The Last American Vagabond - Brook Jackson Interview - Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

Starting point is 00:00:01 Welcome to The Last American Vagabond. I'm happy to be telling you we're having Brooke Jackson back on today to discuss the update of her case, something that you guys know we've been following for a very long time, interviewed her three times, I think, so far. And the case has been evolving since then. But as you remember, to avoid going back through all of it and maybe Brooke will want to get into it to start a little bit. But I think the reality is simply that she had called out Pfizer and Ventavia right in the beginning when she was involved with that and ultimately proved. And I don't use that word lightly. proved with the data she presented, the information she has that they were lying, that there was falsified information and so many other things, if she would like to touch

Starting point is 00:01:00 on it, except there, it's obvious that they got caught lying. Now, there's so many angles of the Pfizer conversation that everybody out there is aware of, all the different lies that we're sold. And I think we can now prove deliberate, like well aware that they were lying for whatever reason you want to fill in. And ultimately, this has come to part, you know, change of administration now. And I see a lot of the same things happening. and I think it's important to discuss the update of her case as it changes over into a new

Starting point is 00:01:25 administration. And as we see new things like Stargate platforms and different MRNA shots and the conversation of what's changing and where it may be going. So Brooks is here today to discuss the update of the case and the current landscape of the health field and vaccination and where it seems to be going. So Brooke, thank you for joining me again. How are you? Thanks for having me, Ryan. Good. Thank you. It is. It's our third interview. I believe it's our fourth, actually. Oh, is it our fourth. Yeah. I was thinking. I was thinking, so we did the first one, where you broke down all the original information,

Starting point is 00:01:54 then we followed up on basically when Pfizer, I think it was when they were in court, and I have that clip actually from Barnes saying that, where they basically argued that it's not fraud if the government knows we're lying, like we're working together. That was like their actual argument in court. And then I think we followed up on just,

Starting point is 00:02:08 you know, kind of catching up on where we were. And, you know, so your work has been so profound in this conversation, starting with the British Medical Journal, which, I mean, right then showed you how amazing it is, how propaganda that basically they referred to it suddenly as, a health blog, one of the most profound, important, you know, like influential platform suddenly becomes a health blog because they dared

Starting point is 00:02:28 to call out what you were talking about or highlighted, you know? And so this has been just a profound part of this ongoing conversation, and I really just want to shout you out for that work, because it was brave and clearly it has effects on your life. So I don't know if you want to get into any of the background. Did you want to talk about it? So my audience is well aware of it. If you wanted to give any kind of a starting,

Starting point is 00:02:46 you know, understanding of what you went through beforehand, it's up to you? Sure. I mean, just quickly, just in case, you know, of your viewers aren't aware. I was a regional director for a company named Ventavia Research Group who was conducting Pfizer's Phase 3 clinical trial for their COVID shot. And while I was there, which was a very brief 18 days, I saw what this company and what Pfizer was allowing the company to do and falsifying data, not recording all adverse events that patient. patients were experiencing during their participation in the study.

Starting point is 00:03:26 And after, you know, those few weeks of trying to get my company and Pfizer to do the right thing, pause the study, make sure that we exclude the data from any analysis of the overall safety and efficacy. I contacted Pfizer, excuse me, I did contact Pfizer and contacted the FDA at the end of September. And that resulted in me being terminated on the spot. So that's the background of what I saw during, during, you know, my oversight of the clinical trial. After doing some, a little bit of research and looking at data that was coming out in, you know, the New England Journal of Medicine and viewing the FDA Advisory Committee meeting. on the emergency use authorization.

Starting point is 00:04:24 I realized right away that they did not exclude my company's data. And so because this was a product that was funded with American taxpayer dollars, I knew that I had what we call a false claims act. And so for the last almost five years now, I've been trying to recover our money for, a product that's not safe and ineffective. So there's a background. Yeah. Well, and remember, and this is really important,

Starting point is 00:04:59 that this was your first interview with TLAB, and I believe it was the first one in general, and all the information down below, you can find for yourself, it's all the direct source documents to documentcloud.org, literally the receipts that she came with right in the beginning that prove everything she was saying. And I'm still actually pretty blown away by how,

Starting point is 00:05:20 I mean, that's one of, many experiences I've had through this process of doing this for the further decades I have. We live in a corrupt society. Like the fact that you can have exactly everything on receipt showing that they were lying, that they were covering it up, and yet nothing actually happens, shows you everything. And then, of course, we followed up. And that was when more information came out reveals concerns with that integrity, vindicating your previous claims. And then in 2023, Pfizer trial reveals big pharma seen as too big to fail, which is one of the interesting kind of evolution or, you know, evolving points around it. But thank you for the quick.

Starting point is 00:05:52 Okay, Ryan. So you're right. It is our fourth interview. I admit I was wrong. Sweet Pfizer, how easy that is. Yes, there you go. Yeah, but you know, obviously when, you know, Pfizer is, I mean, that's where, just since I mentioned it, let me play this real quick. This was just the clip that I had cut last time, I think. This is Barnes speaking with Fribe about the case. And I just, remember, this is a Brooks lawyer. So he's speaking about the case and this is what he had to say. And this is the reality. It's insane that they could have the argument that the government's involved so it's not fraud. I present Brooke Jackson, who is a whistleblower who exposed that the Pfizer clinical trials

Starting point is 00:06:31 were riddled not only with error, but with fraudulent and false certifications to the U.S. government. What's fascinating is Pfizer has moved to dismiss the case and their grounds to dismiss as they repeated in the scheduling conference we had this week, is that it doesn't matter if they submitted fraudulent certifications to the government. It doesn't matter if they submitted false statements under penalty of perjury to the government. It doesn't matter if they lied about the safety and efficacy of these drugs mislabeled, in my opinion, as vaccines. Because the government was in on it with them. The government knows what's going on and the government still would have given them the check anyway. So is it really fraud if the government's their co-conspirator?

Starting point is 00:07:10 that is in essence Pfizer's defense so far to the to the case that's just the opening right there for tealap but yeah i mean that's go ahead you have a comment no i was just going to say that's crazy and my hair actually looks exactly like vivas today it's so yeah it's it was an incredible defense you know it's um i don't i don't even know what to say i've run out of ways to explain right you know just how absurd this is. And again, here we are five years later. And we're still not just fighting against Pfizer now. It's Brooke Jackson versus the United States of America.

