The Highwire with Del Bigtree - JUSTICE FOR ALL

Episode Date: October 7, 2022

‘Died Suddenly News’ Creator Winning Censorship War; FDA Autopsy Cover Up?; Wuhan Theory Reignites; ICAN’s New V-safe DashboardGuests: Tiago Henriques, Aaron Siri, Esq.#DiedSuddenlyNews #VSafeDashboard #ICAN #JusticeForAllBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org and donate now. Good morning.

Good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the High Wire. Now, I know a bunch of you have just joined us today, probably for the first time, because we've made history here at the High Wire, and really more importantly, our nonprofit, the informed consent action network. One of the biggest lawsuit wins we've ever had regarding the CDC's V-Safe data. This is the data that was collected specifically around the COVID vaccine since they knew they were turning America and the world into a giant clinical test group. This system was designed

to catch any adverse events. We put up a dashboard on our website. We broke that news. It's been on Fox News and many other places. That's going to be, we're going to be really getting the details of that later on the show. I have Aaron Siri in studio, the lawyer that won that case for us. And he's going to point out what he thinks of some of the important details about that. So for those of you joining us to see that information that's coming up in just a little bit. But first, you know, we're When we think about, you know, that B-Safe data, it took a year. We had to sue for like almost a year to try and get that all released, which means the world is not working the way it's supposed to.

Our government agencies are not being transparent the way they're supposed to. We keep hearing these terms like misinformation from people like me, Del Bigtree and the High Wire and other people have been outspoken about demanding more transparency, pointing out the flaws in the science around the vaccines. And every time we do, we lose a Facebook channel, we lose a YouTube channel, We're being censored on Twitter and all of these other technologies. And so it really begs the question, what is misinformation? Who's behind it and who's censoring everybody?

If you want to know what I'm talking about, well, you've seen in the news. It looks a lot like this. Facebook says it plans to remove misinformation about coronavirus vaccines from its Facebook and Instagram platform. From March to October, Facebook removed 12 million posts with coronavirus-related misinformation. The social media giant taking down at least nine pages with some 65. million followers. We are taking down any harmful misinformation on the coronavirus. We're working with WHO very closely and directly. Facebook is not confirming or denying working with the White House. It says this in a statement. We permanently ban pages, groups, and accounts that

repeatedly break our rules on COVID misinfo. What Zuckerberg announced today is that there will be something at the top of everyone's feeds called a coronavirus information center where they will have verifiable information from the World Health Organization, the CDC, and others. If we see harmful misinformation on the platform, then we take it down. It's against our policies. We will also remove conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines that we know today are false. What the Biden administration is doing with Facebook and Twitter and Google, they're going to Monopolis and saying you are our tool to censor views we disagree with. This dynamic has to be stopped. We have to discuss it because otherwise you'll wake up when we're

wake up one morning and all of this will be codified and normal. So we've covered this issue a lot here on the high wire. We've been at the, you know, really the forefront of this conversation and one of those being censored. As I said, we lost our YouTube channel. We lost our Facebook channel for, you know, simply reading through the science. And there's world-renowned scientists, including the inventor of the MRNA vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone, who lost his LinkedIn page when he dared to say, hey, you should be afraid of this technology I've created. Let me tell you why.

find that really terrifying. But as they've been censoring in doing all these things, you know, there are industrious humans on this planet. And, you know, a lot of you've been said, Del, what are you doing about, you know, building new websites or new things? Well, we built a website. We're funding, you know, putting a lot of money into making it stronger and stronger. But I've also been, you know, I always thought to myself, you know, the rumble has come along and, and all these other Gitter, you know, these different approaches. And we keep putting our information out there too. Because in the end where there is a need, someone industrious will step up and make a difference. And that's really a lot of what I think the celebration is of the show this week is making a

difference in the world. And in this story, there's actually a great guy out there who figured out the AI, went and investigated Facebook and looked at, you know, how are the algorithms working? And how could I help get the truth out there, the real truth, and allow people to communicate with each other? Well, this is what one of the headlines said about that. Anti-Bax groups use carrot emojis to hide Facebook posts. Pretty abstract headline there.

But what are we talking about? We're talking about this website right here. Died Suddenly News, the fastest growing group on Facebook. You can see there, 296.1,000 members all discussing died suddenly. Well, I want to get to the bottom of this, and so we are joined right now by Tiago Henriquez, who put this all together. Tiago, I want to thank you for joining us today. How are you doing? I'm pretty good. How about you?

I'm very good. All right. So just sort of walk me through this. To begin with, you know, you're looking at Facebook, you're seeing the censorship. What's your background that made you even want to attempt to put up a Facebook page? And, you know, are you technically savvy? Is this self-taught? Is it what you do for a living? Just give me a little bit of who you are. I'm a 4x trader. So I trade the 4x markets. I develop my own indicators. I also program in artificial intelligence, pie torch, and TensorFlow. So yeah, I do have a pretty good vast background on what's going on and how Facebook operates their algorithms. All right. Now, you started this Facebook page, died suddenly. Before we get into how you did it, why this topic? Why is a guy that's, you know, involved in things that don't seem to be. to have anything to do with health and medicine.

Why this issue? What was guiding you? I just noticed a lot of vaccine injuries in my area. I came across a gentleman named Friday Pie. He was very badly injured, and Facebook seemed to be censoring him and all these other stories. So I thought, you know what?

Let me give it a go and see what I can do, create a group, and see if everybody's saying the same thing I am. Now, when you decided to create that group, Did you just throw a page up and say, let's let it rip? Or how exactly did you go about? Because you did some preparation to understand why those stories were being shut down, right? Yeah, I developed 12 Facebook groups. I call them burn groups.

So that way I can see, I did them on purpose. I wanted them to burn on purpose because I wanted to see what Facebook was looking at. How are you able to see, you know, what Facebook says? How do you go about doing that? I mean, we've all seen pages disappear. our own pages maybe get locked down temporarily, but is there information there that can be gleaned by your average user, or do you have to have a technology to be able to track that? Yeah, you got to have your own software. I develop in PITORTS. So, you know, I look for the

keywords that they're looking for. They're looking for certain phrases, certain statements, and then I mix that all into the software and try to replicate what they have on their algorithm on their side. So it's worked, you know, pretty successfully until the BBC article came out. All right, and so let's get in that. You finally figured out, you know, how they were doing it. And so you decided to create this Died Suddenly page. Now, you know, what it's, you know, we sort of talked about like you reverse engineered. You looked how Facebook was essentially.

You got their keywords. So was the secret to this, did you have to train people that were coming onto your site, how to discuss it so they wouldn't trigger the algorithms that were looking at these pages? Yes, yeah. So they, when you come onto the page, you get a very quick sense of what to run. right, what not to write, there's rules on the page. And, you know, you can't talk about shedding. You can't talk about alternative therapies like, you know,

Ivermectin or hydroxychloricine. You can't make any statements like that. Just, you know, very common sense. To be honest with you guys, Facebook's algorithm is not, you know, I don't think it's that sophisticated at all. It didn't take me much work to work it out. So, you know, it's just common sense stuff, really. All right, cool.

So let's look at this headline. Let's look at this was running successfully under Facebook. Facebook's knows they didn't know what was going on until BBC got involved. This is what that article, this is a great statement from it. The BBC has seen several groups, one with hundreds of thousands of members in which the emoji appears in place of the word vaccine. Facebook's algorithms tend to focus on words rather than images. The groups are being used to share unverified claims of people being either injured or killed by vaccines. Once the BBC alerted Facebook's parent company, meta, the groups were removed. So you were, you had this up and running until

you know, some investigator got involved. Now, I want to ask you a question because, first of all, when you see the BBC trying to out this page, this is a private page, am I right? Like, you had to sort of be accepted to be into it. Tell me what it took to sort of be accepted into this group. Well, it was a private group, and I made it invisible, so you couldn't really even see it on the search engine of Facebook. I did that on purpose. I have three security people that work for me. We through every single person they approve everybody so we go through their facebook we make sure they're not trolls and the reason for that is there's a a organization called the 77th brigade i think they're paid by the british military intelligence and what they do is they'll come

infiltrate facebook groups like mine and they'll try to complain to facebook to get them shut down so i was aware of british intelligence about three months before they they wanted to infiltrate the group they couldn't do it my people you know We knew, you know, in advance who they were. We knew their profiles. And we just stopped them. So their only other alternative is to call the BBC. And so to be clear, this is not something that would have popped up in my timeline.

Like, it's not going to show up and I'm going to see some description of vaccine death or injury. I mean, is it public that way? Or is everything being shared amongst themselves? Everything is shared. Once you're a member, then you will see it on your feed. You'll see all the stories come up on your feed. but if you're not part of the group, then you will not see anything.

You won't see any stories. The reason I make this point is because really ultimately, when I look at this, this is a page where people that are experiencing injuries themselves, perhaps deaths and family members around them, this is simply a support group. This isn't advertising misinformation. This isn't some Chinese or Russian bot

that's trying to undermine people's confidence in the vaccine because it's not popping up in your regular user's feed. It's only popping up if I'm all, already in this group and wanting to talk about these issues. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying there? Yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, it's a place where people come to be listened to. It's a place where people come to support other people.

You know, we're not making any statements about, you know, vaccine injuries, hydroxychloroquine, any kind of treatments, anything like that. It's just their personal accounts, the truth of what they experience, either with themselves directly or with their families. So you're correct in saying that. But, you know, it is what it is. But, I mean, what's so egregious about this then, the BBC getting involved is here is where media is supposed to be reporting, you know, what is the sense of humanity? Where is the population at?

What's going on? When they went out of the way, this shows the agenda, I think, of how our media has been become propagandized, is working for government agencies, CIA, who knows. But why are they stopping people that trying to talk to each other? I mean, this really to me would be like, if you imagine back in Nazi Germany, if somehow they were able to figure out how to talk to each other from one concentration camp to another, or if you're under duress in some sort of wartime situation, trying to get secret messages out just so you can communicate with each other, why does that bother the BBC? It's not actually affecting the public's perspective of this.

And so when we think of Facebook rules, I mean, Facebook, you know, if they want to call this misinformation, they don't want it on their banners. but these are simply people telling the personal stories, sharing their private, you know, conversations with each other. To get involved with that is, I think, the most extreme example of censorship we can imagine. And the fact that the news is getting involved in that, and like, you know, tips has had to say, look what we did. We shut down these people that were trying to talk to each other about injuries they were seeing around them. That's just twisted. I think that's sick and demented. I mean, don't, do you feel that way, too?

Yeah, absolutely. That's why I do what I do. It just makes me more motivated, you know, more excited for the future. I know, you know, I know what they're all about. So for me, it's not an issue. I know what to expect with them. I know the game plan with them. You know, but this whole censorship thing is not going to last long. So all right. I'm glad to hear that. So since when you put this page up and you actually got it running the right way, when it really got moving, how many people were signing up every day? At its peak, roughly 15 to 20,000 new members per day. Wow. Now, for you, you know, you saw, I remember I made this documentary vaxed about vaccine injury. And I remember when I did that documentary, I interviewed, you know, roughly a dozen families that had gone through this injury story. It wasn't until my film came out and I started seeing 75% of the audience standing up every time I would ask. How many of you believe you have a vaccine injured child and 75% of the audience was standing up? up. It shocked me. It was mind-blowing. What was your experience when you put up this page?

You obviously knew there was a few stories around you. When you started seeing 15 to 20,000 people signed up per day, was that more than you had expected? Yeah, I was shocked by the number, sheer volume of people, you know, coming on board. But and then, you know, one, you know, at some point I wasn't shocked either. It made total sense to me of what's going on around the world. So, you know, I've seen hundreds, you know, thousands of. the vaccine injuries every single day. Wow. All right.

Let's look at some of these posts just because it gives us a sense of what you would find on this on this Facebook page. This is just one of the posts. So many and so many and yet they keep doing it. One work colleagues, 60s had all required to keep his job, I mean all I guess vaccines had had two strokes. Second one major. He's been hospitalized for two months.

No signs of improvement. Another friend's 60s had all to keep his job. Major heart issues now unable to work. 34 had it to keep going to university. has had constant cardiac pain ever since, and it's been told it's anxiety. This is one person. I know someone 38 had all to keep his job recently diagnosed with three aggressive cancers, not expected to live until Christmas.

He's a father of two small kids. 34 found dead in his apartment after taking. There it is the emoji coroner estimates deceased at least 10 days before discovery was lying there dead in his house. Here's another post. We need to keep posting. It's all about awareness. awareness. Here are my family's fables. There are friends and acquaintances too, but that

is, list is growing, so I'll save it for later. Daughter number one, 27-year-old had one slice. We know what that is and was hospitalized with myoditis. I think you get a sense. I'm sure, obviously, myocarditis. So this is where you get to see how people were using this. You had trained them to avoid using the major word to set off the algorithms, 26-year-olds. This is number two admits to one slice, has probably eaten two. says she's feeling fine, but a month ago ended up in the big age. I'm assuming that's the hospital after what seems like a seizure and now says many have had more. Ex-husby 71 has had all of the vaccines plus the whipped cream on top was a bit overweight. I'm assuming that's the booster,

but otherwise healthy declining for the past year. Massive heart addict heart attack in June this year. And so it goes on and on like this and people are posting photos of all sorts of allergies and skin problems and, you know, bruising and talking about the blood clots and all of that. I mean, we're talking about 300,000 of these people sharing, and it was growing. It was still growing at a massive number until the BBC got involved and shut it down. When it got shut down, what did you feel at that moment? It didn't surprise me. The only thing that surprised me was I had a GoFundMe account and Gibson Go.

exact same time, they shut down the Facebook and the GoFundMe at the exact same time, same hour. And they did it when there was a hurricane here in Nova Scotia. I was without power for seven days. Oh, wow. So not the best timing. But that didn't stop you. What did you do after that? I just restarted it right over again in the last week and a half for almost up to 90,000

members. And in the last 24 hours, it's grown almost by 7,000 members per day now. Fantastic. I love it, man. This is what it's about. I love the resistance. It feels like this is the underground in a campaign that's being funded into the tune of billions of dollars just here in America, billions of even more worldwide to try and stop these conversations from happening.

