The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ICAN FUNDS MAJOR LAWSUIT TARGETING PREP ACT IMMUNITY

Episode Date: October 23, 2023

ICAN lead counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq. discussed ICAN’s major lawsuit to strike down unconstitutional provisions of the PREP Act granting vaccine makers immunity from liability for injuries and deaths, and the ‘nonsense’ injury compensation program.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We go after some big things. We're the only ones that have ever pushed the law back just a few months ago. We brought back the religious exemption from Mississippi, something that had been gone since 1979. Now people in Mississippi can opt out of a mandated vaccine program to go to school. This is the heart of the work that we do at the informed consent action network. These are bucketless moments, but we're going to go after liability protection now. And specifically, we're starting with the PEP Act. We've just announced that we have filed this case against the PEP Act. And there it is, ICANN's attorneys file a major lawsuit to strike down portions of the PEP Act.

I'm joined now by one of the greatest attorneys in world history. Our attorney for the informed consent action, I love doing that to you, Aaron. Here he is. Aaron, Siri. It's really good to see you. So to start out with, you. Why don't you describe what the PEP Act is and sort of how it came about? How does it work?

So when there is an emergency that's declared, the Secretary of HHS can decide that all countermeasures for that emergency, whether they're vaccines like the COVID vaccine or treatment, supposed treatments like from Desivir are going to be given immunity, effectively blanket immunity from liability for injuries. The idea is to spur companies to go in rush and create products because they know that, hey, as long as we get it to market, we could sell it. It's an emergency. The government will buy it, and we don't have to worry about being sued for injuries. I would submit that all that does is it spurs innovation to create products that are probably not safe. not products that are going to be better for society.

The immunity is a really bad idea. The companies already have the incentive to make the money. They're going to rush. There's no reason to say you don't have to pay for injuries. Right. I agree completely. And so they had these protections. And ironically, I was just talking to Jeffrey Barkey earlier,

those same protections should have been on because it was also about trying new things, trying off-label users. If we're in an emergency, do whatever. We're not going to hold you accountable for trying things when we're in the middle of a crisis, you might find some obscure drug nobody thought about in your own exploration of a cure or an answer. You should be held and not liable for that.

Ironically, in the middle of this, the PEP Act would have taken care of all the hydroxychloroquine doctors that were using that and the Ivermectin, but instead they've gone outside of that to try and pass laws to take away that protections, which already naturally exist. Am I wrong about that? I mean, shouldn't the PEP Act have been like protecting those that were trying other treatments that especially had been proven safe in like hundreds of millions of people around the world? As long as they were considered by our federal health authorities as a countermeasure or deemed as such, then they would have actually been given the protection of the PEP Act, even if it's an existing

product, but they weren't, as we know. All right. They weren't deemed that way by our federal health authorities. Okay. So now let's get a little bit into this, this live. liability issue. And I think part of where the case is at, what is it about the PEP Act that you think is vulnerable right now and what are we looking at? So the major feature that people think about when I think of the PEP Act, as you just pointed out, is that you can't see the manufacturer

for injury. Now, recognizing that, Congress didn't leave folks injured by the countermeasures, in particular the COVID-19 vaccines with no recourse. They left them with virtually no recourse. Why do I say that? Because they created something called the CICP, the counter-injury-injury-Vetro Conversation Program. And what that is, this program is where if you're injured by a COVID-19 vaccine, you can file a claim. The problem is, is that when you file a claim in the CICP, it's the equivalent of shoving paper into a black hole and just waiting to see what comes back. Why? Because in the American judicial system, what are we all used to?

What do we understand to be due process? We understand there are basic requirements for due process. The government doesn't have to set up a system. It doesn't have to give you a way to challenge a zoning, you know, to create exceptions to a zoning requirement or challenge any other government process. But when it does, that process needs to meet basic constitutional due process. The CICP program, we argue in this lawsuit, does not in any way, shape or form meet that very basic constitutional due process requirement.