Starting point is 00:07:53 I'm not suing Pfizer now. Now I'm arguing that the Justice Department has violated. So we can get into that a little bit. more, but I just don't, I don't even know how to explain it, Ryan. Yeah, well, I mean, to your, to your exasperation, I mean, this is what I'm hitting at getting at, is it's like, you know, I think we all deep down, like, have this at least hope, maybe a belief, but I think mostly a hope today, that this is not the way the world is, you know, that this is not the, the, all the power structure or all the people out there

Starting point is 00:08:28 in white lab coats or in government or lawyers or, you know, whatever it is, where you're just going like, I don't want to believe that this, like, because the only way something like this can happen the way it has been is if we if i think more at least in the power structure that at least the vast majority are not honest i mean i don't know how else to see that and so it's really a difficult almost a cognitive dissonance to be like i guess that's the way it is and then every day we're certain like i get in my shows where i'm going like i just i don't understand and i think myself yeah i do i know what's you know it's like but you you want to look for something that explains why it's not what it appears to be you know so it's it's incredibly frustrating but thank you

Starting point is 00:09:02 again, for putting yourself out there. And, you know, I mean, a lot of negative things comes around, especially this large of a conversation, you know, calling up multi-billion dollar companies. But so let's bring this to the point. So beyond all of that, a lot has been continuing. You've been continuing your efforts to call this out to a whole, to search to have some kind of accountability for the lies that you've proven over and over. In court, they argue that it doesn't matter that our fraud's okay because the government's

Starting point is 00:09:27 involved in essence, as even Barnes was kind of paraphrasing that, but that was what they actually argued. So this brings us to where we are today. We're now, we've seen, you know, the argument being at least hope, I guess, in some minds that this was largely the Biden administration or the current administration left or right, that they were the ones that were really doing this. I mean, let's remember that this started with Trump's Operation Warp Speed. And again, my opinion for those new to this is it's just the U.S. government. I don't think there's a difference left and right when it comes to the core agendas. And so it was rolled out warp speed.

Starting point is 00:09:54 It handed the baton to Biden's administration, and it got worse. But I argued it would have no matter who was in that position. And now we have a new administration. and the hope is that this would have got with this would go in a different direction. I personally think we've seen kind of a lot of the same and even worse, Stargate so on. We can talk about that if you'd like. But so now we have the point of hoping things are different. So let's discuss.

Starting point is 00:10:14 Well, let's first start with the actual lawsuit where it is today. So give us the updates from the last we spoke to today. And like as you said, why it's now shifted away from the focal point it had and now just on the U.S. government in general. And then we can get into, you know, what you're seeing in the current administration. Sure, sure. Well, just so your audience knows, I completely agree with everything that you said. You know, I think, you know, the baton was just handed off.

Starting point is 00:10:37 I don't, I mean, obviously, I follow politics, but I don't care one way or another. To me, we talked about this a few minutes ago. It's like blue versus red. It's same team, different color. That's kind of been my view for as long as I can remember. But, you know, where we left off, I guess, when you, when you just played the clip, that was Pfizer's argument. We knew that the fraud existed, but, you know, it was okay because the government said it was fine. However they...

Starting point is 00:11:15 Really quickly, even better. I think Viva Frey said before that we gave them the fraud they ordered or something like that, which is a really interesting way to think about it. Yeah, you know, Sasha Latapova actually did a day, you know, a talk. And that was, you know, her mic drop moment. We didn't commit or we didn't, we didn't order the fraud. However, she explained it, but it's great if you want to find it and show everybody. But, you know, that was Pfizer's argument. The Department of Justice after Pfizer made that statement came in with their own statement of interest

Starting point is 00:11:49 and actually disagreed with Pfizer and wrote out that while, Our legal theory was a possible way to induce a contract. We didn't spell it out that way in our complaint. So long story, real long story short, we were dismissed in district courts. And based on the government statement of interest, we asked the judge to give us another opportunity to amend the complaint so we could highlight. the word fraud or phrase fraud in the inducement. So our claim is that based on Pfizer's clinical trial, the fraud, you know, everything that I've claimed that that fraud induced the contract and, you know, subsequently the emergency

Starting point is 00:12:51 authorization was given. Does that make sense? Yeah. It's a fraud in the inducement theory. and the government under Biden at the time gave us the instructions on how to file this claim appropriately to hold Pfizer accountable. And also that when that was when this is when basically the I think you put the caption out, the showing that the email said that they were interested in going, the DOJ was interested in going after Ventavia. Is that what you're referring to? So that was actually during the, during the first 12 months that the lawsuit was under.

Starting point is 00:13:26 seal. So the way that false claims act work, when you file a complaint, it goes under seal. And the government does that so not to tip off the defendant. You know, so it stays under seal. No one's supposed to, you know, discuss, you know, that there's a lawsuit. And that's what eventually led me to to seek out the Peter Doshi and the BMJ and get this information out. because, you know, that was my way to inform people of the way these clinical trials were run without revealing that there was an actual lawsuit against Pfizer. I just wanted people to have that opportunity to understand. Yes, there were sloppy things that went on at my trial sites,

Starting point is 00:14:17 but when you understand how clinical trials work and when you get the, when FDA is reviewing data, you know, these percentages, although, you know, mine only represented four, three, two, whoever you want to believe, percent of the overall study, it certainly could have affected what FDA requires to get products authorized and approved. So that's been just an argument that I'm tired of having with people. If you don't understand clinical trials and you don't understand, you know, efficacy and endpoints and all these things that matter, then you can't just say, oh, it was just three sites in Texas. Who gives it?

Starting point is 00:15:00 And there's also much on top of that, which I think we discussed in one of the previous interviews, is not just, well, first of all, as I think you argued, clearly this is not just a one-off accident. There's many different actions and choices that were made that signify that indicate a much larger, you know, decision-making process being broken or fraudulent or lying, whatever. But then on top of that is the reality that they actively covered it up. And you could prove that with what you showed. They were hiding and deleting things.

Starting point is 00:15:24 And so there's a level of criminality or dishonesty that is clear in all that. And if that doesn't matter to people out there, then, you know, to me, people making those arguments are people that have a clear agenda or a side they're choosing and they feel like that's brushing up against it. That's the partisan game today from both sides. So that's what I agree with you completely. This matters. I mean, even if it's exactly what their argument claims, how does that still not, how does that not matter? It's still a level of dishonesty or fraudulent activity that, as you're saying, could have even a small effect. but your picture.

Starting point is 00:15:53 If alone fraud, whether it's a little or a lot, has no business around our drug approval process, period. Absolutely. So anybody defending that is immediately just discounted. You know, we don't have time for any of that. You know, so where were we seal, you know, went to the, went to the British Medical Journal as a way to kind of get information to the public. and for them to be able to make a fully informed decision.

Starting point is 00:16:28 And my attorneys at the time told me, you know, you can't do that. If you tell people that this went on or that there's a lawsuit, the government's going to come after you. And I said, well, listen, you know, this was in, this was probably around September when the military mandates were starting to roll out. You all hear that. It's thunder. Yeah, I can't hear that.

Starting point is 00:16:54 A light flicker, that that's why we have some storms going through Dallas. But, you know, right around the time that the military mandates were being illegally ordered on our troops, and right around the time that the emergency use was being considered for adolescents, those 12 to 15-year-olds. And my children fell within that age range. And I just said, you know, to my attorneys, the government can make as many threats as they want to. Let them come after me, but this is unacceptable. People deserve to know how these trials were run.

Starting point is 00:17:32 And, you know, that data belongs to us. We paid for it. We paid for these clinical trials. Our tax dollars did. And I just, that really just bothers me a lot. Yeah. Well, I mean, imagine, you know, Doshi, shout out in general. You know, I actually don't, I haven't followed up.