And this is what's so shocking and where I think BBC or any news agency that's getting involved here, we are a part of the largest experiment in the history of mankind. Never before has an untested medical product been given to large swathes of our, population in America, somewhere in the 70, 75% range is what they're claiming. We have no idea what the health outcomes of this are going to be. The CDC says itself, it does not have a capture system that's really fully capable of understanding all this. In a minute, a little bit later in the show, we're going to talk about B-Safe, which was the system they designed, which captured about 10 million people so we could see what happened there. But you know, you would think that the

news would be going out of its way to say, look, we got to get out to the people, we got to see who's getting injured. Facebook, for the first time in history, had this opportunity to do what it said and had always dreamed of, which was to break a story worldwide, to give us the ability to communicate with each other so that maybe we could work out a problem that the whole world was experiencing together. And the moment Facebook steps up, and here we are in a moment where we could have helped the medical establishment really show what, you know, adverse adventure having, how many people are having it, maybe how we make a better product. They censored everybody and shut it down. It's just, it's tragic. I think it's why meta is crashing and hopefully it will

crash right through the floor and maybe someone like you will go and build a better Facebook page that doesn't censor people. But until then, I just want to thank you for being diligent, for being there and fighting for humanity. I mean, this is such an important page for people to be able to share this information. Now, I understand you still have that GidSEN go. Is that correct? Yeah, we still have the Givesend Go. I want to starting my own platform. I want to get rid of Facebook. We've already come into strategic partnerships

with Mr. Steve Kirsch and his organization to help the vaccine injured. I recently signed a deal in the last 24 hours with Parlor to help us out in the interim in case Facebook does shut us down again until I get my new platform. So, you know, I'm hoping people, if they can help us out, give me a hand.

And believe me when I tell you, I know they're weak spots, I know their weaknesses. I know how to make a great platform for everybody, and it'll be real-time with statistical data and open source. It won't be no charges for anybody. Fantastic. Let's bring that page back up again.

This is Gives and Go. I also want to give a shout-out to GivesendGo, where all these Gos fund me end up screwing you. Remember, use Givesend Go. This is the page right here, Died Suddenly News. This is the new platform. The campaign is created by Tiago. This is what we do here at the High Wire.

We make a difference. make a difference when you support us, but you also make a difference when you support those that are fighting for us out there on the front lines. Tiago, I got a hit to you, man. Really, really awesome stuff. And it's great to know that we've got people like you on our side. Thank you so much. Not all artificial intelligence programmers are bad guys. Some of us wear, you know, the good guy, vest. So thank you so much, much love to you and your family and your whole team behind the camera. Thank you for having me. All right. You bet. Take care of Diego. Have a good day. Thank you.

I mean, isn't that awesome? Don't you love it? I mean, this is where we're at, right? There's smart people all over the world and really the smartest people, the ones that are avoiding this vaccine. So if you're out there and you have the capabilities, they keep saying this. Everyone walks up to me and says, Del, what is it, what is I'm supposed to do? I don't know, what are you got to do?

What is your talent? What is your special thing that you can bring to this cause? We are all here. We are part of a giant, you know, calico blanket. You know, we're making a difference in the world. each one taking our steps, one after the other. Here, Tiago says, you know what, I have a talent, I'm going to use it. That's what it's going to take.

We're all in this together. All right, speaking of being in it together, one of my favorite teammates, Jeffrey Jackson. It's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, what do we got today? Hey, Adele, great interview. Well, today, you know, I want to bring a story that's interesting, that's sad, and it's courageous. And this is the story of Michelle Goldman. He's a Belgium immunologist.

and one of Europe's best known figures in medical research. And for four decades, he's been studying and advocating for new medicines. And really, you know, he's not only a great science mind, but having looked at his research and his career, he's tried to bring some balance within the system that he is in, working for, you know, neutral third parties to oversee public-private partnerships. But, you know, in 2019, he's also advocated before for, against anti-vaxxers, if you will. So this is an article from 2019, mobilizing young people against anti-vaxxers.

And in there, he says, you know, mandates really aren't working. Even in Australia, there's no jab, no pay policies for withholding child benefits for parents that aren't vaccinate their kids. So we need to direct the education directly at the kids. To his defense in there, he says that it shouldn't have any influence from Big Pharma to, you know, so we can get the trust back up because he did recognize that. But what's really interesting here is that something serious happened that challenged his values. And it's written up here in actually a really great article from the Atlantic of all

outlets. So this is the headline here. Did a famous doctor's COVID shot make his cancer worse? A lifelong promoter of vaccines suspect he might be the rare unfortunate exception. So it starts out. He's had his couple shots, Pfizer shots. And about a year later or so, this is where we picked the article up. He says here in the article, Michelle was having night sweats. And he could feel swollen lymph nodes in his neck. So his brother, by the way, his brother's nuclear medicine head at a hospital in Brussels. So his brother brought him in for a full body CT scan. When the images came through to surge his computer, that's his brother, they revealed a smattering of ink spots, bunched near Michelle's left armpit and running up along his neck. It was cancer of the immune system, lymphoma.

Now, Michelle knew that he was going to be immunocompromise pretty quick, starting with this chemotherapy, be, you know, injecting this poison with him. So he quickly went out after that scan and got his third shot, his booster. So now this is where we picked the article back up. He's received his booster. And a few days later, it says within a few days, though Michelle was somehow feeling even worse. His night sweats got much more intense and he found himself quite out of character taking afternoon naps. Most worryingly, his lymph nose were even more swollen than before. So we went back to his brother and he said, I'm going to need another scan here. I don't know what's going on. His brother said, yes, let's do this. And so this is what they found. It goes on to say in this article,

the picture showed a brand new barrage of cancer lesions, so many spots that it looked like someone had set off fireworks inside Michelle's body. More than that, the lesions were now prominent on both sides of the body with new clusters blooming in Michelle's right armpit, in particular, and along the right side of his neck. It goes on to say Michelle felt annoying, worrying that his COVID booster shot had somehow made him sicker. His brother was harboring a similar concern. The asymmetrical cluster of cancerous nodes around Michelle's left armpit on the initial scan had already seemed a bit disturbing, as his brother said, especially given that Michelle's first two doses of the vaccine had been delivered on that side. Now he'd had a booster shot in the other arm

and the cancer's asymmetry was flipped. Whoa. That's a really interesting detail. So as he's getting the vaccine on his left side, the cancer is going into, you know, ultimately his lymph system, And so that's where he's having issues. He finally says, oh, I got to get a shot because I have cancer. My immune systems down, probably going into all sorts of therapies, gets the vaccine on his right side, and then all of a sudden cancer appears on the right side of his body. Wow. It's really, you know, fascinating.

And so, you know, we can put yourself in this man's shoes. He's decided to speak out about this, even though, you know, most of his career, he's promoting new medicines. He actually even promoted the COVID vaccine MRNA shot saying that if they weren't safe, we'd know about it by now early during their deployment. So what also happens to be interesting is he went a step further. He's a chief editor at the Journal of Frontiers in Medicine. So he went to that journal and he wrote up, along with his brother and other authors, a case study on himself.

And this is what it looks like here. This is the title, rapid progression of angio immunoblastic T-cell lymphoma following BNT-162B2. that's Pfizer's MRNA vaccine booster shot a case report. Now let's look at the images here that they were talking about in that Atlantic article. So here's the first CT scan, full-body CT scan he received. You can see those black dots. That is the cancer in this scan. So he received that and he said, well, boy, I'm going to have to start chemotherapy.

So I'm going to go get that vaccine booster. So he receives the booster on September 22nd. And then he went in afterwards, as the article says, to get more another CT scan. And this is what it reveals. Because he's having swollen. Oh, my God. And you can see with less than a month, this has spread throughout a greater part of his upper body there. I mean, again, all of those black dots are cancer that the CT scan is picking up.

And so in this case study here, I mean, it's just an amazing picture there. And it's just shocking. But what they say in this study, what he writes in this study, along with his co-authors, he says, this observation suggests that vaccination with the BNT162B2MRNA vaccine might induce rapid progression of AITL, that's angioblastic T-cell lymphoma. Dedicated studies are needed to determine whether this case can be extrapolated to populations of patients with AITL or other peripheral T-cell lymphoma involving T-FH, that's T-foliker ourselves. So he's going on to say, look, we're going to need some more research here.

And so. Well, especially when you think this is the group that's being told to get the vaccine first. You're immune suppressed. Maybe you're going to chemo, whatever it is. And this is one of the losses that we want to bring. In many of these cases, you can't get into the hospital to get treated until you get the vaccine. I mean, so, you know, I think he's obviously pointing out, look, I'm not talking about everybody. I'm talking about a very specific group of people that are being told they should get the vaccine. And if it does to them, what it's done to me, that looks like a death sentence. And I hate to say it. I think he obviously is writing, recognizing, I thought I was in trouble before. Now it's devastating. But, you know, if the treatment, in order to get to the treatment,

you have to inject yourself with a death sentence. That doesn't make any sense. No, it doesn't. And the other part of this story that I just want to, I just want to mention is we know about this story because of an Atlantic article and the journalist that wrote it. And this is Roxanne Comsey. And she's a freelance, independent journalist, science writer, writes for Atlantic New York Times. The articles appeared there. But let's look at what she wrote in this Atlantic article. So she writes this. When Michelle first told me about his cancer and about the paper he'd written with his brother, I said that I couldn't write about it. I was worried that some readers would misinterpret my article and mistakenly see it as a reason not to get vaccinated.

As I write this, I'm still concerned that you might do exactly that. Well, she did write it and thank God. She overcame her fear to do her job. And this is kind of, you know, this, Del, this is, this extremism, really, that we see that people, even though there's a case study, a paper, this is a leading medical professional for over four decades, comes to a writer and says, I have all this evidence. I want to tell this story and just tell it as it is. And the writer says, I don't want to do it. Yeah. I don't want to do it.

I'm too scared. How many people that could have been saved died on her watch when how many people could she have gotten that story too? I mean, thank God she did it. But these are the ramifications. And I also want to point out because they keep trying to tell us that everybody's rushing to blame something. Nothing to be further from the truth.

We are getting this, you know, later than we should be because there's such a desire to protect this vaccine to make it look good by those people that are receiving it. How many stories like Michelle's and how many doctors and scientists out there aren't just don't have what he has to spend the last part of his life trying to explain what just happened to him to make sure that he can make a difference in society how many would make the opposite decision simply because of what this journalist is saying i didn't want to affect you know people getting vaccinated can you imagine if this ends up being what we've been worried about which is a tsunami of cancer how many people that didn't tell that story in time what you know

what will you know this journalist uh uh uh Roxanne uh you know what will she think to herself man, how many lives could I have saved had I not got involved sooner? This is something that will never be on our conscience, Jeffrey. I have to say very clearly. And you and I both know, I have had to answer questions in New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, you name it, all saying, you're spreading fear of this vaccine. You know, are you worried about the lives that could be lost because of I said, absolutely not based on the science I'm looking at.

I, in fact, feel like I'm doing a service here on the planet. And I would ask you how you're going to feel if this vaccine that was never properly tested ends up killing more people than COVID ever could have dreamed of killing. And in one case, I believe it was New York Times. I said to the reporter, I said, look, you know, I get it. You think you're on the right side of this and you're attacking me. But the truth is, is that I know you haven't read the science. I know you are not reading the science like you should be as a reporter. And they said, oh, that's offensive. How can you make that assumption about me?

I said, no, I know you're not reading because if you did, if you actually had read the science, then you would be on my side. And they said, well, that's an incredibly arrogant statement, Del. But in the end, you know what they said? But I will admit to you, I haven't actually read the science. That's not how I do my job. And that's why we're here. So before we move on, I just want to point out, Jeffrey, this isn't that shocking to you and I

because you have brought us many stories on different mechanisms that we believe would lead to cancer. Dr. Ryan Cole, of course, came on our show a pathologist, and he has really been shouting from the rooftops about the issues that he's seeing as a pathologist and the rise in cancers and what being sent to his lab. For those of you that are brand new to the high wire, let me just take you back over the last year and a half of just some of the science that we've shown you. Here's some of the headlines. Activation or exhaustion of the CD8 plus T cells in patients with COVID-19. A huge part of cancer is dealing with those. This is the beyond-finding. MRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses,

the response of innate immune cells, the TLR4 and TLR8 ligands, was lower after the vaccination. Again, an issue that's going to could lead to cancer. SARS-CoV-2 spike-compares DNA damage. And if you're looking at the dates, and by the way, if you're a member, if you're on our email list, you're going to get all of these so you can look through them yourself. SARS-Co-2 spike-compares DNA damage repair and inhibits. the VDJ recombination in vitro. This was literally when, you know, your DNA is always, you know, having issues, it's getting torn,

it's breaking apart, the very system in your body that fixes that. Here it is. Here, by using an in vitro cell line, we report that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair. Mechanistically, we found that so spike protein localizes the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein, Braca 1, and 53 BP1. recruitment to the damage site. To determine how the spite protein inhibits both NHE and HR repair pathways, we analyzed the recruitment of Brackle 1,

53B-9 BP1, which are the key checkpoint proteins for HR and NHAEJ repair respectively. We found that the spike protein markedly inhibited these spaces and here's was the pictures of that. And of course we've all always talked about the toll-like receptors a key player of DNA damage response with critical functions in cancer. That's that be, remember, this is the 53 BP1. It has extensively demonstrated that aberrant expression of 53 BP1, we were just talking about, contributes to tumor occurrence and development.

