The Highwire with Del Bigtree - SEEKING JUSTICE

Episode Date: October 28, 2021

NYC Firefighters Spreading the News!; NIH Admits to Gain of Function; FDA Authorizes Covid Shot in 5-11 yr. olds; ICAN Attorney Aaron Siri in Studio; Hospitals Deny Transplants to UnvaxxedGUESTS; Leilani Lutali, Jaimee Fougner, Aaron Siri, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

How about we all step out together onto the high wire? Well, I'm not sure if you're like me, but if there was ever a moment where you wanted to talk about vaccines about four or five years ago, you were all alone. No one wanted to have that conversation. You were silent. You were immune. If you brought it up, you'd only get in trouble, so you just didn't do it. Well, my, how the times have changed. Now everywhere you look, not only people talking about it.

They're shouting about it. They're singing about it. They're chanting about it. We're talking about the rallies that are happening all around the world. The biggest one yet ever in the United States of America just took place over the weekend. And so we're going to show you. This was American Airlines had a rally. And then the largest protest we've ever seen about vaccines and choice. Take a look at this. and our personal freedoms matter. Hold the line, my friends. Just say no. Welcome on board, flight 1776 to freedom. I find it extremely ironic that a year ago we were essential workers. But now we're deemed unisexual, and we can be fired because we don't take a shot. They tell us all the time how much they appreciate us and they put things on their website

about how great we are. And then they sent out notices that if you're not vaccinated by the 24th November you've been terminated, it's ridiculous. You've got a lot of people who are unwilling to get the vaccine because it is not. safe and effective. I'm an American Airlines flight attendant. I've been flying for 29 years and I don't want to lose my job. I'm here out here representing my company and all of us that are fighting for freedom. I don't want to lose my job over these mandates. My husband is a captain of 737 for American Airlines. I'm a flight attendant 38 years. We're here today to stand on our constitutional rights for your freedom of your choice of what you do, what you put in your body. I'm very to support my fellow people that are going to lose their jobs if they don't make the vaccine.

I'm here helping protest with my brother and sisters, fellow Americans, because this is the land of the free and the home of the brain. I really appreciate, you know, all the Highwire does, because of y'all, I do to come out here. I would say to management, shame on you. Shame on you for caving to Washington. Shame on you for not backing the pilots. No pilots, no fly. My husband loves his life.

job, wants to continue doing his job, but does not want to take this shot. We feel betrayed. The president, vice president of this company is against us. I think they become really biased towards the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. We can't have politicians and CEOs playing doctor. Okay, my unique medical history is between me and my doctor, not them. I left a senior citizen home because when public came up, they started telling us what they telling us what you do. I moved down.

We won't give up, we won't shut up, we won't let up. I don't want to be speaking up, but I have to speak up. This is a fight, this is a fight for the soul of our country now. This is medical tyranny, and for goodness sake, we fought a revolution over a 2% T-tax. And I don't want to force an experimental vaccine into my body. I don't think so. The rest of the world was doing here in New York. We only had 50 people in February.

Now there's over 10,000. There's over 10,000. The bridge is still packed of people coming over. Today is a day in which we, the workers of this great city, stand up to unreasonable mandates. Today, we, the people, will be heard. And all the public workers, they are the last night of the fence. And if they do not stand up, I'm afraid of what is going to be the future of New York City here.

In March of 2020. We decide what to do with themselves. So while we might disagree on certain things, I feel like we all agree on this one thing. So this one thing could potentially be a bridge to unite us all. Let's stand up together, not based on the indifference of the decisions we make,

but based on the right to make our own decision. To the supermarket, they're not vaccinated. This is what we're heading to if we don't stand up and say no. If you're watching on the sidelines and you're scared of come, we should come join us now. Because if you stay silent, you're complicit. To my brother and sisters out there. I just want to say, home from mine.

But I'm inspired. Power to the people. It's happening. It's not just happening in America, but it is really going off here, but also Italy, France, all over the world. Similar protests by workers,

union workers, have just had it, marching against their political systems. Obviously, this is a global agenda. Never before have we seen marches virtually in every country in the world over the same issue. These are exciting times,

incredible moments. But look, at New York, firefighters, police department, all threatening to walk out, but sitting there recognizing we're standing together, the headlines look like this. New York City workers vaccine mandate protest shuts down Brooklyn Bridge traffic into Manhattan. Here's the traffic advisory that went out. Check a look at this. Advisory, due to protest activity in the area of downtown Brooklyn, Manhattan-bound, Brooklyn Bridge

will be closed to vehicular traffic from now till further notice. Consider alternate routes and allow for additional travel time. I mean, it's amazing when you see that right. And then you imagine, did you see a helicopter shot of this? I mean, the Brooklyn Bridge is being shut down by police officers, by firefighters that work in New York City and other union workers. Not a single helicopter shot by Fox News or MSNBC or NBC CBS. Where were they?

The only one is really reporting this in real time, the biggest march we've seen in New York, probably since the 1960s, and the only one there covering it is the high wire. I think I saw vans. You saw there. the cameras are there, but they're not putting this on television the way they should. Why? Because they don't want you to know you've got the power. It's clearly what's going on here. More headlines. Emergency workers come out in force, in mass protests against New York vaccine mandate

and then talking about the American Airlines employees protest outside headquarters over a vaccine mandate. It's on and it's really about time. I mean, for those of us have been sitting in America watching this happen everywhere else, they're all marching in the streets there. When is it going to affect us? When are we going to do something? Well, if you think about it, really the law has been pretty light. We were all sort of masking and going along with that here on the highway where we're saying, hey, man, this is the gateway to the loss of all of your rights. Nobody was listening. But now that Biden is pressed federal employees and, you know, companies that have over 100 employees, now all of a sudden people recognizing, oh my God, this is for real, this is really

happening, and it's coming at me. So we're seeing a huge push. Now, what's really interesting, right we've talked about it in Chicago the fact that they may lay off nearly half of their police force at a time where they have crime rates skyrocketing after defund the police was the battle cry of the administration as they were going trying to win the election some amazing times but you know I think one of the most interesting points was made by Ron DeSantis himself who you know wanted to reach out actually those people in New York all the way down to Florida just down the coast what do you have to say for those that may be losing their jobs or find themselves oppressed or not loved by the public they work for. Here's Rhonda Santis in Florida. We're looking to capitalize off a lot of communities across our country who've turned their back on law enforcement, who aren't providing them the support, where there's all kinds of different problems with just being able to do the job. So it has nothing to do. It will be available to anyone who comes. And so if people are trying to say it's a vaccine issue, it's not, has nothing to do with that. They've been mistreated for a long time. I don't think a police officers should be fired over over shots. I don't think that that's correct. They've been out in the line.

They've been out for for months, a year and a half, two years, doing their job. And we said that they were heroes for a while. And now all of a sudden some jurisdictions want to fire them. I think that's wrong for sure. But our $5,000 bonus, that applies to anyone. I mean, you know, if you're in NYPD and you're not getting the support you need and you're qualified, you come down here, you're going to get a bonus because we've got your back. I mean, you can't beat that, right? A $5,000 bonus if you want to leave your job from New York where they don't appreciate you and head on down. Here it is. Governor DeSantis proposes 5,000 signing bonus to attract cops to Florida, including unvaccinated ones. It's amazing, you know, when we see what's going on here. And it's something that I told you this. I told you months ago that it appears to me we're on the verge of, you know, sort of almost what happened during, you know, our own, you know, revolutionary war, as it would, or the civil war. When you think about, you know, when sides divide, what's going to happen? A lot of times it comes down to finance, right?

What happens when the states that are forcing vaccine mandates and forcing masks, they can't do any conventions? Where are the conventions in California? Who's going to California and hang on the beaches now? They're all going to Florida. The conventions are piling up in Texas, piling up in Florida, all the funding going there. Now imagine if the only place with the police departments

where you can walk safely down any CD Street happen to be in those states that are believing in celebrating freedom of. medical choice versus those that don't. I mean, do you see how we could start seeing a nation divided? And I said it, we're going to be moments away from, you watch some of the states, you know, whether it's politically driven or not, they're going to say you cannot fly from New York into Texas and back. We're not going to allow you back in. I'm telling you, this is where that's going. It's all going. So it's very, very interesting to see Ron DeSantis making it, you know, a good business decision for anyone to walk out of a police force or fire department and go down

to Florida and enjoy the sun, a bonus, and respect. These are amazing times, and my understanding is right now as we speak, outside the mayor's office or mayor's house, mayor's mansion in New York, this is what that looks like a protest going on again, firefighters, union workers that are absolutely fed up. Just take it in, folks. Did you think we'd be here? I know so many of you just thought we were all exaggerated when I said this was the future, that they were going to come after every one of us and our jobs and our lives and try to destroy America. We won't let it happen. Certainly not if the high wires anything to say about. I have a huge, huge show coming up.

A really touching story coming up of a woman that is, you know, fighting to get a kidney transplant right now in the times of COVID. What does this mean? Vaccine mandates get in the way. This is an incredible story. And then, in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, we're finally going to sit down with our own lawyer. The greatest lawyer in the world, Aaron Siri, is in studio with me today.

we're going to get into the nitty-gritty how we met, what's the future looks like, what all is going on in the legal world, and how that might shift or shape the future for the United States of America and the world. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, laid on me. Where are we at today? All right, well, let's move from the streets to the regulatory agencies, paralleling basically the two biggest stories in the United States right now, happening in New York with the street protests and the FDA. Let's check out the news to see what that look like. Take a look. All right.

Now within arms reach, a COVID vaccine for millions of children across the country. The FDA's vaccine advisors voted overwhelmingly in favor of recommending Pfizer's vaccine for ages 5 to 11 for kids ages 5 to 11. Kids ages 5 to 11. Children ages 5 to 11. It's a major long-awaited regulatory hurdle that the vaccine has now clear. It's news many, many parents all across this country have of course been waiting for. Pfizer says their COVID-19 vaccine is 91% effective in preventing symptomatic infection and 100% effective in preventing hospitalization in kids. And that was key for this panel today.

The panel supports a dosage that's one-third of what's given to those over the age of 12 in two shots, three weeks apart. And the safety profile seems to be outstanding. You get the minor sort of things, a sore arm, you know, some body aches, a little bit. of a headache, maybe a mild fever, but no serious adverse effects. If we're able to get the vaccine authorized by the FDA, recommended by the CDC by next week, then kids can be fully vaccinated by the time that Christmas, the New Year's, and winter holidays come around.

Seven-year-old Lydia Mello and her five-year-old sister Bridget were part of that trial. It was sort of something brave to do and we thought it would keep us safe. Did you feel okay about it when you did it? Yes. Man, is that rough. That is so rough to watch that news when we've been reporting the truth the whole time.

No side effects. There's virtually perfectly 100% safe. I mean, these are incredible statements in the face of the levels of myocarditis and everything else we've been reporting, not just here in America, but Israel. But I'm sure you're going to talk about all that. So let it rip. You bet. Yeah, and that's a caveat to this story.

The FDA advisors, green lithis, they vote. to recommend they voted to recommend the extension of the emergency use authorization. So this is not the same as the FDA vote to do this. So the advisors give the recommendation and now the committee's vote is under consideration and the FDA is likely to extend it, extend this EUA. They usually do that in our case. Now the screen is just blue. All right. It's going to have that look. We'll keep track and see how that all pans out. Yeah. Yeah. So it should be happening today or so maybe tomorrow. That's what we're expecting.

If it does not, this would be a very rare situation. But what was interesting is on the before the vote, the day before the boat, we put out an article asking people to go to the FDA.gov's website and comment on this, on this docket. And there was over 143,49 comments that were on this docket that the FDA received before going into this vote. So that is something interesting to really pay attention to. It's a very, very high number. people listened, they told the FDA what they talked about was something of interest to the parents out there and the families and the communities. But, you know, the real story here is watching this committee deliberate on the safety, the effectiveness, do the benefits outweigh the risk.

That's what they were voting on. Let's just listen. We're going to go right to these videos and audio of the conversations happening. So the first clip here is Dr. Cody Messier. He had a lot to say about this, including his worries about it being extended to school. Take a listen. Okay. The issue is side effects or adverse events that might be occurring after this vaccine. And I'm torn. On one hand, we know that many mothers and fathers and parents are eager to administer this vaccine

to children because they're so frightened, perhaps overly so, but they're so nervous about this vaccine because of what's been stated, that they really are anticipating having access to this vaccine in children. On the other hand, I think we saw that approximately 68,000, approximately 68% percent, percent of the children who are hospitalized with COVID-19 have underlying comorbidity. So that means about 32 percent do not. And then if we were to take 40 percent of that group that may have immunity already, we're getting down to a very small percent of otherwise healthy, sicker,

six to 11-year-old children who might derive some benefit. And we simply don't know what the side effects are going to be. We don't, for example, it's not even clear that this vaccine will reduce rates of transmission. We're hoping that's the case, but we don't know. This vaccine is probably not going to prevent infection. going to prevent severe disease. So my worry is that I think my thought is that this vaccine should be available for those parents who are very eager to get it for their child and because their child has a comorbidity

or their concern themselves. But to give, I'm just worried that if we say yes, that the states are going to mandate administration of this vaccine to children in order to go to school. And I do not agree with that. I think that would be an error at this time until we get more information about the safety. It's amazing when you listen to Dr. Cody Messonier there because it's like directly the opposite of what we just heard in that news, right? 100% effective, totally safe.

And he's like, we don't know any of those things. We know nothing about these things. And what's amazing is the point he's saying is, you know, I'm torn because on the one hand, I know we have a bunch of hypochondriac type parents that are totally freaked out about this virus, maybe unduly so because of what they've been told by all of mainstream media that's funded by pharma to scare the hell out of everybody when there's no real issue here in children. And for those people that are just spinning over this thing, I guess we've got to make the vaccine available.

As though, you know, talk about, you know, backwards science. Like, let's let the people that don't know anything about this that are totally being wrongly misled by all of media and are afraid for reasons that don't make any sense. We got to make this product that's totally untested. We don't know what's going to do their kids available to them. I mean, it's badness. And remember, they voted, the vote was, do the benefits outweigh the risk for the kids in that age? not do the benefits outweigh the risk for a political talking point of a middle-compromised kids from a small group of a subsection of a subsection. So although Dr. Messinae did say a lot of great

things, he ended up voting yes as well to vote on this on this on this vaccine, EUA. So I guess his hopes and thoughts are weren't really that concerning to him. Not worth to be ridiculed by everybody else that says, why didn't you vote for it? We were all in on. You want to be a member of the club? You know, you want to go down in history as the one that was against this vaccine. I have news for you, Cody. I think you wish you'd gone down in history has been one of the dissenting voices against this because this is going to be a disaster. But now check this out. So he was worried that it's going to be a blanket to get into school for all kids. So minutes, literally minutes after the vote was taken, the headline started coming out.

We saw this from Reuters. This is the headline you would see if you were on Twitter or if you were on the mainstream news. The Pfizer COVID vaccine is safe and effective for elementary school children according to the FDA. Why is this fake? Well, this is fake. This is misinformation. I'm getting tired of pointing out misinformation from the people that label us as misinformation. But here we go. The FDA did not say that was safe and effective. Their advisors did. And they said they recommended that. The FDA didn't make a statement on this. They have not said anything. Interesting. So we're just talking about an advisory committee right now and they're already jumping to as though the FDA is fully signed off on this. Right. So Reuters actually

memory hold that. You won't find that quote anymore. They took it off the internet, but we got it. We got a screenshot of it. Now let's listen to another voting member, Dr. Michael Corrella. He's actually the director of NIH's Division of Clinical Innovation. He abstained, by the way, listen to his comment. Check this out. And while the benefit here is assumed to be prevention of severe disease, which is what we're all hoping for, my one concern I have is that particularly for that population that has children that has undergone previous, as has experienced a previous COVID infection, which CDC estimates is 40% of this population,

which I think is probably a floor. I think it may actually be higher than that. The question really becomes, does this vaccine offer any benefits to them at all? Are they actually very well protected? And the other aspect here is for children who have undergone, for example, a Delta infection, does now vaccinating them with a strain that goes back almost two years from the vaccine, from the time they're getting the vaccine,

does that actually help or hurt their current immune system with regard to ongoing variants? I don't think we know that. We have no idea. I think for many children who have experienced COVID already, they're probably more than adequately protected. One dose may be sufficient. I think for the high-risk children, it's very different, but I will emphasize again that this dosing interval, the way it was put together, is suboptimal in terms of durability. And I think that there can't be any expectation that the antibody decay rate is going to look any different from the adults, and then these children are going to be expected to have a booster in another six months. And I think the focus on cases, reducing cases, is really what's going to confound us because I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

We're going to see vaccine breakthroughs in this population. And it's going to cause all the same problems that COVID does whether or not they're vaccinated. Man, is this smack? This is so much like the, you know, the famous CDC meeting we showed of the advisory committee over the hepatitis B vaccine, where they're all asking great questions. did we, you know, do proper studies mixing this with other vaccines? No, we didn't, but we're going to do that anyway. I mean, it's like all of these great statements saying, clearly we don't know anything about this vaccine. And these statements he's making, you know, where he's basically saying, I don't think you're going to see any reduction in cases. Just like the adults, I think this vaccine is going to wear off.

