The Highwire with Del Bigtree - SACRIFICING SCIENCE

Episode Date: June 25, 2022

Is The Vanden Bossche Warning Coming True?: U.S. Rep Slams FDA’s ‘Dystopian Experiment’; Jefferey Jaxen’s Highlights from VRBPAC; Censored Pathologist Exposes Rigged SystemGuests: Dr. Clare Craig, U.S. Rep. Louie GohmertBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. You know, as I sat and prepared for this show today, I started thinking I feel like what I'm about to report to you is that the world's fastest stupid train has run headlong into the world-renowned idiot train. We are talking about many of the stories we've been talking about colliding together now all in this week. And so I want to start out by sort of setting the stage, setting up what's going on here. And so in order to do that, I want to reflect back to the interview we did with Hirt Fandon Bosch.

This was seven weeks ago on May 5th. Now, for those of you that may be tuning in for the first time, we have been covering this world-renowned biologist, epidemiologist, you know, immunologist who's worked for the WHO, who's been warning us for, you know, almost, I think, a year and a half now that this vaccine program is going to pressure the virus to become unstoppable, more deadly, infecting those that were vaccinated for it. And so he came in just seven weeks ago, and this is just sort of a breakdown of what he shared with us at that moment.

Your question is, is the immune pressure, according to my opinion, still continuing and or we therefore still promoting, selection of more infectious or more virulent variants. And the question is, the answer is yes. If you continue to exert immune pressure on the virus without being able to block the transmission and without being able to induce sterilizing immunity,

which the population very definitely cannot, that's the reason why we don't have hurt immunity because we have been vaccinating like hell. We know the non-neutralizing antibodies, they prevent trans-infection at the level of the lung. And the trans-infection is responsible for severe disease. So, in fact, what is happening is that we are converting, we are converting immune pressure on viral infectiousness via originally denutalizing antibodies. We are converting this now to immune pressure on viral virus. virulence via the non-neutralizing antibodies.

So essentially what you're saying is they bragged that this vaccine would stop transmission, that it was going to stop transmission. You said what you're going to do is pressure that transmission space, that infectiousness space. And eventually there will be a variant because you're putting so much pressure on it that the evolution of a virus will be to select for that virus that the infectiousness gets around that pressure, that pressure coming from the neutralizing antibodies developed by the vaccine. It did that. It started doing that in Delta. Ultimately, Amacron came along a full escape where the neutralizing antibodies from the vaccine no longer are binding or having any effect

over the current variant. And so it has gotten free. It no longer has a problem with transmission. It is highly transmitting. It is highly infectious. It is getting around the vaccine. And so now what you have left are these non-neutralizing antibodies that as you're saying in the lower respiratory track are protecting us at the moment but all of the focus of this virus mutation is no longer spending its energy trying to figure out how to be infectious it has achieved that it has gotten around the vaccine now is working on its last issue which is all i have to do is figure out how to get around these non-neutralizing antibodies and lo and behold now i'm going to be virulent Now I'm going to be it right now.

Those non-neutralizing antibodies are stopping trans infection between cells in the lungs, and that is what's protecting us. But this virus is studying those non-neutralizing antibodies, and it is working to figure out a way. It is selecting for a virus, a variant, that will get around those non-neutralizing antibodies, and once that happens, trans infection will then happen in the lungs, and we will start seeing people getting a severe disease in the lungs.

Of course, somebody who completely has no clue says, wow, you know, that is fantastic. We prevent severe disease and we have a virus that spreads, you know, very massively. So we're going to have herd immunity in no time. And then you also add to that the vaccine-induced immunity. So all immunity is good, folks, don't bother. And we have no hospitalizations or low rates of hospitalization. low rate of morbidity and mortality. So this is the end of the pandemic failure.

I mean, this is an unbelievable, dangerous nonsense. This virus is just preparing. It's the valley of fitness. I cannot imagine that this will take more than like a month or two months before we start to see the first combination of highly infectious viruses. variants that are also more virulent. Well, I've said it before.

As we've covered Geert, he's been incredibly accurate throughout this entire pandemic. And once again, just two weeks ago, we started seeing a glimpse of something that was worrying. It was out of Portugal, and this is one of the headlines, Omicron sub-variant drives spike in cases and deaths in Portugal. We talked about the fact that Portugal is one of the most vast. vaccinated nations in the world, bragging that there's no one left to vaccinate. And now two weeks ago, their hospitalizations and death rates were starting to rise. Again, that doesn't necessarily prove the point.

We wanted to see, well, what else starts happening? We are tracking this. We are all in this. I'm not making, you know, psychic projections. Neither is Geert van den Bosch. But he is following the science. We're following that. And so this week, it became very alarming as we saw some new headlines.

coming out and want to share those with you now. And now in Israel sees a 70% spike in number of seriously ill COVID patients within a week. Remember, Israel was the one that sold their entire nation to Pfizer to become the largest test group in the world. While Israel has seen rising infection numbers for a few weeks, a rise in seriously ill patients marks a real concern as the country deals with the spread of the new variant BA5, with experts warning that hospitals may need to reopen COVID wards. The number was up from 85 seriously ill patients on Friday last week.

This is important because what we've been being told, they've given up on everything that essentially they lied about, which was that the vaccine was 95% effective, that it would end this pandemic, that it would get us to hurt immunity. All of that is out the door. With Omicron, Delta, we started seeing many breakthrough cases in the vaccine.

Amacron just laughed at the vaccine. And one thing I want to make clear, We can no longer call these immunizations. They don't make you immune to anything. They change even the definition of the CDC of what a vaccine does. So now it doesn't stop infection. They've given up on that. The idea of herd immunity is dead.

Now we're all going to have to learn to live with it. But they've been bragging that it is still stopping serious illness and death. That is why it is so alarming what we're seeing coming out of Israel saying, we are now seeing a rise in serious illness, which would start to tell us there's a possibility that this vaccine may be failing to do the only thing it had left, the only bragging right they were holding on to, what's his ability to limit serious illness and death. And now, out of the UK, we have a similar headline and look at what they're saying.

COVID, Amacron, sub-variants, evolving to target the lungs and overcome immunity as UK cases surge. Folks, I don't know what to tell you. This is exactly the words here at Van der Boch said, look out. He said, I think within one month, no more than two months, you will start seeing headlines that this has somehow gotten around the vaccine and is now affecting the lungs. Here's a couple of quotes from this article. According to preliminary data from Kisato and the University of Tokyo and colleagues, BA4, BA5, and BA212 may have evolved to refavor infection of lung cells,

rather than upper respiratory tract tissue, making them more similar to earlier variants, such as alpha or delta. It looks as though these things are switching back to the more dangerous form of infection, so going lower down in the lung, Dr. Stephen Griffin, a biologist at the University of Leeds said. Now, again, this is just one doctor's opinion,

but we're seeing Portugal, we see Israel, and now we're seeing UK seeing the same thing, a rise in serious illness and deaths happening now in these countries. And what are they saying? The thing we were the most worried about that is now not only breaking through the vaccine, it appears to be infecting the lungs. Remember that now we are dealing with a higher infection rate. As Gert pointed out, the vaccine is helping it infect the body. So it is doing what we talked about almost on day one of the coronavirus here at the high wire. We were worried about antibody dependent enhancement, disease enhancement. We've already seen

infection enhancement by this virus and by this the vaccine with Omicron. Now if this is true, what happens when we take a vaccine that is helping it infect our bodies and now it is going to start going back to the deadly part of this, which is in our lungs? Incredibly, incredibly concerning. And, you know, of course, we're just watching this. We're not in control of it. Hopefully somehow these scientists are wrong or maybe. we're just seeing a blip and it goes away.

But as we look at the United States of America and wonder, well, why aren't we seeing it here when we look at the data tracker here in the United States? This is what you have to know. In those countries, B-A-4 and B-A-5 is becoming the dominant strain right now in the United States of America. When we reported on Portugal, I think it was two weeks ago, we said it was about 13% of the cases in America where B-A-4 and 5, now if you look at that green, B-A-5 and B-A-4 are now making up about 30% of, 30% of the cases in America. We said that we thought by the end, I think it was of July, at the current rate, that this

would be the dominant strain. If this strain is doing what we are seeing it doing in Israel, Portugal, perhaps the UK, we may be in for a heck of a ride here. And so what I want to point out is, as Geert Band & Bosch has been predicting this issue, that the vaccinated would ultimately drive a more deadly variant. And as he said, the last time he was here seven weeks ago, he doesn't believe this variant is going to affect the unvaccinated who have been in contact with Omicron this whole time. We're being rebooted, even when we're not getting sick. We are totally up to date.

This is just going to be like a new update on our computer. But for those that are vaccinated, it is going to be catastrophic because their bodies, as we've talked about before, have specific antibodies looking for really the extinct virus, the original. virus out of Wuhan. That's what they're vaccinating for. This virus is it's almost a totally different virus. And so now what happens when the vaccine isn't protecting, has lowered the immune system, and now apparently is setting up for what could be a wave of serious illness and death. And what I want to talk about is what Geert goes on to say. What is it we have to worry about? What is it that we should protect more than anything in this world? Take a look at this. My frustration is that the message is so difficult to convey, whereas this naive narrative that these guys are spreading is so easy for people to understand.

It's basically, you know, shut up and get yourself vaccinated and also get your kids vaccinated, which is the biggest disaster ever because this is the biggest reservoir for herd immunity. They have innate immunity. They can clear this virus. You know, this is from a public health viewpoint, a disaster, not only for the child, but also, and the more children we will vaccinate, the more we will, of course, expedite, his immune escape, and get to this kind of variant that will not only be highly infectious, fully resistant to the vaccines, and also highly virulent, right? And that is where these guys, you know, if they don't believe me, they should simply wait and see what is going to happen, but it will be too late.

I mean, this idea of vaccinating the children is saying he has set up in the beginning, that is the only innate immunity that we've got to keep them healthy. We've got to keep their innate immune systems intact. Vaccinating them will drive the serious problem. I forgot to show you that there are now studies actually being done of BA4, BA5. This is out of biorex IV. This is what it goes on to say. You can read this.

These data suggests that the RBA, 121 and the RBA 4-5 more efficiently spread in the lung tissues compared to BA2, which is the original Omicron variant. So we now have science backing up the fact that it is the new variant of Amacron 4 and 5 that is now starting to grow around the world is infecting the lungs. And why are we talking about the kids? Why are we talking about all this? What do I mean about the stupid and the idiot train running together?

Well, it looks exactly like this. It's the news many parents have been waiting to hear since the start of the COVID pandemic more than two years ago. After years of waiting, kids under the age of five can now finally get that COVID vaccine shot. The Food and Drug Administration authorizing vaccines for children as young as six months. There have been 18 million children in our country that really haven't had an option of having a vaccine. And so this unanimous approval of both Moderna and Pfizer today is really exciting news for a lot of parents. Pfizer's is given in three shots, modernas in two, and at slightly different dosages. Parents should add this to the list of vaccines kids will need to get and recommend discussing it with their own pediatricians.

The Biden administration has been preparing for the rollout for weeks, allowing states, tribes, community health centers and pharmacies to pre-order millions of doses. Manufacturing companies can now begin shipping those doses across the country. I don't even know what to say. Honestly, it is so shocking that, first of all, just put all the science aside for a second. The statement that 18 million kids had been waiting for almost two years for this vaccine. Waiting, playing in parks, swimming in pools, perfectly freaking healthy, okay? Obviously not having this vaccine has not been a problem for them whatsoever. We have a zero death rate really amongst these kids.

And so here it is. look at this, zero to 19, the infection death rate is, this is among the infected, is a 0.0027% death rate. And so, yes, those 18 million kids, all of them remaining alive the entire time, can now and go and wipe out their own innate immune system with a totally antiquated vaccine that doesn't look anything like the virus that is now on this planet, driving viral immune escape to, like, to the day of what Gert Van der Boch has said. And really, do we even need to go beyond that?

How about just to the looks of these kids? What are we doing? What are we doing? Any parent out there, I'm sorry. At this point, you should know better. You are seeing the injuries. The stories are everywhere. Have you lost your freaking minds?