53 BP1 loss of function in tumor tissues is also related to tuber progression and poor prognosis in human malignancies. And the toll-like receptors we've talked about, this vaccine literally was designed to shut down the watchdogs of your immune system. That part of your immune system, that attack, any virus that comes in or bacteria or the cancer's in your body. We all know we have cancer cells floating around in our body. Those toll-like receptors are what would see it

and call in the white blood cells and macrophase to attack it. This vaccine on purpose, by design, shuts down those toll-like receptors. So there you have, you know, four or five different mechanisms, all of which were just theories when we were discussing, things that they were seeing in vitro and in studies, but now we are starting to potentially, potentially see these outcomes. We're starting to see, you know, scientists like this stepping forward. So I think, and honestly, right now, as we were doing this story, just sitting in the

war room where we call it, putting this story together, there were family members being discussed, you know, those that had already been in some form of remission that saw their cancer come back, giant tumors in their body. Another loved one of our family members is experiencing cancer out of nowhere blood clots. And it just makes you want to. How many of you are watching right now? How many just watched Tiago and said, boy, I have stories I could tell on their site. What is our world going to look like over the next six months, one year, two years, what's going to happen with cancer? Definitely a terrifying question now for everybody that's received that vaccine.

And even Dan Bongino on his show saying he looks terrified. I think I made the biggest mistake of my life getting this vaccine. How many people, I think, are feeling that now? Right. And by its nature, the science is never settled. And the science for the COVID vaccines is far from settled. So I think at this point, it's time to call for an end of the division. And I'm talking to the mainstream media.

It's time to stop calling people anti-vaxxers. These are people wanting answers to questions that we don't have full data sets for. And so there's a lot of people working to get these full data sets out. One of them is the Epoch Times. This was the recent article here. And this was on autopsies. FDA withholding autopsy results on people who died after getting COVID vaccine shots. So it says in the article, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to release the

results of autopsies conducted on people who died after getting COVID-19 vaccines. The FDA says it is barred from releasing medical files, but a drug safety advocate says that it could release the autopsies with personal information redacted. So the FDA is hiding behind the fact that they just can't take a little bit of a Sharpie and cross out some names and some identifiers and put that out to the public, they're saying, well, we can't do that. So no one gets the autopsy files at a time.

There's no way we could figure out how to remove the identity of these people. I mean, it's outrageous, right? The greatest minds in science over the FDA can't do a job that, honestly, I could send my teenage son over and he could get this job done probably in a couple of days. It's such a pathetic argument,

and it's one of the ones we're going to talk to Aaron Siri about. It's an argument they use a lot. It's identity and that we're trying to protect the identity of those involved in this. What a ridiculous sham that argument is. And that was the answer as a result of a FOIA request, a Freedom Information Act request, by the Epoch Times. The attorneys at the informed consent action network sent a similar one out in December of 2021. This is what it looked like here.

We were requesting copies of autopsy reports concerning any VAR's reported deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. So why is that important? Well, it adds the data pool, but let's look at the VERS death reports. How many autopsies are we talking about? I mean, not all of these obviously, but 31,000, over 31,21,214 deaths after the COVID vaccine have been reported to a system that typically under reports. And so not all of those will have autopsy results, but there's a gigantic pool of knowledge to better learn the pathology of, you know, myocarditis of these blood clotting disorders

that's just sitting there waiting and held up by the FDA. And why is this really a big deal? Well, as we've shown with myocarditis, when we go back to that open VERS chart with the deaths, starting at 1990, we had really, you know, a small amount of deaths. But again, you can see 2021, 2021, these COVID vaccines start rolling out. The deaths being reported to VERS skyrocket. And again, we're at 20,000 over in 2021,

over coming up to 10,000 in 2022. to and that is a big deal. And so the U.S. government's not releasing it at the request of the citizens, freedom of information, but it is leaking out in case reports in science. So here's one of those case reports. This is what it says right here. It says the case report, multifocal necrotizing encephalitis and myocarditis after this is Pfizer's MRI vaccination against COVID-19. It says the current report represents a case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson's disease who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. Take note of this.

The family of the deceased requested an autopsy due to ambiguous clinical signs before death. So here it is. The family is pushing for this. And what do they find? Surprisingly, right, the researchers, only spike protein, but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart. They're finding the spike protein in the brain and the heart, particularly in the

endothelial cells of small blood vessels. since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. Let me explain that just for a second for those people that saw my football analogy many, many months ago. And if you want to check that, if you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up.

But we're talking about the specific antibodies, right? This vaccine doesn't make your body immune to the entire virus, all of the proteins on that virus. It focuses on one protein, the one we've heard about, the spike protein. So what they're saying is if all they see is spike and not nuclear capsid, the other part of this virus, then they know that you didn't get a natural infection because you would have this robust immunity to all of the different elements of this virus. Instead, you got this very specific. You can only protect yourself to a virus that has the exact spike

proteins. You see it and nothing else. So it's not varied. There's no definition. But that's how they know that it wasn't from getting COVID that he had this in his heart and his brain. The vaccine sent the spike protein into his heart and his brain, and that's how they proved it. Very and scary, right? Especially when these morons that sold this thing to the world said, oh, it'll stay in your arm. Trust us. Right. And again, we have a data pool sitting there with autopsy results. The FDA is withholding from the American public at this point. And we could add to that. So we don't have to wait for kids to grab their chest and go to the ER. We could do autopsies on the unfortunate people that have passed away to see what kind of pathology we're dealing with here.

So maybe we can cut this thing off at the past before it even gets to that point. But we're talking about data. We're talking about information and transparency. And there's a big elephant that's been in the room since day one. And that is the theory of the Wuhan lab leak of where this thing came from. We lost our channels for questioning it early on. And it's still a big question. And now some big players are getting involved.

One of them is Jeffrey D. Sacks. He is now a chair of the Lancet's COVID-19 commission. He's been there for a little while now, but he wrote this article recently. This was right in May. He co-authored a paper. This is in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He says a call for independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He thinks the U.S. government is basically preventing a real investigation in this pandemic.

And he says so in so many words by saying this. The investigation into the origin of the virus has been made difficult by the lack of key evidence. from the early days of the outbreak. There's no doubt that greater transparency on the part of Chinese authorities would be enormously helpful. Nevertheless, we argue here that there is much more important information

that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions, information not yet made available for independent, transparent, scientific scrutiny. What institutions may those be? He says the NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EcoHealth Alliance, and has continued to redact materials,

released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. See, they can redact things. I told you. They go on to say, information now held by the research team headed by Equal Health Alliance, as well as the communications of that research team with U.S. research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the U.S. funded research team and the POS, and, on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.

So remember, Del, in February of 2020, the Lancet was singing a very different tune. And this is what it looked like here. We even reported on the emails, the behind-the-scenes emails that made this paper possible. This was a statement in support of scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combating COVID-19. And what did they say? February 2020, this thing is just starting. We say, we stand together to strongly contempt conspiracy theories.

suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. And that was used by fact-checkers to shut everybody down who questioned the lab leak theory. And so we fast forward now. And by the way, let me just jump in here. This is the type of thing as a journalist that if you're a real journalist, and you actually have real blood pumping through your brain,

sends off a red flag. We have a virus we know nothing about. We know that there have been back coronavuses being studied in a Wuhan lab. And in that same town, suddenly we have an outbreak that sweeps the world of a version of COVID, we have never seen before, and is very problematic for a very specific group of people. Those over the age of 70, also having heart conditions and COPD, we've talked about all of that.

But why are all these doctors suddenly saying, we're outraged that someone would think that that lab has anything to do with it? It actually goes against all reason. It also goes against all reason that our own CDC that is supposed to be worrying about biological attacks and is uber paranoid about it, that their first thing to say, no, this is definitely natural. They kept saying us, and they still say, we don't know anything about this virus, really were shocked by everything that seems to be doing. But the one thing we know for sure, as it didn't come from a lab, a lab where they were working on what fat coronavirus is.

This thing has always stunk to high heaven. And the fact that we have in this statement that he's making in this article, that our own government is blocking investigation into an end. I'm sorry I don't know how to say it any other way. A nation that would love to see the demise of our country, would love to somehow make us enslaved to everything that they're doing. And lo and behold, we shut down our economy while theirs was up and running. Everything we're buying now seems to be coming from China.

We put them back in power all this, and no one in our government happens to think, well, you know what, geez, now that almost everyone in science thinks that maybe did come from that lab, perhaps we should demand some answers from our enemy, what the hell happened here? Because you imagine if this wasn't an accident? Because that seems to be all that's left in this conversation. If it did come from that lab, then you have to ask the next obvious question, was it accidental or on purpose? When your government and none of the drama queens at CNN, MSNBC or Fox,

are asking that question, man, something's up. And on that paper from February 2020, one of the lead authors is EcoHealth Alliance head, Peter Dazek. So that's important to understand because here he is at the beginning directing the conversation and now impeding the investigation. So he's on both sides of the coin here. But the Lancet itself is seeing a very different tune these days. So let's look at the Daily Mail. This is what it says. They're saying the LabLeak, World's Top Medical Journal finally says COVID-19 could have come from lab leak.

So this is what it looks like now. And this is the Lancet Commission. And this is the title of their paper where they say that. The Lancet Commission on Lessons for the Future from the COVID-19. pandemic from the future. And it says, as of the time of publication of this report, all three research associated hypotheses are still plausible. Infection in the field, infection with a natural virus in the laboratory, and infection with a manipulated virus in the laboratory. So Dalla, notice, two out of three of those are coming from a laboratory. I know. And I would add number four,

infection because of a purposeful release from something made in a laboratory, which is, in many ways, Isn't that why your enemies are making these things in labs? If we're worried about a bioweapon attack, who exactly would use that? And so, Del, we have the Intercept now is talking NIH awards new grant to U.S. organization at Center of COVID-19 Lab League. So we have the, they're now, we have the National Institutes of Health has now granted this EcoHealth Alliance, another, basically another grant. So they're showing that they have here a grant for Vietnam. So let's actually take a look at that grant. So it says here, analyzing the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam. And it says here within that actual grant, aim number two,

sampling and PCR screening of bats and other wildlife at community surveillance sites to identify viruses and hosts related to the human infections detected in name one. Old genomes, sequencing and cell entry assays to assess ability to infect human cells. And this shouldn't be shocking, though, because over the last three years since 2020, we've had NIH giving grants to EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Dazek, who still is there, and you can see in this, this is the NIH funding page. You can see each year they're getting over $1.5 million in funding to study zoonotic virus emergence in parts of Southeast Asia. And you can see in, in 2022, they're getting almost $2 million. So why is this a big deal at this point? Well, we have Peter

Dasick, you know, again, he was leading the conversation. He was picked at the beginning of this pandemic, the response by the Lancet to chair their COVID origins investigation. And then he had to, he had to recuse himself from that because finally there was enough upward to do that. This was the headline that showed that Wuhan lab creator recuse from Lance's COVID-19 origin. investigation. But if you look at the commission, the commission Dasik was on in 2020, you can see it wasn't only him. So he chaired it. But also a research scientist from EcoHealth Alliance named Sue Yadonna. So we have two people from Equal Health Alliance on Lancet's commission. So again, the commission, by the way, that went out of its way to say that this was

absolutely natural. And anybody's saying otherwise was a conspiracy theorist. Now the conspiracy The theorists are the ones that believe it was natural. And so we've slipped this thing on its head. And so what you're saying is the guy that, you know, was a part of pushing a lie on the world is still being funded by our government. Absolutely. Yeah. You have him literally the main figure leading the investigation now is actively impeding it,

still at EcoHealth Alliance. And he's getting a grant from NIH as we speak. So Anthony Fauci was asked about this recently because he hasn't stepped down from NIH yet. It's supposed to be in December. He was asked about this recently. an interview. Listen to what he had to say. Okay. As part of the probes into the lab leak, EcoHealth Alliance, which conducted so-called gain of function research on coronaviruses in China, there are reports that it is, again, being funded by your agency. Now, politicians and some

watchdogs have said eco-health and your agency haven't been fully transparent about the research into dangerous pathogens. Why are you confident, doctor, that eco-health is a good funding, partner for your agency here. If we're keeping an open mind, is it too early to go back to funding EcoHealth? Well, EcoHealth puts in, has grants that have nothing to do with what we're talking about that are looking at surveillance in different countries. And when they put a grant in, and there are administrative issues related to another grant, not the grants that are getting ready to be funded. And the administrative structure of the NIH, which is fundamentally in NIH Central, gives a list of administrative things they need to address. And they adequately

address it. There is really no mechanism to say arbitrarily, we can't fund you, even though you've been peer-reviewed and highly recommended for funding, because someone doesn't like you. you. I mean, if they ever brought that in court, they could sue us and win that in a microsecond. Man, how many more months do we have to listen to this guy? Because I can't dig it. Yeah, I mean, it's just an outright lie right there. He said that there's nothing to do with the COVID, you know, the COVID outbreak. Actually, it does. They're looking for bat coronaviruses in the jungles of essentially Vietnam. They're going to rapidly viral sequence these things and try to get them out for vaccine developments. That means they're most likely going to be shamed.