Starting point is 00:17:51 I'm curious what has changed in his life because of that. But clearly, had that not happened? Nothing. It was actually, you know, that I'd followed Doshi's work calling for transparency in clinical trials. Right. There's a whole, I mean, we could talk for hours about FDA and, you know, clinical trial failures. And we'll probably get into that a little bit with, you know, this new gold standard requirement for placebo control. and vaccine trials. But, you know, it wasn't him. It was, you know, Paul Thacker, who did the investigation.

Starting point is 00:18:27 You know, everything that that I gave them was, you know, verified and, you know, I was background checked and all that good stuff. You know, it was a peer reviewed article. And still, I think today, the second most downloaded, downloaded BMJ article. Right. Which shows you everything. I mean, And it's just because, see, this is every time this happens, that shows you the average people want that truth. And every time it shows you, they're trying to keep these things away. But shout out to both Dacharan and Doshi for putting themselves out there, you know. My point was, had that not happened, had you followed the direction of the lawyers, whether right or wrong, people wouldn't even know about this. You know, like, think about trying to fight this without having the kind of momentum and following and people that are trying to help you.

Starting point is 00:19:14 I mean, that would be, that's what the government wants, you know, because then there's no real accountability. They can just toss you to the side. No one cares. So the whole time, it's under seal. The Department of Justice is telling me that they're investigating this. You know, there are people that are DOJ that are considering actual criminal charges against Ventavia. And, you know, then I just couldn't. It was like they were just yank in my chain, seriously.

Starting point is 00:19:44 And it was, I believe, in an attempt to get the stuff into as many arms. as they possibly could while keeping me, you know, it's like they were given me a snack. And I'm waiting on like the full course. Like we're going to hold this clinical trial company responsible. And then we're going to hold Pfizer responsible and everybody else who was involved. So what year are we at right now? Were you talking about this? What year are we at?

Starting point is 00:20:08 So this is 2021. So after the BMJ article came out and excuse me, that was November of 2021. very shortly after that, the Department of Justice made the decision to decline to intervene. So at that point, they were investigating the allegations, supposedly. They could have intervened and taken over the litigation of the case, the entire case, or they could have moved to dismissed the case if they felt that it lacked merit, or they could have done what they did. And that was decline to intervene, which allows me the whistleblower, the relator, to move forward on the case, move forward with the case on my own.

Starting point is 00:20:57 And that's what I chose to do. So they stayed out of it. They wanted to be updated on any, you know, progress that was that was being made. So we said, okay, we'll do that. And then so what is that? That's 22. So February of 22, they made that decision. and then for the next, you know, two plus years, I'm in court arguing Pfizer and Pfizer's, Fisors blaming it on the government and saying it didn't matter. You know, there may have been fraud, but it was just a little bit. It didn't matter. And the judge isn't having that. I feel like we were really close to showing which time did that.

Starting point is 00:21:44 You know, I, this is this case, I guess it's taught me, you know, one friendship, the value of that, right? Because I made some amazing friends, you included, and patience because, you know, we didn't know everything that we know today. Right. When I filed this lawsuit. So, so patience is certainly something that, you know, I'm happy to have learned a little bit. A lot, a lot has come up. out since then. I mean, people, you know, people, I think it was clear early in this conversation, but even there's so many other things going on the world right now. And every day, there's still

Starting point is 00:22:22 more information coming out. I was just, I think you just referenced a, who was it? Somebody, I greatly respect him. I can't remember the name now. But he would have another stuff, McCurton, put out another study showing the, the contamination, you know, and it's like every day these major developments from peer reviewed science and people just falls by the wayside. So it's adding to your point, like, it has only gotten more clear that this is a bigger problem. When they stop hiding things and, you know, censoring people, I mean, it's coming to light. We are actually following the science now. And, you know, one thing that Kevin kind of pointed out not too long ago is that there's not a consensus.

Starting point is 00:23:03 It's an ongoing process. You know, we're always learning. Science evolves. That's the definition of science, right? It's a never-ending pursuit of truth. We, I appreciate that, you know, and it's okay to be wrong. It is. Right.

Starting point is 00:23:19 But it needs to be okay to say that out loud. And that's what we haven't been able, we haven't been able to do. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. Well, so bringing this into, you know, so after 2022, really just more so like, let's just say like around the time of changing over from the administration. So you're still fighting this.

Starting point is 00:23:39 So is there any more updates from that point to now that change before? we get into, you know, the, what, you know, really the, the, the hope and the what's happened in regard to the new administration before we go to that? Yeah, not, not, not really. I mean, you know, Pfizer, Pfizer arguing that it didn't matter. We saying that it did, DOJ saying, yes, it certainly could matter. Here's what we would like to see you, you know, potentially claim. And it's all just legal stuff. It's like format and they wanted us to highlight things. And it's just really, really dumb. So we did that.

Starting point is 00:24:13 And it wasn't until we actually laid out the complaint the way that the Department of Justice instructed us to that they decided to make a move to dismiss the case. That's interesting. They had since January 8th of 2021 to dismiss this case if they felt that it was, you know, again. Not a case that is likely to be successful. They could have done that. They call it merit. It's not that it didn't lack merit. It certainly did.

Starting point is 00:24:52 Or they could have claimed national security. I mean, they could have dismissed for a bunch of reasons. They chose not to. I think in a hope that Pfizer's big wig attorneys were going to beat my attorneys in court. And they couldn't. We were winning in either administration, Biden's, or Trumps, you know, they, they could not afford discovery. Not that it's going to cost a lot to get that.

Starting point is 00:25:18 It certainly will. But what it would expose would expose either party. Right. All of it is that, yeah, the U.S. government and everybody else included. And yes, that's something like David Martin, for example, pointed out a lot. You know, this is an all-encompassing problem. And so what's crazy to me that you pointed out right there is literally they say, do it like this, you know, to have whatever, to be more effective, to get more.

Starting point is 00:25:40 you do it like that and that's what that's what you know it it seems clear that the way you even explain this and based on the information you had to begin with and the overlapping incestuous relationship with these companies in the government that this in my opinion was clear that that was just the excuse or rather maybe recognizing that you were going to have more traction that he wanted to remove this and so it just all of it's dishonest in my opinion and so here this was a post you put out on april 28 where this you say DOJ claims Pfizer's vaccine is effective So we're coming all the way back around. And now this is in the Trump's DOJ.

Starting point is 00:26:12 And so explain this. And I have the actual document here where I'll just show where it says. And in the FDA's view, Visor's vaccine is effective, which, I mean, look, let's be real. Fundamentally, that's not true. You can prove that today with the peer-reviewed science. So what are you, just giving your thoughts on that. And then we can go into the point where, I mean, you say that Trump sides with Pfizer on this. And I think it's an important thing to get into and explain why you think that and what that means to the, you know, again, the hope that things might have been

Starting point is 00:26:38 different with this new administration and your thoughts on, you know, how that, you know, contextualize that for this? Is Trump being played? How do you think that's playing out? Yeah, so after, after we filed this amended complaint, we're winning in court. The DOJ, the DOJ comes in and says, okay, we can't have this. We, we have to, we have to get rid of this case. Yeah. And the way that they did that was based on a SCOTUS ruling in 2023. It was, was a false claims act case. And you can look at it, Ryan. I'm sure you'll want to.

Starting point is 00:27:16 It's a case, Polanski. And so in that case, and how the DOJ was able to move into my case is by claiming that based on this SCOTUS ruling in Polanski, that the government can do whatever it wants to do, period. They think they have this unfettered right to just jump in it. any point in any case and dismiss it if they don't like it.

Starting point is 00:27:44 You know, this is interesting to me. Now, it's important to me that this is not seen as a partisan conversation today because I think we both agree this is a government issue from all sides of it. But I do note an interesting shift today in at least the presentation in a lot of different factors from the current administration of just sort of being like, you know, we have the power to do X, Y, and Z regardless of whether it's unconstitutional. And there's like asserting that from an executive branch dynamic. And that, so do you notice a difference between the ship from administrations to where, at least the way they're engaging with you like that, comparatively?

Starting point is 00:28:17 No. To the same, just dismissal. Because it sounded as if it was more so like they're asserting more of an ability to say we can get rid of whatever we want versus before maybe be more, you know, tactful. But either way, it's the same outcome is the point. So that's just that it's great. So that would be the reason that I say no, right? Yeah. I think the goal was the same.

Starting point is 00:28:36 Yeah, exactly, exactly. Well, so then. That was their basis for dismissal that we have this unfettered right to come in to any case and dismiss it if we don't like it. And unfortunately, the district judge in Texas and the fifth district, where is it? It's Eastern District of Texas, sorry, agreed with the government that, you know, they do have this right. So my case was dismissed. And so fast forward to where we are today. We filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit.

Starting point is 00:29:16 And we just got a response from the government just a few days ago. And they're still claiming, I have to get my notes here, Ryan, because it's so absolutely ridiculous their reason for wanting this case to remain dismissed. Oh, that the burdens of discovery, I don't know if you have this up and want to pull it. I think you started two minutes ago. The burdens of discovery, they believe the case lacks merit, and the case does not align with public health policy. So those were their three. Is this in the ruling the action of the court document I pulled up?

Starting point is 00:30:02 Is that what you're referring to? Yeah. Okay, I can pull it back up if you want to show it in there. but yeah, the, that's an incredible statement, right? So what the argument being- Yeah, he's on page 19, right? If you'll go there. That's where it was.

Starting point is 00:30:15 Yeah, so what was the state, read it out again? Um, the burden, what'd you say? Yeah, so right there. So the government explains that, um, do, do, do, do, do, do. There we go. The government-in-law and litigation obligations associated with the case would place significant burden. And, you know, this argument kills me.

Starting point is 00:30:37 The idea that like, so even if it's a crime, this, they've made similar arguments in the past where, yes, this may be a problem, but because this, or here's a good overlap to the globalist dynamic of saying that, well, we need to stop using oil and different things, but we're going to allow ourselves to do it because we're going to allow ourselves to do it. Or in this case, saying that the burden would be too hard on the companies or the FDA, HHS Department of Justice, but we're going to do it, you know, allow the bad thing because otherwise it would hurt the system that's allowing the bad thing. Splozing my mind. Actually, start up a little bit. After the ROA 4526-27, it says first the FDA was aware. Okay, right there. You can start there. Yeah. So they're saying that the FDA was aware of what I reported. Well, duh, I filed a complaint with them, right? I've written and I spoke to someone at FDA for an hour plus, let her know about everything. I was. seeing. So certainly they know, but our argument is, what did you do with that knowledge? Did you investigate these clinical trial sites? Did you exclude? What did you do? So they felled to give us any kind of evidence. FDA refuses to go on the record and say that they investigated the allegations, that it was not material to their decision to approve this stuff. The government men explain that it has had continued access to Pfizer's clinical trial data. That's funny because

Starting point is 00:32:08 remember how many years they wanted to hide that from the American people. We would have all been dead by the time Pfizer and FDA got around to showing the American people who paid for these trials and these products what the evidence actually showed. Well, this is what's so frustrating to me about this when I saw this statement. You put this out on Twitter on the 28th and you said Trump side with Pfizer. DoJ explained to the court that it has continued access to the Pfizer trial and they're saying it's effective. So to me, and let me know if you think, if I'm off base here, it sounds like they're trying to argue that, you know, not without saying it, that yes, the data before did look bad, but we've had continued access to it. And now we've decided because of all the full data that

Starting point is 00:32:46 you can't see that it is effective. Is that essentially what they're trying to argue with that? Isn't it, aren't vaccines supposed to be safe and effective? Yeah, yeah, right there. They're eliminating. That's obvious. That, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, getting rid of the one that probably matters the most in that conversation. But to me, it just seems like they're trying to argue with the data that now we don't have access to that that it is effective when we can literally prove to this day that that's not the case. So do you think, so give me your breakdown on that as it applies to the new administration, right? So this is the same thing in your mind, right?

Starting point is 00:33:17 Is there any difference? Is there any, you know, light at the end of the penalty? Absolutely not. I mean, absolutely not. You know, the Biden administration had had access to the same data that Trump does. you know, it's the same position. Nothing has changed. Why do you think that is? I mean, in the sense of, like, look, I can be the first to point out that, you know, or like everyone else would be in the hope here,

Starting point is 00:33:41 that RFK Jr. does have a lot of fantastic and amazing work before, I think a few things that if you want to get into, we can that I think are wild deviations, but I will still point to his work forever. That was monumentally important that had a positive impact. And so I had hope that instilled maybe due that there might, be some positive change or Trump has said things in the past that seem to align with a different direction. And so do you think there's any chance that they're there being played or there's something else going on or do you think it's just, you say, as we said earlier, the, you know,

Starting point is 00:34:10 new boss, same as the old boss kind of a dynamic. Well, I do feel that, right, but I also know, I have hope, first of all, but I also know that with Kennedy being in the position that he's in and the appointments that are being made, within, you know, NIH and CDC and FDA, that we will be a healthier America for the next few years based on what they're doing and the changes that they're making to what they're able to. But when a product's on the market that they know is, they know it doesn't work. Right. But worse, they know that it's hurting people.

Starting point is 00:34:57 This is not something that is just going to go away once it's recalled. We're talking about a product that's going to affect generations. And there's no excuse. So how can you have a little bit of good without trying to stop the bad? It just doesn't, it just doesn't, it just doesn't work for me. Yeah. You know, but they're good things. They're good changes.

Starting point is 00:35:30 And these people that, you know, that I know that I know are in this administration, have been trying to get these things done for decades, you know. So maybe it's a, maybe it's a win for them that these things are happening. It's just, it's a loss for the American people that other things are not. Yeah. And I just want, I just want us to not forget that. Yeah. What I think is so important of this is to not,

Starting point is 00:35:55 is to, we need to pull away from the partisan left, right, you know, he's guilty there on your, you know, all that should be, obviously those are relevant things to consider. But when you're coming down to something like we're talking about,

Starting point is 00:36:05 like, okay, so this just happened. They're clearly going in the same direction. Whatever the narrative change, whatever, remember, somebody's being played,

Starting point is 00:36:12 the point is it's there and it's happening. Like, that's what we can all agree on, right? So it should, the problem is that we tend to try to, manufacture reasons to why it's different or, you know, this might go a different direction because we want to believe in someone versus the other. And I just think that's dangerous. You know, it is still

Starting point is 00:36:25 happening. And like you said, like I can understand the logic behind an argument around why, you know, like from a, like a, trying to maybe like a greater good dynamic for why you might argue these things should be allowed. But I'm not okay with that. And I don't think anybody should be when we're talking about something that we all know is hurting people and it's continued to and that we know and can prove, again, pointing at David Martin's work, for example, that they knew what they were doing. And so I don't find, I don't think there's any valid argument, moral or political or otherwise that justifies allowing that to keep being used. And one more point about the liberty and freedom of choice, this is a very different

Starting point is 00:36:59 dynamic. If this was something growing in the field, that's a different conversation. This is a manufactured product with U.S. tax dollars that they're in many ways mandating. So yes, pulling that off. It's like pretending arsenic being sold at stores and somehow, well, it's their choice. You know, you're killing people, you know. So that issue. And you see that shift, you know, they're like, oh, President Trump, doesn't believe in mandates. Well, cool. But why does he believe that allowing a product to stay on the market to benefit who? Who's being helped here? You know, um, well, I'll know, I don't know. I don't, I don't have the answers for, for why this is being allowed.

Starting point is 00:37:40 But at what point does it become the people's responsibility to actually stand up and do something? I don't know what that looks like. I'm not saying that we need to have some kind of violent revolution. But we have to do something, that people have to do something. And I think all of us have a responsibility to do that, whether it's, you know, local government, you know, writing, doing, you know, these podcasts, whatever it is, whatever your, whatever your thing is, just keep doing it. You know, we have to, we have to keep talking about these things. And, you know, that's kind of, that's kind of where I stand on. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:38:21 I appreciate. I do the things that Kennedy's done over, over his life, you know, the things that, you know, the things that, you know, look at, who am I thinking about? Andrew Wakefield. You know, I talked to him recently and he said, Brooke, you know, maybe, you know, come and meet these people and maybe it'll be cathartic for you to. to be able to share your experience and listen to theirs. And I really didn't want to go because I just, it's so depressing. And it certainly wasn't, it certainly didn't do what he thought it would do. But again, I'm appreciative of their sacrifices because that's what's happened.

Starting point is 00:39:05 You know, they've lost careers. People have lost homes. You know, people, you know, couldn't serve their country. anymore because they just, you know, didn't want to get it or were fired or, you know, there's so much wrong with what happened. And I think one of the things that I think would would support the Mahal movement if there was some kind of accountability for the things that we know are true. We don't need more investigations on the origins of COVID. There have been plenty of those. What we need is some accountability, not pardons. We need it. We need

Starting point is 00:39:42 sentences. Jell sentences. Right. And fines, you know, with Pfizer. You remember there not too long ago, they received some kind of, I don't know, dumb, like integrity award. Yeah, that's insane. They were under a freaking corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Justice

Starting point is 00:40:04 for their crimes. And then they get an award for integrity. It's obvious. I mean, your case explains why that's happened. Because obviously this is not, I mean, there are separate things, but there's an incestuous relationship here where we're watching this kind of fascistic blob become real and whether it's technocratic or like the technology directions or medical health. It's very clear how these overlaps are just kind of merging together. And I'll include this, which I remember I pointed this out

Starting point is 00:40:33 like every other day during the midst of the COVID illusion, which is, and funny enough, how it never seems to change, even though, and it only starts in the year 2000, which is more than before that, 107 different records on this violation tracker for Pfizer. I mean, and these are, and look, you know, what is, it's over $11 billion in fines. And the most important ones I point out are False Claims Act, 22 times they've been caught with false claims. And these things should matter, you know, but to your point, it's, there's a relationship which protects them. Not just a relationship, but, you know, the media too, right? And that's kind of, I think one of the things that's kind of revealed itself is just how complicit media is, journals are,

Starting point is 00:41:14 you know, our own agencies, medical schools. I mean, it's just it's, and I guess here's another thing to be appreciative of is that, that coming to light. Yeah. You know, because now, now I question everything. Good. And I also have a shirt that says that. Thank you, Ryan. You're welcome. You know, and that's kind of, you know, we're bonding. I don't know if her prior legal services with Pfizer matter. Maybe they don't in the grand scheme of things. But what we've learned over the last, you know, five years is that we can't, we can't allow any kind of conflicts of interest in government, period, anywhere.

Starting point is 00:42:05 I mean, this obviously matters. I'm just having it on the screen for the podcast of Pam Bondi and her different connections and one of them being Pfizer. And there's probably more. I'll dig through this later. There's probably more that matters. I mean, the point to say is that this doesn't necessarily have to prove that there's some kind of a criminal act going on. But of course it matters, right? There's overlap to these companies, which means there could be more of an allegiance there. There could be, you know, more of a willing to ignore their problems. Maybe they have an offer for them after they come out of government, the whole revolving door or maybe none of that. But it obviously matters, you know. And so it's the, the continuation of this, in my opinion, just shows that it's the same problem that never really stopped. The different people in different positions are continuing the same problem as we just showed. That's just an indication of maybe why, you know, and I think we can see that Pfizer and or Moderna or cureback or all these different entities that are part of it, biotech, are all clearly on the same path. As I briefly accidentally just showed, I'll just show it again since I brought it up, that Mary Talley, Mary Talley Bowdoin, excuse me, Bowden, yeah. She put this out just showing here's what Grock has to show you that these are,

Starting point is 00:43:05 all the MRNA shots that are in the pipeline. You know, Moderna's got 48 of them. And that's not to say the government's involved with all of them, but I think we know that there are government contracts there, you know, even with the bird flu one that happened on the overlap to the Trump administration, right? And then they continued the funding and they added more. And now there's a bird flu shot, an MRNA platform. And they just rolled out another NIH.

Starting point is 00:43:25 What was it? The, it's not coming up for me. It was the universal flu shot platform. Oh, yeah. I don't try to grab that, but that just got reported. They've been working on that for really long. exactly you know and that's what I said is that this is not maybe and I honestly don't know not to get up on a tangent here but I don't know how you can have a platform without m or eight I'm not

Starting point is 00:43:45 the expert but I wonder whether that's still part of it they're not showing that but either way it's the same direction Fauci was talking about a universal flu shot for the longest time to me it's the extension of the same problem you know which is what's so disconcerting you know because we did even as much as I don't think these people are different I still had hope that it would be you know and I think we all should so with the appointments you know with the appointments you know with Jay Batacharya. I mean, I'm quite like, I know these are good men, you know, and they're smart. They're talented.

Starting point is 00:44:17 They know how clinical trials are designed. They know how they're supposed to be run. I mean, they're scientists, they're medical doctors. So how can you call for, you know, a change in how vaccine trials are run, that they need to be compared to a placebo, a truth? placebo and an inert placebo, but then not talk about clinical trial data and not not called out Pfizer for cheating in their trials, you know? And I hope that Marty Macri understands how data gets from a patient to a sponsor like Pfizer over to the FDA and then into a patient's arm.

Starting point is 00:45:03 If you study that process of data collection, he would understand that we should pause everything until we have an FDA investigative workforce, an inspection workforce that's able to verify and do clinical trial investigations of not just manufacturing sites, but data collection sites, where the data is actually coming from. Because if FDA doesn't get to the clinical trial sites and verify the data that Pfizer's using, then they'll tell you on their own website. They're using and trusting the data that's coming from Pfizer.

Starting point is 00:45:47 Why would you trust a company to provide you with accurate data, not fraudulent data, when you can look at their history? Right. I mean, why would the United States government contract through Operation Warp Speed with a company that was under a confidentiality agreement? Excuse me, not a confidentiality agreement. It was a, oh gosh, what was it? It was, they were for being in trouble. It'll come to me in a second.

Starting point is 00:46:23 I'll think of the name of it. But, I mean, Pfizer was in trouble. corporate into a CIA, a corporate integrity agreement is what Pfizer was under for crimes. Why would the government want to contract with them to develop a vaccine to prevent a, you know, to help in this pandemic? Why? As you just showed, because they wanted the fraudulent, they ordered the fraud that they delivered, right? Because this is, you know, same we were just saying before is like you ask, you know, like, I don't understand, you know, I'd say clearly the point is that we don't believe that that's the reality, but it is, you know, that they wanted to work with the group who's willing to be fraudulent. That's my opinion, but I think the evidence clearly shows that. And I would also argue, and I hope I'm wrong as always in this case, but the FDA is a captured agency as far as I'm concerned. So if we're going to have some real accountability, I argue we need to find a way to not, you know, keep running through these same broken institutions or at least somehow verified that it's not the same old broken thing. But I agree, you know, that this is just one more step of this. It's the same problem that never really stopped.

Starting point is 00:47:26 you know and it's if if we can't see that or the continuation of the same shots or the stargate platform doing the same thing you know it's it's a question of whether they're being played somehow or knowingly continuing the same problem and i don't know how they could be missing the information so to that point i want your thoughts on on that very thing as as barnes pointed out in his opinion anyway he says a key set of saboteurs against the trump reside in the bowels of the justice department where lefty attorneys undermine the trump administration policies and to overturn 2024 elections the OJ filed a brief opposing Brooke Jackson, claiming, claiming Biden policy to prevent accusation to fraud concerning COVID vaccine is still the policy when Trump admin publicly

Starting point is 00:48:04 averse that policy. Okay. So what are your thoughts on that before I comment? No, well, I don't necessarily agree with Robert Barnes here. And he may have been able to contact people within the Justice Department, but I just, you know, Trump is our commander in chief. So I don't want to think that anything gets past that man. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think the concern for me is that this is the reactionary kind of benefit of the doubt, right? Which obviously that's certainly possible, right? There could be somebody, but this whole lefty holdover thing keeps being used for all these conversations. And yet we never seen anyone arrested. We don't see any real point. No one gets called out. You know, so I obviously possible. I'd like to see some names or some evidence to back that up. Otherwise, it seems to be, you know, anything that goes against what we want.

Starting point is 00:48:54 we can just assume that it's not what he ordered because they want to believe that. And again, it could be. But I'm very worried about that because that allows people to ignore what we've been highlighting here, which is that this is whether being tricked or not, the same problem continuing. And, I mean, I find it hard to believe that makes sense with the Stargate platform, you know, an MRNA cancer platform or we could touch on as we get done here, the MMR discussion where RFK Jr. has now done a complete 180. And I do think it's not hard to under, it's easy to see that things have shifted in regard to what he's saying.

Starting point is 00:49:24 and the argument becomes, well, he's playing some kind of a game. And he's trying to keep to something going. And that goes back to the same point of Trump and the shot. I don't agree with that logic. I think that's immoral, if not dangerous, you know, so if you give you any more thoughts on that point, and if you think there's more there, otherwise, let's talk about the kind of evolution of all the other points around this conversation,

Starting point is 00:49:43 MMR, Stargate, anything else. Yeah, I don't, you know, I just don't understand how, how Kennedy could advocate for the things that he has for as long as he has and, you know, allow these things, allow these things to stay. And I don't think it's him again. And I think that he's a good man and maybe it's strategy. But I guess I just, I don't, I don't like it. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:50:18 Well, I mean, that's, that's the important thing to highlight is that this is wrong, right? So yes, the narrative could be what they're claiming, but let's not lose. side of the fact that we need to resist this. I also point out that I see a lot where people will make an argument like that to say, oh, well, it was an old, you know, person left in the FBI. And then because of that, not call out that problem. Like, well, hold on, no, we all agree. That's a bad thing. Like, let's, you know, but as if it's only important to do a hope that it's somebody else instead of recognize we need to keep stopping the thing that's happening regardless. Remember when everybody on X was like, stop saying stop the shots until Kennedy's elected. I'm like, no.

Starting point is 00:50:53 Because they need, I'm not going to stop saying anything. Right. That's true. See, that's just integrity, Brooke. It's about consistency in your principles, you know, and there's far too many, and far too many good people, by the way, who have just been convinced by I argue partisan screamers out there on the team sport politics game that they've been convinced that this is more, you know, it's a lesser of evils.

Starting point is 00:51:13 Like, we have to not talk about this because when he gets in, it'll be better in the long run. It's like, well, maybe, you know, I'm not going to sacrifice my principles for your hopeful. and, you know, I argue, partisan-driven perspective, you know, but that's, it's hard. But as you wrote here, Biden covered for Fauci, Trump covered for pharma, two president, zero accountability, right? So I think we can clearly see that this is an ongoing. We would agree. You wrote, don't ask why, ask how many?

Starting point is 00:51:38 And this, I think this is a great point, Brooke, since how many times since 2000, the U.S. government has dismissed pharmaceutical fraud cases. So just again, it's nonpartisan, back as you want to, far back as you want to look, continuation of covering for pharma. How many times have I asked why today? I don't know. You don't understand. You want to know why.

Starting point is 00:51:58 But you already do. It's just what comes out of your mouth to explain how absurd this situation is. Exactly. We just talked about Pam Bondi's connection, which is relevant. You just tweeted about RFK Jr. But back from 2023, right, where he said, Donald Trump owns stock in Pfizer and J&J, who bought fancy tickets to his inauguration and placed pharmaceuticals high in his administration.

Starting point is 00:52:18 That's how Washington works. I think that's relevant to what. where we are right now, you know? And then lastly, this, on this point, you said that as, as, HHS and RFK Jr. are now the legal client of the DOJ on all PREPAC, EUA and vaccine related litigation, this means the DOJ represents him in court. He sets the policy. He decides whether Pref Act Shield stands, stand or fall. He has the power to end the COVID emergency declaration today. That's an important that we don't focus on, right? No more excuses. So just kind of showing that he, the buck stops with him at this point. So I don't. And I think that I'm so glad.

Starting point is 00:52:50 that you pointed out. The DOJ is his client. They do what he says. Right. They're saying, or excuse me, Kennedy is saying that the burdens of this case are too much for the American people. That this shot, or excuse me, this lawsuit,

Starting point is 00:53:15 this lawsuit, which is about fraud, goes against public health policy. Make that make sense. It's just, it's more legal arguments. I mean, I don't want to pull this into another conversation, but there's plenty of overlaps in the world today from this administration, again, just the U.S. government.

Starting point is 00:53:33 They are continuing to make similar arguments where it's just too much of a burden. Well, it's not about whether it's a, it's about right and wrong principles, integrity, constitutional rights. Like you can't just make an excuse. We all made this point during COVID-19 where you can't say, you know, there's no asterisk on the Constitution. There's not say, except when there's a pandemic, right? That's not how it works.

Starting point is 00:53:50 But we're seeing a lot of these arguments, continue, which it's not unique to left and right. I've seen Biden and Bush and Obama and everybody else do the same kind of thing in their context. And so I worry that we're falling for similar things. I did want your thoughts on the MMR shot in general. You know, what do you think is a lot of people had the conversation about whether he's being blackmail, which I can't find any evidence to back up, but it wouldn't surprise me. What your thoughts on the 180 on MMR shots were seemingly telling you us now it's, and then it followed up again, saying it's safe and effective, essentially. I just don't know what to say to that other than somebody's got him.

Starting point is 00:54:27 Yeah. It wouldn't surprise me. I've had a really difficult time trying to reconcile that. And I'm not going to say, I know. I wouldn't argue we can prove that. But his work has been profoundly important before this. And I don't, there was just this weird shift. And yes, it was after a very certain event. And I just think that something, it does seem like something happened there. But it's also possible that it was all a long-term ploy. I just don't think that adds up. So I think it's worth considering that, but either way, our point to say it's been the same, that it's still something we call out, regardless of who's driving or who's holding them, you know? I agree 100%. We don't know what's going on behind closed doors. I just know what his stance has been for his whole almost adult life. You know, I know that he's a brilliant attorney. I've read his briefs. I know the MMR case very well. He said just recently that,

Starting point is 00:55:17 there was a False Claims Act case against Merck for what they did in the clinical trial. They rigged the clinical trial. And he didn't say that. He said it was dismissed on a technicality. Well, that technicality is that the government knew about the fraud but chose to purchase it anyway. Right. I mean, it's just, it's insane. In all these cases, it doesn't take, I mean, you can, I don't know if you like using AI or you don't.

Starting point is 00:55:46 But a quick Google search or whatever your favorite search engine is, all you have to do is type in False Claims Act cases, pharmaceuticals, and you can do your own research. And I encourage that. I encourage people to do that. You know, it's not hard to look these things up. But the government has been doing this for a long time. You know, this Pfizer case, the Merck case. You know, there have been many. many false claims at cases against pharmaceuticals where there's alleged fraud in the clinical trial and the government says get rid of it yeah right which i say the same point as before is that just very important to see the long term linear it's not left and right in all this and that's the point that really matters it's just this is something that needs to stop and every single time of a change of the guard people make up new arguments for why something will be different and i'm all with the hope i hope that's going to

Starting point is 00:56:45 happen, but I'm more critical than ever, but then things happen the same. And then there's a narrative built around why it's not the same thing or why it'll end a different way. You know, and again, I hope so, but we can see. It hasn't really stopped. And so this is the largest problem is that this, we're coming to a point where these things are intersecting with much larger problems, or actually much larger, just different, like a, you know, the technological advancements that I think will apply to this that make this possibly already even there that really terrify me. You know, so people need to stand up and put their foot down and stop, you know, nor for the moment the people that you think you're following or believe in and just focus on the policy and the integrity and the principle of it all.

Starting point is 00:57:22 I think it's pretty clear that this is a problem. And I'd like to end with talking about the gain of function point because I think this is a really interesting. And this is just recent as of yesterday to today, which is another example of something that we all like championed by like I would say more so than anybody the right of the conversation, right, calling out the problems around this, calling out gain of function, Pfizer, COVID-19. Now with this administration continuing, just like Biden did and everyone before them, I argue the same problem under a guise of something else. And this is what Tom Wrenz put out saying Trump allows gain of function research to continue, but in certain aspects, when the framing is out as if this is stopping gain of function. Now, give me your thoughts on that. I know we're not going deep on this. I've only just come, you know, been reading about it today.

Starting point is 00:58:07 Do you have any perspective on that? Well, I use X as kind of like my diary almost. And I don't know if you caught the little pardon me joke there. But, you know, I follow Emily Kopp, and she's the one that actually pointed me to this. And so you go look at the executive order, you read it, and then you compare it to what was in place in 2017. and what has actually changed. Not a lot. So I just, I wish people, and I'm guilty of this myself too,

Starting point is 00:58:46 I get excited when I see something that, you know, it means something to me. You just want to go repost it quickly to let people know. But I encourage people to read the executive order. And once this administration finally puts out what these changes in policy are going to look like, because it's just a tease right now. They haven't they haven't spelled that out for us yet. But in what I've read, there isn't much change.

Starting point is 00:59:17 You know, what I would have liked to see right away, just going, you know, based on the most recent disaster with gain of function is what happened with COVID. You know, how about we not allow people that participate in these activities, whether it's on our soil or not? that, you know, we find some way to hold him accountable, but especially if they're on our soil. Why did, why did Fauci get a pardon? I mean, he's to me just, you know, the most evil person out there. But why did he get a, why did he get a pardon? Why did the American taxpayer

Starting point is 00:59:52 dollar have to pay millions, American taxpayer have to pay millions of dollars for his, his personal chauffeur service and his security? Like, why are we protecting him? Yeah, right. It's an important question. He's responsible for part of this. So I would have liked to see some stronger language, some enforcement mechanism within that executive order to hold people accountable for the things that they say are not allowed anymore or little tweaks that they've made here and there. So, anyway. Well, there's important points to add is that ultimately, let's remember that the last time, which went through both administrations, you know, in the recent, recent memory. where they said they were stopping and they didn't.

Starting point is 01:00:37 We can prove that, right? So let's just be clear just because they say these things or, you know, actually sign an executive order as opposed to legislation, by the way, which is always the way that's going to go. So it's not really applicable to the world or even more than the executive branch, which is how they actually work. You know, they could just lie about that. But secondarily, let's not forget that even Fauci tried to roll out the whole E,

Starting point is 01:00:56 E, E, EPP, like the new name for it. And so how we know they're not going to use that. Well, long, that's exactly. There are loopholes. but in what we've been shown that will allow the same thing to continue as my point. Exactly. And as you rightly pointed out,

Starting point is 01:01:12 here's one thing that concerns me referencing what Tom Rents was highlighting. The new executive order does ban civilian funding for dangerous bio-research unless it's for war games. So even that alone could just be, well, that's every time they do it now will be called a war game. It's easy to see how this is going to apply. That's no change.

Starting point is 01:01:27 That's always been allowed just to do it. Exactly. Exactly. But, you know, I mean, it kind of feeds into how the Department of Defense use this prototype contract with, you know, Pfizer to get their product, you know, I mean, it is the vaccine. So they were able to use these kind of carve out, carve-outs to, you know, direct their weapon at the people. It's just mind-blowing. I know. And I wish I had, you know, like all the time in the world to sit down and, and access to data that I'm certain that they've scrubbed, right?

Starting point is 01:02:09 Even since. That's my concern about the Stargate or just one of the different overlaps. Let's not forget that that included Larry Ellison, right, who is Oracle, who Oracle was overlapped with COVID-19 and Moncef Salawi and the pharmacovigilance. And there's a whole database that he, remember that they promised wouldn't be used exactly like this and now it's being used exactly like this, which is the point is that ultimately that was data we never got to see, right? That was a whole different thing where they

Starting point is 01:02:34 Mount Sop-Salaoui under the original warp speed said they would follow people for up to two years for pharmacovigilance if they took the shot. And that we never got to see that as far as I can tell. And so now it's being overlapped with this and obviously with SoftBank and AI, Sam Altman and everything else, but I'm worried about how that overlap continues and really just shows you this dovetail

Starting point is 01:02:56 with the technocratic direction. And I think it's important to highlight, as we just said, plenty more MRI shots coming out. She also pointed out, 2024 to 2045. This is Mary Tally Bowden. COVID shots for ages six months to 11 years are authorized in an emergency use authorization by the U.S. FDA not fully licensed yet are on the CDC pediatric schedule. Now, we've got a lot of talk about shifting things.

Starting point is 01:03:19 You mentioned the placebo thing. You know, there's a lot of things being stated. I don't see any actual material changes in earnest just yet. I really hope we see them. I do think some of them will probably happen to one degree or another, but I think it's important that we hold back our cheering until we actually see these things materialize. Because even the placebo point, you know, that's been going on a long time. And I don't necessarily see it begin to take place. But, you know, just on the wrap up to end.

Starting point is 01:03:42 They haven't even come out with their policy, Ryan. Like they're just saying that they're going to do this. That's not been written out anywhere. So what does that look like? Is that only going to apply to new vaccines? Is that going to apply to, you know, everything else that's on the childhood and adult immunization schedules. Good point. That's another thing that I just want to point out really quickly. You know, we can call for, you know, a ban on these MRNA products for our children, and I think that's super important.

Starting point is 01:04:16 Absolutely. But we know that it's injuring and killing people. So why would we just recall it for kids? What about who's going to take care of these kids when their parents get shots and are killed or injured? Or, you know, I just, we just have to do what we know is the right thing, what's required by law. And that's kind of, sorry, I just wanted to point that out really quickly. I agree.

Starting point is 01:04:46 You know, of course, we worry about the babies, yes, but we adults matter too. Well, it comes down to a principle. I mean, again, it's the same point. If you're aware of the real problem, there's no world in which you will. allow that to continue to be used. And especially getting into all the deeper points that the average person has no idea about, I would argue, about whether, you know, any number of very crazy topics we can get into around the overlap of these shots. But just the, the, the, even the basic peer-reviewed science at this point. I mean, we can clearly see that these things,

Starting point is 01:05:16 well, not even remotely benefits outweigh the risk. Like, it's shockingly to the other side. And I mean, I frankly, my opinion, the evidence shows that there's not even remotely effective and whatever that even actually means, unless the effectiveness is what they're designed to do, which is hurt people. Because I, and so you can't pretend like we can just let that continue because that is the very problem. And, you know,

Starting point is 01:05:36 this is how it goes back and forth and the things continue down in the same path. And I think that what we can see is that the same thing is going forward, the same schedule, a lot of, like you said, statements about things that I really do hope coming to pass or, for example, on the placebo point,

Starting point is 01:05:49 like what about if they do what they've always done, which is, yeah, we'll use a placebo, but we'll use a meningitis vaccine, you know, in a way that makes it clearly seem as if there's a less disparity between saline and something else. Now, they argue those are placebo's in the conversation.

Starting point is 01:06:02 You know, we have to wait to see things actually happen before we start making these claims. And just one more time. You know, you can change, make all these changes to the design of clinical trials, but FDA needs to get out to the clinical trial sites and do their job and enforce, excuse me, get these inspectors out to the sites to verify the data. Otherwise, it's just a rigged placebo-controlled trial. Well, I'm glad you said that because I was going to say this before. The point that's important there is that, you know, yes, you can have all this conversation about

Starting point is 01:06:36 every part of the process, but if they're simply relying to begin with on data that could be fraudulent, then everything else doesn't matter. Like, that's the core of it, you know, or at least at the very least it could be manipulated. And this has been your whole point from the very beginning, you know, and it's why, again, I think your work is profoundly important in this conversation or just in a health-focused in general. I hope you know, I focus on that, you know, that that's kind of, what affected me personally.

Starting point is 01:07:04 And I just, you know, find your space, man, whatever it is. You know, whatever is important to you, stay focused there. But take the time to learn about these different areas of concern and keep doing what you're doing to get the information out. We do reach people, you know. And if I just reach one a day, you know, if somebody's like, what? That's crazy. I didn't know that.

Starting point is 01:07:27 To me, like, I feel like I've done my job because I don't really have one anymore because Pfizer got me fired. Right, right. Well, I agree completely. And I think that's the best way to look at this. You know, it's, I, and obviously I think we're reaching way more than that, but I agree with you is that, you know, just that if you change one person's mind, you don't know how that will cascade through the future. I actually don't even want to change your mind. I just want to inform you of what's actually, you know, I'm glad you said that because I completely agree.

Starting point is 01:07:54 It's not about, well, the way, the way I mean that is ultimately give you information to potentially, potentially change the way you see things. But I agree. It's not about that we want you to think the way I think. It's just if we can influence with facts, more people every day, that will most definitely change things. And they tell their friends and they grew up and they tell their family. You know, it's profound. So thank you for saying that. And, you know, again, I think it's important that people support your work to reach out and find. And I'll include everything we discussed today, including, oh, you know, I'll show you afterward. I was going to show you something. And I'll include your links here for people to check you out. And just please support her work because she is doing

Starting point is 01:08:26 amazing things out there. Anything else you want to leave us with before we take off today? Any updates or things coming up in the future? Well, we do have our reply brief due in just a few weeks. We'll probably likely request an extension. So it may be a month, maybe more before we're able to get that filed with the circuit court, or excuse me, the appellate court. But I just, I have fun coming on here. I appreciate the opportunity to give an update. And thank you for doing what you do and getting the information to the people so that they can make an informed decision. And I do. I love your saying, like question everything.

Starting point is 01:09:09 That's so important to me. And, you know, one of my friends on X told me a long time ago, trust no one. So I trust no one. And I question everything. So I just appreciate that for sure. Well, thank you. And, you know, I can see your friend, Brooke. and I'm glad you came back on and let's connect again in the future because I don't think this is going to get less important as the time goes on.

Starting point is 01:09:31 So let's stay in touch. And as always, everyone out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. We should be having a public dialogue and it should be something that rises to the level of legislation. We should not allow the National Institute's Health or the Department of Defense to allocate funding to amplify these agents so that allegedly we can study them in the case that they fall into the hands of bad people. because the evidence has shown us that the bad people who actually have unleashed these pathogens since 1991 and by the way if you go to the miscellaneous memorandum seven and other documents we can go back to the 1950s

Starting point is 01:10:12 the bad people who unleash these things on the population are us it is the u.s who's doing it

The Last American Vagabond - Brook Jackson Interview - Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.