prompt COVID-19 product removal fact the early death count was hidden fact currently 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VERS in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products with a staggering 1,615,919,000. 442 reports filed in 2021 alone when considering both the foreign and domestic data sets.

The number of adverse events reported to the domestic VERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average 39,000 in total per year and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in direct proportion to the increasing number of vaccine products on the market. See slide one. In 2021, however, a 14707. percent increase in reporting occurred whereby 93% of these reports were in the context of the COVID-19 products. Fact. Age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting. Since administration of the COVID-19 products to the zero-to-four age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been increasing faster than for any other age group. Fact. The argument that this spike protein, the spike in reporting spike protein, this spike in reporting is due to increased shot,

administration is false. Slide two shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 injectable products in 2019 and 2021 respectively. On the left are the total adverse events. On the right are the deaths. The COVID-19 injectable products are associated with a 26 and a 100-fold increase in total adverse events and deaths, respectively, when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame. Fact. The Bradford Hill Criterion

and reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear. A strong correlation of R equals 0.8 and a high covariance exist between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to our world in

data, new vaccination data, and VERS data respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis report. See slide 3A. Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion specificity is satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Dose 2 is associated with a fourfold increase in reporting of myocarditis in 15-year-old boys. This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender.

See slide 3B. Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater interest. of the effect following dose two, an increase in signal occurs. See slide 3B. Fact, myocarditis is not transient or mild. A new paper published by Rose et al in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety shows that myocarditis is associated with hospitalization in 76% of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criteria that are satisfiable. That's a 10 out of 10, Bingo. Conclusion, standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals

emergent from VERS, when utilized, reveal causal links between the COVID-19 injectable products and the adverse events investigated. Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products. Thank you. Dr. Rose, I'm not a doctor, so when you're talking about the incidents associated with the rotavirus, what condition was that that you're comparing

the deaths of the COVID vaccine to? Into seception. It's folding over of the bowel, so it was kind of directly contradictory to the whole point of giving the product. So again, a serious adverse event, but not death. No, exactly. And so there were how many of those instances? As 600.

Yeah, and right now we're up to almost 37,000 deaths worldwide with the COVID-19 vaccine. 24.4% of those are occurring on the day of vaccination within one or two days. Yep. And nothing to see here, right? Which is another Broadford Hill criteria temporality. So some things I've read in terms of your work, you've talked about the IGG4 phenomenon here with the multiple injections. Can you talk a little bit about what that means to immunity? Right.

So one of the things that blew my mind was when they started talking about repeat boosters because, I mean, anybody who knows a little bit about immunology will start to think tolerance. And it's now published in the literature that there's an inversion of a subclass of immunoglobulin G called IgG4, which is associated with tolerance and subsequently autoimmunity, being reported in the context of the Pfizer and the Moderna shots after repeat injections. This is no surprise. It's based on repeat antigen exposure, the antigen being the proteins that are being produced by the body,

by the host cells that are transfected with this technology. I'm not saying spike protein on purpose because it's not probably not full-length spike protein being produced by the host cells, but bits, sometimes potentially aberrant proteins off target. We'll get to that. But just to kind of close out this, those are antibodies that, for example, you have an allergy. Your allergist is going to try and boost those because that reduces your immune response to it, right? So these are normally present as a fractional percentage in your body, and they're up to what percent? It's something like 20.

Like there's a total inversion. So that's exactly. So the vaccines are basically producing an antibody that the body uses to suppress your immune response to an antigen. That's right. And more exposure means, well, maybe it's not one-to-one, but your tolerance level is going to go up. So you don't want to become tolerant to something that's supposed to be something your body is fighting. Which explains why people who've gotten multiple boosters are getting COVID time and time and time again, potentially. Well, I think I would put my money on that. Absolutely.

We've only got a couple seconds left. Do you want to talk about the DNA contamination and the, well, Kevin will be doing that? I'm going to leave that to Kevin. Then we'll move on. Our next participant is Mr. Ed Dowd. Mr. Dowd is currently a founding partner of finance technology, spelled a pH. He has worked on Wall Street most of his career for firms such as HSBC, Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette, independence investments, and most notably at BlackRock as a portfolio manager where he managed a $14 billion growth equity portfolio for 10 years.

Mr. Dallad. Thank you, Senator Johnson. A pleasure to be here in an honor. At Finance Technologies, which was founded in June of 2022, we've been tracking excess deaths, disabilities and injuries across the globe, mostly Western nations, but today I'm going to speak to the U.S. And we're going to talk about our estimated human and economic costs of the pandemic policy. since 2021. Here's my statement.

The US government, along with the WHO, declared a pandemic in 2020 and a number of policy responses that we were told would slow the spread of COVID-19 and allow us to come up with a vaccine in record time, dubbed Operation Warp Speed. The 2020 policy responses included societal lockdowns, masking, and social distancing. In 2021, we began the rollout of a vaccine solution

that was predominantly a novel MRI-based technology with the vendors predominantly being Pfizer and Moderna. This solution had never undergone human trials prior to 2020 and was approved under an EUA in late 2020 within record time for a vaccine and a noticeably short trial period. The government deemed these products safe and effective and told the nation they prevent you from getting and transmitting COVID-19. These statements have since been proven false. It has become clear that the U.S. government, along with the health regulators, do not desire an honest

accounting of these policies that were imposed mostly under federal mandates. I will predominantly focus on the human and economic cost since the beginning of 2021, which if they were favorable to the current regime, you would be hearing them scream these results from the rooftops. I will focus on three buckets which we break down as excess deaths, access disabilities and lost work time, in other words, injuries. When analyzing the excess death human costs, it's interesting to note that in 2020, there were approximately 458,000 excess deaths, of which 73% were aged 65 and older, and 15 to 64, comprising just 27%.

Note, we were told in 2020 that the COVID-19 risk of death was primarily in the older populations. However, in 2021, with the rollout of the quote-unquote safe and effective vaccine, there were approximately another 500,000 excess deaths, but a mixed shift had occurred from older to younger. In 2021, the 65 plus age category was 57%. Remember, it was 73% in 2020 of the total, while the 15 to 64 cohort increased to 43%. The absolute excess death increased from 20 to 21 for the productive working age 15 to 64 was 73%. So in 2020, 124,000 people perished excessively, and then in 2021 it rose to 215,000, 73,000. For a virus that kills old people, this mix shift is an epic failure for the so-called vaccine solution. The total excess deaths since the rollout of the vaccine in the U.S., including 21, 22, and 23, is approximately 1.1 million.

We estimate the economic cost of productive working age people dying at 15.6 billion. When analyzing disabilities, it is interesting to note that there were no excess disabilities in 2020. Using the civilian labor force, we have calculated an increase of 2.3 million individuals with disabilities costing the economy an estimated $77 billion. We want to note that the excess disability number for total population 16 plus is 3.5 million. When analyzing lost work time, which we call injuries, we estimate 28.4 million individuals are chronically absent resulting in an estimated economic cost of $135 billion since 2021. Work time loss peaked in 2022 at 67% above the 2019 timeframe and has since dropped to 22% in 2023,

so there has been improvement, but it's still standard deviations above the long-term trend. To sum up the post-pendemic policy scorecard since 2021, excess deaths, 1.1 million total, with 300,000 in the 15 to 64 age group for total costs of 15.6 billion. excess disabilities 2.3 million, 3.5 million for total population. Estimated cost 77 billion. Excess lost work time, 28.4 million individuals. Estimated costs, 135 billion. Total human cost is 33 million, and total economic cost, 227 million. 33 million is about 10% of the U.S. population. If you assume it's vaccine-related, that's 13% of the vaccinated population, if you assume

25% did not get the vaccine. It should be noted that this compares to 458,000 excess deaths, zero access disabilities, and a total economic cost of $50 billion for 2020. Obviously, the policy cure was undeniably worse than the illness. We had financed technologies understand that there may be many co-factors in these results, but we believe the vaccine introduction is predominantly responsible for what we were calling the post-pendemic policy scorecard. The blame of the vaccine could be put to rest of studies were conducted of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. Independently of whether it's the vaccine or not, as a nation, we should all collectively want to know what is actually causing these tragic health results.

However, the silence by the health authorities and the U.S. government strongly suggest they know the answer to that question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dow. Again, you're a finance guy, you're a numbers guy, you're not a doctor. And one of the reasons you step forward is because our federal agencies aren't transparent. They're not conducting the studies. They simply don't want to know, in my mind. So you threw out a lot of numbers there.

First of all, can you just talk about the quality of your data? Again, as you heard with my oversight letters, they're not providing their analysis of their veers, you know, their safety surveillance systems. So now people like you and there are other people that are just taking a look at death statistics or disability statistics. Those take a while to be published. But talk about just the quality and really the indisputable nature of the data that you've used to come up with this analysis. Yes, so we've calculated excess deaths, disabilities and injuries.

Excess deaths, we wrote methodology papers and how we calculate them. Three different methods, we prefer the second method. These can be compared to the actuarial tables from the insurance industry, which saw similar excess death in their group life policy. So these excess deaths are undeniable. What is going on currently is certain governments are now changing how they calculate these numbers. The ONS just announced a change to the calculation methodology for their excess death number, which reduces obviously the excess deaths because they like that result better.

We suspected that might happen, so that's why we wrote our methodology papers and published it in September of 2022. and the actuarial tables that the insurance companies use haven't changed. So excess deaths are continuing. The insurance companies are seeing the same excess mortality, especially in the working age population. So these deaths are undeniable. You can't hide the dead bodies, unfortunately.

So again, you publish all your information on your website. Was it One America? Was that the insurance company? It's kind of the first revelation of this. Was an insurance company out of Indiana? Well, one America, a CEO, Scott Davis in a chamber of commerce meeting revealed that he had seen 40% excess mortality in the millennial age group, 25 through 44. And even as high, actually for 25 through 64. And he said that's 10% increase to be once in a 200-year flood or a three-standard evasion event.

40% was off the charts, just off the charts. And we haven't really heard anything since that point in time other than from people like you. Because we tried helping you get insurance data and we were just pretty well blocked. The insurance company, they did not want to cooperate with us and provide us their information. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah. So what they're doing is, unfortunately, there's still a lot of controversy in the insurance industry where a lot of people don't even want to look at the vaccine issue.

A lot of these CEOs mandated, got the job themselves, so we're in a state of denial. They have raised prices in group life policy, so the losses are less now. Losses will be coming in whole-life policies due to Byzantine accounting dynamic. So we expect to see reserves taken once they lower their long-term mortality assumptions, or raise their long-term mortality assumptions, I should say. And we'll see losses start running through their P&Ls this year next. With it, I have whistleblowers, and there's been. discussions at board level meetings about the continued excess mortality, and they dance around

every issue except the vaccine. Not mentioned. So again, you talked about an awful lot of numbers, but my big takeaway is that what you found out is in working age population, there was just an extraordinary increase in excess deaths and disabilities starting in 2021. Not 2020 during the pandemic before we had a vaccine, but after the vaccine rollout? I mean, is that pretty much your conclusion? That's correct, and that's my thesis as to why the vaccine causes. There was a huge mix shift from Ulta Young, starting in 21. Disabilities weren't apparent in 2020.

And if you look at the disability numbers, and you can drill down into them, the rate of change for the employed in our country in disabilities between 2021 and 2023 was 38%. So that was a rate of change increase at 38%. versus the general U.S. population, which has benign, and not in labor force, only 4%. So I encourage everybody to go look at his data, and it's indisputable, basically. So thank you, Mr. Dowd. Thank you. Next participant is Mr. Kevin McCurton.

Mr. McCurton is a former team leader of research and development for the Human Genome Project at Whitehead Institute slash MIT. He is an inventor of the Solid Sequencer, founder of Agincourt Biosciences and medicinal genomics. He has 60,000 citations and dozens of genomic patents. Mr. McKeonan. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Very much appreciate you giving us this audience. Many of this audience have been subjected to years of censorship on this topic. What I want to talk to you today is about the DNA contamination that our team at medicinal genomics discovered in the MRNA vaccines. We're specifically speaking about Pfizer and Moderna in this case. This work has been replicated by many

labs around the world, and now the FDA, the EMA, and even Health Canada have admitted to this. The regulatory agents have admitted that Pfizer also omitted the SP40 sequences that are in their vaccine. They've deemed this contamination to be of little consequence, claiming the DNA is of too little concentration to matter, or to be containing DNA of no functional consequence. These statements are false and are not supported by any independent testing by these regulators. After the regulators have admitted to being deceived, they asked the opinion of the party that deceived them, how bad was the deception? They shockingly believe the answer they were given, which is that these sequences have no relevance to plasma manufacturing. As someone who has worked on the Human Genome Project manufacturing millions of plasmen, I can assure you that this is an overt lie.

DNA contamination can lead to insertional mutagenesis. This is actually declared in Moderna's own patents regarding MRNA vaccines. This is U.S. patent 10,898-574. This is also supported by Lim at all, which speaks to the rate of spontaneous integration in the genome during transfection. We are using transfection, after all, with L&Ps. The SV40 DNA is in fact functional.

It is published as a potent gene therapy tool in a nuclear targeting sequence, as described by David Dean at all. The SV40 promoter DNA is also known to bind to the tumor suppressor gene, known as P53. This is described by Drayman at all. The DNA contains the promoter for the antibiotic resistance gene in this plasmid as well. No plasmid manufacturing can occur without a promoter for the antibiotic resistance gene,

so it is clearly functional and key to plasmid manufacturing despite the FDA's comments on this topic. The DNA quantity in many vials is over the 10 nanogram per dose limit, but it does vary substantially between lots. When we use both QPCR and fluorometry, these two tools give us different answers. This should be a concern that they're allowed to cherry pick between these different tools. Moderna's own patents, U.S. patent 10,000-77439, teaches that QPCR underestimates the quantity of this contamination, and the DNA regulators are once again allowing them to cherry-pick between these different measurement tools.

DNA guidelines used to be a thousandfold lower before the NCBI Act was established, which provided liability protection for pharmaceutical companies. The limits were devised based on the 10-minute half-life of DNA in the blood, naked DNA in the blood. This DNA contamination is not naked. It's protected in lipid nanoparticles, which delivers this DNA to cells, which should arguably have limits set to the ones prior to the NCVIA. We have since found Pfizer lots 1F-1042A that are at least tenfold over any lot we've

measured before with QPCR, which is known to underestimate this quantity. For those not familiar with PCR, you may have received CT scores of 35 that called you positive for COVID, we're seeing CT scores of 13 on the DNA that you're injecting into children. We've applied these vaccine system cancer cell lines and of evidence that it enters the cell and can survive several cell divisions. We have preliminary evidence, although this requires replication in other labs, that this DNA can integrate into the genome. We found two spike sequence integration events in ovarian cancer cell lines of CAR-3 into chromosome 12 and 19 very recently. Since these vaccines were expected to only contain MRNA, they were never assessed for

genotoxicity studies. These studies are therefore being conducted as guinea-pigued U.S. citizens, as we witnessed an unprecedented rise in cancer drug sales since the vaccines rolled out. In summary, the vaccine manufacturers own patents teach that the methods being used to monitor this DNA are not fit for purpose. Their patents teach the insertion mutagenesis risks present in L&P-based MRI vaccines. The only people who are in denial of these facts are the regulators who are routinely hired to work. for these very pharmaceutical companies. Two of these regulators resigned over the wanton approval of these vaccines for young patients who do not benefit from them. It is time for our representatives to repeal or review the Padufa Act of 1992.

This act allows regulators to defray the costs of regulation by accepting payments directly from the companies they regulate. Over half of the FDA's budget is sourced through this act. They cannot be voted into office, they cannot be voted out, but they can approve dangerous library-free, mandated vaccines, mandated vaccines, these policies have harmed the public torn our country part as immune nurses are forced to choose between their jobs and useless and even dangerous vaccines. DNA contamination was not port of any informed consent process, and many universities still mandate these shots based on the guidance and approval of regulators who have become nothing less than a marketing division of the companies they regulate.

Thank you for the time. So Mr. McCurin, in layman's terms, what is the danger of this DNA contamination? I know fact checkers said it can't get into the cell, can't get into the nucleus, address that for us, if you would. So, yes, the fact checkers have been continually wrong throughout the last year this has gone on. They initially claimed this could not get into the cells. First, they claimed it wasn't there. Now the FDA and the regulators have admitted it's in fact there. Then they claimed it wouldn't get into the cells.