these things out around the world. And also the scientists searching for these things can act as vectors for the actual virus themselves if they interact with it. So it's exactly what it does. But now we're getting some noise, if you will, from another big name. And that's a former CDC director. And it's written up in a great article by Paul Thacker. He's an American journalist. And he's also, he served as a lead investigator of the United States Senate Committee on Finance for Chuck Grassler. So he writes this. This is his article at Substance. title former CDC director Robert Redfield on inside battles with Anthony Fauci and why classified information will point to a lab accident in Wuhan. Pretty serious there. So he writes, this is Robert

Redfield speaking, the former director of the CDC. Looking at this as a virologist, this virus was not acting like others. It had an accelerated capacity to transmit among humans. My view was it wasn't biologically plausible that this happened because some animal infected a human and it immediately was one of the most infectious viruses that we have ever seen. And then we see the Wuhan lab. They had published papers in 2015. Tony, that's Fauci, refused to seriously consider this. And then you see the Lancet published that letter in early 2020 calling people conspiracy theorist. There was nothing scientific about that letter. It was just an attempt to intimidate people. Redfield goes on to end with this. Nothing is going to happen as long as the Biden administration

is here. I don't think the WHO committee is a fair committee, but it is better than dismissing a lab accident as conspiracy like they did before. I think there's more to be discovered. I think by 2024, a lot of this will be out there. Let's hope it's sooner than that, Robert. I mean, amazing to think that's the head of the CDC. That's not just some chump with an opinion. That's literally the guy that was sitting in the room listening to these people, spin up the baloney that we had to listen to over the last two years. I'm going to put him on that bucket list. Everyone, whether you like him or not, I'm going to see what I could do to get him on. the high wire so keep your fingers crossed that's an interview would be very very interesting

absolutely all right geoffrey amazing reporting um and just so much being revealed you know in in so many ways we started out all alone buddy it was just you know me and you the highwire here alone voice in media but boy the floodgates have opened up now mainstream even you know watching tucker carlson and and others loringrum you know sort of get behind these stories and seeing, you know, writers like this and scientists and ex-CDC heads coming forward on top of the amazing, illustrious group of team leaders we have, like Dr. Robert Malone and Ventra of MRNA vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough, Pierre-Core, Paul Merrick, all of whom have appeared on the show. It just feels like, man, we have a heck of a Super Bowl-bound football team here.

They better look out. Yeah, absolutely. it's never going to go back to the way it was, Del. I speak to you often about we have held a space, a small space in our sphere here for these doctors and for these writers to step up and step in and really move this ball further than you and I and others could ever have done. And they've done that and it's never going to stop now. The truth is coming out. And I look forward to seeing the next wave of talented writers and researchers and presenters that are going to bring this information, just continue to bring it out. So thank you. And it's been great.

to be alongside you here. All right. Awesome, Jeffrey. I'll see you next week. Well, you know, if you watch just that section with Jeffrey Jackson, and I know many of you are brand new because you want to see this V-Safe data we're about to discuss with our lawyer, Aaron Siri, but you should know that all of that's evidence. That's all fact-based, peer-reviewed science. You want to see what Robert Redfield was saying. You want to say, oh, what was that article? I can't remember it. I mean, if you were trying to take notes during the show, you wouldn't be able to keep up. That's why we've made it so easy for you. It's what we call the high wire protocol, complete and total transparency. Ask yourself what news show you're watching is doing, what we're doing, which is all you have

to do is be on our email list. It's totally private. We'll never share it. Go to thehighwire.com where you're watching this. You just scroll down. All you do is just punching your email right there and hit subscribe. And you will get an email every Monday after the previous Thursday's show and a link you know, to everything we're talking about. All the science that we've just discussed, all of those studies will be in your inbox. You don't have to read them. You can delete that email if you just didn't happen to see the show,

it doesn't matter. But can you imagine if there's one study, like, you know what, that was so fascinating. And my sister really needs to see that, or my uncle, or my aunt, or my brother, or my coworker was just talking about that. I don't want you to have to go to them and say, you know, this guy, Del Bigtree said,

baloney, I'm just a reporter. I'm not a doctor. You should be able to say, look at this science. This is by the CDC or this is by the WHO or this is a peer-reviewed study that came to this conclusion. Those are the types of tools you should, you're going to have to have in your hands under the circumstances of the world that we live in and the amount of skepticism that's coming around. So that tool is yours. All you have to do is give us your email so we can get that information to you.

We do not share our email list with anybody. All right. So now, you know, one, I have to say I'm really giddy this week. You know, we win a lot of lawsuits. I am lucky that I, you know, I feel like I've got like this hundreds foot tall bodyguard with me named Aaron Siri. I get to charge into a battle. I say, you know what? Get in there.

I want the information from the CDC. I think they're lying to me. I get to pick a fight with the CDC. I get to pick a fight with the FDA. I get to pick fights with the NIH. And then I send in Aaron Siri to go get him and come back with the information. information and if you've been watching this show you know how successful he has been which means that's how successful we have been and for all of you that sponsor and donate to us what you

are about to see is a story that you should be thanked for because without you supporting us none of this is possible i'm talking about the v safe data the system built by the cdc to track the covid injuries we sued because they weren't being transparent about it. This is Aaron Siri on Fox News talking about it. Civil rights attorney Aaron Siri, the managing partner at Siri in Glimstad. It was 463 days you tell us from the time that you requested this V-Safe data. Why did it take so long in your estimation, sir? It's a very good question. Why did it take numerous legal demands, multiple appeals, two lawsuits in fact, before the CDC finally handed over the V-safe data. Maybe the

answer is is that now that we have that data and we've looked at that data of the 10 million users within v safe 7.7 percent of them had to seek medical care after vaccination that is an incredibly high percentage another 2.5 million we're talking 25 percent missed work or school or had bad reactions to the vaccine what's the takeaway for you from this is it significant it seems incredibly significant. A big reason that they push the COVID vaccine is they said it'll prevent them from having symptoms, being hospitalized, missing work. Now that we have the data, we could see that getting the vaccine caused 25% of people who got the shot within this data set of 10 million people to miss work, to have somewhat serious event. There's some concern when you have four million people

reporting joint pain after they got the vaccine. It's four million out of a group of only 10 million people. So that makes that number extremely high. Joint plane is an immune reaction. That is something to be concerned about after vaccination. And all of the data has been put up by our client who we represented in this case, Icandecide.org. And on their website, they've created this amazing, easy to use, simple interface where you can search all this data. Well, it's amazing when we make the news for what we're doing because the news does not like talking about what we're doing here at the Highwire and the informed consent

action network, which is the nonprofit that makes this show possible. But we did win this V-Safe data, and it is my honor and pleasure to speak to the incredible warrior that we have on our side that made all that possible, Aaron, Siri. Aaron, first of all, congratulations. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Thank you. Thank you, Del. And, you know, and thank you. I can't for making this for if possible. Wouldn't be possible without you guys. Yeah. So a good question is asked in that news report.

You know, before we get into the details, you listed some of the details, some very shocking numbers there. And by the way, just so you know, when we put this dashboard up, that I can, I can decide.org slash v.saf, you know, where people can find it. We have had, I think it's three, so far, in just the last few days it's been up since, what was it, like Monday, Tuesday, we put it up Monday, 300 times, 300 fold the amount of visitors we usually get to the website. So it just shows you how, what an incredible thing this is. But the process. I mean, you and I talked about this,

I feel like over a year ago. Like we need to see that data. CDC said it was going to be transparent. We were basically turning the population of America where we live into a giant clinical trial, skipping out of the studies because of the emergency use authorization. And CDC promised us, we know this is dangerous, we know this is dangerous, but trust us. We've built the surveillance system on top of our bearer system and we'll be able to track and let you know how everything's going. So, you know, were they transparent? What did you think they should have done with this V-Safe data?

Let's start there. What should they have done based on what they told us? They should have released it to the public immediately. Yeah. Most of the VSAFE data is simply check the box. It doesn't contain any personally identifiable information. It's something the CDC could have provided to the public right away. And now we know now that we have it, that by May of 2021, most of the VSAF data that we now have received was already available. Wow. And they could have provided it within minutes. Simply sent, they sent us a few Excel files. It could have produced that. in literally a matter of minutes provided and provided transparency to the American public in that segment you just showed from Fox News. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I know we're going to go through a lot of stuff today, but I'll just say that those figures, those figures were available all the way back in May. Why weren't they made public?

Why weren't they a part of the conversation before, let's say, in June, they then said, let's give this shot to babies. Man. And why were we, and we're going to get to the details, why were we being told a totally different story than what they were actually seeing with their own eyes in their own system? But before we get to what we discovered, I just want to talk about the journey because sometimes the journey is more telling than the information that you actually get. You know, we always start these things out. You know, we don't have to be litigious. One of the things that your law firm is doing for us is filing freedom of information. Act requests. For people that are brand new to this, that essentially is the government works for us in the United States of America, they're our employees, which means just like I can check my employees here, I can check their emails, everyone that's using our email

system. I want to know what my employees are saying. I don't do that, by the way, but I could. We get to do that with our public officials because they work for us, and so we make demands. We would like to see, you know, for instance, we talked about the Peter Dasak or the autopsies. we put in these requests. We want to see how many autopsies you've looked at from the VAIR system. And then they push back. And when they push back, we end up filing a lawsuit. In this case, what was our original Freedom of Information Act request when it came to VSAFE? Yeah, the request was filed in June 24, 2021. So quite a while ago. Yeah. And the initial request we filed was for all the de-identified information in the V-Safe.

safe system. Okay. Okay. The reason that we asked for that was twofold. First, as you just mentioned, we are a repeat player, you know, these federal health agencies. Yes, they know who we are. We have hundreds of FOIA requests before the FDA, the NIH, CDC, HRQ, all, there's about over 20 actual health agencies within the HHS. Right. And so when we've done FOIAs in the past and we've asked for medical information, what will typically happen is they'll tell us, oh wait, we can't give you that because it includes person identifiable information about people in the public. So you can't have it.

And then we go through this long rigmarole where we say, okay, just please redact it and then provide it and then eventually we end up getting the data. For that reason, and this one other reason we're about to say, we asked for the de-identified data and the other reason is, before we file for our request, we, we file a fire request, we do some homework. Okay. And when we did that homework, what we found is that in the CDC's official V-safe guidance documents, it actually says that de-identified data was available to Oracle, which was housing the data.

So they're the ones that are like sort of housing all the data. They don't want them to have that information because that's not, that's a private company, correct? Oracle's a private company. Okay. And so they're not allowed to share that kind of information. So it says it right there. Right.

The city's own material. It's the identified. We thought, great. This is the perfect request. We're asking for something that apparently, in their own literature, they're saying, exists in the hands of another private entity already. Should be easy. Just hand it over to us.

Right. So we filed a FOIA request. As I mentioned, June 24th and 2021, eventually they respond. And the response is that they're not able to locate any data. They can't locate any data. De-identified data. Wow.

So we appeal that on August 25th. Okay. And, you know, we say, well, your own literature says you gave De-identified data called to Oracle. Right. So, one, we were trying to shortchange this whole process guide.

Come on. We know how this goes. And two, we know you have it already, so just give it. Right. So in addition to following the appeal, a few days later on September 1, we also submitted a second FOIA request. Okay. This time, the FOIA request made explicit.

We'd like all the identified data that you gave to Oracle, basically. Right. I'm paraphrasing it. They're getting the details. We got that happening there. I saw that on the screen. So there it is. Yeah.

That's basically what it asked for. Okay. Because there's been a lot of questions why two FOIAs and ultimately two lawsuits. So that's why two foias. We thought they're pushing back in a weird way, so let's be very specific. Well, there's a third FOIA, actually. Okay. Well, that was, those, so then we said, okay, now they'll capitulate.

Right. I wish the story ended there. It rarely does. That's the second FOIA. Right. Okay. And then, so we thought, okay, now they'll capitulate and give us the data. No, they still maintain that they can't give us the data.

So they really left us no choice. So we sued in federal court on those two requests, as well as the thing. third one that we won't talk. That's not as relevant. Okay. And the first lawsuit was filed on December 28, 2021. I see it on the screen right here. There we are. Yep. You can see informed consent action network versus the CDC. And by the way, everyone out there that's donating to us, I want you to see in many ways your name is in there. Your name is a part of the informed consent action network, because that's not anything except those people that support us, giving us the ability to fund the work that you're doing. And it's not easy. It's not a

one shop and all of a sudden they handed to us, look at how much time you're putting in with your team to try and get this out. So, okay, you filed that case. Yeah, but if we could pull that complaint back up for a moment, there might be worth to taking a look at just a few paragraphs, I believe, that were highlighted. You asked me to tell the story. Yeah, I did. I put it together. Okay, great. And it's, uh, here it is. It says the federal government has mandated that millions of Americans receive these vaccines. And this is what we're writing to the court. Yeah. lawsuit, these vaccine products, HHS has also been given pharmaceutical companies complete immunity

for injuries caused by those products, mandating that millions of Americans inject a product for which they cannot hold the manufacturer reliable if the product injures them demands complete transparency, especially when it comes to releasing the data underlying the product safety. FOIA exists precisely so that the American people can obtain transparency. And in this case, obtain the data which supports the CDC's claims to intensive safety monitoring. Right. And then it goes on to explain the paragraph what VSAFE, the smartphone app is, and we can go. I'll read it.

