The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ICAN’S LEGAL AND WATCHDOG WORKS OF 2022

Episode Date: December 29, 2022

ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., and ICAN CEO Del Bigtree, discuss, detail the impressive legal and watchdog work the organization accomplished in 2022, establishing the Informed Consent Action Network as America’s premier public health watchdog organization.#ICAN #Watchdog #AaronSiri #DelBigtree #InformedConsentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

How do we make sure we got it right? How are we getting information where no one else has? We're doing it because we have one of the best attorneys the world has ever seen. And he's about to join me for the last legal update of 2022. Welcome back in studio. You are flying. We actually landed together in D.C. and actually got to speak in the same panel for like one of the first times ever. Usually we're just passing each other. You're in. I'm out. That's true.

All those types of things. So it's been really cool. I wanted to kind of lay out really what all we've been up to this year. But really quickly, just reflecting on what we're just talking about. This idea that the vaccine program was totally safe. It's just the COVID vaccine. Are you running into this in sort of legal circles? There's a lot more lawyers now and stuff that are getting into this conversation. It was only you.

I mean, it was I can funding you out there by yourself. Now there's a lot of others around you. Is this something that you're hearing this sort of statement? All the time. Folks who are dealing with COVID vaccine have a great understanding about the issues with that vaccine. And those lawyers who I deal with who are just dealing with a Gardasil vaccine, for example, they see the issues with that product. But they compartmentalize those vaccines that they see issues from all other vaccines. And I think part of why they do that is, one, there's cognitive dissonance.

They probably vaccinated their children. They don't want to think, and most people don't want to believe that they might have done something to their own children that may not have been on net balance beneficial. The other thing is that there is a stigma in some circles. That is gladly lessening all the time. That anybody who says anything negative or raises concerns about any vaccine is labeled an anti-vaxxer or some other label that. for many folks they want to avoid. And so for that second reason, a lot of these folks, they don't want to go there. They don't even want to know about the other vaccines, really. They'd rather stay ignorant. I thought you made a great point about how adults now are,

when they were going to be mandated, all by a sudden, they're a little more in tune to it. You know, there's a simple point that, you know, we've talked about many times. In 1986, there were only three vaccines that were routinely used in this country. That's it. Two of those are already gone. And since 1986, there has been a whole bevy of shots added and the rates of all forms of chronic illnesses and children have gone through the roof since 1980s as well. Autoimmune issues, atopic issues.

There's a lot of studies out there that show a potential causative relationship with between certain vaccines and certain of those issues. The CDC itself just put out a study, as I think you could have recently, about asthma. Right. And certain vaccines, otherwise been denying that for forever. Interesting the CDC would do that. And so there is reason to be concerned when you look and you say, wait, what's changed in

the immune system of children over the last 30 years? Shouldn't the place you start be that very, very, very, you're going to be very? Very medical product, you're giving a day one once at two months, five to six times, at four months, five or six shots. Yeah. Six months, five or six shots. That would seem where you would start your investigation. And I'll just, I'll wrap it up by saying when it comes to autism, that's exactly what we sought to do. They say vaccines don't cause autism.

Okay, great. Show us the studies that show that for any of those shots given in the first six months of life. Yeah. for D-TAP, for hip, for the rest of them. Yeah. And they didn't have a single study. And we even sued them in federal court to make it, as you know, and they could not provide a single study that's supported any of those shots.

So essentially, all their studies are comparing, just basically for the... The studies are wishful thinking. Kids who got 16 shots versus those that got 17 shots. Right. My 5-year-old understands that's a stupid stuff. I always joke. It's like, okay, we did a study. We had 16 shots of vodka in 1.

the control group, and then 16 shots of vodka plus a shot of Jack Daniels in our test group, and both ended up having trouble driving. Therefore, Jack Daniels does not cause sobriety issues. That's right. That's right. You know what I mean? Like it's just like there was no difference between the control group and then that's how they do these studies. That's right. All right. So, just lastly, one more point, because how is it that COVID suddenly grabbed as much attention as it has? I mean, it's been pretty impressive. Sitting, you know, I said to that group, the day before we were all on the public panel. This is, I am, you know, representing scientists like Angie Wakefield that was all alone when he came forward. You were all together. We have never had a

moment like this. Why did COVID? And I think that's somewhat what these doctors think. If there was other vaccines that were like COVID, we would have received a panel of 25 doctors like this, and I don't see that happening. A major difference is that most other vaccines, and I presume you're talking about safety of the COVID vaccine. And how come with COVID vaccine, the safety signals are being picked up, looked at study. Still, not by the public health authority. There's still many in the scientific community are going, whoa, this is too obvious to ignore. Yeah.

And I think it's for this reason. For most other vaccines, they're rolled out to a smaller segment of the population, and the uptake increased over many years, decades. People think about, you know, if you look at most vaccines that are out there, It wasn't like it was rolled out, and then we had 100 million Americans get it like we did with COVID. It's rolled out, and there'll be 20% uptake, then 40, and that happens over decades. So slowly the uptake grows. And if there's issues that they cause, they recede into the background rate, and they become, quote, unquote, the new normal.

They become the new normal. Now, one in six kids in America have asthma. Right. That's the new normal. Right. That's the baseline. Because we went back over the last three years, and there's been a gradual increase. It didn't just happen upon the entry of this vaccine or something.

It's been a gradual growth. Whereas had you just started giving 72 vaccines, which is where we're at prior to COVID, to every kid all at once, all around the world, we would have probably seen gigantic signals that slammed us in the face and been able to compare them to the year before where they got none. We don't have that. We have the year before where they got the 16, not the 17. We have two years ago when they only got 15.

We got, you know, and so they can say, we've always. had as or at least for the last 10 years, that's your point, is it sort of hides in that gradual uptake, your data gets corrupted and your ability to do a decent comparative study. It's possible, and you and I both know there is a large data set out there that has a very well-conducted study has been done. Yeah. It may never see the light of day. It will never see the light of day. Yeah. Putting that aside, exactly right. Those rates become the background rates that become

the new standard. And had COVID. vaccine been rolled out slowly over the course of, let's say, you know, 40, it was just for kids. So only one birth year got it of two months old, four, you know, four month old. And so, you know, you've got a limited set that got it. And then over the, you know, so it would take a decade before you even get to 10-year-olds. Yeah. Right. So by the time, you know, 20 years past, you still don't have any adults getting it, just,

just starting to have adults. and if myocarditis during that period in children started slowly rising, right? It would happen like that. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, be like, oh, wait, there's this increase in myriaditis in children, and it becomes the new background rate, and what causes it? Maybe it's, you know, some other changing the environment. Drinking too much tea. But it's something in the environment.

Right. Genetics don't change that fast, putting epigenetics aside. Right. And, you know, and at the least we should, at the least, our public health authorities should rule out that, vaccines. And as you know, and I know, because of the endless poise and the con badgering, they have it, right? We have tortured them at this point to get us the studies showing that vaccines giving to children don't cause autism. Don't cause these atopic issues. Don't cause these immune issues. Don't cause these neurological issues. And we've never seen those studies

that show getting that these doctors are making those statements. They believe they're there. I mean, as we've one by one, we pick them off, we pulled them in the, you know, closed doors and said, hey, let me show you the data. They kind of turn white and go, oh, my God, it's just not there. Yes. All right, well, let's get into. We've done so much this year. In fact, we won't be able to cover it all, but I wanted to give our audience a sense because

I think a lot of times people watch the high wire. They know there's ICAM, but they think, you know, high wire is like the media part of, you know, sort of this vaccine investigation. But this investigation really, you and I, I started, I can, and you were there right at the beginning when I started it. Part of why I did it was, I had a problem. There was a brick wall in trying to get the investigations done. As a journalist, I want to understand what they know and what they don't know, but there's this liability protection. And when I met you, you know, we talked about it and you said, well, you know, they put liability on the government.