I mean, he's admitting it right there to anyone that didn't hear that. It's going to start wearing off within about six weeks is his concern. And then you're going to have a booster within six months. So, you know, we're just put these kids on the conveyor coronavirus. virus vaccine conveyor belt that you are now on every what three months four months five months and another booster shot and then this idea that what where he's talking about this reduction in serious illness i mean Jeffrey you and i both know that almost no kids are having any serious reaction this is the spin right they talk about of the percentage of those kids that end in hospital

this percentage could be protected the kids that end up in hospital is so tiny i mean it's so tiny it was conflated and lied about and you know they had to retract the newspaper on But I want to point out a couple of things when we're talking about this. You know, when we're talking about, because this is the real dangers or what's really going on here, you know, we know myocarditis is one of the big issues, right? I mean, actually, you have a video on that, right? They've been brought that up. Yeah, they brought it an expert to talk about myrochyditis.

He gave a presentation to this FDA committee of advisors. And he was asked an interesting question by one of the voting members. Take a listen. Okay. You were comparing classic myocarditis in the child. outcomes with what might be happening with vaccine-associated disease. And classic myocarditis I know adults is often associated with direct viral infection of the myocardial or rheumatologic diseases and inflammatory disease.

What do we know from the small amount of biopsy and pathology material from the cases in children that might tell us anything about underlying mechanism and might make us more comfortable with the prediction that you can make from the classic myocarditis case. Yeah, I wish I could give you a good answer to that. But what I can tell you is, and I just looked at this yesterday, you know, of those about 800 or so, you know, 8 or 900 cases that we've called, you know, myocarditis, I think like one or two have actually had biopsies. Biopsy is not, you know, routinely used, especially in, you know, younger adults.

in this population. So unfortunately, I can't talk about that. A number of the adults at least went to calf to rule out a microal infarction, but they didn't necessarily grab a biopsy, or at least if they did, it wasn't reported to CDC. So I think we don't know yet, but it'll be fascinating to learn more about it. You can already hear the spin in there, right? They're renaming something by calling it, this isn't classic myocarditis. This is vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So we can't really use our science that we know about classic myocarditis, which is, you know, people that suffer that die within about 10 years as some of the studies show. They don't want that to be attached to this. So did we do any biopsies to see if there's any difference between the classic myocarditis and that we caused by the vaccine so that, as he put it, maybe we can become a little more comfortable. He can make us a little more comfortable with forcing this on children around the country. And then the answer, again, outrageous. out of 800 cases of myocarditis, how many biopsies did we get? I don't know, maybe one or two. We might have looked in this, but not enough to actually come to any conclusions.

But go ahead, vote anyway. Please vote anyway. Right. And Dr. Rubin basically asked, do we have any idea why this is happening, the underlying cause this vaccine-induced myocarditis? And he was told, not really. And again, Dr. Rubin, just before we go to this next click, Dr. Rubin is the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.

This is a New England general medicine that has retracted, and forced to retract studies on hydroxychloroquine, showing that, or claiming that it caused harm. Ivermectin as well. So this is, this next clip, keep that in mind when you listen to this. Take a listen about what he says about his vote, which is a yes. Okay. We're never going to learn about how safe vaccine is

unless we start giving it. That's just the way it goes. I mean, folks, this is how your science is being, done. I mean, you couldn't get more willy-nilly than this. And this idea, right, that this whole question was, the obvious question, is the vaccine, what is the risk-reward benefit ratio? Is the vaccine safer than catching the disease as it is? Do we know? Do we not know? I want to bring it up. We've done it almost every week, but it's so critical right now that we remind everybody about the issue of myocarditis. The CDC itself put up this graph. It was so important. Once again, folks,

if you look at the age groups on the left. This is just a small group of children they looked at that suffered myocarditis with a control group. They expected zero to three cases in the girls between the age of 12 to 15. They had 12 cases of myocarditis. But look at the boys. This is where it really goes down. Between 12 and 15, they expected 1 to 5 in the background, right, which would be the natural amount of myocarditis you would expect out of a group this big. There was 117 cases.

16 to 17, a possibility of 0 to 3 cases was 121 cases in 18 to 24. or maybe there'd be between one and 11 cases, 213 cases. What are you talking about that, you know, well, the benefits outweigh the risks, and we should all vote yes. And then I think this was a study that came out of Israel talking about myocarditis, had an incredible statement that really sums this entire conversation up right in the middle for boys 12 to 15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second MRNA vaccination dose. The rate of cardiac adverse event is 3.7 to 6.1 times high.

higher, 600% higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, meaning if they caught COVID, their risk of going to the hospital was 600% less than the risk of being injured had they gotten the vaccine. That's the end of the story. I don't even know why they're having this conversation. This should have been done instead of you get an almost unanimous yes. And by the way, you know, what was the name of the doctor that abstained? Dr. Michael Correlli.

Let's see. Here's the vote. How'd they vote? Let's see it. I can read myself. Here we go, folks. Michael Curiel was the only one that abstained of all this. But I have news for you, Michael. Vote no, would you? You got a conscience. What is with this abstaining crap? You vote, no. You made great points. Stand up like a man. Stand up like a doctor. Remember your Hippocratic oath. And vote no when this insanity is going on around you. Not abstaining out of the vote. Anyway, this is sad. There they are, folks. Don't ever forget them when you're rushing your child to the hospital because suddenly They're having issues with their heart, and now they can't play sports or they can't do anything like the other hundreds of kids the CDC already knew about.

Those are the people you can hold responsible. We'll never forget them. Their names will live in infamy. And at the same time, Del, this is happening. Nordic countries were having their own situation happening with myocarditis. So they're sweeping across. Now, this was for Pfizer's vaccine in FDA, but over in Sweden and Norway, here's some of the headlines coming out of there. Sweden, Norway, pause, modern.

this is the other MRNA shots for patients under 30. It says here in Denmark. Another country that did it. Denmark, people under 18 won't be offered the Moderna vaccine out of precaution. The Danish health authority said Wednesday, it said that data show that there is a suspicion of an increased risk of heart inflammation when vaccinated with Moderna shots. Wow.

Wasn't just those countries, though. We have Finland. Here's the headlines. This is run through on Finland halts using Moderna vaccine on young men age below 20 years. Iceland halts Moderna jab over heart inflammation fears. Now in Iceland, it was a complete halt. Miscommunication, Denmark will still offer Moderna vaccine to under 18s following heart risk.

They said it was a miscommunication after they came out and said, you shouldn't take it under 18s. Then they came out two days later and said, we're sorry, that was kind of a miscommunication. Our press agency secretary came out and said, we're going to keep doing it. I wonder what happened there. You know, you got to wonder,

is that a call from the World Monetary Fund saying, by the way, you know, that loan we're going to give you to keep your country up and running, that'll be cut off if you stick with this language. I mean, this is the types of things you know is going on behind closed doors to try and keep everybody in line, pushing the global agenda, you know, offers we're not hearing about. But they knew it was right. They wrote all about the heart inflammation. But now, just like in America, we don't care about heart inflammation.

We're still going to recommend this vaccine to all of your children. Right. And as we look, we're going to keep looking into Denmark and see what happened there. But as Denmark backs off it, Norway goes in deeper. They say here, Norway opt not to give 12 to 15 year olds a second vaccine dose at all. So Sweden even went further. Sweden extend pause of modernist COVID-19 vaccine and young people under 30 due to concerns the shock causes rare heart inflammation. It says here, Swedish health officials are extending the pause of modern's COVID-19 vaccine and young people over

continued concerns that the shock causes rare heart inflammation. This is indefinitely now. So it was supposed to end December 8th. Now they're saying there's no date. We don't have a date to start it back up. It's just not there. Just to be clear, Jeffrey, because I know that sometimes our audience were moving so fast. Pfizer was the vaccine that we just saw the FDA, you know, sort of recommending some form of an authorization. But this is the Moderna vaccine. So it's a different vaccine. It's not the same vaccine that is on the verge of being approved within urban emergency use and children in America, correct? Correct. Both our mRNA vaccines, however, and both I have been associated

with myocarditis in those CDC slides. They often combine the two for a total of myocarditis in those two shots. Back to the U.S., there's a change here. This was kind of slid under the radar, not to many people reported on it, but we're talking now a fourth dose of a booster. So we went from three to four. Another shot, question marks. CDC says some people may need a fourth COVID vaccine dose.

They also may change the definition of this of unvaccinated with this fourth dose. So we warned that this was common. and now we're actually seeing this. They're talking now for just immunocompromise, but we know how this rolls and flows once they start bringing the put foot in the door for immunocompromise, older people and health care workers. That's the first three that usually get this. So keep an eye on for that fourth dose people. Right. And I have to imagine if you're lining up for the third, you probably don't have a problem with the fourth and the fifth and the sixth and just know that they're happening, right? I mean, you shouldn't be shocked by this. All of the science tells us that these antibodies are wearing

off so fast that you can, you know, hardly get through your day before it's already disappearing on you. So just know that this is your route. This is what all the firefighters and police officers and certainly the health care workers must know, right? Why am I going to get? I'm going to get two shots. That's going to last me a few weeks. Then I'm going to have wainting antibodies. Then, you know, a couple months later, I'm going to, you know, already be somewhere near zero and get vaccine again. And we know the diminishing returns we've seen through all vaccinations that every time you give another dose, it sort of has, you know, almost half the effect it had the last time. So this is a train to nowhere, not mentioning every time you're taking the shot,

you're taking on all those risks of myocarditis, blood clots, thrombocytopinia, you know, anaphylaxis. I mean, the list goes on and on of known recorded side effects, not to mention VERS that has reports now. You realize there are over 18,000 reported deaths now in the VERS system. I mean, that is just so astronomically unbelievable. And I'm being attacked right now. by a couple of news agencies that you said 18,000 reports of death. Yeah, that's right. I didn't say those were factual. And I mean, you know, they always say, well, VERS is unreliable. No kidding, it's unreliable. I say that every time. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. Vairs is completely unreliable. This is the CDC's only capture system that every doctor is mandated to use in the

United States of America should you be injured by a vaccine. And that capture system was investigated by Harvard Medical School in 2015, and they reported that it appears that bears is inaccurate, very inaccurate. It's underreporting by the tune of less than 1% of the total amount of injuries are being reported. Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. So you're right, it is unreliable. It's probably, most likely, much, much higher. There we are, 17,128 deaths as of October 15th. Now, you know, when we make this point, just want you to think about this. As we're rushing these kids out now, we are outside of the controlled environment, right, Jeffrey? We wanted to have safety trials. We wanted to have long-term safety studies for two,

three, five years. In fact, if I wouldn't really be happy unless we did a multi-generational study where we see, does this affect your offspring, does it affect their fertility in the future, or there are any epigenetic issues? But forget that. Let's at least get a three to five-year study so we know if these kids are going to die of a heart attack within five years. None of that is being known. And now the only system, when this little girl gets injected with that COVID-19 vaccine or this little girl right here, the only way we will know if they had a heart attack or a stroke or how many of them are actually suffering is it will be reported to VERS. And the CDC will tell us with every one of those reports, I'm sorry, we don't look at bears because it's unreliable.

And the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Daily Beast and the Daily Mail will all write me and say, why are you quoting all of the injuries to children in the Bears numbers? VERS is unreliable. This is incredible, folks. We are moving into a wild experiment with all of our children and the only capture system to let us know that it is failing in putting our children at risk. No one will look at. It's run by the CDC and they've been happy since 2015 to let that be a failing reporting system. Never fix it even though Harvard said it could. This is the world we live in, a world where all of your scientists plunge their heads into the sand and say, it's safe. no matter what and we're not going to look at the data that would tell us otherwise

it's it's a monumental historical folly on the backs of our children and i couldn't say it any better than you just said it right there there's one there's one story here we got to cover before i go uh it's dr fouchy he's in the news again uh this might be his last time he's in the news uh we've talked about how many times that he's denied gain of function funding gain of function research and just in case anybody hasn't seen that take a look at this clip the nih h categorically has not funded gain of function research. There was nothing in the grant application that would call for what is referred to as gain of function. The research was very strictly under what we call a framework of oversight of the type of research.

And under those conditions, does not constitute research of gain of function of concern. It was a peer-reviewed proposal that was peer-reviewed and given a very high rating for the importance of why it should be done. When people talk about gain of function, they make that implication, which I think is unconscionable to do, to say, well, maybe that research led to SARS-CoV-2. You can ask any person of good faith, who's a virologist, and they will tell you absolutely clearly that that would be molecularly impossible. Well, we've seen the results of the experiments that were done and that were published,

and that the viruses that they studied are on public databases now. So none of that was gain of function. Do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan? Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you were referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gained of function. Neither I nor Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH,

lied or misled about what we've done. You do not know what you are talking about. I mean, watching that, just I sort of got chills or reminded me when you sort of watch videos of Richard Nixon in the Watergate hearings, right? When you see the statements and the lies that were made by Richard Nixon all along the way, and then as the thing starts crumbling,

the people that start announcing the truth until finally you have people stepping down. I mean, this is an incredible moment. When we think about Watergate, I mean, frankly, it pales. It pales. It's infinitesimal in the relevance it had to the public, which was just somebody trying to win an election. We are talking about, you know, a few gentlemen like Francis Collins

and Tony Fauci and Peter Dazek at EcoHealth, potentially having helped a bat virus, taught it to infect humans in a way, that may be essentially an escape by a weapon or purposely released by a weapon out of China that is changing the landscape of the entire world. What in Watergate had anything to do as big as this? This is gigantic.

Absolutely. And now what the headlines are reading look like this. This is out of Vanity Fair, something that's usually doesn't report like this. In a major shift, NIH admits funding risky virus research in Wuhan. It says here, the NIH letter coming after months of congressional demands for more information seemed to underscore that America's premier science institute has been less than forthcoming about

risky research. It is funded and failed to properly monitor. They continue, instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19's origins with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions. Quote, it's just another chapter and a sad tale of inadequate oversight. disregard for risk and insensitivity to the importance of transparency, said Stanford microbiologist, Dr. David Realm. What they're talking about here is an admission by NIH. They sent a letter to Congress

after several months of Congress asking. So on October 20th, 2021, they sent this to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And it says here with the admission, the limited experiment described in the final progress report provided by EcoHealth Alliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC-014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus, as sometimes occurs in science. This was an unexpected result of the research as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Now, the remainder of that letter is basically tasked with defending NIH and trying to take blame away from them about funding this and saying it had nothing to do with the pandemic.

But what they're talking about was a progress report. They asked EcoHealth Alliance for any progress reports. And these were rules that were that were supposed to be had for grant recipients. If they're doing something and it shows a gain of function to a certain degree, they have to re-report that to NIH, give a progress report. they did not give that report in fact they they drug their heels for two years so this is what congress was talking about interestingly enough though on october 20th n iH sends that letter the day before they changed their website they changed the definition of gain of function so let's look at the original website this was on the way back machine internet archive it says here on october 19th

this n h got gov the term gain of function geof result research describes a type of of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent that would certainly be what described in that letter. Let's remember what Rand Paul was grilling Fauci about in all of those congressional hearings basically saying you took a bat virus, you gave it the ability infect human beings and you're saying that is not gain of function. And Tony Fauci said, that's right, you don't know what you're talking about, right? Sure sounds like gain the function to infect human beings. Right.

In its own website, NIH says, new qualities or enhanced qualities. So it doesn't have to have enhanced qualities. Now, if you go to the NIH website now, the word gain of function heading is gone. This is what it says now. They're talking EPP research, enhanced potential pandemic pathogen. They have this mealy-mouth word now that they pretty much just invented. And it says here, while EPP research is a. type of so-called gain of function research, the vast majority of GOF research does not involve

EPPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving EPPs. So now we have this conflated definition that sounds like you should have a shovel when you're reading this stuff. But let's just listen to Francis Collins. I mean like as far as this government and these are our regulatory agencies, they never fix anything. It's just like a bunch of bumbling idiots with just, you know, it's hard to not use expletives right now everywhere, trying to clean up this mess. And the way they clean it up is just lie. Oh, you know, just change the definition.

Hurry, quick, no, no, no. Just run and call Webster's Dictionary and get on our website and just change the definition really quick. They'll forget anything ever happened to them. It's amazing. I mean, they think we're really stupid. They must just by changing a definition. They've definitely underestimated the high wire. I guarantee you that.

Probably all of you in our audience, I know you're here. with me, I know you're here with me, trust me, we know you're smart enough to understand what's happening here. Let's listen to Francis Collins. He was on CNN and actually was posed some, you know, pretty difficult questions as far as CNN goes. They normally don't nail their host, their guests too much, but he was asked some questions about this gain of function research. Let's listen. Okay. Grant money was given to EcoHealth Alliance that was then conducting research in the Wuhan lab. And EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its contract.

by not immediately notifying the NIH of this risky research it was doing. You're just now finding out. So the question is, you know, how can you know what this money is going toward? What kind of research this is going toward in places like the Wuhan Lab? If you're just now finding this out from EcoHealth Alliance, how the U.S. taxpayer dollars was being used. Well, EcoHealth did violate the terms of their grant award. But I want to make it really clear, Pam. That's why I started explaining what this term gain of function means.