Your child is perfectly healthy before you did this to them. Please, wake up now with everyone you know, every friend you have. Stop this madness before we destroy. that is good in this world. Yes, I'm being that emphatic about this today. Luckily, I'm not alone. Luckily, this conversation has shifted a long ways since I started having it before the COVID pandemic when we were trying to get politicians to wake up and look at the facts of these vaccines, the injuries that are happening to our kids, two people, and, you know, just, you know, their eyes would glaze over. You say things like, do you not recognize that there is no liability

on this industry, that they are just, this is one of the most dangerous industries. There is no liability on this products. They didn't seem to care. Well, luckily now, more and more politicians are caring. So before the FDA approved this vaccine this week, in fact, a couple of weeks ago, several politicians got together to write a letter. This was really drafted by Louis Gomer's office, Congressman Louis Gomer in Texas, signed by Congressman Bill Posey, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, with 18 other signatories

so far. Take a look at this. This is the press release on the website. You can check it out. Here are their questions. Why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? If approved and widely used among children ages 5 and under, how many lives this FDA estimate will be saved in this age group over the next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA's own VAIRS system, how will the FDA evaluate potential tradeoffs of serious infection injuries versus serious COVID outcomes. Another question, how many healthy children ages 5 and under without pre-existing medical conditions have died or been hospitalized from COVID or its variants?

CDC reports zero positivity of 68% of children 1 to 4 years old, 77% for those 5 to 11, and 74% children ages 12 to 17, with two additional COVID waves since this data was reported. and corresponding increases in syrup positivity, what percentage does FDA consider herd immunity? And lastly, why has the FDA been so slow to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from pre-approval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data, other post-approval manufacturer data submitted to the FDA as required by law? All good questions. It is my honor and distinct pleasure to be joined right now by Congress.

Louis Gomer. So how did Verbeck and the FDA respond to this letter? Well, that's interesting, Dale. Thank you for noting they're good questions. They're important questions. We're talking about the lives of our children. These aren't people at the end of their lives. They haven't had their lives yet. They're just getting started. And the FDA has been totally silent. No response. than to say, you know what, we're going to go ahead and approve the jab for five years of age and under. And we keep coming. And I really appreciate you reading the part about how the percentage of these children, they're already positive for having had this, they've got it in their system.

Right. So they've got antibodies, surely they're, you know, this is how you get to herd immunity. Right. And yet they're saying, gee, there may be 30% of these children or less. So we want to mandate the vaccination for all of them. And we're finding out there's all kinds of conditions that they're now at risk for by virtue of having the vaccination. And one right off the bat, these five years and unders, they're five times more likely. to have mild carditis. Yeah. You know, we've never had a vaccine where the FDA was so calloused about how many people

were hurt or killed. But then again, in my lifetime, I'm not aware of any vaccination where they look the other way that they have kept the emergency use authorization going when there's really, no emergency now. We have reached the level. And really, this was one of the things when I heard about Amicron, people going, oh my gosh, we're going to have to have

to have another shutdown. People, mainly Democrats, but people who are going, oh, we're going to have to have more shutdown, shutdown business, and going, no, no. This Omicron is an answer to prayer. This is a variant where you're more likely to catch it. And it's not killing people.

Very, very, very few people. And so this is where we hoped it would go because there was a danger. We could have had a variant that was just as contagion and it killed people. And that didn't happen. So it was giving that herd immunity and helping that get around.

But now we're hearing from physicians that actually this MRNA vaccination, with each booster, it makes it more and more difficult to have antibodies attack the new variant. And so you're more susceptible to the new variants. But especially when you read about and you hear about the conditions that may be coming. So what we know about medicine and we know about judgment on whether or not to give consent after you're informed of the risks inherent to any procedure, any vaccination, we know you weigh the risks as compared to the rewards.

Yes. And this informed consent notion, Del, I know you're smart guy, you know. But I had read that medical historians say somewhere around 100 years ago, maybe before the end of World War I. But right in there, there were some protocols that came out. They think that may have been a factor. But medical historians have said for the first time in all of human history, you had a better chance of getting well after seeing a doctor than you did of getting. sicker. Well, you think about the thousands of years of recorded history, and just in that period, we only have the last hundred years where you have a better chance of getting well after seeing a

doctor. And along those lines, along those years, we develop this informed consent for a free people. It is one of the most important medical doctrines that exist, that you get to talk. with your physician about your biological makeup, the things you're vulnerable to, you're less vulnerable to, and the risks inherent to whatever is being proposed, whether vaccination or surgery, whatever. And then you get to make the decision whether to go forward. And of course, like surgeries, they have you sign the form and say, I've been advised of all the risks inherent to this and sometimes they'll put them down and then you sign that you're willing to assume those risks and that's one of the problems with this mandated vaccination uh it you don't get to make an informed

consent decision it's basically forced on you and these kids they're kids that's why we have laws saying they can't agree they can't enter contracts without the consent of an adult. Right. And yet we're going to have the government say, we think these kids should have this shot mandated, even though they're five times more likely to have mild carditis and have other debilitating conditions arise. And the, I know you know, but the emergency use authorization, it just can't be

overemphasized. That brings with it totally. immunity to the pharmaceuticals that manufactured the vaccination and also all of the health care providers that stuck you with it. Well, that's not the way things have gone. We have a very enlightened judicial system where if somebody fails to inform you of the risks inherent, just fails to inform you. Yeah. And you suffer at all. You can sue them for that. And if someone forces you to do something that you didn't want to do and you have any damage at all, then you get to sue over that.

This emergency use authorization totally— It throws our entire system into the garbage can. Yeah, I mean, it just destroys how our system works, a free market system. I'm sitting here, I mean, I have to say, Representative Gomer, I am—I'm blowing away, as I think much of our audience, many of whom are parents of children who have been injured previously, we have been trying to get politicians to look at the subject, to talk about the subject, to have you here now, saying the things that you're saying, it's like the clouds have parted and the sunlight is shining down on us,

because though this seems like such reasonable information, our government has seriously denied any conversation like the one that we're having right here. here. So can I just ask you, what was it that triggered it for you? Like, what, at what moment did you say, hold on a second, something's wrong here? What, what was that, what was that sort of aha moment for you? Well, Dale, there were many factors that caused concerns along the way. You know, I, as a lawyer, I defended medical malpractice case. This was back before I was a judge and Chief Justice before Congress. And there were a couple in which I was represented in plaintiff,

but mainly malpractice defense. So these are all things that are quite familiar to me. These are legal mechanisms that we see utilized constantly. But there was a moment, and it was a moment. And it was when a pharmacist friend said, have you seen the warnings that come in the package with the vial of the vaccine? And I said, no. And Dale, he got it out. And you've seen these probably thousands of times because they have to have the warnings with any product.

whether it's an insecticide, whatever it is. It's got to have warnings on it. I mean, you get any engine oil, whatever, it's going to have warnings. Here, don't drink this, whatever. Whatever you need to be warned about, it's on there. And sometimes, you know, they'll tell you, there'll be warnings. You know, don't put this electric fan in your bathwater or whatever. Things you never thought you'd have to warn people about, but it's all there.

Yeah, but you do. Yeah. But you have to warn people because somebody was stupid enough to do whatever you're being warned about. Yeah. So he took out the little bitty, it's folded up into a tiny thing, so it fits in the little bitty box that has the vial vaccine in it. He pulls it out and I pull it out. And you can see it was for a specific vaccine. It was actually the Johnson and Johnson.

but it says which vaccine it is, and it says for emergency use authorization. Well, that tells you they have complete immunity. So then I start opening it up, and it ends up being huge, and it's totally blank on both sides, except for that little bitty rectangle where it tells you it's Johnson & Johnson for Emergency Use Authorization. I went, you know they know about things that are a risk with this vaccine. Where are all the warnings? And he said, it's right there in the words emergency use authorization.

Because it says emergency use authorization that's been provided by the FDA, they don't have to warn you about anything because no matter what happens, they're complete immune. So Dale, to answer the question specifically, and I've never been asked that question before, but that was really the big wake up. Oh my gosh, I've never, ever in my life. And I'm talking about as a judge, I tried so many cases, you know,

but there's no warnings whatsoever. And that's one of the questions that you read, you know, you've got hundreds of thousands of pages of documented problems. What are they? And all your hand in the public is a giant, clean, blank piece of paper. Look, I want to show everybody because obviously you're so in this now, you're so passionate about it, that when you didn't get a response to this totally reasonable letter,

you went and signed up to be one of the speakers at the Virpac meeting. That's the vaccine and related biological products advisory committee. And I have that recording. So if you would indulge us just for a couple more minutes, let's play exactly what you said to the FDA at the Burbank meeting. Here it is. The next speaker is Congressman Louis Gomez. You have three minutes.

Yes. Thank you very much. There are many unanswered questions regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines, especially for babies and young children. I'm deeply concerned that the push to vaccinate these children, is nothing more than a dystopian experiment with unknown consequences. Some of us have outlined these questions in a letter to Verpack but have not received any answers and I post some of them here.

The letters at my website, gomert.house.gov and my Twitter account at Rep. Louis Gomert. But number one, why has the FDA refused to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from pre-approval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data, and other post-approval manufacturer data. Number two, what is the cardiac risk factor in administering these COVID vaccines to children? Number three, would renowned immunologists have raised concerns about potential antibody dependent enhancement, ADE, resulting from COVID vaccines. And since ADE was a problem in prior unrelated respiratory vaccine trials, we need to know what studies, if any, the FDA has that it's used regarding potential ADE from COVID vaccines and children five and under

or any age group. Can the FDA affirm that there's no risk of ADE for vaccinated children? Number four, if approved and widely used among children five and under, how many lives, if any, does FDA estimate will be saved next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA's VAIR system, how will FDA evaluate serious vaccine injuries versus serious COVID outcomes? Number five, is it possible that the proposed COVID vaccines and young children would create increased risk from future novel COVID variants?

Number six, why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? This change significantly lowers the expected benefits from any COVID vaccination for young children, And it's of particular concern, given that over 70% of that age cohort, are already seropositive. These questions and others are critical and deserve thorough answers by FDA and FERPAC prior to any emergency use authorization with the accompanying protection from liability for all harm done. In conclusion, some of us have grave concerns that in balancing the risks to rewards here, all the risks are to the innocent children and all the billions of dollars of rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals,

leaving me to wonder if Republicans get a majority may need to have a bill, I'm working on it now, to allow civil and criminal liability to vaccine providers and accessories despite an EUA, which should force more sensitivity to vaccine harm to our young children. We've got to care more about the children. and I appreciate the time to express this. Wow. I mean, there's so much that we could unpack there, a lot of what we've discussed on this show. But I want to say to you, the way you end that is truly a shot across the bow in many ways and one that we've wanted to see happen for a very long time. You know, I personally have said to people, you know, in this movement that are trying to get more transparency in the science around this,

I think I would be willing to walk away. I ruined my television career getting into the middle of this conversation around vaccine safeties. But it's really down to this, this liability protection, I keep saying, look, if you would just put liability back on the manufacturer, if this product is so great, if it is so safe and so effective, then, you know, and you're making tens of billions of dollars on each vaccine right now. So if it's like a one in a million injury that you're telling us about, I'm pretty sure you can

afford the lawsuit on the one in a million. So why is there this liability protection? To me, if we could just make that adjustment and get America back on track, back to, you know, natural market forces, we could write this ship. We could get back to trusting our regulatory agencies. I mean, they are so afoul now with the population. It's amazing when you watch these meetings that they do not see that the country is leaving them. The confidence in not only COVID vaccine, but the entire vaccine program is in shambles, and yet they keep driving forward with these protections. Here's my question to you. I've been talking to politicians over the last five or six years, congressmen, senators, state representatives, federal representatives,

and I can't tell you how many times I would say you know that vaccines have liability to protection. You cannot sue the manufacturer, and they would look at me like I was lying. And so my question to you, is this an understanding that is starting to be more well-understretched? amongst your colleagues that, I mean, is everyone aware that you cannot sue the manufacturer? That it's like the only product like it in this country? Or is this work that, as we of the viewers and your constituents, do we need to do a better job talking to our representatives about this? Where is the climate right now on that conversation?

