The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ICAN SEEKS TO STOP NEWBORN HEP B JABS, SUE PROVIDERS WHO VACCINATE WITHOUT CONSENT

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

ICAN lead counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., guides you through an exploration of the Hepatitis B vaccine, outlining the serious problems with this controversial vaccine given to newborn babies in their first days of life in the US, per the CDC. Hear why ICAN is fighting to have this shot removed from the childhood schedule. Further, ICAN is standing up to hospitals which vaccinate newborns without consent of the parents. You can support his effort at icandecide.org/legalmatch.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Joining us now is Aaron Siri. Erin Siri. Her lawyer. Aaron Siri. Aaron Siri has led several high-profile lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and federal health agencies. Aaron, you have been fighting for information from the FDA. He's the guy that has been asking Pfizer to release the COVID-19 vaccine data.

I love Aaron Siri. There's nobody who's been a greater asset to the medical freedom movement than him. The judge today correctly ruled that the FDA, school district does not have the authority to require COVID-19 vaccine of its students. We sent this letter to the FDA, CDC, and NIH. Detail in catastrophic injuries from COVID-19 vaccines. This summer, we formally petition the CDC demanding that they support their position, that those that have natural immunity cannot afford the same liberties

that the CDC says that those who have vaccine immunities can have. We do intend to follow a lawsuit on behalf of our client, the Informant and Action Network. network. Did the clinical trial rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you have the signs to support that vaccines do not cause autism? No, I do not wait. It's the only product I'm aware of where it is the government with DOJ attorneys defend the company, the product against the consumers claiming injury in the vaccine injury compensation program. Not a single childhood vaccine, I could tell you, has gone through a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient

duration and power to assess that it was safe before being injected into millions of children in America. There's been no check on vaccines. There's no moneyed interest, if you will, pushing back on pharmaceutical companies. Why did it take numerous legal demands, multiple appeals, two lawsuits in fact, before the CDC finally handed over the V-safe data? When we finally had that data, you got a sense of why they didn't want the public to have it, because it showed a little bit over 10 million reported needing medical care after a COVID-19 vaccine. It should not be that any physician

should have to quote unquote risk it all just to advocate for their patients. Think about this business model. You have a vaccine, you can't be sued for harms, you have a guaranteed market because kids are required to get it for school, and your health agencies promoted for you. If you wanna secure civil and individual rights,

you need to act yourselves, because if you don't do it, who will. It's a hell of a sizzle reel. I mean, just in seven short years, the amount of incredible work that Aaron Siri has achieved. One of the most difficult spaces in, you know, probably American history, literally changing the course of where we're going. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by our attorney, Aaron Siri.

Pleasure to be here. I mean. You guys make me look good. Well, it's not very hard. It's not very hard. And I just want to take this moment really quick with the people in camera because I just did talk about the $2 million match at any point during this conversation. I'm hoping you will decide, you know what, let me go ahead and donate to help this guy keep doing amazing work like that. But let's have this conversation now.

So much to talk about. But really, I just want to look forward. I want to look at the cases that we have going right now because we could sit here and do, you know, happy dances over all that's been achieved. But it's not over. Let me ask you this question just to start out with. I think a lot of people are going well. I mean, it looks like, you know, the government, you know, Bobby Kennedy has taken the government. Why are legal cases going to even be important?

Why not just say we did it? It's over. Oh, absolutely. Well, to the extent that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is able to really rein in these federal health authorities. And we're talking within HHS, you've got $85,000 employees, $1.7 trillion department, 13 operating divisions, CDC being one of them, FDA being another. numerous offices of the Secretariat. It's a sprawling mass of the Hamath.

And I think if anybody could do it, I hope that Mr. Kennedy, we hope to soon call him Secretary Kennedy. And hopefully the heads of the agencies, we still will see who those are. And then below that, there's going to be almost 300 individuals that are going to be appointed by the president. So let's see how all the those folks are and then we'll get a sense of what is going to be accomplished over the next year,

two years, four years. But even while that's going on, we have to remember what everybody else talks about the deep state. What is that? Yeah, what is that? That is below the 300 appointed individuals at HHS are the 85,000 career employees. And there's an entire in each agency, folks who've been there for decades, right, who are very high up. And many of them might, you often hear, say, take the view that we'll just wait out the career in point, the political appointees. Yeah. You know, they're there for maybe four years and most. We're here for decades.

We'll resist them. We'll subvert them. We'll undermine them. And so there is still that entire, you know, to the extent there are individuals in there that don't want to go along with Bobby's message. that don't want to have transparency, that don't want their emails shown, that don't want databases, that the American public pays for in public.

I mean, why? But there are. And we know they are there because they're fighting us. We have every time we want a database, like V-Safe, like various of the data sets, we've had to sue, like the FDA data. We've had to engage in multi-year law fees. Seventy-five years, they wanted a way to show the Pfizer data.