VSAFE is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine. The purpose of the app is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting and to detect and evaluate clinical. clinically important adverse events and safety issues that might impact policy or regulatory decisions. That's right. Yeah. And it goes on and I think this might be the last. Okay, let's see it. Go ahead. You take it. Data submitted to VSAFE is, quote, collective management house and a secure server by Oracle, end quote. That is a quote from the CDC's own documents. So you're quoting. That's why you have the little number in there seven. The footnote seven. A private computer technology company, although the CDC has, quote, access to the individual

survey data, quote, Oracle could only access, quote, aggregate, de-identify data for reporting, end quote. But there's more. Let me read this. Despite the fact that the de-identified data already exists, it is already in the hands of a private company. And the CDC has never objected to its production. The CDC has so far failed to produce it to plaintiff or to the American public.

The federal government is thereby not only failing to provide the transparency necessary to earn the American people's trust regarding these vaccines, but it is all. also failing to comply with FOIA. That's right. Yeah, excellent. So we filed this lawsuit and we thought, okay, now we don't have to deal with the folks in the CDC. Now we get to deal with the CDC's attorneys.

Right. Little law firm that called the Department of Justice. Right. I'd have heard of them. They have all our money. Right. So you know. So we figured better we can maybe deal directly

with the Department of Justice. So we sued them in federal court with that suit. And we started that dialogue with the Department of Justice. And it often happens they reach out. and so forth. After months of back and forth with the Department of Justice and they filed an answer, we had status conferences, we had a scheduling, greet scheduling orders and so forth, the DOJ maintained the position that since the de-identified data doesn't actually right exist, they said

that the CDC apparently got it wrong when they wrote what they wrote in their own documents. Really? So that was the argument that it didn't go to Oracle Deidentified, as it was said. They said that it's not, that what you just read in black and white in that quote is not actually what happened in reality. So after months of... I mean, hold on a second, though. I mean, I always just think of like, I think like a movie. I used to sort of, you know, write it was in Hollywood. So these lawyers all sit down.

You got the CDC, your client sitting there. Like, we got a little problem here. We need to come up with the best argument we can. First of all, the fact that they're trying to keep us from getting to it. Should is just as I said sometimes the process tells you more than what you actually see What are they trying to hide from us? Why is this so important? But the best argument they come up from with is either we were misinformed or we just lied about our process It was kind of there it's it's kind of like nana nana nana for two reasons Okay one boy requires the government to reasonably interpret a request for information the request

As reasonably interpreted when we asked for de-identified data it meant it if it exists or ones that you could make from the data, right? Right. It didn't even dawn on me, Franklin, when we filed this request, that they would take this position, which they'd never done before. Wow. That sorry, if you had to ask for all the data, right, then we could have made the identified data,

which is always what happened in the past, but since we asked for it in the first instance, they're taking a position, it doesn't already exist anyway, so you can't have it. So you were too specific? Too specific. I was trying to be too a common. right right and obviously I did it with the knowledge that we had this oracle

admission in their papers yeah they then kind of disavowed all right okay so that goes on December when we filed the suit up until April where we're finally like okay and I remember the call with the Department of Justice I said I literally remember telling the Department of Justice attorney I said look if what you're saying is you're just gonna maintain this super technical position then I'll just, then my client, I can, will simply just file another request. Right. And instead of asking for a de-identified data, we'll just ask for all the data.

And then we'll go through that, and then we'll come back. And if you don't provide it, we'll just sue again. I'm like, do we really want to do that? Isn't that such a waste of not only taxpayer money, your resources, judicial resources, obviously my client's resources, not sure you care about that so much. Well, I do. I mean, look, there's a big, clearly. Yeah, right, right, right.

I care. I care. I care because there's a lot of other lawsuits we like to go after. This is sucking up a bunch. Our government is sucking up unnecessary resources. So on all sides. So in April 1, 2022, we filed the third FOIA request for the purposes of this conversation. Yeah.

And it asked for, there it is, all data submitted to be safe since January 122. Okay. There we have it. Folks, this has got to be why a hammer is listed. When we hear, like, $25,000 for a hammer in government. Like they just they just can't do anything simply, right? Well, you know, I think that, I mean, I would like to think that this is a case where they're just not paying attention, where, you know, they're letting somebody milk them for 25 grand for a hammer. But I'm not so sure that's the case in this.

I have a feeling that if, you know, Merck wanted this data, they'd have gotten it pretty quick. Right. But, yeah. Any of it. I'm not going to speculate. Okay. Right. Let's not speculate.

We only know what we know. Right. So after we filed the third request, we then basically went back to the DOJ and said we filed the third request. We filed this additional request. We have to go through with it. And clearly we did because on May 17, 2022, we filed the second lawsuit. Wow. They really made us do this.

And this is the second lawsuit. So this is, this lawsuit now sues on that other, the request you just saw. To see all the day, though. And I believe there's a few excerpts that you're. folks wanted to pull out. Plaintiff asked through its instant FOIA request that the CDC produce all data submitted to the VSAFE program to provide transparency regarding the government's claim

that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. The public should have immediate access to all disclosable V-safe data. Hence, once the CDC produces that data, plaintiff intends to make it publicly available, even though disclosable data already exists. And even though the CDC has never objected to do its production, the CDC has failed to produce it to the plaintiff

and the American public. federal government is thereby not only failing to live up to its promise of transparency, but it is also failing to comply with FOIA once again. Yep. Plankthiff, which ICan is a nonprofit organization that advocates for informed consent and transparency and disseminates information necessary for staying with regards to all medical interventions. It intends to make all these state data immediately available to the public so that independent scientists can immediately analyze that data. It believes that we need all hands on deck both inside and outside the government to address serious and ongoing issues

of the vaccine program, including waning immunity, adverse reactions, etc., locking out independent scientists from addressing these issues is at best irresponsible and unethical. And now, you know, those are technically required arguments that we make in these papers. They're a bit more of window dressing, but we... But I like that because, honestly, you're making history here. I mean, someone will have to go back and unpack what the hell happened here. Why was there not transparency? And if all the stories we told today of death and injury that we're seeing rising all around the world,

when it comes down to sort of going back what was going on, what were our government agencies doing, it's these legal briefs in many ways, these notes that are going to stand there. And you don't want to just be dry. Why do they make eye cans to you twice? What was actually going on here? I love that you're sort of giving it context because I think it's important. important for the historical time capsule. And it's why FOIA is so powerful because like you pointed out, FOIA is the tool that Congress

created to allow us to ask essentially questions the government in the form of provide all the documents that support ex-assertion for that statement, and they are compelled by law to respond. It's not like when, you know, there are many other forums that happen. you see testimonies for Congress, and technically there's some level of compulsion there and so forth. But here you really are compelling them. So when they get, you get an answer, to me, that is one of the most reliable answers you can get when you want to know information from the government. It's really, truly one of those spectacular, shining diamonds of the American experiment, I would say, that we have this. I mean, you think of how many nations do not have this interaction, you know,

with their government. It's why I have hope, and it's one of those things. We've got to make sure we hold on to this level of transparency. So when our government starts trying to manipulate its way around this, it's very alarming. FOIA exists for a reason because I think from the beginning our founding fathers always believe this is a government for the people by the people. You know, we own you. They're on our leash, not vice versa. Without transparency, there can't be accountability. Right. And without accountability, you cannot fix the problem. Correct. And that's what FOIA gives you that first step. Right? It's what you tell as a kid. You got to first recognize there's a problem before you can fix it. Right. And that's what allows to do it. And that's part of what I love doing

the work that we do for ICANN every day. Well, going back to our timeline. So we sue them in May 17, 2022. At this point, there really is no place for them, you know, for the CDC DOJ to go. We've now asked for this in every possible way. We've asked for it and de-identified. We've asked for just what you gave to Oracle. We now ask for everything. We actually had two other requests we made, but we kept this simple that we didn't include it in here. Sure. That actually kind of rounded out in my mind, but I don't want to get into too much. I'm just dying to know, like, which, which lawsuit we actually won? Well, we want, well, we, it took both. Okay. I mean, I don't, you know, if I gave, if you went to the store, I'd buy something to two bucks and you give a dollar and gave a second

dollar, which dollar bought it for you? That's true. Good point. It took both of them to do it. It took both of them to basically create a situation where that was it. There were no arguments left effectively. And in some ways, actually, the arguments that was taken in the first suit kind of lock them in to being a bit stuck. The second two, by taking that technical argument, they also kind of effectively conceded that we can get the documents. We just didn't ask for them the right way. So once we did, okay. Yeah.

So at this point, after basically just, you know, brickwall, a hundred percent brick wall to 180 degrees that essentially we get communication with DOJ and that fine will provide the data. And what we do is we enter into a scheduling order with the court, which is what happens for you. Once the government finally agrees to provide the data, the next step is. to agree on the schedule. When are you going to provide it? Yes, we got three quotes here of the response. Let's take a look at this. This case involves the Freedom of Information Act FOIA request at Plaintiff Informed Consent Action Network submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The request seeks all data submitted to the CDC's VSA program, a smartphone-based system

that used text messaging and web-based surveys for personalized and confidential health check-ins with enrolled participants to monitor and assess for potential adverse events following a COVID-19 vaccination. As the parties have discussed, CDC is currently processing a large batch of records responsive to plaintiffs' request and expects to produce the non-exempt portions of these records on or before September 30th, 2022, specifically by that date. CDC intends to complete processing and to post publicly on its website a public use of a set of data that the agency collected from tens of millions of BSAFE participants between December 14, 2020 and July 31st, 2022.

After CDC posts this public use V-Safe data set, the parties have agreed to meet and confer regarding the adequacy of that production, any challenge redactions or withheld data within that production and the outstanding portion of plaintiffs FOIA request. So just to put what you just read in context, that is a document signed by our firm on behalf of ICANN and the Department of Justice and have the CDC. That is a greed upon... So we agreed to this language. We both said this is what's happening. And if you listen carefully to what, if anybody was listening carefully just read, they're agreeing by a certain date by basically a month that's produced almost all the de-identified data. Yeah. And then we reserve the right to simply meet it. We're going to meet again after 24 days and discuss what we think is missing and what's the next step.

Okay. Right. And so that agreed upon a schedule that's signed by the both parties then gets submitted to the judge. And the judge then issues and agreed upon signs it and basically enters an order. Yeah. Compelling what you just read to happen as a judicial order. And I believe, oh, there is. And this is an order from the court.

And, you know, on the second page of it, it says, it says, it's as honor before September 30, 2020. CDC will, right, they're being commanded by the court, will produce its first batch of non-oneliorable. exempt record responsive to plaintiff, that's ICANNs, FOIA request, as described more fully in the party's status report of August 22, 22, 2020. That status support is what you just read, it describes what they're going

to provide. Great. And then it just says in the next paragraph that on August, October 14, the parties are to meet. Come together, make sure they did it right. Well, it's, it's let's put it this way, we reserved all objections, meaning in this, we agreed, you can give us a first batch, but we're not waiving any rights. We're going to

meet, and we're going to talk about what we believe missing what else should be provided yeah and this it might be a good point let's talk about what they're providing yeah let's talk about what they're providing and what we think we still need we'll get that all the way and then we'll look at this data yeah so so v safe has about 10 million unique users right registrants that registered for v safe starting when the vaccine rolled out in December and until and I look like folks can see it on the yeah here's the here's the smart plan actually a good thing to look at so you could see that you

enter and if you've registered you can give a healthy check right there you have a fever check it has little check boxes have you had these symptoms and then there's a square box there any other symptoms or health conditions you want to report you can see that box that wasn't covered by their little questionnaire which I think is going to prove to be very important right and there was one more section right there that also had to check the boxes which was a health impact you know and you know it's it which basically asked you did it affect a normal life function did it yeah there

it is did it required to miss school or work or you know, did you have to go to a doctor? And these are the check the box. Now, there are other check the box fields in the V-Safe database, including, did you have COVID? Right. And there's a race, ethnicity, gender, sex, and so forth. There's a bunch of fields.

So what we got from the CDC, what they agreed when they said, the de-identified, is those check-the-box field. Okay. And on, and as ordered by the court, right? Mill produce by September 30th. On September 30th, not a minute to lose. The CDC sent me a letter, sent our firm a letter.

And in that letter, it says, you know, describes the request for all data submitted to the VSAFE. And it says, enclosed are five data sets responsive to your request. That's five Excel five. These data sets include certain information collected from VSAF participants from December 14, 2022 through July 31, 2022, after careful view some of the information with help from police pursuant to FOIA exemption six which we will go through in a minute okay and and then it says and

we can circle back to this says the agency that's the CDC originally plan to post these data sets on CDC's website if you recall that's right they said it said they were going to do that right on before September 30 of 2022 however the agency has not yet completed the technical and administrative process he's required to post that on a CDC.gov site the agency is there for releasing these data directly to you. Okay? Yeah.