Yes, they did some things they should have told us about, but they did not do the kind of gain of function research that requires special high-level oversight. That's where the confusion arises. Yeah, they've messed up. We are going to hold them accountable. They sent us a progress report two years late that they should have sent a while ago,

and it had information in it that they should have told us about. I think you incorrectly set up that interview, just to say, Jeffrey, because, and this is probably because I worked for CBS and, you know, we dragged you into media this way. But the truth is that you can hear by her questions that they have practically rehearsed this. This is so scripted out. Well, and you didn't know, right, Dr. Fauci, that the money that you were giving to Anna, that they were doing, that EcoHealth was the one that was doing the research. And they didn't tell you about it because you didn't know until just recently. You didn't know until recently, right? And he's nodding like, yeah, you're getting that right.

It's exactly how we planned this. I mean, this is so scripted. It's so ridiculous that our news agencies are not actually grilling, you know, Francis Collins there. They're setting up this total lie. And, like, again, like, we're a bunch of freaking morons. Here's the point. They're just now discovering it. You know, we've been attacking them for, you know, nearly since the beginning of the year.

We have Rand Paul that is sitting, you know, coming at, you know, Tony Fauci every time he gets a chance to see him. So under those circumstances, and how about the fact that the moment this releases, we know from the Fauci emails, that there was a concern, there's a concern, does this, does this attach us? Does the work we were doing attached us anyway? So they were asking the question really early on as obviously they would. If you were doing anything that looked like a bat coronavirus study that was seeing if it could affect human beings, then all of a sudden a bat coronavirus study from the very lab that you've been investing in. And now only today, you're shocked to find out that some of our money went to the wrong

place there. Give me a freaking break. Were we born yesterday? No, were we not? No, we weren't. And are these people going to go to jail? I think they will. I think that this thing's going to, you know, we're not going to let this fly.

And we're talking about a facility that has been known to do dual-use research with its bio-weapons studies like this. And also, I believe Fauci even said that they don't know what's going on in China, so they can't tell what their subcontractors are doing or what after their subcontractors leave, what has been done with that information. So there's a lot of slippery situations going on here. It's kind of what happens when you just send millions of dollars of American taxpayer money to a country that's considered to be our enemy. Oh, we don't know what's happening.

Really? You don't know everything's going on with the money you sent over there? While all this is breaking, Fauci is in a little more trouble. And it's really interesting. I have to mention this because it's interesting how it's grabbing the headlines in parallel with what's going on with this admission from NIH. So Fauci is being blasted over certain types of research. Here's MedPage. Fousey blasted over puppy research claims. Basically during 2018, 2019, his agency, NIAID, OKed funding for drug research on beagle puppies to the tune of about 1.6 million.

This is the whitecoat project.org, I believe it is. They had these emails that were released showing this. And one of the big issues here besides what was just described is they also contracted out during this drug research where these puppies were given drugs, toxic drugs. They were actually killed afterwards euthanized. They contracted out for vocal cordectomy, which is called debarking. This is something that is being described as scientifically and medically unnecessary veterinary, veterinary associated. in America and Canada condone this. And the FDA actually in overall says that that that drug testing doesn't have to be done on dogs. So there's a lot of questions for Fauci. A congressional letter

has been sent to him to answer all these questions. But even before. Hold on a second. Let me just get this detail straight. You're telling me that they did experiments on puppies where obviously they are being so tortured that they want to bark. howl and remember we've all heard the sounds these are hunting dogs they bay and they howl so they sever their vocal cords while it looks like something's happening in that bag i've even heard stories like maybe being eaten by flies or something like that so they cannot howl and bother i'm sure i'm sure it's a tough work environment to listen to a bunch of beagles howling and screaming and barking for their lives in pain so we just sever their vocal cords these are great

Absolutely, absolutely terrible, terrible stuff. And here, I pulled an article, I was doing some research. Is this the first time we've heard about this? Well, this has actually been a campaign for animal rights activists for quite some time using dogs to experiment on for drugs. This is an article saying that testing on dogs really doesn't make any sense. Testing drugs for humans on dogs makes no sense. There's a statistic in here. It says 30% of the drugs that pass animal tests are found to be toxic. 60% fail. because they're ineffective so not only that but this is a very costly method to do that doesn't really offer any benefit so there's really no point to this or justification and when this when this

information came out several voices that have positions in media came out to defend fouchy it's almost like a reflex action this guy can do no wrong and uh glen greenwald came out now glen greenwald and his partner own a puppy rescuer a dog rescue shelter. So he's not just chiming in from the left field. He's very intimate with this knowledge. He also did some undercover investigations in 2018 on these puppy mills that were being used to turn out these dogs for universities. He took to Twitter and he replied to one of the article writers defending Fauci said this. The obsession with defending Fauci rather than confronting the moral atrocity of government-funded, medically worthless, gruesome experiments on dogs is a sign

of how sick our pundant class is. They have zero values or functions beyond mindless, partisan, bickering. And now we have the final headline here. The mainstream media looks like they're really turning on Fauci. Firing Dr. Fauci now may help Joe Biden manage the next COVID wave and his poll numbers. Next COVID wave, what are they talking about? But anyway, firing Fauci is now the talking point in mainstream media where before he was a saint. They had greeting cards with his face on it, candles with his face on it. So we may be making some progress here for people that don't want to see his face on media anymore. I mean progress. But I mean, does this feel

a little bit like you'll wag the dog scenario. It's like the same week, the NIH has to admit that Tony Fauci was lying under oath in front of the Congress about gain of function research. All of a sudden, the puppy story comes out. Now, this story's been out there. They've known about this for years and years. It's almost like, you know, we saw this with Cuomo, right?

It was at the moment where he was really getting nailed for, you know, looks like murdering people in nursing homes by forcing nursing homes to accept people that were sick with COVID. the one place that you knew you had vulnerabilities that could be very dangerous. And when that story started brewing, all of a sudden sexual harassment seemed like the easier story he wanted to handle. You know they make these choices, right? Here's the, you know, I think I can fight this one off.

Well, he lost on that one, and maybe Fauci will lose on puppies. But I wonder if this is really coming outside from outside or if Tony Fauci said, hit me with the puppy thing. I'll deal with the puppy thing. Get me off of maybe having started the pandemic that is destroying the world in economies as we know it. I don't know. I'm not, that's all obvious speculation. We like to stick with facts here on the high wire,

but you know you're thinking it. Jeffrey. If the history books were written right now and Fauci left, then he would have left because of the puppy story. So I think you're absolutely right on that piece, though. Yeah, all right, Jeffrey, great reporting, amazing stuff.

I mean, I'm a little bit giddy here. I know these are crazy. They're like they're horrible stories, but it's so laughable, how pathetic these people are and how much they're losing a grip on what's taking place here. It's crumbling all around them and now they're making worse and worse excuses, having to defend themselves in more and more precarious places. So we'll just keep putting the pressure on with the truth. Great job, Jeffrey. You bet. Thanks. Take care. I'll see you next week. And, you know, if you want to

get deeper into the things that Jeffrey Jackson is saying, then you definitely want to check out the Jackson Report. He writes and great articles going deeper in depth on all of that. So check out the Jackson Report. Well, this next story is a powerful, powerful story. It's one of those issues. Remember, you know, there's things that affect you in this world during COVID and all of these weird decisions. You think, well, I finally, I don't need to mask anymore. All these things that were having to get through. And I told you about my own health issues this summer when all of a sudden I recognize I can't get a blood transfusion that isn't got vaccinated blood in it. That's going to be a problem. And you really don't run, you don't know what you're going to deal with until you're in that

situation. Well, there's things that are starting to pop up now in COVID world that are just, they just blow your mind at what is taking place, the heartlessness, you know, and the hypocrisy. And it just leaves us all thinking, what happened to the doctor's Hippocratic oath? If you don't know what I'm alluding to, maybe you'll be reminded when you remember we saw this in the news. It is the latest example of someone facing severe consequences after refusing to get vaccinated for COVID. The COVID vaccine has turned into a life or death decision for a Colorado woman. A woman needing a kidney transplant says she has been removed from the recipient list at UC Health. The hospital says all transplant patients have to be vaccinated.

I feel coerced. I feel like my life is being held in their hands. in exchange for a shot and you know the attitude is just take the shot the letter printed on september 28th is giving leilani lutali 30 days to either start the vaccination series or her name will be removed from the list she won't be able to get a kidney well most of those news stations love a quick headline to talk about this story but the high wire when we see an atrocity like this we decided we wanted to get a little bit deeper so we sent our production out team out to Colorado to meet with Laylani. This is her story.

My father passed seven years ago from kidney disease. He was on dialysis for two years. And, you know, I watched him deteriorate pretty quickly. I was diagnosed January of 2020 with stage four kidney disease. It was a little bit of a surprise because I don't know what happened to stages one, two, and three. But when you hear that kind of news, it's, it stuns you. You're kind of face-to-face with your own mortality. and you don't know what you're made of until you face that.

At the time that I was diagnosed, I was at 23% of my function. And about two and a half months later, I had been able to actually reverse my numbers and go from 23% back up to 30%. I every day take a regimen of different supplements to boost my immune system. I haven't been sick with the flu in 20 years. I can't even remember the flu.

I can't even remember the last time I had a cold. So I was living in Washington State. My mom was sick and she was diagnosed with ALS. I came home and at that time I realized she needed me to actually move back here to take care of her. So I promised to her was that I would keep her out of a home and those were her wishes. So I was really focused on her. I wasn't thinking too much about my own kidney disease and there was a rapid decline in her own health. After my mom passed, I went and met with my primary care physician and we ran some blood work to see where I was at and my numbers were in decline.

It dropped 6% in a matter of a few months with kidney disease. It's almost a silent killer. There's not necessarily a lot of pain. I've had people say, well, you don't look sick. And quite honestly, I don't feel sick. One person can drop to 4% and still be. be relatively okay. Another person at 4% is on death's door. When you're in that 10 to 12% range and you're starting to teeter on the edge of, hey, we need to do something. We have to take some action. Stage five, which is considered renal failure, the last stage of kidney disease.

One of the things that I asked was, was there any way of skipping dialysis because of what I watched my dad go through? For me, the quality of life is super important. And I was I was a little scared to get on dialysis because I hadn't seen firsthand a good outcome. I met with the dialysis team, and he understood my fears. So he said, why don't we actually have you meet with the transplant center and see what they say and see if maybe you can be accepted to the program sooner than later and then avoid the whole dialysis piece. If you're on a list for a transplant and you're waiting for years,

dialysis can keep you alive. but once you've had dialysis, it also kind of shortens up the number of years that you live. I met with the transplant team to discuss what my options would be with them. And after a month of testing, I was then accepted to the transplant program. The choice that I would have is dialysis now, transplant later as I'm waiting on the list, or we go right to transplant. What happens if you don't get a transplant or do dialysis? Death is certain. Death is 100% certain.

Obviously, it's one thing to decide that you want to do a transplant or get accepted to have a transplant surgery, but then there's that difficult task of finding that donor that can give you that kidney that will save your life and keep you from death. In so many circumstances, we hear stories about, you know, flights with a kidney and an airplane, and it's so far away and someone finds it. But sometimes that miracle is closer than you think, and that happened to be the story with Lelani and her friend Jamie. Take a look. Laylani and I met in January of this year. We started a Bible study and I got a call one night to ask if I could come and help with caring

for her mom so that Laylani could rest because of her kidneys. Just a couple of days after that, her mom actually had passed away. And a week later, my own brother passed away suddenly. He was an Ironman triathlete and actually he and I were getting ready to start training. as we've never done an Iron Man together. He was, yeah, he was my coach, my best friend. Laylani was one of the people that came to my house and was just whatever you need, I'm here for you,

we're praying for you, we're loving on your family. And so ever since then, the two of us, we just bonded over caring for each other's families. One day in Bible study, Laylani was praying about who her donor would be and praying for whoever that person was and that they would be healthy and that God would just care for them. And I just happened to ask, hey, what's your blood type? You know, and she tells me her blood type. I'm like, you're kidding. I says, I'm the exact same blood type.

And I know that's huge. You know, blood type matches like the biggest step, you know, one of the most important steps to being a direct donor to somebody. And if I was considering being an organ donor for Laylani, it was important to me to still be able to do the Imbal. airman triathlon to honor my brother. And I don't even know if people with one kidney can do endurance sports. I have no idea. So I just got on the computer and did a quick search for endurance athletes with one kidney. And the first thing that popped up was an organization called kidney donor athletes.

And it's an entire group of single kidney athletes that do endurance sports. And so I knew that taking the time to donate my kidney, if that put off racing and doing this race in his honor, he'd be the first one to stand up and say, go get that kidney. About the end of July that Laylani announced she had been approved for the transplant list, and I said, what's the link to sign up? And I signed up that day to be a donor for her. It's not like you're giving blood or plasma. I mean, someone's going to take and remove an organ out of you and put it in someone else. And I thought she was like extremely generous or half-cropped. I wasn't sure which, but I was blown away.

I went over to the hospital, had the blood work done. I got the call saying, hey, we got your test results back. Everything looks awesome. And it looks like, you know, you could be the potential donor for her. And I said, awesome. I said, what's next? What do we do next, you know? And then she says, have you been vaccinated for COVID-19?

And I said, actually, no, I haven't. And I can't because of my real. of my religious beliefs on the vaccine. And she said, oh, well, then your journey ends here. And I said, what do you mean? And she said, well, we now require our donors to be vaccinated. She says, we require our recipients to be vaccinated as well. So both of you will have to be vaccinated

in order to continue this process. And that just devastated me. Because I've been in medicine for 28 years. I was a medic for the Air Force. I get a flu shot every year. I've had my childhood vaccines. It's just this vaccine that we have issues with. And I had to tell Elani that we couldn't move forward with surgery

because we weren't vaccinated for COVID-19. I got the news at that point that they weren't going to move forward. And I think it was an utter shock. A month earlier when I'd spoken with my coordinator, when I'd asked her, would I need a vaccine? She said, no, not at this time that we know of. So in a mere 28 days, the policy had changed because the FDA had approved

the COVID-19 vaccine, the new policy for UC Health was that you had to be vaccinated before you could get your transplant. I had not been vaccinated for COVID because of my faith belief about the sanctity of life. I knew that fetal cell tissues lines had been used to develop and test the vaccine and those were taken from aborted fetuses. And I'd had COVID last July and have natural antibodies, natural immunity, and said, you know, for 18 months, we've been testing people 48 hours before any surgery. Can we do that? So you can see that I'm going into surgery. I'm not infected with COVID. The answer was no. I said, okay, what about my signing a waiver? What about a religious exemption? Could we be quarantined off? Everything was an emphatic?

No. I needed the COVID-19 vaccine in order to move forward. There was no. work around. I've heard from people who don't know me and I've heard from people who do know me, why not take the shot? Just save yourself. And I have to be honest, I ask myself, would I, would I give up my beliefs to get some extended life? And so I really had to face myself, really spend time with God and say, what is it? What is it that you want for me? And because of my faith, I just could not find a way to go forward, knowing what I know. This decision really comes down to a life or death decision.

I will pass sooner than later. It's a hard realization. But that being said, don't let the tears make someone think that there's no peace because I have peace in my decision. I live my life with the courage of my convictions. And even if I don't get help, my prayers that others can get help. Well, I know we've all said during these times that it's testing all of our faith, but I can't even imagine what it's like to be going through the situation that Lailani is going through and her friend Jamie.

It's my honor to have them joining me now. Laylani, Jamie, thank you for taking the time today. Thanks, Del. Thank you, Del. You know, as you sort of, I know it's different to sort of see your story being told than to sort of say it, as you watch that piece, what are the thoughts that you're having right now? My initial thoughts on watching that piece was, you know, what a big impact God has had on us and on those around us

when we've been going through this together for the last few weeks. It's just been amazing to watch God work. Lailani, how about for you? You know, I think watching this piece is really the first time. And I really feel like the humanity of this is being exposed, put forth, if you will, that we're people. We're not ideologies. We're not some random thought. Anti-vaxxers.

We're humans. And like other people, we desire life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And so the two of us continue to maintain our hope. which is founded in Christ Jesus. Now you obviously appeared in the news. Lots of different people have reached out. What has been in your experience and how is the news treating this story and you through this story? Well I think that, you know, the news has gotten out, which has been good.

I think the reason I stepped forward was, quite frankly, because we were hearing from many other people who were in the same boat, who didn't have connections or resources. And while I didn't want to be the poster child, I felt like I needed to be willing to put myself out there. So, you know, there's snippets in the news, depending on what perspective you have. It can go right.

It can go left. But one of the things we continue to maintain and that I've appreciated about the high wire is that this isn't about Republican versus Democrat. at. It's, we keep having this situation where we're pitting people against each other in this nation. And this is really about freedoms, the freedom to be able to choose for yourself in knowing what your body is, what you want for your health. And so the snippets have gotten the story out there, but unfortunately, there's only so much you can represent in two to three minutes.

Right. Jamie, you know, you say that you sort of come from a medical background, you know, So you've worked in medicine. You're aware of that Hippocratic oath. As, you know, you're going through this process. You're being told, I'm sorry, you're going to be forced to get a vaccination before we will save Lailani's life with your kidney. She's going to have to get vaccinated to. What were your thoughts about the medical establishment now? Something that you've obviously dedicated your life to.

What did it feel like to feel? Did it feel like the system or what you were part of was turning on you? in some way? I did. You know, I felt like the system has lost its humanity. You know, as medical professionals, we're told to give the risks and benefits for any procedure. And then you let the patient choose whether or not they want to take the risk for whatever treatment or procedure they're about to go, undergo.