Well, enough people do not understand that there is complete immunity. to the pharmaceuticals, to the providers that provide these. And so you have put your finger right on the pulse of what will make a break the situation. Like you said, Del, if this is so great, then you should not have any fear about liability. If you cause liability, then, you know, you own up to it. And if you've got the document that you've got,

shows they were warned in advance that these were possibilities they signed on assuming the risk of the inherent risk of the procedure in this case vaccination then they're out of luck they can't sue the immunities there but until you actually warn people you should not be immune and the direct answer to your question is no people are not understanding the extent of the immunity that these pharmaceuticals raking in the billions and billions of dollars they're getting giddy and i think they're beginning to be a bit like the character in lord of the rings mine mine you know their gold ring here and they're not going to give it up and they're not going to allow immunity to be taken away from them so it's it's a little bit

little scary. This is not like anything that has happened in medicine in the last 130 years or so. This is very different. And we are throwing wrists, you know, out the door. Yeah. And saying too bad about the wrist. And I tell you, being someone who's been vocal about this, I hear about things. But one was a guy that works here with me. He had a cousin in West Virginia who got the vaccination and immediately developed blood clots and died very quickly. And he had been treated for some other things and had no blood clots. They knew that. He gets the vaccination immediately filled up with blood clots and died. So his personal physician put down on the death certificate the cause of death was the vaccination.

And he was immediately verbally assaulted by the local health officers saying, you can't put that the cause of death was the vaccination. And he said, there's no question in my mind. It was the vaccination. I'm not going to remove it. And the widow was upset because. clearly it was the vaccination. But then they continued to hear from government officials that they would not certify the death certificate as long as the cause of death was listed as the vaccination.

Wow. And if you've lost people you love, you know, to even pick up and start, you can't transfer money from accounts. You can't transfer ownership of your car. You've got to have a death certificate to do to get life going again and so she finally caved and said look just get me a death certificate i can't stay in limbo like this so they took the vaccination off as the cause of death well dale you got to wonder how many times has this played out how many times has bears gotten this kind of information exactly and they just sit on it kill it how much of this is in the hundreds of thousands of that they will not let us see. So we've got a lot more to find out,

but there are too many people in Congress that have not realized just what the immunity does. And then eventually, as people continue, they persist in providing this immunity to the pharmaceuticals, you wonder, eventually, are you getting a bunch of money from these people too? I mean, is this what's happening? This is what's happening?

Because, you know, as Russell Limba always said, just follow the money. Just follow the money. Well, look, you know, I know you're working on a bill to get to the bottom of this, to really put liability back on the manufacturer. I want to let you know here at the High Wire, we're not a political organization. I don't choose sides. I will get behind any politician there is that will just get back to the market forces, treat vaccines just like you treat every other drug we take in this country.

Go ahead do the proper safety trials that can make you feel confident about your product. But once you put it out to the people, it's on you if it kills, injures, and maim's people. The government should not be making a business of protecting, you know, things like that. The various system, death records, things like that. This is, I think, when we think about the problems in our government, nothing is really representing that more. And to be honest, if we do not correct these things, and I know you know this, the voting public, the population of America is going to lose all faith, not just in our health care systems, in our medical systems, but our government itself.

We are seeing the deaths. Everyone's on Facebook. They're on Twitter. We're seeing our neighbor's children die for no reason. We're seeing them fall face first in the soccer field or the football field and being carted off when that's never happened before. So I just want to thank you for your time today. I hope we can keep this dialogue open. I want you to keep me abreast of how this bill goes along. And I just want you to know that our audience of now over 6 million people worldwide, millions here in America, growing every day, is behind you 100%. Please write that law. Please work on getting that passed. We will do everything to talk to every senator and congressman in this country to support you in that work, okay?

Well, and I would suggest, Dale, talk to a pharmacist friend and get a copy of the warnings of one of these vaccines, and you can show your audience. It really is breathtaking to see that much blank paper. And I said to the pharmacist, why is all this? As I said, he said, well, it's the emergency use of others. Yeah. Then why do they have all this blank paper? And he said, well, they apparently have warnings to fill all of that if they're ever required to post them. Well, if they've got that much in the way of small font warnings, they need to put them on that paper.

You're absolutely right. Congressman Louis Gomer, thank you for the time. Thank you for serving the people at a time where so few people are doing it. And we will talk with you soon. Have a blessed day. Thank you. Bless you. Thanks so much. All right. Take care. Everybody, go to Gomer's website, gomer.h.hous.gov. Let's support him.

Take a look at this press release. This is your government finally doing what it should have done a long time ago. I hope you give him a lot of love because obviously when a politician starts putting it out there like that, we're seeing the pressure on the doctors and scientists that are speaking the truth. You can't imagine what happens when government officials start, you know, honing in on that bull's eye. You know, as I, as, you know, we look at this, I want to say that, you know, it brought up a thought with me, which is this is one of the things that we're doing with the informed consent action network that you don't see. You know, I've talked about how, when you support the informed consent action network, we support the high wire with your donations,

you make it possible for us to do this incredible show. You make it impossible to bring the lawsuits we're bringing through Syrian Glemstad. We've won the, the vaccine, the minor consent for vaccine case, our biggest win yet in D.C. But look at all the wins we've had, health and human services, CDC, FDA, the National Institute of Health, all of this is being made possible by your work. But what you're not seeing is, as I keep telling you, I'm traveling, I'm traveling. We've been talking to politicians that I said in that interview for six years now, talking about policies they should be working on, talking about this issue of liability protection.

And so when we're starting to see last week, Ron Johnson, this week, Louis Gomer, you know, I'm not going to say that I'm directly, you know, working on this moment. But what we're seeing is that this infiltration, this discussion has been happening with politicians is starting to truly see an effect. These ballasts are filled with air and they are rising to the top. And so all of that has made possible. All this flying, all this traveling, all of this meeting with politicians, discussing policies. All of it's a part of what you're supporting. when you're supporting the Highwire. So please, if you're one of those people that's watching this show,

you love what you're getting. And by the way, you're going to have links to everything you've seen so far and wait to you see what's coming in the rest of the show. All that made possible through your donations. If you're just watching, please get active. Join us now. Go to thehighwire.com, which is where you're probably at right now. Donate to ICANN is the button at the top of the page.

We would love for those of you that are out there, you know, just become a recurring donor. it's a cup of coffee every month, seriously. You know, vote with your dollars. Where is your energy going? But I want to make a plea out there to those of you that have done very well. You know, I know that the millionaires and billionaires out there in the United States of America and around the world, you're saving monarch butterflies and you're investing in

these types of things. But honestly, what other thing could you be involved in that delivers the amount of wins, the amount of truth and the reality and shows you every single week we are. progressing in ways that no one ever dreamed was possible. I just showed you a couple of weeks ago, New York Times saying that we have made it so that people are questioning the CDC. I sat in rooms with large donors like yourself and you thought it was impossible to achieve it. We are achieving it. We need your help. I'm telling you what you're about to see. Well, we just talked about with gear, where we're going with how insane these people are inside of our health regulation agencies.

We really need your help now. This is big time. We have. got this entire situation on the defensive in many ways. They're making one mistake after another, but we can't hold them accountable if we can't drag them in the courtrooms. We can't hold them accountable. We can't get the people to rise up and start making different decisions in the voting booths and choosing people, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, but stand for free choice, stand for health and freedom and liberty. All of that is all packed together in this amazing enterprise right now that I feel so lucky to be a part of. Please help us with this. work the time is critical now all right so speaking of critical we have a huge show coming up we are

going to be talking uh with diagnostic pathologist Claire Craig she is going to take us through the details of the actual evidence they were looking at when they approved us for this vaccine COVID vaccine for infants and toddlers uh it's going to blow your mind but before we do that why don't we let Jeffrey Jackson blow our minds all right Jeffrey Jackson he's best He's a changed man. He's a different man. We didn't see you last week on a honeymoon. First of all, is it feel different?

How's married life? Absolutely feels different. I mean, it was such a beautiful time to take a moment to honor the union, bring our families and friends together. And I'm back and I'm locked and loaded. And we have some serious business to talk about, Del. All right, let's get into it. All right.

Well, let's start with the ASIP committee. This is the advisory committee on immunization practices. And they have recently recommended COVID vaccines for children six months and older. Here's the headline CDC recommends COVID vaccines for children as young as six months. And then we have the FDA just before that authorizing Moderna and Pfizer bio-end tech COVID vaccines for children six months and older. This was at the Virpac meeting. That's the, as you said, the vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. But what I want to do here is, is, you know, there's been, there's been a lot of reporting on this.

People are really up in arms about this. This is really the big topic, the big conversation. I want to go directly to those meetings, directly to those experts and those advisors. And I want the public to hear from them. So let's start. Let's jump right in here. Okay. This was Dr. Wayne A. Morasco.

He's a cancer researcher, a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. And he was talking about the follow-up for the efficacy for these vaccines. Now, this was for the Moderna vaccine at the Verpak meeting. And the FDA, just as a side note, the Pfizer vaccine was out front. It was approved for EUA for adolescents first and kids and adults first. Modern was kind of waiting in the wings, it kind of back there. But that was all caught up now. So it's all caught up.

So this was during the Verpak meeting. This was what he had to say. He had some questions. Take a listen. Right. Start of the pandemic, it's pretty clear that the war was somewhat lower in terms of vaccine efficacy because we were trying to get vaccines out the door and get the population in the data that I saw on P203, unless I'm mistaken, you know, the follow up in terms

of efficacy was, you know, basically 60 days after the second dose. So, I mean, we know that, I know I keep harping on this, but it seems to be an important point. You know, these vaccines are of a limited duration, and while they're protective, it's of limited duration, even and even more so with immunobridging. And my question is, you know, are we really capturing viral efficacy as a function of time because what this vaccine, these vaccines need, is really to be able to try to get more durability out? and immunobridging, not just immunobridging. So I just like it possible as a representative from CBER

to address that if it's possible. Well, I will start. I'm not quite sure I'm going to address your question, but I guess the study P203, as I mentioned, because of the availability of an alternate COVID-19 vaccine, after a certain period of time after basically end of May, we have lost the placebo group, so we cannot really say, anything about the duration of vaccine efficacy after that.

There's more efficacy data, basically, after that time point. So unfortunately, all we are limited to in this study would be the results that we have shown in the slide with the data caught off. The latest one would be the May 31st one. And that is still, unfortunately, very few cases. So there's nothing that we have from the clinical studies that will give us more information about the durability

of the vaccine efficacy. And I guess it will have to come from the real world effectiveness. Wow, I mean, look, for people out there, I get it. Some of this is sort of sciencey, what are they talking about? But you really just get a sense of a very important question by scientists, looking at efficacy, you know, and saying, I'm only seeing this short period of time. I essentially know these vaccines are wearing off. That is one of the issues.

Durability is our problem. Do we, I mean, are we looking at, you know, long. longer term. What happens after this 60 days? And what was so shocking to me about what she said is, well, at that point, we don't have a placebo group anymore. So does that, why is that? Is that because they just vaccinated the placebo group before they ever got any longer term data? Yeah, the study protocol at that point was revised. They unblinded everybody. They offered the vaccine to everybody. And at that point, the placebo group was gone. So that study is essentially like someone building a sandcastle and then a bunch of people coming along and just wrecking. It's gone.

They have no more data. So we have the, they have the, we have these, what we're told are some of the best experts in the country asking for data. Hey, we need this data. We have an important decision we're about to make here. Where is it? Don't have it. We vaccinated the placebo proofs. Gone forever. That's what she told her right there. This is like a kid saying I did, I did the paper. I just tore it up. I mean, yeah, you didn't see the last paragraph from my conclusion because I tore it up. I mean, this is insane the fact that, and for anyone, any doctor assigned to, this out there that would argue that it's okay to erase the placebo group. No, it's not. You just got a question you now cannot answer that you could have answered had you done proper long-term

science, which is something we've been complaining about from the beginning. And right here she admits, sorry, we erase the placebo group. So that information you want, yeah, not capable for the most important health agency in the world to determine the CDC and the FDA. Unbelievable. Understand what she said at the end there. I guess we're going to have to We're just have to rely on real world data. That's you, everybody out there. You're the vaccine experiment group. She said that in not so uncertain terms.

