The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ICAN SUES CDC FOR COVID VAX SAFETY DATA

Episode Date: January 20, 2022

ICAN Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., gives insight into our current lawsuit against the CDC to release data on the over 119 MILLION medical events from vaccines reported to the database.#VAERS #V-Safe #VacineInjuriesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We have another case very quickly, somewhat similar in the VSAFE data. This is the database. We all hear how VERS is inaccurate. Bears, you know, even though we've argued that it should have been fixed back when they recognized that it was underreporting by about 1%. But when COVID vaccine was coming out, they created VE safe, which was specifically for COVID reactions. Huge database.

Over a million reports now in there of injuries and adverse events, right? According to the CDC, over 119 million medical events have been logged in V-Safe. Wow. You know, our federal health authorities have been telling us forever that they have robust safety systems, cheap among them theirs. So it was interesting, wasn't it, that as COVID-19 was about to be rolled out, they said, actually, V-saf is not, excuse me, there's not really reliable. We're going to create a new safety system called V-safe.

I'm going to set aside what they're. that says about the existing state systems and their promises about how robust they were for all the other vaccines and just talk about VSAFE. VSAFE is basically an app-based program where folks who get the COVID-19 vaccine can report an injury or some other adverse event. So if I may also say that one of the things

it did by doing that is it probably depressed the number of reports that would probably have been filed with theirs. Vres is far more complicated to submit to. It's a lot easier. So all these numbers we hear about when it comes to VERS and how high they are now may not even be reflective of what...

Here we are. Here we're at with VERS. 21,382 reported deaths to VERS, 113,000 hospitalizations, 110,000 urgent care visits, 158,000 doctor office visits over adverse events. There's the numbers. And what you're saying is obviously since VSAFE was what was designed, if someone's using VSAFE is doubtful of the both.

Let me do the easy one, the one that focuses on COVID. So that's probably just an even smaller percentage. Right. Right. I mean, if you've already submitted to VSA, you're probably thinking, all right, I've now sent it to the federal government. Why should I now go and need to also do the long arduous VERS report? Right. I've submitted it to them.

They now know about my issue. And so you're saying there, VERS, we're looking at hundreds of thousands. reports you're saying over a hundred million reports i'm saying the cdc has said they have over a hundred and nineteen million entries and so wow you know i and as we talked about that means that there's a gap out there right we've got the veers data but then there's all this other data in vsafe and to get a better fuller picture after all we the american people paid for vsaf right it's made with done with our taxpayer money we decided as you know to submit a FOIA request for all of, that's the Freedom of Information Act,

for all of the VSAFE data that the CDC has. Now, when we submitted that request, as CDC always loves to do, they like to throw up any objections they can. Before we submitted our request in June, in May, we'd already discovered a document the CDC had put out, buried within which they had stated

that Oracle, a private company, has access to all the VSAFE data on de-identified format. So, de-identified meaning, it doesn't have the personal information of the people's, you know, that we're in there. V-safe data will be collected, managed and housed on a secure server by Oracle. Oracle staff will not be able to view any individualized survey data, including variables with personally identifiable information, but rather will have access to aggregated, de-identified data for reporting. Obviously, this is important when you look at this.

One of the big arguments they have is we don't want to reveal the identity of people that are in these pieces. And here it's clear that that's the focus. And this was the argument being made, why they couldn't provide the data. Well, we don't want you to know the personal information. And honestly, Bobby Kennedy, when we were at NIH for Donald Trump, this was some of the arguments that Tony Fauci and Francis Collins were making all about. Well, the personal information. The truth is they themselves can only work with it. by clearing that information out.

Here's the lawsuit, just so you know. Plaintiff appealed the CDC's response to HHS, including pointing out to the CDC that its own documentation regarding VSAFE explains that Oracle staff will not be able to view any individualized survey data, including variables with personally identifiable information, but rather will have access to aggregate,

de-identified data for reporting, and hence that de-identified data should be produced to the public, forthwith. Neither the CDC nor health and human services has substantively responded to that appeal. So basically, you knew that they were going to try and pull this de-identified baloney because they always do, but you didn't let them know you knew that they had already de-identified it for Oracle, right? What we knew is they were going to object. Right. We figured the objection that would make is that. So, you know, had they known we knew about the Oracle, they'd just come up with something else.

Right. Probably. Right. So we, yeah. So you set them up. You pigeonhole them into what you thought would be their retreat space and you were waiting for them there. Fair enough. Art of war. And so, you know, nice thing about CDC, sometimes it can be predictable. They made that very objection. We then follow that, oh, well, sorry, we can't give you this data that the American taxpayer paid for because it's not de-identified. So we then followed up with another request. We said, no, no, no. See this article? You admitted it's available to de-identiform. So just give us the de-identified data. How about that? I think at that point there might have been a, you know, an, oh, oops, moment somewhere in the halls of the CDC. Maybe. Yeah.

And they still didn't call up the data, so we've now sued them in federal court on behalf of ICANN to get that data. We'll see how that goes. Exactly. I mean, there's, you know, we're not fortune tellers, but it seems like we have a pretty good case here. We'll see how that all turns out. Obviously, if people want to know where all those things are going, then they have to be on our newsletter because that's the first place. Right. Our legal wins and things that they go are. So please go to the highwire.com.