Now, most lawyers want to go and make money off of some class action lawsuits against pharma, so they're never going to go near it. But if we could get funded, we could actually go after the government and start, you know, unraveling what they know and from there figure out what's going on here. So it's been a multi-year process accelerated by COVID. But this year in particular, you know, you brought some things that you really sort of want to dive into. So tell me about it. Well, you asked me to give a summary of all the legal work. For 2022, as you know, we've got over 20 legal professionals at our firm. Is that where we're at now?

So we're helping you employ 20 legal professionals to do the work that we're doing. To do? Because I know a lot of people think there's one guy out there running a couple of cases. It's taking a lot more than that. Oh, yeah. You cannot do the, you know, as you know, we've got dozens of lawsuits. We've got hundreds, over a thousand FOIA requests. We've got over 100-something appeals.

You know, we attend almost every one of the FDA-CD committees hearings. We send them pre-letters often. We send them post-letters. We have done dozens of petitions to the FDA. I mean, we are a known quantity when it comes, I can, is a known quantity when it comes to these programs. I'll give you one example where, you know, we sued the FDA again recently. We've sued them many times. And the DOJ attorney, a very nice young man, was like, hey, you know, you know, the DOJ represents the FDA.

They're lawyers. Department of Justice. And said, hey, look, you know, before you sue the FDA again, why don't you just bring the issue to me? Is this kind of like a new, like they keep handing you, the new DOJ attorneys come along, so he hasn't really worked on this before? It's not the same DOJ attorney on every case. Okay. So we get to, you know, and they're not always in the same. jurisdiction so sometimes the local US Attorney's Office and sometimes they'll send an

attorney from what they call DOJ Maine from Washington DC when he thinks is important of case okay like you know a certain number of our cases are like that well they send the attorneys from okay so and and we thought oh this is this so he says basically you know instead of like using FOIA like why don't you just instead of suing if you have an issue because the DOJ attorneys who are assigned to these there, the government, the federal authorities are extremely opposite. I think to the point where, and I'm speculate now, that the DOJ attorneys are put in a bit of a tough position.

They have to defend sometimes position that, frankly, I wouldn't want to have to defend. I wouldn't want to have to defend. Right. And so we said, sure. We sent over the next issue we were going to bring a suit for, sends it to FDA, the head of the FDA, one of the FDA officers, I'll put it that way, sends us the state. an email and essentially says the solution is just stop appealing and stop suing us. Just sum up the email and then gripe that over 30% of the FDA's FOIA appellate

docket are ICAN matters. So we are 30% of what they're having to deal with when it comes to request coming in from all of the different issues. FDA is covering all sorts of food substances, all of the whistleblower, I mean, you know, groups out there that are working on this and trying to get the truth. I can is doing 30% of the suing of the FDA. Well, in terms of the appeals, within the FDA for the FOIA, which is really as we've talked about,

the main tool to get to the truth, if you want to know what the people you're paying are doing, you've got a company and you've got people, and that's what the FDA is. They work for us. Yeah. They take our tax money. They are servants to the American people.

Right. And FOIA is the legal tool to see what they're up to, to get their emails, to see their meeting notes, to see the proof for the claims they're making. And that's the tool that we use and I think we've put to good use. Let's jump into mandates, because I think mandates is where most of us are focused. I mean, you know, great, you're fighting for this lawsuit or that, but how does it affect me? so many people are concerned. So when it comes to mandates, what are some of the things that we got involved with over this last year? Yeah.

I know we like San Diego, for instance. Yeah, so with San Diego, and that is, if I can make one general comment, and that is at the heart of it, you said it before, which is at the end of the day, you know, the work that we do and that you have us do is never about preventing anybody from getting a vaccine. It's about making sure that everybody has a choice. Right. An informed choice that they can make. Before we get started, you sort of, what we talked about, this is sort of three pillars,

I think, to why we take on a case or why, you know, we discuss what we're going to do. I'm going to sort of read these folks. This is sort of how we look at it. Our number one, one of the number one reasons is influencing public opinion. Will this case or working on this FOIA influence public opinion? Number two, we see ourselves as watchdogs over public health. So that's all the regulatory agencies were there, as you're saying, going to their meetings, checking them when they're making misstatements, and then also the pharmaceutical industry and beyond.

And then three safeguarding civil rights. And I would say, in many ways, this is becoming a massive constitutional issue, civil rights issue. And I said to you, I think you're going to go down as one of the great constitutional attorneys of all times because this was the biggest attack on our constitutional rights in many ways. I view it as a pivotal civil rights issue of our time. If you cannot leave your home, go to church, go to school, get on a plane, have a job without engaging in a medical procedure you don't want, you don't have any rights. So great, you can practice religion at home alone, you can assemble at home alone, you can have your speech by yourself to the wall. Right. You don't have any rights.

Right. So it is a critically important civil rights issue. And yeah, those are, I mean, those are the three, you know, every time you. time we talk about a potential case, those are the three things we think about. And, you know, what will be the impact on public opinion? And that's critically important because judges, for better or worse, and legislative bodies, again, for better or worse, are often influenced by what the public thinks about an issue. We think about gay marriage, for example.

Gay marriage was unlikely to be held as a constitutional right at any point in the 1800s. or in 1910 or 1920 or 30 or 40 or 1950 and then what changed? Public opinion. Constitution didn't change exactly. Right. The cultural perception or at least the perception that the judge has as to what the public the cultural cognition that the judge has. Let me put it that way.

I'm not saying that judges do things based on what the people believe, but the judges are part of society. Just be aware of these are the times we live in and this is an antiquated thought system now on some level. Right. Right. And so influencing public opinion is critical to, one, getting the legal outcomes in court that we would like. And two, getting legislative houses to pass the laws that we like. Because at the end of the day, when we're talking about mandates, those are really the two avenues to affect change.

Obviously, we don't directly work with legislation because with regard to our law. because you're a nonprofit and you don't do that because of the restrictions. So I want to make sure. IRS if you're watching. And so that's the and then the second is acting as a watchdog. And that's really, that's also critically important because really I think for decades, the FDA and the CDC and NIH, you know, there's been nobody there just acts as a check. There's lots of industries where...

That's why that doctor is saying what he's saying. Nobody ever called that out before. Nobody was ever presenting, look, we foiled them. They made a statement that they cannot prove her back up. Had they been being done all along the way, we might not have doctors still blind to the actual reality on this vaccine program. And there are, and there are organizations there, for example, are watchdogs over the order industry.

Yeah. But there really has been none when it comes to mandated medical product. And I can really, in my opinion, is at the spear tip of doing that. I mean, there is, and this is one of the, the, the. great things I think about how I can, how you have structured the legal work that you have given us, in that you give all pretty much your legal work to us. And so we are a constantly- You are our only law firm that we work with. Are you doing work for other nonprofits? Regarding vaccine policy work? No. No. So we are... I-CAN supports all of that work pretty

almost exclusively. Either where I can is the client directly, the plaintiff, or ICANN is supporting it financially. It's all I can. There is no other... And I want to just say we say I can, but what I can is the informed consent action network, and we have such an amazing network.

This is a moment to point out that the work that you're doing is being made possible by just regular people out there that are giving us $5 a month, $10 a month, $20 a month. It's allowing you to march in. And as you said, you are the singular law firm that is doing this work. Is there anyone else, any other nonprofit that's sort of doing that way where they're using one law firm? I'm not aware of any. I'm not aware of any that does it in that way.

I know that some other nonprofits, they will hire different attorneys for specific cases. But by having us do all of it, there is an economic and efficiency of scale where we can handle thousand for a request and constantly appeal we see the same issues over and over and over and you know we basically have a really efficient process where we you know they do the same things over and then they and then and then they start changing there and so we adapt yeah we know the game we know exactly how it works and so we're able to do handle the volume and you know who at your law firm's best at this type of conversation this type of letter this type of thing like you you really have got a team

that's like yeah we've compartmentalize it to this is the people that tend every every every you know verback or a CET meeting this is the team that does the FOIA this is the team that does the FOIA appeals then the FOIA litigation these are the folks that handle the serious policy litigation lawsuits these are the ones that do the petitions these are the ones that I mean it goes down it goes down the whole chain all right let's get let's get into some some meat here for the folks that are watching um because it's it's been outrageous you know what I think has been achieved some things that I think are setting precedent that in some ways don't think anyone thought was possible really be able to strike down law like you

existing laws. Yeah. All right. All right. I want to go through some of the lawsuits from from the pandemic. So San Diego was one of the lawsuits that we filed and we filed it in California. And we picked San Diego because it was the San Diego School Board decided to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine to attend school. And what we needed to do is set a precedent that no local authority can mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. Otherwise, we'd be playing whack-mull. You know, there's a there is only so much funding and resources. Right. We cannot go to 50 counties and 100 school boards and challenge every one of them in California.