Right, because that's so easy to track. It's so easy to track with a system we don't trust called the VERS system. So now everybody that gets injured, all the efficacy that doesn't work and say, well, we can't really trust that information. It's real world data and it's underreported. I mean, this whole scam would not be so frustrating if we weren't going to watch children die because of it. All right, I'm going to let you move on. I'm sure there's other things that will get under my, get me hot into the collar here. We have some clips to get through, but just buckle up here.

So now let's switch to the ASIP meeting. This is the CDC's ASIP meeting. This is where they recommend things to put on the childhood schedules. They recommend them. This gets them out in the circulation. The FDA just kind of approves them, gives them the regulatory green light. The CDC really puts them out there. So this is at their meeting.

This was family physician, Jamie Lauer. And he had a question. Again, efficacy was the big deal throughout these two meetings. The efficacy data just wasn't there. So there's a lot of questions on that. Listen to what he had to say. If you notice that in our, you know, summary conclusion slides for benefits and risk, we didn't quote efficacy estimates. I think we tried to lean into, you know, these vaccines, a primary series provides protection against infection and we'll continue, you know, to provide higher protection.

We assume against more severe disease, but fully agree that. that there's differences in certainty, the fact that we're making decisions based on both efficacy and immunobridging is a part of the total picture, and we'll monitor all of this really closely in the post authorization studies. Thanks, Dr. Lara.

Thank you, Dr. Oliver, for an excellent presentation. I have wanted to reemphasize what Dr. Long and Dr. Lee just said that we're, I'm voting to approve this, of immunobridging studies and not based on the efficacy and that when I read or hear from people that Pfizer has better efficacy in the original data, I feel like I need to correct them that the data

is just not there yet to be able to stay with certainty that is true, the certainty is not there. And so I would like to emphasize again that the immunobridging is suggesting that this is a very good, vaccine and the efficacy data still needs to come in the future as we get more data. Very good vaccine that we know nothing about the effectiveness. I mean, can you explain to me this, we keep hearing this term immunobritching. What does immunobringing mean? Yeah, so this was a kind of a

shortcut in place of the efficacy. And they're using that. They use it because the efficacy trials, as he said, just aren't there. The data is just not there. So what they do is they find the tithers, the antibody titers, the neutralization antibody titers in the studies, but there's no real guardrails on it. So they're not looking at this many kids here, this many kids here to do the vaccine effectiveness. They're just saying, hey, we found some titers in these kids. And they're similar to the studies that were done in adults a long time ago, two years ago. So we're just going to assume that it's going to be the same efficacy. So they basically took adult studies, said when we saw titers at this level, we saw the efficacy in adults was about here.

So when we see these titers, we don't have the efficacy data because we erased our placebo group and we'll never see that. But we're going to make assumptions based on the titers we saw in the adults. We see some of those titers in the children. We'll say based on immunobritching, this bridge between two different realities, two different age groups with different immune systems, different maturity immune systems. We're going to make the assumption that it's the same. That's essentially what they're doing. Okay. Against different variants.

Yeah. Yeah. against different variants, very important. And that brings us in our next clip. We have Dr. Paul Offutt. Anybody that watches this show should know who this guy is. We've talked about him quite a bit. And he brought up a question about the variants.

As you spoke about, we have sub-variant four, five sub-variant two, one, two-one of this Amacron variant. These are like 90% of the current circulating variants that these children, these six-month-old and older, are going to get vaccinated against now. Yeah. So he had a question about the strains and the studies. Listen to this. So this is for Dr. Fleming-Dutra.

So thank you for that compelling presentation. You've made it clear that this can be a serious and occasionally fatal disease and young children. The data that you presented were primarily based, I guess, on Omicron to a lesser extent on the variants that circulated before Omicron. Those variants, including Omicron, are largely gone from the United States. So my question to you is, do you have any information on the Omicron sub-Variants like B-A-2 or B-A-2-1-2-1-1 or B-A-5 that are now more commonly, circulating to be equally virulent. And in this country,

about in other countries where those viruses were circulating before here? So thank you for that question. As you said, the data that I presented are based on U.S. epidemiology. I tried to focus on Omicron predominance, which was

early, you know, B.A.1 and the B.A.2, but there are some data from prior in the pandemic. I do not have further information on the at the epidemiology from other countries that I can share at this point. Wow, great.

I mean, it's what I said at the top of the show. We know this. You're literally using a vaccine for the Wuhan strain and we're like, you know, hundreds of strains away from that now, Amacron. And then I love how she says, I tried to focus on Amicron, which says to me, actually a lot of this information

is probably Delta and other, you know, but wherever we could get Amicron, but it's not B.A. 2, 1 2, 1, I think it is, and BA 4 and 5, which literally is the problem we're in now. What a catastrophe this is going to be to take these 18 million kids that haven't had a single problem, have had no issue whatsoever. Now let's go ahead and vaccinate them with an antiquated vaccine. That is Paul Offutt just clearly pointed out.

Did we look at how it's going to affect the actual strains on the planet? No, once again, terrible answer. No data on that. Right, right. That is zero at the moment. Right. Now we get into the elephant in the room and it's starting to be called out here with these comments. So really quickly at the Verbeck meeting, just like the ASIP meeting, these members had to sit through and listen to comment after comment in the comment section of parents and health professionals slamming this move to try and green light these vaccines for these kids.

So we have Cody Messinier. He's a professor of pediatrics at Tuft University School of Medicine. And he kind of just threw it right out there about communicating this extremely small risk that these kids have for COVID-19 and the issues of it to parents. Take a listen. I don't think anyone could listen to the open public hearing session without being troubled by the diversity and the emotional commitment that's been put into. this issue of immunizing children between six months and five years.

It was quite moving. My personal feeling is that it would be hard not to include six months to five years of age in an amendment to the EUA in view of the strengths of the data that we have seen today. But I would like to make this comment. And I think it's very important, as Dr. Cohn said yesterday, that the communication or the messaging be made as clear as possible for parents to understand the relative risk and the relative benefit. I think we, for example, we've heard several times

that there are approximately 442 deaths so far in the pandemic among children less than five. So that means about 220 deaths a year approximately. If you look at the number of people who are struck by lightning in the United States on a year, It's 270. So we're talking about a very rare event. If we talk about hospitalizations among children

between six months and five years of age, the hospitalization rate on the CDC website, the latest site is 2.3 per 100,000 or 23 per million. And there are about 20 million children in this age group. So 20 times 23 is 460 hospitalizations associated with COVID in in this age group that we're considering today. And probably only a fraction of those are because of COVID-19 infection rather than a coincidental association. So really we'd be talking about vaccinating close to 20 million children in order to prevent two or 300 deaths.

And it's a matter of how an individual weighs the risk and benefits. I think the vaccine should be available for certainly high-risk children and for families that are so concerned they are troubled by that risk ratio, and they should have access to the vaccine. But I, again, feel very strong in parents should understand how small these numbers are. It's a very low risk from the vaccine, but it's also a very low risk from the infection itself. And I think that has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in

the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group. Wow. You know, that actually gives us, I think, some insight into what's happening in these voting meetings. In that clearly this Dr. Cody Messonnier is saying, I don't want this vaccine given to everybody. That makes absolutely no sense. There is clearly a risk from all the parents that we're hearing getting up on microphones. He is seeing the data with his own eyes. And so to give $20 million this vaccine for, I think he said, the $400 that were high.

I think he said is something like two per 100,000 that are being hospitalized. Folks, these are the numbers we're talking about. Why are we going to put this group at risk? He's saying everything I said. But what I think really gives me insight into the humanity, the human being side of this, because I don't, I'm one of these people, I'm not, I don't believe these people are evil. There is something that drives them to make these decisions. They want to make the world a better place themselves.

But you see, it's sort of, I was watching, when I'm watching this, I think about the times I've been, had jury duty and a courtroom works a little differently than you think where they really like narrowed the hallway with which you are making a decision about. Don't make it about this. Don't make it about this. Forget about all the side characters. You're only being asked, is this question true or false? And you're like, but you want to talk about the rest of it. In this case, you see how they compartmentalize these meetings. They compartmentalize them. So the discussions of how many children be injured really isn't what's happening here. It seems to me by what he's saying and why he's going to vote yes, clearly, is that it's really coming down to, and think about

yourself as a conservative. I've talked to a lot of conservatives now. They're like, you know, the government should be making decisions for you. So in their mind, what they're being tasked with is should you deny your children access to this vaccine when everyone else should get it? And what he's saying is there are people, whether or not doesn't use, you know, that they're like overly, you know, freaked out. The media has got them freaked out. But there are people. He's, he's, that are looking at this risk world ratio. They don't fully understand it. But I get it.

The vaccine is going to make them feel better. I want to make it, you know, available to them. But really all of these healthy children out there, they don't need this. And I want the languaging to say that. I feel like I'm picturing like a little lamb sitting there surrounded by drooling wolves saying, just hand it to his man. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

We're going to put all kinds of writing out there. Don't worry. Informed consent, they'll know about all the myocarditis and all that's not going to happen, Cody. It isn't going to happen. You just handed children to the wolves, the wolves that want to make billions of dollars off their backs and don't care whether they live or die. But you see how he's making that decision. He wants it to be available to those that want it, and that's it. Unfortunately for us, the next step will be mandating this in order to put your kid in school.

And that's where this thing is just going to get horrid. But super interesting. Obviously, he's concerned. You wonder how the rest of them are just sliding by all of the injuries that have clear. clearly the people have stepped up on microphones there or were zooming in to say they were worried about the injuries. Just incredible piece of information. And just to note, these were unanimous decisions at both Furback and CDC's ASIP. So we are listening to great, great questions. Yeah. And some pretty shocking answers. But, you know, when it came down to put the money where

your mouth is, that's what happened. So, you know, let's move on. So now they started talking about injuries, especially myocarditis. This is obviously a big issue for these kids, children, adolescents, teenagers, the heart inflammation, we've covered this way above background in all of these studies. And so we have Dr. Henry Bernstein. He's a New York pediatrician, and he had some really great questions to ask. Listen to this. My question relates to, and this may be a better question for the sponsor, but with concern to myocarditis, particularly in the males after dose number two, are data available or being collected using a lengthened interval between doses 1 and 2 in the primary series for those males 12 to 17 and those 18 to 25 young adults?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Dr. Bernstein. We, in our studies, our study populations were incredibly compliant. So we don't have any clinical data at more than a four-week's duration. But we are looking at, you know, kind of observational studies to help inform that. So you're looking at a longer interval between the primary series, the two doses, the primary series and older teenagers and young adults? So we are actually not looking at it.

I mean, I know there are other studies, other observational studies, such as those in Canada that have explored the longer interval. We are clinically not exploring the longer interval for adolescents. We are looking at infants and whether a longer interval would be beneficial there. Billions of dollars being spent by Joe Biden to track down people that don't trust these vaccines. to censor anybody that talks about the lack of science around it. But no, we're not doing any studies on timing and whether or not timing could maybe limit the swelling of our innocent children's hearts and putting them in hospitals and killing them

because simply I hope they never say we don't have funding for that as Biden's been sitting just doling out ridiculous amounts of money to stop freedom of speech. All right. And that's Moderna's vice president of clinical vaccine development. So the one issue their vaccine has, the biggest issue is myocarditis. This guy's asking, you know, do we're going to accordion this out, look for it a little longer timeframe than just this short time frame. How about in the kids?

No, we're not going to touch it. We'll leave that to real world data. Maybe fly your butt up to Canada so you can find some studies up there because we don't have them. I mean, how convenient. By the way, there's nothing you can do about it. You can't sue us. And why would we look into it? Why would we give ourselves a bad name when we're making tens of billions of dollars?

we've got no reason to do any studies that would give you any more information on myocarditis. Maybe you should do that. Right. And so that leads us perfectly into the next clip because just before we enter this clip, so there's the vaccine injury compensation program, typically all the vaccines that are on the childhood schedule, even adult flu shots, things like that. There's injuries there. That's where people go. So these vaccine manufacturers still have liability.

They have this special court through the government where they go. And that's a whole different story. But these emergency use authorization vaccines have something called the countermeasures injury compensation program. This thing has been described as a black hole. It rarely pays out to people. Someone asked about this and listen to what they had to say. It's around the subject. I'd like to follow up. Sure. And we have confirmation that any potential harm would be covered by the countermeasure injury compensation program versus. the vaccine injury compensation program?