And you always had to remind people, you weren't fighting Pfizer on that, You were fighting the government. The FDA. Yeah, it was the FDA. Protecting a company like Pfizer for 75 years they wanted to do it. Why? Exactly.

The FDA doesn't want you looking at what they did to approve that product. If they weren't concerned, they would have released it. If any, they should want the public to have it to say, hey, look, you did a great job. Right. It's amazing product. We stand by it. We love the decisions we made. We'll show you how thorough we were.

Have at it, you know. Well, we're looking for a pat on the back. Yeah. Well, here's just a side, a diversion. In that lawsuit, remember when the judge ordered all the documents, he ordered it based on there being 450,000 pages. Turns out they produced 1.2 million pages. And there's apparently another million pages they still haven't produced. Really?

We are still litigating with them today over that years and years later. They are doing everything in their power to hide those documents from the public. Because the judge basically decided how many pages they deliver a date. He wanted all the data provided in one year. So based on the number they said, then we got to the end of that year. It was still coming. You went back to court. They said, oh, yeah, it's like, you know, another million documents or so.

And now, again, we're getting the end of the updated rate of flow and is coming, and you're still seeing we're not going to get it all. And so you're going to have to go to court again. So you asked me, what is there still to do in this space? Well, there still can be plenty of work to do on the federal level because it's, still there are lots of things at the federal government it will help their outsiders from the outside attacking in for example the FDA acts on petitions if you want a license a product you have to petition them if you want a

product to be withdrawn or reevaluated you typically often have to petition them right that's the normal course way for those things to happen well somebody on the outside needs to be petitioning them somebody in the outside needs to continue provide FOIA requests and say give us those documents give it that data so there's a lot of work to still be done in the federal level and there's It's a bit like if you've breached the castle, right, and you go in and you've got the seal team and they pull up the castle gate, if no one rushes in the gate, what did you achieve? So we still need to be coming in and demanding information and sort of getting what we can out of there. And then separately, a lot of the freedoms are actually not necessarily flowing out of the federal government.

They're at the state level. And so, you know, you've already heard some politicians who don't necessarily like the pick of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and don't like the current, the incoming administration stance, certain governors say, oh, we're going the opposite way. We're going to fight you. And what does that mean? Does that mean that they're going to become even more draconian on the issues of concern? Are they going to increase the number of mandates? Are they going to go the other direction where if the federal government decides to say, hey, let's respect people's individual rights, their right to inform consent? Do some states go, oh no, whatever is going on at the federal level now, we're going the opposite way? And do they become even more draconian, which may mean that fighting on the state level and those states may become even more important than it or race? And we definitely want to nip those things in the bud before they take, you know, root if they really decide to go in a further, as you said, draconian direction. You know, and I've said this many times on the show and we've talked about this many times.

Rights are on a pendulum. They're never, it's never that you've now got your rights and you're done. You always have to fight. In fact, as soon as you think you've won and you let go and you stop putting your foot on the gas to protect your rights, that's when you start to lose them. It's going to complacent. Because the other side, right, they're upset. They're going to start fighting. And if you say, well, we feel like we've won right now, we're going to stop, they're

mounting forces. And you want to fight all the time because there's no such thing as winning your rights. There are always those who want to take your way of rights because they want to make more money for their financial interests because they want power and for other reasons. So you never want to stop fighting. Well, I mean, you've been, your insights, our conversations, conversations are, you know, just been amazing throughout these years. It's been a blast working with you and just seeing what you can achieve.

But this hepatitis B vaccine. I want to talk about this one because you've got an angle in on this sort of a new case that you're working on. But this vaccine is, I literally, I walk into, when I'm like speaking to a senator or a congressperson for years. When I first got involved in this conversation, I'm always like, let's just, lead out with hepatitis B. Like you want to just understand what's wrong with this program. Want to see how something, if I can prove to you one vaccine makes no sense whatsoever. Will you listen to me talk about the rest of it? Yeah, you got five minutes. It's all you need with hepatitis B, but let me have you do it.

Sure. Well, on the issue of rights, Hep B is a great example. One of the complaints that we get a lot of, and I can directly gets a lot of, is that Parents, when they've just had their first child, or they've had their second or third, they bring a child into the world. It's an incredibly special moment. They've just added another member to their family. They have this newborn baby. Emotions are overwhelming them.