We've now shown that, in fact, that is the case, as expected. Anything that's inside of a lipid nanoparticle, one would expect to get into a cell. Now that we're starting to see early signs of DNA integration, you know, the DNA alone may not be the cause of cancer. I think it may be a contributor. Usually cancer requires a multiple hit hypothesis. You need to have weakened immune systems like lymphocytopenia, which these shots do deliver. You might need some suppression from P53 or Bracka 1, which there are publications showing that the spike protein suppresses those genes. And if you added an increased metagenesis rate, well, all three of those things can create a perfect storm. that may be driving the cancer that we're currently seeing. The FDA does allow a certain level,

certain percentage of DNA in normal vaccines. This is different type of DNA, though, correct? That is a very good point. I'm glad you brought that up. So those regulations were written when vaccines were grown in eggs and in other cell cultures, where the contaminating DNA was genomic DNA

of the cell line that was present in the vector of the host. This is a very high copy number of DNA of a gene therapy vector, which has these nuclear targeting sequences and has DNA in it that replicates inside of a million cells. So when it gets into the cell, it can make more of itself. That's a very different contamination than what they considered when they wrote those 10 nanogram

regulations. They also wrote those 10-nanagram regulations under the pretense of a 10-minute half-life of naked DNA in the blood, and we now have that DNA protected in lipid nanoparticles. And, of course, they have raised those guidelines over the last decade, a thousand-fold. So we've really come to, I think, the end of the road of how much DNA we can tolerate, considering the tools we have to monitor and measure this have never been faster, better, or cheaper. You mentioned the term half-life. One thing I don't think we've brought up yet is how long this MRNA is lasting the body.

Again, we were told and we assumed that this is going to stay in the arm and be dissolved because MRNA is just so delicate that it was going to be not present in the body past a couple days. But now we have studies that it's been in the body for at least two months, and we haven't studied beyond that, correct? You can just address that, and does that have a component that's DNA contamination? It does. So many of the studies that are looking at this,

I'll name a few. Krausen et al looked at this in the heart and found it 30 days out in the heart. Hannah et al found this in breast milk. I think they went out a week on that study. Castoruda looked at this in plasma. It was out 28 days. And I think outside of that,

we're recently seeing it in pregnant women inside of placenta, which is a real serious concern. And many of those studies do not differentiate between RNA or DNA. So it could be a combination of both of these things that are contributing to that signal. But DNA is certainly more stable than RNA. They have made modifications to this RNA that makes it last longer, but I think the verdict is still out as to which one has more longevity. Again, thank you, Mr. McCurney.

Our next participant is Dr. David Gortler. Dr. Gortler is a former senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner, a former career FDA medical officer, and former professional of pharmacology at the Wartler. Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Gortler. Thank you, Senator. So if my slides can be displayed, there we go. So I'm going to be focusing my time talking about ingredient transparency. Federal rules requiring ingredient transparency date all the way back, believe it or not,

to 1862. It's the whole reason the FDA was started in 1906 with the Pure Food and Drug Act. Prior to COVID-RNA injections, the FDA, had approved four different RNA-based products. On Patro, shown here, was the first RNA product approved back in 2018. So as you can see, by looking at this label, On Patro prominently details the exact structure, milligram strength, and molecular weight. Highlighted in green at the very top, you'll see, it specifies lipid nanoparticles are engineered for, quote, delivery to hepatocytes.

Although macrolipid preparations are nothing new to pharmacology, lipid nanoparticles are quite new. In fact, the entire combination of nanotechnology with medicine is something which is extremely new. Even though the writing is small, you can still see all FDA-approved RNA drugs all specify fundamentals like molecular weight, and you can see the structure. This way, providers know exactly what they're giving, and consumers know exactly what they're getting. Next slide. This is just a brief slide to show that detail structures are routinely and consistently provided across the board in FDA labeling. The FDA labeling also referred to as the package insert is the owner's manual and is the ultimate authority for what is contained in the drug.

Every FDA approved drug has one. Also routinely specified are the discrete specifications of which are the active versus inactive ingredients. Having ingredient specificity is important not only for consumers, but also for researchers who analyze ingredients in the list against the contents. Verified structures can also potentially allow pharmacologists to use computers or cells or tissues in the laboratory to scientifically model what a drug could do. Next slide. So in contrast to the previous labels I've shown, here is the official FDA label for COVID-RNA injections. As you can see, just looking at it, it details a lot less information. We don't have the structure.

We don't have the molecular weight, et cetera. Although both drugs do specify a dose of 30 micrograms for Pfizer and 50 micrograms for Moderna, we don't know why those doses are different if they're supposedly encoding the same thing, which is the sequence for the spike protein. Regarding the lipid nanoparticle doses, it does specify that there are a total of four different lipid nanoparticles used, but it's unclear if they are either active or the inactive ingredients. We also don't have evidence of anything talking about the standalone safety of lipid nanoparticles, nor do we know the structures, the concentration, or the dose.

The lack of transparency means that scientists can't use modeling to tested lipid nanoparticles for safety receptor specificity or analyze inequality. Of note, in pharmacology, even very minor deviations in any molecular structure can mean the difference between a drug and a poison. Next slide. Small molecule drugs can be analyzed very easily for purity, but complex molecules like COVID-R-NA drugs and its high-tech lipid nanoparticles need specific validated processes of how they're supposed to be checked.

Unfortunately, around 70 percent of the 127-page document that explains the method of the method to perform quality control on RNA injections are redacted, much like the document I'm shown here. The B4 annotations you see in the gray areas, they are there, too, according to the FDA's website, quote, protect trade secrets, and confidential commercial or financial information. Now, I've got no problem calling out the FDA when I think they're wrong. But to be exact, I don't know if it's the FDA who's at fault here. I don't know if the FDA was just a little bit over-caffeinated when it came to making redactions, or if there was some sort of codicil within the PEP Act that broadly gave manufacturers

confidentiality to redact whatever they want. So to answer your question, Senator, the title of this meeting, I don't know where they're hiding, and I don't know if it's manufacturers or the FDA, but I'm inclined. to say that it's actually the manufacturers. The critical question is, though, should even a single word be redacted if it's funded with billions of taxpayer dollars? And that brings me to my next and final slide.

Drug safety and ingredient transparency are inherently nonpartisan, non-political notions. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, but both the Trump and the Biden White Houses have called for transparency on COVID shots. The question is, why do we even need to ask for it? How can ethical physicians and pharmacists continue to administer and promote these injections without a full disclosure of what the ingredients are?

On top of all that, manufacturers were funded with billions of taxpayer dollars, including Moderna and Pfizer-slash-N biotech. Since taxpayers funded the private for-profit research, why don't we have 100% transparency on what we paid for? Thank you, Senator Johnson for letting me be part of the panel. and Nina Schaefer and Roger Severino at the Heritage Foundation for the opportunity to present here today. These opinions are my own. I also want to thank Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute for courageously publishing my articles on COVID when few others would. Thank you, Dr. Gortler. As a former FDA employee, you seem, I think, justifiably so, pretty outraged by what your former agency is doing here. Can you just kind of,

describe your feelings from that standpoint? Well, all we're asking for, my area of study, what I've dedicated the last 20 years of my life to, is drug safety. And all we're really asking for is just more specificity of what the ingredients are, what's considered an active ingredient, what's considered an inactive ingredient, nothing more.

This is completely non-political. Everybody wants safe drugs. So why do you think the FDA is leaving out this important information that they require for every other RNA? drug? Well, to be sure, I'm not, like I said, I have no problem calling out the FDA when I think they've done something wrong, but it's not 100% clear if it's the FDA that just overdid it with the redactions or if it was something that was required by the PEP Act, if there was some sort of confidentiality. But the problem is if the taxpayers had funded it, I think there should be, especially because we funded for-profit companies to be able to manufacture this. I think there should be, I think we should have full transparency, especially of the ingredients,

at the very, very minimum. The one chart you had where you showed the redactions looked an awful lot like Fauci emails to me. But again, my assumption is that the FDA's primary roles to protect the public, not Big Pharma. Do you want to comment? I understand how some documents have to be redacted. There's some stuff that goes on with the Pentagon and the, and the, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, I understand. the military, which I don't know about, and we don't have to know about. But when it comes to medicines medicines, medicines, medications that were mandated that we take, I, I don't think

there should be any redaction. They're protected by patents. Why not provide the information? Because we paid for it. Exactly. You mentioned lipid nanoparticles. Expand on that a little bit more. So the lipid nanoparticles, I would refer to Robert Malone to talk more about that, but they're an essential component of it. But they're also a cutting edge. something which are a brand new area of pharmacology.

The mixture of nanotechnology in medicine is something which is relatively brand new. And nanoparticles act differently in the body than simple small molecule pharmacology. Because of their nanosize, which translates to 100 millionth of one millimeter, that defines a nanoparticle, I don't know if they can be detected.

And of course, we don't know if there's only a small change in the structure, in the sequence, which we don't have, it can be the difference between something which is toxic and something which is non-toxic. Just for an example, there's one drug out there, a drug called tetracycline, which every pharmacist and every physician has ever heard of. It has a molecular weight of about 480 dalton's grams per mole. If you make one change to that, if you redact one, if you let it dry out and 1-0-H-1, group is removed from tetracycline, it becomes toxic. It turns into anhydrotechicline

or epinehydro tetracycline, and it completely changes it from a fully therapeutic drug to something which can cause Fancone syndrome and kidney failure. Now, I mentioned it was about 400 and 400 Dalton's, which probably doesn't mean a lot to a lot of people here, but the size of just a sequence, not getting into the lipid nanoparticles, the sequence for RNA, is somewhere between 1,000 or 6,000 times that size. And I don't know because I don't know what the exact sequence is because it's not listed in the label. So it's my understanding that the lipid nanoparchal was designed

to permeate, difficult permeate barriers. That kind of goes back to the lies we were all told that this injection is going to stay in the arm, be destroyed very quickly, wants to produce the antibodies, and everything is going to be just fine. But the fact that they knew, that they were using a carrier that was designed to permeate difficult, like the blood-brain barrier, like the placental barrier.

Is that part of your concern here? Well, part of the concern is, to answer your question briefly, yes. And because we know for On Prado and other RNA-type drugs, some of those lipid nanoparticles were tuned. They were specially engineered to enter hepatocytes. But we don't know, because we don't know the structure, and we don't know the tuning of these lipid nanoparticles, and we don't know if there's any standalone safety with them. We don't know if they were specially tuned to enter hepatocytes or cardiac tissue or brain tissue or uterine tissue or any of those there.

That's the bottom line, the pharma company should have known and certainly the American public should know. And none of those things may be true. So thanks, Dr. Gortler. Thank you. Our next participant is Dr. Harvey Rish. Dr. Rish is a professor emeritus of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, an outspoken proponent of early COVID treatment and critical and objective scientific thought throughout the pandemic.

Dr. Rish. Thank you, Senator. I'm talking today about what I consider the crushingly obsessive push to COVID-vaccinate every living person on the planet. So we all know, circumstantially at least, that the virus that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in fall 2019. The initial cases paralleled the Wuhan subway line 2, which passes by the WIV. The virus contains a unique 19 nucleotide genetic sequence that also exists in Moderna patents from 2017, and various other biological and spy intelligence information evidence that overwhelmingly implicates the WIV as the source of the leak.

So this virus, the COVID-19 pandemic virus, exists because because it was bioengineered. The WIB scientists used Ralph Barrack's genetic manipulation techniques, technology, at their insecure BSL2 lab. So this was reckless work at the WIV that was funded by NIH through the DASHAC EcoHe Money Laundry, as well as by large DOD and USAID grants. Now, this work and the WIV leak was what I consider to be the fruit of our bio-weapons industry that has been performing secretive and nefarious biological weapons development

for the last 70 years. The recognition of the possible accidental or intention on leashing of an infectious agent capable of killing large numbers of humanity led to the Bio-Weapons Treaty of 1975 that President Ford signed. The treaty prohibits the development of offensive bio-weapons. However, the one loophole in the treaty is that small quantities of offensive bioweapons are allowed to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures. Now, this loophole was then exploited by our bio-weapons industry for the last 50 years.

The Bio-Weapons Treaty limited offensive bio-weapons to agents that would address the military. vaccine development, so-called dual-use agents or dual-use research. And this was the premise and motivation of the various virology grant applications like diffuse and so on, submitted to DOD and NIH funders. This was the permitted rationale for the development of offensive bio-weapons in that it would lead to work on vaccine countermeasures. Now fast forward to 2019. billions of dollars spent on the bio-weapons industry over the past decades for all of this work

on offensive bio-weapons, where are the successful commercial vaccines to show for it? So there's been lots of vaccine research that's been carried out for known harmful organisms, but minimally, if at all, for these gain-of-function bioweapons agents. And for COVID, it took a year of shoddy research to produce and test the first batch of commercial vaccines for SARS-CoB-2. And how is a year delay even remotely acceptable for a military defense against a bioweapon that spreads across populations in weeks? A year to develop a vaccine for pandemics that occur in waves in weeks.

And these vaccines are supposed to be deployed before a pandemic occurs, not in the middle of one. So my hypothesis, what I believe, is that both the virus-origin cover-up and the forced vaccination of the entire planet were orchestrated to protect the integrity of the bio-weapons industry. Once the general public understood the reckless and cavalier behavior of this industry that had operated under a false and misrepresented pretense of vaccine development that has never been successfully – commercially realized, it would then clamor to shut down the industry. And so the suppression of knowledge of the industry's reckless involvement in the Wuhan leak is an obvious cover. And we have proof of that cover-up from the FOIA documents involving Fauci Collins, Jeremy

Ferrarra, and others. And my conclusion, then, is the reason why the whole population had to be vaccinated is to show that the bio-weapons industry supposedly did have a rationale of vaccine development as part of its claimed dual-use research. The vaccines then are the evidence that the bio-weapons industry was properly justified from the beginning. Without a successful vaccine to show for itself in the time of a pandemic crisis, especially one caused by a leak from a bioweapons industry source itself,

it would be clear to everyone that the rationale for the industry's existence was a fraud in the first place. And so the COVID vaccines themselves supplied the defense against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual use, but offensive only violating the 1975 treaty. So the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good. And in this context, it did not matter what collateral damage the vaccines caused. All there had to be was the public thinking, public thought of this theater that the industry had been doing its work to produce usable vaccines, not offensive bio-weapons. Thank you, Dr. Rish. So the rationale, of course, of the bio industry there is that if others are developing bio-weapons,

don't we need countermeasures? In order to develop the countermeasures, we need to create an illimited quantity of bioweapons. I mean, can you just address that justification? Well, this goes to my sarcastic comment about disproportionality, that from a military perspective, if one is attacked by, a bio-weapons agent, then why would one have to respond with a bioweapons agent? One could respond with economic warfare, conventional weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, if it was that bad, that we have at our disposal a whole range of responses and to launch

an untested bioweapon as a response where we might not even be able to protect ourselves from blowback from that agent, to me it's insane, that there's no rational reason. There's a very interesting chart in Robert F. Kennedy's new book, The Wuhan Coverup, and we were all, and I've talked about Fauci's emails where he funded Peter Dasick's EcoHealth Alliance to the tune of about $15,16 million. What I did not realize is the Department of Defense funded EcoHealth Alliance to the tune of $42 million. and USAID, which RFK Jr. says is pretty much a CIA cutout. I don't dispute that, funded to the tune of $53.6 million. So it kind of confirms what you're talking about in terms of what the justification was.

One of the countermeasures you didn't mention, but the way we met was in 2020 talking about early treatment. As long as an epidemiologist, can you talk about that fact? I mean, we relied everything on vaccines for the reasons that you've assumed. But just going along with that was the sabotage of early treatment. Well, during the time of the suppression of early treatment, hydroxychloricine and later iraemectin, I thought it was to protect the marketplace for the vaccines, other medications or the vaccines that would eventually come out. But now, given what I've said, I think the suppression was that if those medications

solve the pandemic, then the vaccines wouldn't have been needed, and then the bioweapons treaty would come back in force, and there would be no rationale that the vaccines were the end product of the offensive bioweapons research. So they had to be suppressed for the same reason. So again, you've come up with an assumption based on the fact that so much has happened hasn't made any sense whatsoever. And I've heard that time and time again from people, you know, fighting in the medical freedom movement.