I don't know if Dr. Haysting is on from HRSA. Is able to comment? I am on and as of right now, all vaccine claims are being processed through CICP. Okay, and Dr. Haythings, could you just give us an update on the status of the COVID-19 injury table? I'm sorry, can you clarify,

do you mean the total number of cases? or we do not have a CIC piece COVID-19 that's a specific table at this point if that's the question that is the question but it is in development is that correct um it is not fully in development at this time we're working on um different positions okay thank you very much for that information In some ways, I don't think a lot of people understood what's happening here. So you have the original protections given by the 1986 Act, often referenced as VICA, the Vaccinejury Compensation Act. This is a courtroom designed for all the childhood vaccines.

The emergency use authorization, and I think also through the PEP Act, set up a different court system, right? I forget what you called that. That one was called... The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. Countermeasures Injury Compensation. They said, how is that system working? and they basically said, oh, yeah, we're not using that.

We're running through the original VICA system. Oh, okay. So if that's where it's at, you know, the table of injuries. So there's a table of injuries. So remember, all this has happened, right? Like this light little cars, yeah, we kind of flipped it over this other core system. Let me remind you, reported on this just a couple of weeks ago, these headlines. Vaccine injury compensation programs are overwhelmed as congressional reform languishes.

They were talking about a parapederal programs compensating people who suffer injuries from vaccines and pandemic treatments are now facing so many claims that thousands of people may not receive payment for their injuries anytime soon. The first program meant for standard vaccines such as measles and polio has too little staff to handle the number of reported injuries and thousands of patients are waiting years for their cases to be heard. It goes on to say between 2010 and 2020, the countermeasure injury compensation program received 500 complaints in the two years since COVID-19. appeared, it has received over 8,000 complaints. 8,000 beavels should COVID-19 shots become routine once the pandemic ends, alleged injuries would eventually be handled by the already overburdened standard vaccine injury compensation program, which we just heard is where they are putting these things now.

Patient advocates, attorneys, and the pharmaceutical industry fear that without drastic reforms, that program could collapse. Despite bipartisan calls for change, Congress has failed to act, frustrating those who say that the VICP, which covers nearly three times, times as many vaccines today as it did when it was created three decades ago is overwhelmed. So what she's saying here is, you know, there are 8,000, probably more at this point. That's an older article, you know, 10,000 cases, people who are injured waiting to get into court and they're not even using the court system that was set up for this vaccine.

They're running it all through the one that was already overwhelmed with all the other childhood vaccines. And then the most shocking part of what she says, which is, you know, so you, you know, so you have a vaccine injury table for COVID-19, folks, this is huge. That vaccine injury table is what gives you the ability to sue. If you say, you know, measles caused encephalopathy, I mean, my measles vaccine, the MMR caused encephalopathy, it's got to be on that table or you can't sue. This is why people who say, my child regress into autism, if you go to this court and say,

my kid got autism right after the MMR vaccine, you will be thrown out of that court because it does not appear on the table of injuries. You have to choose something that's on that table. So a lot of the parents out there that watch autism take place after a vaccine, their lawyers, they have good lawyers say don't claim autism, claim the encephalopathy, the swelling of the brain that resulted in autism because that's the only thing that's on the table. And so if it's not on the table, you can't sue for it. It has to have been proven through this kangaroo court system. I've got shows all about this. But listen to what you. she just said, do we have a table for COVID-19? None. Zero. There's nothing on it. It's a zero.

There's nothing there. So how do you even go in the sue for something? There's nothing in there to point you to to say, look, there's no myocarditis. There's no blood clots you're telling me. There's no strokes. All the things that are being reported that the CDC's admitted to. There's no table there inside this court system. This is so shocking and inept and frankly, evil. This is getting to the point of being evil, how out of control this whole thing is now getting. And with no table, if someone goes into this countermeasures injury compensation program, they're going to be forced to prove the injury against government medical experts with unlimited funding. So they don't go in there with a sweet ride like you said and say, yeah, you know, a sore arm.

Well, it's on the table there. You've already admitted it. They have to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. And remember, the government doesn't have to prove it didn't happen. They just have to show if there's a possible probability it didn't happen, you're out of there. You're not getting the funding. And guess what science is going to. The science that says, well, actually, that was never proven because we erased our control group.

Do you see how all this starts coming together, folks? This is the whole thing. They've got this thing wrapped up in this sick, twisted little ball that we've got to break apart. Absolutely crazy. All right, Dell, audience, final clip here. Thanks for hanging with us here. So we bring in Dr. Wayne Marasco again, and he's talking to CDC's Dr. Catherine Fleming-Duittra. We're going to talk about her in a second a little further.

But he asked a question about the messaging. How are you going to message these vaccines? Kind of interesting. Take a listen. Yeah. You show us viral effectiveness, vaccine effectiveness, really dropping off in the population after about three months and your second dose. And even if you get a third dose, there's a drop off.

waiting immunity after perhaps maybe more months. So it looks like these vaccines are really only protecting, as we already know, for a period of, you know, three to six months. So my question really is, how do you message that to the people if it's really not going to be protective for a full year? I mean, this is a CGC messaging problem because I see that why would I get the vaccine or am I going to need to get it every six months? I mean, those kind of questions arise from this kind of data.

Perhaps you can address that. Sure. I mean, I think it goes to which outcome is under study. So most of the data that I showed where we actually had information further out from vaccination for kids was looking at infection. And so we do know that vaccines wane fairly quickly against infection during omacrone. That was not the case with earlier variants. But because most of the data we have for children is during omercrone, we do see that waning against infection. We know from the adult data that the vaccines wane much, much more flow.

against more severe outcomes like hospitalization. And so we would expect that since we see similar waning patterns for infection for adults and children, that we would see similar waning patterns for hospitalization for adults and children. Because hospitalization is generally more rare for children, and just because of the timing of when the vaccines came out in conjunction with the omicron surge ending, we don't have enough data to look at waning specifically against more severe disease, including hospitalization. in children. I mean, it doesn't stop infection.

Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't stop infection. We don't have the data show waning in hospitalization and severe illness. I mean, that's what is supposed to be for at this point, right? Doesn't have it. So, you know, as we're sitting here, our federal health agencies, as we're seeing, are essentially doing nothing to properly test the efficacy and the safety of these vaccines.

So it's going to be left up to the states. It's going to be left up to private companies to do to really, really put a stopgap measure here. And the first state really jumping into that pool with both feet is Florida and Governor Ron DeSantis. So he came out after the decision at Burbank and ASIP and had this to say at public comment section. Our Department of Health has been very clear. The risks outweigh the benefits and we recommend against. That's not the same as banning it. I mean, people can access it if they want to and parents can do. But if you look at when they were doing the hearing, you had one physicians say, you know, parents are really, really frightened. Like we know that the risk is low.

We're not sure how this is going to work, but we parents are really frightened about COVID for their kids. And which I would say is, why would they be frightened about it? It's because of media hysteria. It's because of a lot of misinformation. That's why they're scared. But to do an emergency use for a six-month-old or a one-year-old simply to placating. that's not the standard when you're doing this. The standard is, is this something that's safe and effective? And then very importantly for recommendations, does the benefit outweigh the risk? I keep forgetting that this isn't even in full authorization.

It's an emergency use authorization. What emergency? I mean, if Geert is right, we're about to have an emergency amongst the vaccinated. So please, by all means, let's add more people to that group. I mean, there is no emergency. These kids have been fine. What the heck is going on? And it really makes us realize when, remember just like it was a month ago, there was this idea,

should we lift the emergency and Biden and everybody wanted to reinstate it? This is why. They didn't want to get rid of the emergency, which no one is seeing around them, because they knew they wanted to have to rush these vaccines into the kids so that I'm guessing so that they get an immunity protection that they could get once it goes on to the actual CDC schedule. They've got to get that rolling. otherwise, you know, when the emergency lifts, now are they vulnerable to lawsuit? All of these huge questions.

But there was no emergency. They just wanted to be able to do crappy science. And the only way you're allowed to do crappy science if you say we're in the middle of an emergency. And you have a private company now also stepping up in Florida Publix. That's a supermarket chain there with the pharmacies inside. Publix won't give COVID vaccine to children under five. So you're not going to find them there. So Walgreen, CVS, apparently.

I know where I'm shopping. It's a long drive from here to Florida, but I'll make that drive just to be. support people that are making good decisions like that. That's right. So as we saw, the common theme was we don't have the evidence. We're making assumptions. There's just no evidence there. We don't have the data. But some of the data that was at these meetings was this study right here. This was used. And it's called COVID-19, a leading cause of death. And children and young people age zero to 19 years in the United States. A lot to unpack here. But I didn't know it was a leading cause of death. I thought it was a rare cause.

But we can see here, like the ones, we saw 0.0027% is a leading cause of death. Okay. Right, right. From the American Academy of Pediatrics numbers. I mean, it was, it was minuscule. Some of it was zero. Some say stop recording because it was so low. Right. So we have the slide here. This was from Catherine Fleming-Dutra at the CDC and Verpac meeting. And this was it here, epidemiology and children aged six months to four years. And you can see here, she has this. leading cause of death and if you notice at the bottom this is the study she used i'm just going to point this out this was based on the source it's called flaxman and whittaker at the bottom there that's the sourcing and so this study was used at the meeting this study made its way through twitter we

have leanna when on twitter that cnn's medical analyst uh we've covered her many times mrs you know beat people with the stick to get them to comply with lockdowns this which she says These CDC ASIP slides make the case for vaccinating children under five. COVID-19 may be milder in kids than adults, but it's still a top reason for child fatality. There she goes. We give routine childhood vaccines vaccinations for other diseases that cause less deaths because the point is to prevent them. Even the former surgeon general, the 20th surgeon general under Trump took to Twitter, use the same slide again, use the same data.

And he says as a top five cause of death, it is also a firm. to leave affirmatively untrue that young kids are at zero risk for COVID. This was a shot across about for DeSantis where he said, I would say we are firmly against the COVID vaccine for young kids. DeSantis said, these are the people who have zero risk of getting anything. Well, all it took was, and I'm going to call her a hero, a hero mother to unpack this. And here's the tweet that really pointed it out. This was by Michael upside. He's a pediatrician and clinical academic at King's college in London and he took to Twitter and really raised the flag here for this mother. He said a truly incredible story, a mother who reviews this data in her own personal timing

and yet seems to be more knowledgeable about COVID deaths and children than most academics and public health officials working with COVID-19. So let's look at what this mother did. This is her blog. She's known simply as Kelly. She's a mother of a teenage daughter. She started in 2020 writing about this data to get the schools reopened because she's She saw the mental health issues that were piling up. And this is what she said. She fact-checked this study. COVID as a leading cause of death in children.

She writes this, it's really disturbing that data this poor made its way into the meetings to discuss childhood COVID and that it took me less than a few minutes to find a major flaw. And then I found many more as I look deeper. So let's see what she pointed out. In this study, they use the data from what's called the National Center for Health Statement, statistics. So let's, this is the CDC center. So they used that it was based on this death certificates from this NCHS. So let's, let's read about these death certificates. How do they, how does the surveillance work? Well, you can see here this highlighted part and CHS counts of death due to

COVID-19 include only deaths that have the code U-07.1 as a cause or contributing cause of death. Remember, Dau, we covered this. Yeah. You get hit by a bus. You get, you fall off a motorcycle. That's a contributing cause of death. Right. Yeah. Yes. Right. Absolutely.

But if COVID's in there, boom, that's on the death certificate. Right. It's all piled in there. So there's an overcount right from the beginning. But now look at the authors did to go even further here. Let's look at the study slides from the actual study here. And here's the study again, leading cause of death and children. Now we see here the first table, one to four years old.

You see something highlighted there, the first one, COVID-19, cumulative. So all the first one, the rest of these. Start the top. Accidents, malformations, assaults, disease. This is per year. So this is cumulative.

They took all of the deaths that happened over the entire COVID pandemic, two years and said, see, compared to these other yearly deaths, it's a top. It's not top of, you're giving two years of deaths, not one year. That's outrageous. Absolutely. And you see, you go down, you have COVID-19 annualized.