And, you know, they spend months preparing for this moment, not only emotionally, but they've also often come up with a birthing plan. Yeah. And one of the things they may have decided is we don't want to hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Yeah. It's a sexually transmitted disease and it's a blood-borne illness and it's typically transmitted by sex workers and intravenous drug users and if the mother is hepatitis be positive which they test for in every pregnancy it is indicated in those situations so for most pregnancies totally unnecessary completely unnecessary

So the parents are there, they've told the hospital they don't want the hepatitis B vaccine. They have this beautiful new baby in the world. And despite the parent's instructions, the hospital goes and they jab the baby enemy anyway. And they, you know, empty the syringe into the baby's body with, you know, we know the ingredients of hepatitis B vaccine. There are risks to hepatitis B vaccine. There are known accepted risks to this product. and so you are immediately exposing this baby to risks with absolutely no benefit. It makes no sense.

I mean, when I think about it, literally welcome to the world. God's creation, if you will, right before your eyes, which is what makes it such a spectacular experience, new life entering the earth. And this establishment goes against your will and injects them with toxins, aluminum, you know, that we know what we know what, can do to the brain and everything else. And you were even one of these people that was, you know, educated up to say, no, no, no, we're not doing that and they do it anyway. How often, how many cases

do you hear like this? A lot. And so, you know, ICAN has generously offered to support an initiative to bring lawsuits on behalf of those who have provided instructions to the hospital. And so, you know, any one of those suits is probably not financially feasible to bring. And so, you know, lawyers are just not going to bring it. But we are, you know, as usual, heartened that ICANN is stepping up and has, you know, decided that this is an initiative that it wants to fund. And we are, you know, planning to bring, we have brought a number of these lawsuits already. We have settled some.

And we plan to bring as many as we can, hundreds. until enough insurance companies have to pay out just enough per case where the insurance companies start telling the hospitals, okay, stop. Because they may not care about your individual rights, they may not care about the right to inform consent. They don't care about what you have to say, oh, but they care when you take their money. Oh, then they care. And so the moment insurance companies have to start paying out for these claims and hospitals

do, then they'll finally change their practices. So the goal here is to, we're going to continue to do this until they finally capitulate. It's kind of the similar strategy we've done in other places. Like with the UC system, we brought one lawsuit, we brought another, we were ready to bring more, and then they changed the policy. And so this will be a similar type of situation. Eventually, if I remember, how many more are you going to do, right, as they keep losing them?

Like, oh, we got, they're lined up. They're lined up. You know, these are funded. They're coming your way. Oh, yeah. All right, all right, mercy. I mean, that's what you're looking for, right? Or mercy.

Yeah, I mean, and look, as long as we have the support to do it, we will bring as many of these suits anywhere, everywhere across this country until hospitals stop doing this to parents. I mean, like I said, they're in this moment, you know, when they're trying to be in this most joyous moment, appreciate, you know, the arrival of the newborn child, and then they've got to deal with this. But I didn't want that.

You can't undo it. I mean, like the travesty of it, I can't even imagine if that happened to me. I mean, just like you know, it's something that's very important to you, and you literally can't undo it. Your child, your baby, your day one old baby has just been violated. I can't imagine if you go home and you start seeing your baby having fevers and starting to scream, a high-pitched scream,

or any of these things that you know would be telltale signs that my baby's brain is now swelling. They're having a bad reaction to this. God knows how it's going to affect the rest of their lives. Those are the types of things that, you know, it's really amazing that people get through those moments. But for anyone that's just watching, we have a brand new. Our audience has really been exploding over the last couple months, really. I think while all of this shift is changing, while people are starting to finally think about making America healthy again, I just, you know, show it early in the show.

The news is changing around this conversation. People are really saying, you know what? Big scientists saying there's nothing wrong with looking at the vaccines. maybe we should probably do some testing. We should be looking at safety. This narrative is literally changing overnight. So we have a brand new audience. And like I said, I think hepatitis B

is the best conversation for someone if you want to just understand one vaccine, understand this one. So what are the issues with hepatitis B? Well, why don't we all go back to when they were licensed? And let's start with the vaccines given on the first day of life as the very first vaccine on the CDC schedule.

Yeah. And there are only two standalone hepatitis B vaccines, We're ComboVax HB licensed in 1986, ironically, the Year of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. And the other one, EndraXB licensed in 1989. And so, you know, why don't we take a quick look at- So we've hooked your computer up. Hopefully people can sort of track along as you go, something that, you know, just to show

people how you can actually search this. You don't have to be a lawyer, it's all online. Absolutely. I mean, and so, you know, we'll, if you want to see, well, we'll, we'll, we'll, What was the clinical trial relied upon to license this product? Yeah. Let's go to the FDA website. Okay.

We could go to the FDA website. You could see anybody can do this at home. Anybody can get informed before they inject. Before they take a medical product, it's, you know, it's normal. Anybody tells you otherwise, they're wrong. You study before you decide what car you're going to get. You evaluate it. You kick the tires before you buy a house.

Car seats, strollers, bottles, baby food, you know, you name it. You do your research. And so you're going to inject something into your baby, a newborn baby, maybe a few minutes of research. And that's part of maybe what some of these families so much. They did their research. Maybe they found what we're about to look at, and they said, whoa, I don't want to consent. So with that, if you go to Google and just type in FDA license vaccines. And usually the search result is, first search result is vaccines license for use in the United States.

And here it is. This is the FDA webpage that has every single vaccine licensed in the United States, all on one convenient page. So if we scroll down the page, we will see four Hepatitis B vaccines, two of which are only licensed for adults, and two of which are licensed for newborns. So let's take a look at the first one, Rekamba Vaxhb. And on each page for every vaccine, you will find, it says package insert, right under product information. There's more information below that, But we'll start with package inserts because it's a nice summary of the information relied upon to license that product. At the very top of each package insert, and a lot of folks may have seen this, when they get a drug, there's a piece of paper inside the box, you open it up, it gets real big, that's what this is. Okay.

For a vaccine. And in Section 6.1, as required by federal law and regulations, it has to summarize the clinical trial relied upon to license this vaccine vis-a-vis safety. What did they review vis-a-vis safety in the clinical trial that the FDA looked at and said, okay, based on this, we're going to license the product. It's safe. We can tell the world it's safe. It's safe to our standards, the FDA standards. So let's scroll down to section 6.1.

And anybody can do this any time. I would say the first thing anybody should do to get informed about any vaccine product. And here we are on section 6.1. And in this paragraph, it describes in this sentence, the clinical trials will lie to, upon to license this product for children. Now, right before I read it, I'm going to, you know, I'm just going to summarize how do you evaluate a clinical trial? Because that's important. Well, what am I looking at? How do I know? Is it a good clinical trial? It's a bad clinical trial. Well, there's three variables. Number one, what was the control? What were you comparing it

against? Was it as a placebo? Was it another vaccine? Was that vaccine at least licensed in a placebo control trial? Do we know, right? What are you comparing it against? Two, how long was safety reviewed? And because if you don't do it long enough, not going to catch you. issues. If it's a newborn baby, they're not going to develop immune-related issues like asthma until a few years of age. They're not going to know if they have developmental issues until at least five, six, seven years of age. And third, how many people were in the study, or what epidemiologists would call, how well-powered is it? Because you need enough people to detect if there's a problem. Let's say you have a one-and-two-hundred issue, right? Let's say a one-and-two-hundred, which would be very high.

If we talk about, like, vaccine injury, they'll say, oh, it's one in a million. Well, let's just say it's like one in 200. If you only have 150 children in a study, you may not even see that issue, right? Isn't that sort of like... Yeah, but that's ridiculous. There's no clinical trial would ever have 150 children. Right, I mean, that's, right, but I'm just giving a number. You know what that sounds like, Dell? That sounds like an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory. You're right, you're right. That's what it sounds like, yeah. And we don't want to do that. Yeah. So how many people were in this, in this study? Oh, it was 147? 147. Yeah. Oh, let's go through it. Yeah, let's go through it. Okay, sorry. It's one of my favorite things to do in depositions when I depose pediatricians.

I'll ask, so tell me some of the false things you've heard about vaccines. What are those folks got issued vaccines saying? I just let them go. It's amazing how many times many things they say are true. Right. And, you know, and that's pretty good. So they'll say that we haven't done proper safety studies. Really, they've said that, huh?

How long would be a proper safety study? I could tell you some very interesting ones, but I don't want to get, I don't want to digress. In three clinical studies, and here it is, here's the sentence summarizing by the FDA. You know, it's written by the company, approved by the FDA, summarizing clinical trial relied upon to license for Kambavx-HB before it was injected into millions of babies. Here it is. In three clinical studies, 434 doses of a Kovovac's HB 5 micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for five days after each dose. Now, if I would have told anybody that, they would have said I'm crazy. Right.

There's no way. They tell us that they properly study these vaccines before they go on the market. They are robustly, the most thoroughly and robust study products ever. Yeah. But there it was black and white on the FDA website. So let's go through the three variables. First, what was the control? None listed.

Meaning what was the group that didn't get it that you compared them to, tracked them for the same four days? Five days. Five days. and said, well, look, you had more fevers or more headaches. I don't know how much you'd see in five days, you know, but did the group that didn't get it, got the placebo, did they have the same amount of any of those things?

Obviously, five days, I don't know what you'd see in five days, except for an immediate antiflactic reaction. I suppose that's the only thing you might catch. And it's a baby, remember. It's a newborn. So in five days, their immune system's not developed yet. Their neurological systems are just, I mean, every system is just totally different than what you've seen in an adult.

or even what you would see in a one-year-old. And so if there's going to be a manifestation of an autoimmune issue, for example, for the vaccine to, quote-unquote, as they say work, develop enough antibodies to fight the disease they're trying to protect against. That takes weeks. Yeah. So if you're going to have self-attacking antibodies, that will take weeks. Right.