Right. So we picked, you know, one, we challenge it, and we challenged it on a basis that is transportable. That decision makes it so that you can't know local entity in California can require it. Let's read that decision right here. Yeah, here we go. Sure. The issue here is whether a school district may require students to be vaccinated for COVID-19 is a condition for both attending in-person class

and participating in extracurricular activities. The Superior Court determined there was a statewide standard for school vaccination, leaving no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates. On independent review, we reached the same conclusion and affirm the judgment. Now, of course, this isn't just the judgment.

This is the appellate decision that's looking at it and saying, we're upholding the court's decision. We agree this would be a disaster. right we're shutting this down so we got right so we got the injunction long ago and we just won the appeal wow and that appeal and and that's you know one of the things that's great is we got that continuity winning that appeal is huge because right now that that appellate decision renders it that nobody in california require co-vexie no entity no school board other than the state legislature now we only have to deal with them and if the state health department requires it

which is the only other entity that could yeah there has to be a personal belief exemption was added in SB 277 when they first decided to sort of mandate vaccines. They said, well, all the future vaccines, we will have a personal belief exemption, right? Yeah, and that precedent from the appellate court in California, there are many states that have a similar legal structure for the vaccine requirements. You could, it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be binding precedent, but it would be persuasive precedent for other states as well, which makes it nice. So we don't have to play whack them all across the country. Right. We could just, and as you know, he told me that ICANN is going to support the, and fund challenging any state.

Any state. It requires a COVID-19 vaccine. And with this appellate decision, we hopefully, local jurisdictions will be deterred from doing that. You certainly already have the way to write the case. I mean, you can start sort of, you have sort of started a boilerplate, if you will, here to know where you're structuring or the foundation of this argument is. Well, because this is not the only mandate we've challenged on behalf of I can. We've challenged, you know, in a, I made a short list here. Yeah, we challenged the OSHA mandate as well, that the CDC, excuse me,

that the OSHA required employers of 100 employees or more to get the co-vaccine. We weren't the only firm that did it. All right, here's what that came from that. Once the significant percentage of the American adult population was fully vaccinated, the total deaths in the United States have not declined. The following table provides the CDC's weekly total deaths in the United States for 2019 through 20, Starting on week 30 when at least 60% of American adults were fully vaccinated. It reflects that despite this high and increasing level of vaccination, total deaths per week did not return to the level seen before the pandemic in 2019.

Hence, according to CDC data, even after over 60% of adults were fully vaccinated in the United States, the overall mortality did not return to the level seen in 2019, nor even below the level seen in 2020 when the pandemic was ongoing. And there were no vaccines. And here is that death data, and it's basically showing you that, if anything, it's going up or it should have gone down. This was our appellate brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in that OSHA case. There were a number of other cases. If you recall, there were two lawyers that ended up arguing for the plaintiffs. He chose only two of the plaintiffs' attorneys. Unfortunately, they did not choose our cases to argue, though our case was one of the cases on appeal.

The main argument OSHA was making is they have to require the vaccine. to reduce mortality. Right. But that's the CDC's data. And we're the only firm and the only case that presented that data to the Supreme Court. Proud of that. Yeah. And it showed categorically with the CDC's own data, overall mortality has not gone down since the vaccine rollout.

It's gone up. Right. And the argument being CDC didn't really have the power to make this point. But beyond that, even if they did have the power, this vaccine's a dud, why would you even be mandating it? It's going nowhere, which is one of the things I've loved. When we've gotten involved in legal cases, when we first got it, and people have said to us, you can't argue science in the courtroom. You've got to just keep the science out of it.

In many ways, even when our argument isn't science, we try to get some science in there. Yes, because, again, because we do this all the time, we have a very firm grasp of all the science, typical literature, all the clinical trials. We know all the primary sources, and so we do. We bring that to bear even when our case is about separation of powers. because judges also want to feel like they're making the right decision, that they're doing the right thing, not just the technically right legal thing.

All right, what do we got next? So also we challenge the mask mandate on the planes. We brought a lawsuit first for you. There it is. Del Big Tree, plaintiff. I was traveling so much. I was pissed off. I got off a plane and said,

Aaron, file a lawsuit for me. I'm tired of wearing this damn thing on a plane. This is ridiculous. So we challenged that. And then using that knowledge, is using what we learned in doing that. A short time thereafter, we had interactions with members of Congress. We brought the same law suit on behalf of 17 members of Congress.

Oh, fantastic. Including Rand Paul, Thomas Mastey, and those are 17 members of Congress. Love it. As well. And right now, as everybody knows, a judge has enjoined the CDC from enforcing the mass mandate. It's on appeal in the 11th Circuit, and we've filed an amics brief in support of a key, that injunction in place and striking down that mandate. Next case?

Yeah, let's keep it going. Next case, so we brought in Massachusetts, the state of Massachusetts Health Department decided it was going to require the flu shot for all not only students, school, preschool, elementary, high school, and university students in the entire state of Massachusetts. And so we challenged that, and they withdrew the mandate after we sued them. In fact, we filed, and on the day that they, opposition papers were due to oppose our injunction, they dropped the mandate that day.

Wow. So sometimes just the threat and the lawsuit, they just back away and pull the mandate. Yeah, I mean, you know, there were two issues they had in that case. Just, you know, one is they didn't have the authority to do it, and we showed that very clearly. Yeah. And two, we actually had a great opportunity to work with some good, really great scientists and put in the declarations and the literature that clearly shows that flu vaccine, like COVID vaccine, there is no good science shows that it prevents transmission in a community setting. There's no data. In fact, the Quarkin collaboration, you know, that basically is a review of all the list science out there until it did a meta review and concluded there's almost, there's pretty much no data to show that

it reduces not only transmission, but also hospitalizations and the other things that for most age groups. So there was no point. Anyway. So, so with that, but we also, um, We also challenged a mask, a school mask mandate in New Jersey on behalf with ICANN support. Yep. And we sent this demand to the school board, and three days later, they dropped the mandate. There it was. You know, Newark was the school district was requiring the Board of Education. A mask are now optional.

Bailing out in a lawsuit. I love, I love to see the comments there. Great news. Good about time. Enough of this mask, you know, wearing, you know, people love it. They probably even know who we are. They even know who's doing it. But it doesn't matter.

Well, part of the reason we did that, as you know, because we talked about it was, and Newark's the biggest school district, and it's wonderful. But we spent a lot of time working on that particular letter as the foundation for that loss because we were hoping that that other firms, other groups would take that letter, use it as a template in other places around the country. Again, we can't be everywhere. Right. And we promoted that letter and we sent it around so that it would be recycled by others.

So the idea of sort of setting present, but then also like really drawing up a very nice case and saying, hey, you go ahead read it, use it, copy it, we don't care, it's yours, go make this work. Yeah, I mean, we spent an incredible amount of time of that letter and, you know, anybody wants to take the time to read it, you know, they can use it as a legal. All of this is that I can decide.org, by the way, anybody that wants to take a look at this stuff. Let's keep it going. We've got a lot to get through. It's been a busy ear. And you asked me to do a grab bag. Yeah, yeah.

A random grab bag of stuff. Another example of just kind of something we do is where University of Miami decided that in contravention to Florida law, they were no longer going to provide an exemption for hepatitis B and meningitis vaccines that students need to receive. So we again, we interacted with their general counsel's office. And, you know, after some interaction, they dropped. Sent a letter and this is their response after that letter, basically saying get out of it. They said, yes, undergraduate students may decline the hepatitis B and meningocicotin, menaginitis vaccines. Our processes will be updated to reflect this option, best regards.