And it's just like this thing, none of this makes sense, so you have to start coming up with different theories. That is true. I mean, I haven't been inside the room of anywhere where they told me all of this, but there's very little that makes sense. And you have to think, if you were doing this work and you know you're the CIA or you're the WHO or whoever has been pulling the puppet strings, that you're going to look really bad when stuff that you've done that is kind of nefarious, but you've gotten away with it,

suddenly comes into public view, and now the public's saying, yeah, but we weren't supposed to be doing this in the first place, and look at the damage that this has caused because you couldn't contain it. You promised you would contain it at the worst, and you didn't contain it. And you need to protect your billion dollars

worth of grants and funding that you get every year as well. Okay. That's right. Thank you, Dr. Rish. Our next participant is Ms. Barbara Lowe Fisher. She is co-founder and president of the Charitable National Vaccine Information Center established in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children. Ms. Fisher.

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for this opportunity to talk about how vaccine victims have been blamed, shamed, and betrayed over the years by doctors and scientists paid by federal agencies and industries and by some members of Congress, working especially since 2019 with political, operatives and corporate media to silence anyone who criticizes vaccine science, policy, and law so the truth can be hidden, and public conversations about vaccine risks and failures can be shut down. Today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated, and was never healthy again. Of all developed nations in the world, America has the worst infant and maternal mortality rates

and is home to the most highly vaccinated, but the sickest and most disabled child and young adult populations. That inconvenient truth, that failing public health report card, bankrupting our nation, is central to what we are talking about here today. Demonization of and discrimination against those who decline to get a government recommended vaccine or talk publicly about how they or a loved one were injured or died after vaccination has been going on since the 19th century. But what is happening in the 21st century, in the name of disease control, national security, and the greater good is escalation of an historic denial of vaccine risks and failures that has become a dangerous assault on freedom of thought, speech, and conscience. and poses a grave threat to the biological integrity and natural rights of the people. It has been 44 years since my two-year-old son was brain injured by his fourth DPT shot,

and 42 years since I watched the Emmy Award-winning documentary DPT Vaccine Roulette and then joined with other parents of pertussis vaccine injured children to establish the charity known today as the National Vaccine Information. Center at NVIC.org. Our mission is to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. We do not make vaccine use recommendations. We defend the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk-taking and the legal right for adults to make voluntary vaccine decisions for themselves and on behalf of

their minor children without being coerced or punished for the decision made. I worked with parents in Congress to secure safety and informed consent provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It was an historic law, the first official acknowledgement by government that federally licensed and state-mandated vaccines can and do injure and kill some children. On January 4, 2024, my eyewitness perspective of how and why child vaccine victims and their parents were betrayed after that law was passed 38 years ago, was featured in a two-hour conversation I had with Dale Bigtree on the high wire. I encourage everyone to watch it and learn how parents trusted that the five years of work we put into that 1986 act, to successfully secure life-saving, informing, recording, reporting, and research provisions in it, and to protect the legal right of vaccine victims to sue vaccine manufacturers for product design defects

and to sue negligent doctors for medical malpractice, and to create an expedited, more just, less traumatic, federal vaccine injury compensation system alternative to a lawsuit, were all destroyed by congressional amendments by federal health agencies and the U.S. Supreme Court after that law was passed. Following that betrayal of trust, Congress directed federal agencies to create lucrative public-private business partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, a business deal that has broken America's public health system. legislation enacted in the 1990s and after September 11, 2001, laid the groundwork for the rise of a public health empire, which is funded and operated by government and the wealthiest and most politically powerful individuals, corporations, and public and private institutions in the world. Now those operating that empire are threatening our legal right in this constitutional republic to exercise. freedom of thought, speech, and conscience.

Past is prologue. The betrayal of the public trust during the COVID pandemic could never have happened if many of the leaders we elected had not long ago abandoned rational thinking and succumbed to fear-based propaganda tactics, requiring us to give up the natural right to autonomy for an illusion of safety. Thank you, Ms. Fisher. By the way, I became aware of you from that excellent documentary, which I would also recommend. What struck me about that documentary is, you know, back then in 82 through 86, you could talk about these things.

You could advocate for your child who was vaccine injured. You weren't ostracized. You were actually welcomed here in the Senate by people like Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy. And you got this signed by Ronald Reagan under resistance. But can you just speak to what has changed in terms of the public attitude where there was public pressure to pass the bill that you shepherded through Congress to now where, again, I'm assuming you're not anti-VACs. I mean, we all have to say that, but we're concerned about things. But just talk about the difference between then and now. Yes.

Well, you know, it's an entirely different situation today than it was back then. We had congressional hearings. We had dozens of congressional hearings in the House. in the Senate on that 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. And the media covered it. They covered all of the aspects of what was going on. You know, I sat for more than 20 years as a consumer member

on the vaccine advisory committees at the FDA, the CDC, and the Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences. And this past summer, we have suffered such abuse of discrimination. And I- So again, just real quick, you were welcomed and serving on those panels back then. Yes. Now, the elite, you know, they are out to destroy you.

Yes. I mean, on November 1st, 2023, I submitted this report on censorship to the U.S. Judiciary Subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. This report is anchored with over 400 live-link references. It describes how officials at the highest levels of the U.S. Department of Health and Justice and Homeland Security, and even 17 members of the U.S. House of Representatives asked PayPal to defund the National Vaccine Information Center. They worked with political operatives and corporate legacy and social media to silence my voice and other voices for talking online about vaccine reactions and the fact that people who get vaccinated

can still get infected and transmit infection, which is true for the MRNA COVID vaccines, but it's also true for many of the 72 doses of 17 vaccines that the CDC now tells doctors to give to children starting on the first day of birth. And I believe because our organization, which really launched the vaccine safety and informed on the movement in America in 1982, we lobbied for 14 years to get a less toxic, a cellular pertussis vaccine in here, to replace wholesale pertussis vaccine in 1996. And we lobbied to get the live polio vaccine that can cause vaccine-streamed polio paralysis replaced by an inactive vaccine that does not.

And we have gone into the state legislatures, and we work through our MVICAavisci.org portal to educate the states on protecting the flexible medical, religious, and conscience belief exemptions, which are integral to the true exercise of informed consent. And I think because of that, we have been ostracized. Our voice has been silenced. We were thrown off of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter in the space of seven months in 2021. That was a censorship campaign that was condoned by the highest levels of government. And, you know, I never imagined when I began this work in 1982 that the day would come when I would not be able to exercise.

freedom of thought and conscience in the country I love, and I thank you for allowing me to exercise that right today. It was not only condoned at the highest level of governments, it was orchestrated by. Yes. Yes, it was. The administration. It was orchestrated by. But thank you, Ms. Fisher. Our next presenter is Dr. Brian Hooker. Dr. Hooker has been researching vaccine safety for the past 23 years. He co-authored the New York Times bestselling book Vax, Unvaxed, Let the Science Speak with Robert Candy Jr. Dr. Hooker. Thank you, Senator Johnson.

My name is Dr. Brian Hooker, and I am a vaccine safety scientist serving as a chief scientific officer of children's health defense. I'm also the father of a severely vaccine-injured adult son. Next slide, please. This slide shows the expansion of the infant-child vaccination schedule since 1960. as recommended by the CDC. Multivalent vaccines are counted based on the number of disease antigens. For example, the MMR vaccine counts as three doses. In 1962, children received five vaccine doses,

and in 1986, the schedule expanded to 25 doses of five different vaccine formulations. Shortly after the passage of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the law was amended to essentially erect a liability shield protecting vaccine manufacturers and the schedule expanded dramatically. By 2023, 73 doses of 16 different vaccine formulations were given to children up to age 18. The FDA approved these formulations individually only with minimal and inadequate safety testing and the CDC has never tested the cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule on childhood health outcomes. However,

independent researchers have assessed the outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Next slide, please. This slide shows the results of a paper that Neil Miller, a medical journalist and I, published in the journal Sage Open Medicine in 2020. Here, only vaccines given during the first year of life were considered. Any child who received one vaccine or more during the first year of life was considered vaccinated, and any child who received no vaccines during the first year of life was considered vaccinated. life was considered unvaccinated. Deidentified records were taken directly from three medical practices in different locations within the U.S. The odds ratios are likelihood of a diagnosis

is shown on the graphic. This demonstrates that vaccinated children were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, ear infections, and gastrointestinal disorders. The likelihood of an asthma diagnosis among the vaccinated group was 4.5 times higher than the unvaccinated group. Next slide, please. Affirming and extending these results is a study completed by Joy Garner of the control group that was published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research in 2022. Here, a control group of over 1,800 unvaccinated children recruited from 46 different

states in the U.S. were compared to the national average rates of the listed disorder. The national averages represent a population of children where 99.7% of the participants are vaccinated. Incidents of each disorder is shown as a percentage of each group of children on the graphic. For each of the autoimmune, neurodevelopmental, and other disorders considered the unvaccinated group fares much better with incidence rates between 4 and 20 times lower than their vaccinated counterparts. Next slide, please. This is a comparison of the myocarditis diagnosis rates following the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines given during the pandemic.

The first graphic on this slide is from a paper published by Mazari et al in the journal plus medicine in 2022. It shows the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis diagnoses within seven days of receiving either the first or second dose of the Moderna vaccine versus the unvaccinated control group, four males between 12 and 39 years of age. The second graphic on the slide is from a paper published by Mavorak at all in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. It shows the incidence of myocarditis within 30 days of receiving the second Pfizer vaccine in the general population as well as for 16 to 19-year-old boys compared to unvaccinated controls.

Myocarditis is a serious disorder, and 76% of all cases following COVID vaccination, as reported by VERS, requires emergency care and or hospitalization. CDC significantly downplays myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine. Vaccine injury is neither minor nor rare. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires that the Department of Health, and Human Services report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety in the U.S. every two years. It's been almost 40 years since the 1986 Act was passed, and HHS has never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress. Federal authorities are derelict in their duty to protect the people of the United States from debilitating and often life-changing vaccine adverse events. Thank you.

Dr. Harker, I became aware of you from an excellent documentary. I would also recommend Vaxed, that Mr. Big Tree also produced, or is part of. In there, you obviously are medical researcher and with a vaccine in your child, and you actually found a whistleblower inside the agency, but I want to give away the plot. Very, very excellent documentary, but difficult to watch. Right. Very difficult to watch. But in your research, I mean, are you aware of the fact,

Do the federal health agencies, do they have records of Vax versus unvaxed children? Absolutely, they have the records. The CDC has a database called the Vaccine Safety Data Link. It's over 10,000, 10 million, excuse me, individuals with 2 million children from 10 participating HMOs. There are vaccinated children. There are unvaccinated children. I would say that within that database, there are at least 10,000. unvaccinated children that can be studied. Do they publish the results of that information?

No. They do not publish the results. Neither do they let any independent scientists in to look at that information. They refuse to publish that results, and they really know why. It's because the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part responsible for the academic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the United States. We obviously find that the agencies are completely opaque and uncooperable with congressional oversight. It takes a court order, FOIA requests, that type of thing. What types of attempts have been made to obtain that data? I've submitted over 120 FOIA requests directly to the CDC.

There's a 12-step group for me, too. But I would say I have repeatedly foyered. I've actually gone through congressional representatives to get the vaccine safety data. data link itself. It is simply something that they will not do. They'd probably say you're just not persistent enough. Mr. McCarney has a question for you. Brian, can you explain the finances down there? Do they not sell vaccines at the CDC through a vaccine distribution program? Is there money coming into the CDC for this?

There's a tremendous amount. That's a really good question, Mr. McCernan. And they, the CDC buys and sells $5 billion worth of vaccines a year through the vaccines for children program. They also spend a half a billion dollars a year. That's $500 million a year advertising and through public relationship campaigns for vaccinations in general, as compared to a woeful budget of $50 million that is being used for vaccine safety every year. Dr. Kirk, have you looked at the cost or the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID vaccines and children? Now, this, to me, you know, there's limited information, and I bowed to Jessica Rose regarding VERS and her analysis.

But when I do the analysis, I see that for every one child that is saved from death, from COVID-19, there are 30 deaths, 30 child deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. So the risk-to-benefit ratio in terms of mortality is 30-to-1. The book you co-authored, Vaxed, Unvaxed, some of those charts are taken from that book. I always hear the statistics of dramatic increase in chronic diseases throughout our population. Right. Do you have a basic statistic on that?

The basic statistics around that, there was a lot of good work done by Joy Garner and the control group, the incidence of chronic illness, individual chronic illness, excluding obesity in the United States is now 27%. The incidence of multiple chronic disorders in the United States is around 6%. That is compared to a much lower percentage. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head of chronic diseases and disorders in the 1800 children that they looked at. So that's a dramatic increase.

Correct. And I think the question is, why can't we ask about it? What are our federal health agencies doing to research this? dramatic increase in chronic diseases? That's the $64 million question. And you can look at everything besides vaccines to answer that particular question. But you cannot look at vaccines. You're not able to access the vaccine safety data link, which has almost 30 years worth of research from these HMOs, and it should be open to the public. Yeah, we bought and paid for it. It's what the federal government owes to the American public. I thank Dr. Hooker. Our next

presenter is Mr. Dell Bigtree. Mr. Bigtree is the CEO of the nonprofit informed consent action network, which has won lawsuits against HHS, CDC, NIH, and FDA in the effort to bring transparency to the science of vaccination. He is also the host of the medical talk show of the Highwire. Mr. Bigtree. Senator Johnson, I want to thank you for this opportunity to be here. It's really an honor to be, you know, surrounded by so many talented, brilliant scientist, doctors, experts. I want to just want to approach this really from a journalist's perspective and a layman's perspective, which is what I have.

There's plenty of people here can give you reasons why. I just want to state the obvious, which is just this past week, news headlines described a massive study of 99 million people who received the COVID vaccine. The daily mail headline says it all. Largest COVID vaccine study ever finds shots are linked to small, increased risk of neurological blood and heart disorders. and it adds on to the title, but they are still extremely rare. Every article about the study went out of its way described the injuries as rare. But what does rare actually mean?

First slide. This is the graph that was in the Daily Mail's article. In terms of this study, what they're saying is rare includes a 3.78 times risk of swelling in the brain and spinal cord. This means you're increasing your risk of brain and spinal swelling by 378% over the rate. someone who didn't get the vaccine. There was also a 2.86 times risk of Guillambore syndrome, which is a paralysis, 6.10 times risk of myocarditis and a 6.91X risk of pericarditis swelling of the heart issues. The question no one in the media seems to be asking, I think, is if each of these potential injuries is rare, is it still rare when you add

them all together? Take the Moderna vaccine, for example. In the state, standard three-shot regimen, based on this study, a person is increasing their risk of brain and spinal swelling by 378% with the first shot. They're also adding a 348% risk of myocarditis with that same first shot, a 610% increase of myrocharditis for the second shot, and another 201% increased risk of myrocarotitis for the third shot. And these are just the adverse events that were the focus of the study. We're talking about cancer and all sorts of other things that we should be looking at.

When the CDC was creating the V-Safe app to track the health outcomes of the first 10 million people received the COVID vaccine, they had a list of adverse events of special interest. These were injuries that the CDC had reason to believe could be caused by the COVID vaccine. That list includes acute myocardial infarction, antifalactos, coagulopathy, death, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Kawasaki's disease, multisystem inflammatory disease, narcolepsy, seizures, convulsions, stroke and transverse myelitis. Now let's just assume that all these issues are rare. And since we know that the rare is currently being described, at least in this study, as anything between a 200% increase to a nearly 700% increased risk, then what is the actual risk when you add all these

potential adverse outcomes together? Further still, how high is the risk when you multiply all of these risks by five doses of the COVID vaccine? Are we still in the ballpark of rare? Now, imagine multiplying all of these known risks by 72 doses. Now you've just considered the amount of risk that every child is facing with the CDC recommended schedule. The CDC childhood schedule has been the focus of my nonprofit ICANN's work since the end of 2016 when it was founded. Through FOIA requests and lawsuits against our regulatory agencies, we've uncovered many inconvenient truths. Perhaps the most significant finding is that none of the 14 routine vaccines on the CDC recommended schedule, which are delivered in approximately 72 doses,

was ever put through a long-term double-blind placebo-based safety trial prior to licensure. Since this type of trial is really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe. We have skipped the study that would allow you to make that statement scientifically. Most people don't realize that there's a list of known side effects on the information sheet provided with every vaccine that is shipped. Here is just a partial list of printed adverse events for just one of the hepatitis B vaccines, Endericks B.

