During the COVID response, which is roughly, since vaccines started going into arms,
roughly six years ago in the United States with the COVID shot,
we still really don't know how many people have been harmed by that shot.
We hear a lot of studies saying it saved the world and the pandemic.
It ended it because we had the COVID shot and we've shown studies that refuted that point.
But there's not a lot of studies showing how many people are hurt by this coerced,
mandated shot. And what we have to do is we have to rely on a reporting system.
There's vaccine adverse event reporting system that is really not a robust reporting system,
although we're told it is, but we know it's not. So we look at headlines like this with interest.
This is a Rasmussen report, a poll, a telephone poll where people were called.
This is human intelligence. This is how people talk. They get a telephone call.
And here's the headline, millions experience COVID-19 vaccine side effects.
And it says more than a third of Americans who were vaccinated against COVID-19
say they had side effects from the shot and nearly half suspect the vaccines killed many patients.
It goes on to get a little more fine tuned here. It says, however, 26% say
they had minor side effects and 10% reported major side effects from the vaccine.
Okay. Now stay with me here. This is kind of a back of a napkin
calculation, but we have to have approximations here because there's not really any great
studies showing this. We just keep hearing bears is great. It catches everything.
It's the best in the world. Go back to, you know, the COVID pandemic's over. You can go back to your
normal lives, but there's still a lot of people suffering from this COVID shot. We know this.
And so let's take some really broad approximations from this Rasmussen report
and overlay it on the bears and see if we can figure something out.
So in this Rasmussen report, they called almost 1300 people and of those adults that
answered the phone, about 68% of them said they had been vaccinated during the COVID pandemic
with the COVID vaccine. So at the time of this report, there's about 258 million adults in the
US of this Rasmussen report. So about 68% of that. So about 175.4 million. So again,
total approximations here, people are going to tear this part, but that's fine because that's
all we have. Now let's go to bears. So we have of that 175.4 million adults who received the COVID
shot. We go to bears. How many of them really reported what would be considered a serious
side effect? Well, serious side effect, as you can see from open bears, you would probably be
hospitalizations. You get the shot, you find yourself in the hospital for an extended
state not knowing what the heck just happened. That would probably be a serious side effect.
So let's choose that 221,872. So here we go. Stay with me here. You take that 175.4 million
adults who received that COVID vaccine and according to Rasmussen, according to those phone
calls, and you take those hospitalization from bears, 221,872, and you get about 0.13%
of those people ended up with a serious side effect according to bears reporting. Now this
is all to see how robust is bears. How much is bears catching? Is it catching everything?
So you have 0.13%. Well, Rasmussen poll, because we're going to compare it to that,
with these random telephone calls said 10% of people said that they had a serious reaction.
So you take 10%, you divide that by that 0.13%. Bears is under reporting at a rate of about
77 times when it comes to major side effects. And the caveat to this, again, this is
very broad strokes on these calculations. But the caveat to this is those hospitalizations that we
chose for bears, that was children and adults. So we actually gave bears some help on this one.
We over calculated how many reports were coming in. And even by doing that, 77 times under
reporting. And remember, Harvard Pilgrim did the study and they said less than 1% is what
bears probably was catching before COVID of the vaccine schedule, the flu shot,
the childhood vaccine schedule. So again, anytime we do these calculations,
bears never comes in over reporting. In fact, it comes in massively under reporting in this
case, 77 times. You know, it's interesting because I mean, you know, I remember when
you were bringing this up and we're looking at, you know, where is bears at? It's under
1% reported. If we're going to go with what Rasmussen says there, which is super
interesting. What's fascinating about that article is, you know, remember we were reporting
somewhere between 40% and 50%, depending on the poll, we're saying they knew someone that they
thought had died from the COVID vaccine. But to add in that one third think they're injured and
10% think that they've gotten a serious injury from it. That is a massive, massive number.
But I remember when we won the V safe data. And you know, this is the data,
this is the app that the CDC created to track any sort of vaccine injury. And we built the
portal in which it, and people can still go check this out at icandeside.org.
But if you pull up that portal and you could search it any way you want to,
what we ended up seeing with those numbers was that it was about, I believe was like 7,
7.5% somewhere in that zone that we're having serious adverse events and up to 30%
were visiting doctors or missing school or, you know, in some way it was altering their life.
And that actually goes really closely with what Rasmussen is reporting here.