And I just, let's just start with the second point for a second. CDC has billions of dollars. Billions of dollars. Endless amounts of resource. Right. This data set is not that complicated. Right. We got it at 6 p.m. on Friday, this past Friday, we provided it to ICAN.

Yep. And incredibly, by Monday, you guys launched. Yeah. an amazing dashboard. Now let's be clear as soon as we saw this coming and you know I was asked this by one of the reporters that was asking me, well, when did you decide to build the dashboard? And I said, well, as soon as we knew the data, we had won this suit, we knew that there was going to be, we're going to need some way. We started thinking about how that would be done. But what's so important about this is the CDC should have built this all the way back when this started. I mean, a year ago, this should have been underway. For them to say, well, we just don't have the resources to build a technology. To be able to do this, you know, the reporter asked me, like, you know, was it when you found out that they weren't going to build it? No, they should have built this a year ago. And so we've had to do as a nonprofit what our government had billions of dollars to do are donors, you know, really a handful of people when you look at the size of the world and what's going on. Dedicated individuals made this possible.

Yeah. When the CDC wants, man can it act quickly. Yeah. And we've seen that time and time again. Yeah. you know, one can only speculate, is it that they couldn't technically achieve the feat? Or was it that they couldn't find a way to display the data that meets their policy objectives? Because they're a policy-driven organization, please.

You know what, why don't we just go ahead? When we go and take a look at this data? We've got it over here on a touchscreen form. And so let's check this out. Everybody, you can do this at home. This is why we built it for you. Totally transparent. Just go online.

I can decide. and you can peruse this, but let's just sort of take you through it a little bit here in studio. So, Aaron, as you can see, we've got a touchscreen here. This is actually connected to the internet right now. This is risky. This is the first time we've ever tried to use this on the internet. But this is the interface that we built. This is the dashboard that has been built.

This is the dashboard that the CDC with their billions of dollars was incapable of building. Thank you to all of you that are sponsors of. us you made this possible for the entire world for every scientist for every doctor for everyone in the world they can now start looking this data and learn some things so as you pointed out Aaron over there you have the corner tell me show us what's up in the corner and and what we're looking at just based on you know the numbers that are involved so what so as we mentioned earlier there were 10 million yeah 108,273 individual users these are folks that

actually signed up and registered to use V-safe and to provide health check-in. Okay, so 10 million altogether. Now, you wanted to point out, there's a brand new page that you just brought us this morning. This is the registered B-Safe users. So these are those that registered.

They had to register when they were getting the vaccine. Yeah, I'll be a part of that program. Right. And then we see, you know, when the registry really happened. Why do you think this is important? What are we looking at here? Yeah, so what we see here is the number of new registrants by month. Okay?

If you go all the way to the bottom left, what you see is on December of 2020, that, if folks might recall, is when the first COVID vaccine was given EUA approval. Right. That was the very first time in the United States that anybody could get a COVID vaccine. And with the rollout of it, you saw most of the folks who registered to use VSAF was in December, January, February, March. I mean, look at that. Right here. Like, this is the bottom. All the time this is available, it sort of trickles off people that are inspired to be a part using the system, but this is the group.

So why, early on, why do you think that that matters? I mean, it seems to be that the number of users, the registering, tracks enthusiasm for the product. Right. In the very beginning in the first few months, there were no mandates. People weren't being compelled to get it. You weren't going to lose your job if you didn't get it. None of that was happening yet. Was that happening?

This is literally like, get behind me as soon as this door opens. This is a rush for a cabbage patch doll, basically, right here. This is the cabbage patch doll rush. That's a good analogy. Okay, okay. These are the folks, remember there was stories, people cutting it, like, not waiting their turn. They were not, only health care workers, and they went, and they snuck in. This is that time period.

So these are the folks who were enthusiastic about the vaccine. These are the ones who want to participate. I believe there's a number of stories online about those who are, you know, vaccine proponents of a great degree. Put it that way. Writing stories about, and... I just got mine so excited, so pumped. And some of those folks we now know signed up for VSAFE, right?

Okay, so when you look at this, you know, 0.8, 2, 1, 2, you know, 1.5, I mean, really, the body, that's like, that's almost like, what, 8-ish million of the 10 we're going to see got involved right at the beginning. So this is your gung-ho group. Right. No one here is being forced to get it. They love it. And we could imagine that they want to see a success. They want to stand there as a superhero going, follow me, look how good this is working for me.

That's important because if you're going to look to people to sort of report vaccine injuries or issues, you know, some of the argument about this data is like, well, it's just the people that wanted to complain. I mean, this is, you know, you only drew to B-Safe, those that had a problem with the vaccine. No, no, no, no. You drew the people that were lined up for the cabbage badge doll. They couldn't wait to get the vaccine. So under those circumstances, let's go back to this page then. So this is the data really of the gung-ho that got vaccinated.

So take me through what you think. Like you sort of mentioned some of this on Fox News. We have adverse health impacts up here. Yeah, I'll go through that. Just to wrap up one point, if I may. Okay. What's so important about that point that it's not just those who wanted to report adverse events that signed up for this. because if that was the case, you would have seen a more even distribution over time of people signing up,

is that this 10 million number may very well be reflective of the larger 250 million people who got the shot. Right. Right. Meaning that's the one argument that when I saw it, I was wondering, well, is there a confounder here? Is it that these 10 million people, they signed up because they wanted to report an issue? But when I saw that data that you just showed, that assuade. me. In fact, one could even argue it's the other way. Right. This has a bias towards the success of the vaccine.

Potentially, because those are just signing up. And so, and that is the question because this really is just a snapshot. This is only 10 million people, but they were all involved. They're getting this app, is waking them, how are you feeling today, it's taking them through it. Now, and of the 10 million people, we have these issues, but this snapshot, you're saying, should be pretty accurate because of who's involved. very well be because VSAFE was promoted to people as they were getting the shot literally got the shot they got the paperwork and they were saying sign up you we'll

give you reminders yeah people signed up for it there's did they even get reminders like you know it's time to get your booster shot or get your second shot all that was a part of the they got many texts to do you know click in and do follow-ups but theirs in contrast you're told you only use theirs if you have an issue okay right so V-safe, even though it's, you know, dumb, he's got the word safe in it as a safety. It really was given to people before they had any issues, and they were encouraged to sign up. In fact, one of the health check-ins is day zero, meaning just as you're getting the shot. Right.

So this isn't reflective of just people. This is supposed to really be a full captured snapshot. It was whether you were going to have success or not, we won't know until you fill out this app. So we have both sides. We have those that did really well and those that did not. Right. And I think that is the way the CDC designed V-State, where V-SAVE, where V-Rs, they designed it to only capture those who are injured to report.

And we don't know what percentage is that of the population that got. We have no, there's no reference point in V-RES. Right, in V-Rs. Yeah. But here, we believe the CDC specifically was trying to capture effectively, yes. Okay. So here we go. Let's get into it.

10 million people are using V-State. And here is the adverse health impact. When they were showing it on the screen, right, there was those check the budget. boxes where you could check one of these three boxes. So someone checked, unable to perform normal activities. And then in the middle, like the more moderate, missed work or school did not go in. And then there was required medical care or hospitalization. Right. So let's just, let's just look. So this is how this app works. We can just touch that really quick. And it sort of

showed, you can see all the numbers will change over there. Of the 10 million people in this system, 782,913 checked this box. They checked the box. I went to a doctor. I went to the hospital. I was admitted into the ER after my vaccination. So that number, by the way, is about 7.7%. It's the number that checked it at least once.

That checked at least once. So about 7.7% of these users, these presumably enthusiastic users against the vaccine, They reported that they received, and most of the reports came in in the first week or so after vaccination, that they needed some type of medical care, being a doctor, emergency room, or hospitalization. And you can see here that actually that's how many individual users reported needing medical care. That's how many total reports of the need for medical care. Wow. It's like almost three, on average, folks who needed medical care that reported it, on average, needed it almost three times to do Medicare.

They made multiple visits, not just one, oh, I was overreacting, I'm going home, they came back, you know, or went deeper into the medical system. That being reported, I just didn't complain about going to my doctor once or the hospital two and three times for these people. That's not good. somebody's having a problem. That's not good. You don't go to the doctor three times for sniffle. And let's just say this. When we look at also, this is an important field, hospitalizations.

This is exactly what the vaccine was supposed to keep you from having to do, right? I mean, the vaccine is totally failed. Remember everybody, this vaccine doesn't stop infection. They've given up on that. Almost everyone in the world that got the vaccine has gotten infected at least once, if not two and three times from the coronavirus as the variants have mutated. So the only thing they've hung their hat on is, well, we're going to lower hospitalization.

Under these numbers, Aaron, I think it's safe to say that if we're saying 7.7%, I'm just going to just sort of rough this out really quick. This is just out of 10 million people. If we look at 75% of the country of 330, 40 million people, however you want to count that number, 75% is over 200 and something million. When you take 7.7% of that, that means, like, approximately just a round number, roughly 20 million people. This is a snapshot of what happened. It says to us that should this be accurate, 20 million Americans probably needed medical care after the vaccination.

That's a gigantic, gigantic number. It's a very troubling number. And, you know, if one were to speculate why CDC wouldn't want to be forthcoming with this data, it might be right in that number, right there. Tell me about this. 1.3 million missed worker school. Why do you think that this is important? So now we're over, this is this swap over 10%. And for me, this says, you know, I keep hearing that, oh, the injuries are one in a million.

Or maybe they'll say one in a hundred thousand. That's sort of where they sort of cut it off. Like, oh, like even with the myocarditis, they want to say it's like, well, per 100,000. We're talking, in this case, one in ten, right? One in ten are missing work or school. Yeah, yeah. them both together yeah and and if you add in the next category as well of unable to perform normal activities not everybody you know is going to

worker school and and they kind of you know they'll go they go with each other together those two categories are 25% of the users separate and apart from those that needed medical care wow so if you take those 25% that are unable to perform normal activities or had to miss worker school and the 7.7% that need a medical care, you're at over 32% of the users in this captive CDC-created tool that they designed, that they put out, that they said will give us the answers about will make us healthier. Safe.

A product that will make you healthier and go through this where you're not affected and you won't miss work or miss activities or by God go to the hospital. And what makes us really concerning to is that, for example, when you look at certain age groups they really have a low risk when it right because I mean extremely low you know as a great example I think are members of our military force yeah are being you know prosecuted excuse me by by the brass in the military because they refused co-vaccine in particular those that have a religious exemption as you know we are firm filed a lawsuit against the Air Force yep and got a an injunction

against the Air Force discriminating against those seeking a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine and a federal judge You know, we talked about this really and understood the importance of when you ask people to go fight and die to protect the Constitution, probably should also respect their right on the Constitution and the first right being freedom of religion. Right. Okay. Amazing. But when you look at that, what was the mayor force's case?

And what is most likely to be the Army's case? Because we just threw the Army for a class section two with I can't support. Yeah. Their argument is, okay, maybe the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, right? Yeah. But we need a force that's ready to fight. We can't have people missing worker school, not being able to conduct normal activities. Yeah.

Or seeking mental care. And they want to conduct normal activities like run, chase, fight, hide, dive into bunkers, avoid roadside bombs. Can't have this. This doesn't work. A members, enlisted folks who are in their, you know, late teens and early 20s often. Yeah. A third of the, 32 percent of them who get in. effective SARS-V-2 are not having, based on the data that I've seen, this level of disruption.

Absolutely not. Assuming, and I'm making a big assumption here, that this data here equally applies to that age demographic. I don't know that answer. Because the only age differential they provided us in this data is under three years of age or over. Let's look at that. Let's go ahead and look at that. We have that here, folks. So again, you get to search this day.

Look how, I mean, imagine what it took to build this. 144 million lines of health data, by the way, is what is behind this skin that is making this possible. The health records of 10 million people. But here, I can select younger than three. Give it a moment so it can readjust. Now you can see under three years old, there was a total of 13,963 individuals that were under the age of three. and of them we had 3,000 of them that said they were impacted by the vaccine. Take me through why you think these numbers are important.

I think these numbers are concerning. And I'll back up and say this. The data we just looked at when we looked at the chart below beforehand, they had most of the data by May of 2021. Yeah. The first COVID vaccine for children under three, was not until June, I believe 18th. So they knew everything we're just looking at.

They knew before they did this to the kids. Not everything, but a significant proportion. I'm afraid to touch it, but if I scroll down... Oh, it's not on this page. Sorry, it's on the next page. But for those who want to look at this, you will find not only did most folks sign up in the first few months, but most of the health reports were also given

between December 2020. It's on the, is that the fourth one there? On the second page. Yeah. You sure? Yeah. I'm positive. Click it and you go right here.

Oh, there we go. Systems by year and month and you can get a sense of when the reports were mostly submitted. Right. Okay. Yep. Right. And then also, oh boy. I'll do it.

Oh, thank you. I'll play with this. Okay, very good. And then if we go back to this page. Back to this page. So when we look here, so they have. had a very good sense. Yeah.

They should have. But yet they rolled this out for infants. And when they did that, if you could just click down the required medical care. That's it. The serious ones going to a doctor or into the hospital. Right. So, wow. See, this is out of the 13,963 infants, under three years old, babies and infants,

1,900 of them required medical care after this shot. And most of the, again, most of these reports are within days getting the shots. So these parents were reporting it. That 7.2% COVID among infants is widely reported by Johns Hopkins and other, and even the CDC's own data as being almost always benign. Yeah, asymptomatic. The kids were just, they weren't having any issues whatsoever. If 7.2% of children that got infected with SARS, who we'd, that had COVID, ended up needing medical care.