Here are the side effects. Herpesoster, meningitis, thrombocytopinia, anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity syndrome, athralgia, arthritis, urticaria, erythema multiform, encephalopathy, swelling of the brain, just like the COVID vaccine, multiple sclerosis, neuritis, hyposthesia, paristhia,

Guillain-Barre syndrome, paralysis, Bell's palsy, optic neuritis, paralysis, pericis, seizures, syncopate, transverse myelitis, conjunctivitis, carotitis, tinnitus, tachycardia, apnea, bronchospasms, including asthma-like symptoms, dyspepsia, alopecia, angioedema, eczema, and Stevens Johnson syndrome. That's just one vaccine. That vaccine manufacturer has all these side effects in the warning list because why? It is stipulated by the FDA that there is a reasonable belief that they are causally related to the vaccine. That's why they're there. They're not adding them just because they think they should because they have to. The warning label lists nearly 50 potential side effects, many of them serious, and that is just the first vaccine given to a baby on their first day of life. By the way, the safety study for that hepatitis B vaccine was only four days long and had no placebo comparison.

That is not science, that's insanity. We currently have a lawsuit trying to have that vaccine removed until they do proper safety testing. Every one of the childhood vaccines has a similar list of side effects. No, they are considered rare, how rare is it when you multiply roughly 50 potential side effects 72 times, which is the total number of doses given to a child by the time they're 18? The revelations from the recent study of the COVID vaccine explains what we've been saying for years. vaccines are not completely safe. And those side effects are rare what happens when you add them all together.

Perhaps it looks like this. Last slide. This is what Brian Hooker is talking about. In the 1980s, when we were giving 11 doses of about three vaccines, the chronic illness rate, which includes neurological and autoimmune disease, was 12.8%. Once we passed the 1986 Act and we had the gold rush of vaccines, It exploded to 53 doses, as I said, 72, that's 53 shots, 72 doses.

You watch the chronic illness rate, neurological and autoimmune disease, skyrocketed to 54% of our children. And by the way, that study was finished up in 2011, 2012. We have no idea since then how bad this has gotten. But what you were looking right at there is the greatest decline in public health in human history. Never have we watched that many children in just a few decades have their immune system start fighting their own bodies and swelling brains. And when you look at the numbers that Brian Hooker just showed you, they match exactly what we're seeing them call rare in this COVID study.

Five times rate of neurological disorders. Vax versus unbackstone showing about four times rate of autism in people that got the vaccine compared to those that don't. So it's rare, but it's possible. And it's real. And when we look at those rare numbers stacked up, especially with autism, we're now at 1 in 45. That's conservative. Many say 1 in 35 children is being diagnosed with autism, roughly 1 in 20 to 24 boys. Is that still rare? Sure. Sure, it's just a couple per 100. But what we can never say again after this study and what we all now know is that vaccine injury isn't happening. That's a lie. It is. And we all have a threshold, and we should figure out what that threshold is because millions of children are being injured all around the world. Nothing to see here, right? Nothing to see here.

Can't ask the questions. Dr. Malone has a question. Mr. Bigtree, regarding the recent vaccine article that's not paper published yet but came out electronically that you were citing as the source for those, quote, rare events listed. recollection was the study was restricted to only events that occurred in the first 45 days after administration. So it neglects to address anything that occurs longer, such as autoimmune disease, cancer, or other things. Did I understand that correctly? That's my understanding too, and it's really what we see in all of these studies. It's why we keep arguing we need full, double-blind, long-term placebo studies to license these vaccines. I mean, look at what we're. I mean, look at

what a vaccine does just by nature. You stop someone on the street and say, what does the vaccine do? Well, it tricks the immune system into thinking it's had a disease, like a killed virus or something. Like, everyone would say you're tricking the immune system. Well, what is this crisis? It's an autoimmune disease crisis that we're seeing in this country like we've never seen before. So somehow the immune systems of our children and our adults now are confused. They're attacking our own cells and our own bodies. And so when people say, well, how do you know, it's vaccines, how do you know it's not the air, how do you know it's not the food, how you know it's not the water? I'd say, well, first of all, all of those issues, all the chemicals in our food,

our water is being approved by the same regulatory agencies, so they should be investigated. But of all of those things, there's one product that by design is designed to trick your immune system into thinking it's had a disease. And we're not tricky at one time, or two times, or five times, or ten times, or twenty times, or fifty times. 72 times. No one in this room has been through that. Not one of these adults. We say, oh, I'm doing the same thing to my kids that I did? No, you're not. This is destroying the health of our children, and we need to get on top of the Redway. Thank you, Mr. Big Tree. And talking about our immune system. Our next presenter is Dr. Sabine Hazen. She's been practicing gastroenterologist for the last three decades while concurrently conducting over 200 clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies. Her research, genetic sequencing lab, is spearheading the study of the gut microbiome, and it's linked to several diseases with 57 clinical trials. Dr. Hazen. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story, and will tell the story of COVID-19. And this is why, as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative. Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early 2020, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools,

as opposed to the PCR, which is just a little piece of the virus. We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to 45 days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID-19 in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and isothermycin. But unfortunately, Zythromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin C, D, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into clinical trials.gov in full transparency to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew.

April 2, 2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical clinical. trial. In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine Z-pack, vitamin CD, and zinc as treatment, or hydroxychloroquine vitamin CD and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4th, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, Dr. Hazen, exemption is denied. You must do a full-on clinical trial. Here's the letter. system pressures delayed us and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit.

This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. I do clinical trials for a living, and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID, but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics. In fact, when you

turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning. And it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID-19. It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin C actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin C is important when you take, when you take care of virus. and you've all experienced taking vitamin C for a cold. Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin C,

if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin we noticed also increased the bifidobacteria within 24 hours of taking it. Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented

product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters' brothers in the microbiome. So I published,

I knew that Ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's going to be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that may be, what I was observing on the front line treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from Ivermectin,

was basically maybe Ivermectin increased bifidobacteria. The hypothesis on Ivermectin was the most red hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December 2020, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome.

I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and I'm D. Anderson. This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacterias why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine.

What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of biphidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bipedobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bipedobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative. If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies.

Yes, I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First postpartum depression drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic and because of that everyone is affected COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together it's a shame that it didn't happen interference with research affects all of us this should not be political science is a story that evolved It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge, having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Hazen. Round out of time. Yes. If you want to take five seconds to name who you think sabotage. your research? It used to be that pharmaceutical companies were working with the doctors.

Now, unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are captured by the price of the stock. You know, venture capitalists own pharmaceutical companies. They own the CR, the clinical research organizations. They own the site. They own the institutional review board.

They own the advertising, the marketing. They influence through the media. And so, unfortunately, there's a big, it's a loaded question, but it's a big market. And what we saw this pandemic was the price of the stock mattered more than the price of a life. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. And our next presenter is Dr. Pierre Corey. Dr. Corey is the chief of critical care services. The University of Wisconsin is the former chief, University of Wisconsin, who co-founded in services as a president-chief medical officer

of the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Dr. Corey. Thank you. It's an honor to be here. Since its founding, the FDA has approved approximately 32,000 medicines for practically every condition known to medical science. This massive library of treatments is actually a gift to humanity. But like all libraries, it also contains secrets. We are only now beginning to understand that many long-established drugs have multiple mechanisms and can be used to effectively treat diseases with either similar or even different pathophysiologies. Further, the longer they have been in use, the more well-known is their safety profile.

Thus, there's an enormous potential for repurposing this massive sort of back catalog of well-known drugs that the FDA has already deemed safe. So why on earth aren't we systematically testing them for potential new uses? The ugly truth, as Dr. Hazen and others have referred to, is that it's not profitable to do so. Big Pharma makes money on complicated new drugs, and it effectively controls numerous levers of power. Nearly half of FDA's budget is bankrolled by the drug industry, and its tentacles are deep in

media, academia, medicine, and other regulatory agencies like the NIH. And for decades, it has waged war on safe, effective, off-patent treatments for numerous diseases, and I would argue none more damaging than its decades-long war on vitamin D. Big Farmers' main tactic is valuing randomized controlled trials as the infallible gold standard, while dismissing positive results of other kinds of studies, such as observational studies or smaller randomized controlled trials. But here's the unfortunate reality. large randomized controlled trials, that's the only currency now to get approval, well, they are

not objective and they are not without bias because they cannot overcome the bias of the massive funders that are bankrolling these trials. I would argue that the only thing controlled about them is their results, as we saw numerous times in the pandemic. Meanwhile, observational studies, which are far simpler and cheaper to perform, that can be done by independent investigators, nights and weekends, just doing chart reviews. Well, little known fact is that those kind of trial designs actually produce results that are completely consistent with randomized control trials. This is well known now from a meta-analysis published in the Cochran Library in 2014 where they compared 10,000 randomized control trials and observational trials and observational trials and observational trials and observational trials and observational trials and observational trials.

trials. Can you show my first slide? And I would argue that this belief, this heralding of the randomized control trial, is largely the result of massive disinformation. I always remind my readers, I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin, which is literally a case study in these modern wars on repurposed drugs. And they do that using disinformation. And I would invite the audience or listeners to read this article. It's not a long article, but it details the numerous tactics. I would say the most damaging is the one I have on the screen. It's called the fake. And it consists of three different actions that they take.

One is that they design and conduct trials with predetermined results. They did that repeatedly in the pandemic, particularly negative studies to show that hydroxychloroquine or evamine didn't work. And then they selectively publish only those negative studies, and they censor positive studies. This cynical manipulation of evidence-based medicine is not a secret. As far back as 2009, Dr. Marsha Angel, the longtime editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,

issued this prescient warning. Quote, it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.

No one knows the total amount of money provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America. End quote. This creeping decades-long war on off-patent drugs went into overdrive during the pandemic,

when Big Pharma turns its guns against early treatments for COVID. Using their control over the high-impact medical journals, they consistently published studies designed to show predetermined negative results. With the size of these studies and the control over the journals, they managed to convince the world of a lack of efficacy, using only a handful of studies, despite hundreds of others concluding efficacy. Further, these studies, numerous fatal flaws were ignored.

For example, to prove a medicine didn't work, they consistently used the lowest doses for the shortest courses while enrolling patients as late as possible into these while including only the mildest cases. They did the exact opposite actions when they were trying to prove something was effective, like Pax Slova. Those trial designs were mirror images of each other. They were opposites. Can you show the next slide, please?

This is what's called the forest plot that shows 43 effective medicines in COVID. I've circled the only ones that were approved for use in United States. And actually, the circles are off, but if you look, you probably can't see it. But if you look at the cost, the only things approved in the United States, all costs in the many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. Every $1, $2, $5 medicine was completely ignored and never would reach regulatory approval. Further, when they did not get the result they wanted, in several instances, they were forced to change the original endpoint, a supposed never event in research science. And despite these manipulations, each of these studies publications launched massive negative PR campaigns

and recommendations from health agencies against the use of these inexpensive, say, free-purpose drugs. Last slide. If you look, this is just a little summary of the evidence base as we sit here today. As of today, there have been 420 controlled trials studying hydroxychloroquine in COVID that includes over half a million patients.

With ivermectin, there have been 100 controlled trials with over 225,000 patients. And summary analyses of these evidence bases all show large magnitude, statistically significant benefits and all important outcomes. Yet, in this country, Ivermectin is considered an ineffective

horsey-wormer and hydroxychloric in the drug of fringe, quack, right-wing, anti-vaxxers. So what's the way forward from here? We need to create a framework to test off-patent and off-label drugs and model their clinical benefits and cost savings. A public-private partnership of diverse, independent, unconflicting stakeholders

accountable to Congress could conduct sustained independent systematic studies of repurpose drugs that would complement FDA review, clinical practice and the role of natural immunity in health. It won't be easy, but if physicians, health care leaders, and politicians unite behind this call to action, we can push the system towards

greater accountability and help more people in the process. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Dr. Corey. I remember in December of 2020, I specifically asked Francis Collins, this is after hearings in November and you in December, what is the NIH doing in terms of exploring these molecules, this generic

drugs? Oh, Senator, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars exploring this. And I said, well, good, send me the information on it. It wouldn't surprise you that I never got that information. What can doctors do? I mean, what resources can they research? Quite honestly, what can patients do to find this information, find doctors who actually think outside the box

and do something other than what big farmer tells them to do? I would say the best answer as of right now would be my nonprofit organization, co-founded by Professor Paul Merrick. We have done immense amount of work at looking at the role of safety available repurposed medicines in a number of disease models. And I think that would be the start of a resource.

But, you know, we're just a little nonprofit. This is a major issue that affects a massive population, not only in the US, but around the world. And clearly we need more resources put to the study of these medicines. And as my colleagues have alluded, there's just no financial incentive to do that for those that control literally public health and medicine in general.

This is the enemy. This is the Achilles heel of the entire. pharmaceutical industry they they are terrified of repurpose drugs you will never get a repurpose drug to to reach regulatory approval if there's more profitable alternatives mr. McCarron has a question yes I just wanted to highlight the asymmetry in the publication that's going on here because Dell brought up this great paper of 99 million patients if you go to that paper it was funded it was ten million dollar study and it was funded by the CDC in HHS which both have

I mean HHS has four hundred million dollars in vaccine royalty and CDC, we heard from Brian Hooker has vaccine money. And yet their papers heralded all over the place. And if you look at that paper, it says data not available. I worked on the Human Genome Project with taxpayer funded money. We put data public every 24 hours when we did this. And then folks like yourself Sabine and Jessica and Pierre, you put data out and you get retracted.

And your data is available. So there's just a massive asymmetry in peer review right now that is also captured and is a topic that needs to be addressed. Thank you all. Our next presenter is Dr. Christian Perron, MD, and PhD. He is a professor of infectious disease in Paris. He was chairman of official committees on vaccination and communicable diseases. He was vice chairman of the European Vaccination Group at the World Health Organization, Dr. Peron.

And tell me how to pronounce that if I'm pronouncing incorrectly. Thank you, Senator. So at the very beginning of the COVID crisis, I realized that dissenting opinions were subjected to pressure and even freight. And I experienced that myself because I was considered at that time because during 15 years I was working with different ministers as a nice guy and a competent expert. And from one day to another, they wanted to suppress my voice and I was a dangerous person. And in 2020, we published with colleagues of my department our fantastic experience with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azitromycin. We had the lowest mortality in all the Paris area and the lowest in France, just like Didier Raoul in Marseille. So that was unacceptable for the authorities.

They made pressure my colleagues. They were threatened for their career. We had to withdraw the article. For me, it was terrible. And as a reward, also, I was fired from my position of the head of the infectious disease department of my hospital position, which I occupied for 26 years. And at that time, I saw that many fake data and even fraudulous articles were published even in the major medical journals.

For me, it was really a terrible problem. And you all know about the first big scandal, the so-called Lancet Gate, where the Lancet Journal published a so-called huge study demonstrating by hydroxychloroquine was not effective and very dangerous. It appeared rapidly that it was fraudulous. It was also acknowledged by the authors, by the journal. But our Minister of Health at that time,

Olivier Veron, the day after the publication of the Lancet study, signed a decree, I've not known the name in English, or decreed, something like that, to forbid the prescription of hydroxychloroquine in France for GPs. And when a few days later, it was published worldwide that the article was Fodoulouse, he never suppressed his... signed before. So I said in the French media at the end of June 2020 that the government was responsible for around 25,000 excess deaths in France due to the lack of possibility to prescribe hydroxy forksic florking. So of course they wanted to block my voice in the media.

and they succeeded. So with some experts from different backgrounds, we created a non-profit association called bonsons.org, boncense in French, means common sense, because we analyzed all the medical publications and when we saw data that were not realistic, fake data or also fraudulous articles,

we responded by publishing articles articles in peer-reviewed journals. And it was much more powerful to protest that way just to shout on the TV. And we did that and I thank all my colleagues who did that. And also we filed complaints, so legal actions, to attack some decisions of the government to support the victims of the so-called vaccine. The problem is when a fake information is present in the medical journals, all the public media relayed that in the worldwide,

but when we publish a counter-experties with the truth, nobody speak about it, or they say, oh no, it's just fake information. So now our goal is to keep the possibility to have good communication, because now I'm a sense of. Now I'm censored on all the mainstream TV. You know that in France there's an agency called ARCOM who was created to protect the transparency,

independence of media, but they made a press release more than two years ago to say if you continue to invite Professor Perron, you'll have a huge fine. And one TV channel was, had a fine because they invited me. Now they don't invite me anymore. So I'm going on alternative media, but also my Facebook page was closed during one year and a half.

