March 13, 2022 - Epoch Times
18:47
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good evening. | |
| Four days ago, the British Medical Journal, which is one of the oldest medical journals in the entire world, they began to demand the immediate release of all COVID vaccine data, including the raw data from the clinical trials, which is something that has until this very day not been made public. | |
| Meanwhile, as common plebs like you and me have to use either our driver's licenses or our passports in order to board an airplane, well, just four days ago, the TSA publicly acknowledged that they have been allowing illegal immigrants to use their arrest warrants as a valid form of ID. | |
| Let's go through it all together. | |
| This is your daily Facts Matter Update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times. | |
| And now let's begin today's discussion by talking about identification. | |
| You know, there are a lot of, you can say, bureaucratic hoops that people like you and me have to jump through if we want to be law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. | |
| As just a small example of that, I recently had to go and renew my driver's license right here in the state of New York, and that cost me about $80.00. | |
| Now, at least to me, that is a lot of money comparatively for such a simple thing. | |
| I know for a fact that down in Florida, such a thing, renewing your driver's license costs only $48. | |
| But whatever, you only have to do it once every, let's say, 10 or 8 years, so it's not really a big deal. | |
| However, it turns out that starting in May of next year, I can no longer use my driver's license to fly domestically within this country. | |
| Because starting in May of 2023, your driver's license will need to be what they call a real ID. Basically, it'll need to have a little gold star at the top of it if you want to board a domestic flight. | |
| And so within the next year, I will have to go back to the DMV and shell out another $80 in order to get another driver's license. | |
| And again, that is just par for the course of being a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who lives in our bureaucratic society. | |
| However, as it turns out, the justice system in this country is not treating everyone equally. | |
| That's because, according to the TSA, if you illegally crossed into America through the U.S. southern border, and then you were subsequently given an arrest warrant upon hitting American soil, well, you can use that arrest warrant as a form of identification to board airplanes. | |
| Let me just repeat that. | |
| According to the TSA, which is the Transportation Security Administration, they're the ones who take off your shoes and pat you down when you're going through the metal detectors over in airports, well, they are now allowing illegal immigrants to use their arrest warrants as a valid form of ID when boarding airplanes. | |
| Now, this fact was first brought to light about a week ago by Mr. | |
| Lance Gooden. | |
| He's a congressman from Texas. | |
| He's a Republican. | |
| And in his official capacity, he reached out to the TSA and he requested that they send him all their policies and all their procedures in order for him to be able to mitigate any sort of national security risks. | |
| And indeed, they complied. | |
| They sent him over what he requested. | |
| And here's what Congressman Gooden said during an interview with The Daily Caller. | |
| The TSA's response confirms the Biden administration is knowingly putting our national security at risk. | |
| Unknown and unvetted immigrants shouldn't even be in the country, much less flying without proper identification. | |
| And then furthermore, Congressman Gooden had another interview over on Fox News where he added this. | |
| President Biden is putting millions of Americans at risk by allowing known criminals and potential terrorists to fly on U.S. airplanes. | |
| A criminal alien should not be allowed to board a plane after presenting a warrant for their arrest. | |
| They should be detained and brought before a judge. | |
| Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we also reached out to the TSA agency itself, and indeed, they confirmed to us that this is really what they do. | |
| Here's in fact what a TSA spokesperson sent to us via email. | |
| When illegal immigrants and other non-citizens and non-US nationals do not otherwise have acceptable forms of ID for presentation at security checkpoints, TSA may also accept certain DHS-issued forms, including ICE Form I-200, which is a warrant for arrest of an alien. | |
| Now, just a pause here for a super quick moment. | |
| The ICE form that they're referring to here, the I-200 form, that refers to the civil immigration arrest warrant. | |
| It's not a criminal arrest warrant, but rather a civil immigration arrest warrant. | |
| And what that form means, essentially, is that there was enough probable cause found on this particular individual to show that they are illegally within the borders of this country, and the warrant directs immigration officers to remove them from the country. | |
| And yet, instead of doing so, the agency is now using this warrant as essentially a form of ID to allow them to travel freely within the borders of America. | |
| Regardless, the statement from the TSA continues by saying this, quote, All passengers whose identity is verified through alternate procedures receive additional screening before being allowed into the secure area of the airport. | |