You win. We're out. Don't go any further. Right. Our process will be updated. So they updated their process to do it. And I think part of what lets us be effective when we send those demands is because we take a paragraph to point out all the lawsuits that we bring in this arena and that this is not. this is not an empty threat.

Right. We will sue you. Yeah. Yeah, they don't, yeah, we're not just sending a letter. These people, this ICA, this law firm, they are litigious and they mean business. So we get, so we have that, and ICANN makes that possible because we could do so many of these suits. So we get to, and that was an example of a quick, another quick strike in another part of the

country. Also when the COVID vaccine was emergency use authorized, I can't support it as sending literally hundreds of letters. around the country to employers, universities, threatening to bring little action if they require the COVID-19 vaccine because it was not a license. It was only emergency use authorized at that time. And, you know, as the Washington Post reported...

Yeah, here's the article. I love this. Resistance to vaccine mandates is building. A powerful network is helping. A New York firm has filed suit or sent letters to employers in several states as part of an effort spearheaded by one of the largest anti-vaccination groups in the country. I just want to say, you know, to everyone watching right now, this is for you.

You, this is what you're fun. I'm like, this is the end of the year. In some ways, just like, you know, the FDA works for us, TDC works for us. We're showing you how we're working for you. This is what, when you are supporting the work that we're doing, this is the kind of headlines we're making. We are not playing around. We mean business and we are winning because we have a winning track record, slowly, but

Surely you don't even, we didn't, we didn't, what was interesting is we wanted a good case to really sort of challenge us, right, so that we could have a case that could get to the Supreme Court potentially and then make sure that this never happens again. But they all kind of just high-tailed it so easily just, you know, early on. Yeah, yes. Most of the best cases we have, they just, they go away pretty quickly. Yeah. But, you know, that's not a bad thing either. No, it's good. It's good. Nothing either though there are, as you know, there are cases anyway.

Yeah. So that's, so that Washington Post article, I remember we, I can't blast, in high where you remember blasting out? Like, look at this, the same we're winning. Yeah, totally admitting it. It's a compliment. Right. We've also sued, you know, the Air Force, and we've obtained a class-wide injunction against the entire Air Force from engaging in any type of adverse conduct against any of the over 2,000 service members in the Air Force that have filed for a religious exemption against the Air Force. COVID-19 vaccine. That's so amazing. I remember when you came outside the

courtroom, I think we still have it on video. Can we play that video? This is fantastic. Oh, sure. It's a shame that to stand up for a constitutional right would be engaged lawyers, but at the same time, now we have lawyers, they're fighting for us, it means the world. These members of the Air Force, they swear our notes to the Constitution to uphold it. And the first freedom under the Constitution is the right to religious freedom. They're asked to lay down their lives to defend that right. And so the first people whose rights are legal freedom we should be protecting are the people standing behind me who do so, swear an oath to do so, and are sworn duty bound to

pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend those rights. And we're proud to be here today, co-counsel, all of them coming out to stand by that right, to stand firm in that right, because by standing up for their own right to religious freedom. They stand up for that right for every American, not only in the battlefield, but here at home every single day in this country. It's amazing. I mean, it feels so good to know you're out there doing that work for the military because it's one of the things that I wasn't sure that that could ever be touched. I mean, very early on, when I was traveling in the back, so many military would come up and I'm just like, you know, you signed your life away. I mean, I don't know how we deal with

that yet you've gone in there and managed to really have success. And we're proud also to have brought a case against the Army as well. Yep. And we're also seeking class certification and protection for all the members of the Army. Yeah. So. Well, I love, you know, funding cases like the Army because it really, these are our best and brightest.

And it's amazing that they're fighting for liberty and freedom, are, you know, the right to assembly, the freedom of religion. And then the very group that they work for is trying to not give them all those same rights. It is the first freedom under the Constitution. It's incredible. It's incredible. I mean, when you think about just the few examples we've gone through, you know, it's really great knowing that we've been able to really protect millions of Americans, literally

millions just between the San Diego case yeah which result which really affects the millions of children in California Massachusetts case which protected millions of children from in in in Massachusetts our participation in the OSHA case which obviously extended to 100 million employees in America and the various other cases yeah that really the the net result is truly millions of Americans have their freedom their right to say no to Mandy medical product. Not preventing anybody from getting it. You're in Massachusetts and you want six flu shots. Right. That's freedom. Just your right to choose. Right. But if you don't want them,

you can now participate in civil society without it. Great. Well, I mean, I know that's just a smattering of those cases, but let's sort of drill down on COVID-19. Okay. The examples there. What else we do in that space? Right. The actual vaccine. Well, I mean, yeah, we talked about being watchdogs, right? We've sort of talked about all of the foyer all the letter writing all that stuff going on so so you asked you wanted to just do a little bit of a deeper dive unlike the very quick hits on the various lawsuits and and and show how we with one particular product meet all three of those objectives yeah influence public opinion act as a watchdog secure rights right and you can see in the

lawsuits we just went through that each of those has a different level for each of those three. And so, you know, when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine in particular, you know, there's a number of things that we've done over the last year and a half. One of them is we had the opportunity to actually depose the vaccinologist that sat on Pfizer's Data Safety Monitoring Board, which was initially a five-member committee that oversaw the safety of Pfizer's clinical trial. This is the data safety monitoring board, an independent group of experts who monitor patient safety and treatment efficacy data while a clinical trial is going on. The name of who you're talking about, Catherine Edwards, she actually, right? Dr. Catherine Edwards, we've talked

about this book right here. This is literally the textbook on vaccinology. It's called Plotkin Plotkin's vaccines. You have deposed Stanley Plotkin. We may play a clip. We may play a clip a little bit later. For those you've been watching the high wire for some time, it's a, it's one of our great claims of fame. But one of the things that we're doing, right, is, and I've said to you, there are a lot of cases around the country that will bring in these super high-powered experts, sometimes randomly with the Plotkin situation, who's, he's the, you know, the godfather of the vaccine program. You have a divorce case where the dad wants the vaccine, the kid, the mom doesn't, and for some reason they bring in literally the most powerful witness they

could. And that overpowers most lawyers. I have said, we will fund. If we can reach out or somehow they reach out to us, I can will fund you to go in and do the depositions so you get that done right. So this is one of those scenarios that took place this year with Catherine Edwards, right? Dr. Catherine Edwards is, Dr. Samuel Plotkin is the godfather of vaccines and she's the godmother of vaccines. I mean, currently in the country, I don't, you know, those four folks on that book are they're it. Yeah. And so...

The other ones, I think, being Walter Ornstein and... Dr. Paul Offutt. Right. And I, you know, if Dr. Offutt would like to sit for deposition, I'm very happy to go to it. Yeah. But... I have the same offer standing offer.

By the way, every year I send him in an email and say, if you would want to come on the high wire, I guarantee you I'd be pleasant. I'm really curious. Love to have a conversation. He's always really polite. He's like, thank you for the offer. I think I'll pass. I mean, it really, it need not be, it could be a substantive discussion.

It would be a very interesting one. I would be fascinated by it. But all right, so let's get to it. So in this case, there were going to be three experts, Dr. Edwards and two other experts who were going to testify about a vaccine issue. And so I got a phone call asking if I would agree to just handle that piece of the case. The case was a lot larger. There were 15 other witnesses.

extras and I was just going to deposing and cross-examining those three experts on the because they were related to the vaccine issue in that case. Yeah. So Dr. Edwards at the time was sitting on the data safety monitoring board for the Pfizer clinical trial. I think this video pretty much speaks for itself. Let's take a look at this. Isn't it true that you've also been an advisor to It's a Pfizer. Yes, sir, I have been an advisor to Pfizer and I've been working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly with their COVID vaccines and going over lots of reactions and adverse events.