And now if I appear on YouTube, on a video and an interview, usually when they say my name, in less than 24 hours, it is suppressed. So fortunately, some alternative media support our fight. And I want to thank Francois. It's a nice French newspaper created during World War II by French resistance during the war. So this journal is very active, and there are a few alternative media who help me. And I would like to end by a word about the French authorities are reinforcing their fight against freedom, and especially freedom of speech. So in December

2023, very recently, President Macron created presidential, not national, the Presidential Council for Science. Now he can decide what is science or not. That's surprising.

And just recently a few days ago, a vote was passed in France to to condemn people who don't follow the current medical knowledge of the medical consensus, and the penalty could be present one, two, three years, and a huge fine between 15,000 or 45,000 euros.

And the Senate, because here we are in the Senate, in France, rejected the law, but it came back to the National Assembly, which voted it, but as the reverse of the United States, in France, the National Assembly, like the House of Representatives, predominates on the Senate. So it's a pity, but it's like that. So what's the words I wanted to say? And we have to keep united. It's a symbol of liberties here in Washington.

And with France, we have all relationships. And with all of the countries, we have to continue this fight for freedom. Thank you. So, Dr. Perot, I mean, so you had a held 36 years and because you treated patients, you had the courage and compassion to treat patients, you were fired. And we've heard that before here in the States. I think the assumption here is we have these vaccine manufacturers here that have a lot of power. They spend billions of dollars to control the narrative.

But that's not necessarily the case with the COVID vaccine in France. And you've got two big ones here in the States plus bio-intech in Germany. What was the powerful interests sabotaging early treatment in France? The powerful interest. I mean, if it wasn't the vaccine manufacturers, which you don't have in this case in France, I mean, is it the media? Is the World Health Organization? I mean, what elite group created the environment to, first of all,

pass that obnoxious law against free speech? What's happening in France? I mean, who's pulling the strings there? What's happening is the media completely under control of the authorities. So all the dissident voices are suppressed and they favor on the TV or some so-called key opinion leaders who are some of them corrupted. And so alone with a few colleagues, it's very difficult to fight against this whole environment. So do you view that just as a global movement?

that also has an impact in France? And you've... It's global. It's not only France, because we could see that the same decisions were taken the same day in France, in Australia, in Sweden, everywhere. And I wrote three books, so that was embarrassing for my government

about the COVID crisis. They were bestsellers in France. And in one of the books, I say that the McKinsey Company had employees inside the ministers, and I had the proof of the members. Minister of Health and they, you know, they have official letters with Mr. X civil servant of the

ministry and in fact they are not civil servants, they are paid by McKinsey. And McKinsey is writing and the other concealed companies are writing many official texts. So I wrote that in my book, I was never attacked because I had the proof. Okay, thank you for having the courage and compassion to treat patients. Our next presenter is Dr. Ralph Lataster, PhD, he's a Bachelor of Pharmacy, PhD lecturer and researcher on misinformation, now mostly on COVID, typically at the University of Sydney and running OK ThenNews.com. Dr. Lataster.

Thank you for your efforts, Senator, including your endorsement of intellectual humility. We all understand the challenges that you face, and I ask you that you please persevere because what happens in the US affects us all around the world. All right, to give you a little bit of context, global policies around COVID-19 vaccines were, of course, dictatorial and discriminatory, leading to the persecution of unvaccinated people, such as myself, and also leading to vaccine injuries. These policies were justified via claims about the vaccines as effectiveness and safety. Now, recent research published in major medical journals reveals that these claims were highly exaggerated, particularly four articles by BMJ editor Peter Doshi of the University of Maryland and myself, University of Sydney, in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. The last of those articles was published just last month.

Now, I summarize a lot of the findings here for you now. Exaggerated effectiveness and safety in observational studies. So we have found in the studies varying definitions, are fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. And generally what we find with the term fully vaccinated is that they are ignoring COVID cases, COVID infections, in the partially vaccinated. So this could be a few months' worth of time

where someone who's received the injections has a COVID infection, possibly because of the injection, as we've heard from other speakers today, with immunosuppression and so forth, and yet it's not counted. It's completely ignored. And that effect was found to be up to 48% using data from Pfizer's trial as an example.

Redoing the data again to factor in a definitional issue of what an unvaccinated person is. And counting the partially vaccinated, the infections in the partially vaccinated in the unvaccinated group, that figure can go up as high as 65% or more. We can't be sure what the actual exaggeration is because we aren't supplied with all the data. So it's impossible to actually know. but it looks like there are huge exaggerations of effectiveness because of such what you could call manipulation of the data. Now adverse effects in the observation studies, so relating to safety, a lot of these adverse effects are overlooked due to very narrow counting windows,

including starting too late, so again, not counting what's happening in the partially vaccinated, and ending too early, usually just a few months, when we know there are long-term effects such as myoconidas and so forth. Now, we then turned our attention to the clinical trials, and we did not expect to find all of these issues there. What we found was actually worse. So going to the clinical trials, focusing here on the MRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, regarding effectiveness, once again, COVID case counting, begins in the vaccinated group, begins after full vaccination. We did not expect that. We thought it would be better in clinical trial, but we found that too, seven days, 14 days, even 21 days after the second dose.

So all the cases happening in the COVID vaccine infected, in the vaccinated group, being ignored. So different case counting windows also were used at different times. Coincidentally, whichever gave the best result. That was needed right there. Also, many trial participants were lost to follow up. We're talking hundreds of people, thousands of people, lost a follow up. So what happened to those people? We would like to know.

But even worse, there are thousands of suspected COVID cases that were unconfutable. And these suspected cases were split roughly evenly. So if these were included, or if even just some of these were included, we could have an effectiveness of the vaccines of around 10%. And in any case, you can argue that figure, it is well below the 50% required for approval. Furthermore, looking to safety in the clinical trials, adverse effect counting windows are, again, incredibly short. Being only a few months, there is no long-term safety data. there is also a very concerning reliance on unsolicited reporting for adverse effects.

Now, if you die from the vaccine, you're obviously not in position to call them and say, I'm dead, it's really hot down here. Report it, I will see you soon. So long-term safety analyses are impossible also because the groups were effectively merged. It became an ethical concern that these vaccines are obviously effective, so we must offer it to the placebo group, and then they've made it effective. impossible to have the long-term studies that we definitely need. Now, even the limited safety data that we have is already hugely concerning. Looking at the Freeman at our study, which includes Peter Doshi as well, and the Ben at our study, they reveal an excess of serious adverse events

of special interest and deaths, an excess of deaths in the vaccinated groups. This is from their own trials with data that already looks to be incomplete and manipulated. Quickly, I'll give a note on myocoditis and negative effectiveness. Now, myocoditis is typically overlooked in such studies because it often is a longer-term adverse effect. When I critiqued a John Hopkins team in the American Journal of Epidemiology on why their analysis omitted incriminating evidence about myocarditis, they said that this evidence is limited, and it's from another country.

So apparently the vaccines work differently in different countries. That's what we're expected to billing. Now to your first question of the session about what manufacturers may have known before approval, Pfizer, Moderna, they already knew that there were extra cardiovascular deaths in their own trials. And their excuse was, well, this has nothing to do with the vaccines. First of all, they don't know that. We now know that the vaccines do cause cardiovascular problems, but also that goes against the whole point of a randomized controlled trial.

If there's a discrepancy between the treatment group and the placebo group, we attribute that discrepancy to the treatment. They do not have the right to say that something else. If they want to claim that they have to acknowledge that their RCT is fraudulent, it's bogus, and we cannot accept the conclusions. So here and in a response for the British Medical Journal, I found that myocarditis alone appears to be a far greater risk than the benefits for the jab in the young and healthy, utilizing British government data, aligning with Dr. Hooker's comments and adding also to Mr. Bigtree's excellent points on rarity, maybe we can say that such effects are rare, maybe, but in any case, severe COVID in the young and healthy is rarer still.

Now, Pfizer also admits that they're still trying, this is a quote, to determine if commonati is safe and effective, and if there is a myocarditis, pericaditis association that should be noted. That's on clinical trials.gov still right now. They're trying to find out if it's safe and effective. effective right now. There is also increasing evidence of negative effectiveness, which you're probably already aware of. This is where there is some evidence now in multiple studies, multiple sets of government data that the jab increases the chance of COVID infection, hospitalization and death. This also appears to be dose dependent, tying in nicely with Dr. Rosa's comments on IGG4 and tolerance and Dr. Hazan's groundbreaking work on immunosuppression and the microbiome. Now, in conclusion, in the best case, I think that we cannot know that the vaccines are effective and safe and the approvals and the mandates are not justified. In the worst case scenario, the effectiveness is nil or even negative, and the vaccines are otherwise unsafe and potentially deadly.

Now, this, again, is from their own data as is, which is limited, has conflicts of interest and looks to be manipulated. And this says nothing about the fraudulent practices that were reported in the BMJ, conflicts of interest, as Dr. Corey noted, and much more we can talk about. A final note, the clinical trials concerned the deadliest original strains. The figures now would be even less impressive or much more alarming, given that less lethal strains are now dominant and have been for some time. Thank you. Thank you, doctor.

We hear claims, for example, the rewarded Nobel Prize two doctors and saying that their development of the MRNA technology saved 14 million lives. I don't know the exact figure they used in the House subcommittee's hearing, but they had other, you know, similar types of claims. Have you seen any study that backs up those claims of the vaccine saved X number of lives? Absolutely not. In fact, what I have seen is a study that I've just been invited to partake in to refute that, or a paper to refute that. There are many problems. We found over 12 issues with how the data is utilized and estimated.

For one thing, it's a model and the map is not the territory. Predetermined outcome model, no doubt. So when it was proven, when they finally admitted that it didn't prevent infection. I mean, that was one of the lies, you know, you're not going to get sick, you're not going to get hospitalized, you're not going to die. So when it's proved that it wouldn't prevent infection, they shifted, they're in able to say it would reduce severity of disease or reduce the number of deaths. Any data, any studies that backed those claims?

Well, there is purported evidence for that, but going through all the studies that we have started to do, it looks like all those studies are incorrect. One thing you want to look at with these studies is, do they provide definitions of what a vaccinated person is, what an unvaccinated person is, and the maturity doesn't seem to do that. Such a very basic thing that you would expect to see. And when they do give the definitions, they don't pass the smell test. Okay, well, thank you very much, Doctor. Our next presenter is Ms. Lara Logan. Lara Logan is a award-winning investigative journalist, former 60 Minutes correspondent, and chief foreign correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent for 60 minutes,

and host of the rest of the story with Laura Logan. Ms. Logan. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Hello, everybody. I was asked to testify on media censorship and the First Amendment, the importance of free speech. And I do want to say that it is an honor and a privilege to be here with all of you and with you, Senator Johnson.

Thank you for hosting this rogue committee. It's important to all of us because of everything discussed today that we address the vital principles and values that exist really only in the United States of America. And that said, these are the worst of times for the media in this country. We live in the age of information warfare, where propaganda is not simply a weapon, it is the entire field of battle. This is a war for our minds that is aided by advanced technology, and we have never been here, not in all of human history. It is a moment when we as journalists should stand together, united, and regardless of politics, we should fight for the truth, and we should fight for freedom.

Yet, not very long ago, we allowed one of our own, Tucker Carlson, to be branded as a traitor simply for doing his job. In fact, there were many so-called journalists who were leading the charge against Tucker, accusing him of treason for the simple fact of interviewing the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

And to my knowledge, there was not a single legacy media institution that spoke. up. This was more than a politically motivated attack on one man. It was a betrayal of the most sacred principles of a free press. And my media colleagues know this to be true no matter what they say. My fear is that they either no longer care or that they lack the moral courage to be honest, including with themselves. I have worked at the highest levels of the media as a full-time correspondent for 60 Minutes, Chief Foreign Correspondent for CBS News,

chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News. That was my home for 16 years. And as a journalist, I have sat down with world leaders, mass murderers, and terrorists. And I have held people on both sides of the aisle accountable. I have seen suffering, and I have faced evil, and I have walked through the fires of hell on distant battlefields. I faced my own death at the hands of a mob of some 200 men in Egypt when I was gang-raped and sodomized and beaten almost to death while on assignment for 60 minutes. And yet for almost a decade, I have been targeted and falsely branded and accused of many things that I did not do.

They have attacked my work, my character, my sanity, and my marriage. I am not alone. We are many. And we will not give up and we will not give in. To those who wish to censor the idea of free speech in America and all over the world.

Media companies, institutions, and journalism schools have failed all of us. And for too long we have allowed non-profit organizations to masquerade as non-partisan media watchdogs, when in fact they are little more than highly paid political propagandists and assassins whose entire reason for being

is to crush anyone who stands in their way and along with them the long-held and cherished ideas of free speech, free thinking, and free minds. This is a blood sport for them, their political allies and their puppet models. They know how to kill a journalist without murdering them. We call it cancel culture. In truth, it is a death sentence.

And they get away with it because they have information dominance. Some were strong enough to survive, but only a few, like Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson, Matt Taibi. Only a few like them are able to reach greater heights and thrive. These non-profits that I'm talking about are part of a vast censorship network that includes government agencies. They use deception to mask their actions with lofty goals like preventing the spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech. They use phrases like protecting democracy and make no mistake. Words matter. The media is collaborating with government agencies and our employees. to censor and shape the information battlefield, to justify certain actions.

For example, when the President of the United States threatens the unvaccinated, saying, our patients is wearing thin, and accuses them of putting communities at risk, his words are designed to justify hatred, censorship, and intimidation. And when the Vice President compares January 6 to 9-11 and Pearl Harbor, it is a predicate to silence the opposition and justify the weaponization of the justice system. We are already witnessing another shaping operation to influence the outcome of the 2024 election, this time with a false claim that if one side wins, it will be the end of democracy. This lie contrived to ensure a particular outcome and to sabotage.

free speech yet again. Overseas taxpayer funds from hardworking Americans are being doled out by contractors under the Office of Transition Initiatives at USAID, or the State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. These contractors, many of them ideological zealots, who are not even U.S. government officials, often make over a quarter million dollars a year and are outside the reach, Senator, of yourself and committees like this. They hand out taxpayer dollars to programs that are shaped by highly partisan NGOs who hide behind terms like interreligious dialogue when in fact they are funding Muslim schools that train Islamic terrorists like they did in Malaysia. Another example is humanist international.

Through them the State Department is funding atheism grants that actively cultivate an atheist advocacy network in Nepal. This is not just to attack religion and manipulate foreign politics. It is an attack on free speech, faith, and God. While propaganda and censorship are not new, technology means unprecedented power and reach in the hands of a few. Companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Google, as you have heard many times today, have been allowed to amass monopoly power, and as a result, they not only reach billions of people across the world, every second of the day. They have absolute control over what we see and what we hear.

Imagine those tools in the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. When I became a journalist more than 35 years ago, we were under emergency restrictions in apartheid South Africa, and I was 17 years old. Public safety and security were the weapons of state censors. Ours was the truth. We had no Bill of Rights, no Constitution, no First Amendment, no declaration of independence. And journalists would have to hide their footage from the truth. security police, sometimes sewing the tapes into their mattresses at home so they could not be seized and used to identify and target the protesters that we'd filmed.

The light of freedom that set fire to our hearts in South Africa was lit thousands of miles away. It was lit right here where we sit today in the United States of America. when the founding fathers put freedom of speech first, it was not by chance, it was by design. The rights that followed were in part created to protect the First Amendment. Without it, they knew that freedom itself would perish. I am reminded today of the words spoken by the British Foreign Secretary

Sir Edward Gray in 1914 at the beginning of the First World War. He said the lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. We are once again watching the lights of freedom. They're going out here and all over the world. And it is up to us to determine if they will be lit again, ever. Thank you, Senator Johnson. I'm ready to take your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Logan. We're only have a few seconds. You said you've been targeted over the last 10 years. Can you describe what precipitated you're targeting? Yes, I'm reporting the truth about Benghazi. I was attacked by one of those NGOs that masquerades as a non-partisan watchdog. In violation of its 501-3C status, it occupies a highly partisan position. I'm talking about media matters for America.