Because when you file your claim, what do you have to put in your petition? Not clear. Who's going to review it? You don't know. Meaning you don't know the judges, who the trier of fact is. Can you petition them with more information to ask them questions about how they were going to review? No.

what experts they're going to use? No. Can you ask their expert questions? No, because you don't know who they are. The entire process happens in a black box. You have no rights. You have no discovery rights. You have no rights to address the tribunal. You don't even know if they have conflicts or not because you don't know who they are. And you can't even confront, as we all know, so they're able to confront the other, right? So they're not only then basically sitting as the judge, they're also the prosecutioners. I mean, there's basically, basically no distinction there. And so what we argue is that that process, the CICP, is a absolute violation of the United

States Constitution's due process requirement. And we ask that it be corrected in all of those ways that I just listed in others. It's all laid out in the complaint. And that if it's not corrected and that the entire statute needs to be struck down, it's a similar thing we've done in other lawsuits where the judge rules, look, you got to fix this. And if you're not, the whole thing has gone. got to go. When you, you know, in these cases, one of the things I've learned with you is that judges are not really keen on restructuring scientific, you know, things that involve science. They don't

like saying, if you do this, this will fix it. They tend to say, look, one, you know, one part of this car is broken, scrap the whole car, go rebuild it, and come back to me. But I'm not into trying to describe to you how you fix a car that's not what I do as a judge. So in some ways, is a good chance. If you break this part of it and show it's unconstitutional and not giving people their right to, you know, a correct trial, then since that part is broken, there's a chance they could just rule that this whole thing should be scrapped, right? Yeah, the judges, you know, the judiciary is the Article III of the Constitution. Article 1 is the legislature that writes the laws. And so the judges don't sit around, you know, trying to rewrite or reformulate laws.

If the law is unconstitutional, no, they typically, though there are variations, will typically find and say, hey, look, this law is unconstitutional. And the CICP program really is inextricably intertwined in many ways with the immunity provided, right, to the manufacturers. So if the CICP program is not fixed, yes, the correct remedy is that the whole statute, including the immunity to liability, should be struck down. So to give me a sense, like obviously, I know a lot of people were reaching out to the high wire looking for, they had injuries. they wanted to find some way that they could deal with that. How many cases did you end up looking at? I mean, I know a lot of people were reaching out to your law firm. Is this something that, you know, is part of your understanding of this law and the fact that it's not working correctly from the amount of people that you were seeing? Oh, as Dell as you know, I can, the informant action, ICANN has gotten inundated with folks reaching out about COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

You know, and our firm has as well. And so there has been a, you know, we're set up to deal with all the folks calls, but all the other vaccine injuries. I've got a whole team that deals with folks who would be injured by other vaccines and we filed claim for them in the, which you mentioned earlier, the vaccine injury conversation program. But, you know, we're not, we weren't prepared for the very quick avalanche. It's different than other vaccines because, you know, you're only giving a happy vaccine to,

you know, a smaller cohort of people. They gave the COVID-19 vaccine to 270 million people, more than once, often, sometimes more than two times. So that is an incredible number of people to vaccinate. And, you know, just one group, which is also a plaintiff in the suit that we filed, React 19. Just one group has over 30,000 seriously injured people who got the COVID-19 vaccine. I mean, that's what I was going to ask next. I mean, I know when I look at VERS, I see 30,000 reports of deaths, over 30,000 reports of death. That's here we go. Here's the numbers 36,000 reported desk. Now, let me be clear. These are just reports, but these are people that file reports that should be going on and asking for compensation in some sort of judicial review of what took place to see if they should be compensated. 2110,000 hospitalizations, 152,000 urgent care, 253,000 doctor office visits, 10,000 cases of anaphylaxis, 17,000 cases of Bell's palsy, paralysis, paralysis and paralysis.

in the face. So when I look at all of those numbers and we look at this prep act, how many people have been paid out for their injuries so far of what clearly looks like hundreds of thousands of people that should have a right to their day in court? Four. Four people have been paid out. That's it. And this is a program, by the way, that they don't, in over 12,000 claims have been filed. In a program, by the way, that our federal authorities have not, have gone out of their way to not promote. Right. Most people do not know about it.

Most folks who get, who have an issue for COVID-19 vaccine, don't know about it. And you know, when somebody's going to take the time to actually do this, because they're not, lawyers are not really involved with this program. The program won't play attorney's fees and the amount of damages you can get. Even if you win, the most you can get is $50,000 in lost wages a year and your lost medical expenses. It doesn't matter how much you're suffering, no much pain, nothing else. That's all you can get.

This is all that program. So if you're retired and you are now in sufferable pain for the rest of your life and you've got Medicare, you know, health insurance, even if you win, you get nothing because you're not losing any income and you have your medical bills paid. Wow. So yes, we've got those 12,000 represent, I think, a very, very small percentage of the folks out there who probably could file a claim. They just don't know about it.

Or, then this is very, very common. There's a one-year statute of limitations. So you're talking about folks who are really injured. They finally come around and when they finally learn about it, most of them are out of time. They can't file a petition. Anyway, it's incredible 12,000 folks, over 12,000 people have filed a claim to date. Amazing that they set a time limit on the amount of time that you have to claim an injury,

but, you know, didn't even give you that time limit when they looked at the vaccine. There's no one year, two, year, three, year, five-year studies saying how far down the road an injury would happen. I mean, it's just, it's so egregious on so many different angles. Okay, so who are the plaintiffs? Tell me a little bit about the plaintiffs in this case, because I think that's always important. This is, obviously, this is a case that ICANN is funding, which means not actually us, but all the people that are watching this program right now that sponsor us are making this happen. So who is it that we are, you know, helping bring their case against this egregious government,

I guess I could call it an oversight if we're going to try and keep it from sounding nefarious. Well, that's very, very kind, I mean, especially considering a lot of these folks were mandated to get this product as well. With that said, most of the plaintiffs are individuals who have been injured by the vaccine. I should say that if the case is successful, it's not just seeking relief on behalf of being named individuals, but it should extend to everybody in the entire country if it's successful. So it's a number of individuals who have been injured by the COVID vaccine. Some of them filed the claims, some didn't file a claim, some, you know, they're all in varying situations,

as well as I know to React 19 is also a group, and I believe, you know, you had. I've worked so much with them. There's just a great group of people that really have spoken out, even through pain and injury, traveling when it hurts them and their bodies are shutting down, still going to try and spread the word. So many horrific injuries there. And for those that have been experiencing vaccine injury through the years from the childhood vaccine program,

again, as you put it, this was a tidal wave of injury that took place because everybody, as we know, was told they had to get it in order to work and live their lives in America. and certainly the rest of the world has their issues, but this is right here. Specifically, are there any cases we would know about? Maybe even talked about here on. Yeah, sure. You know, one case, for example, was a young girl in high school who got the J&J vaccine. And you may recall that at one point, they paused the J&J vaccine for quite a while

because they discovered it can cause something called TTS, which is, thrombosis, you know, blood clotting at the same time as it causes of throbotidopinia, reduce platelet counts, right? Usually we have less platelets, you don't have clotting, you have thinning blood. So it's the opposite. So these folks were presenting to the hospital and the hospital was then going and treating them for low platelet counts, giving them a medicine that would then cause more blood clotting and that could cause even more issues. So, you know, they had six cases that they identified.

identified. She was one of those six cases that then resulted in the pause of the J&J vaccine. And as you recall, they said, oh, yeah, this is actually happening. They have confirmed causality, the federal authorities, which is why, you know, they then put in all of these warnings and so forth. She filed her claim back, I believe, was in November of 2021. So it's been, you know, almost two years, and still no decision, nothing. No help with her medical bills, nothing, even though, she was one of the known reasons they stopped the vaccine and then put warning labels on everything. Yeah, I mean, she had to have brain surgery. She can't really walk while her parents get to sleep with her because she can't really pull the blanket over her.

She needs help going to the bathroom. She can't write her type. Her family has had to move to a new house to be able to accommodate her situation, getting, you know, two vans that can accommodate. I mean, serious expenses, devastating impact on her life, you know, such a heartbreaking. story and you know and and she was just doing what she was told government said go get it you just heard Mandy Cohen say go out and get these shots it's good it's this you know the benefits out weigh the risk well certainly did not outweigh the risk for this young lady she's paying an incredible price and what the government is doing to her now is really truly adding insult to injury

because every time these family follows up with the program they're told and they've been often told by them that they're going to get a decision in a hot minute, a hot minute. They literally say that a hot minute is the terminology being used. That's my understanding, it's a very trope. I mean, so, you know, that's just one example. Let me ask you this. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. No, no. I want to ask you this,

does this work the same way the 86 Act is, which is there's a tax on the COVID vaccine that goes into this fund, and then is there to pay for these injuries? Is that how this act also works, Prep Act? Is that where the money is coming from? That's not my understanding when it comes to the CICP, for the VICP, for the vaccine injury compensation program. So it's not the same.

Well, because my question is this, is whatever pot of money, and they've only paid out for people, how much money is actually going to what it's supposed to, to, you know, adjudicate and pay these people for the injuries that clearly it's already admitted it's happening to this young lady. compared to, you know, the bureaucrats are involved in whatever it is they're doing.

That's a great question. And as you know, we have been foying the federal health authorities, trying to get to the bottom of that. As best as we can tell, there's about $5 million set aside to compensate this folks. Which may explain, by the way, the four people who they did provide compensation to, they've only gave them about $2,000 each. And the only thing is... Wait a minute, wait, wait, wait, look at what this just said.

folks. It's a little bit different than what you were saying there, Aaron. Bring this back up. CICP lacks accountability, transparency, and cost-effectiveness. This is the Journal of Law and Biosciences and cost-effective efficiency with 94% of its total cost spent on administration rather than compensation. So there's a bunch of fat cats getting rich off of the payment. What they seem to be doing is blocking anybody from actually getting compensated. That is absolutely so. incredibly egregious. It's because they, as far as we can tell, there's virtually no money set aside to actually compensate people.

The only money that's really there is to actually administer the program. So that percentage is probably lumping in the money that's, that, you know, the program has, which is de minimis. You know, just, just to pay this one young lady who's injured is going to take millions of dollars, no doubt, in life care expenses. So if they've set aside, if there's a $5 million, that'll help one person. If they're even going to do it. And remember, they're not going to compensate her under this program for her pain and suffering.

They're not going to compensate her for all the different harm she has. They will give her at most $50,000 in lost wages. She's in high school. She's not working. And any unpaid medical expenses, and there's going to be a fight probably, even if they agreed to compensate her, on whether or not that, you know, what is considered medical expense. But here's the thing with her is that at so far the four people and the other folks, what they've signaled is that for the most part, it looks like they're only going to limit.

It looks like, time will tell, that they're going to limit this to folks with myriaditis and an anaphylaxis. That appears to be what they're willing to admit effectively at this point, whether or not they'll actually, you know, this program may choose to take a different route, on her situation. Time will tell. All right, Aaron, I want to thank you for bringing this important case. This is why we do this. This is why when you and I first got together and I was starting the informed consent action network at the end of 2016, we wanted to make a difference,

and you have been so instrumental in doing this. This case, I think, is critical. And so I want to thank you for bringing it. I think we've got the best guy in the house to do it. I know we could talk about all the incredible plaintiffs that are out there, but I think we get the idea. And I don't want to hold up any more of your time. You've got so many brilliant cases. I want you focused back on. So thank you for taking the time and joining us today. Thank you.