Yes, I am working and be paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety. You're part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for the Pfizer COVID vaccine, that was you meant when you said that? You're one of the only five members of that data safety monitoring board over the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, right? Yes, you're right. And that's supposed to be an independent data safety monitoring board, correct? It is an independent data safety monitoring. That's the board that all of us in America are hoping on and relying on is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed.

as the clinical trial for that Pfizer, COVID-190x is ongoing, correct? That's true, and let me tell you that we have worked very hard to put over this and look very hard to do that in GE as comprehensively as we possibly have. And since it's supposed to be independent, it's critical that the members of that independent data safety monitoring board are in fact independent of the pharmaceutical company. company whose product is being evaluated, correct? That's correct. But isn't it true that directly before becoming a member of the independent

data safety monitoring board of the FISA and COVID-19 vaccine, you were an advisor to FISA? Pfizer pays me to evaluate the safety of their vaccines because I'm an expert. So I do get paid to do the work that I've been doing, but I've been doing the work. I've been doing with country interest and comprehensive. My question was, before you became a member of the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board with the Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccine, isn't it true that you were separately, before you held that independent position, you were an advisor to Pfizer? Yes, sir, but I think what you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor,

makes me on their dole or makes me going to say what they want me to say that is not and has never been a part of my being I say what I believe based on my expertise so you don't think that financial incentives can sway people's judgment at all it does not sway my judgment sir Why following having an independent data city monitoring board? Why doesn't Pfizer just have some of its employees on it? Because we are independent. Meaning folks who are never advisors to Pfizer.

We are independent of Pfizer in this assessment. What I love about that is like the sort of the slowest movie, you know, you're just like slowly pushing in and she sees it coming, right? She sees the conflict of interest that she's trying to work the way around, but there's no way out of it. You just, in the end, you cannot call this an independent, you know, advisory committee if you are, literally as she described it on the dole with Pfizer. I mean, her words, not mine. You know, there's something I just saw in here that was really funny as it went by.

She says, yes, I've been looking at lots of reactions and adverse events from the COVID vaccines and the trials. You know, it's just a part of like, that's what I'm doing. And I'm thinking, lots, we're being told there were none. I mean, I just found that, like, interesting, like, just, I'm just wondering what she's actually looking at. But anyway, that's besides the point. It's not what you were there for. Yeah. And the even crazier is that Dr. Edwards is the principal investigator of one of the four vaccine safety systems.

The CDC says it has monitoring COVID-19 vaccines. SISA, the clinical immunization safety assessments, CISA project. So this is right there is. So here's the four, yeah, VAR's the vaccine adverse events reporting system, the one they say that is underreported, we can't trust it. You have the vaccine safety data link, which they hide from the public because it would be useful, but they buried it in a private company so we can't get near it. CSA is being run by a woman that's on the dole for Pfizer in her own words.

And then you have essentially the VSA data. VSA database, yeah. Right. And this is, and it's not there on the blowout, but this is the page on the CDC's website where it says it is the most thorough, you know, safety assessments in the history of vaccines. And here are the four systems. VERS. I mean, if theirs didn't provide already signals, I don't know what would.

The VSD, as you pointed out, was moved into the private HMO trade association so that it cannot be subject to FOIA, so they could hide that data. Right. And there aren't any real good studies coming out of it anyway about COVID vaccines. Then you got SISTA run by Dr. Edwards, which also has not produced anything. So the only real system out there that they've got, the premier system for COVID-19 vaccine safety is V-Safe. Yeah. Which is why, you know, you had us go out of it so hard to get the data from the system.

Huge. Yeah, let's talk about it. We're right there. Let's just go V-Safe. Okay, sure. So the V-Safe system is pretty much the only, if you're going to find, if you're going to see whether or not the COVID vaccine is safe or not safe. Yeah. in any of the safety systems that the CDC has.

It's going to be in V-SAFE. V-safe, as we talked about, in a prior issue, is a CDC program, smartphone-based, where they had over 10 million people sign up. These are folks who signed up early on, right after it was rolled out, and right after they got the shot, and they were provided daily

and then weekly check-ins to answer certain questions. One category was certain symptoms, and they answered that for a week, and those symptoms are the ones that CDC say are not. normal of the vaccine, meaning that data was pointless. Second category, asked three questions. The only place that might actually provide useful data, did you need medical care after the shot? Did you miss school of work, or were you unable to perform normal daily activities? And as I think your viewers probably know, 7.7%

so they needed medical care, another 25%. And if that's not enough, I don't know what the CDC But what was amazing is this was a database. They said, we're going to be transparent. They hit it. We fought them for over a year. I love that this made a lot. of news. This is what that looked like. My firm has over 20 individuals that exclusively work on vaccine related matters to do vaccine injury, vaccine exemptions and vaccine policy work. And almost all that vaccine policy work has done on behalf of the informants in an action network. I can. The reason I tell you that is because I can't ask us over a year and a half ago to please get the data from the

V-Safe system. I just want to point out that it was 463 days you tell us from the time that you requested this VSAFE data. V-SAFE as a CDC program where you just kind of report how you're doing after you got the vaccine. 463 days to get it. There were 10,008,273 individual users. These are folks that actually signed up and registered to use V-safe and to provide health check-in.

7.7% of these users, they reported that they needed some type of medical care. Yeah. Being a doctor, emergency room, or hospitalization. Now that we have the data, we could see that getting the vaccine caused 25% of people within this data set of 10 million people to have some of a serious event affecting their normal life functions. I mean, amazing.

Huge news. That was huge news. And so many people are using that database. I mean, I just think about all the scientists around the world now are checking in with it. And it checks all three boxes. influences public opinion, watchdog over the agencies, and is going to then help result in affecting whether or not their mandates. And it's free on our website to anyone that wants to check it out. We're not charging for that. So if you want to go to the website, Icandecide.org, that's the dashboard for all that information.

All right. And then Maddie de Gary. Yeah, the personal cases. There's a lot of those we get involved in. And so this is, you know, this was, she participated in Pfizer's clinical trial and I think it was in the news too. Let's take a look at that. Our firm is inundated with individuals calling us after COVID-19 vaccine injuries. But I think, Shannon, that you're referring specifically to a young lady named Maddie DeGarry, who's 12 years old, participated in the Pfizer clinical trial for 12 to 15-year-olds, a trial that only had about 1,100 children,

and she suffered a serious adverse event right after the vaccine. She ended up in a wheelchair. She has a feeding tube through her nose. People get injured from vaccines. It happens. But the most troubling part of this story is what Pfizer and the FDA did after she was injured. They try to brush it under the rug. Pfizer reported it to the FDA as an abdominal pain. She's in a wheelchair, she has a feeding tube, and that's how it was reported. And despite the fact that the DeGarry family has gone public with this months ago, the FDA has not once to reach out to them. You would think that one of our major health agencies would want to dig in and find out. That's one of the reasons the DeGarri family has contacted our firm.

They want to bring all that information public and we are in the process of gathering and doing that. First of all, the Maddie DeGarry DeGerry's story, you know, I don't want to sort of brush to such an important story. She's been so dedicated to getting her story out there, her mother, her family. We had her on the show and her parents. But just to be able to help in cases like this. I mean, this is just such a horrific cover-up in an important trial.

The FDA doesn't even seem to care that there's a lie inside of the data that they're counting on, which, again, just shows corruption, I think, at a whole level. But one of the things that's beautiful is, you know, here we have the high wire and people think, oh, the high wire is just, you know, is like the media for this thing. But we're creating media that in some ways mainstream news there doesn't even know, really, that behind it, like, and I don't care. I don't care that we're not getting the credit, the people, and this is important for our audience right now, you are funding, you know, through us the legal cases that make it possible to make mainstream news. And so there's so many arms to what is being achieved through the funding through us and then the work that you're doing. It's expansive.

And it's... Well, look, I, you know, I'm bound by attorney-client privilege not to disclose things. You don't authorize me to disclose. But as you, as you know, there are instances where I go on the news to discuss them. And there are instances where we do work. And the person who's going on to discuss them is neither me nor you, somebody else. And nobody knows that ICANN's really one supporting that work. I think about that with the Fauci emails when Tucker Carlson. Let's just run that because I think that was an interesting point.