I'm sure there's many doctors in this room, scientists who've been attacked by the same people. The same people that run that, David Brock, for example, and other political assassins. and now runs an organization called Facts First USA, which is designed to make sure that your research, Dr. Hazan, never reaches the people or the public. There are other organizations like Defeetis Info, which claims to be a PAC that goes after disinformation, particularly set up to target COVID,

and throughout COVID with General Stanley McChrystal and the other people that advised that organization. But what, you know, Senator Johnson, it's not a secret that these organizations exist. What is not widely known and talked about is that it's paid for by us. It's paid for by the taxpayers. In your omnibus spending bills that get shoved through the House and the Senate against the will of the people of this country,

there are cutouts for these NGOs. And what they do is they launder this money. They pass it from one NGO to the next. And in the name of preventing the spread of disinformation, they censor, silence, intimidate, and punish. I said that this is a death sentence. for journalists. It's how you murder a journalist without killing them. It's how you murder a scientist without killing them. It's how you murder a doctor without killing them. It's how you murder the

vaccine injured when they haven't died yet. It's how you finish them off and everybody else in their family. And it's time for people in this building who come to work every day here who's to serve us. This is the only country where we the people are the government. This is a government for the people of the people and by the people. And the same is said for so-called journalists. Del Bricktree, this man, has been targeted for simply going to the FDA hearings and filming them when they approve vaccines, just filming them, not doing a thing. And putting that, putting that out and showing people there is no real approval process.

They didn't actually do their jobs. And for that, he's been targeted for years, long before COVID ever hit. So it's time now for us to stop taking taxpayer funds. funds to slit our own throats. Thank you. One of the many reasons I generally vote no on those. But thank you, Ms. Logan. Our next presenter is Mr. Jason Christoff.

Mr. Christoff is a mind control brainwashing, behavior modification propaganda researcher who has been presenting on covert and overt systems of public control for over 20 years. Mr. Christoff. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. It's an honor to be here.

and honor to be with the contributors here today. In regards to what's being hidden from the public, what's being purposely hidden from the public is any sort of visual or auditory input that would offer a counter-narrative to the political gospel preached by the ruling group. We are indeed encountering massive censorship in this exact way,

yet what looks like censorship is the documented hijacking of the subconscious mind pathway, which is proven the primary modality by which humans determine what behaviors and beliefs they will adopt as their own in order that they find safety in the bigger group. The statistical proof of this psychic hijack is every other statistic that will be offered here

by the speakers on this panel. In order for humans to walk off a cliff en masse in this fashion, information manipulation will always be at the heart of the operation. In order for all these speakers to be here today, with each proving that something extremely devilish is afoot, my area of research had to come first and is the primary building block of everything else being currently addressed, You cannot produce any of these death-centric results in this many areas without this primary cornerstone being in place first, which is information, manipulation, and modern high-tech censorship. Modern censorship isn't just about hiding the truth or creating spin for one political agenda or another. modern censorship is part and parcel of hijacking the genetic group pressure mechanisms and group affiliation software, which all humans hold within each cell in their bodies.

Human behavior is determined to be either an exact mirror reflection of the environment in which they live or very close to it. What we see is what we'll be. What we hear is what will make clear. Humans are proven to copy, mimic, emulate, and mirror the most repetitive content of their environment as a way to find safety with the bigger group and to achieve increased security. If we see morality, we become moral in most cases.

If we live within a den of thieves, we can easily become a thief. He who controls the environment in which a human resides, controls the perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors of that human. Modern censorship today is clearly about up-regulating, disempowering negative content, and turning down empowering positive content. In the way censorship is used in our modern time, it's not simply about hiding truth. Today's censorship is weaponized to define and create an inverted and extremely dark reality inside which no human can ever be happy, healthy, or prosperous for many generations to come.

This new reality, based on negative, dark and disempowering repetitive content, appears anti-human at its very core. and that should obviously concern each and every one of us. As for proof of government failures, I see none. As what we observe galloping today is not a systematic failure by any stretch of the imagination. Each inversion we've witnessed, more so over the past four years, has been executed to precision by a small group hiding inside government and big business, to call a brilliant execution of premeditated planning a failure instead of a smashing success is to be intellectually dishonest. With this type of censorship, which is intended to firmly impregnate the public,

with strong inverted beliefs, ideas, and behavior, personal freedom for the members of the general public and for medical professionals alike is frankly not possible. We need a full about face at this point with each and every citizen dedicating fully to the founding principles of this great nation. Thank you. So in the short period of time we have, who do you think that small group of people are? That's hard to say, Senator, but you can tell it does not reflect the will of the people. It does not increase the wealth of the people. It does not increase the health of the people.

They're trying to take the once powerful human line and turn us into an easily ruled and easily firmed human lamb. But somebody or some organizations are pulling the strings on this. Do you have any idea whatsoever? I couldn't say for sure, but they're well above government. I think the solution will revolve around each and every citizen taking their own personal power back within the government. their own home, becoming ethical, becoming moral. You can't rule, you can't farm lions, only

lambs. And we've been dumbed down, and our health is being removed to the point we're very easily ruled at this point. Do you think technology is going to help us convey the truth, or do you think it's going to be impediment? Because it's obviously used both ways. I think all the systems that are used to rule us today can be used for good as well. Mind control. can be used for good as well. But it's being used for negative today. I think all the systems we have in place, if they're in the hands of moral and ethical people, we can definitely turn this around. Thank you, Mr. Christoph. Our next presenter is Mr. Rodney Palmer.

Mr. Palmer is a Canadian, was a Canadian journalist for 20 years. He worked as an investigative reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and he was a foreign correspondent for CTV news in India, China, and the Middle East. Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for assembling this expert team. I'm going to talk about censorship in television news particularly because it is a new super weapon aimed at the citizens of this country. TV news suppressed the voices of learned scientists who sounded the alarm about COVID vaccines, and many of them are in this room right now. This censorship was critical to executing a massive fraud, and it couldn't have been perpetrated without the collaboration of the news media that we all trusted. If the news reporters did their jobs instead of reporting propaganda, this fraud would have been exposed from the outset.

In Canada, our government websites currently list 488 dead citizens reported to be killed by the vaccines. According to Health Canada, since last year, an average of six Canadians are still reported to be killed every month from COVID vaccines. but our news media continue to censor this fact every day. Instead, they lie to us and call them safe and effective, as though no one is dying, as though it's not a game of Russian roulette, as though they're not killing people by lying to us. Censorship is what actually caused these deaths.

It was the lie that assured us it was safe when it wasn't, and it still isn't. The lie killed them as much as the vaccine. because it tricked them into taking it. In America, it's much worse. The vaccine companies are allowed to sponsor the news directly. They can't do this in Canada. To a visiting Canadian, the news here looks like one big ad

for pharmaceutical products. It's a bit of a culture shock when you turn on the TV. There wouldn't even be a US newscast without pharma ads. So the reporters on your newscasts are all conflicted. They can't bite the hand that feeds them. They can't possibly invest. the most important stories of our time, gain of function laboratories, FDA regulatory capture, the World Health Organization's plan for an international pandemic treaty.

They can't possibly do investigative reporting on these stories that affect every American. It appears that the reporters are actually colluding with their sponsors to break FDA advertising laws. FDA law requires them to conspicuously describe the known risks of any pharmaceutical product. That's why you get that big, long list of all the bad stuff that will happen just before they say, ask your doctor if it's right for you. If the news here is an ad for the vaccines, which I believe it is, then they should report on the known risks of those vaccines also. The good news is no one believes the TV news anymore. Only 15% of Canadians, 15% are getting the boosters.

We're on to them. We understand they're lying to us. Alternative media now is the only news we have, because the mainstream is dissolved into propaganda drivel. Canada's broadcaster of record, the government-funded CBC News, laid off 130 people in 2020, just when we needed journalism the most. This month, they announced another eight-hundred-a-half-half-old.

layoffs at the same time they paid themselves $14 million in performance bonuses. These are public servants whose only performance seems to have been dismantling the CBC. Canada's largest private news network, CTV News, laid off 1,300 jobs last year. It closed most of its foreign bureaus where I worked as a foreign correspondent from 1996 to 204. This month, CTV's parent company laid off another 4,800 staff, the largest single corporate layoff in Canadian history. It's now canceled lunchtime news hours.

It's canceled weekend newscasts. After these reporters are laid off, we'll only be left with the trusted faces of our favorite news anchors delivering the propaganda of the day instead of the news of the day. But when those trusted faces are telling us lies, they're like. like a super weapon aimed directly at us. The news anchors are now the finger on the trigger in that game of Russian roulette. When the news is poisoned, so is democracy,

because we've stopped debating about what's right, and instead we waste our time arguing about what's true. We've never seen anything like this before. It's an unprecedented moment in history, and it requires an unprecedented remedy to fix it. Most every other country is letting this happen. But where goes America? So goes the world.

You have a unique role in setting the moral tone for Western democracies. So I respectfully recommend that the Senate investigate the role of American television news networks, and colluding with pharmaceutical advertisers to skirt the FDA laws that require them to declare the known risks of a pharmaceutical product. This investigation should extend to any reporters, news anchors, editors, and executives who lied to their audience about the safety of the COVID vaccines. And I also recommend investigating the total prohibition of pharmaceutical advertising on television in alignment with almost every country in the world. Thank you. Mr. Trump, Palmer, you've obviously had years of experience in the news business. at what point did it shift from being, I'd assume when you were there, higher integrity to what we have now.

I mean, when did that shift and how and why? My main, the main media I consume is CBC Radio, which is kind of the record in Canada. And I heard it creeping in. I heard pharmaceutical biased advertising creeping in on the weekend newscasts. I remember hearing a story that vitamin E was actually no good for. men and I thought well who let that slip in and and who they credited some institute from Western Ontario that I'd never heard of and I thought well that's a really easy way to slip in a press release because there's only three

people working on the weekends and they kind of understood the mechanism by which you could get that in but then I saw an entire invest in what was that what that was around I'd say 2010 2012 and then about 2014 there was an investigative report slamming the science of homeopathic medicine and I thought well why would you go after a whole branch of medicine that's 120 years old, it didn't make any sense. And particularly, they were ridiculing it. And I'd never seen that level of bullying before, because the new censorship has a few tears to it. It's not just suppressing the learned scientists you see around this table. It also is aggressively bullying them and shaming them and ridiculing them. And then it also

elevates a lie. So it has these three aspects. But you're talking about, obviously, the impact of pharmaceutical intrusion into news. Again, I know this is, I try and keep this nonpartisan, but from my standpoint, you know, the left has infiltrated our universities, you know, the graduating journalists who are more of the left, obviously, in the right. So this is broader from my standpoint than just pharmaceutical infiltration. Or would you disagree with that? No, I don't disagree with that at all. I think that I started noticing the focus on transgenderism, particularly on CBC radio, to the point where they were announcing a new artist was a bisexual or a new singer was a,

they would announce their sexuality. And I never thought that I heard, you know, David Bowie announced as a transsexual singer. It was just the greatest rock and roll singer I ever heard in my life. You know, you never heard that before. You never heard about their private lives or their identity. It began to be, I'd say about five years ago, it began to creep in as the primary focus of their reporting rather than a secondary focus or something that we weren't interested at all. So what baffles me is generally the left has been very critical of Big Pharma and the profits they make. Now you almost have a melding of the two.

I mean, can you explain that? I think there's a confusion about the traditional understanding of left and right. It used to be an economic focus largely, and now it's something that's very, very different. You're seeing this woke mentality, I would call it, and it's widely understood to be, versus the common sense approach to life. And I think that that has blurred the lines of traditional left and right, as we used to see it. In the news media, you get your more right-brain creative people into it, and not your more left-brain scientific people.

This is because I'm more of a linguist or more of a speaker. So I didn't excel in the maths and the scientists. So then you get a packet people like that. And the better they are, the higher up they go. So you get somebody at the very, very top, and they don't have much understanding of science. So they can easily be manipulated. They can easily be tricked.

Okay, so I see Dr. Gortler has a question for you. Mike? 15% uptake in, sorry, 15% acceptance of the boosters in Canada right now. It was 15%. I just wanted to point out that that's actually about four times more than what it was in the United States. We had an October 31st deadline for both COVID and for influenza. And by the October 31st deadline, it was only 3.4%.

And for influenza, it was only 4.8%. It's usually a bit over 50%. So it's that at this point, a lot of Americans, they're not trusting any vaccine. So some of the messages is actually getting out. What I heard, what I noticed myself, my awakening to it was because since I left journalism, I've been working in a health-related field, and I go to medical lectures, and particularly doctors dealing with chronic illnesses. And they speak a certain way.

Every word is spare. It only means one thing. It's from the diagnostic approach to life. language but on the radio I heard very clearly people with corporate media training they sounded more like salesmen so I knew that something was up there and I knew also that when our Prime Minister announced don't worry Canada we've invested in vaccines I thought well how long am I hiding in my kitchen this is going to be a decade so I knew that that something was up but slowly slowly they first

incentivize out of fear age-related deaths and then they incentivize with these ridiculous rewards and then they mandated and then they coerced and then they took away our freedoms and then in return for a vaccine you got a conditional turn of your rights as a citizen of the country but and that's slowly how they did it but i can't tell you how many people have said i got two shots i'll never get another one and we all know somebody who's injured so i think they don't trust the media they're looking around and trusting their own eyes now thank you mr palm i've got to get back on schedule here we maybe come back to miss logan if we have some time at the very end but let's move

on to our next presenter, Dr. Matthias Desmett. He's a professor of psychology at Ghent University. He has a PhD in psychology and a master's degree in statistics. He is currently investigating the psychological effects of propaganda. Dr. Desmond. Thank you, Senator Johnson. And like most of my colleagues here, I didn't really focus or not so much focus on the question what they were hiding. I rather focused on the question how it was possible that so many people refused to see what they were hiding. And in the beginning of the crisis, I studied the statistics a little bit, and I immediately got the impression as a statistician

that, for instance, the mortality rates were overrated by a factor 10. And a few months later, by the end of May 2020, it was actually clear for everyone who wanted to see it, that indeed the mortality rates had been dramatically overrated. Like in a small country such as Sweden, the initial models predicted that over 60,000 people would die if the country didn't go into lockdown by the end of May 2020. And the country didn't go into lockdown, and only 6,000 people died. And then even like the people who build the initial models in a hearing for the British House of Commons admitted that the mortality rates had been dramatically overhauled. in the beginning of the crisis, and still the story continued as if the models had been right.

The media continued to disseminate the same narrative and the people continued to buy into it. And that for me was the moment when I decided to take a perspective of a mass psychologist and to try to show the people what psychological mechanisms could explain how an entire society was in the grip of a narrative which was utterly absurd. And the more I studied these psychological mechanisms, the more I noticed that what we were witnessing was the emergence of a fully-fledged totalitarian system in our society, a totalitarian system,

which is always based on what Hannah Arendt called a diabolic pact between the elite and the masses. You need two things for a totalitarian system. On the one hand, you need an elite which excessively and relentlessly, relentlessly uses propaganda to keep control over the population and then you need a part of the population 20 to 30% usually to go along in that propaganda and to bi phonetically into the narrative and we've seen I think both components of a totalitarian system in this in this crisis and

I think like if you want to know what we can do against such a totalitarian system, then it's crucial, I believe, to really understand and to feel what psychological mechanisms are at work, both at the level of the elite and at the level of the population. In a nutshell, I believe that what is crucial to understand how such a phenomenon can happen is that a society of the population should be isolated,

isolated, should struggle with lack of meaning-making, should be anxious, frustrated, and aggressive, and they're under these circumstances. Propaganda is used. Then there is a good chance that propaganda which disseminates a narrative in the population which offers an object of anxiety and a strategy to deal with that object of anxiety, a virus, and lockdowns, for instance, then there is a good chance that the anxiety and the population will attach to the object of anxiety, anxiety in the narrative and that a major part of the population will be willing to participate in a strategy to deal with that object of anxiety even if the strategy is utterly absurd and it's like perfectly comparable it's identical actually to

hypnotic state and to prevent the hypnosis to go deeper and deeper and deeper you need some people not too much some people who continue to speak out in a as sincere and truthful way as possible and to continue to do so, even if that means that they will lose a lot in the world of appearances. And I hope and I'm confident that there will be enough of us who will continue to do so. Dr. Desmond, in your written testimony, you talked about the Enlightenment and how science was going to prevail and lift humanity out of despair. Eisenhower and his farewell address talked about the dangers of public funding of science and how it produced an elite group of scientists and technologists that are going to drive public policy. Seems like that's kind of where we're at.