And again, data that we only have Jeffrey because of Aaron Seary and millions of dollars spent to
both get to the Pfizer data, which the FDA wanted to hide for 75 years would be in hiding for
75 years. If it weren't for the work that icand does, the Moderna data is available to the public
because of the work that we do here. But that V safe data, which anyone can read through and go
through our dashboard, which is super interesting. You can see that too. But again, what we're seeing
is what has been reported. Harvard has said in their, you know, experience when they were
tasked, like I think they paid, we're paid a million dollars are investigated,
bears is capturing less than 1% of the total amount of injuries. There's that study that does that.
And so, you know, and this matters. This matters when you're going to rush a totally
experimental product onto all the population and have your president of the United States say,
everyone's going to have to get it or they can't go to work or they can't go to school or
they can't get on plane. It matters that your one major capture system is so flawed
and that you want to hide your V safe system and you want to hide your Pfizer data and
your Moderna data. This is what I think America is waking up to and why we're seeing such change,
you know, as we're moving along now. Right. And so we just want to be adults.
Let's talk about children. So here's a headline somewhat recently out of the Atlantic. Yes,
some children may have died from COVID shots. Well, we've come a long way since safe and
effective or, you know, anti-vaxxers have a crazy conspiracy that the COVID shots may
kill people. We're actually getting these headlines that from legacy media outlets
that they're admitting this. And this brings us to a study out of Spain. And this study found
something kind of accidentally. They were looking at the safety and the effectiveness of the COVID
mRNA vaccines in children ages six to 11. And they use the entire population database of Madrid's
health system. And they looked at it really during the hot years of the pandemic around
May 2021 to December 2022. So a lot of deaths going on there. And remember they rush these
vaccines into children's arms. There is typically unanimous voting from Virbat, from ASIP to vote these
in despite massive problems, despite the fact that children were not dropping like flies from COVID.
So this study looks at that time period. It looks at a lot of children. And where did they find
no deaths attributable to COVID-19 occurred? Now, let's look at the numbers because there's
some questions here. I'm sure people are watching going, well, this is a vaccinated study. So
isn't that proving that? You can say that. But let's look at the image here from the study. This
is the table. Vaccinated 183,273. The controls. So they chose five times the controls of basically
unvaccinated compared to vaccinated for six to 11 year old and 12 to 17 year old. So you add up
those controls. It's about 2.7 million children. And if you go into this study, it says during
the follow up period, a certain percentage of those children in those controls received one
vaccination. And so bottom line is about one, almost 1.4 million children in this study.
And they're monitoring them for hospitalization, for mortality. No children died. You would think
if they hit the dartboard, you know, they threw a dart like that with that many children. If
COVID was as dangerous, we are told that every child, every child had to get this shot,
every infant had to get the shot. In fact, the West Coast Alliance and East Coast Alliance are
still making their own recommendations to put them in the arms of infants. As we speak right now,
you think that they would have captured a death or two in this just by a blind chance.
And they did not. And so that brings us kind of to the next question. We talk about the
reporting systems, but there's people that are injured from this, there's children that are
injured from this, myocarditis and the list goes on. You can look and what are we doing
here in the United States? Well, we have the countermeasures injury compensation program.
It pays out almost nothing to people that have been injured. It was never meant for a pandemic.
It was that reporting system and a compensation system never meant for that. And we have,
we have basically trying to move that into something else to get compensation. But in the
UK, as of last week, they're putting forward bills in their parliament to try and get
compensation for their citizens. Here's one of them, COVID-19 vaccine damage
payments bill. And you go into and read about this, it says a bill to place a duty
in the secretary of state to make provisions about financial assistance to persons who have
suffered this, the disablement following vaccination against COVID-19 and the next
can of persons who have died shortly after vaccination. So that's what the UK is doing.
What's the US doing? And I want to bring people to a time really quickly because
there's a lot of polarization out there with RFK junior at the head of HHS.
There's a lot of people thinking the vaccinations schedule should have stayed the
way it was. Should has continued to be mandated without giving informed consent and
choice to parents and children. So I want to talk about both camps. We have the
camp of informed consent. We have the people that kind of want the old guard back.
We'll call it now. I called the Dark Ages of Medicine now because it seems like
we're turning the page. And that's represented by people like Stanley
Plotkin, Walter Ornstein. These are legacy researchers who laid the ground
work for the current vaccination program over decades of research and
vaccine development that we have lived under until Kennedy took office.
Well, they wrote a paper. Well, before we get to that, to be clear, if someone
happens to be watching the show for the first time, our own Aaron Siri, the
lawyer that brings all of our cases, went and represented us and had a
deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who is considered to be the reigning
godfather of our vaccine program, was a nine-hour deposition.
You can find excerpts of that in the entire thing at thehighwire.com.
Just search for the Plotkin deposition. But under that deposition, he admitted
things like lack of safety testing and things like that. He was caught off guard,
was not ready for it. And in our own FOIA requests, we found a request to CDC and FDA
that Dr. Stanley Plotkin then reached out to Walter Ornstein and others
that are the heads of the departments inside the United States of America and
their health system saying, I just had a very uncomfortable experience with a
lawyer, essentially. And we have to start preparing ourselves for the argument
they're making. I wasn't prepared. So very interesting. I think it sets up this
article that you're about to describe. Absolutely. And so this article, and
just to put it in context, this was in summer of 2024, July, to be specific.
Robert F. Kennedy didn't drop out of the presidential race until a month
later in August. So Kennedy was not at HHS. He wasn't talking about
going to HHS. He wasn't really even talking about vaccines. In fact,
I remember when he was running for president, he did an interview, a couple
of podcasts, and he said, you know what? I'm not talking about vaccines anymore
because I'm running for president. There's also other issues that I want to talk
about. So it wasn't really on the docket. And out of the woodwork comes
Stanley Plotkin. When Stanley Plotkin speaks, a lot of people in medicine
listen. And he published this study in the New England Journal of Medicine,
not a small journal, talking about vaccine safety science.
That piqued our interest. This is what we had to say about it. He said,
the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the COVID-19 pandemic
suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with traditional safety goal
of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks of a vaccine
after a vaccine has been authorized for use. The public also wants public
health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse
reactions, which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions
or billions of people. Huh, it kind of sounds like the
entire group of people that helped Kennedy ascend to his
presidency and into office. It sounds like he's one of them. He's
actually saying because millions and billions of people are having these
rare side effects, they kind of add up and we need better safety science.
And he goes on to say this. Identifying the biologic mechanisms
of adverse reactions, how and in whom they occur is critical
for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding
contraindications and equitably compensating
vaccines for true adverse reactions. Kennedy himself couldn't say it any better.
It's really amazing. I want to really drill down on this because these
things can fly, but bring up that last paragraph. Because this is what
we're arguing. This is what mainstream keeps arguing. We have identified.
We know everything about the vaccine. You don't. Here's the God for the
vaccine saying, you know what we should do? We should be identifying the
biological mechanisms of adverse reactions, meaning we know they exist.
They have to be happening. You know, we study rare diseases.
Why don't we study rare injuries from vaccines? Why aren't we giving it
the same concern instead of gaslighting people and saying that this doesn't
happen? And I want to go back to the original paragraph because I think
it's critical as you fly through that. Sometimes they go, what that really
mean? But however, the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the
COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied
with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the
associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use. That
should have been bolded when you read that. What they're saying is
what we have proven. There are no placebo trials of any of the
childhood vaccines that was totally acceptable back in the day by
Stanley Plotkin and Walter Ornstein. But now, as it turns out, because
of Jeffrey Jackson and Robert Kennedy Jr. and Dell
Baitree and others like us saying, you know, why are we doing safety tests
like we do on every other drug we take? I guess we're going to have to start
doing those safety tests and figuring out before the vaccine is being
injected and mandated on every child and, you know, with COVID every adult.
So it's amazing. You're right. It's actually what good science is
supposed to be in that article also says the only reason we didn't do
it is we didn't have the funding. I mean, you're talking about an
industry that makes a hundred billion dollars on the COVID vaccine doesn't
have the funding to do proper safety tests like
they do on every other drug. But now that we have someone at HHS,
to your point, doing exactly what Dr. Stanley Plotkin would have done
himself, he needs to be torn down. Oh my god, this guy's a
danger and a menace to society because he's actually
got Marty McRee saying we're not going to prove any more vaccines
without a placebo trial. And you're going to have to prove that the flu
shot actually stops the flu that that season
has to offer. And god forbid this be happening. This is why we're winning
this argument Jeffrey. It's why we're going to continue to win.
Why I think it's going to affect elections from here to come,
you know, until everyone gets on board with the fact that we all just
want safety. And there's only one side that would
prefer authoritarianism over safety. And, you know, behind closed doors,
what this says is the both sides are intellectually shaking hands.
They're patting each other on the back. They're saying,
we know what direction we're going and let's walk there together. This is what
they're saying. It's just a kumbaya moment. So let's, let's talk about door.
I will love when they should come out in public and shake hands and
Stanley Plotkin says, Bobby, thank god for you.
Thank for you for getting the funding into what I wish we could have done all along.