So that's what should be there. But still, even that is using the death certificates that were its contributing factors. So that's an overcount. Now, let's go to the five to nine-year-old category. Same thing. Cumulative, what's it doing there? It's not supposed to be there. Annualized, way down.

It's even below influenza and pneumonia. Then look at ages 10 to 14 in the next table. And if you notice. Pay attention to this number, the fours and the fives, the ranking, because that's what that slide is that everyone was sharing. It's fourth. Is the fourth leading cause of death? No, it's not.

It's the seventh. And by the way, that tweet that said to DeSantis, it's not a zero. I see one number in the column there. It's zero point. And if you really look at it, 0.4, you know, you could round that down. That's below the five number. Either way, those are zeros. It's zero point something.

So Ron DeSantis is right. I'm going to back you up on that, Ron. And if we look at this next table, the 10 to 14-year-olds, a couple things I want to unpack here. Look at the second line, intentional self-harm. suicide obviously there's a mental health situation going on here that's the second leading so why are we playing around with cumulative COVID numbers trying to pack this this unnatural situation in here but accidents the number one on every basically every one of these slides accidents notice all of those those classification codes up there there's there's there's tons of those in compass

that's drownings that's car accidents that's you know falling off a chair or something like that And all of those can actually, those are all in one category. So if you unpack those, those actually bring the rate. One, one point one, somewhere in the one point five, somewhere in that. If you divide them across, which means you're going to push this thing right off the charts of wanting to be in the top 10 if you actually broke up all the different types of accidents that are there. Interesting. Really good point.

And the final table here, the 15 to 19 year olds, not sure why those are in the children, but here we go. you have the cumulative 700 annualized COVID-19 deaths 324 go to the top look at the accidents 3,537 and you're going to tell me that COVID-19 annualized is a leading cause of death okay well this this mother Kelly she did something else she didn't even write that she didn't just write this article she actually hounded the author of the study on on emails and put this out on Twitter this was her response they're really frustrating that these issues weren't identified by the CDC prior to using the data in their vaccine authorization meetings, obviously. And so what does the author say? The author actually came back and talked about

this. And this was his reply. He says, we have received some feedback and criticism along several dimensions. We are planning to update the preprint to take into account some of this feedback primarily by focusing on COVID as an underlying cause of death using CDC wonder provisional mortality statistics. But he does go on to say, our making. major conclusions are unchanged in this analysis. So this guy's not budging, but he's been outed in public. I mean, this is a disaster. And the fact that the CDC, like you pointed out,

the CDC's slide use the cumulative numbers to talk about this thing. Totally cheating. It's absolutely deceitful. But Del, I want to take a moment here for a call to action. So our audience is probably some of the smartest, most well-informed, courageous, and active audiences of any show ever.

And we're gonna call upon them here. We'll give a little background. So on April 6, Verpack had a meeting and they put out a notice. This was the notice here. And this was for a docket, a request for comments. And it says here, this meeting will be held to discuss considerations for use of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses

and the process for COVID-19 vaccine strain selection to address current and emerging variants. And then Dorian Fink, he is the deputy director. He's the clinical division of vaccines and related products, applications. He put together this thing called the future for the framework for the future. And it's talking about, again, strain composition and use of additional boosters. So let's look at some of the slides here. And why is this important?

Because they're talking about uploading new strains into the already existing vaccine schedule here with COVID-19. So what they're saying here is they're trying to make contingency plans. They're saying that should be developed to respond to any emerging variant that escapes protection provided by current available vaccines on the slide here. And then they're talking about how are they going to do this? Well, they're saying the flu shot is a great way to look at this. So this next slide here in the background of how they may be able to do this. They give this idea of, well, the composition of current COVID-19 vaccines may need to be updated to maintain vaccine effectiveness against clinical relevance, as they say.

But they say the annual influenza vaccine strain selection process may provide insights for how to consider updating the composition of COVID-19 vaccines. So understand, they're trying to flu shot the COVID-19 vaccine. So that's basically fast-tracking the development of this vaccine. Rather than going through the trial phases, they're just going to say they're going to declare it biologically similar and say, well, we're just going to update it. We don't need to go through her pack. We don't need to go through ASIP anymore. If BA- This is amazing. Let me just, so essentially they want to do with the flu shot. What they do is just basically throw in a new variant

every year, say, oh, we think this is the variance that's going to be, but they don't want a safety test that. Remember, folks, they're going to be manipulating the spike protein, which is what these RNA vaccines are using, put a brand new spike protein together, mutate that some way that Dr. Robert Malone will say is absolutely insane. And then they want to have the same safety that they said they've already achieved with the old vaccine, which they have not achieved. It's all been emergency use authorization. And before we ever had a long-term study, while they were racing all the control groups, they now want to have a free ride with every future vaccine to just make it, put it out there, and not have to do any safety trials. I mean, this is where it's gone. We have

just watched a total rush vaccine. You've watched the worst science ever done. And based on this horrible science, Vair's blowing up, higher deaths reported than we've ever. seen in any vaccine in the history of mankind. And God knows how many people plunging face first on the turf of the sports that they're in. This is it, a million 300 reports. And we understand that that is only about 1 to 10 percent of the total amount of injuries were to take Harvard medical schools investigation of the bear system. And based on all this, they want a free ride to just keep cranking these out now. Apparently not every year, because as was stated in this Verback meeting, or I don't know if it was the ASEP meeting, the doctor's at least of the doctor.

said we're going to need a new one every three to six months because these things are wearing off. And so now are we just going to keep seeing brand new bearings, brand new attempts to pressure this virus, and no one's going to have a say in the matter. So you're saying we actually have a say now. How do we do something about this? This is crazy. Right. So this is June 28th.

It's the meeting. People can make comments now though. So if they go to, yes, and this was the announcement, but if they go to make a public comment, then go to regulations.gov. the website and they go on the comment section right there and you can make a comment right now as we speak when you're done with this show you can go there and do that but you can also sign up for a public comment if you want on June 28th to make a public comment at that meeting and that's the way you do it so this is this is what we can do to make a

difference if you're sitting there watching what can I do to make a difference it seems so overwhelming I don't know how I'm going to go against the government start with this start small use what you have do what you can I'm imagining we have a bitly here but we have a bitly probably your comments right now if you're watching on our website. It's on the screen. There's the screen. Grab that right there. That's what you want to use. And again, all this information is going to be sent to you on Monday if you're a part of our newsletter. Well, obviously, we've got to get active people. This is how we get involved.

Let's not just watch this. We're just not a show that's going to sit here and bemoan what's taking place in the world. We're actually going to make a difference. We're seeing shifts. We're seeing the government moving in our direction. We, you know, we sent out a letter, actually. I can did trying to stop this through Syrian glamstad, our legal team. And so we're on top of this. And by the way, if they attempt to do this, I'm going to just say this right now. That will be an informed consent action network lawsuit. We will bring a lawsuit against this insanity that you think you've established safety at a level that you can start cranking these out with any variant you will please. Well, you will meet us in court. And that's what you make possible by donate to us. Jeffrey, tons of information. information there. Just amazing work. I know and look, that was hard. You had to go through hours and

hours and hours of these meetings. I know you whittled it down to, I think, 20 yesterday and said, Jeffrey, I'm not listening to 20 of these. Pick the top ones. You're doing that work. So I really thank you. Amazing reporting once again. Thank you, Dellen. Thanks to the team, amazing team we have. And thank you so much. All right. Take care. We'll see you next week. All right. Well, you know, we've just heard. from Furback, we've heard from ASIP, you heard the most, the greatest questions ever asked were the worst answers ever given, but what's behind that data? You know, what are we at now? I mean, if you've been watching the news, and by the way, I know they didn't go through this ASIP

meeting, they didn't let you hear what the doctors were saying, all you heard was safe and effective, save and effective, did I say safe and effective? Take a look at this. The CDC Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend the shots for infants as young as six months old. Committee members said the protection offered by the vaccines outweighs its risk. Parents, caregivers, and health care providers can trust that both of these vaccines have been authorized with science and safety at the forefront of our minds. The benefits definitely outweigh the complications and things that may happen with COVID. And we don't want that. This is a serious disease in children.

More than 1,000 kids have died about 440 under the age of four. We've seen, as you said, tens of thousands of hospitalizations in this age segment. As always, we are going to have to continue to look at the data as more and more kids get the vaccine and make sure that what we see in this initial sample size is actually holding true. We now know, based on rigorous scientific review, that the vaccines available here in the United States can be used safely and effective. objectively in children under five. Safe and effective. All right, well, look, we heard the questions, we heard the answers,

but what was the data they were referencing? I wanted to get deep into the data, and so we reached out to a pathologist named Claire Craig has been doing videos on this, writing about this. It's just my honor and pleasure to be joined by her now. So, Claire, thank you for the time, first of all. Thanks, everyone so much for inviting me. You bet. So I'm going to let you take it from here because, you know, by the way, we saw your video.

It was fantastic on YouTube. That was taken down, is my understanding, right? Yeah, it was taken down, and I appealed, and it's still down. It's apparently misinformation. All right. So why you go ahead and lay that misinformation on us, shall you? I mean, at this point, we know exactly what we're talking about. But take me through the details, because we just listened to questions and answers. They have no answers. It just sounds like somebody, you know, cheated on their book report, read the back cover, and somehow based on that,

we're being told this is science going on here. So how bad is it? I mean, the way that people have extrapolated for their sound bites, I just find utterly extraordinary. It's really bad. And to be honest, it's a gift for us. It's an absolute gift because it's so bad. it's quite easy to explain to everybody how bad it is and why.

So, you know, we couldn't have asked for a more messed up trial. So the story I'm going to tell you really is a story about shifting goalposts. And it starts with Pfizer deciding what the gold posts are going to be in the first place, which obviously you would hope would be someone else's decision. Right, not the ones going to make the billions of dollars, but the ones that are actually regulating this. That's who should be saying the gold post, but no, Pfizer's setting their own goalpost. Okay. Yeah. So I'll take you through what they plan to do and then the efficacy by their different measures and then I'll talk about safety and then what they're planning to do at the end. So they set out to do this trial on 4,500 children giving them two doses. And obviously if you're Pfizer, in fact, if you if you're us, right, and somebody comes to you and says, I want to test this drug on thousands of children, we're going to say why, right, why? What do you try?

trying to achieve because without knowing what you're trying to achieve, we don't know what to measure. But of course, Pfizer's looking at this from a different perspective. And so they set out to get a positive result. And the way they did that was to say, well, let's not look at a clinical outcome as a primary measure. Let's look at antibody blood tests as a primary measure because we're pretty sure we can make that work. So their protocol from the outset was that they would measure antibody levels. and they were going to compare these to the antibody levels from all the people who've been in other trials and say if the levels are similar, that must mean it works. Right.

And their opening paragraph in their own report on effectiveness, they say immunobridging, which is this comparing the antibody levels, does not have to be scientifically established to predict protection, but should be clinically relevant to the disease. So they've already admitted that, you know, not about protection. It's just a measure that they fancy using. And then they go on saying, which is completely truthful, there is no specific neutralizing antibody tighter that has been established to predict production against COVID-19, which is absolutely true. So this is a measure that is arbitrary, but it's relatively easy for them to hit the target.

So they basically just said, we're going to hit a target, but there's no, no proof that that target means anything when it comes to the actual clinical outcomes. So an arbitrary target, but we're going to hit it, and that's all you're going to get. That's amazing. Yeah, that was the plan. And, you know, I don't know how it got passed in Ethics Committee. I really don't. It should never have been passed.

But going on from that, then, after two doses, this is the result that they had. They presented this to the FDA as a bar chart. And it shows in the blue bars, you can see the antibody levels to the Wuhan virus. And in purple is the Omicron virus. Oh, my God. What they set out, you know, when they think, oh, we can make that work, that'll work. That was true for Wuhan because that's what they were being injected with. But it didn't work at all for Omicron.

So that dotted line that says LOD, LOD stands for the limit of detection. everything beneath that is background noise. There's nothing. Zero. So they took a breather and they said, right, well, let's just change the protocol. And they decided to change the protocol by adding in a third dose. And obviously, you know, it seems that they have endless ability to change their protocols. Nobody seems to be managing their changes and shifts in these protocols.