And it's that elite group that has been driving public policy and quite honestly have been driving the propaganda. Can you speak to that at all? Yes, of course. I believe that what we've witnessed throughout the last 50 years, I think, is a radical perversion of academic discourse. In the beginning, science was a pure example of truth speech. It was the discourse of a minority who went against a majority and who risked everything to articulate that discourse in society.

But slowly, as science became the dominant discourse, it got perverted as usually happens when the discourse, a truthful discourse of a minority, becomes dominant. And just before the corona crisis, the academic world was in a terrible state. We often forget that, but like 15 years before the corona crisis, we've seen the replication crisis in the sciences showing that up to 85% of the academic papers, for instance, in the medical field, cannot be reproduced and that many of them are fraudulent. And so that was the background, I think, against which like an entire academic community could collaborate with this narrative that seized control of society in the most destructive way imaginable, I think. So what drives that fraud?

I mean, is the grants, is the funding coming from a source that's going to want a particular outcome of the research? Funding is one thing, but it is not everything. There's something else as well. something, a more profound psychological factor, which is indeed, funding is definitely not everything. And I know that because, like, in the academic field of psychology, funding doesn't play a major role. But still, most studies cannot be reproduced in many are fraudulent. I think we have to see it in a, as money is important, but there is something more important. And it is this rationalism, I believe, that is typical for the Enlightenment tradition,

the tradition of enlightenment replaced religious view of man in the world by the materialist fuel man in the world. And it started to believe that rational understanding should be the guiding principle of our society, rational understanding, rather than ethical principles. And that was a fundamental mistake. Such rationalism, as this is for instance conveyed by people like Yuval Noah Harari now, such rationalism in the end always lapses into radical irrationality. And that's what we are seeing now, I think.

We are seeing how a world marked by the hubris that a rational understanding could be the guiding light of not only individual human existence, but also of human living together in general. It just proves that the state view of find ourselves in now proves that rational understanding can never be the grasped the essence of life, can never be the ultimate guiding principle of a society, and that in the end, it has a dramatic effect that people lose all ethical awareness, and that is exactly what we have seen in every totalitarian system that emerged,

whether we are talking about Nazism, communism, or the contemporary transhumanist technocratic totalitarianism. It always starts from the idea that on the basis of rational knowledge, knowledge a new paradise will be created. And as Hannah Arendt said, the only problem with this totalitarian paradise is that it looks suspiciously like hell. Thank you, thank you, Dr. Desmond.

Our next presenter is Dr. Brett Weinstein. Dr. Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He is a fellow at the Brownstone Institute, co-author of the New York Times bestselling book, A Hunter's Gatherers Guide to the 21st Century, and host of the Dark Horse Podcast. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we must zoom out if we are to understand the pattern that we are gathered here to explore, because the pattern is larger than federal health agencies and the COVID cartel. If we do zoom out and ask, what are they hiding?

The answer becomes as obvious as it is disturbing. They are hiding everything. It will be jarring for many to hear a scientist speak with such certainty. It should be jarring. We are trained to present ideas with caution as hypotheses in need of a test. But in this case, I have tested the idea, and I am as certain of it as I am of anything. We are being systematically blinded. It is the only explanation I have encountered that will not only describe the present,

but also, in my experience, predicts the future with all but perfect accuracy. The pattern is a simple one. You can see it clearly and test it yourself. Every single institution dedicated to public truth-seeking is under simultaneous attack. They are all in a state of collapse. Every body of experts fails utterly. Individual experts who resist, or worse, in an attempt to return their institutions to sanity, they find themselves coerced into submission.

If they won't buckle, they are marginalized or forced out. Those outside of the institutions who either seek truth alone or who build new institutions with a truth-suitous, with a truth-seeking mission face merciless attacks on both their integrity and expertise, often by the very institutions whose mission they refuse to abandon. There is a saying in military circles, once is a mistake, twice as a coincidence, three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant

challenge. We are left in a fool's paradise. Our research universities spend huge sums of public money to reach preordained conclusions. Professors teach only lessons that are consistent with wisdom students have picked up on TikTok, even when those lessons contradict the foundational principles of their disciplines. Once proud newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post only report important stories after they have become common knowledge. Morticians must now raise the alarm over patterns missed by medical examiners. The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises. The courts, the last holdout in this ongoing inversion of reality, are now

regularly used as a coercive weapon of elites against those who threaten them. We have literally witnessed the Department of Homeland Security attempt to set up a truth ministry and declare accurate critique of government as a kind of terrorism. To my fellow patriots in the West, the pattern is unmistakable. I cannot tell you with any certainty who they are or what they hope to accomplish, but I can tell you that we are being systematically denied the tools of enlightenment and the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. We, those who remain dedicated to the values of the West, must fight this battle courageously,

and we must win. For if we do not stem the tide, the result will be a dark age that differs from prior dark ages only in the power and sophistication of the coercive instruments wielded by those who will rule us. So, Mr. Weinstein, I've seen, or Dr. Weinstein, I've seen a number of interviews that you've done. Very interesting, as well as your podcast. Now, I kind of want to ask you, I describe my eyes being opened up, certainly during COVID to a number of things. Can you just describe your own, even in the description I said you were going to talk about being red-pilled. Can you just describe your journey here? Well, I think we are all on a similar journey.

I did not think that I was naive seven years ago, and then I learned that I had been very naive, and I keep learning that lesson. Each new discovery reveals that I was missing something that was right in front of me. And I think that's actually the hallmark of the exact pattern I'm describing. We are in something that I have called a Cartesian crisis, where the failure of all of these truth-seeking mechanisms have left all of us in the dark. There's very little that we can establish with any certainty. And the problem is that the human animal will be driven crazy by such a state.

You can only drive so long after you've put on a blindfold before you hit a curve. And so that is not a healthy condition, and it is certainly not a long-term plan for our survival. So I do mean that we have to win this battle because the existence of the West certainly and possibly the existence of our species depends on it. Prior to the last few years, I would have said the greatest threat faced this nation was our debt and deficit, which were exacerbating. We're not fixing it at all. Currently, I think the greatest threat is our division. And I try and point out that the good news is we're not a naturally divided people, not nationally, not globally. As human beings, we all want the same things, safety, security, enough opportunities for prosperity to take care of ourselves and our family.

So you have to ask the question, what is dividing us? And I would argue there are groups, there are individuals who are purposely dividing us. Would you agree with that and can you identify that? Absolutely. Our division is necessary in order to keep us from restoring our capacity to understand and to plot our course in a rational way. So it is clearly serving someone's interest. I'm much less certain about who that someone is, and I'm not sure it even matters. The primary job that we have is to rebuild the basic tools that allow us to function as a society, because as much as our society may have had substantial defects, it is at least the prototype for what we must build if we're to continue indefinitely as a prosperous species. During this process, I've gotten to know Robert Candy Jr. I think he's a very good person.

And I think the discussions we've had, we've talked about in order to unify this nation, to end the division, it's going to take individuals from both sides, maybe from the far sides, to come together, recognize the truth, and start conveying the same. the truth. Would you agree that's what's going to be necessary? Yes, and I think we have to do it immediately. I know that personally I have many ideological beliefs, and I have put them all aside. The defense of the West is paramount, and to the extent that we differ over how society is to be managed in some small way, let's fight about that later. We have to save the West. So I would think that would be one of the appeals of this panel. Again, I, what, one of the appeals of this panel?

One thing I've found out in these discussions, you know, the doctors I've been dealing with generally were not from the right. They generally weren't Republican, they were Democrat. But what we have in common is our eyes are open to this. Our eyes are open to the danger. And we've set that aside because we need to heal and unify this nation. We need to convey the truth. So anybody listening to this, and I realize this is a reasonably long session, but I think an incredibly important one, that ought to be one of the primary takeaways is this is what we must do as a nation.

We need to set aside that they are in so many instances petty political differences and understand what made this country and what made progress around the world possible, and that's called freedom and the higher value of the truth. But Dr. Weinstein, thank you for coming here and for your powerful testimony. Thank you. Next presenter is Mr. Randy Hillier. Mr. Hillier served in the Canadian Parliament for 15 years and was the first member to be publicly opposed his government's response to COVID. Probably didn't go well, did it?

He is being threatened with a three-and-a-half-year prison term for his support of the Canadian truckers. Mr. Hillier. Thank you very much, Senator. And thank you also very much for your commitment to truth, freedom, and faith in your endeavors. I was elected to the Ontario Parliament on four different occasions and served 15 years. Ontario is Canada's most populous province and largest economy. On March 26, 2020, I became the first elected representative in any Canadian Parliament to publicly oppose the state of emergency and the lockdowns,

and then the mandatory masks and mandatory jabs. The police in Ontario charged me 25 times for not abiding by the mandates and hosting no more lockdown rallies across the province. 20 charges have been withdrawn. I still have five of those yet to win. I have also been charged with nine criminal offenses for being in and advocating for the the Freedom Truckers Convoy in Ottawa, February 2022. The Crown Attorney is seeking a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence for my words of encouragement at the Truckers Convoy. Senator, today we're under the, and democracy is under these bright lights here in this room

for all to see. And thank you. But there is a much more to government. that is not under the bright lights. There is a dark side to all governments. This investigative committee is seeking answers to what did they hide. It would be a much shorter committee

if it was what did they not hide. However, I'll provide one short, first-hand story that reveals what the political leadership in Ontario hid from everyone's view. And I believe it was neither unique nor confined to Ontario, but ubiquitous throughout the Western world, including here in the USA. During the last week of April in 2020, my position opposing the government's preposterous and outrageous mandates were well known to everyone and to all my colleagues.

I knew at the time there was but a dozen other legislators who shared my views, but not one of them would be public about their position. Although I was no longer in the government caucus and I had declared myself to be an independent member of the legislature, one day I was approached by four senior staff members from the Premier's office. The Premier would be akin to a state governor here in the United States. They had a singular question they wanted to discuss with me, as they knew that I would give them an honest answer.

And the question was – and we did this quietly and discreetly – not underneath the bright lights of democracy. But they did want an honest answer, and the question was, Randy – how do you know – how do you do we get out of this mess? They knew that the virus and its harm and its lethality was highly exaggerated. They knew that the state of emergency was entirely unnecessary and harmful. They knew that the lockdowns were exceptionally harmful. But they also knew that the 24-7 media hysteria was out of control and had created a fearful, anxiety-ridden mob. They also knew that the Premier's closest, most influential advisors were lobbyists for pharma and tech,

and that they saw the pandemic through a very, very profitable lens for themselves. and for their clients. They also knew from the extensive daily polling that appealing to the mob's fear was politically beneficial. They feared, however, these four staffers feared the long-term damage would be horrendous to themselves, to their families, and the province.

And my answer to them was very simple. I explained that they needed to be honest with the Premier and his advisors. Explain that to the public that the Premier had acted out of the abundance of caution to the uncertainty, but the facts were now known and proved that the virus was far less dangerous than first expected. that the modeling was highly fictitious and exaggerated, and that the consequences of the lockdowns were unbearable and far more dangerous than what COVID ever would be.

And to simply ask for the people's understanding and forgiveness for the needless harms that were done, and in simple terms, I told them that to get out of this, Instead of this required them to be honest and truthful. But they told me that the truth could not be told. They could not accept that, that it would cost them all their jobs. So what did we hide? We hid the facts, and certainly we had to hid the context.

We disguised all the data and all the stats. But we also abdicated our responsibilities, and instead of providing leadership, we became followers to the very mob we had created and helped to create. And then we concealed our motivations, but also many politicians also were victims of this con-job called COVID. We hid the truth, we feared honesty, and we had broken God's commandment and our covenant. And we disguised once again that political interests, political party interests, always trump the public's interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hillier. It strikes me, though there are a lot of COVID tyrants around the world. Your prime minister was one of the more oppressive. Does he still have public support? Does say it at the gate? Does Prime Minister Trudeau still enjoy a great deal of public support in Canada? No. His best before date is near at its end, and I'm sure he will not survive another electoral cycle if he even makes it to the

the next. I'm glad. I love Canada, love Canadians, like fishing for your walleye up in Lincoln of the Woods. Can you describe some of the persecutions of the truckers? Because I thought that was, it was very difficult to watch. And they inspired a trucker movement here in the United States as well, but it's really the Canadian truckers that had the courage to step forward and protest. And they were treated savagely, weren't they? Oh, absolutely. There was trucks vandalized by the by the authorities, there was physical abuse and violence.

But then there was the lawfare that was applied. And as the chief of police in Ottawa said, he said, we are going to hunt you all down during the convoy. And they have. There's people here this weekend that were hunted down and charge a year later who had trucks in Ottawa. And charged with what?

Charge with mischief, obstruction, generally very trivial, catch-all criminal charges, but as we know, Senator, we can when you use

the law with malice, you can make due process, due punishment very quickly, and that is what our authorities are doing in Ottawa. They're not using the justice as a shield to protect individual freedoms and liberties. They're using it as a weapon to destroy people's liberties. Do they seize bank accounts, shut down credit cards, that type of thing? Many people had their bank accounts frozen, their credit card accounts.

eliminated, mortgage accounts revoked. Many, many people were put in exceptionally dire financial straits for being at the Freedom Convoy. Just a few weeks ago, the authority that Trudeau used to seize those assets, so the cash and the bank accounts and the credit cards, That decision was overturned or has been ruled ultra-veres and unconstitutional and that there was never a threat to the security of the nation during the trucker's convoy because indeed it was the most joyful, most family-friendly, most exuberant, most happy time that the city of Ottawa has ever seen in its history.

So that's one victory, but again, it's a warning against things like government-controlled digital currencies, correct? Say that again, please? You know, your experience in terms of what the government did to people's bank accounts, their assets, would argue against things like government-controlled digital currencies. Oh, listen, we have got a suite of intolerable acts coming towards us, the central bank digital currencies, the WHO pandemic treaty, the biodigital convergence, the 15-minute cities, the global warming, all of these I can best describe as another con. And 250 years ago, the American colonials saw a whole bunch of coercive intolerable acts. perpetrated by authorities and they stood up and rebelled.

We've got far, far worse, coercive acts coming to all countries in the Western liberals. I think the founders have to be spinning in their graves. Anyway, so there's an example of what happened in Canada, and now we'll turn to Romania. Our next presenter is Dr. Soren, Titus Munkakau. Is that pretty close? but the doctor is a doctor and a member of Romanian parliament. He specializes in orthopedics. He works as a foreign graduate for Virginia Hospital Center.

He specialized in the Vinci Surgical Robot. Doctor. Thank you very much, Senator. It's a great honor for me to be here. And what I'm going to speak about is the fact that we are four years in this saga. And we can look back to what happens, And I can give you the perspective of the Romanian experience. We are a party having probably 10% of the votes.

We got in the parliament in 2020. And we, from the very beginning of this pandemic, we decided that the rights of the people to decide if they accept or not a experimental drug should be respected. Therefore, we start a fight in the parliament. And like I said, we are only 10% of the votes. So first, it was, they come to us to a mandatory vaccination law that they kept in the draw from 2017.

Now, I mentioned that because I found that. found out that one of their strategy is called like a mouth trap. In other words, they put pieces of legislation in place. And people are not aware of what those pieces of legislation means. But all of a sudden they declare an emergency and the trap closes. And then we found out ourselves in the trap. And that's what who is going to do in May. So we oppose that.

After that, we start alerting the population that something is wrong with coercion. Coorician doesn't look like it's benefited anybody. So what strikes me was, and our party was the fact that when they start the vaccination campaign, they put military on the streets. That doesn't really ring democracy to us. So we thought it. We got people involved and we start fighting. Now, the coercion was done by the European Union.