Right? And so five days is not going to be long enough to detect that issue. Obviously. You know, Dr. Plotkin, if you recall, we talked exactly about this thing, any event. So there's not enough children. It's underpowered to detect virtually anything. Even if there were, you didn't have your safety long enough for five days. And even if you did, you weren't comparing it to anything.

Right. So this study is completely useless. Horse crap. It is. Well, horse crap, at least you can use as fertilize. And you can grow. This is valueless. Right.

This, and you cannot determine safety in any way. And there's nobody who can argue differently. Dr. Parkin didn't try to do it. Nobody I've deposed has tried to do it. I brought this up many, many times. And as we talked about before, we foiled the FDA because the first time I saw this, frankly, and we've talked about this, I said,

come on, can it really be? That's incredible. But we got the clinical trial reports from the FDA. Just so everyone knows, if you're watching the first time, FOIA, meaning of Freedom of Information Act request, this is a huge part of what we do with ICANN. call Aaron said we would like the FOIA, for instance, all of the trial data that you relied upon

to decide that this product was safe. And then, as I've said to you, in the United States of America, we employ the government. They work for us. We are actually the bosses. The citizens are. And so you're allowed to ask for Tony Fauci's emails. He has to hand them to you. You're allowed to ask, but you know, you have to be somewhat specific about what you're looking for. But a FOIA request is something that's really special here in the United States of America. Yeah, it's how you check on the folks whose salary you pay. Those 85,000 people, they work for the American people. Right.

But yet, FIRE should work the way you just described, L, which is you request it. They give it. But of course, as you know, they don't necessarily do that. We've got over 2,000 FOIA requests on behalf of FI can, I believe, right now. We've got dozens and dozens of lawsuits ongoing right now. Because they're not handing it over. Right. Now, the good news is that they know we're going to sue them.

So, you know, they're a lot more compliant with us. But nonetheless, we still have to sue them pretty regularly. So we submitted a fire request with regards to this clinical trial, asking for the underlying reports that were submitted. And everything that they've given us back has shown it's five days. That's it. And as you know, we even had a long exchange with HHS. the Department of Health Human Services that includes the FDA, CDC, NIH,

specifically about this product, we sent them a letter saying, how could you do this? And their response, and everybody can read it. If you go to ICandecide.org, you go to get informed. This is, and you go to

the vaccine safety debate right here. You can read, going down, you could read the letter that was sent right here, the short 37 pages, but it's a great read, okay, to saying, hey, here are a lot of safety issues. Can you explain what you're doing? How can it be? And one of the questions was the hepatitis B vaccine. I believe that was Section 2. It says, please list and provide the safety data relied upon when recommending babies receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life.

We asked that because we pointed out it was only five days for recombavax-HB. And for the other one, AndrewsB, in case anybody's wondering, it was four days of safety monitoring. And that's on the FDA website you could see. Anyways, the next letter is their response, and then the next letter after that is ICANN's response to that letter. And I think if you go to Section 2 here, it's extraordinarily telling when they have their response here. So in the opening letter, I want to read the operative sentence, right?

We said, I read the question, which was, how could you license it based on such limited data? And in the opening letter, we pointed out, of the two hepatitis B vaccines licensed by the FDA for injection into one-day-old babies, Merckx was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination, and that's for ComboVax, HB, and GlaxoSmith-Kline's was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination. That's Endericks B. So we wrote that.

And we cited to their package inserts in the opening letter, and we said, how could you do this? So let's go read their response. Yeah, what was the response? Let's go. Here we go. So it's right here in the letter. It says data relied upon, and this is the federal government's response. And just to put this in the context, this is HHS's response. And we know from subsequent FOIA requests, they had the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, all the agencies vet and approve this response. Right. This is it. This was a multi-agency. Every governmental health agency in America all said, bam, that's it, nailed it. Let's hear it. Here it is. Data relied upon in licensing infant use of hepatitis B vaccines is summarized in the respective package inserts. So they opened by saying the proof that they're safe is the very package inserts. We pointed out. We pointed out show it's utterly deficient.

Right. Okay. Okay. There's a few more sentences, Del. Okay. Maybe. I mean, we're laughing, but, man, it's, you know, it's, we're laughing, but, you know, we're talking about a product they unleashed them billions of babies with this data. So they continue.

Next sentence, they say, furthermore, pediatric data from other countries and in the literature support the safety of these vaccines and infants. What literature? What data? They don't tell you. Useless sentence. Keep going. The recommendation for all children to receive these vaccines was made by the advisory committee for immunization practices. their reasoning is summarized in, and they have a link to a report in the MMWR.

They also claim there's some follow-up studies, but they don't link to any of them. And our whole letter is give us the data, give us the studies. So the only thing they gave us was they said, look at the two packages inserts, which we did, four days and five days, useless. And then they gave us this one of the link. And again, as I often say, maybe they think we can't read. I don't know. But we pulled it up and we read it and then we responded to them. And when you read and this frankly makes it far, far worse for them.

Because this report by ASIP, the advisory committee on organizational practices regarding this product was years later. So they had years to get more data. Right. To have more. So you think, okay, when they summarize the safety of this product in this report by the CDC, there'd be something else. But there isn't. When you read, and this is the response right here,

this is our response to them. Yeah. Where we say, first of all, we say, hey, folks, we say 2A, safety data for hepatitis B legislature is plainly deficient, meaning we said, you cited back to us if you cited to you. So that's nonsense. And then in section B, we drill down on the CDC report.

And when you look through what it cites, It cites a number of clinical trials, all of which are even worse than the four to five days. I think the longest one was three days. And most of them are for adults. And some of them are observational, I mean, they're retrospective epidemiological. So there is nothing in there that provides any comfort. And I can read through it. But frankly, it's devastating when you read it.

And I encourage everybody to do it. So here we are. We have now a full back and forth with our federal health agencies about this issue. We're saying, come on, how could you do this? And they have nothing to give in response. So separately, we said, okay, maybe we should just look directly at the clinical trial reports submitted to license these products. Maybe they're just lazy. Maybe the CDC and FDA, they don't even want to bother reading the initial reports. Maybe they missed something. So we did their work for them. Right. We foiled Freedom of Information Act, right?

The tool we used to get documents from the government. We foiled them for the clinical trial reports submitted by the manufacturers to license product. And we have never gotten anything from them that shows anything other than the four or five days from everything that they have provided to us. And that took many years of fighting with them and more legal work. And so, you know, and then I guess to cap it all off, We finally decided, you know what, when the federal government said, when Congress said to the FDA, you only license things that are safe, they didn't define what those standards are.

Right. So it's, you know, it's unclear. Could it be, does the FDA you need five years of data? So from birth to five years to see developmental issues, does it need four, three, two, one year maybe even? No standard at all. There's no particular standard. The FDA sets a standard. Now, you could argue about it.

You could argue about a year, maybe even six months, but five days, four days? No one can argue that. Nobody can argue that. So we use the same, an FDA, they really do not like it when we do this. We use the same exact docket that the Moderna, Pfizer, Sinoffi, all used to license their products or to seek changes to request that the FDA withdraw the licensure for this product or require proper placebo-controlled trial. because this was, after all, the very first ever recombinant DNA vaccine in history.

Never existed. Wow. And so, and it had no proper trial. They had six months to respond to that petition. It's been three and a half years. And they keep asking for more, you know, we're going to get back to, we're going to get back to you. It's been three and a half years. Wow.

We're asking for a very basic risk. I think part of the reason they don't want to respond is they know once they respond, we can sue them in federal court. Yeah. And at this point, I think we're going to make a novel argument in court that, that despite the fact that they haven't responded, you should still adjudicate the underlying issue because they can't delay this way.

They can't sit on this for years and years. So those are two Hep B initiatives. That's just one of the products where, you know, we talked about it earlier. We're going to be suing for parents whose children get the hepatitis B vaccine without parental consent in the hospital. And we're going to be bringing this lawsuit

about the petition. We've got another lawsuit that, you know, we've discussed and is, you know, not one that we want to advertise, like many of the law. lawsuits and legal actions that we bring. So, but all of this, these tiny trials, and I always say this is a vaccine that's given to a day one old baby.

There are people, there are hospitals that will call child protective services if you try to walk out of the hospital with your baby without getting that vaccine. They say this is critical. It's, it's, you know, endangering the child if they don't get this vaccine. What does hepatitis be? Who's at risk? Is every baby at risk? I mean, do they recognize, like, why get this vaccine?

Why is it so important? Hepatitis B is a blood-borne illness. Right. It is typically transmitted by sex workers and by intravenous drug users. And on rare occasions, if the mother has tested positive for hepatitis B, and they test every pregnant mother for hepatitis B during pregnancy, she could potentially transmitted to her baby.

And they test for that. So they know. Every mother, we've had two kids. You're tested before you. Ever you've ever been to that point? So they know. So they know. Which means that...

There's ever an argument to be like, you're testing positive for hepatitis B, you should probably have this vaccine for your child just so that you protect them. And when they first license this product, when the advisory community immunization practices at CDC, which creates the CDC Childhood Schedule, was deciding, well, should we add this to the schedule? And if so, for what?

what uses, what indications, right? And what was the initial indications, even when it was first licensed, it was only licensed for the higher risk groups, I believe. But the CDC for sure, when they added it to the childhood schedule, it was only added for the high-risk situations. It wasn't added for a universal vaccine.

It was not added to be used by every child at birth. It was only supposed to be given to the high-risk individuals. Those are the parents who had hepatized B, Do they admit to this? I mean, we always say this intravenous drug user, you know, promiscuous, you know, is that anywhere in a document where they sort of admit that's what it's for? Yes.

They did. Yes, there is. You know, I'll pull up the page right here. So this is on the CDC website. The immunization practices advisory committee. This is from 1990. So this is that advisory committee's meeting. So these are the minutes of the meeting where they summarize.

their discussions, and they explained the basis for their recommendations. And it was in this meeting in 1990. Remember, the first vaccine was licensed in 1986? Yeah. It was in this meeting that they decided to not just recommend it for high-risk individuals. They decided to recommend it universally as a routine vaccine for all children to be given in the first day of life. And the explicit reason, and we'll read it right now, is because they said, They can't get the drug users and the sex workers to take the vaccine in adulthood.

And so we've got to catch them before they get to that place in life. Like day one. That's what they decided. Well, I want to just so that we can read it ourselves. Everyone always says, come on, that's not true. You're exaggerating. So here we are. Here is the CDC document.

And let's go down to the section with the government. to hepatitis B vaccine and the recommendations. So if we scroll down, and here we are. Universal immunization against hepatitis. And right here, we can read their decision-making and their justification. The increasing incidence of hepatitis B in the last eight years has been primarily in adults, but data show that high-risk group immunization of adults is not feasible. The prevailing conclusion is that either,

Preferably, or possibly adolescent immunization is the way to control this disease, though it may take 15 to 20 years to see the effects. And there you have it. That is their reasoning. We can't get them when they're adults engaged in this high-risk behavior. So we're going to get them right when they're born. I would point out that if they were waiting 15 to 20 years to see the effects, in that timeline we went from about 12% chronic illness in our children to now we're saying, 60% chronic illness in our children, autoimmune disease, neurological disorders. Maybe we should stop vaccinating for promiscuous sex drug users in every single infant that's born on day one.

Maybe they should be allowed to be born in this world without having their blood contaminated with the vaccine, forcing their immune system to do something it was never meant to do. Why the heck do we take our baby home? You take them home. Stay in your home. Don't take them outside. They don't need to be just, just let them get acclimated to mom, to dad, to the dog in the house, to the house. I mean, this is all like just logical thinking that has just gone absolutely haywire. No, let's kick their immune system, make it fight a disease inside of it, try to make antibodies, all of this on day one. Total insanity. I also want to point out that we have the highest day one death rate of infants in the industrialized world.

That's the result that we've seen over the last 20 years. And so this is why I'm passionate about this vaccine. I'm so glad that we have multiple angles. I really believe we are going to see the end of the mandated hepatitis V vaccine. I think it's imminent. That's why they're not responding to your, you know, a request three and a half years. No sound person is going to leave this thing on the schedule. And then what happens?

And what do you think happens when, you know, parents, across the country, all find out, as it turns out, hepatitis B vaccine, we're discontinuing and it wasn't properly safety tested. What does that do to people's minds in the state we're at right now, where the conversations are already changing on the news? I mean, unfortunately, the government has overstepped. You know, they just treated these products like any drug, allow, you know, liability to attach them so you consume them and there's injuries. Yeah. Unconflict the regulators.

You probably have a higher degree of trust in these products, but they overplayed their hand. They went too far, and I've said this many times, the government engages in mandates when they can't convince you on the merits. That is what every tyrannical government throughout history has done. It's antithetical to what this country, individual rights, civil liberties,

is supposed to be expiring towards. And I hope it'll be a wake-up call to public questions. quote unquote health authorities. You want to recommend, you want to try to persuade, go ahead and do that. Right. But never take away people's rights. But go ahead and remind everybody that you are putting on the websites. Here's how long our safety trials were. Here were the results of them. Here's what we know it does. Here's the side effects that we're hearing about. All that's so important. I want to wrap this up, but you have a bunch of cases. This isn't just it.