And, you know, I just felt like we've lost our compassion over the last couple of years in the medical field. turned a blind eye to treating the person and not the diagnosis. And I feel like we've taken away the medical autonomy from our patients. Wow. You know, obviously we've reported a lot about this vaccination. What we know on the high wire is that this vaccination, as was just stated by many doctors in the FDA meeting, thinking about giving it to children, that it does not stop infection. It does not stop transmission. Maybe it reduces symptoms. And I think that that That's to be a question when we start to look at Israel and UK that are more vaccinated than we are at the moment.

But all of that aside, did they give you an explanation as to why Lailani you would have to be vaccinated? What is the reasoning for why they can't do this procedure without you being vaccinated? The first explanation was the policy had changed. So when I started asking, so what are the implications of that? The fear was that I could possibly come in and infect someone in the transplant ward, which I thought was ironic given that people would be vaccinated with the exception of myself. I was told that I've, the language was very much for certain you will catch COVID post-transplant. And that's a that's a probability. It's not a certainty, you know.

So we need to protect you. We're trying to save your life. life, we're looking out for your health. And so those were all the reasons of a myriad of them that have been thrown around. And I think at the end of the day, Dale, I find myself asking if this was really about health, then what about the people who are obese? What about the people who are smokers? What about the people who are drinkers that have damaged their bodies? If this was really a health issue, we'd actually back up a few people who are smokers.

up a few hundred steps, if you will, and start having our insurance companies incentivize people for being healthy. But it doesn't feel like this is about my health. It feels like there's something deeper here and an agenda running behind the scenes. And I think, Jamie, it almost seems like Lelani might be right about that. Because, I mean, if they are saying that they're worried that she could catch COVID after, you know, getting the transplant, the truth is, is, is that she's, vaccinated or not, that's always a possibility. But in your circumstances being the donor, certainly there's no long-term issue. And if we're talking about getting a negative test before you go in the hospital, why would the donor need to, you know, have the vaccination? Since this

is just going to be a momentary experience in the hospital, you can prove your negative. They take the kidney. It's moving on. Why did they explain to you then would it be necessary to be vaccinated before you could even donate your kidney? Yeah, they told me the reason I have. had to be vaccinated was so that I wouldn't infect Laylawny during surgery. And they don't do any COVID testing prior to surgery anymore. So they're not even trying to prevent you from coming into the operating room with COVID. They're just saying if you have COVID, you can give it to her unless you're vaccinated. And I just thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Outrageous. Okay. So now we're in a situation where, you know, the very place that you need

to save your life is denying you. In that moment, you know, and you talk about your faith, your decision is to refuse COVID vaccination. You will be removed from the kidney transplant list. And this is something people are looking at their jobs. How am I going to feed my family? You know, whether my employer is telling me to get this vaccination. This is a life and death decision for you.

What does it finally come down to for you? I mean, certainly we all believe, you know, that we can be forgiven for the decisions we made. Why are you standing so strong here? At the end of the day, for me, after much prayer, I knew that this was the right thing to do because this goes further than just my own personal health, my individual choice. As I looked around and I see people losing their jobs, their livelihoods, as I see parents coming forth saying, my eight-year-old has just been removed from the transplant list.

and they're already on dialysis. So if there's nothing past dialysis, that child will die. I couldn't stay quiet any longer. I had to come forth and take this stand so that others might possibly benefit from the decision that I'm making, that I need to stand up for what I believe is morally right at this point. And, you know, Del, I don't think about the vaccine and whether someone's gotten it or not gotten it,

as a matter of salvation. That's not it. I'm not even anti-vax. I've been vaccinated as a child. I've had to be vaccinated when I've traveled around the world. But this really is a moment in our history of what side of history will we stand on? Freedom or oppression. You know, as you talk about sort of standing up for the rights of others, it sounds like people have reached out to you with similar issues. Is that is that the case? Absolutely. We've got parents of young children. We have parents of adult children in their 20s. We have grandmothers. We have grandfathers, all of which have been removed from the many transplant lists across the nation. So it's not just here in Colorado. It's going on across this nation. And people are scrambling. I mean, literally scrambling because lives hang in the balance of what are they going to do? Where are they going to go? Well, I'm hoping that there is, you know, some light at the end of the tunnel here in Texas. We saw a headline in the newspapers.

This is what it said. Texas welcomes patients denied life-saving organ transplants in Colorado because of COVID vaccination status. So Texas is reaching out their arms. Governor Abbott even went a step further. Texas welcomes patients denied lifesaving organ transplants in Colorado because of COVID vaccination status. Obviously, you know, our governor here in Texas where this show is brought. from recognizes your story. I'm curious, are you talking into any hospitals now in Texas and sort of following up on what, you know, Greg Abbott seems like he's making a promise to

those out there. Are those words sincere? Are there really hospitals in Texas that are looking into this? Those words are sincere. You have several hospitals in the great state of Texas that are offering to do the transplant. You know, I think doctors will continue to say our recommendation is for the shot, but they're saying it's still your choice. And that's all we're looking for. So, yes, we are reaching out. We've begun the transplant application process, and hopefully we'll have an answer here soon in terms of, you know, at least one of those hospitals. But there are several, and that's encouraging because we're able to also point others who've reached out to us to those very hospitals. Wow, that's great news. We will obviously keep you in our

prayers. And I know that for people that are hearing the story, just like they've been reaching out from the other news agencies when you've been out there telling your story, whether it was a negative or a positive, the people that are suffering with you, I'm sure, don't see that story ever as negative. They see that you're standing up for them. For those people, what's the best way to reach out to you and sort of follow your journey and also maybe some of the advice you might be able to give them in private or, you know, where should they go? Sure. So we've actually set up a Facebook page right now, and it's called Medical Men. are you kidney me? Okay. And that's for patients to reach out and tell us their story because we want to hear their story. We want to share their story. We want to be a part of their story. And through that process, we'll be getting them information that they need to get their transplants as well.

All right. Well, it's an incredible story. For everyone watching right now, and maybe you're brand new to this show, just know that you don't have to grab that website or that Facebook page right as it's going by. All of this will be provided to you if you're just, on our newsletter and signed up. Laylani and Jamie, I just want to thank you for your courage, not just your courage of conviction, which I think is such a testament to faith that is being tested in all of us right now on varying levels. But just for standing up for your beliefs, your truth, and not being afraid to tell your story, I know for a fact that you are going to save lives, and we're all going to pray that we get to see, you know, that life-changing transformation that holds onto your life on this earth. You're such a fact that you're such a lot of a blessing and I want to thank you for blessing us on the high wire today. Thank you so much now

and happy anniversary. Thank you. That's awesome. Well, it's great to have family. It's great to have friends and obviously you prove that in spades. We love you guys. Keep us posted and we'll follow you all the way into whatever surgery we do. Hopefully we get to see you afterwards and hear how you're doing. Excellent. Thank you so much. God bless. God bless you. All right. God bless you. Well, I mean, these are trying times, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. And every time maybe we think we're alone, I've been saying it, the world is changing. I mean, hopefully there'll be more governors all across the nation that we'll see. What a great public PR stunt that would be to just actually help people, offer up hospitals to take care of them when Colorado is shutting them down.

We look forward to continuing to show the world where maybe you want to live if you want to be safe, happy, free, healthy, and taken care of. Well, I mean, a lot of that is what we are involved here at the high wire. There's so many different parts of what we do every week you're tuning into the high wire. But I want to point out that the high wire is made possible by our nonprofit, the informed consent action network. That's where all the donations go to. We have science teams that work with ICANN that make sure that we get the science right. You know, we've even talked about what would it take to try and do, you know, another show every week? I mean, these shows get so long on Thursdays, but you have to understand that we're

one thing I want to make sure on the high wire is that you are getting the facts. And there are things that get out there. And I see other shows and bloggers doing their job to be the first one to break a story. Here on the highwire, it's not important that we break a story first. If that story is wrong, then it hurts all of us. It's really important to us to get it right. And so from, you know, Sunday until, you know, Thursday morning, we have specialists all around the world making sure we're getting our story right, making sure that we're accurate

and that when people go out and share our information from the high wire, they know that it's factual and it will stand up, maybe even in court, which leads me to our next guest. I think, you know, probably half of the work that we do, or, you know, even more is not even talked about. It can't be talked about. Some of it's private, but it all has to do with the legal side of what we're doing. And very early on, I recognize that if we were going to get anywhere in this investigation into vaccinations and safety and efficacy, since there's no liability, we might need a lawyer.

We might need to have to sue somebody. And I think I found the best in the world. You know him as Aaron Siri, and you've seen him in the news. Vaccine and civil rights attorney, Aaron Siri. Joining us now is the attorney representing the Mazur family, Aaron Siri. Civil rights attorney vaccine specialist Aaron Siri. Attorney Aaron Siri. There are many health interventions that the government may want to encourage, but we don't fire people from not engaging in a practice that only benefits them. That's simply authoritarian and it shows a lack of respect for individual rights.

This summer we formally petition the CDC on behalf of one of our clients demanding that they support their position that those that have natural immunity cannot afford the same liberties that the CDC says that those who have vaccine immunities can have. A young lady named Maddie DeGarry was 12 years old, participant, participated in the Pfizer clinical trial for 12 to 15 year old, a trial that only had about 1100 children, and she suffered a serious adverse event right after the vaccine. But the most troubling part of this story is what Pfizer and the FDA did after she was injured. They tried to brush it under the rug. I think people across the country are hearing this, and they actually can't believe it.

We sent a follow-up letter to the FDA saying, you know, saying, really, are you going to ignore this, you know, well-scent? seriously credentialed doctor used to work at Harvard and Georgetown-affiliated hospitals, reporting a whole litany of serious injuries from the COVID-19 vaccine. We've now responded to the CDC and, you know, and if they refuse to lift the restrictions, we do intend to follow a lawsuit on behalf of our client, the Informant Action Network. Aaron, I'm glad you filed this lawsuit. We're going to be tracking this very closely. Thank you. Well, you know, it's something that I've dreamt about.

We've talked about a lot. I've been trying to talk Aaron's hearing and coming on to the high-wire. to talk a little bit about what we do and what our relationship is with Syrian Glimstad, the law firm headed by Aaron Siri. And finally, that moment has come. I am honored. It's a pleasure to finally have you, Aaron Siri, in studio with me. First of all, thank you so much for all of your incredible work.

I mean, I say that on behalf of millions of Americans and probably, you know, maybe billions around the world, because what happens in America, what happens in our course, systems. What we've done with the regulatory agencies I think is affecting, you know, lawyers and lawsuits all around the world. So I just don't think we can underestimate the size of, you know, what you've achieved in your work with us. So I want to thank you. Thank you and thank I can for giving us the opportunity to do the legal work that we do, to make sure that nobody should be coerced to get any medical product. Yeah. It's a fundamental right, I think for most of American history, it was something that people intuitively understood.

And over the last number of years, unfortunately, that ethos is being lost. And I think that ICAN is at the forefront of fighting to make sure that that it's not. And we're proud to provide the legal work for ICANN to do that. Right. I want to sort of take people through because this is really a once-in-life time opportunity for us, but also for our viewers, so many that donating, they hear about us working, they sort of hear about these lawsuits. But to begin with, I was just reflecting on sort of how we met. I had been traveling the nation with Vax, you know, and then I decided to start my own nonprofit. And one of the issues I had, and the truth was, I kept talking to lawyers as I was going around the country. Many of them would come and say,

man, it's incredible the work you're doing. And I would say, there's no way we're going to be able to win this if we can't start shifting some of this in courtrooms. And, and, you know, And they would all say the same thing to me. It's like, yeah, I know, man, it's true. But I'm not your guy. And I'm not sure who would be because there's no liability, you know, 1986 Act, yada, yada that protected the manufacturers from liability. So therefore, you know, there's nothing we can really do to help you. But, you know, we love what you're doing.

You know, good luck with that. And I remember when I met you was right after you'd won the flu shot case. I think it was a mandated flu shot. Was it for preschool or kindergarten in New York? It was preschool in New York City. preschool in New York City. And, you know, I read the headlines and I was thinking, holy cow, wait, someone just won a lawsuit that blocked a vaccine from being used in pre-K and, you know, that suit went on to do other things. But in that moment, I just thought, I want to talk to this guy.

And when we talked, you were the first one that ever said, yeah, I know about the 1986 Act. And I know that, you know, it makes suing difficult. But no one's really looked into the the 1986 Act, that there's things we can do. Did you remember that conversation? I do. You remember what you sort of told me about that? Well, you said to me, the pharmaceutical companies have complete immunity under the 1986 Act.

So lawyers have been telling you there's nothing to do legally. And at that point, I had taken a look at the Act. And when we spoke, I mentioned to you, there are a number of obligations that HHS, NIH, FDA, CDC all have under the 1986 Act with regard to vaccine safety. When Congress took away the liability for pharmaceutical companies, it appears it at least understood that somebody had to be responsible vaccine safety. It wasn't going to be the pharmaceutical company anymore.

You can't sue them. Why are they going to do with safety debt? What difference is going to make? I mean, there's nothing they need to do. I mean, they can't be sued. They're scoffrey. They're going to make all their money and just run off on the sunset. And so, you know, the way that safety typically works for products in America, as you know,

is companies are either afraid of being sued or are sued and face liability. Right. To avoid that, they make safe for products. For better or worse, we measure typically the value of products in this country by the amount of revenue that it brings in versus the amount of money that has to be paid for harms. And as long as the amount that comes in is more, we say it's a valuable product. or we make the company adjust to make it safer, right? Yeah.

Or we have to increase the price. When it comes to vaccines, that market force doesn't exist. It's pretty much the only product in America that's like that. And so going back to Congress, when it passed the 86 Act, it appears it did recognize that problem. Right. And so it said, okay, we're leaving a vacuum with regards to safety as the market. driving safety. So we're going to make the federal government responsible for vaccine safety. And it put a number of duties on our federal health official to assure safety. And so our discussion,

I do recall, was we should make sure that our federal health authorities are doing what they're supposed to do under the 1980s to assure safety. That's right. So you sort of laid out that, no, we can't see the manufacturer, but we can bring FOIA request. We can, we can, we can, investigate, and my law firm could start doing some investigations, if you'd like, and start sending letters to talk about the 86 Act. And the things that you sort of brought up right up front,

that you're like, what we would be curious about and probably should be curious about is when they took on liability, health and human services said, obviously we can't trust the pharmaceutical industry is going to make sure it safe. So we're going to have to do that. And our Congress, and Ronald Reagan hated the idea, right? I mean, he hated the idea

of sort of signing over. He liked free market, I think, is a choice. But, you know, they also wanted vaccinations in the country for multiple reasons. I want to get in the weeds here. But this idea that what Congress basically said, or they said, was HHS is going to have to report to us every two years and make sure that we're, you know, remedying the problem that led the pharmaceutical industry to saying, you know, we are losing so much money from injury and death in our, you know, vaccination lawsuits that we can't make a profit. And so you said, I think we should see what they said when they were meeting with Congress, right?

I think you're giving me too much credit. I appreciate it. All right. But my recollection was when we talked was that you said to me, you said to me, you said, you know, I went on tour with VAC. Yeah. And I thought I was just going to meet family after family telling me about injuries from vaccines that resulted in autism. but you had a different experience, you told me. Yes, there were many families describing autism after vaccination,

but there were so many other injuries that you were blown away. And you realized you told me that you believed the problem was, autism was just one little component of the injuries that vaccines might cause. And when I told you about the obligations under the act, I say you gave me too much credit because actually it was your idea to say you know what we really should uncover what have the health authorities done vis-a-vis safety before licensure after licensure you brought that to me and asked me legally can we do that because I can't seem to get answers from scientists from the health authorities themselves when we've asked scientists to ask them and so

That began a process by which you've come back to us many times to, it's usually starts the same way. We talk to the scientists, we reach out to health agencies, we just can't get an answer on did they do this clinical trial? Did they do a clinical trial on whether or not a flu shot is safe for pregnant women, for example, right? Right. Right. And so, you know, obviously all those questions have always, they've always been interesting because a lot of times when you bring then I say, come on, Del, really? Can that be, you know, come on. Seriously, you're telling me, you're telling me that this product given to babies is only tested, how long for safety? I'm like,

get out of here. Right. And we'd pull up the package insert and you say, okay, Aaron, I want to get to the bottom of this. What can we do legally? I give you options and I think you've always done, I mean, I've always been impressed at how judicious you are in trying to pick the most efficient way to get to answers and, you know. Well, you're good at saying that's a hairbrain. idea and that won't go anywhere. But you're also good at saying, you know what, that's a little bit outside the box. Let me get my team to look at it. I mean, you will run through the questions that I might have. And of course, those are being driven by brilliant scientists that we work with all around the world that point things out to me, say, did you see this? You know, but I remember early

on, you know, I told you that, you know, if I originally, I wanted to be a filmmaker, a documentary, like that was my, you know, calling. But I said, you know, in school, the only other thing that I'd ever thought, you know, I would have been a good lawyer. You know, I should have been a lawyer and I sort of every once in a while you get really excited when I get to like give you some crazy idea. I remember one time you're like you know what stick to stick to the television maybe I said that it was just one moment we have our moments but let just so we can move on so much I want to talk you about but you were when we did come to you and we did start looking at the 86 Act that led to a lawsuit win against health and human services where we proved that not only you

Did they not want to share the information with those meetings that were supposed to happen every two years with Congress to talk about how they were improving the vaccine program? We found out that they never met once since 86. They were mandated to do it every two years. And instead, they never had a single meeting. When you found that out, I mean, I know what my reaction was, but I was telling you, you know, I'm skeptical of this. When you found out that not only did they, like, have bad meetings or very little information, that they had just never adhered to the mandate and the law, what were your thoughts? Did you think maybe does on to something here? It's, since it was at the beginning, I was very surprised.