I mean, they came up with the green pass, and that was to force people if they want to travel or they want to go to the mall, to the bank, to have this green certificate. However, the crucial piece of legislation was green certificate at the workplace, which means from 18 to 65, the active population,

they want to vaccinate that population. And we fiercely oppose that. We did everything in the book that we could to stop that, and we stop it. And as a consequence to that, the Romanian rate of vaccination was probably less than half of what the other European countries experienced, or United States, Canada, and Australia. And therefore, we can compare now the low rate and the excess mortality. And that's the best proof I can bring to the table is the fact that having a synergic relationship between a low rate of vaccination and low excess mortality, which is right there you see it on the – Romania is the last country on the right, which means we have negative excess mortality, while all the other countries in Europe have positive excess mortality. Some of them go to 20.

I was appalled by the figures Mr. Dogev. I truly believe in those. It's excess mortality is coming up in Europe in great figures. And I think all Western countries are facing the same situation. If you have a high rate of vaccination, it's a synergic relationship with a excess mortality in the year following that. And to be honest, at this point, I think we should have been aware of the fact that they are hiding for us all those figures. Not only that, but it took us a lot of energy and effort to get the contract, the five,

The Pfizer contract looks exactly like the paper you show. It's black. Everywhere, it's a secret in those contracts. And we forced the European Union to tell us exactly what was happening with the vaccination during the same day, the day of the vaccination. Well, it's the European Union has roughly more than 400 million people, a lot of them were vaccinated, but the day they have the vaccine, 12,000 people die the same day. And that should tell something about how criminal this endeavor is.

Because you can say, well, 12,000 people died. I mean, it's not a small figure, right? And I believe to the bottom of my heart that this was a great crime against humanity that these companies were doing by promoting and by executing this vaccination. And unfortunately, it happened and looking back, we can see what happened. So, Doctor, in the short time remaining, how would you explain Romania's ability to resist versus the rest of Europe and the United States? Is it cultural? Was it just your ability to convince people or what? Yeah, this is the subject of hesitancy.

Remember, they took steps to avoid to contrabalance hesitancy. Therefore, they deny the right for repurpose medication. They try to, they have a media cartel, the trusted news initiative who actually purposely decided not to, I mean to facilitate the vaccination, but to counter the other measure which were repurposed drugs. that because they did that, now we are facing this situation. It's a hesitancy was something that they tried as much as they could to counter. But in Romania, the problem they face is that we are 40 years after a communist dictatorship, 30, 34 years after a communist dictatorship, and it's in our gene, it's in our, to distrust the government, because we knew every time a communist government is saying anything or is directing anything,

we knew that's a lie, that's something that we should not trust, we should not follow. So when the European Union started behaving like the USSR with those commissars coming to us and Mr. Barnier came to Romania, this gentleman was the commissar for internal affairs of the European Union, and pushed us, push the Romanian parliament to vote the green certificate at the workplace, I definitely oppose that. and I knew they have no scientific base for that. And I asked him in the Romanian parliament, if you ask us to vaccinate people from 18 to 65, you better have a scientific proof that that will, it's what we are looking for.

We are to have a proof, a scientific proof to justify that. And he said, no, it should be a political, you belong to European Union, you should follow the directive. Well, guess what? We did not. I think more people around the world are taking more of a Romanian attitude toward trust in their government. I think that's a good thing.

Thank you, doctor. Our next presenter is Mr. Rob Ruse. Mr. Ruse is a member of the European Parliament. He garnered worldwide attention for his viral video of a hearing with Pfizer executive Janine Schmal. Making here admit that Pfizer's vaccine had not been tested on stopping the transmission of the COVID-19 virus. First of all, job well done. Thank you, Mr. Ruse. Thank you, Senator.

for having me here. The topic of today is what are they hiding, and I will speak about the WHO pandemic treaty. On December 1st, 2021, the 194 members of the World Health Organization agreed to move quickly on a treaty agreement or other international instruments on future pandemics. The power of the WHO, and in particular, the

power of the Director General to monitor, to coordinate and to direct would be significantly expanded. The European Union is pushing for a legally binding pandemic treaty, but that would require a two-third majority here in the U.S. Senate. Negotiations are ongoing. I have the draft right here. But it's unlikely that it would pass worldwide. Simultaneously, however, negotiations are ongoing on more than 300 amendments to the International Health Regulation.

They were originally submitted by the Biden administration and they will be subject to a vote by the General Assembly of the WHO at the end of May. These amendments would not have to be ratified by any national parliament. Thus, enabling the WHO to circumvent national democracy. Thereby, they form the truth imminent danger to freedom worldwide. Tucker Carlson made an informative segment in a show on Fox in 2000. 2020, warning the public against this global pandemic treaty.

It makes total sense because this is sketchier than amendments to the international health regulation. However, as we can see from the original amendments, if adopted, they would already give the WHO a leading, convening and coordinating role in the operational aspects of an emergency response to, a pandemic. So in short, the pandemic treaty is indeed worse, but the amendments are the true imminent danger. And the WHO seems to be in a hurry. In May 2022, there was a vote on two significant changes to the procedure of adoption. A significant reduction of the periods provided for under Article 59 of the 2005 IHR in two regards. First of all, the procedure for entry into force is changed. Under Article 59, paragraph 2 of the amended IHR, there is a reduction from the original

24 months to 12 months for the entry into force. Second, the period for rejection or expressing reservations on amendments to the IHR is reduced from 18 to 10 months. The vote for this change of the IHR was performed in violation of the WHOHR constitution due to lack of a proof of consent. There was no vote and no record of who was present. With other words, basic procedural rules for the correct formation of a vote have been violated. The democratic process has been sabotaged. By letter, and I have this letter over here, I have requested the Director General, Tadros, for proof of simple majority. But I have not received any response yet.

It would surprise me, however, that something like an illegal procedural change is going to stop the WHO General Assembly from adopting the Biden amendments to the IHR in May. If they are adopted, democracy will be sidelined in the event the WHO decides to declare a pandemic. Experts believe the WHO could then, in practice, impose lockdowns, enforce medical interventions and dictate medical protocols. Such a one-size-fits-all response to a pandemic crisis is foolish in geographical zones, characterized by vastly different parameters. And it is, of course, totally undemocratic. Instead of a central bureaucratic process, we need local democratic decision-making. The WHO cannot be trusted at all. It is funded by China, by big pharma, and by philanthropists.

I call them oligarchs, by the way. There are enormous conflicts of interest. Further amendments threaten free speech and seek to increase censorship of differing opinions, potentially transforming our nation into totalitarian-like states. Conclusion, defenders of freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stop these amendments from coming into pass. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Ruse. Just one quick question.

What is the attitude toward these amendments in the... European Parliament. Are you an outlier or is there a great deal of resistance? Well, I think there is a big problem. The people believe that the WHO is a neutral government organization, which is not. And 80% of its funding is coming from voluntary contributions, 80%. And nobody knows. People, they do believe that is a neutral government organization. So, there is no awareness and I think that is the problem. So in the European Union, it's not really a topic at this moment. So I'm very happy that you are organizing this hearing and that we can raise this awareness.

So no, we need awareness. There's no doubt about it. So thank you, Mr. Rousse. Our next presenter is Mr. Philip Cruza. Mr. Cruz is a Swiss lawyer who has been practicing law since 1998. He specialized in tax and in constitutional law. is a law firm in Zurich and is admitted to all courts in Switzerland. Mr. Cruza.

Thank you very much, Senator, for hosting this important witness hearing, and thank you very much for inviting me. It's an honor to give an overview on the key points of concern with the WHO's new pandemic regime, and I will do so from a purely constitutional and fundamental law and international law perspective. Now, first, as I'm a very constitutional, already mentioned by Rob Rose, Member of Parliament of Europe. When analyzing WHO's new pandemic legal

regime, we need to consider two different international treaties that are about to be negotiated as we speak. Number one, a completely new international convention, the so-called new pandemic treaty, and number two, amendments to the already existing international health regulations. Both of these legal instruments shall be adopted already in May 2024. This is three months from now at the next World Health Assembly by WHO's 194 member states. I will take them together for the reason of time and focus on the consequences for democracy, for the constitutions of every member state and for the people. Now, this is the information that is hidden from the government.

hidden from the people and that everybody must know with respect to these new pandemic agreements. Number one, general remarks. Both of these legal instruments are technically international agreements. They are concluded between 194 member states, but they involve and has as a target and objective the World Health Organization as a third party. Number two, these agreements are negotiated without taking into consideration the massive and undeniable amount of data and of scientific evidence about the collateral damages of the global pandemic management of the WHO, and the WHO, as probably most governments, are still today in a state of total denial with respect to these collateral damages.

There is no learning, even worse. these new pandemic legal regime will legalize all the methods of this pandemic period under COVID-19 that have proven to be harmful or wrong. Third general remark, on the basis of these two legal instruments, Member States will transfer constitutional powers to the WHO in an extent never seen before. WHO will be given full discretion to set up conditions under which all kinds of mandates, including injections of experimental substances, can be made mandatory on a global scale. I come now to the details.

Number one, WHO's already existing authority to declare a public health emergency of international concern will become massively extended. They will be allowed to declare all kinds of public health emergency under any given region. without any responsibility to clear standards. This will come under the title and concept of One Health, so whether to fight a human influenza with a new subtype or to reduce rising level of CO2, or to respond to the loss of biodiversity, or to fight climate change,

all of that can give rise to the next pandemic. Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and I refer to the amendments to the Article 12 of the international health regulations. This is pure arbitrariness. This is the opposite of the rule of law. And it comes without a mechanism to correct or to stop this declaration of the emergency. And this is the first point where member states will give away control over their country.

In addition, linked to that in the national legislation, In the national legislation, regulatory legislation of the member states, with the declaration of a public health emergency comes the abolishment of ordinary safety standards for medical products. Point number two, WHO will be authorized to issue recommendations with legally binding effects. This is legislation. This is legislation directed directly affecting every human being. We are talking about mandatory testing methods by useless tools, mandatory travel restrictions, mandatory lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, with predefined experimental products, mass quarantines, and so on. This doctrine of mandatory one-size-fits-all will deny all human beings the individual treatment, the right for individual treatment they deserve.

It will also hinder medical doctors to truly care about their patients. This doctrine is totalitarian by design, and we have to oppose it. It is a blank check to literally violate bodily autonomy of every human being and humiliate people on a global scale. Point number three, censorship. As WHO has already done under COVID-19, This international organization will be granted the global supreme authority to define truth and science, and to eliminate free speech and free exchange of information under the title of infodemics.

Now, as we all should know, free speech and free information are among the founding principles in every democracy, in every constitution. Without free speech and free information, by definition there can be no free science, can be no fair justice, and most of all, there can be no democracy. But this is not all. With this global health censorship, people will never learn and never know about the dangers that are associated with these MRNA-based products and other countermeasures. So they will be mandated to take experimental injections without an informed consent, and this is, ladies and gentlemen, an example of cruel inhuman.

or degradating treatment, as it is absolutely prohibited on the mandatory international law as it is written down in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7, and breach of which can never be justified. Point number four, in the same time, the new pandemic treaty is a basis for a state-directed economy under the vague concept of equity, and it will allow, even create cartels for the pandemic industry that will enjoy guaranteed profits without any liability for the damages they cause, just as we have seen that already under COVID. Point four, all of the above will become reality without any mechanism to effectively control

or stop the WHO. So there will be no checks and balances, but full discretion and arbitrariness, and arbitrariness to the benefit of WHO, even full immunity and no accountability. And here again, checks and balances is another of the founding principles in every constitution, which comes here under attack. So let's speak about point number six. The next point, fundamental rights. Well, that is easily responded.

We see some lines in the new pandemic treaty. claiming fundamental rights to be the basic principles of WHO. But I ask you, with such a strict regime of unnecessary promoted emergencies with censorship and with mandatory medical treatment, how will it be possible to protect human rights for a judge who only hears one side and is not allowed to consider even the other side from those brave scientists who most of them, who many of them are here in the room. It will be impossible by design. And associated with that is the fact that the governments will always try to comply with their international law

obligations towards WHO. So, Mr. Cruz, I need, we need to move on, but let me just say, I'm thoroughly convinced, okay, this is something that needs to be defeated. You know, unfortunately, in the U.S., it's like so many things, it's partisan issue. I offered an amendment to make any agreement, deem any agreement a treaty. They have to come before the Senate for ratification, two-thirds approval, and that was voted down on party lines. So just a quick question before we had to move on. How many nations are going to vote on these amendments? What's the count?

It's 190 nations. 194 nations are the members of the WHO. And what is the prospect that it will pass? I mean, what's the political dynamic here? Are smaller nations in favor of this? I mean, is there a great skepticism? Or as Mr. Ruse was saying, well, people think the who's a good organization,

and this is going to just fly. through passage. Yeah, we can only feel little hints and see little hints that behind the scenes, many nations are not happy with this agreements, but for other purposes then we talk here about, and that's about business. One part of the nations want to have more money from the richer countries and the richer countries do not want to share their patents and or money to the benefit of its nations. awareness, this has to be defeated. So again, thanks for your testimony. I did want to leave a

little room. I know Ms. Logan had a question, give you a short period time for that, but quick want to go to Dr. Ryan Cole, who's participated in some of these other panels, and he requested a couple minutes to speak. Thank you, Senator Johnson. I wish we had 99 other senators like you. It's an honor to be here. Now you know I ask him to speak. It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren

until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concerned their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.

I know of no way of judging the future, but by the past. These wise words from Patrick Henry, just down the street from where I went to medical school at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, in 1775. Now, when I became a physician, I did not give up my constitutional rights. The right to freedom of speech, enumerated in the First Amendment, we in this room, and I honor those from around the world who have come here, and stood up for freedom to give us Americans an example of how we are supposed to stand on those founding principles that were given to us by our founding fathers.

Thank you for your example for standing up. Thank you to the military members here who stood up against illegal mandates in the military, illegal orders. Thank you to the vaccine injured who are here, who have tried to have a voice, who continue to get gaslit and silence. Again, thank you to great leaders like Senator Johnson and others who continue to open the doors for what is a fundamental right in the United States of America. that is free speech. The censorship we've endured, the gaslighting, the silencing, is unconstitutional.

People say that there is nothing in the Constitution that accounts for a pandemic. Oh, yes, there is. It's called the Ninth Amendment. And what does that Ninth Amendment say? The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by whom? The people. This limits the ability of the national government to infringe on non-enumerated rights. Your right to your body, your right to privacy. I could give it one hour talk, I won't. Senator Johnson was gracious to give me two minutes. I've been censored.

I've been attacked by boards of medicine by newspapers, nationally, internationally, locally, CEOs of local hospitals, et cetera. For what? For harming patients? No. Do I have any patient complaints against me for COVID treatment? Absolutely not. But I spoke something that somebody else didn't like. I reserve the right to be right. I reserve the right to be wrong. But more than anything, I reserve the right to speak. It is the foundational principle of this great nation. And when we lose that, we lose a nation. We can talk about science all day long and we've heard

brilliant scientists. We've been censored for knowing things that we know and seeing things that we see. And again, experience is the greatest teacher of all. Don't be deaf. Don't be blind. And don't be a jerk to your neighbors. You know, let's have disagreements.

That's what built this nation. Do you think those rooms in the early days of the founding of this country were just, a love fest? No, they weren't. It wasn't all flowers and guitar strumming. It was heated debate, and we've lost that art in our world and in our society. We need to return to respectful debate. We need to return to the opportunity to share thought, be it right or be it wrong. And with this, I'll conclude very simply, if life so dear or peace so sweet, As to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery,

forbid it Almighty God. I know what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death, but even more so, honor the common doctors, honor the common scientists, honor the common citizens' free speech, or it may lead to the death of all of us. Thank you, Senator.

Well, thank you, Dr. Cole. I think I'll use moderated discretion and say that's what we'll end this. I want to thank all the participants, first of all, for your courage, because I know the very high price you've paid. I understand that. I want to encourage any people, any individual working in an agency, working in journalism, working in government. If you're seeing something that needs to be exposed, if you want to tell the truth, there's an email that you can use, whistleblower at ronjohnson.senet.gov, where you can blow the whistle. That's what we need. We need more patriots, understanding the threat, the danger our nation faces because of the misinformation, the disinformation, the misinformation, not coming from the dissidents, but from our government, from our elite.

It's put this country on a very dangerous path. So again, thank you all for participating in this, and I would just urge anybody watching this. Please share this link. We'll do an edit. It will certainly have the four hours out there, but we'll break it down to the essence. Share those links,

because more people need to see the truth. God bless all of you. Have a good day.