What do we got going with the COVID vaccine right now? Well, we've got lawsuits right now seeking to strike down the immunity under the PEPRAP Act because those are injured by COVID vaccine. You know, hepatitis B vaccine and rolled out, it's given to smoke cohort every year and their infants. And it's tragic when they get harmed. And, you know, so, but it continues to happen with COVID vaccine. You basically vaccinated the whole country and you could not hide those injuries. Everybody out there, I don't, I'm not met a person, I think, who doesn't know somebody who seriously had an issue with that vaccine. Yeah. Those folks need, they need compensation. A lot of them are adults. A lot of them are trying to support their families. They can't work. You know, it's horrible when you injure a baby. Yeah. But you're not injuring the person who's bringing home. Providing for the whole family. Right. Co-vaccine, they injured so many folks. Wow. We need to provide basic subsistence of their family. And so we've got lawsuits to strike down the immunity under the PEP Act. So those folks can hopefully then get compensation. We've got other suits, but I'll stop with that one for COVID-19 vaccine.

we're on this mission to free the five, to bring back the religious exemption at the very least for these vaccination programs. Tell me about California. We know we've still got West Virginia hanging in the Lurch, Connecticut, Maine. New York. I always forget New York because it was a recent one, New York and then California. But California is the big cahoon. I think this whole thing starts in California. Someday I'm going to erect a statute of Senator Richard Pan. Thank you for waking up the nation with your vaccine mandate. because you woke a sleeping giant and now we're in the White House and we're going to do something about it. But in California, huge win just a few weeks ago with the university school system there.

You won back to religious exemption starting this semester. So after we get back from Christmas, you will not be mandated or, I mean, you will be mandated, but you can go against the mandate, get a religious exemption and not get a vaccine and be in the UC schools. How long do you think before we get to the SB 277, the childhood? That's what everyone keeps asking. So in the UC case, that's obviously a heartening for the hundreds of thousands, literally, of UC students who don't need to get a vaccine to go to school if they don't want one. They can have their rights back. It's a public school.

And, of course, we brought the lawsuit that struck down any school district or local county to be able to mandate any vaccine in California. I'm in our case in San Diego. That's great for those students. But those cases also create bridgeheads. They create precedents. You know, when Ruth Bader Grinsberg, who fought for women's rights, right, that's what she did. She was a civil rights lawyer.

Her first lawsuit was not for a woman that went to the Supreme Court. It was for a man. Right. It was for a man. And so, you know, when you want to create change in the law, you do it piece by piece. And, you know, we've got lots of lawsuits. Each one is another piece that goes forward. When we get to a, you know, a significant.

an interval. We announce it on the show. I know you want to announce all. I know there's a desire and there's desire for folks out there who I fully, I understand, they're in California. They're homeschooling. They want to send their kids to school. They're struggling. But the wheels of justice are slow, but I assure you, we are on it. And we have lawsuits around the country. We have lawsuits in New York, West Virginia, California. We are everywhere. And we are slowly pushing that precedent forward. You know, I don't want to give a prediction because, you know, but, you know, in time, in time, I believe we will, we will overturn the precedent. We will overturn Jacobson. We will overturn.

And not only we will overturn the law, you know, because that's one pillar of the three things we do with ICANN legally, which is change the policies. Yep. But we also will change cultural cognition. Because what people believe, what they think affects what judges do. And of course, we always act as a watchdog on the agencies, which is why we have 2004 hair casts and millions of lawsuits and so forth. As we wrap this up, if someone has been to that situation where their baby was given a hepatitis B vaccine, even though they had in their birth plan, do not vaccinate my child,

where do they go if they want to bring a lawsuit? Absolutely. So if anybody has made clear in writing in any way or otherwise to the hospital, we do not want to have beef for our baby, and they gave it anyway, they can go to. our law firm website SiriLLP.com. You know, they can submit that on one of the vaccine pages over there and let us know about their situation. Somebody will be in contact with them to take an intake and assess whether that's a case we can bring. All right, excellent. Aaron, thank you for spending time coming in here. Thank you for all of your incredible work. I said to Jeffrey Jackson

earlier in the show, I mean, his incredible work is one of the reasons we're here. Certainly, you know, you have just laid a roadway right into Washington, D.C., with all of these legal wins, you've been instrumental in helping us change the court of public opinion, which has clearly happened now. The news media, mainstream media is covering this conversation completely different even than it did two weeks ago. So we just have huge momentum, but we have to keep the pressure on. And so in order to do that, I would really love it if you would help us continue this mission, as happy as you may be we're all very happy right now. We have so much important work to do. I know many of you live in places

like California where you aren't able to just drop your kid to school and not worry about, you know, what they're going to inject with them or what's going to happen. Or if your kid falls out of tree and you go to a hospital, what are they going to do? I've dealt with all those situations. So has Aaron, we want to make a difference. We want to make sure that you get to decide that your parental rights hold up, that your child's body sovereignty is decided by you. So please, take advantage right now of our two million matching offer. If we can bring that up right now, there's a QR code making it very easy. Just take a picture of that QR code. Or if you want to go online, just go to Ican decide.org slash legal match. This is the time to donate. It doubles your money. I want to thank the sponsor

that made this all happen. Once again, I want to thank you, Aaron, for your incredible work. And I just can't wait to see what transpires over this next year because now, you know, we really have momentum. It's amazing what we can do now that the wind is at our backs.