Trust me, that would be, I shouldn't say that. Not trust me. I assume that would be all over CNN. Yeah. MSNBC telling you. We've shown so many times on the show. You've got to get that shot. Right.

That data, that number should be very, should be concerned. And we're just, I mean, we are literally just doing this live. I also think what's interesting is, again, it's roughly the same as the other group. Seven plus. Here you have a totally different age group. and a different group that would have signed up. Kids are different than adults. And this is a different time that original sign up.

With this sign up, again, severe injury or going to the hospital in the 7%. So there that starts saying to me, that first graph, or those first things, it's not necessarily an anomaly. We keep seeing this looks like we're starting to see a pattern here. I mean, it's still in this. I mean, it's a lot to extrapolate, but that's what I'm just looking at this right now. I think about that. Now, think about this.

You add in, you know, these two groups again, and again, we're going over, you know, what, 20, you know, we're moving in 10, 20 percent of kids having an issue. All right. Another thing that I think is just really interesting is that we can also break this down, you know, and we're back to, I want to get back to the regular numbers. Let's just get out of here and just go back to three-year-older. All right. and you know we could also break this down we have sex here and we have you know race women

this is women up here across the board in every race up here is Caucasian or white I guess we put it women having a much greater response and having issues more health issues than men yeah and the fact that they're finding that more women are having issues actually comports with the report that we've received from the FDA that Pfizer submitted them shortly after the vaccine started being used. We're looking at that report right now and full screen. This is another, and again, this is not a report that the FDA just handed over. We had to go to court. We had to, you know, fight to obtain this.

Yeah. And you could see right there, I see it on the screen, that, you know, the gender breakdown for all of these, often serious reactions that were, that Pfizer told the, FDA happened post use of their COVID vaccine, most of them were in women. And that number comports with what we're seeing here. So again, it's proving, I mean, it's proving itself out, based on the clinical trials, things that were looking at, the things that internally FDA is using this snapshot from people because they say, well, it was self-reporting, whatever it was. Yes, but it's lining up with other data they had, again, giving us a sense that this may be,

this may be a very accurate snapshot or moving that direction. All right, let's move on because, you know, obviously over there really quickly take us through the fact that one of the important questions is I keep getting which vaccine is worse than another. We heard a hell of a lot about Johnson and Johnson yet over there on your side, not a huge part of this, you know, these issues. So one of the things that, you know, so we've obviously been looking very closely at this data to see what we can use for it, obviously for the,

ultimate objective of assuring civil liberties. Right. Everybody wants the shot. That's a choice. Yeah. America. Take risk. But the idea is nobody should be compelled ever to get it.

In any event, and looking closely at the data, you see here, this is among all 10 million individuals that reported an adverse health impact, right? There's more folks that got Moderna, about the shot, you know, for short hand, because it was built by the NIH long. Yeah. Really. 1.6 million doses of that

whereas with Pfizer it was 1.4 million folks but when you look underneath the hood there actually were more people that got Pfizer than got Moderna. There's more folks that reported adverse health impact

from, you know, NIA. And just clicked on it so you can show people how interactive it is. Go ahead and click on one of these folks. If you do this, look at again, it changes all of your numbers. You get a full setup and all now what you're looking at is Moderna. Isn't this awesome? I mean, took a lot of work to do this. Again, you guys make this possible.

The whole world is using this right now. All right, I want to sort of get this all, you know, wrapped up. Let's just, what, go ahead. Your fun point? Yeah, go ahead. These are folks who got two brands, three, four. And there's even somebody, apparently, they got five brands. I don't know who's that person.

And how did you get five different brands of COVID vaccine? They haven't have gone overseas. Well, I don't want to mess with this too much, but sorry. All right. So we get the idea. Let's move on to symptoms. And so one of the things that we can do is we can click right here. We can look at the symptoms. This will shift over in just a second.

Here's another one of the pages. And here we list this, this was the questionnaire, basically. Like this was how it laid out. You're being asked. Do you have pain? Do you have fatigue? Headache, muscle or bodyache, joint pain, swelling, chills. Once again, let's just go ahead and just go there.

we can say, I want to just look at the severe cases in all of these. We get to see, look at all of that red, 1.1 million having fatigue after the vaccine. You're definitely not going to work. I don't think if you're feeling that bad saying, you know, I feel severely ill here, muscle, body aches, headache. The list goes all the way down. What do you want to say about this page? Because I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask. Well, you know, so to give it legal context, it's important to.

understand that these categories of symptoms were the predetermined symptoms listed by the CDC right there are a lot of other symptoms that I find surprising or not there for the question I was gonna ask you what about anaphylaxis correct what about heart pain a chest pain right what about cardi I got abdominal pain that's I didn't hear anything I didn't hold hear a whole lot about your chest hurting right a lot about like strokes you know things like that right but but but you know this is not on common because, you know, and we've dealt a lot with HHS on behalf of I can on this, and the FDA

on this issue, which is when they do clinical trials, they will have this preset list of symptoms, and then they'll have like this other category. Right, the other box. The other box. Right. But that's just a way of really, it guides people to just look at those symptoms, adds them away from reporting other things, and it biases the actual study. Either just, either do a real list of everything, or,

just do a box, but this type of system is not great. That said, we have only received to, so your audience understand, we've only received the data for the check the box fields. There was a bill in the blank box. Right. We have not received that yet. So that would be if, I'm going to probably say, I had pain, definitely, that pain was in my chest.

I went to a doctor in the hospital. And remember, you're going through, you're going to say, yes, I had pain, okay? Yes, they did go to the hospital. Wait a minute. It's not asking me about the heart attack that I had. Right? That's not in here. They're left writing that into the box.

So I think we can assume, in many ways, under the pain box is where we're going to see a lot of those things hidden, right? Like, is a follow-up? I think a lot of people will simply just click the other box. Just the other. They'll just hit the other and describe their symptoms. It's kind of like when you think of theirs reports, theirs is like the other box. Right. And they just describe what's going on with that.

them. And in many ways, that other boxes where a lot of the information that would have probably ended up in VAERS, potentially, ended up in this system. Because somebody using V-save isn't going to go and then submit a Bears report, too. No, right. This is it. You're assuming it's here. And so, you know, that is something we're going to be fighting about. So when they said, you know, do you sign off on all this, we're saying, no, we want that other box. We want to know how many people wrote in myocarditis, how many wrote in heart attack, how many wrote in stroke and blood clots and anaphylaxis and Bell's Palsy and all of these things that we see skyrocketing on the Vera system right now. We're still waiting

for that data and when we get it, by the way, when we get that folks, guess what's going right into here into your searchable dashboard here? I wonder if we're making it a little bit more difficult on ourselves now that they know how accessible this information is going to be when they finally capitulate and give it to us. If you're worried that it's going to make them fight harder, don't worry. I don't think they can fight anyone. That's what you mean. They don't want to put this to us anyway.

Trust me. There's nothing that's going to make them want to fight harder. Well, all I know is I'm glad you're the one fighting for us because you keep coming out with victories. I know one of the things, Dorit Reese, who wrote an article about this, she said, you know, they're over, you know, they're stating that the CDC didn't provide what they had to. They were providing, if that was the case, the judge wouldn't have made this happen. They wouldn't have made us get all this and say, you know what, ICAN really is standing up for what you had promised and therefore you got to hand it over to them. Amazing job.

For those of you that didn't have the opportunity to sign up to this V-safe date, and I know you're going to go home. We could go on and on for, you know, hours and hours and have fun with this. But this is your tool. Share it with everyone you know. It's right there on a website. All you have to do is go to Icandecide.org. slash vSafe. But if you didn't have the opportunity to sign up to VSafe, but you since having received the vaccine have been injured, you've been watching the high water because you want to know what is it I can do.

There's a lot you can do. You can also use the bearer system. We want to help you with all of that. And so we built this tool for you. If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial, go to injured by COVID vaccine. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support including connecting with medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury. We can provide assistance completing a report to the CDC's vaccine adverse events reporting system. So, if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a COVID- COVID-19 vaccine. Go to injured by COVID vaccine.com now.

All right. Well, I'm here with Aaron Siri, who has made so much of the work that we've presented to the public, not just even before COVID, the lawsuits were winning regarding vaccines and aluminum and autism and all those things, but now it's gotten serious because the whole world has been thrust into a vaccine program with a totally untested vaccine. Aaron, one of the things that, you know, as I was sitting there standing there, and I just want to, again, crunch the raw numbers, because bears, bears is something we used before COVID. We didn't have a V-safe for all the childhood vaccines.

And the question has always been, how accurate is bears? What are we looking at here? Is this, you know, and they'll say, well, you can't trust bears. It's a passive reporting system. But every study ever done has never, ever determined. There's not a single study that says, VERS is overreporting it. Never. It's always, it's underreporting it by some percentage. And we've talked and one of the arguments that you've made multiple times is the Harvard Medical School study,

which ultimately, this is the study done by Harvard Medical School back in looking at dates between 07 and 10. They looked at the system and they said it appears that bears is capturing fewer than 1% of the vaccine adverse events that should be reported. And so when they say VERS is inaccurate, we've been saying, you know, prior to COVID, it looks like if Harvard Medical School is right that those numbers are maybe 1% of what's happening. We've been giving them some leeway during COVID because we thought, well, they're probably a little more focused on VERS during COVID. They knew what was an experimental product. And we were thinking maybe it's about 10%.

But one of the things I was thinking is this V-Safe data kind of gives us a snapshot in which we can sort of test VERS right now. Let me just bring this up really quickly. I just threw this at my team. It's going to be a little bit rough, but you get the idea. Remember, it was medical, like that serious group, that 7.7% of the 10 million, the 782,000 all said they went to the hospital, urgent care, or doctor's office. Can we highlight those on our BERS system? This is the VERS system saying exactly that. They're claiming on VERS, that's 521,992.

Now remember, that number is not out of 10 million like the B-Safe data. This is of everybody. If we're going to try and ask, what is bears showing us about the system? Well, it's out of the pool of people in America that are likely to report to VERS, and it's an unknown number is the problem. It's an unknown number. What I'm trying to say is, can't we test it a little bit? Because if we take that number, if we take that those injuries are about 552,000,

and bears said, yeah, I had to go get medical help. And then we go back to that number I said, which was the V-Safe data, if we extrapolate 7.7% of those that got the vaccine, that's about 20 million people. And this, you know, this, so there it's 20 million people if V-Safe is right. If V-Safe was right, it's only 500,000 people. You see what I'm saying? That discrepancy shows us how far off of the V-S numbers V-Safe is, which means it's roughly, and we calculated this,

it's right around 2.5% of the actual number if V-Safe is showing us a clearer snapshot, which is right in that range that Harvard said, it's definitely better than 1%. A lot better. So it's twice as good as it was, but it's not 10%. VERS is not showing us 10%. It's not even showing us 5%. It's showing us something like 2.5%. So folks, let me just take this all the way through. Let's look at bears one more time because I want to look at another number. So if the hospitalizations that we use the V-safe to understand what it should be, then let's say it's roughly, you know, let's say 5%. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. 31,000 deaths is only potentially 5% of the amount of deaths.

We're going to say that VSAVE just showed us that Bears is capturing 5%. It actually is more like 2.5, but 5%, these are scary, scary numbers. I mean, really horrifying numbers. And yet when you're asking questions of the CDC, they're not saying, oh, let me just throw the data at you. You're really overestimating this. They're hiding it from you. And I think that that's really scary.

Hiding it from the American people. Yes. hiding from the American people, which tells you something. Now, you fought to get the data from the FDA based on the Pfizer trials, right? I mean, that was something made famous. You were all over the newspapers because they pushed back and said, it's going to take us 75 years to produce that data. So here with VSAFE, CDC is pushing back.

You already dealt with the FDA. You won that case. That data is all coming out. But in many ways, this VSAFE data is really sort of, that accurate is giving us a real sense of probably what they saw in those trials anyway, is it not? In many ways, the V-Safe data is probably a more accurate reflection of the safety of the product than the clinical trial data that we would get from the FDA.

Wow. Because the clinical trials are done by Pfizer or Moderna. Right. Pfizer does it. And as in the case of Maddie-Degary, we see how they take the data, sanitize the data, before they hand it to the FDA. If they don't do the clinical trials. If the FDA just gets whatever data the Pfizer gives them, and they rely on it.

And that's what they use the license. So that clinical trial data, which is still coming out, will be obtained. We're close to actually having all of it. And I understand that there's a number of institutions that are closely serious institutions of higher learning in our country that are carefully analyzing, waiting for the last piece of data coming in because until they have it all. Yeah. Can't do analysis. But here, on the other hand, this data is not done by Pfizer.

It's in the same form of what Pfizer does. Pfizer gives you a shot. You're in a clinical trial. You come in. You report to Pfizer what happened. You call in. I recall your Maddie-Degary second. Yeah.

Where she described, she had to call in and give her information to Pfizer. That's exactly what happens with V-Safe. And then they, when she said, I'm paralyzed, even in a hospital, I can't eat. eat, they checked the box for instead abdominal pain. Dominal pain. But the great thing about be safe is that when we get, we already got what was just shown, but when we get those fields. She would have written in.