So they set about adding in a third dose. Now what had happened at this point is that the children had been vaccinated with the first dose. They waited three weeks and then gave them a second dose. And then they were in the follow-up period. And by the time they decided to give a third dose, children were at least eight weeks beyond that second dose. But some of them were substantially beyond it. The median was 11 weeks. So you've got a really drawn-out process here because they haven't really thought it through.

Anyway, if we go to the next slide, it shows you quite how few patients or participants had made it to this stage. So if you look at the third row there, it'll show you how many had actually had a third dose in each of the groups. And it's roughly 1,500 children who were given a third dose at all before this date was presented. And there was only 1,200 odd who had had a month's follow-up following that. So, you know, this is very, very preliminary. It's as if, you know, they just found this tiny moment in time when they wanted to shout about their result and they just stopped and did it then, which is actually, will come to that.

That is exactly what they did. I would say a couple of things that I would be suspicious of right there. First of all, we're being told this is a study of four. 4,500 kids, but it's not. It's a study of just over 1,000 kids. But once you start seeing people disappear from a study, that seems to me that now you are selecting who you want to be looking at. I don't know how to see that any other way. Did they give us a reasoning or a protocol why those other 3,000 disappeared and what parameters they used to take them out of the study? Or did they just disappear?

So when I made that video that went on the internet, I misspoke and called it. it drop out. It's not really drop out. There was a small number that had dropped out. It's mostly children that haven't had a third dose. So they, they, you know, had the two and they're sort of in limbo. They haven't given a reason why they haven't progressed, but they could, they could portray it as having not progressed. All right. So we've got a thousand now. We're looking at just just under 1200. Yeah. But it's important to note that, you know, if you set out to do a 12,500, and there's a reason that number is selected. It's not random. It's selected on the basis of statistical analysis and how many you need in order to demonstrate an effect. So if you've got

only a third of that, that just raises huge questions because it could make it completely null and void. And the reason that you ask statisticians to be involved to get the right number at the beginning of a trial is because it's utterly unethical to inject people, especially children, with a chemical to try and learn something, if at the end of it you can't possibly learn anything because you didn't do enough. Right. So, you know, there are issues with having these tiny numbers. And I think to be clear, if I remember correctly in one of the videos we played,

the doctor said that it was something like a 2.6 per 100,000 hospitalization rate. So if you're only looking at 1,000 kids, you're not going to see what would have put them in the hospital, what doesn't put them in the hospital, whether this vaccine stops. So that's partly why they're not even attempting to show any clinical result. They're just going to play this arbitrary Tiders target game, which they already failed after the two shots. But hey, let's just make it a three-shot dose and then maybe we'll get there with with one-fourth amount of kids we started with.

We're off to a great start. This is fantastic. Science said its best. Yeah, the excuse they gave was that it required three doses for the adults for Omicron So it figures that you'd need three for children that have never had a scene of any type. And that that doesn't follow logically for me at all. And also we know how short-lived this was for Omicron in adults. So, you know, there's no mention in the whole report about how long they expect any effect to last.

Yeah. If you go to the next slide, it shows what they found. So they have, this is in terms of actual COVID rather than antibody. So they did talk about the COVID rates. And the very first row that you see there, I think it's the next slide, actually. The first row that you see tells you the total number for the whole period, and then they've divided it up. So that next row is that three-week period between the first dose and the second dose.

Now, we know from plenty of other studies that this is a danger period and that there's negative efficacy in that period. And although the numbers are small, yet again, here we see negative efficacy in the young and the older half of the trial to the tune of minus 30, which means if you were vaccinated, you are 30% more likely to get COVID in that period. And as I say, you know, it's small numbers, so you can't say that for certain.

But yet again, there's more evidence that that's a danger. Well, if you're going to glean anything from your tiny little crappy study, is that it's having a negative effect. Now, you're the ones that have these small numbers. We didn't choose those. But these are bad results. These are not good results. These are bad results amongst this small little group we're looking at.

That's right. So they ignored that. And they then had this longer period of time between the second dose and the third dose where, you know, there was plenty of COVID, right? There was a lot going on. And they ignored all of that. They then ignored a week after the third dose because that sort of become traditional. And they looked at the number of cases after that. And so that bottom row is what they were basing their claims of efficacy on, those team. tiny numbers in that bottom row and the next slide shows them oh am not right and what I'm seeing here is is two cases and five cases two people and five people yeah so don't forget actually it's important to note that the placebo group is only half the size so to kind of balance it out it's more like two and ten two in the older kids okay yeah so so and then it's like one total kids, perhaps, is the entire, what this science study has finally reduced itself down to. We're going to decide the fate of all children in the world based on seven children.

Okay. That's pretty much what happened. So there's a total across the trial of 10 COVID cases, split seven placebo-3 vaccine. And the next slide shows the slide they presented to the FDA. you know, using these tiny, tiny numbers in the second and third row to claim the efficacy of 82 and 76%. And you can see in brackets there, the confidence intervals inevitably crossing zero because you cannot get significance with numbers that tiny. And for the older children, the range went right down to minus 370, which means the vaccinated, like, with, In this data, it could be that the vaccinated in a worst case scenario were 3.7 times more likely to get COVID than the placebo one.

That's how great their data was. Bring that slide back up. I mean, I want to bring that slide back up because I want to point something out. We've talked about this before. I know we get science here on the show. But look at that yellow box. And what we're talking about is inside those parentheses. When you have a negative, negative 8 there, and then as high as this is the confidence interval to as high as.

98.3 is as we pointed out a negative 370 up to 99.6. My understanding of science, and it's not that deep, but if you cross the zero line, if you go from a negative to a positive, that means there's really no information here to take seriously. At that point, we have to assume that this product does no better than the placebo did. You cannot cross the zero and call it statistically significant information. It's a wash. It's information that's shift. It's information that just be thrown in the garbage, but this is what they base this entire thing on. Yeah, that's all true. Then there's a little bit of something extra to talk about in terms of what happened after the three doses, which they sort of, they talk about in a couple of paragraphs,

but then gloss over entirely. So they have a couple of paragraphs dedicated to the issue of children who had multiple infections. Now, they're not very good at defining what that means, because, you know, The follow-up was around six months right from the beginning. It was a long enough period. But clearly we all know that there are issues with post-infectious positives. And so defining a second infection is something that you need to do carefully. And of these children who had a second infection, there were 12 of them altogether. So this is a huge number given that 10 of them were after.

the third dose. So and 10 of them were vaccinated. So this could completely change these results utterly. And I don't understand why those aren't included in this table. It could be that some of the children were in the placebo arm originally. And they were three of them in that case. And they crossed over six weeks after their third or second dose of placebo and were then vaccinated. And by the time they got to their third dose of vaccine, they were infected again. But it doesn't make sense to not include these. But of course, if you don't want to include them, you'll say, oh, no, no, no, no, we're not talking about COVID cases.

We're talking about people. How many of these people have been infected? They've already been infected so we can ignore that. Do you see? So there's quite a distortion there. They really haven't been clear on that. And they should be being picked up on that. So there is so much to this that you've laid out.

But let me just understand this. You start out, and this is one of the problems I've had with all of the Pfizer studies, all the Moderna trials. They throw out so much important data. The biggest issue being that what we've seen right after that first shot, right after every one of these shots, you have a real dip in your immune system. Your immune system actually drops, which is what one of Geert Van de Boch's problems, has been vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic. You are coming in contact with this virus while you're vaccinating. And so taking the vaccine is putting you at a higher risk. And as we see in all of these studies, lots of people get infected right after they had that first shot because their immune system isn't fighting at all.

Same thing happens after the second shot and even the third shot. And so once again, here, all of that data, when they're making a decision whether this is a good vaccine for our kids, they throw out all the kids that got sick, all the kids that were hospitalized after the first and second shot that are being hospitalized because of those shots. They say, well, this, we only want to look at how well it works after you get your third shot. You can't throw out this entire, you know, army of carnage that is laying in the wake of your vaccine program just because they had to wait to get the third shot. And along that road, that road that you're only on because of vaccination, you're ending up in hospitals, you're ending up getting sick, you end up having issues. All of that is being burned and thrown out so that we're just looking at this last 12 kids.

That is the biggest problem I have of all of this. thing. These vaccines clearly are raising your risk and all they want to talk about is if you happen to be one of the rare 12 out of 4,500 that made it to your third freaking shot. Well, and got COVID. Absolutely. Absolutely. And it's worth just taking the whole, putting it into numbers. There's out of those 10 children that they presented for the efficacy data, that was 10 out of 375 total COVID cases that they measured. That's just. 2.7% of the COVID that was happened in that period. It's just ridiculously timely.

Wow. So let's move on to what they called severe COVID. Now, we all know that these children are not at risk of severe COVID. And, you know, Pfizer had to admit that. So they had to redefine what severe COVID meant. And they defined it as being a raised heart rate or a raised respiratory rate or a low oxygen level. And then they found fair amount, actually. So in the under Tuesday, they just had one who was a 14 month old who had placebo and then had a fever and a cough and went to the medics who found rhinovirus or entrovirus on board.

And nine days later went to the ER after a seizure. At that point, having tested negative for COVID before, they were tested again. And in the hospital, the test came back positive. So this was described as a COVID case, but I think you could absolutely argue it. They were sent home that day. So, you know, there was this child who obviously had a bit of a miserable experience. I mean, I don't want to diminish it. And that was a placebo patient.

And then in the older half, so the two to four-year-olds, there were seven that they called severe. And of those seven, six had had vaccine. There was one placebo patient. who only had placebo and there were two placebo patients who again were unblinded, crossed over, had vaccine and then had severe COVID by this definition. And one of those patients was admitted to hospital with low oxygen and with wheeze. And they found this patient was positive for para influenza virus, which is nasty actually for a child. And they spent three days in hospital before being discharged. So you've got a vaccine hospital case and a placebo hospital case.

both with other viruses on board, we're kind of a position of still saying, you know, really, COVID isn't the main issue there. Wow. But we had all these other severe cases, if you want to call them severe, but they were in the vaccinated. And what they do manage to do is summarize all the reasons why you should ignore their data, which was kind of them, they did bullet points. So they said, first of all, the time that they followed up for and the number of cases is too small, so you can't precisely estimate everything, which we can agree with. They said that it's all preliminary because in their own protocol, the time for the interim analysis was after 21 cases. They only had 10 by their own definitions, you know, of this sort of after seven days thing.

They only had 10. So they haven't even reached the analysis point anyway. They admit that these dosing intervals are wildly variable and that means that people won't really know how to interpret any of it. And that the follow-up has been tiny. They have 35 days in the youngest kids and 40 in the 2 to 4-year-olds. So this is their own analysis of it. It's not quite good, really. But obviously nobody's been highlighting that to the FDA or to the media.

And then they shift the goalpost again. So actually, we just go through how they've shifted the goalposts. They start off with goalposts where they want. They shift them by adding in the third dose. And then they shift it, excuse me, by changing the, by redefining what severe is. They're just constantly deciding how things go. And they state quite clearly what the goalposts were meant to be for safety.

So the FDA set out saying, we want to see a trial where 500 to 3,000 children are followed up for at least six months so that we can assess safety in a fair way. And then they also say the longer term follow-up of a year would be an important thing to have, but you know, we won't actually not license you if we can't get a year. So in their original protocol, that was what they said they would follow up for six months before crossover. But what actually happened was that they followed up for six weeks and then crossed over. So this tiny, half-sized control group has only had six weeks follow up as the placebo before they were vaccinated, meaning that we have no control group anymore. Wow. So I mean, I know that's a

familiar story to your listeners, but it's just absolutely, it's just wrong. It's just wrong. It's wrong. It's wrong. And they state in their own document what it should have happened to contrast with what they did. Wow. I mean, it's so disturbing. I mean, and you're right. In some ways, this is a gift.

COVID, this pandemic's been a gift. The rushing this vaccine has been a gift because the work that we've done with my nonprofit using lawsuits against government health agencies, we proved that not a single childhood vaccine on the childhood schedule in the United States of America. ever had a proper placebo study. No placebo was used in any of the studies that licensed these products to be given to children in America. They never went longer than six months.