| And in terms of what those screening procedures actually are, well, the spokesperson explained that after being presented with the form from the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA agents at the airport, they confirmed the identity of each individual by verifying the information that's found on that form using data from the Customs and Border Protection Agency. | |
| And once their identity is confirmed, well, onto the plane they go. | |
| Now, Mr. | |
| John Zadrozny, who is the director of the America First Policy Institute's Center for Homeland Security and Immigration, he was on the John Solomon podcast about two days ago, and during the interview, here's how he described this new policy. | |
| You literally have a federal agency saying, we are so desperate to let illegal aliens travel about the country and have the ability to do what they want that we'll let them use an arrest warrant to board a plane. | |
| The policy raises the question, why isn't TSA calling law enforcement to have someone who presents an arrest warrant picked up? | |
| And then furthermore, Mr. | |
| Zdraznini noted that this type of policy is essentially the administration's abdication of their responsibility to secure the border. | |
| Here's what he said. | |
| It's also in keeping with this administration's forced decline on immigration enforcement, and just general intent to glut the border. | |
| They don't really have an interest in security. | |
| And so, we can have a theoretical conversation about what our immigration should look like, what legislation we need to pass. | |
| This isn't that. | |
| This is just a total abdication on the public safety obligation of the federal government to make sure dangerous people aren't traveling in our airways. | |
| Furthermore, we here at the Epoch Times, we got a chance to speak with a spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and so in regards to this TSA policy, he called it, quote,"...an affront to American citizens and greatly jeopardizes our national security. | |
| In no way, shape, or form would an American citizen be allowed to board a U.S. flight simply by flashing an arrest warrant." If anything, that would cause immediate concern for law enforcement officials. | |
| This unconscionable move by the Biden administration aids and abets criminal behavior. | |
| Rather than facilitate illegal immigration deep into the interior, the administration should look to deter it as more than two million individuals attempted to enter the country unlawfully during its first year in office, an all-time record. | |
| And so perhaps, as he mentioned, I can give it a try myself. | |
| Instead of shelling out another $80 to upgrade my driver's license, I will instead just head on down to Mexico, then come back up on foot in order to get my handy-dandy arrest warrant, and then use that as a form of identification. | |
| Except, of course, that wouldn't work, because the entire system, including this business with the illegal aliens, well, it's all predicated on taxpaying citizens, like you and me, continuing to fund the government by paying 80 more dollars in order to get a little gold star at the top of our driver's licenses. | |
| Regardless, if you'd like to read more about the situation with the TSA, I will throw several articles about what's happening there, including the full link to the TSA statement, into the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And all I ask in return is that you take a super quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button for the use of algorithm. | |
| And now, before we move on over and discuss how the world's oldest medical journal has recently begun to demand the full and immediate release of all data related to COVID vaccines, well, I would like to take a super quick moment and introduce our sponsor for today's episode, and I will do so from the sound booth. | |
| That's right. | |
| Imagine for a quick moment that it's the year 2023. | |
| Gas is $12 a gallon, and you are on your last ration card for those soy-based burgers that FEMA is handing out down the street. | |
| Well, what you do right now is that you create an emergency plan by going on over to mypatriotsupply.com, which is the sponsor of today's episode. | |
| They are America's largest preparedness company, having served literally millions of American families who are now ready for virtually anything. | |
| Over at mypatriotsupply.com, you will find products that will not only help you survive, but also thrive in virtually any condition. | |
| In fact, over on their website, you will find long-term storage emergency food kits, top-quality survival gear, powerful water purifiers, professional first-aid kits, bug-out essentials, and much, much more. | |
| And in fact, when you scroll a little bit lower on their website, you will find that they have over 46,000 four- and five-star reviews. | |
| So go on over to mypatriotsupply.com, and their products are in stock. | |
| Their products ship quickly. | |
| And best of all, their products ship discreetly in unmarked boxes directly to your doorstep. | |
| So everything remains private. | |
| So again, going over to mypatriotsupply.com. | |
| Don't wait. | |
| And actually, their tagline is something I've been saying for a while now. | |
| It's hope for the best, prepare for the worst. | |
| So My Patriot Supply, thank you so much for sponsoring our episode. | |
| Now, Roman in the studio, back to you. | |