Like, you know, again, Tucker Carlson covering work that you did funded by, I can't. Take a look at this. Last winter, a group of well-known scientists publicly dismissed the lab leak theory in a letter to the Lancet as absurd and categorically untrue. And yet at the same time, they wrote emails to each other conceding that actually the virus did look engineered by human hands in a lab. Meanwhile, Tony Fauci worked on censorship. Fauci made certain that the self-appointed fact checkers who control the flow of information in this country shut down anyone who dared challenge the official story, which, again, we now know was a lie.

In the final days of the last administration, the State Department finally began a serious investigation into the origins of COVID, into what was happening at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But almost immediately after the election, Joe Biden shut it down. So in all, the lying went on, unimpeded for a year and a half.

And we're just learning now how deep it went. The informed consent action network, a group that advocates for transparency in vaccines, has just obtained thousands of new emails to and from Tony Fauci. They show, among other things, that Fauci knew perfectly well that his own directives often had no basis in science.

You know, we were cheering when we finally got Tucker Carlson to sort of mention ICAN and the work that we're doing. that was really important. But people don't know that we've been sending Tucker Carlson our scripts. We've been, you know, others at Fox saying, you should be checking on the science. You should be checking on science because I think a lot of people will say, well, I mean, it's conservative news,

but they don't remember back when nobody was talking about. There was no conservatives. There was no Tucker Carlson talked about this. There was no Lori and Graham. You know, it was the wins and the work that we were doing that started exposing this stuff that actually got, you know, at least some conservative media on our side. I remember in 2017, after you wanted to do legal work, we went, we flew down to D.C.

For the first time, we attended an ACIP meeting. Oh, there's a picture of it. That's the first meeting. There we go. This is before, this is when there was no barrier, no barricades. You could sit right behind the panel members. And then once, after this meeting, in subsequent meetings, we kept bringing larger and larger crowds to speak. And then they started putting up barriers and serious.

We totally messed that country club up. But back then, but back then, yeah, there were no senators calling us, you know, to get to ask us, hey, what do you think of this bill or this approach or congressmen or state legislative houses or media outlets or, you know, go down the list of folks that have influence out there. You know, our firm, and I know on the media side, you're, you know, highwire, you can't keep up. with those inquiries. I mean, they are, and we couldn't be happier for it. Yes, four years ago, there was, you know, no party, no politic, no real body that understood the importance of not having mandates, of individual rights, the ability to choose your medical, where today, probably half the country is really beginning to understand it. And I give a lot of that credit goes to you, and to the work that you've been doing and the 6 million views,

UN now here, and that multiplicity of where that has spread out and the work that you've also supported has made a lot of that possible. It's really amazing. So you dug into the Pfizer data. This is something that they told us was going to be transparent, and then you tangled with the FDA all the time. It was amazing. We'll show the clip in a second,

But I am amazed. What was it like to be in a room when your opposition says, we want 55 years or then ultimately 75 years to produce this data? I mean, do they say that with a straight face? Well, I showed up in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas. And I walked in. There was the DOJ attorney there from DOJ, Maine, Washington, D.C., flew in. There was the chief FOIA officer from the FDA sitting there.

There was the head of the Science Life Division of DLA Piper, one of the biggest terms in the world. They are representing Pfizer. There was Pfizer's in-house attorney sitting next to him. There was a representative from Pfizer. There was an army. There's an army on one side of the courtroom. And then, you know, I walked in.

And my local, and the local, because I'm, you know, I was admit, I needed a local attorney who was sitting next to me, a wonderful gentleman. In order to be able to practice in that space. You know, it's two and a half hours and they're going to turn and they had to, you know, argue to the court why that was appropriate. And luckily the judge understood, he understood the importance of the issue as I said, I said, You know, this is not just any request. I said, you're talking about a product that is being mandated by the federal government, but to millions of Americans where the company has been given immunity to liability, right? I mean, and the other factors we know about, I go, there could be nothing more critical than getting this data out to the public.

The judge got it, and the judge was amazing in the case. He really got it. He was amazing. He was what looked like in the news. It was incredible. Let's go to the news. Yeah. Civil rights attorney Aaron Siri.

To Aaron Siri. Aaron Siri is a civil litigator. Aaron, you have been fighting for information from the FDA. This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. He's the guy that has been asking Pfizer to release the COVID-19 vaccine data. They did initially want 55 years, but then they up the number of pages at some point that they said they'd have to disclose, which brought it to 75 years. Why in the world would it ever heard? have been okay for all of us to wait until 2097.

It was never okay. The FDA promised transparency when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine. This product is not just any product. It is being mandated on individuals across this country. Transparency is critically important when it comes to a product of that nature. The FDA shouldn't be hoarding this data. It should be sharing it so that all scientists in our country

can participate in finding solutions. Pittman, the judge, ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 pages a month. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be public by the end of September. We're very heartened that the judge agreed that it should be produced this year. And yes, we're confident that the FDA will comply with the judge's order and produce those documents as demanded. That was huge. I mean, that data is still pouring out. One of the questions that comes into the show all the time is what's more important? The Pfizer win and getting the Pfizer trial data or the VSAFE data provided by CDC in your opinion what's more important I think the VSAFE data and I'll tell you why

because just like a clinical trial VSAF gathered data by asking the participants to provide it yep but unlike a clinical trial that data is not filtered through the pharmaceutical company well it's not coming from the pharmaceutical right right the trial the fight was was done by Pfizer so you could have something that says stomach ache and not know that you have a girl in a wheelchair with a feeding tube you know that because Maddie de Gary came in her family correct right okay Okay, right? Yep. But otherwise we wouldn't know.

So you don't have it filtered by the pharmaceutical company. It's standardized questions, and instead of 30,000 people, it's 10 million people. That's a huge group of people. So that's going to be the best data points you're going to ever get. And if that's not going to move our health authority, I mean, it really shows nothing. Well, and as I told you earlier today, we just got version one of the V-State protocol from before V-Safe was launched. And it shows those 15 serious conditions. So where the myocarditis and issues, they knew those were issues.

They were planning to put it into that database app or working on it as important. And then avoid it ever asking the questions about it. They label them in the VSAF protocol, adverse events of special interests. Yeah. And then in a table, it called them prespecified. You know, and so you would imagine they were intended to be listed as check the box options. But they never never were. Anyway, that's, yeah.

And for people that are asking, that's still ongoing because there's still this open box, right? The open box data, which is if we didn't ask you the right question, like did you die, did you have a heart attack, did you, that would be written here. We're suing for that written in open box data. Yes, the free text field. So that, you know, so basically CDC, they knew, they knew that,

that if they left it off to check the box list, then they wouldn't have to worry there would be a rate. Because if they had to check the box with myracoditis, percaditis, you would have just, boom, you would have a percentage. Yeah, 300,000 people said they had myriaditis out of 10 million people, boom, you have a rate. You know, you can't do that with theirs. Right.

You could do that with Visa, unfiltered by pharmaceutical companies. I bet that was a very scary proposition for the whole, authorities because they don't know the outcomes. It means they sort of- Yeah. Yeah. And so these free text field is where that data was going to be entered. There's 6.7 million entries and that's where people wrote what was going on with them.

I went to the hospital, but why? And that's where they wrote. We're going to get it. I know we're going to get it. I know there is going to be hard, but we will not give up. All right. Okay. This could start looking like gloating.

We're never going to get to all this. I don't want to like people got to go on the lives. So let's just select just a few more things of all. that was done. Tell me about the FDA petitions. Okay. So wrapping up COVID-19 vaccine as one last example. So, you know, there is a formal process in which you can petition the FDA to answer questions. And that's like, it's almost like a court docket in a way. It's where pharma files to get licensures. And we, on that same docket, we file formal petitions demanding answers to questions. So every time they license

a co-vaccine, they authorized a co-vaccine, they're engaged in other conduct, we file the petition. I think a total of 15 extensive petitions that were all had to be responded to in detail by the FDA under the law. You have those responses. They're signed almost all by by Peter Marks, the head of the vaccine division

of the FDA. And part of the reason to do that, we knew they were never going to grant the petitions. Of course not. But it locks them in. It is the proof. And we're taking, for example, those answers, and DeSantis as you saw forming this grand jury, we're going to be sending in that evidence for them to review. We want to

to make sure they have that. All of these lawsuits being done by age. They don't get to say, well, we never knew about that. Or, well, that was the science changed. No, no, no, no. We have you signing right here. You knew about it. Science didn't change. It was doing that when we sent you a petition. It is hundreds and hundreds of pages of signed responses in detail to all the critical issues that everybody talks about with COVID. They're detailed. They're boring. That's why they don't make it onto a show. But they're there and important for lawyers. And we do that with many of the cases around the. country, especially when it's brought by AG, we send them any proof we think will assist them. Great. All right. And what do we have over here in this category? Parental rights in DC. I know that is a huge case. To me, this is one of the biggest cases we've ever won.