Right. Yeah. They would written in. Paralyzed. And the American public is entitled to those fields. Yes. It will take a while. They're going to fight.

But at the end of the day, we are in the legal right about it and they will have to provide it. that pool of data and already what we see on the screen what you just went through yeah that is probably the closest approximation to what the effects this vaccine are really having on the safety side within the initial period a short period of time not talking about long-term harm like cancer is all these other things that could potentially be happening when you're doing your analysis before about various yeah comparing bears Theirs has a bit more of the long-term stuff. This be safe.

Most people are reporting, lost interest, and left. So here, what we saw on the screen in terms of the short-term safety profile, that's got to, I mean, that's probably going to be the best data that we can obtain. That should be the data that our health officials are making decisions on. That's going to be what they should be looking carefully at. These enthusiastic folks who were running out to get the vaccine and they're like saying, wait a second, I have this issue. They should be looking at that stuff carefully. If you want the answer about vaccine safety, probably the first place you should look. The best tool is what you folks have created on that screen that we just want to do. It's amazing. And I want to thank you so much

for making that possible. Let me ask you a personal question. You know, when we first got together, you know, I think you had a sense that they're, you know, first of all, you were bold enough to go into, you know, where no man had gone before, no lawyer had gone for a very long time, which is to somehow figure out a way to get into a legal system around vaccines. They were so protected. Every lawyer I was meeting with the St. Dell, you can't see them. I'm out. We tried years ago. We gave up. We're moving on. You said, no, Della, I'm interested in this. And we sort of together decided, let's take a different approach. Let's not go. We can't go after the manufacturers. We can't go other doctors and the hospitals. But our government took on liability. Let's

start suing them. You have won lawsuits for us against FDA, National Institute of Health, Health and Human services, CDC. I mean, I haven't really looked up the history, but of all the lawyers that ever lived, I'm not sure there are many that have won as many important cases against our own government, especially when it comes to our health and in this arena. My question is this, as I pointed out, you fought for the Pfizer data. When doctors and, you know, McCullough was a part of one of the plaintiffs of that, many great doctors came to you and said, you know, we have got to get our hands on this data to figure out what's going on in our hospitals. I've got to be able to help these people and I can't tell what's going on and want to know what these numbers are. What did

Pfizer see? They told you 75 years you fought and won. We have this V-safe data. The CDC promised to be transparent. A government promised to be transparent. They're spending billions of dollars to shut up anybody that's questioned the vaccine, but you're in there, you're not listening what's happening in television. You're fighting to get the data the world needs to see. And you're fighting not just for the tens of thousands of people that are donating to ICANN and making all this possible for us. You're literally fighting for the lives of children and humanity in this country and the world. Do you think about that when you're stepping into these cases? Do you think about really what a Herkulean mission you're up to right now? Wow. I, I, uh, I, uh, I, I,

I think that I just think about what the obligation, I'm usually just thinking about what the obligations are of our health authorities, how they are failing in many respects, and how their failures are resulting in the deprivation of civil liberties for not only everybody alive today, but our children going forward. If you don't want a medical procedure, and the government's going to say you have to do it, and on that basis, you can't get a job, you can't go to school.

We saw recently you can't go to a restaurant. You can't serve in the military. You can't go to university. Then all your rights are no good. What value do they have? So you can have religion, but you've got to do it only at home. you have a right to speech you can do it at home

you can write to assembly but not really because you can only assemble it with yourself at home right and so in many ways the we cannot have cannot have health officials in the position where what they say

results in what our rights are and I don't you know that paradigm has been building and and when I think about what I'm doing to your question, I don't think of it in the context that you framed it. I just think of it in that framework. Because that's also the task that I can has provided us,

which is at the end of the day, if we can't have the ability to decide what goes on below the layer of our skin, we don't really have any rights. And the government really can do whatever they want. That is the last line of civil liberties out there. So when I'm doing these things, that's typically what I'm thinking about. And it's, you know, it's a substantive thought that guides the lawsuits and the legal actions that we take

with often the sometimes very specific, sometimes very broad guide parallels that you provide us. Wow. I mean, it's so incredible. And I, you know, after asking the question is a big question. And your answer is sort of where I'm at. People ask them the same thing. And it's true. you can't carry that large a thought.

You just have to say one step in front of the other. What are the facts in front of me? I'm just going to deliver those facts and let the chips fall where they may. Just a lot of them seem to be falling in your direction. Well, it's easier when you are, it's easier when you have, you know, approached it in a situation where the law, the facts,

and the equities to a degree are, you know, at least in the eyes of the judge, are in your favor. For a lot of our suits, for what it's worth, the position we have is that, for some of them, it depends where we file, that it has to be a case where the judge looks at you and says,

I love vaccines, I hate you, I hate your client, but I got a rule for you anyway. Wow. That's the type of case you want. In this arena, of all the other, you know, that's not true of the other areas of law

that I've practiced. Right. I don't usually go in with that mindset, but on this issue, I do. But I'm pleased to say that that is definitely softened to a degree depending also where over the last three years, as I think there has been a greater understanding about the dangers of letting the ever-changing winds, opinions, and views of public health officials drive our civil rights. Judges are understanding that. Certainly governors in some states are understanding that. Judges are, you know, politicians are understanding that. And hopefully that will continue to grow.

You know, folks look at that and say, well, you just want to get rid of vaccines. They're just a product. They're just a product. Right. Nobody wants to get rid of vaccines. Just like no one wants to get rid of any other product that some people don't want. All I believe, you know, most of the supporters of I can want, they just want freedom. They want individual rights. They want the very basic thing that this country was founded on and made this country what it is, which is the idea that instead of letting somebody else decide what you do in your life, what risks you take, how to live, we're going to let people decide how to live, right?

That those rights are inalienable. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you want to eat McDonald's, Doritos, drink, Coca-Cola, you know, go get, you know, every vaccine as it comes on the market, this is a free country. And we stand up for those rights. But if I want to eat organic food, if I want to only drink, you know, bottled spring water and take care of my health and exercise, and I don't believe vaccines are a part of that, or at least certain ones I can select which ones I want or don't want,

this is a free country. You have that right, and that's a right that you've been brilliant at fighting for us at ICANN, and really looking at these products. That as our mission statement has been from the beginning, dedicated to eradicating man-made disease. You've been such a great warrior for that cause for us. I should say one thing though. I'm not sure I'm the attorney with the most wins

against government history. I just make. Okay. I also think I got a long way to go. Yes, we had a lot of work to do. Maybe I'll get there. I mean, at the pace at which you have us filing lawsuit, maybe.

But I suspect there are others out there who can notch that up. I don't know about the public health arena, but, you know, in government real large, you know. I love the humility. Let me just take a second to talk to the audience here, folks. This is a gigantic win for you, for you, for transparency, for your ability now to take any friend, any family member to say, look, here's the data as it's laid out. That wasn't possible a week ago. There was no way to see the data as the CDC was collecting it. Now you have it because of the work that we're doing here.

You've seen, you know, obviously in talking to Aaron Siri, how the talent that is behind the work that we're doing. And for all of you that get to watch the show today, whatever amount you're donating to ICANN, you get to have that warm feeling saying, oh my God, I was just a part of a world-changing mission, something there is no going back now. They cannot go back and lie. They're not going to be able to say, oh, injuries one in a million. It's over. That day is finally and completely done. is dead and buried because those of you that helped us out. Now, for those of you, the millions of you watching right now,

wouldn't you love to not just see this as a news piece that's totally separate from you, but say, you know what? I want to be able to think the next time Aaron Siri comes on the show, and we've won a lawsuit against the federal government, or maybe a state, or maybe we fought for the very state that your kids trying to go to school in, or maybe it's the military, the Army, or the Air Force, or the cases that we have going there, don't you want to be able to claim that victory

and say to yourself, as you move on in life, I made a difference in this world. I didn't just sit back and wait for somebody else to save me. I got involved with the people that were making a difference. The highwire and our nonprofit, I Can Decide.org, is like nothing else you have ever seen. We are not just reporting on the news. We are making the news. We are creating the news.

We are trying to give you a vessel in which you have the opportunity to change the world. So please, right now, there are lawsuits that are sitting, you know, on Aaron's desk, waiting to go. We just simply can't afford it. As we said, you know, we could quit here. We could. We could. We could say we've got so many cases going on right now with Aaron Siri. It's enough. It's enough. But who else do you want in that courtroom? I know who I want there. And sure, thank you. Even if all these lawsuits go through, it'll be a giant pile of wins. But there are some very important cases that are just sitting there waiting for us. Here's a few of them that we want to file a lawsuit challenge of the government. Oregon transplant. People can't get origin and transport. plants without getting vaccinations. We want to sue Pfizer because the willful misconduct now that we're getting this data coming in. We want to challenge the requirements for people that can't travel in this country. We want to challenge restrictions on the California doctors, which, you know, we've talked, to doctors about that are being suppressed for telling, you know, the truth about the vaccines and ivermectin and hydroxychlorically. Lawsuits challenge the constitutionality, the CICP, the countermeasures

injury compensation program, which is the only place someone injured by a COVID vaccine can currently file a claim lawsuits challenging the lack of religious exemption this is a big one we got not going to talk about the details of that but we have a very interesting angle to try and get you know get back a hold of a right to opt out of this program in those states that don't have that right now um so Aaron we got you busy I mean me my whole team you're you that's what I want to say I have an incredible team behind and that's a it's a growing team is it not I mean when we first discussed this, you know, it was kind of just you, but it's really, what's happened since you've gotten involved in this issue for us? Yeah, well, I mean, I know you have other things going

on. There's other lawsuits in your, in your practice, but. Yeah, well, I mean, the civil rights vaccine policy slash, slash, right? I mean, in many ways, the legal work that we do for I can actually cuts across every single area of the law. There's FOIA cases that requires FOIA. Their case is challenging constitutionality, for example, of laws that led doctors vaccinate minors, right? Separation of violating federal law. There's laws regarding administrative law that we have to bring all the time.

There are cases that cut into almost every area of law imaginable. And so we use the tool available because it's not like you ask us to do one type of case ever. Every case is unique. Every case, there's no precedent. There's no precedent. There's no off the shelf example. So we have an ever expanding at this point,

a legal team that just do the numerous and varying cases that we do on behalf of ICANN, either directly for ICANN or supported by ICANN. Yeah, well, I appreciate it. And we've stretched you, I know recently, we've looked into some of these food issues, food crisis issues, organic foods, USDA, so we keep pushing the end.

envelope out there as we see a problem. And I am assuming, you know, we've already brought a case against Facebook and sort of the censorship based on what happened here at the Highwire. But, you know, I think this future cases is going to get into, you know, my right to my own energy, my right to my own identity, what am I doing my money? Do you get to decide what I can spend my money on? I mean, the future right now and the Constitution is under attack, in some ways it seems by our own government, which is so sad. Yet I, I have to do. I keep saying I'm happy to be alive right now. I mean, I'm happy that the world needs us.

It needs warriors. And I never thought, you know, I used to think lawyers just really make the world expensive. I was a total liberal, progressive. I was like anti-lawyers. And now I feel like I'm one of the most litigious human beings on the planet with the amount of times I'm telling you, you know what, we got to sue on this too. Yeah, but you're the right kind of litigious because you're not just going after money. You're not just trying to make an issue to get a buck.

you know you're you're genuinely seeking the truth the rights you're funding the suits that have no money in them these are the suits that nobody would ever bring because there's no financial incentive to do it exactly right financial incentive to bring a suit in this arena as you know we never get involved because there's no point in i can't spending you know uh you know that's precious donors funds on that. Really the suits are where nobody would have the financial incentive to bring those suits. So you're litigious in the right way. I appreciate. Thank you so much for all incredible work you're doing, Aaron. We're going to keep it going. Look, you know, I know Aaron just said, you know, I'm the right kind of litigious. We're going after those types of lawsuits

that don't pay out. You know why that's possible? It's you. It's you. I get to say, look, we don't have to make money. We don't have to make money. This isn't about making money. we're going after you. And when you watch what the CDC did, within any other situation, they kept making us file this in different ways. You know how expensive that would be for your average person trying to push back against the government? It's not possible. You can't do it. They're going to break you. And that's what they're hoping is going to happen here. They're hoping that it will cost us so much just to get to the answers that will give up. Well, guess what? We don't give up because you don't want us to give up, because you are supporting

all of this work. And so this week, this show this week, shows you that all types of different people step up, lawyers step up, AI professionals step up, and start trying to fix Facebook and building their own platforms. We built a network because all the other networks were lying to you. What you should ask yourself today is, what can I do?

What can I do to make a difference? What is my talent? Because every single person we enroll, every single person we change, every single person that we share that, be safe dashboard with us say, hey, why don't you learn something here? This is the actual raw data provided by the CDC.

You don't have to take my word for it. This is it. You want to ask any questions? If you're cool with that and, you know, having 7.7% of people needing medical care or hospitalization after the vaccine, go right ahead. But at least now you are informed. It is all about being informed. At least now because the work we're doing here, we have transparency. This is how we achieve justice.

for everybody justice for all that's what the high wire is dedicated to that is what erin series working on our behalf to make happen that is what you are a part of every time you donate even just watching every time you share one of these videos with a friend you make a difference we're asking for 22 dollars a month for 2022 it truly is changing the world that's what this is about be a world changer not a world complainer This is the high wire. We're standing with you. It's all about all of us.

We need each other. And I need to see you next week.