Yeah. I've rarely come across such a clear provisions of law and obligations on our federal health authorities. On something that's not, you know, it's not, it relates to safety of kids, children, babies, and a product that's being injected into them. I think most Americans like to believe hope that our federal health authorities would take those obligations very seriously. Especially where it's in a vacuum. They are the, they're not the last line of defense. They're the only defense to assure the safety of these products.

The first line of defense is, as we talked about, is financial liability. Product liability attorneys, class action attorneys. your car is safer, I mean, with all due respect to the fellow government's regulatory authorities. Most of that is probably due to lawsuits that have been brought against car manufacturers. Your home products, everything you see around you on this set is probably safer because the people who make, the companies that make them, face liability. Certainly said by a lawyer. I mean, that's what I mean, it's true. Fair enough.

Fair enough, but. I think you're right. But here's the thing. Here's the thing. I think that people intuitively understand that economics drive. companies. Yeah. That is what they are there to do. When they take that incentive away. You take that incentive away. I'm not saying it's it's, it's, it's just a structural problem. Yeah. It's a lack of incentive. So yes, I was very surprised that when the federal health authorities

who are tasked with assuring safety as the only basically after removing the market forces, weren't doing the basic duties, I mean the most basic duties, which you're referring to, of course, is what's called the mandate for safer child of vaccines. That's literally what the section of the federal law is called. And for those who want to look it up, it's 42 USC 300A-28. You're good. And when you read it, it's got three simple sections, right? Section one, it says, make vaccines safer to the federal health authorities.

Make it safer. Section two is form a task force to advise the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, that is the federal department under which is the CDC NIH FDA advise him on how to make vaccine safer and that task force is comprised of the head of the NIH CDC and FDA and then section three is every two years second secretary of HHS report to Congress how you've made vaccine safer okay right simple simple so I remember having discussion you said okay let's get those let's find out the task force recommendations Let's get those reports. Yeah.

Let's look at the low-hanging fruit of those three obligations. Right. Then we'll know what to go from there. Then we can go back to A. So B, on the task force, we started with the FOIA request. Yeah. Freedom of Information Act. Federal law that permits you to demand the federal government give you information.

And we asked for all the minutes, the meetings, the charter, everything that was available about this task force. Nothing was forthcoming. We didn't get anything. Right. So we went to federal court. We sued the NIH. Right.

After winding through all that, bottom line is the task force apparently was formed but was disbanded in 1998. Apparently as of 1998, before many of the vaccines we currently have to have were even licensed, they didn't need to do anything further. Right. So that's gone. In terms of the biannual report to Congress required by Section C, they've never submitted a single one ever. Wow. You know, and so, you know, one of course must wonder if there, if the federal health

authorities aren't doing the easy parts of the mandate for safer childhood vaccines, which is just meet, give recommendations, and file a report, how seriously are they taking the first section of the mandate, which is to actually make it safer in every possible way? I will bore you with legalese for one more second by telling you this. this, you know, the FDA, for example, was charged with making food and drugs, you know, assuring their safety. You could fill this room with regulations that stem from that requirement, that they make drugs or food safer. But if you want to know how many regulations there are under the mandate for Chaffer Child of vaccines?

None. No way. There are none. Our regulatory agencies, right, they implement regulations to give, let's call it put meat on the bone of a statutory section passed by Congress. There are none for that section. Obviously, you know, that one could read into that what they want. It just is what it is.

Right. We won't do any reading it because that's what you're always telling me to be careful of. Let's not read into it. Let's take the facts. Let's see what they can say. You've successfully won. We brought a lawsuit because we were concerned. We were seeing signs, you know, if you're pregnant, get your flu shot. It's the best way to protect your baby. I was like, you know, when we were looking at it and we were looking at the flu shot, I started reading the inserts. And I'm like everywhere, it says that was not tested on pregnant women, no idea how it affects pregnancy. And so I thought this can't possibly be true. There must be

some science on it. So again, I ask you, can we submit a FOIA request on what studies have been done giving the flu shot to pregnant women? Right. Because clinical trials are what we rely upon to find whether a product is safe and effective. And once there's a clinical trial, that's what the FDA would rely upon to then license it for that particular use. And so to have a vaccine license for pregnant women, you'd need to have a clinical trial with pregnant women. You'd want to know whether it's safe and effective before promoting it to that. One would think, I mean, I'm sure that's what every pregnant woman's assuming when they see a poster that says the CDC says, get your flu shot to protect your baby. They're assuming that's been well tested. So we,

so as you said, we foyer the FDA, simple request. Please provide all the clinical trials relied upon to license the flu shot for pregnant women. Right. I distinctly remember the phone call with the representative from the FDA. Got on the phone with me and tried to say, you know, we'll just give you all the clinical trials that were used to license a flu shot. And I said, thank you very much. But my client, I can, is not requesting all the clinical trials.

Just those relied upon to license. the flu shot for pregnant women. That's it. And it was a lot of hemming and hawing. Weeks, months, passed, never got anything. So we decided, okay, time to go to court. We went to federal court. We sued them. And they finally admitted, that's right, we don't have any clinical trials. Because you know what? It's never been licensed for pregnant women. That's why, as you just pointed out, though, when you see a flyer promoting, promoting a flu shot for pregnant women, does it say the company's name on it? No. Why? Because that's an off-label use. It's not a licensed use. If a pharmaceutical company promoted a flu shot for pregnant women, that would be illegal.

Really? Yes, because it's not an approved use by the FDA. Hence, it's an off-label use. Hence, if a pharmaceutical company were to do that, they would be violating federal law. So who does all the promoting for we serve for pregnant women. CDC. Exactly. They fill in that gap. And then the big one, and it was really great timing, actually. You know, we had just moved to Texas, and, you know, we were sort of kicking off a new studio and everything, and that was just the moment that, you know, this autism conversation was going

on, right? I wanted to figure out a way that we could look at autism in a different way, because we're just, you know, we kept reading on the website, vaccines do not cause autism. And I just, you know, and then every. everywhere we looked. I was looking for the signs. Talking the sign is asking you legally, what can they prove? All of those things. And then in the end, you know, we sort of talked about it, right? And I said, if I was going to try and make a FOIA request, it was specific enough. I knew the MMR, the whole movie I had made was about MMR vaccine, right? And I knew

that we would have a problem because though I think it's a fraud, I'm not going to ask you to say that, but, you know, in the investigation I did, Dr. William Thompson, the whistleblower inside the CDC basically describes how they committed a fraud in the MMR studies. The one thing they can say is this study that shows that MMR vaccines do not cause autism. It's a fraud, but it's there. And thimerosol, right? We knew that there had been some studies around mercury. And whether or not you agree with that science, they could say that science was there.

But there's 16 vaccines. And one of the things that I kept, the biggest one, when I was on tour, would blew my mind is, you know, people come up to me after seeing vaccines and say, your movie is all. about the MMR vaccine, Dell, but we never got the MMR vaccine. We, our child regressed into autism after the D-TAP vaccine. And I said, is there a way to just specifically look at that? And we sort of talked about it. We said, well, look, if autism is being diagnosed at younger and younger ages, it used to

be you didn't know until they were like four years old. But we've got really good at seeing that, you know, by six months many times, they can diagnose a child with autism. And so it would go without saying that if you can diagnose it at six months and it's being caused by something early on in life, then let's look at the vaccines given the first six months of life. And how easy was that? I mean, first of all, as the FDA or the C, when we do these things, do they ever just respond immediately? Because it just feels like every time we've done this, we just get silence, which then immediately makes me think there's something there. Like,

there's something they don't want to tell us. But in this case, you know. Yeah, I think in the early days there was a lot of silence. We don't seem to get a lot of silence anymore. As you know. As you know. That's true. We've got. We've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we, we've, They're pretty responsive after we've sued them at pretty much every health agency on behalf of I can. Right. But look, when it comes to whether or not the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, whether or not there's a fraud there, from the perspective of informed consent, what's more important in my view is if you're going to tell a patient, that vaccine does not cause autism, you should have the science to back that up.

Right. Yeah. I mean, I think that, and this is something we, you know, I recall, you call me about this and I, I must admit, the first time you brought this up, you know, obviously we all know the public narrative vaccines do not cause autism. And I, I remember thinking, I'm, all right, you know, being skeptical and thinking, okay, well, I've got a real. really look closely at this one because there's no claim that federal health authorities say that they have more thoroughly investigated. Right. There is no claim about injury from a vaccine that they have claimed they have robustly,

thoroughly looked into and are certain. And emphatic about. Emphatic, categorical vaccines do not cause autism. So when you said to me, that may not be true, I said, I need to say, I need to say, I need see proof. I want to see the primary sources. I need to see the proof of that. Of course, the first thing, you know, the place to start in my mind is always, let's see the studies that show that it doesn't cause autism because that's their declaratory statement. Your statement is it does cause autism. Let's just start with what they're saying, right, is what we discuss. Yeah.

And let's just see what they have to support that assertion. And that's when, you know, you told me about how all of these parents have telling you it's not just the MMR vaccine it's it's all the child of vaccines MMR is given as early as one year of age as you know but there's hep beyond day one there's five vaccines on two months six at four months five more six months maybe it's any of those right if you're going to say vaccines on cause autism those all of them those are vaccines right right I mean you want to say MMR is in causal autism that's different So you told me a lot of parents were saying that all the vaccines seem to be causing. And many kids who had even got MMR.

Then we took a look at some peer-reviewed study that, in fact, surveyed parents, children with autism. And in fact, what vaccines do they blame? It's not just MMR. It's all the childhood vaccines. So we started, I recall very distinctly, with the idea, you know, as usual, presented ICANN with a number of options. And the option that you guys chose to go with, which I thought was a good idea, was let's FOIA for just the studies that show that the vaccines during during the first year of life before MMR do not cause autism. We foyer the CDC for those studies and we didn't get anything. Nothing.

Like zero. So we went, so we eventually, after giving plenty of runway for the CDC to provide those studies, Ican directed us to bring a lawsuit in federal court, which we did. The CDC finally did provide a list of 20 studies. It's technically 16 studies and four reviews. And as you've covered well on your show, we said, great, we have our list. Here they are. Let's take a look at them.

And you had scientists, look at them. We looked at them. And incredibly, none of them support the assertion that the vaccine is given before, in the first year of life. In fact, what's really amazing, I mean, it's, it's amazing that in that list, one of the last studies reports is an IOM review, an Institute of Medicine Review from 2012. Yeah. Almost everything else preceded that. And in that Institute of Medicine Review from 2012, the CDC and another health agency paid the Institute of Medicine, commissioned them, to look at what were they considered to be the most commonly claimed injuries from vaccines. Right.

What was one of those claimed injuries? D-TAP. That the D-TAP vaccine caused autism. Right. So the Institute of Medicine convened a patient. panel of experts in almost every discipline in medicine, spent a year, two years looking at every study out there, and then they wrote up their findings. The finding was they could find only one study that relates to D-TAP and autism, and that study, since it relied on VERS data,

was thrown out. It also happened to show a correlation. Right. That vaccine, that the TDAP vaccine was correlated with autism. Well, so the only study they found showed a correlation they threw that one out because they said it had it didn't have an unvaccinated control group effectively unreliable because it right unvared right so they threw it out so what did they have they said nothing there was nothing there was no evidence no evidence now does that mean vaccine DAP vaccine causes autism no it doesn't but does it mean that you can't say vaccine that DDA vaccine does not cause autism of course right how can you say that DETAP doesn't cause autism when the scientific agents the scientific organization the suit of

medicine created by Congress to study scientific questions or Congress commissioned by the CDC looked at this very question and came back and said we can't find every evidence and so when we sue the CDC in federal court and we say give us the studies that show vaccine to support your claim of the vaccines don't cause autism the list of 20 that you give us includes the Institute of Medicine report that literally says we don't have any evidence. 19 that don't address the vaccines we're talking about. The only one that does essentially address directly a vaccine we're talking about

makes our point. There is no science to prove yes or no. So they produced no studies that D-TAP doesn't cause autism. They didn't produce any studies that had B vaccine given at one month, four-month, six-month because not cause autism. They didn't produce any thing that hid vaccine given at two, four, and six months doesn't cause autism. I could stop there.

Yeah. Get that point. You know, it's, we want, you know, we look to our health agencies to assure the safety of all Americans, not just the guards to vaccines, but for all kinds of health issues. Yeah. And there are instances where we do need to, you know, where health authorities do play an important role in our society. and I think that they do a huge disservice to themselves and to all Americans when they issue guidance that's not reliable and that's not science-based because that causes all Americans to lose trust in our federal health agencies and when their moment comes when we really do need them when it's important

people aren't going to trust that so yes so that wasn't that's another lawsuit and of course we've done many lawsuits that I can has directed us to do I will say that, you know, I think the one of the things that ICANN does most effectively, if I may, is it sees issues well before we need a lawsuit and, you know, asks us to engage in legal letter writing, requests and so forth that oftentimes avoid the need for a full-blown lawsuit. And I think ICAN has been very efficient and using our services to do that. Which leads us to, you know, this whole natural immunity issue that I talked to you about, you know, we really have an issue here, it seems, in this country where we've known, I mean, science, if you've been in a high school science class, really, you should know that natural immunity has always been longer, more robust, more powerful than any vaccine that attempts to mimic what a natural infection does. Now, we could, you know, this is not an argument whether you should vaccinate

or not, but what we know so far to date is no vaccine has ever performed, you know, for those that get through the illness, is never performed as well as those that have natural immunity after having to get it. Yet, this entire conversation seems like the science has been changed altogether. And, you know, when it comes to the coronavirus vaccine, you have a vaccine that they're now admitting cannot stop infection, cannot stop transmission, you know, maybe reduces symptoms, even that is sort of on the chopping block right now. And in the face of that, we keep some of the, seeing all of these studies come out on the high water, I talk about all the time. Yet another study shows robust immunity just like we'd expect, like we expect from every other natural

infection, you know, people not getting reinfected that caught it. Yet, you know, people, they're saying up to 40% of Americans, is my understanding, have had natural immunity, caught this illness, they have better immunity in the vaccinations, yet they're still being discriminated against, you know, in order to do simple things like in New York. go out and, you know, buy a hoagie. So, you know, tell me about the national immunity letter and sort of what response you're getting because you're all over the news with it. Well, in May of this year, the CDC came out with guidance, lifting restrictions on those

who've been vaccinated. Yep. And I think the response was, but didn't do it for those that had natural immunity who had been previously infected. The response was quick and swift from scientists across the country at major universities. universities that that is that's not proper right you know the studies at that point as of may even of this year yeah we're clear right natural immunity is more robust than vaccine immunity yeah it it doesn't wane doesn't appear to wane based on the science to date it's more effective

in preventing you from getting infections even directly after licensure they're saying at best 90% excuse me, 95% efficacy for the vaccine. Right. The studies today have shown that the reinfection rate for those that have COVID

is far less than 1% and oftentimes even, you know, so small as to not even be measurable. And then naturally immune. Right. So you've got at best 95% efficacy

directly after licensure for the vaccine from preventing illness. Forget infection transmission. Right. Illness. But you've got a greater than 99%

efficacy from natural immunity. Now I'm a lawyer. Right. Okay. Not a mathematician. I'm not a mathematician. But I think the 99% is higher. With that said, so on the preventing disease,

and then in terms of infection and transmission, the vaccine as the CDC has had to begrudgingly admit, I'm sure. Yeah. It doesn't prevent infection transmission. The studies show that those of natural immunity, it does. So pretty much on every

score. I mean, that's why, you know, I think that even scientists at major universities felt comfortable coming out and attacking the CDC on that policy. And the CDC, again, really, it's doing a disservice to itself and everybody in America by hurting its own credibility. Right. By entrenching in that position. So, come by July, when the CDC still hadn't changed its tune on this. You asked us to send in a petition. Yeah. You know, while the pundits and everybody were debating. Here's that petition right here, citizens petition for the issuance of a rule regarding freedoms for the convalescent following COVID-19 disease Syrian Glimbstat on behalf of I can. And the basis of this is just what we're talking about, right? Yeah, that's right. You know,

you said to me, look, everybody's debating this. The scientists are all in the news saying that It shouldn't be this way. National communities should be. What can we do? And so we wanted to get a formal response from the CDC. Yeah. Because the CDC really, the CDC's not getting on the TV and addressing all the scientists that are attacking them. They just ignore them.

Yeah. And so we filed a formal petition that if the C, that would give us grounds to eventually bring a lawsuit. Yeah. You know, that. But just sort of how this works, right? We start with a FOIA request. We start with the petition. We want them to just, this isn't a FOIA request.

This is a formal petition under a particular provision, a rarely used provision of the law that permits you to formally petition the CDC. So yes. Has anyone ever used this, by the way, this part of the law? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. So we're the first to sort of venture into this space. As far as I'm aware, I haven't seen, but as far as far as.

I'm aware. With that said, so we file it in July, we list 50 studies, over 50 studies that support what I just said a few minutes ago regarding how natural immune is more robust in every way over vaccine immunity. And what we said to the CDC is this. We said, look, either, one, provide the science that shows that in fact on balance, what we're saying is incorrect, that on balance, in fact, vaccine immunity is more robust and more durable than natural immunity. And if you can show that science, then wonderful. ICANN will go away. ICANN will go away.

OK, even though, of course, you know, one of the things that I think, you know, that's a core principle, as I understand of ICAN's position, which is, which, you know, is that the government should never coerce you to get a medical procedure. Right. Natural immunity or no natural immunity, which is a fundamental bedrockable. principle that you know but nonetheless we gave them that option show us that science yeah or two if you can't show it at the least lift restrictions on those that have natural immunity to the same extent as those have vaccine immunity right right simple fair yeah simple i apparently over the next five weeks the cdc was very busy conducting a study in kentucky because they didn't respond to us

they didn't respond five weeks later they issue a study out of kentucky that study does not compare those that have vaccine immunity to natural immunity. Instead, it compares those that have natural immunity to natural immunity plus vaccine. And it says, aha, see, even the natural immunity can benefit from vaccination. That study of a few hundred people, it's in the study itself says that has a limitation that says, look, this is only a few hundred people. So bigger studies might show something different. Well, in fact, that bigger study has been done in Israel with 2.5 million in Israeli

and shows that the clinical difference between those of natural immunity and natural immunity plus vaccination is not isn't significant. But the point is, is not, you know, we're not looking to see does de-benefit from the vaccination. The point is is if you're only vaccinated and never got immunity or if you're naturally immunity, your national immunity is doing better than all the vaccinated. Yet this person can, you know, walk into a restaurant without a mask in some places, can get on a plane in some place, can go to an amusement park, and not get the test before going there. And this person that doesn't need anything because it's the only person blocking infection,

blocking transmission, they have to get tested, they have to go through all sorts of things that the vaccinated person is not having to go through, even though we know they're not doing as well as the naturally immune. Because America. Because that's America.

Because freedom. Freedom. Because freedom. And so once that study was issued, then the CDC finally responded, formally. And their response did not address a single one of the 50 studies we cited.

Not one. Incredibly, it cited one study, the Kentucky study, the study that they had done in, you know, that they had published in between our formal petition and their response. Are we forcing them to do bad science?

Do you go out and just do the science to try and answer, you know, to I can? I, I, I, can only, can only speculate as the answer to that question. Okay. I won't make you speculate.

But when they, so they respond, and that's the only study they point to, you know, when somebody presents you with evidence, robust evidence at that, and your response is to just ignore all of it, and in fact, point to something else that has nothing even to do, as you point out, with whether or not those with just vaccine immunity have better immunity than natural immunity, I take that as a pretty great admission. So we responded to the CDC formally on behalf of ICANN, and in that response, there have been actually even more studies have come out. And I think we've laid out the science very clearly.

And we have also informed the CDC that if they don't lift the restrictions on those that are naturally immune, the same way the vaccine immune will be taking them to court. We've included in there as well a number of experts from universities across the country. Stanford to the UC system. Brown. Let's put it this way. The CDC is creating its own issues because when you've got professors from medical institutions at major universities,

Ivy universities across the country. They're normally afraid to even weigh in on any of this stuff. Let's admit around vaccinations. Join ICANN's petition to the CDC. You know the CDC's got a problem. Let me just make sure everyone knows how bad this problem is. It's so bad, in fact, that Sanjay Gupta, who has been a shill for vaccines all along, even he had to admit that the science that we're looking at, as we've said, over 50 studies now,

many coming out of Israel, is showing robust immunity after, you know, a natural infection compared to the vaccinated. He even grilled Tony Fauci on this. If you remember this, take a look. There was a study that came out of Israel about natural immunity. And basically the headline was that natural immunity provides a lot of protection, even better than the vaccines alone. What are people to make of that?

So as we talk about vaccine mandates, I get calls all the time. People say, I've already had COVID. I'm protected. And now the study says maybe even more protected than the vaccine alone. should they also get the vaccine? How do you make the case to them? You know, that's a really good point, Sanjay. I don't have a really firm answer for you on that.

That's something that we're going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response. The one thing the paper from Israel didn't tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection, what's the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you're protected, but you may not be protected for an indebted. definite period of time. So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously because you very appropriately pointed out it is an issue and there could be an argument for saying what you said. How's it going? I mean, there you have it, right? That's what we've got here. Even when Fauci's grilled, he asked a bit, you know what? That's a really good

question. We don't really have any science on that, which is what they've proven. They've got one really crappy study that doesn't address truly natural immunity. We've got over 50. And so we'll we'll bring a lawsuit. I mean, I told you, if they play these games much longer, there are people that are being discriminated for absolutely no reason. Obviously, I don't even agree that anyone unvaccinated should have any rights taken away. This is all absurd. But we try to make sure that we don't just like go for the whole thing where we know we can win, we've got to start. And we've got to maintain the power of natural infection, right? The power of natural immunity and what that gives you. If we lose that, then this thing is going to be over.

So, you know, we'll bring that lawsuit. Well, you tell us to bring it, Delo. I will. We will bring that lawsuit. We're giving them one more chance here. I'll point out one other thing about it. And I think it goes to the core of what ICANN does, is that if businesses, if the governments across the country weren't required by Biden's mandate to mandate this vaccine for anybody, this wouldn't be an issue. Right.

And the CDC could give the guidance of wants, and that's that. It's the pernicious effect of mandates that makes this an issue. Right. Because if there were no mandates, if people could live freely in this country without, you know, being the authoritarian thumb of being coerced to engage in a medical procedure they may not want, they may not need, this wouldn't be a problem. Now, one of the things that's happening, I think, based on the work that we're doing is, I think obviously you're in the news now. You know, you do great work for us, you know, and obviously you ever passed, having worked on the flu shop. But you're now starting to have doctors.

And I know that there's been so many people have reached out for exemptions and things like that. But what's fascinating is you were actually on the news. This is something that's just happened. You had a doctor, Lee, that reached out to you who believes in vaccines, pro-vaccine. But she reached out to you and said, I need your help. Why does she need your help? and what was happening there. Yeah, Dr. Patricia Lee, incredibly brave physician.

She embodies the best of what we hope all physicians will embody. She reached out because she is an intensivist. She works in the intensive care unit treating patients. And what she saw was a series of patients that had serious injuries from COVID vaccine. She reported them to theirs as she should to her credit. And she heard nothing. I mean, we're talking injuries such as quadriplegia, having most of your small intestines removed. Wow.

Really serious injuries. She waited and waited and got no response. Nobody from the government followed up with her in her VERS reports, which she was... And we're all being told, like, you filed a VERS. They're seeing some, you know, issues. We're not in a controlled study anymore. We jumped out of the controlled study with the emergency use authorization. So these doctors reaching out, someone filling out VERS reports, is saying, hey, you know,

You know, you said I was supposed to report if there's a problem here. I'm seeing a lot of problems. Like more than any vaccine I've ever seen before, right? Is that essentially what she's saying? Yeah, she's saying she's never seen this many vaccine injuries. Okay. At least she's never recognized that, you know, an injury is associated with the vaccine. Okay.

And the cases that she has put forth in a letter that she then went and sent to health authorities, they're not cases where she's uncertain. As she makes clear in her letter, these were the ones where she was certain, based on her clinical judgment, was from a COVID-19 vaccine. So she submits the VAERS reports, gets no better, she doesn't hear anything from the CDC, and she finally feels like as a matter of moral duty, she's got to do something.

So she pens a letter directly to the CDC and the FDA, telling what she's experienced with this COVID-19 vaccine. and basically pleading with them to do something. While she waits one day, two days, seven days. By the eighth day, she gets no response. That's when she asked us to get involved. And we sent a letter to the FDA and CDC saying, are you really going to ignore this mainstream doctor

who trained at Harvard and Georgetown hospitals who is telling you there's a serious problem here? right um the FDA responded very quickly and uh um you know it it's unfortunate that it appears that and i'm speculating here you know one has to wonder is it public health that drove them to finally respond or was a public relations you know what was your response uh the response was um they they agreed to uh have a meeting with her her. Okay. And, you know, I'm, and if Dr. Lee authorizes me, I'm, I will happy to share that, but obviously I need her to give me that permission. Do you think, I mean, here she wrote a letter.

She should be getting that response. Seven, eight days, no response finally reaches out to you. You get a response immediately. Can, can we attribute some of that sort of, I mean, I would imagine a lot of lawyers could reach out, but does it make a difference that you're the lawyer that's represented I can? We've sued in one against the FDA. We've sued in one. We've sued in one. won against the CDC. Do you think that that changes how they're responding to letters, not just from any lawyer, but specifically from your law firm? Yeah. I mean, I guess whether you win or not, if, you know, if you get a letter from somebody that's constantly suing you, you tend to be a bit more responsive. Okay. It's typically the case. Right. Yeah. Especially where, you know,

they can perceive public relations issues, right? Yeah. The fact that they, you know, they flu shot for pregnant women as we talked about earlier. Stuff like that. So yes, I do think that has an impact. And I will tell you that now that Dr. Patricia Lee has bravely come forward with her story, we have been contacted by dozens of other physicians. Wow. Many of which are providing or have already provided letters similar to Dr. Lee

and some of which have already been sent to the health authorities. And so I expect actually once those become in if those also end up in the public domain. Yeah. Then I expect there'll even be more physicians that reach out to our firm. It's an interesting situation where we have mainstream doctors, pediatricians, family paraphersts, insincipists, ICU doctors reaching out to us to talk about. vaccine injuries and are so concerned they want us to help them get their story to the FDA and CDC. Normally doctors do those types of doctors do not like our firm because we're normally deposing them.

So it's interesting to be working with them and we welcome and we very much welcome doing that. Great. You know we could get the impression that all of the legal stuff and work that you do on this is all letter writing and phone calls. There's tons of that obviously and you want to preempt ever having end up in the courtroom. But I think one of the things that really puts you on the map and, you know, has been, we've done multiple shows on it, was this deposition you did of Dr. Stanley Plotkin. Arguably, the godfather, we call him, of the vaccination program, this guy goes all the way back to polio vaccines. He's been involved in, what, six or seven major vaccinations that are used. He's, you know, well, well, before, instead of me, sort of describing it, let's go ahead.

This is just a little bit of clip on Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who he is. It is my great honor to use the Stanley Plotkin gavel to open this meeting. It's our good friend and colleague, Dr. Stan Plotkin. Dr. Plotkin, virtually every country in the world is affected by his vaccines. He was involved in pivotal trials on anthrax, oral polio, rabies vaccine. Robella vaccine, the rhodovirus vaccine, rabies. He has earned the Distinguished Physician Award of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society. the Finland Award of the National Foundation for Infect Diseases,

the Hillman Award of the American Society for Microbiology, the French Legion of Honor, and the Bruce Medal in Preventive Medicine. He's a member of the Institute of Medicine and the French Academy of Medicine. One of the very special things about him is the global impact that he's had, not just from the products, but from his book. He developed the standard textbook for vaccines in 1988. Bill Gates calls his book a Bible for vaccinologists. I hope you all have, indeed, have read the book, and I hope it's more accurate than the Bible.

He trained just a generation of scientists, including myself, to think like he thinks. I love that statement, you know, that his book would be more accurate than the Bible. I mean, it sort of gives you a perspective on where he's coming from. But just first, you know, when this moment happens, you know, you were working with us, But you, how the heck does this all come together that Stanley Plotkin is going to be able to be deposed? Because, I mean, I'll tell you, we have tried every trick in the book. Everyone in this movement has attempted to somehow get a debate with someone on the other side. They will not stand and answer the questions to the issues around vaccines and autism and D-TAP and, you know, hepatitis B, all of these things.

And yet here comes, you know, a man who's not only aware of this. them was involved in making most of these vaccines and he's just in some tiny little you know dispute case where a father wants to and the ex-husband wants to vaccinate the child and the mother does not I get it was getting attention in Detroit but how did you get involved with this um yeah the the uh the the father did not want to vaccinate the child the mother the father do want a vaccinate child excuse me, the mother did not want to vaccinate the child. And it, you know, it was a case in Michigan that, where the judge was letting the cameras into the courtroom. And so it was actually making the national news.

Yeah. This particular, you know, dispute. I got a phone call from a Dr. Tony Bark. Yeah. Know her well. She was on the show, you know, may she rest in peace, a powerful, beautiful soul. that did such incredible work. And I had just met Don't Eat Dr. Bark relatively recently from the work I was doing with ICANN. And we had just, I had just started working with I can before I can,

you know, not long before that. And Dr. Barr called me up and she was just, I couldn't understand what you're saying because you're so excited. I was like, Dr. Bark, I'm not sure what you're selling me. And she's telling me, you, you were going to, She goes, the world's leading vaccinologist is going to be an expert in this case. And I want you to depose him. And I said, who's that?

She said, Dr. Stanley Plotkin. I said, I never heard of him. She's not surprising. Right. I really had just beginning to learn about vaccines, vaccinology from the work that was just starting to do for I can. And so I went on Google and within two minutes, I realized, holy cow, he really is, as you said, the godfather. father of vaccinology. I mean, the medical textbook on vaccine is called Plotkin's vaccines, the gavel at a CDC. I mean, it's involved with six vaccines. He's got over about 900 peer

review publications, most all about vaccines. And so I said, okay, you want me to depose him? When is the deposition? I said, that soon? I said, so you want me? to depose the world's leading expert in vaccines and you only want to give me this short period of time to prepare. She goes, yeah. I said, let me call you right back. So I thought about it. I mean, I reached out. I wanted to talk to the mother, the plaintiff in the case, the client in the case and decided to do it.

And so buckle down for a few weeks. and bought his buck you know I mean I just because I know you can't say it but the truth is this is what makes you spectacular I mean this is one of the greatest you know if anyone understands every part of the science around vaccination is this guy you're going to go in

he is there to say I'm who better to tell you that these vaccines are safe and effective and great for kids than the godfather himself so that's the situation you have this ability I've watched you you'll go away on a vacation and bring some immunology textbook with you.

And then three days later, call me back and, like, you're just helping me understand things that it would, like the scientist's been trying to get me understanding. You really, I mean, it's a good balance because, you know, like me, you don't come from science. Some of this starts to sound like another language. But you have an ability to understand it. And nothing, I think, expressed that better than when, you know,

I got a transcript. I was like, is this a public case? We went and downloaded the transcript of what had happened. And it was like reading a screenplay of a few good men. I swear, I felt like Stanley Plotkin at some moments just going to scream, you can't handle the truth. But for people that maybe he didn't want to sit, there was a nine-hour deposition. And we've gone through some of the clips, but I want to go through one of the famous clips because I think this little moment just shows, and the whole nine hours is like this, where Aaron sort of, you know, set Stanley Plotkin up, allows, you know, asked him a question, allows him to make his, you know, on the Bible sworn, testimony statement about the truth and then doesn't recognize, you know, that Aaron

Siri has clearly done his homework. And maybe you didn't answer that correctly and then sort of stings him in the end. This goes over and over again. But here's a brilliant moment, especially for those of you concerned, as Layloni was earlier in this show, about the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccinations or in the development of vaccinations. This is Aaron Siri in the deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, talking. about aborted field cell lines and their use in developing vaccines. Take a look at this. Have you ever worked on developing a vaccine that was eventually used by the public? Yes.

Which ones? Well, rebella, rhodovirus, rabies, and I've made contributions here and there to anthrax, cytomegalovirus, varicella. Your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work? My own personal work, too. I'm gonna hand you what's been marked plaintiff's exhibit 41, okay?

Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. Are you listed as, and all, author on this article. Yes. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct? Yes. You were at the Wynstar Institute, correct? Yes. How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct? I don't remember exactly how many.

Turn to page 12 of the study? Yeah, 76. 76. And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct? Yes. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct? Yes. What organs did you harvest from these fetuses? Well, I didn't personally harvest any, but a whole range of tissues were harvested by coworkers.

Okay. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right? Yes. And they were cultured? Yes. Okay. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland that were chopped up into pieces. Okay, included the lung of the fetuses?

Yes. Okay. Included the skin? Yes. Kidney? Yes. Yes. Yes.

And tongue? I don't recall, but. I don't recall, but probably yes. So I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career, and this was just one study. So I'm going to ask you again, in your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with? Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines.

Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used aborted fetuses for? Oh, I don't remember how many. Are you aware that the one of the objections of vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines? Yeah. I'm aware of those objections. Okay.

Church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccines should receive the vaccines regardless of the fact and that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues which I am glad to do. Okay. Do you know if the mother is Catholic? I have no idea. Okay.

Do you take issue with religious beliefs? Yes. You have said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God includes death and disease. Yes. You stand by that statement? I absolutely do.

Okay. Are you an atheist? Yes. I mean, that is just, it's just amazing that first you ask the question, how many, give him the opportunity. I mean, it's clear I think you must know he's probably going to answer to, right? Mostly because that's what they all say, and you have to imagine he's writing that. I mean, I think he's a big part of writing the talking points that every doctor in the world

is using. But to be clear, in California during SB 277, trying to take the rights, you know, the right to an exemption away from California, and Senator Richard Pan got on a microphone in the capital in California and said, as to this, you know, discussion about, you know, aborted fetal cell lines in vaccinations. That is a myth. Here in this moment, you destroy any ability for anyone to call this a myth. You have the godfather of vaccines admitting yes, there are aborted fetal cell lines in these vaccines. But then the number, I mean, this was shocking. It's something that I had no idea, you know. He says two, like we always hear two back in the 1960s, and then you pull up one study where

alone in there, 76 aborted fetuses used. And then his statement when you say, so how many is it now, right? Like you would expect him to say, that's it, the two plus the 76, and he basically says, I don't know, a lot. Yeah, I think he probably said that because there are other studies, but, you know, I've... You weren't going to read them all out. No. You know, you want to get, there's a lot of other material to cover. I mean, do you have a sense of how many it might be, I mean, beyond the 76?

You only need to go to PubMed and do a search. she'll find lots of studies. Okay. Hundreds? I don't want to speculate on a number, but it's many. And the use of aborted fetuses to develop even vaccines hasn't stopped. Right.

And they both, all three of the authorized or licensed COVID vaccines in the U.S. right now, either were developed using the culture cell line of aborted fetuses or, in fact, included as part of their final formulation, as Jane J's vaccine. Right. So it's never stopped. I mean, you do this time. I mean, how do you do that?

I mean, just what is it like to stand? First of all, for people that don't know, you're not in the courtroom. This is happening in a small room, in a small town. You fly in. They got a camera there. You're not on camera because it isn't about you. And really, this is a deposition is essentially so that you can get a sense of when you're in the court and this guy's on the stand, what is going to say,

and also maybe hold his feet to the fire if his story changes it all, the whole deposition process. You've got this old guy. He's brilliant. You know, he obviously knows what he's talking about. Yet nine hours, you do it to him over and over and over again. You set him up, you hand him. Well, how about this? He makes a statement. And then boom, you just start bringing out evidence right before. What does it feel like when you're doing that? Is it, is it hard? I mean, to me, it's almost like trying to tell a joke and keep a straight face when you know where it's going. when you see him slip up and you know I got him. He just dropped into my trap.

I mean, honestly, what's that moment like for a lawyer? There was a young girl at issue in this case. I mean, these are the lives of real people. I mean, I'm representing a mother in that case and her young daughter. The mother has serious concerns about vaccinating her young daughter who has not received any vaccines. So what was, you know, what was at issue in that case was whether or not this girl was going to be subjected to basically getting everything.

every single vaccine in the schedule where the mother doesn't want it and the young girl doesn't want it. Right. And here comes, you know, Dr. Stanley Plotkin and he wants to come in and say, no, you should give her every single vaccine. You know, I started the deposition by asking him a number of questions, do you believe the mother, the child should get all the vaccines? He said, yes. I said, okay. And I asked him, well, then let's talk about the young lady, right?

the young girl. What do you know about her? Do you know her? Do you know her age? Do you even what do you know anything about her? He doesn't know anything. Meaning he's he's willing to opine that she should receive every vaccine without knowing whether or not she even has what the medical community would consider to be a contraindication, right? Right. So, so how did I feel when it opposing him? I feel like I was doing justice for my client. Right. Well, you sure did. And I think that, uh, Another one of my favorite moments that we've played on this show really drills down on.

Here's a guy saying, I know the science. The science has been done. Vaccines are safe and effective. We hear it all the time. We've talked about we won the CDC lawsuit where they couldn't provide evidence for what they were stating on the website. And here, you know, the most famous line, vaccines are safe and effective. They've been proven to be safe. Vaccines don't cause autism.

You actually address that with Stanley Plotkin. Here's another clip from this nine-hour deposition where once a lot of, you know, again, I think you're watching a lawyer that is obviously very well educated on this issue up against the godfather vaccines. Look what he says when it comes to actually drilling down the science that was done when it comes to saying that vaccines don't cause autism, particularly this. I'm going to hand you what's being marked as Exhibit 22. Okay. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report. Right? Yes. Okay. And this is where, where the IOM discusses the evidence with regard to whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, correct?

Correct. Okay. If you turn to the second page, can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether D-TAP and T-DAP cause autism? The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or accellular pertusses containing vaccine and autism. So the IOM reviewed the available evidence with regard to whether Tdap or D-TAP can cause autism, and their conclusion was the evidence doesn't exist to show whether D-TAP or T-DAP do or do not cause autism, correct?

Yes, but the point is that there are no studies showing that it does cause autism, except one study by two well-known anti-vaccination figures, Geyer and Geyer, who have no legitimacy whatsoever. So what they're saying is that there's no evidence, and the important point from my point of view, is that there is no positive evidence to do a proper study, as we've been discussing, which would...

disprove it would involve the controlled administration of vaccines and withholding vaccines from children who should have them. But since there's no evidence that D-TAP or T-DAP don't cause autism, you can't yet say that vaccines do not cause autism, correct? I cannot say that as a scientist or a logician, but I can say as a physician, but I can say as a physician, that no, they do not cause autism. Okay, so what you're saying is, as a physician or logician, then you couldn't say vaccines do not, you could not say vaccines do not cause autism.

But as a pediatrician, you're saying that you would say that to a parent because you want to make sure they get the vaccine, is that right? You know, I can't be sure that that DTAP doesn't cause leprosy. That doesn't mean that that stops me from using DTAP vaccine. Are people claiming that DTAP has caused leprosy? Are you aware of any such complaints?

I'm not aware of any such complaints, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the web one of these days. Okay, but people have made enough complaints about DTAP-TAP causing autism that the The Institute of Medicine at the Commission of HHS thought it was serious enough to do a scientific review, correct? Yes. Okay.

If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it, to then say that vaccines do not cause autism? Do I wait? No. I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child. And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that D-TAP-TAP does not cause autism even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim? Absolutely. I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.

Okay. Again, did the I-O-M review whether D-TEP cause a leprosy? DTEP cause a leprosy? No. Okay. I mean, it's amazing to watch that. And frankly, I hate even cutting it down. Like, we've done shorter versions, and when I'm speaking out, sometimes I'll use those videos.

I told the team today, give it a little more breath because it's sort of the long pauses that you leave there, where you can just tell you're just giving him more and more rope. And this thing went on longer than we just show. It's like 20 minutes where you just keep coming back around. He doesn't want to say it, right? He doesn't want to admit there's no science in existence until the end. And then, you know, he thinks he's got something on this leprosy point as though, like, you're just cherry picking any possible problem. Like, we don't, we can't test any problem. But this is one that was very specifically.

It's at the top of the list of one of one the number one complaints by parents. My child regressed in autism after DTAP. And they did a study. They didn't just randomly choose autism. It's one of the most reported problems with DTAP vaccine. when you were doing this deposition was there anything that caught you by surprise I mean you're going in

this guy's got to know everything in the world there's only so much preparation did anything catch you off guard or get you by surprise well I guess the one thing that really surprised me was that I didn't really I just assumed going into this deposition

that he was going to point to evidence studies, facts that I'd missed. I had, I mean, I had only really started representing, you know, primarily I can and others regarding vaccination issues for only a few months. So, you know, I read an introduction on immunology. I read about some vaccinology and I went through his studies and papers and stuff. What surprised me the most was that, one, was that he, you know, he had some, he didn't really say anything that I, that did surprise me.

And I was very surprised by that. I thought for sure, you know, when we were talking about autism, he would point to some other studies. I mean, after all, they say they studied autism incredibly thoroughly, right? Yeah. And to point out that this happened before we ended up bringing up. the case to the CDC about Lod B. So we weren't in that. In fact, this led to, this sort of built on to maybe there's a problem here because he didn't prevent any, he didn't show any science that we hadn't heard of, and there is no science. And so we're in that position. I also want to make clear for the audience out there that one of the things I'm seeing is up on the right-hand

side of saying January 2021. That's a mistake when we're putting all these videos to get at the last minute. We were always just cranking out as much as we can for these shows up the last minute. It should have said January 2018, which is when this actually took place. So, you know, a few years ago now. And for people out there watching, if you're new to this show, all of these Plotkin videos are available on the Highwater website. Just go scroll down to see that there's a place where you can do a search and just hit on Explore. And then it has its own button, Plotkin on vaccines. Click on that and you can watch all of these videos.

but there's one I really want to ask you about just the last video I want to play because it's a it's a current case that we're involved in now and I think if there's one vaccine prior to COVID I mean this this changed everything we but when we were sinking our teeth into before COVID vaccine and this pandemic ever came along probably the most egregious vaccine example when we talk about you know safety and testing and when I was started investigating I was asking you can we we try and dig up some information, pressure the CDC FDA. You know, it was on, you know, there's the one thing the use of a placebo, was there a placebo control study, which, you know, we were having trouble finding anything like that. But then duration, there's, you know, we didn't see any long-term multi-year safety trials like we see for drugs, but the hepatitis B vaccine, a vaccine given on the first day of life that has an aluminum load that is multiple times higher than anything that's ever been determined to be safe. But when we looked at that, the duration of the trials on that were shocking.

You bring this up to Stanley Plotkin. So this is, again, from the Plotkin depositions, a discussion on the hepatitis B vaccine. Remember, this is given to a day one old baby, whether they are a 12-pound little porker or even a preemie. They're getting this same vaccine. And what was the safety trials on that? Take a look at this. Dr. Plotkin, earlier you testified that there are two have B vaccines in the market one by Glaxo G.S.K. That's Enderix B and the other one is by Merck, recombavax, HB, right? Yes. Okay. This is the product, the manufacturer insert for recombavax HB, correct? Yes. And the clinical trial experience would be found in section 6.1, correct? Correct? Dr. Parkin? Yes. Okay. In section 6.1

when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre-licensure for a combavax HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose? Let's see, five days. Okay. Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five days? No. Is five days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from that the vaccine after five days? No. There is no good, there is no control group correct not let's see well they mention 3,258 doses were administered to 1,252 healthy adults that's right but does it mention any control group Dr.

Parkin? It does not mention any control group no if you turn to section 6.2 what is the list of adverse reactions listed in this section? These are reports of adverse reactions that likely were reported to the VAIR system. Under immune system disorders, does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, and uticaria, having

been reported within the first few hours after vaccination? Yes. They've been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome? Yes, that's what it states. Reports of arthritis? It is mentioned. It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus, arrhythmotosis, lupus-like syndrome, vasculitis, and polyteritis, Nidoza, as well, correct?

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

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

Okay. And given that the vaccine now appears on the CDC's recommended list, isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today? It would be, yes, it would be ethically difficult. I mean, this is this game that we've got ourselves, and we've really revealed through the work that we've done, working with your law firm, and I can. I mean, it's shocking. I mean, this goes so far beyond shocking.

I mean, I know that we have new audience out there watching right now that have got to be saying themselves, you're not telling me a vaccine given to babies was given, you know, after trial four to five days. And as you point out, all of the issues reported on the vaccine, the injuries, you wouldn't see for a year, two years, three years down the road, which is why you should be doing a long-term safety trial. And yet, what do they say?

What I've discovered through our work is basically the answer is, well, we don't have any science that shows the vaccines cause autism. Well, there's really no studies that show that the hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis or lupus or all these things that are listed. They're listed there because people report it, but they don't do the studies. And the only study they should have done so we could discover it was that safety trial.

And by making these safety trials show short that four and five days, depending on which product, if your child dies day six or seven, you know, or a month or has autism two years later, there's nothing in these trials that shows us that would have captured it. And they will always be able to say,

as Plotkin clearly said to the D-Tap, you know, I mean, they just, rosiest picture is, hey, our trials didn't show that, right? I mean, that's what they rely on. But in this moment in there, he said, and this is something I didn't realize, he said, well, I mean, it says here there was 3,000-something participants, you know, adults. That's the first time I think I've really queued in on that. So were there any children? How many children were up the 3,000?

Because this is a vaccine given to day one old babies. Yeah, it's about 146, if I recall correctly, children in the trial. So not only is it a four or five day safety trial, it was only a trial of essentially 140 children for four and five days that every child in America is given this vaccine on the first day in the hospital. And I get calls from parents that they're not being allowed to leave the hospital with their baby unless they get the Hep B shot. And they're turning it down. Child Protective Services would be called. I wonder if Child Protective Services knows that this vaccine had 100-something kids in a trial that. only lasted four or five days. That's for recombavax HB, one of the two hepatitis B vaccines. As you point out, one of them had five days of safety. Right. According to its package

insert in Section 6.1, which is where the federal law provides, the manufacturer has to summarize the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccine. Right. Do, I don't think anybody knows, not just child services. I think most people don't know. And the first time that I saw that in the package insert, I just assumed it was wrong. I just thought it was impossible that a vaccine given to a one day old baby, two, four, even six month old, frankly, any age would only have had five days of safety review for recombavax HB and then EnderxB, which is the other hepatitis B vaccine that could be given to babies was the only two licensed in the U.S. had four days of safety review, had a bit more kids in it than 150, but still four days.

Neither of them indicate a placebo control in the trials. And I recall discussing this with you years ago. And I think I might have said to you something to the effect of, if I had to come up with the most pernicious, craziest thing I can make up about vaccines, I would never have dreamed of making up that, you know, a vaccine given to baby was only safety review for five days in the clinical trial relied upon to license it. And so we FOIAed, you know, the FDA for the clinical trials relied upon to license recombavax HP, which was the first license at B vaccine. And we got those clinical trials. And you recall when I got them, you know, and I called you up, I said, okay, you know, we made the request for ICANDA. as you asked us to do.

And we have now gotten all the clinical trials for ComvexHB. And I can now tell you it's five days. And it's on this ICANN website. It's sitting right there. Anybody in America can go and look at the clinical trial reports for that product that the FDA relied upon to license that product.

And they can see it with their own eyes. Frankly, I think until somebody sees it with their own eyes, they won't believe it. We're bringing a lawsuit on this one. I mean, but- Yes. So after we foyered for ICAN for all the clinical trials relied upon to license for Kambavax HB, we then said, well, okay, that's one of the two potential Hep B vaccines given to a baby on day one.

What about EnderXB? Maybe the package insert was wrong for that one. So this time we foiled the FDA for ICAN and we asked that they produce all the clinical trials that the FDA relied upon to license endericks for babies that had a safety review period of more than one week. Right?

Yep. Here you go. Here's your shot. Right. I'm putting on a platter for you. Here it is. Here's your chance. Show I can that it doesn't know what it's,

that it's, that it's truly that it's concerned about the Hep B vaccine are misplaced. Right. Right. It's obviously pregnant in that request is the assumption that there is no such clinical trial. Here's your chance.

Prove, you know, Mr. Del Bigtree and all of the folks that I can wrong. We got a response. There's an objection from the FDA saying, we object because this is not a specific enough request. We do not, we can't process us. We don't know how to assess which ones had a safety group period for more than a week. Keeping in mind, the FDA's entire job. It's Rézond de etre.

It exists to review clinical trial. Right. To choose whether to, it used to be historically licensed vaccine. Now it's just in the business of authorizing vaccines as we'll see. Right. And so we appealed that decision. When they still would not produce anything, we went to federal court. Obviously, the Department of Justice represents the FDA.

and the Department of Justice currently defending the FDA in federal court on this position. It's incredible. And the position is we can't figure out. We can't figure out how to tell of trial as longer than seven days. We don't.

We cannot figure that out. So we have, we've moved for summary judgment in federal court. That means we move for basically the judge to issue a judgment stating that the FDA is, is position here. here is not appropriate, right, that they can figure it out and they should produce only those that are longer than seven days. The Department of Justice on behalf of the FDA has also moved

for judgment judgment asking the judge to issue an order stating, no, they don't have an obligation under FOIA to figure this out and only produce those that are longer than seven days. They want the judge, I guess, to effectively say they should just be able to give them all. Yeah. honestly, I don't think it really matters how the judge's rules at this point. I mean, it's the position that the, it is the incredible position that the FDA and the DOJ are taking that say everything you need to know about this product. And we're building, these are really sort of arrows in the quiver, I would say,

because ultimately no vaccine should be given to a child that only went through a five-day safety trial. And so, you know, the idea of potentially being able to pull a vaccine or demand that a vaccine be removed from the schedule, because it has just been improperly, just improper testing. Is that, you know? Well, we, so you asked me what we can do about that. And we have, there's a process by which, you know, when Moderna or Pfizer, J&J want to get their vaccine license, there's a formal petitioning process that they use. And so I would say to the FDA chagrin, we are using that same process in behalf of I can to demand that the FDA either provide clinical trials that comport with their statute of obligation. What is that to only license safe and effective products? Right.

How does it determine that based on clinical trials that show it's safe and effective? So either they have to produce a clinical trial that shows that or withdraw the law. licensure until that trial is done. Yeah. That's it. It's simple. We filed that request now. It's been, I think, almost a year. They had six months to respond.

At six months, they sent us an interim response saying, they're still evaluating it. They keep sending us interim responses. You know, at some point, they're going to have to formally respond. And, you know, I'm sure that you'll be talking about it on the show when they do. I'm, you know. And of course, all of that, all of these things are on our website at Icandecide.org, if you want to look into all the legal cases, all the papers, you're doing a great job putting out these letters, you know, almost every week of, you know, updating people on where

we're at legally on all these different FOIA requests. You were able to provide a 3,000-page document dump by Fauci's emails. We're expecting more on that. But let's just sort of, to wrap all this up, obviously. the thing that's really on everyone's mind. You know, number one, you've got mandates for, you know, upon federal employees, you know, companies that have over 100 employees, but probably even more importantly than that. And what really takes us today in this week is the FDA, you know, it looks like the panel, the advisory panel, just recommended, you know, an authorization

of this, the childhood vaccine, five to 11 years old, which can change. this whole thing overnight. We already believe, I believe, that there's serious concerns about what we're seeing with this vaccine in adults, but the idea of children. And then Gavin Newsom, you know, just a few weeks ago, stated, as soon as this thing is approved, I'm going to mandate it in California. And I immediately called you and said, I want to be able to say that we will sue anybody like Gavin Newsom that attempts to push this untested product, no long-term safety studies, I want to fight this any way we can. You said, go ahead and make that statement. So what will be the plan? I mean, what do you see happening now going into California specifically when it

comes with this sort of, you know, is it approval, authorization? Authorized. Authorization. Should it come through by the FDA? Should they agree with, you know, the recommendations? And then Gavin Newsom, you know, what is our concern? What is it he likely to do if he backs up what he said and then what will be our approach? Now, I know we don't want to cover strategy. I'm not asking. to put the strategy out there. We don't want to give them a head start on how we're going at it. But what can you tell me about what we're going to do? Well, so the broad strokes would be with regards to California and requiring this COVID vaccine for children. Let's first talk about what exactly has happened legally from a legal perspective.

Gavin Newsom has issued a directive to his Department of Health to issue a regulation that would then be what requires. parents to give a COVID vaccine to their children in order to go to school. Gavin Newsom's direction to the Department of Health is that that regulation should start next school year. Okay. Okay. And should only apply to the age groups for which there is an approved vaccine, not just authorized, but actually approved being licensed by the FAA. Okay. Okay. So as things stand right now, there is actually no law in California that requires even for next school year for children to get the COVID okay the department of because i feel like parents are afraid this thing is like tomorrow well in

california it's going to happen tomorrow well um well that might be well that might be true in certain counties but let me address the statewide okay then i'll i'll hit the county okay sounds good on the county level so on the statewide level the department of health is going to now go through the department of the state of california is going to go through a process to issue a regulation when they go through that process we'll be watching every step of the way as you've directed to do. Any misstep in terms of making sure they follow pro procedures we will take issue with, of course. And one of the most important things we're going to be keenly watching as that process unfold is whether or not the Department of Health is going to make sure that in their regulation,

it will provide for a personal belief exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for any parent that wants it, which means basically if any parent wants to check the box and say, I don't want this because I have a personal belief against a COVID vaccine, they should be able to do it. The reason the Department of Health is going to basically, is going to be required should be, include that. Because I'm sure a lot of Californians are saying themselves, wait, we lost the personal belief exemption in SB 277. That was the big bummer of the whole thing. We were all using a personal belief exemption.

So what's different about this? What's different is this. When the state legislature in California requires a vaccine, there's no personal belief exemption. Okay. But the California law is clear that when the Department of Health of California requires a vaccine, which is what Gavin Newsom has done here, it's telling the Department of Health to require it, then there is a personal belief exemption. And we want to make, you know, we will be staying on top of that process to make sure that

that when that regulation issues, it will include a personal belief exemption, easier to make sure that happens during the process than later to try and unwind something that's improperly done. Separately, in terms of some parents being concerned it's happening right now, that concern is very real for certain counties in California, like San Diego, Los Angeles County, where the school board, the county, has decided on its own to require co-vaccine starting next semester. You've asked us to look into that as well. And based on the California law, they don't have the authority to do that. The California legislature is clear. If anybody other than the California legislature is going to require a vaccine, one, it's got to be the Department of Health of the state of California, not a local school board. Two, when the Department of Health does that, it's got to have a personal belief exemption.

So we are going to be, you know, ICANN is going to be supporting legal action with regards to the San Diego school district's requirement, which we were in the process of working on preparing. And so like so many things in this arena, you know, three years ago when you would ask us to do legal work, with regards to vaccines, the targets were not really moving. They were stagnant. It's constant moving targets here. And so, you know, we, it's amazing how quick the landscape is changing. And I am always impressed at how ICAN is able to just pivot on a moment's notice to try and address everything that's going on in as timely manner as possible. Yeah. And when you talk about sort of moving targets and the way things are shifting, it's shifting so much that actually the one case I went to you at as soon as I saw Joe Biden basically saying,

I'm going to force this whole country to get vaccinated, you know, employers that have 100 employees, federal employees, and I called you, said, I want to sue. And you told me, no, no, there's no reason to sue on this. I was like, what? Why? Because there are 24 Attorney Generals, meaning the highest, you know, legal authority of 24 states in this country. have issued a letter to the president, to Joe Biden, telling him, we are going to sue you for this mandate. It is illegal.

So when 24 attorney generals are saying they're going to bring the suit, I'd say let's sit back and let that play out. Right. We are, you know, we are going to assist in any way we can, as you've asked us to do. Yeah. But, you know, it is, it is certainly nice when 24 attorney generals and 20, and four states are going to back lawsuits that historically, really the only, for the most part, ICANN was trying to support.

Yeah. No, we're not alone any longer. I mean, certainly there's so many different lawyers out there now that are jumping into the game. I think that, you know, one of the things that I find interesting is that we can't get to every case. But when you're winning these cases and some of the things you're doing, there's actually lawyers out there that sort of copy the cases that you've won. What do you feel about that when you see that happening? Oh, that's great.

Honestly, a lot of a... The federal government has most of our money. Yeah. And a federal health agency has billions of dollars that they spend promoting vaccines. Fabricidal companies have billions of dollars, too, whose PR firms promote vaccines. And so, you know, when it comes to who's going to be pushing back on... vaccine requirements, it's not going to be lawsuits that make vaccine safer. You can't do those. Our federal health authorities are unfortunately conflicted because they have the duty of promoting

vaccines, as well as defending any claim of vaccine causes injury in the vaccine injury compensation program, which I know you've covered on this show. And so, you know, as we talked about earlier, they are not fulfilling even some of the basic requirements regarding vaccine safety. So who's pushing back against that? Really, it's not many folks who've got a real financial interest. And so obviously, I can only do so much. Obviously, we can only do so much. So every additional attorney, every politician, every attorney general,

that wants to also fight for against the coercion, The coercion of any mandated medical product is wonderful. Any of the legal work that we do that other firms, other AGs, or anybody out there wants to copy, it's the highest form of flattery, and obviously that's wonderful. And I would say part of the some of the legal work that we do, some of the letter writing we do and some of the that you've asked us to do, is in part to just put forth some of the facts and law

in a very digestible format so that other lawyers can use them as well. And there are some great lawyers. You know, these attorney generals, it's wonderful that there are 24 attorney generals going to fight this. And in fact, I mean, I think you have been so successful and we've been successful working with you. There's even been articles written about it just very quickly. I mean, these are what the types of articles look like. Resistance of vaccine mandates is Washington Post is building. A powerful network is helping. It goes on to talk about ICANN. The legal salvos show that a groundswell against compulsory immunization is being coordinated, at least in part from a law office on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan,

and they offer a window into a wide-ranging and well-resourced efforts to contest vaccine requirements and workplaces and other settings critical to the country's reopening, a dispute with sweeping implications for public health, state authority, and individual rights. ICANN is already claiming victory thanks to the work of a legal team led by Syrian and Glimstad's managing partner, Aaron Siri. The message is maybe you should reconsider because you don't want to end up in court, said Dorit Rubinstein-Rees, one of our big fans, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. I think that works. And it's true. Obviously, we've had an effect. Other lawyers are using it. We did have you write a bunch of letters and everywhere we could

help where people couldn't be able to fund themselves or whatever it was. I said, whatever it is, Aaron, take care of it. We want to be at the forefront of. this. You've just done an amazing job. There's so much to do. There's so much that we could spend days talking about and there's so much we can't really talk about because they're ongoing cases. But all I can say is on behalf of everybody that has been donated to ICANN to see a difference, make a difference. I truly don't think we would have had the effect that we've had without you. And your team is amazing. You are truly the best of the best. So I look forward to the days, months, whatever it takes, years ahead.

I'm going to keep you busy, I promise. I don't doubt it. I love you, man. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Obviously, you know, we got into the details here. And for those of you that are watching this, you know, this is only possible. It is only possible to bring in errands here and this team and all these legalities

and to bring in the scientists that help us build this information and, you know, who we rely on. All of that takes funding, obviously. We are, you know, fighting all over the country and assisting. even people that are asking questions around the world. When you donate to the informed consent action network or through the high wire, either way, you know, you make a difference. You were able to say that lawsuit, that change, as you see these legal updates coming out,

don't you want to be able to feel like in a world where we can feel so helpless, where it just feels like, what difference can I make here? I feel, you know, everything is insurmountable. It's clearly not insurmountable. The world is changing. And you could actually be a part of those that support I can in the Highwire and say when that legal update comes out, I did this.

I actually helped make this happen. Certainly we can't do without you. Go to the highwire.com, hit the donate button. Become one of our recurring donors, one of our Highwire insiders. Whatever you can give a month, the recurring donation really helps us understand what cases we can take on, how much we can do, whether it's $21 a month for 2021 or maybe it's a cup of coffee, five or $6 a month, or if you're, you know, done very well this year, then perhaps you want to make a larger donation, but all of it makes it possible for us to do the work. I truly believe

that we are changing the world through our work and through the use of one of the greatest law firms. I think Aaron, Siri, you're going to go down in history, whether you like it or not, having been an integral part of this vaccine discussion in the face of a pandemic and all of the insanity that we're in here, it's a huge task. I'm putting it on your shoulders. I know on a constant basis, but man, you've really stepped up, so thank you. All right. Thank you. Well, you like those Plotkin videos. A lot of you come out and you say to me, you know, I just want, I mean, you know, that was an hour and a half interview or whatever it was. Where's the small piece that I can give to somebody?

Well, we've done that. We've done that for you. We've taken a lot of these videos and just got down to the small bites because we know a lot of your friends, a lot of your families, or maybe the courtroom you're going into has, you know, short attention span. That's where we started our campaign. Get vaccinated. And this is what that's all about. Folks, it's time for you to get vaccinated. The Highwire is launching a brand new campaign to arm you with the facts.

In short videos you can share anywhere, featuring the world's leading experts on COVID-19, vaccines and everything in between. Natural immunity appears to be robust, complete, and durable. These are the drop-the-mic, fully cited facts to help you, the super spreaders of truth in this real war of misinformation. Share the link, download the short video, and post to your favorite social media platform. All you have to do is go do the highwire.com slash get vaccinated for all of the latest short videos. And make sure to grab your get vaccinated merch at the highwire.com. Click shop for the latest in highwire gear. We want you armed with the facts online and on the front lines. Get the facts

lose the fear at the highwire.com. All right, well, I know we've set a record today probably on one of our longer shows, but when you get someone like Aaron Siri in and all the questions you've asked me over the years, I wanted to get to a lot of those questions, a lot of you have written in. And frankly, I want you to look at the show. What we're trying to do here is to just bring you the truth. In an onslaught, I want you to think about how many hours did you dedicate to the CNN this week or even Fox or MSNBC. It's always rolling in the background hours upon hours upon hours.

Well, as you're being brainwashed by those networks, sometimes we want to get to the truth. And if you can't get through all the whole show, then go ahead and turn it off and come back. I mean, break it up into the pieces where the rest of your news is fitting. Grab 30 minutes or an hour a day, if that's how you have to do it. I can't change the format. I don't plan on changing the format. There are people out there. Those of you with kids, you know, that are thinking about what's going to happen in California.

I want to get to that. I want you to understand what this issue is all about. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. So for those of you that stuck with us through this entire investigation, through this incredible expose with the head of our legal team, I want to thank you. If you broke this up into pieces, then I'm glad you got all of this information. This is what we do, you know, and this is our time.

This is our moment. If this bores you, then you were bored with the conversation that is going to affect the rest of your life and your children and our future. and maybe even our species. I'm probably preaching the choir. You're all saying, don't worry about it, Del. But I just want to say that to people that are brand new. Is this how the show always goes?

Sometimes it's longer. Sometimes it's shorter. But I'm not going to cut an interview short until I've heard and understood all the things I want to understand until I think you've gotten all of your answers. That's what this is about. So, you know, as we wrap this show up, there is a call to action I want to talk about here in Texas.

We may have an issue. This is brought to light by an article that was written and is out there, will Governor Abbott save Texas from transfer of sovereignty by contract? This is really interesting. The Texas Senate Bill 8 was sent to Governor Abbott's desk on October 26, 2021, which will appropriate $16.3 billion of the coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds from the Federal American Rescue Plan of 2021. Early funds were distributed in 2020 through the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security

Act, CARES Act. That was filed as HR 748 in Congress on January 24, 2019, signed by President Trump, March 2020. Now, this is what's interesting. Now this is the issue that this new money coming in or the continuation of this money requires these rules, the CSLFRF, compliance with applicable law and regulations page 3, section 9, recipient also agrees. Remember, they're talking about Texas now. Governor Abbott's about to sign and become this recipient. The recipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders. And recipients shall provide for such compliance by other parties in any agreements and enters into with other parties relating to this award.

To double it down, terms and conditions at 1.26 compliance with federal law, regulations, and executive orders. Grantee acknowledges that federal financial assistance funds will be used to fund the grant agreement. The grantee will comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations. And here it is again, executive orders, policies, procedures, and directives. This is huge. So this is what this article is calling for. I think we need to jump all over this. If you're in Texas, please call the governor's office.

It is for these reasons we are urging Texas to call the governor's office. There's the number for you. It will also be a part of in the comments section for you to get and submit a comment. You can do it there online to gov.texas.gov slash contact and ask him to veto SB8 and investigate the federal contract overreach with the potential to transfer control of state and local government assets and services to be subordinated to federal executive orders. I think this is huge. This is one of the things that we're worried about, right? Are they sneaking in? I think this is happening with school boards.

We've watched videos where school boards may be making agreements with the CDC that override anything the parents. say that once they've taken money into the school, then do they have to adhere to whatever the CDC says or the FDA approves whether or not you think it was a long-term safety study or not? And now imagine Texas, a state that is, you know, believes in its sovereignty, always holds out in its constitution the ability to secede if it was necessary. Can you imagine that Governor Abbott may at this moment, maybe unknowingly be about to sign a bill to get that money that is now signing away his control of the state. which means losing our control through our governor and is going to deceive that control over to the President of the United States, Joe Biden, who we believe is acting illegally.

So do 24 other AGs. Let's not let Governor Abbott make this mistake. Please make that call. Spend your time today. Send that email and say, stop. You may not recognize this. But if you sign SB 8, you will be signing over your power to President Biden. And here in Texas, we're not going to stand for that.

We've always got our people out there. Sheila Hempel helped put this together, wrote a great article here, but we are in contract with people all over different states. So when these things happen, I want you to know about it. This is what the high wire is here about. We're not just giving you information. We're turning you into active soldiers and warriors so that we can stop these things in their tracks. Let's stop them before they happen, much easier than trying to fix a problem after it's already in place. This has been an amazing episode of the high wire. We are hitting this from all sides, as we've, I think, proven to you on the legal issue. I'm also traveling all over the country.

I'm trying to get to every rally I can. I can't get to them all, but we're trying to get our media team, our producers and our cameras to these rallies. You're making that possible through your support. But if you want to go as a couple rallies I know about coming up this week, I'm going to be in Fort Collins, Colorado, on Monday, November 1st. They are trying to bring in a vaccine passport there in Fort Collins, it'll spread all over Colorado. It'll be like a disease that spreads across the world. We're going to try and nip that in the bud. If you're anywhere in Colorado, New Mexico, the surrounding areas, let's all show up for this. We've got to show them that we stand, just like those firefighters and those police officers that are on the Brooklyn Bridge, we need to start seeing these audiences,

these crowds, so that we can let them know we mean business. And then there's a really important rally in Washington, D.C. that's going to be on Tuesday. There's a hearing being held by Senator Johnson there. He's bringing in a lot of the people that are injured and those that may be losing their jobs after that event that we are not going to be able into, but I think we're going to get our cameras in there. There's going to be a rally November 2nd, 2.30 p.m., Supreme Court of the United States. So this is outside the Supreme Court of the United States. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area, that one should be huge to make sure you make your presence known. And we'll be live streaming all of those events on the highwire. But as I've said before, I don't want to hear

that you were watching on the highwire in Colorado, you know, 150 miles away from Fort Collins. Come do it in person. And I don't want to hear the same thing in D.C. If you can get your body there, this is it, folks. Do you get it? It's happening now. This is the moment. We are at the inflection point. It's us versus them. We outnumber them in our power, in our intelligence, in our voice, but we've got to be present and accounted for. You know, go ahead and act accordingly. This is the high wire, bringing you the truth, fighting for the truth,

suing for the truth, you know, talking about it, shooting it, putting it on your screen so that you know what is going on. We are not going anywhere, and frankly, anyone out there that I hear them say, well, does it really feel like we're winning? I just want you to ask yourself. Let's just go ahead and put ourselves

in the position of African Americans before the civil rights movement, when they couldn't go into a school, they were being segregated, backs of buses, their own separate water fountains, or maybe no water fountain at all. Can you imagine the moment when they started seeing this conversation shift and 24 attorney generals would have stood up in states and said, no, I believe in equality, we're standing for that.

This is one of those moments. This is how movements win. This is how civil rights happens. This is how we break the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical industry over our government with each other, with our attorney generals, with great lawyers, with great people, with the power of the people. Power to the people. Hold it strong. Hold the line. And I'll see you next week on the high wire.