You had a law basically saying children could, you know, end up approving a vaccine for themselves that parents wouldn't know about it. And what I loved is the 1986 Act that most of us hate that gives this liability protection is really the grounds by which you fought this case. That's right. We chose a ground to fight the case that if we prevailed on it could then be used for any law, anywhere in the country, state law, that permitted a doctor to vaccinate your child without your knowledge or consent. Right. And so under the 1986 Act, it provides that you must provide the parent or legal guardian a copy of something called a vaccine information statement

before you vaccinate that child. Federal law says, parent must get that document before vaccinating a child. Hence, it trumps state law that says you can vaccinate a child without parents knowing. How can you do that? Right. Parents have to get that sheet.

They didn't hand the sheet. You didn't hand the sheet. Federal law trumps the state law, and that's what the judge held in the D.C. case we brought and joined the law. The D.C., the attorneys were opening the D.C. didn't even appeal the decision. And that law is another amazing judge, honestly, federal judge, who wrote an incredible decision.

So smart. He was so smart. A great decision. And that same precedent can be used in Cali. And, you know, we've also done this a lot of places across the country where health departments, state health departments, or even sometimes county ones, put out information about vaccines, COVID vaccines that are incorrect. we send them demands to change it. I love this. I love that ICAN gets to sort of spank health agencies

and say, get back in line, you've been doing that for us. I think we have a couple examples. Let's take a look at this. This was a false COVID-19 vaccine information. Michigan's Department of Health complied with ICAN's legal demands and remove misinformation regarding the COVID-19. What was it that? Here it was, all three vaccines are proven to be safe and effective.

And then what we made them change. I can't barely read. Well, there it is. On the journey to FDA approval, each COVID-19 vaccine had to pass through the same thresholds of research and testing as every other vaccine. It's important to know that all three of the approved COVID-19 vaccines were proven to be safe and 100% effective in preventing hospitalization deaths in the clinical trials. You said, hello, nope, and they had to change it. The FDA has authorized emergency use of each three COVID vaccines after determining the vaccines meet FDA requirements. It's important to know that all three of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines were proven to be safe and effective in reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization death has caused by the virus 100%, you know.

But still misleading. Right. Still had misleading and actually there's a follow-up we sent them that then had them change it. One more time. Yeah. To further correct misinformation they had about the vaccine and so, you know, we've just done that in New York, Arizona and other places. We've also, we've also done it to federal health agencies too who are putting out false information and not in compliance with it.

And the reason we're able to do it is because there are federal laws that actually do not permit certain statements about products at some intervals. And that's what we use as our, as our cudgel to get them to comply with our demands. One of the, you know, as I said before you came on, before COVID, we were bringing lawsuits and there was a lot going on. And I think the hepatitis B lawsuit, we've been at it for a couple of years now. leading to, it has a, there's a lot to it that's going to lead us in the future, but we're also learning a lot about how we're going to fight COVID. I think of the D-TAP lawsuits, which

is the argument being this doesn't stop you from transmission. This is going to be a big part of the cases with COVID. We know how to do that. But take me through hepatitis B, sort of where we're at, where we're at, you know, Stanley Plot can talk to him. So tell me about how that's setting up. Yeah, I mean, prior to COVID, we were doing base the same work we're doing now. We just did it as to all the other vaccines. Which by the way, you know, folks look at the COVID clinical trial and they say, oh, that's rushed. That's not so great. That's the best clinical trial almost ever. I've been saying that. People think I'm crazy. So all these doctors, like, it's an abomination

of science and said it is. No doubt. It is. But it is, you know, a hundred times better than virtually every other trial done of that childhood vaccine program. All those vaccines, that you're claiming really did stellar science. They have no idea when they're saying that on these panels that, no, that science was even worse. Right. I mean, there are three metrics you typically judge a clinical trial. One, how many participants did it have? Pfizer and Modernia each had 30,000 participants

compared to most clinical for the adult trial. Compared to most clinical trials for children, there were sometimes only hundreds or just thousands. Because without enough people, you can't detect signals. Two, the second metric is, how long was the safety review? And for most childhood vaccines, it's maybe up to 42 days.

Typically not that long. And then finally, it's what was the control group? Because if you don't have a control group, receiving a placebo and inert substance, what are you comparing it to? Right. And a lot of times you're either comparing it to another vaccine that also was not licensed based on a placebo control. Which I said earlier.

Or no control. So what is your baseline? I love this. You actually take this to Stanley Plotkin. Let's play that video and then we can speak to it. This is the godfather of the vaccine program, that's the living godfather and being grilled by Aaron Siri. This is priceless.

This is an old one for somebody who's been watching for a while. But if you're new, watch this. Dr. Plotkin, earlier you testified that there are two Hep B vaccines in the market. One by Glaxo, GSC. That's Enderix B. And the other one is by Merck, RekomboVax, HB, right? Yes. This is the product, the manufacturer insert for a recombavax HB, correct?

Yes. And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct? Correct? Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. In Section 6.1, when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre-licensure for Recombovax HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose?

Let's see. Five days. Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five days? No. Is five days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after five days? No. There is no control group, correct? It does not mention any control group, no.

If you turn to Section 6.2, under immune system disorders, Does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, and uticaria having been reported within the first few hours after vaccination? Yes. Have they been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome? Yes, that's what it states. Reports of arthritis? It is mentioned. It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus, erythematosis, lupus-like syndrome, vasculitis, and polyteritis, nidoza as well, correct?

Yes, that's what it states. And also it states that under the nervous system disorders, it states that after that there have been reports of Guillamboree syndrome, correct? Yes. As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's Palsy, radiculopathy. Radiculopathy. Thank you very much.

Muscle weakness, hypothea, and encephalitis, correct? Correct. These are events that are reported after vaccination, and as we've just discussed, in order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the condition, you need a randomized placebo-controlled study. But that was not done for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure, was it? No. Okay.

And given that the vaccine now appealed. on the CDC's recommended list, isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today? It would be, yes, it would be ethically difficult. I just want to let you know that if you have not seen all of the Plotkin deposition pieces, it's a nine-hour piece, it was amazing.

We've cut it down into a bunch of small videos, the highlights, it's one of the most mind-blowing depositions ever done by, as you can tell, one of the great attorneys of all times. You just have to go to the highwire.com, scroll down to our watch page, and you will see there it says Plotkin on vaccines and boom You can watch those. They're each a couple minutes long some of them grab some popcorn and have some fun you can even make a drinking game out of it But it's amazing. It was amazing when we came out of that Literally what this guy is considering is acceptable science well no we never actually did trial well yeah, it was only four or five days

Well, no we can't do a randomized controlled trial now that it's been approved and all of this that and it's just he's sort of like doesn't know what to do, he doesn't know where to go. It's clear. I think you see in his eyes he knows, wow, I'm losing this. This does not sound very good. I don't know how to make this sound good. It parted because it's what we talked about earlier. Dr. Plotkin and all these folks at the federal health authorities, nobody challenged them

on safety really for decades other than one or two narrow issues. Nobody challenged them. They challenged them on mercury and they challenged them on autism. And even there, as we saw, they didn't do the studies for autism. They did it for MMR and they did it for the Marisol. And that's it. They ignored the entire first year of shots, incredibly. And here he is.

He shows up. He thinks he's going to parachute. And I've created six vaccines. Do you know who I am? You know who I am? And he's like, oh, dang, you know? And somebody's actually pulling out the primary sources showing it to me. That's all I did.

I mean, if I could take that video and play it to all the people that were just on DeSantis' panel saying, oh, it's the one in a million, say, really? Are you aware that this is the guy that was involved in making those, say, four or five days is acceptable to you on a hepatitis B vaccine? It's incredible people still say that. You know, we also do vaccine injured case. You represent people injured by hepatitis by vaccines all the time. Serious injuries. Yeah. There are numerous studies that show, for example, there's sleep apnea. Children that got Hep B vaccines versus those that didn't. Those that got the heavy vaccines, they monitored their breathing during the night. And those that had the shot within a few days for within a 48 hour period we're having sleep

happening I mean they stopped breathing for extended periods of time in their sleep wow I mean this is the science and that's that day one old baby when I play that when I put out that headline we have more babies dying the first day of life this vaccine is giving an incredible aluminum load which is one of our suspicions and why it's problematic you're also getting aluminum load in the vitamin K shot but we're having babies die in the first day of life more than every other industrialized nation combined. It's really quite horrific.

And you can't, and why give it? I mean, this conversation is always, before there was COVID, my conversation always started with hepatitis B. You are tested as a mother whether you have hepatitis B or not, long before this baby is delivered. So the only point of contact for Hep B

would be the mother not happening. So then why this is a disease that is, you know, using needles or having promiscuous sexual, interactions, why on the first day of life and why won't you just for the sake of it say, we have more babies dying on the first day of life than everyone else. Let's stop giving this vaccine in the first day of life. I don't know, first six months or a year since none of these kids are going to be at risk

and see what happens. They'll never do it. It's because there's basically effectively regulatory capture. The people that sit on the FDA's advisory committee on whether the license shots, Verback, and the people who sit on the ASIP, the CDC's committee, ASIP, especially during the 90s when most of these vaccines were licensed and put on the schedule, often had very serious conflicts. Dr. Catherine Edwards, who we saw, during that entire period for 10 years, sat either on ASIP or Verbeck, and during that same period, as we uncovered

in her deposition, she's being paid. She has been working for the pharmaceuticals companies, the very companies who either as a, you know, a speaker or other capacities, and yet she was given the ability to sit on these committees and decide whether they should be licensed and then authorized children. We also hear about, you know, there's tons of stories where we won't get into details, but whether you're a trial site or you're an investigator like she says she is that do point out problems, they don't get hired again. Like they suddenly go, wait, I was just fired. I was doing a perfectly good job.

So the truth is, if you're maintaining that job with these pharmaceutical companies over years, they like how your responses come in. Look, let me say this. I don't think most of these folks, including Dr. Edwards, I don't think that she's, you know, I think that she genuinely believes she's doing God's work. Yeah. And I think most folks who are public health officials, doctors, they believe they're doing the right thing. I don't think that they think they're doing what's wrong. Right. To the extent that they're exposed to issues like Dr. Edwards during the clinical trial, I think

that the rationalization is that, okay, but on balance, this will do more good than bad. Yeah. But they should not be getting to make those decisions for our children. Right. For your children, for my children, for anybody's children in this country, or for any adult in this country. We should all have that right and ability to make those choices for ourselves. So the hepatized bee case has continued.

You have foyered. We've gone in in multiple ways and demanded that they, there's like, oh, couldn't possibly be four or five days. They've basically had to concede that in many different ways, right? We've got nothing else. We foyer for the clinical trial reports that were submitted. I think that, you know, we've talked about this once a while ago. It was like, really?

Could it really be? And then you get the clinical trial reports. And yep, they monitored safety for five days after each shot. That's it. And that's in the actual documentation, you know, the summary of the basis of approval within the FDA's own records. We also then separately said, okay, well, you know, not only is there's this really problem where the clinical trial was clearly deficient, there's a lot of literature that shows concern about the hepatitis B vaccine and its potential adverse effects. We also wanted to know, was there ever even a case, one case, documented,

case of Hep B being transmitted in a school setting. You're mandating for schools and you're protecting students. Do you have a single incidence where a kid got Hep B from another student? Yeah. Do you have one documented case? In this whole country, ever. And we asked that B vaccine through the legal

route to do it, and their response was no. A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertain to your... They have no. So you've got a vaccine that was licensed... You're putting your baby's lives at risk with no safety trial and for no reason whatsoever. It's going to do nothing. And it's not only five days in this trial, by the way. There was only a hundred

something kids, and there was no control. As you heard, Dr. Block, what is the point of even doing a trial? Like, don't even bother. Just say, hey, look, you know, laissez-faire, caveat em-tor. Here it is. Yeah. If you want to take it. If you don't want it, don't take it. And here's the truth about what, you know, what was underlying its safety. There's so much you're doing. Let's just wrap this up. But I just, you know, I just want to talk because our audience is making this possible. I'm not making this possible. It's not coming from my pocketbook. It's literally just people that have become recurring donors that are making this happen. We're saying rush in there, get this done. Look, if you want to donate right now, just go to the top corner of the highwire.com.

It's coming the end of the year. This is a perfect reason to get a tax right off. We are looking out for you. We're looking to make a difference. $22. Time is running out for $22 a month. We're going to start asking for $23 in 2023, so you better get on it. It really, I mean, I hope that it beyond just seeing how, like, obviously, the enormous amount of work you're doing, but is being made possible by people that are trying to make a difference in the world. Do you feel like, I mean, I know lawyers a lot of times, they've got to question what they're doing, the ethics of it, or, you know, is it not really working for the right people? It's got to feel good with these victories.

Yeah. At the end of the day, even if vaccines are now to be the safest product known to man, the work that you have us doing, I find to be incredibly important because the studies, the science, needs to be done to confirm that. It should not be based on assumption or supposition. Separately, even if that science was done, which is it has not been done or has not been done properly. still nobody should ever be mandated to get a medical product one person's quote unquote facts as we have seen during this pandemic are different than another and we and we have a product where the federal law gives the manufacturers immunity for my ability you cannot sue them for harm for virtually any the court can't even fix this mess for the most part so you've got to be doubly vigilant doubly vigilant and yet this is the product you're going to mandate the one product of

Other than really the only product for the most part that has this type of immunity in the United States, it's mind-blowing. Even without that, people should have a choice. Certainly with that, they should have a choice. And what's really great is not only do you have us doing these investigations like you saw taking that product to the deposition, and then chasing down the clinical trials and then chasing down whether there's transmission, we then take action on it. And as you know, we filed a petition with the FDA, the petitions we looked at earlier, the 15 on COVID. we did one for Hep B.

And we're demanding through the formal FDA process that they rescind the licensure of these hepatitis B vaccines until, not forever. Right. Not forever. Right. Until you have a proper clinical trial. Because that's what the mandate of the FDA is. Right. They're supposed to only licensed products have been shown to be safe and effective.

That clinical trial can't do that. Can't qualify. I don't know what it is. Is it a year? Is it six months? Is it four months? You could argue maybe. Five days?

We know for sure it's not five days. That can't be enough. It can't be enough. Right. So that, to me, is already in the black zone. Yeah. There's a lot of gray zone, but that's got to be in the black. And so we follow the petition, and it's been almost two years now,

and we keep following up at the FDA because they had six months to respond. I smell a lawsuit. Oh, it's coming. I love it. You know it's coming? I know it's coming. I know it's coming. There's so many lawsuits next year is going to be very exciting.

We have so much experience now. You have so much experience. You've built all of this. precedents. You have all these facts. You know how they play the game. We know how the trials work. It was how we were able to be so successful to the high wire predicting where COVID vaccine was going to go. We knew where they're going to try and cut the corners. We knew how this whole thing was laying out. You know, Aaron, it is really, truly one of the greatest gifts of my life to have run into you and to get to work side by side with you and to send you in there. I've joked. I've

said it before. In some ways, I feel like I get to pick the fight with the high wire. And then when the real bully comes in, Pfizer is something much bigger than me. I'm like, Aaron, get them. It's amazing. So thank you so much for all of your brilliant work, and I look forward to what we're going to achieve next year. Thank you, Dow.