| And now let's move on over and talk about vaccine-related data. | |
| The British Medical Journal, which is one of the world's oldest medical journals, it was actually founded all the way back in 1840, and four days ago, they published an editorial demanding the full and immediate release of all data relating to COVID vaccines as well as to COVID treatments. | |
| Their argument is that such data is extremely important for the public to have access to, especially given all the mandates that have been put into place. | |
| Here's specifically what they wrote. | |
| Today, despite the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymized participant-level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public, and are likely to remain that way for years to come. | |
| This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions. | |
| The journal then went on in this editorial to accuse the giant pharmaceutical companies of, quote, reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. | |
| And then, further down in the editorial, they specifically highlighted Pfizer, who had their vaccine trial, quote, Now, Pfizer is actually a very interesting case in this particular regard. | |
| Because they are indeed still holding on to all of their trial data, and they have indicated that they will not begin to even consider requests for such data to be released until May of 2025, which will be a full two years after their primary study ends on May 15th of 2023, which is listed over on clinicaltrials.gov. | |
| And so essentially, their primary study is still ongoing. | |
| It's scheduled to be completed in May of next year. | |
| And then Pfizer has indicated that they will not release the data from that study until another two years after the completion date, which will be all the way in May of 2025. | |
| And of course, besides this incident, we've already discussed in several previous episodes how the FDA was asking a federal judge to allow them 75 full years to release all the data concerning the Pfizer vaccine. | |
| However, of course, what happened is that the judge in that case, he actually ruled against the FDA, and so now that agency is required to release all of their documents at a pace of about 55,000 pages a month, which means that we should have all the FDA's Pfizer documents in hand by about September of this year. | |
| Now, these FDA documents will of course not include all the data from Pfizer, but at least it is a start. | |
| Regardless, though, the British Medical Journal, they also noted that AstraZeneca, which is, of course, another vaccine manufacturer, they have also indicated that they may be ready to possibly hand over some of the data from a number of their Phase III trials. | |
| However, AstraZeneca themselves, they say that the timeline for releasing such data can, quote, vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request for analysis, decision, anonymization, and sharing of the requested data or documents. | |
| And so as a result of this type of situation, the British Medical Journal, they concluded by saying that they have the publications, but they do not have the underlying data. | |
| Here's specifically what they wrote. | |
| And then furthermore, in a rather pointed criticism of the general current situation, the British Medical Journal added this in that same editorial, quote, Regulators are not there to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further. | |
| But to protect the general public's health, and for that reason, we need complete data transparency for all studies. | |
| We need it in the public interest, and we need it now." And in fact, the calls for more data transparency are really beginning to add up because besides this editorial in the British Medical Journal, besides that earlier lawsuit we discussed with the FDA, you also have this lawsuit right here in which an organization called ICANN, | |
| which specifically stands for the Informed Consent Action Network, otherwise abbreviated to ICANN, they actually sued the CDC Because they were withholding their post-licensure v-safe data. | |
| Now, in case you've never heard of the v-safe data, here's how it is described on the CDC's own website. | |
| An active surveillance program to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines during the period when the vaccines are authorized for use under the Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization and possibly early after vaccine licensure. | |
| And so in plain speak, what the v-safe system is, is essentially it's an app that allows people who got the vaccine to inform the CDC of any possible side effects that they experienced after getting the shot. | |
| And you would imagine that the data that came from this v-safe system could be made public if you just de-identified the data, meaning that you took out the personal information, the names, birthdays, etc. | |
| of the people who reported these side effects, and then you can make the data public. | |
| However, the CDC has not done that. | |
| However, what they have done, and this is where things get really weird, is that they did give the information, the de-identified information, to a private computer technology company called Oracle. | |
| Here is, in fact, what it says on a PDF that you can find over on the CDC's own website. | |
| Quote, this data will be collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle. | |
| Through Health and Human Services, Oracle has donated IT services to any agency conducting COVID-19 related activities. | |