All you have to do is put your email in. Not only do you get all the breaking news on legal when before anybody else in the world gets it, this show. We've talked about several documents. We've talked about studies and things like that. All of that is in your inbox on Monday so that you can go and this great party trick, you know, at the next dinner you're at. You don't have to say, hey, Del Bigtree said something.

You get to say that here's the document. the science that is done by in Denmark, in Canada. This is what they're admitting in the UK. All of those things are made possible. It's in your hands for free. All you have to do is sign up to our newsletter. All right. I know people are still hanging for the Supreme Court. I want to talk about one more thing. The Fauci document dump. This is something that, you know, we fought really hard for your request. We wanted to see the emails with Fauci, you know, interacting regarding COVID, this pandemic. They pushed back and they've tried to redact it, all these things, constantly, you know, this is what you're doing. You're always in there fighting and fighting and fighting.

Luckily, there's an incredible donor base we have, those people that support us, make it possible for us to let you charge in there. But we finally were promised to be getting documents in sort of chunks. We just got a new group of documents. How many documents did we just receive? 200 more pages of Fauci's emails that he sent back very early in the pandemic, February, March of 2020. Okay. Is there anything interesting there? Yeah.

Okay. There is. These documents actually were a set of documents that had to go through a secondary review within the health agencies. So, you know, they had extra eyes on them before they came out. And I think what they show, what they do show is they further fill in the puzzles to the emerging picture that very early in this pension, pandemic, Fauci was seeking to kill the theory, narrative, that the virus could have originated from a lab, meaning at a time when there was no way that he could have known that that was true. Within these documents, in isolation, and this is one of the interesting things, is we keep getting more and more of these documents. And any one of them alone probably doesn't tell a great story. But when you put them all together in a timeline, A story really emerges. We've written that up at the request of ICANI. And there's a legal update I understand going out on Monday. Right.

And just, I guess, to give a 60 second preview effectively. You know, from February 1st to February 4th, we just had members of what year? Of 2020, excuse me. 2020, okay. So this is very early on. Beginning of 2020. Right. Right.

Right. Yeah. Just in the early early days. We just had a couple of, you know, people in China fall face first into the, the cement and weird videos coming out and starting to ask whether this is coming to America or not. And so during that four-day period, we now know from members of Congress that fought for Fauci documents, that during that four-day period, Fauci was interacting with the head of the Welcome Trust, who was getting opinions from virologists from around the world, considered some of the world's eminent virologists.

And in those emails, those virologists are telling basically the health authorities, yeah, we think that's about 70, 30% chance that it was lab origin. Some say 60-50, some say 50-50. The point is you had eminent virologists from across the planet directly giving information to Fauci through the Welcome Trust stating based on the Ferrin-Kleaf site and all this thing is most likely from a lab, not natural origin. Wow.

Then you've got February 5th, and this will be in the legal update, an email. that goes to Fauci in which it tells him the WHO is going to be creating this committee to look at the origin of the SARS COV2 virus. Yeah. And it has basically a title for that committee that's going to look at it. And it just talks about the origin. Fauci responds by providing some names for this committee, but he changes the kind of the title. He changed it to the evolutionary origin. He starts limiting.

And then he calls it later natural origin. it almost see he's he's purposely seems to be directed right and not only that the effectively a title of a commission can affect the mission of the of the of the committee right and and you know seems to be directing it towards just looking at the evolutionary origin and not the lab origin we then have we now have just got another email as part of this is from February 10th that further evidences his continued drive to kind of frame this as only evolutionary or natural origin, not lab origin. That in and of itself wouldn't be troubling except that how does he know? Right. And why? Why so early on would he want to just wipe away?

Defy the sort of the majority opinion also. That's been given to him at least vis-a-vis those emails, but also why not leave all options on the table? Is not what we do? science? We first test the hypotheses before we reach the conclusion. How did he reach that conclusion? Why did he reach that conclusion? I don't know the proof that would substantiate how he reached it. That then one leads you to the question of what was the motive? Why was you doing it? All right. Well, look, folks, obviously that's probably one of the biggest teases we've ever given you. You're not going to get to see those emails. The only way you get to see them is you have to sign up to our newsletter right now. I'm doing this for a reason. We are living in critical times. I don't know

where all this is leading, but I know there may be a moment we need to get information to you. We certainly want you to have the facts and the truth, not just be walking around saying, hey, I watch the highway and whatever Della says, I want you to start utilizing the best tool we have, and it's free. I'm not asking for any money right here. I really want to be able to get this information to you. And if you want to read these emails, we just got with Tony Pouchy, that I'm sure going to be used by Rand Paul in a future case against Tony Fauci, as many of us attempt to try and get this guy thrown into jail for crimes against him. humanity. If you want to be one of the first ones to see that, all you have to do right now,

please just sign up. Just right there on the bottom of the page. Just scroll down. It's right there. Pump in your email. It's all encrypted. Everything we're doing, no one's going to see that list. We're not advertising through it. We just want to get you the information that you need. It's not one of those, you know, you're not going to get messages that bother you all the time. We want you to have the facts. So please, this year, 2022, let us help you, you know, as we decide, you know, and move forward to try and make this world a smarter, better place. That is by being armed with facts. We're just handing you those facts.

So please avail yourself to that process and that ability by signing up to our newsletter.