And in many cases, not as long as six weeks, and in the case of the hepatitis B vaccine given on the first day of life, that had either four or a five-day safety trial. You can't make this stuff up. Now, luckily for us, they're doing it in prime time right in front of our eyes. And what I have to say is this, that I didn't know you before COVID.

I didn't know all the Peter McCullough's and the world-renowned scientists that have stepped up, the Geert van der Bosch's, but I believe this, the one thing that they have destroyed that they had on their side was this idea that they had the consensus of science.

They no longer do. People like yourself and other world-renowned scientists all around the world, the jig is up. They're staring at this. They're shocked. This is going to push anybody

with any doctor or scientist that still has an ounce of blood moving through their brains are going to be out of their minds. The CDC and the FDA, I believe, just destroyed, finally flattened any remaining ounce of credibility they have. Now all of science is going to turn on them. I don't see how they get through this. I only am upset for the children that will be lost, those that will be hurt by this product because of the decision that's been made.

But I want to thank you for bringing this information to light. Does it matter that your YouTube went down? It makes you more popular in our eyes the millions of people that are watching us. So Dr. Claire Craig, please keep up the good work. And let us know as we track all this, we love having you on and sharing these detail with us. Is there anything last thought that you want to sort of leave the audience with that are, you know, I have friends that are dealing with custody issues where the spouse wants to give the vaccine. or that are having to consider it on some level.

What are your thoughts? Actually, the one thought I'd like to leave you on is slightly negative, but I think it's worth adding, which is that there are two paragraphs in this document which are frightening about the future. So they state that they anticipate needing a fourth dose in these children. They're like already setting it up for a fourth dose already in these tiny children. And then they say,

if another COVID vaccine is licensed or authorized for use in the age group enrolled in the trial, and is recommended by public health authorities and widely available, such that it is unethical to use a placebo control, the license to authorize COVID-19 vaccine would serve as a control. So this potentially, this six-week follow-up with that placebo might be the last control that we see in children this age for these vaccines. Wow, we talked about, this is what we're talking about, when we talked about writing into the FDA and the CDC right now saying you cannot use this

as a control. You did not establish safety. This is not good enough. You cannot not do future studies with future vaccines and their contents. So disturbing, really scary, but it's so obvious now the people we need to rise up and make a difference here. Dr. Claire Craig, thank you for taking the time to enlighten us on this information today. All right, and people can follow you on Twitter. Where's your Twitter? What's the best Twitter to give to you on? I'm Claire Craig Path. There is. All right. There we go. Follow Claire Craig on Twitter for all of these details. You'll be on top of it for everyone else. Have a blessed day. Thank you, Claire. Thank you very much.

All right. Well, to close this out, you know, it seems very intense. But this is when darkness is taken over when people are not thinking clearly and when they're starting to move for all of the wrong reasons when the financial interests of industry have so taken over your government agencies it seems like there is nothing you can do it seems completely hopeless but i want to tell you that i'm a freaking warrior man and i am not putting up with that i'm not afraid of these jerks i never have been and that's why i want to show you about a win a subject just like this one of the biggest in fact the biggest chemical company in the world with the most ubiquitous chemical put on all of our foods. A huge win has just happened.

But just to give you some insight into how long I, the high wire, and even all the way back when I was on CVS and the doctors, I've been fighting this company, Monsanto. Here's what that looks like. This is a story that I covered back when the World Health Organization had first ruled that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to human beings, I decided I wanted to try and do that story on the doctor's television show. Anytime you hear the word cancer associated with food, rightly so it raises concerns. You know, I'm a scientist at Monsanto for 20 years, and this has been the molecule that

I've studied all of those years, and I'm absolutely confident of the data behind it. Many scientists who reviewed their research have declared it tobacco science, catching them red-handed, specifically designing their studies to avoid finding problems. There's different ways that we look at the data and if we had any indication or any concerns about the safety of this product we wouldn't be putting it out there. At the front of this, the lawyer that is driving this, Brent Wisner, you're joining me today. Dwayne Lee Johnson was a groundskeeper at the Benicia School District in Northern California. Part of his job was to

spray around him and he would spray about 150 gallons in one morning. Wow. A lot of exposure, a lot of drift on him. We know those San Francisco wins. After about two years, he got a rash. And the rash spread and spread and spread. It's a rare and very deadly form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that manifests in the skin. And it spread over 80% of his body. We expedited his case to trial and it became the first one to go to a jury. It's the first time all this evidence really saw the light of day. Thousands of cases now lining up and paying out billions in court because, as always, our regulatory agencies didn't protect us. They didn't look out for us.

The manufacturers of this chemical that's on 80 to 90% of our food were lying. You know, newsflash. The jury awarded unanimously punitive damages, and we have a $2 billion verdict against them, which is two billion with a bee. Yes, right. I was shocked, you know, at what I found. The last decade or two sort of corruption, collusion, about overriding their own scientists with respect to certain pesticides. pesticides.

Los Santos is the same company that was making DDT and Agent Orange. It led the attack to deny whites and deny compensation to the tens of thousands of American veterans who have been exposed in Vietnam. The corporate mentality of arrogance and aggression, misogyny, and complete disregard for public health. This is a very dangerous situation for America because we're going to be. clearly by looking at these emails, they don't put our public health at the first and foremost, that they are not interested in our health. They're interested in growing their profits.

We are a modern society. We can, you know, there are all sorts of ways to do things better. We've got to start demanding it. We've got to start demanding it with our wallets. We've got to start demanding it from the politicians that we vote for. I think we're going to see all of these changes in our time. We're either going to win or lose this in my lifetime. They're happening right now. So, yes. It's on. I mean, I've been on this. beat my executive producer, Jen Sherry, continued the investigations at the doctors before she came over here. We've been really dedicated to this conversation. Can you believe, I mean, you've seen the headlines, you've watched our show. We fight not just pharmaceutical anything.

Our mission statement is dedicated to eradicating man-made disease like non-Hodgkins lymphoma being caused by something you were told was safe that you picked up at the hardware store. Can you believe, after the billions of dollars of losses in lawsuits with this product, promising essentially, okay, we're going to take it off the shelves, that your own regulatory agency that's in charge of this, after seeing billions paid out, all the science now showing this thing causes cancer, the WHO ruling that is probably carcinogenic to human beings,

the second highest cancer rating there is second only to it kills you with cancer, causes cancer. Second highest rating that your own regulatory agency, the EPA saw all of that. And we saw this headline. EPA glyphosate is not carcinogenic. The U.S. EPA says. This is our problem, folks. It's not Monsanto. It's not Baer. It's not Pfizer. It's not Moderna. It's ASIP. It's the FDA. It's the CDC. It's these regulatory agencies that are clearly taking payouts or getting jobs when they leave to go make millions and millions of dollars for these evil companies that don't care about us. But look, I don't think we can eradicate evil companies from our planet, but certainly our regulatory agencies are supposed to be protecting us from them, not working

for them, which is what the EPA clearly did. Our own regulatory, government regulatory agency said, don't worry about this Monsanto. We don't care about those people either. We're going to go ahead and tell the world and say, well guess what? The courts have stepped up. There were many groups, many environmental groups that said, no, that is ridiculous. We are fighting the EPA on that statement. It went to court. Here's the headlines. U.S. EPA ordered to reassess glyphosate's impact on health and the environment. In a three zero decision, the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with several environmental farm worker and food safety advocacy groups that the E.E.S. did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens endangered species.

So there you have it. This is why courtrooms are so important. This is why the lawsuits we're bringing are so important. We can report on it. We can prove it. We can show you the science. But our regulatory agencies don't care, which is why we have been taking them to court. It's why when we win against the National Institute of Health, when we win against health and human services,

when you win against the CDC, these things are. things matter. In fact, in some ways, it's the only thing that does. But that's a glimmer of hope. The courts are moving in the right direction. Louis Gohmert opened up this show to show you that politicians are waking up and they're looking at their protections. The 1986 vaccine injury compensation program, the PEP Act. They're all in the sites of politicians now. And guess what? We got elections coming up. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. Well, I'm just going to say, you better be asking these questions. Are you going to investigate the Wuhan Lab League?

Are you going to investigate Tony Fauci? Are you going to investigate the FDA and the CDC that have been lying to us about this? Are you going to pass laws to put liability back on the industry that keeps doing studies, erasing their placebo groups, and then rushing these dangerous products into our babies? Because if you're not, I'm not voting for you. That's where this is at. Look, I'm fired up. This has been a huge show.

I'm going to be, you know, you want to see me live. You want to see, you want to really see me get fired up, waiting to see me on the stage live. We have a really big event coming up. I'm going to be at Freedom Fest. This is in Las Vegas, July 13th to the 16th. One of the things that I like about this is I keep saying we're trying to expand our audience. This is a big liberty freedom event libertarians. I'm giving a speech on Friday called the COVID crime.

Hopefully you're going to wape those folks up with that. But even more importantly, we're going to do our live show. from Freedom Fest with all those people walking by going what the heck is this? Who's Del Bigtree? What is the Highwire? You want to be a part of that experience? You want to be a part of our fan pool

over there and then get to talk to these politicians and people that are going to be there. Sign up for Freedom Fest. If you do, type in High Wire 50 because you get a discount to go to this event in Las Vegas. I'll be there.

I'll be shaking hands all day, every day. And then I'm going to do a special panel at this event called the Long Hall with Richard Urso, Robert Malone, Pierre-Coree. We're going to introduce these guys to the people that say they believe in liberty and freedom. Huge event, Las Vegas, I hope to see you there. So in closing, again, this has been one of those gigantic shows, but folks, take it in chunks. If you can't handle the entire length, I get it.

Sometimes I need a break, go get a glass of water, or come back the next day. That's why we're breaking the show into pieces. You can watch it a little bit at a time. You can revisit it. We archive every single thing that we do. All the evidence, if you want to be able to read along with it on Monday, all of that is going to be in your inbox if you're just on our newsletter. But here's what you must know now.

Your government health agencies, the EPA, doesn't care if you get cancer from a product you're buying in your local hardware store, but we do. Your CDC doesn't care that they were supposed to do a study of thousands of kids for at least six months. Hopefully for a year, it lasted six weeks and ended up making this decision based on roughly a dozen children. This is not science. This is a horror. You must recognize that you cannot trust your government in the United States of America.

And the rest of the world, guess where your science is coming from? That's right. Right here. I'm not afraid to say it because thank God we have a Constitution. and I have a right to state my anger and my rage at what is happening in the United States of America with these so-called scientists. There are real scientists coming under fire

for telling us the truth. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Pierre-Corri, Dr. Richard Erso, Ryan Cole, who I just spent a few days with just recently and would tell you all about that in the future. There are people that are ready to step up, maybe in a new administration, to run the health and human services,

to run the CDC, to run the FBI, to run the FDA. Don't give up on voting. Keep voting. If there's problems with our voting, we're only going to prove that by voting and pointing it out. We're here to tell the truth.

We're here to make a difference. We are the beacon of light and hope and science for the world here in the United States of America. As we close in a couple of weeks out on 4th of July, start thinking what it means to be an American. Start thinking about how the world is looking at us and saying, are we living up to our potential? because we should be and we can.

How do we do that? By not being afraid. By deciding to live, standing, fighting for what is right, that living on our knees. No more masks, no more mandates, no more lies, all the truth. And guess what?

It has to be with everyone we meet. You've got to talk to everyone you know. You've got to take whatever pieces of this show you think really grabbed you, and I know you have friends out there with really short attention spans, grab them the little piece and said,

take a look at this. Will you just take a look at this before you take your kid and please will you listen to me for two seconds? This is the science. Oh and by the way, this great website just handed me the actual data I can show it to you. Here's the study. Here's what they're looking at. Look how they lied about the death rate. All of this is in your hands. This is how you make a difference. I can't do this by myself. This isn't the informed consent, you know, action dude del Bigtree. It's a informed consent action network, all of us, working together to make this world. a better place. That's what we're dedicated to. That's why you're watching. And that's why I can't wait to see you next week on the Highwire. We will not comply.

Sheep and a snake, the real and the fake, just a voice for the voice. If you read the verses, you know who we versed. Government can tell you what that's what your head got.