| All data will be stored, processed, and transmitted in accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act and based on NIST standards. | |
| Now, in and of itself, that's not too weird. | |
| It's just that Oracle is providing the IT infrastructure for the CDC to house all this data. | |
| However, ICANN, which is the organization that's suing the CDC, they want the CDC to produce the same de-identified data to the general public in order to assure transparency in regards to the vaccines. | |
| Here's in fact what they wrote as a part of their statement. | |
| Quote... | |
| The FDA and CDC have now made crystal clear that their promise of transparency with regard to COVID-19 vaccines was hogwash. | |
| As everyone now knows, the FDA has asked a federal judge to give it at least 75 years to produce the pre-authorization slash licensure safety data. | |
| And we now know, with certainty, federal health authorities similarly want to hide the post-authorization licensure safety data as well. | |
| Based on the CDC's own documentation, the data submitted to V-safe is already available in de-identified form with no personal health information and could be immediately released to the public. | |
| However, this is where things get a little weird. | |
| Because before filing a lawsuit, ICANN, which is again this non-profit, they, through their attorneys, filed several Freedom of Information Act requests against the CDC in order to request this de-identified data. | |
| To which, and this is where, again, things get so murky, the CDC acknowledged their request and they wrote this, quote, And so this is where things begin to not really add up. | |
| Because when this nonprofit filed a Freedom of Information Act request against the CDC in order to get this de-identified data, the CDC says that, hey, we have this data, but it's not de-identified. | |
| However, on their very own website, they said that they put the full de-identified data on the Oracle platform. | |
| And so both of these statements can be true together. | |
| Leading the nonprofit who is against suing the CDC to say this, quote, Despite the fact that this de-identified data already exists, that it is already in the hands of a private company, and that the CDC has never objected to its production, the CDC has so far failed to produce it to ICANN or to the American public, the same people being mandated to take this liability-free product. | |
| But don't worry. | |
| ICANN will not rest until this data is made public, and so today has commenced a lawsuit against the CDC and the HHS, demanding that a court compel them to release this data. | |
| Now, we hear at the Epoch Times, we did reach out to the CDC for comment on this case. | |
| However, they got back to us saying that they cannot comment on pending litigation. | |
| And we did also reach out to the Department of Health and Human Services, and they actually did not get back to us at all. | |
| Regardless, though, I think there are a few key takeaways from these cases. | |
| The first one is that I believe more and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the clinical trial data is not actually publicly available. | |
| I think in the past, a lot of people just assumed that it was. | |
| Maybe they never saw it for themselves, but they just assumed, well, hey, I'm sure it's available out there. | |
| I believe more and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that it's not with the publication of lawsuits like these. | |
| And then also I believe that more and more pressure is coming on the government organizations and maybe even the pharmaceutical companies to release the clinical trial data. | |
| Of course, the FDA lawsuit is a great example. | |
| The FDA actually lost that suit and now they have to produce 55,000 pages per month until all the documents are released, which will I'll be in September of this year when all the documents are released. | |
| And then who knows what will happen to the CDC case right here. | |
| And of course, the British Medical Journal is a storied organization. | |
| I mean, it's one of the world's oldest medical journals. | |
| And so their opinion, the opinion of their editorial board will hopefully have a lot of sway so that we as the public can actually know what is going on behind the scenes with these vaccines that are now being rolled out and that are being mandated not only across the country, but across the entire world. | |
| So as soon as I know anything regarding this new lawsuit here, I'll let you know right away. | |
| Until then, Roman in the studio, back to you. | |
| If you'd like to read more about what the British Medical Journal published, as well as the lawsuit against the CDC or the other lawsuit against the FDA, I'll throw all that into the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And I'll ask in return if you take a super, super quick moment to smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Now lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Subscribe to this YouTube channel if you haven't already. | |
| Notice we get this type of honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while YouTube still allows it. | |
| And if anything does happen, if you have a Telegram account, consider following us at FactsMatter underscore Roman. | |
| We'll publish the links to all of our episodes there. | |
| So in case anything ever does happen here, you will always have the links on Telegram. | |
| And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection