All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
02:37:50
Data Disaster: A Call for an Investigation Into the CDC’s Criminal Conduct During COVID-19
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you everyone for joining us for tonight's broadcast.
We are doing a presentation and a panel titled Beta Disaster, a call for an investigation into the CDC's conduct during COVID-19.
You know, data accuracy, integrity, transparency are essential aspects of crisis management and public health policy, especially in societies that value freedom.
From accurate data, we work together to make decisions that are effective and work for everyone.
In this event, we'll show you all the ways that the CDC manipulated COVID data and inflated cases and fatalities, ignored recoveries, and promoted public health policies based on faulty data.
Transparency includes reviewing what worked and also looking at what did not work.
And this is exactly what we are drawing attention to today.
It's okay to be wrong, but too many times throughout this crisis we've seen public officials attempt to sidestep accountability and double down on ineffective policies that are based more on assumptions than actual science and verifiable data.
And why are public health officials clinging to the one-size-fits-all approach of masks and social distancing policies when there is highly compelling evidence supporting the use of safe and effective treatments such as vitamin D and vitamin C?
Eleven months ago, we were asked to make a three-week sacrifice for the greater good.
Almost a year later, there's no end in sight.
If you felt in that you don't know who or what to trust anymore, you're not alone.
To help bring in new ideas, we brought together incredible panelists who've invested thousands of hours of investigative research into the topic of COVID-19.
We brought together peer-reviewed authors in science, attorneys taking legal action, and elected officials, civil servants, and educators who are asking good questions on your behalf.
We brought them together to create a conversation specifically for you.
Throughout this conversation, we will present evidence that we feel justifies a thorough investigation of the CDC's conduct during the COVID-19 crisis.
Our panel will discuss not only how we got here, but more importantly, what you can do about it.
There is going to be a very powerful call to action, so please bear with us through the first two hours of this event.
If you're one of millions of people who've lost so much and feel your pain, we feel your pain and stand with you.
I'm Taylor Gee, co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, and we have so much to share with you tonight.
At the conclusion of our time today, we will give you simple steps to take action, to participate, and to use your voice to help restore transparency and accountability in the data that drives public policy and ultimately affects every single one of your daily lives.
So let me introduce you, our panelists.
Now, for many decades, Dr. Peter Breggin has promoted evidence-based, compassionate therapies and been a champion for restoring ethical and conscience-based practices in the field of psychiatry.
He's an expert on the mental and emotional impacts of COVID public health policies, especially on our children.
Welcome, Dr. Breggin.
Is there one piece of mental health advice that you could share with our viewers right from the start?
Yes, I think the fundamental human problem in any very stressful situation is not to get helpless.
So you learn to identify in yourselves, your children, your friends, your spouse, your co-workers, whoever you're working with, those signs of helplessness.
Usually it looks like anxiety, but it could be anger, it could be shame, guilt, anything negative that that person acts like they can't handle.
And we have to see that in ourselves because a lot of the technique of public health is to make people feel helpless and docile so that they will follow instructions and do what they're told.
And not run away, but not shut down, but be there and do what you're told.
And we need to look out for these techniques and look at the confusion that's being engendered in us, look at the contradictory statements, and keep coming back to, but I don't have to get helpless about this.
And that will save your life under many conditions.
Thank you so much for that, Dr. Bergen.
Our next panelist is an inspired elected official who sought accurate data, questioned the one-size-fits-all guidance, and courageously fought to protect the citizens in her county.
Welcome Yamhill County Commissioner Mary Starrett.
What's one piece of advice you can give to our viewers who want to get active on the local legislative level?
Thank you, Sarah.
I'll first quickly start with a story.
Thirty years ago, when I was in television, I interviewed a Harvard-trained psychiatrist who was on my program.
He wrote a book called Toxic Psychiatry, and he was Dr. Peter Bregan.
And that book set me off on a journey that changed the whole trajectory of my ideology.
And it also led to me advocating for children in foster care who are over-medicated on psychiatric medications.
And it's led to advocacy on a bill that's now before the Oregon Legislature which would require accountability for over-medicating kids in foster care.
I say that is because education is a huge piece.
If we can have in our sphere of influence an impact on somebody who is in a policy-making position.
I used to sit on that same program every year, roll up my sleeve and get a flu shot to influence other people to do it until I was Informed, this might not be the best course of action.
So, inform people, have relationships with your elected officials, encourage them to look outside what their normal public health narrative is, and remember that all politics is local, and when elected officials feel the heat, they see the light.
In a kind, compassionate way, educate them, make relationships, and remember that politics at the local level is more nimble, more flexible, and more responsible to constituents.
So beautifully communicated.
Thank you, Mary.
Dr. David Martin is an author, professor, tireless servant of humanity who has been passionately investigating the events that led up to the COVID public health response since 1999.
What he has to share is shocking to say at least and will definitely inspire action.
Welcome, Dr. Martin.
Wonderful to be here, Sayer.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
What's one piece of advice or takeaway you can share with our viewers as we embark on reviewing the CDC's conduct during COVID?
Well, it's important for us to realize that going back to 1999 and from 1999 to 2002, a very insidious program hijacked what was public health and turned this into a commercial game.
Because it was in 1999 that the United States started funding what became the recombinant research in 2001 and 2002, specifically targeting the formation of a coronavirus that was increased in its pathogenicity But decreased in its capacity to be replicated.
And by 2003, the CDC owned the patents on SARS coronavirus isolated from humans.
It owned the ability to detect that virus.
And it owned the ability to actually do any interventions around it.
So this has been a commercial enterprise since 2003.
And it's important to realize that the CDC didn't not only fulfill their public health obligation, but actually took From the public, access to independently verify any of this information which gave rise to the game plans for the COVID-19 program, which we'll cover in much greater detail.
Wow, thank you for that.
Very, very important context for this discussion.
Next we have Superintendent Mark Thielman, who's one of a few superintendents who fought for his students, teachers, administrators to make sure in-person education happened and happened safely.
Now he's fighting to make sure his students get to play sports and his teachers don't have to choose between a jab or a job.
Welcome, Superintendent Thielman.
What's one piece of advice you'd like to share with any parents watching?
Thank you for having me and I appreciate it.
I apologize, I had to double in on my cell phone because our internet temporarily went down.
This is one of the downsides of rural education in Oregon.
A couple things I want to share with folks is that, you know, in terms of public education, it's so important that we get good information, especially when we're dealing with people's children and their taxes.
And this whole process that we've gone through with the pandemic and among other issues has been extremely frustrating.
So we were in a position of saying, you know, we exist to serve families and students.
And so we pushed back and we've been successful at being allowed to stay open.
And the difference it's made for students and families, it's incalculable.
And I just really want to encourage everyone to stand up and to really do their own research, because that's what we did.
And we showed that schools can operate safely with COVID mitigation, of course.
And we've had zero cases of COVID and we've been open since August.
So I just really want to try to encourage and empower everyone to focus on what we are able to do and what we can do, rather than all the things that could go wrong.
Thank you, that's a very strong example of what's possible for so many others out there, so thank you for that.
So, Ana Garner is a fierce attorney with over three decades of courtroom experience.
She's introduced a number of potentially historic cases regarding COVID-19, including a case against the CDC.
She wants you to know that despite the lack of media coverage, there are over 900 current cases filed with respect to this crisis.
Welcome, Ms.
Garner.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you for being here.
What's one tidbit of information you can share about COVID cases here in Baltimore?
Well, I certainly echo the sentiment of the other panelists who've spoken, and that is that the collection of data is a very important function that the CDC engages in.
And when they change their method of reporting deaths, but only deaths related to COVID-19, They skewed their reporting in a way that lacks the integrity that the laws say that they must adhere to.
So, we ended up filing a lawsuit against the Human Health Services Department and the CDC, in which we're asking the court for injunctive relief, asking them to stop the CDC from using these falsified numbers as a result of the way that they now code these deaths.
The lawsuit, by the way, was inspired by the article that Dr. Ely et al.
wrote, and we're very grateful for him.
We knew that they had changed the rules, but we didn't realize some of the ramifications of it until we read his report.
So he was definitely an inspiration in that.
And we'll talk more about the other lawsuits later, but we're really passionate about clearing up the Wonderful.
of data that's happened that has driven the policy decisions by the states that
have caused more damage in our belief than the disease itself.
Wonderful, thank you for that. So we're very lucky to have our next panelist, State
Senator Dennis Linethicum.
He's been fighting for his constituents for years, but never more than he has during this crisis of inaccurate data and lack of accountability.
He has a message of hope and encouragement that we hope you'll find refreshing in an elected official.
Welcome, Senator.
Great, it is so good to be here and Yeah, we'd love for you to just speak on a way for people to, you know, no longer feel so disconnected and powerless.
What can they do to get involved in their state?
Well, it's interesting.
The first thing people have to do is they actually have to choose to get involved.
A lot of people are watching today and they're already part of this and they're already involved in regaining their respective freedoms.
But many other people are curious just how in the world do we get started?
And then when you mix that in with the evolution across the respective states and the myriad of different circumstances that individuals will find themselves in, it becomes quite a mix.
We all are individuals.
We live in separate communities.
Some of us can find like-minded groups and neighbors and trade associations, even political parties, Or elected officials.
And the most important thing people can do is reach out, step up and get into this mix because existing health policies will be changed in the upcoming legislative agendas across all 50 states.
These items about medical freedom are on our doorstep.
And so the best thing I can offer to people is some insight, some principles that come from our founding fathers.
And one of these little quotes is, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And by vigilance, I mean you have to stay alert, you have to be careful, you have to watch for possible dangers, difficulty, deceit, and even betrayal.
And it's an eternal quest.
It's one of these things that implies you have a duty and a responsibility, an obligation, and we're in it for the long haul.
And so people have to kind of gird themselves.
And this is a mental choice that has to happen in their own hearts and minds.
And they have to choose to be involved.
Wonderful.
get ready for the information that we're about to present today,
because it's really quite mind-boggling to see the amount of corruption,
deceit, misdirection, and so forth that has been perpetrated by state agencies and federal
agencies.
And so I look forward to participating in this conversation today.
Wonderful. Thank you so much, Senator.
Next, we have Dr. James Lyons-Wheeler, who is just a wonderful molecular geneticist
and expert on PCR.
He's an award-winning author, captivating lecturer, prodigious researcher.
I mean, he's got incredible credentials, and we are just so happy you're here today.
Welcome, Dr. Jack.
Thank you so much, Sarah, and I want to say hello to all the other panelists, and it's an honor to be part of this.
Thank you.
I was hoping you could give us a quick overview to a question so many people have today.
Can the current PCR test tell if someone is infectious?
Look, the problem with using PCR has been with us from the very beginning.
In February, CDC declined to adopt a test that 141 other countries adopted.
They developed their own test and shipped it out and was found to be flawed, and that set the United States back two months in getting a reasonable contact tracing and testing, and then the commercial entities were brought online.
However, there must be so many people Colleagues of mine around the country, people that do PCR, quantitative PCR across the country that are just pulling their hair out, hearing about this CT threshold, specifically as if there's one CT threshold that can magically be used for all the different kinds of PCR tests, for all of the different levels of viremia a person might have, the amount of viruses.
And my initial inquiry into this found that the CDC was talking about talking out both sides of their mouth.
They're saying that the test was too sensitive by dialing up the CT level all the way up to as high as 40.
You're guaranteed a high sensitivity but you don't have specificity and the FDA never required empirical estimation of specificity.
That's the ability to not find the virus when it's not there or even the fragment of the virus.
Later on, I'm going to go into great technical detail and break down in high detail exactly why the CDC should not and no one should be using PCR at all.
But I just want to end this little segment here by saying that the College of American Pathologists put out a publication saying it's not reproducible, there's too many factors that affect the results, too much variation from test to test, and that it's not fit for purpose.
Dr. Singhang Lee published a 30% false positive rate.
Basil et al.
in Australia published an 11% false positive rate.
And other independent researchers looking at the false positive rate of quantitative RT-PCR report 20 to 50%.
And I was just a witness in Allegheny County in Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh where the state epidemiologist actually put it in her writing, in her written testimony.
And then testified orally that there's zero false positives in the PCR test.
It's stunning the amount of misinformation that's out there.
Take your time with PCR.
Learn how it works as technically as you can.
It's not so complicated that people can't understand it.
Look up videos of PCR and how it works.
It's fascinating.
I run PCR.
I used to teach it.
It's not so complicated that we can't get it right.
That's amazing.
Thank you so much for that.
And listeners will be learning a lot more about the implications of this wide margin of error, if you will, as far as the stats that emerged and, of course, policy built upon that.
Our final panelist will be Dr. Henry Ely.
He's a naturopathic doctor, minister, teacher, author of over 200 publications regarding evidence-based nutrition and natural medicine.
He's invested over 3,000 hours of research and leads a team of volunteers with over 20,000 collective hours of investigation into every aspect of COVID available for scientific review.
Dr. Ely is the lead author of the peer-reviewed research paper, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity, and Federal Law.
This is a must-read.
And he's also the author of an upcoming peer-reviewed research paper, COVID-19, Restoring Public Trust During a Public Health Crisis.
Welcome, Dr. Ewing.
How are you doing, Saer?
It's so good to see you and be on the show.
It's such an honor, truly.
I've been really familiarizing myself with your work and it's just such an inspiration.
Of course, we wouldn't be doing this here today if it weren't for your work.
Can you briefly tell our viewers how your team figured out that the COVID data was being manipulated?
Well, first of all, I'm blushing a lot.
Thank you so much for the high praise.
We started on March 12th of last year, and that's where we began our investigation.
We wanted to understand what we could expect so that we could do public service announcements for everybody and just keep people really calm because there was so much fear going on.
We looked at the Italian data, data from the Italian Ministry of Health.
We looked at the South Korean data from their CDC, and we started to really analyze that data.
And our first clue when we started to overlay the bell curves, Sarah, was the anomaly spikes in cases here in the United States.
Something wasn't matching up.
So we said, we got to look deeper state by state.
So then we had a major breakthrough when we went and we looked at and found a huge variance in fatalities between what the CDC was saying for the US, specifically in the state of New York, and what the New York State Department of Health was saying.
So, on April 30th, the CDC was reporting 5,306 more fatalities than the New York State Department of Health.
And that number's only grown.
As of yesterday, that number is now 8,496.
The CDC for the state of New York is reporting 8,496 more fatalities than the New York State Department of Health.
So, we wanted to know, which number could we trust?
Which number was right?
So curiously, at the bottom of the CDC's previous website on COVID tracking, they had a little link to an April 15th document.
That document was a position paper that they had adopted from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and it was incredibly poorly conceived in my professional opinion.
There were very loose criteria for diagnosis.
They allowed the same person to be counted over and over and over again as new cases, but more importantly, it was adopted by the CDC without public comment, without peer review, and without notification in the Federal Register Which are required by federal law.
We didn't know that at the time, but our research ultimately led us there.
So at this point, we're super shocked, right?
And, you know, all this information is hiding in plain sight.
The data was clearly compromised and no one at the state and federal level seemed to care because we reached out to them and we were trying to get them to correct it, but nobody got back to us.
We were just dismissed.
So we couldn't believe that the CDC would outsource the criteria for what constitutes a COVID case, you know, to a non-profit organization.
The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, they're not a federal organization.
So we're like, something doesn't smell right.
So that made us dig even deeper and it ultimately brought us to the CDC's publication of the COVID alert number two document.
That completely changed death certificate reporting, but only for COVID-19 and again without public comment, peer review, or notification in the Federal Register as required by federal law.
So, just to give everybody a background, for the previous 17 years, all changes to data collection were first reported to the Federal Register for oversight and public comment.
That's the law.
For the previous 17 years, for all causes of death, death certificate reporting was very different and under complete discretion of the attending healthcare professional.
It wasn't under the CDC telling them what to do.
But now, with COVID, they're being told what to do.
They were being told to emphasize COVID even without a confirmed lab test.
They were being told to simultaneously de-emphasize chronic comorbid pre-existing conditions that we knew from the Italian data and the South Korean data played a huge role.
Inpatient outcomes.
And what we later learned was that these changes in death certificate reporting were financially incentivized to encourage compliance.
Something Dr. Scott Jensen from Minnesota, Senator out of Minnesota, was vilified for and then ultimately it was found to be accurate, everything he had said.
So what we're hearing now, Sarah, is that public health officials keep saying that minority communities are being disproportionately impacted.
I just read it on ESPN today.
But what that implies is that COVID is impacting us more than that, and that's just not accurate.
It's not accurate to say that COVID is impacting minority communities more.
What's accurate is to say that our communities have a higher instance of comorbid conditions because we're in a worse state of health because that is due to systemic socioeconomic educational health care inequalities.
These are things that are beyond dispute and it's been going on for hundreds of years.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus there doesn't care what color your skin is.
It cares how little vitamin D you have.
It cares how little vitamin C you have.
It cares how little vitamin A and zinc you have in your body to fight it.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is just another opportunistic infection that preys upon people who are nutritionally deficient, which tells us exactly what we need to help everyone in our country.
So, by this point, with everything that we've researched, we know something is very wrong.
And when we have inaccurate public health narratives supplanting real science, our concerns skyrocket, Sayre.
So, we wrote a series of investigative research papers.
We got the fourth one peer-reviewed.
That's what we're going to talk about today.
We've got a fifth one on the way.
And, to tell you the truth, we can't wait to get started.
Wow, thank you so much for that, Dr. Ely.
It's incredibly inspiring to, you know, witness yourself and all the panelists today, you know, put themselves on the line and in this way, just dedicated to, you know, providing the public accurate information despite political fallout.
And, you know, your work, that paper, It really just blew my mind.
As I know many of the viewers, when you take a look at, you know, the two papers you put together, it really does show that what we predicated an entire national lockdown upon and all of these interventions that are so devastating, including social isolation or slash distancing and mask wearing, What you're doing is helping to return us to a basis of sanity, and of course that is what this event is all about, is making that information available.
Would you have anything else to contribute before we move on to the roundtable?
Just real quick, Sarah, I agree with you and I want everybody watching this to be very clear.
Our intention is to collaborate with public health officials.
Our intention is to collaborate with good people in the CDC.
There are good people in the CDC.
There are good people in state health departments.
There are good people at the county levels and doctors out there.
We want to collaborate with you and get this information out.
If we can put all this money behind promoting the experimental biologics, We can promote vitamin D as well.
It just makes sense, doesn't it?
Absolutely.
I mean, all we're asking for is that the laws that were already in place, federal law, was basically not observed or violated.
And in this case, the implication was it affected the lives of tens of millions in a Significantly adverse way.
So this is a true call for sanity, clarity, and also cooperation among those individuals that are paid by the taxpayer and some who are elected that are supposed to be watching out for the public health.
So we are partnering with those individuals as well, not necessarily in opposition to them.
So once again, thank you so much for your contribution.
So we will be starting next with our first roundtable, which will involve Dr. Martin, Anna Garner, Senator Linthicum, and we will be starting here with Dr. Martin.
Now, Dr. Martin, we were reviewing your dossier on Dr. Fauci, and some very concerning historical events began to show up.
How long have you been investigating the events that led up to COVID-19, and the timeline you've constructed, what events and facts have stood out to you as illegal?
So if you wouldn't mind telling us about that.
Yeah, well, my organization, MCAM, has been monitoring All of the potential and actual violations of biological and chemical weapons research since 1999.
We began that investigation and in 1999 we were alerted to a very interesting problem, which was a problem that was conducting research that was specifically targeting amplifying the pathogenicity of beta coronaviruses.
There was a specific objective in the research that was going on from 1999 to 2002, which was actually quite alarming and resulted ultimately in a patent issued to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
That patent covered the specific applications of modifying properties of coronavirus so that it infected human lung tissue.
And that particular problem predates, as you know, the first SARS outbreak by a year.
So, ironically, we went for potentially, you know, tens of thousands of years with beta coronaviruses, which were nothing more than a slight inconvenience.
We start manipulating that virus, and within a very short period of time, we find ourselves with SARS outbreak 1.0, and then something far worse happened.
In 2003, after the Asian outbreak of the first round of the SARS disease, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome disease.
A series of patents were filed by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
And ironically, they had already published the genome of SARS coronavirus and it was in the public domain.
But over the objections twice of the Patent Office, who invalidated the application twice, The CDC ultimately in 2007 received a patent on the genome of SARS coronavirus and its detection and its treatment.
What was equally alarming was during that same period of time, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and others continued their work on amplifying the pathogenicity of this particular virus.
And it made no sense that we would actually go down the pathway of taking a viral model And amplifying the harm that it could do to humans in research environments, and then being surprised that sometimes it showed up as harming humans.
That didn't feel like that odd of a thing.
And then, then an alarming thing happened.
So in 2003, we published a report that was sent to law enforcement intelligence agencies around the world to highlight this risk.
And in that report, we actually made reference to the fact that this was not just the US risk, but a Chinese risk.
We made a series of published reports.
We presented those to organizations around the world.
And then a very alarming thing happened.
And this was an event in February of 2016.
This is after we recognized that the National Science Foundation had instituted a moratorium on gain-of-function research.
This was after all of the federal funding for gain-of-function research was actually put under that moratorium,
Peter Deszek of EcoHealth Alliance, who we all have now come to know and love
as the guy who funneled several million dollars of US taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
made the following statement, and I'm quoting from 2016.
He said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures,
such as a pan-influenza and pan-coronavirus vaccine.
This is 2016.
He then said a key driver, and this is a quote, a key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype.
I want to just recite that quote one more time just so it sinks in.
This is the guy who, by the way, just recently led a World Health Organization investigation into whether or not we actually know where this SARS-CoV-2 virus came from in China.
That guy made the statement, a key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype.
We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.
And he went on to describe what the real issues were, which are the establishment of a protocol To get a pan-coronavirus vaccine.
That was in 2016.
During the exact same period of time, the Wuhan Institute of Virology viral model was published in a proceeding that was senior authored by Ralph Baric that said that the coronavirus in Wuhan was poised for human emergence.
Once again, in 2016.
So these are not 2019 pieces of data.
This is 2016.
And the model they used was actually a model that mimics 100% of the COVID symptoms in Chinese patients in 2012 and 2013.
So what we call COVID-19 and what we call SARS coronavirus is where we have to make sure that we are careful in this conversation like in every other conversation.
Because in February, When the World Health Organization made its declaration that there was a novel coronavirus, which in and of itself is somewhat illusory.
There are multiple models of multiple variants and multiple mutations.
But when they said that there was a novel virus, that was a false statement.
And then when they said that there was a novel disease called COVID-19, that was also a false statement.
In fact, all of the clinical presentations, that are currently listed as COVID-19 clinical presentations were seen in China in patients from whom the Wuhan virus was isolated in 2013 and 2014 and was chimerically altered in 2016 at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
So there is not a single thing about what we've been told is novel or new that is either novel or new.
And most problematic The causal statements that gave rise to every declaration of a state of emergency across this country and around the world is based on a false premise.
And that false premise very simply states that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
Now let's get really precise on what that means.
That means that there's a causality relationship.
That's what that word very simply means.
The tiny problem was, and remains, That the presence of the virus does not beget symptoms in many, if not most, individuals exposed to some fragment of the virus.
So the causality argument is not supported by the data.
But more problematic, many patients who were classified as having COVID-19 had no biochemical assessment Of any kind.
Forget RT-PCR or any other diagnostic procedure.
They actually were counted as having COVID-19 purely on clinical presentation alone.
Now, what makes that a problem is that despite all of their assertions to the contrary, the biggest problem we have right now is that when the CDC fights on whether or not COVID is overcounted or undercounted, what they conflate is the viral test and the actual clinical presentation of disease.
And what we are led to believe is that somehow or another, everybody who's exposed somehow to a positive test is somehow also infected or harmed in a clinical sense.
And the problem with the data is that those two things, the World Health Organization in February made a public statement saying that we should not in public conflate these two things.
And then from that day forward, every governor, every public health officer, everybody who is part of the CDC data promulgation, the COVID tracking project, which is funded by Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and the Zuckerberg Foundation, All of these organizations have willfully conflated this notion of viral exposure to the clinical symptoms associated with COVID-19.
So our concern is very simple.
This was actually a commercial venture when it started.
It was controlled centrally by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health and ultimately the Department of Health and Human Services.
They are the financial beneficiaries and their colleagues and their commercial partners are the ones profiteering On the back of the manipulation of this information.
Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Ms.
Garner, what do you think about what you just listened to?
I think it's rather shocking and it's consistent with the information that we had learned about our lawsuits.
We know that this has been in the making for a very long time.
Not only have they misrepresented that this was a novel virus and a novel disease, But they have misrepresented that there's a pandemic.
They have misrepresented that there is a public health emergency that require all of these drastic measures like lockdowns and school closures and business closures and the like.
What they've also done is really distort In plain and ordinary meaning of words, they call a positive PCR test a case or an infection.
They say COVID-related deaths.
They say, you know, all of this is designed to just incite fear and hysteria amongst the public.
And this is exactly what's been done.
They also, you know, we know that there was an event 201 in October of 2019 that was pandemic preparedness put on by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And that also implicated Dr. Fauci and some of his groups.
So we know that this has been in the works for a long time.
They predicted it, they said it would happen, and it did happen.
And we need to get underneath the narrative and the story and expose this for what it is.
Thank you for that.
Senator, what do you think all about this?
Well, yeah, the information that Dr. Martin presented is quite alarming, and it shines a bright light on potential immoral and unethical actions that have been taken by governments and bureaucrats and powerful well-moneyed corporations.
Yet at the heart of it, it should be obvious that a real problem stems from bureaucrats and status politicians.
These are the individuals who create and manage and promote public policy, and they've been effectively hiding their true objectives and masking their policies, keeping the public The unsuspecting public in the dark.
Was this done by accident?
Was it an honest mistake?
Is it the result of endless appetite for status or notoriety or probably personal gain?
In particular, what we just heard from Dr. Martin, and this is why we are here today, is there exists the very real policy The very real possibility that public health has been compromised and public health has been harmed by government corruption.
These powerful corporations and influential people have created a turbulent environment.
For everybody in the marketplace, for policymakers, for bureaucrats, for individuals who have been caught in lockdowns, and in so doing they have potentially violated their responsibility under the Information Quality Act by enriching stakeholders themselves and their political puppets or corporations.
This is a big, big deal.
And Dr. Martin has plenty more than his little five minutes here in this episode.
And I suggest you go to his website to see all the details.
Thank you so much for that, Senator.
Dr. Martin, what encouragement and advice can you give our viewers?
Well, I think one of the most important things to do is, and obviously the reason why I'm sharing my evening with all of you is for a very simple reason.
This is not a unique situation, but being informed is absolutely essential.
The idea of participating in any democratic system anywhere on earth requires education, and that requires the capacity to make independent inquiry.
One of the things that I find most alarming is the degree to which we are being asked to accept or believe information because it's fed to us by a headline or by a public health official or by someone who's standing behind a lectern.
My goal has always been and has been throughout the last now 20 plus years.
My goal is to actually help people find the sources of information to make their own informed decision.
And so if I had one takeaway from this, it's A, make sure you source information to inform yourself, number one.
But number two, and equally important, be very aware of the fact that we've identified seven additional pathogens for which this exact template has been queued.
So this is actually not a lone event.
This is actually something for which a model is being built and tested And it is incumbent on us to understand that that needs to be disrupted before more harm is done.
Thank you so much for that.
And fellow panelists, this has been such a helpful explanation for an ulterior motive for what otherwise would appear to be a wild or natural event.
And I think that's essentially what people are looking for, is the type of historical information and context that you're providing here so we can really make informed decisions without which consent is not possible and that is a fundamental medical ethical principle that we absolutely we need to have access to as free individuals.
Our next roundtable will be Dr. Ely, Dr. Jack, and Commissioner Starrett.
So we are going to start with Dr. Ely.
Your team's peer-reviewed research paper is a focal point for this event and for our call to action at the end of the event.
How did this paper come into being and how accurate is the fatality data being reported by our public health authorities and the media?
Well, Sarah, thank you for those questions.
First of all, how did this come into being?
It came into being because good people asked questions and didn't take a narrative for the answer.
And as we kept asking questions, we kept connecting, we kept asking other people to verify what we had found, we made sure attorneys verified it, we made sure scientists verified it, we made sure colleagues verified it, doctors, Licensed doctors, we made sure that what we were saying was accurate before we came out with it because the way something like this comes about is when people come together and care.
That's what happens.
So what I want to share with everybody is a quick look at some information, some screenshots that I think is going to be very telling.
So, the first thing I want to do is substantiate what I had said earlier, that as of February 16th, there is a variance of 8,496 fatalities between what the CDC is reporting for the state of New York, and you can see the screen capture right here, and what the New York State Department of Health is reporting for total fatalities.
Folks, you have to understand, this cannot happen.
A variance of 10-15 fatalities between the CDC and a state, sure, right?
Because the way it's supposed to work is the counties report to the state, the state reports to the CDC.
But when you have a growing variance that has been going on since April 30th, that has now reached 8,496, it calls into question your ability to do something very simple.
Basic math, right?
It calls into question.
How does this take place?
Why is there such a variance?
I still don't have an answer to that today other than to say it's wrong.
When we look at the CDC's data, all the data I'm about to share with you comes directly from the CDC's data tracker.
Here are the number of cases per age demographic.
One of my big things that I've been screaming about, Sarah, is we have to stop looking at this as aggregate data for everybody.
We have to look at this based upon age stratification.
We have to look at this in the 0 to 17 age range, where we've had in over a year 298 total fatalities, a fatality rate of 0.013%, which means that the estimated recovery rate for our kids is 99.987%.
In the age 18 to 49 range, we apparently have, and I'm going to start saying apparently based upon what Dr. Martin just shared, we apparently have 11 million cases.
But only 15,000 fatalities for a fatality rate of 0.141 percent.
Again, this is the CDC's own data.
Folks, that makes the recovery rate an estimated recovery rate of 99.859 percent.
All right?
And it's still held even all the way through the 50 to 64 age demographic.
Our problem demographics Have been, have always been age 65 to 74 and 75 and older and we knew that, Sayer, all the way back as early as March 9th when the CDC published a statement through CNBC.com.
We've known that our most at-risk weren't going to be because of a person's skin color or ethnicity, but it was going to be because of age And comorbid conditions.
And it's played out in the data and it's been playing out in the data.
I can't wrap my head, Sayer, around the idea.
I can't wrap my head around the idea that for everybody under 65 years of age, they have a recovery rate of 99.623%.
But for some reason, we can't be bedside next to the people we love when they're hospitalized.
My cousin was just hospitalized last night and his woman couldn't be by his bedside When he was recovering from a seizure and they asked him medical related questions and he had to give answers after coming out of a seizure.
It's unconscionable, Sayer, for that to happen and it just happened last night.
Now, what I want to share with everybody watching is this.
There was a document, the NVSS COVID-19 Alert Number 2, because I'm going to take some heat on this.
I already know I am, right?
Speaking out, you're going to take some heat.
But this is the document that changed how Certificate of Death Reporting occurred, okay?
And this was issued on March 24, 2020, last year, published by the CDC on behalf of the NVSS.
The NVSS is the National Vital Statistics System.
What they wanted to do was they wanted to tell their death certifiers, will COVID-19 be the underlying cause?
The underlying cause depends on what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate.
However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.
Isn't that a little quinky dink, right?
And here's this other thing.
Should COVID-19 be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
The answer for most of us doctors is, yeah!
But look at their answer here, Sayre.
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
Really?
Assumed?
Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based upon their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.
If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part 2.
Sayer, here's the big deal about that.
That is not the way that was done for the previous 17 years.
Comorbid, pre-existing conditions were always tracked in Part 1, not Part 2.
Big, big change right there.
This should have been reported to the Federal Register.
This should have been Open for public comment.
We should have had an opportunity to review this and say, hey, there's some problems with this guidance you're issuing right here.
It's not going to work for these reasons.
But we weren't afforded that opportunity.
They just pushed it through.
So I want to show your audience right here, I want to show them a COVID-19 Death Certificate versus a Influenza H1N1 Death Certificate.
If everything's the exact same, if the person is the same, the only difference is COVID-19 versus H1N1.
You ready for this, Sarah?
If we look on the left, we see that a person, 77-year-old male, 10-year history of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and then he passes away due to COVID-19.
They're going to list acute respiratory acidosis for three days and COVID-19 for one week.
And then the things that really contributed to his death, that were the causative factors for his demise, they're going to put down here in Part B and de-emphasize them.
But if that same guy, that same 77-year-old male died instead of COVID, he died from influenza H1N1, look at how different his cause of death, his death certificate is going to look.
It's going to look like cardiac arrest resulting from acute respiratory acidosis, hypertension is going to be mentioned in part one, COPD is going to be mentioned in part one, and then H1N1 can still be in Part 1.
It's what's called in the handbook that the CDC publishes, an initiating factor.
But most doctors would actually put it in Part 2 because they understand, well, he's 77.
He had multiple comorbidities.
H1N1 didn't kill him.
It was the pre-existing conditions that played a larger role in his negative outcome.
But that's been taken away, Sayer, from our medical professionals, our coroners, our medical examiners, our physicians.
It's been taken away from them by this document, this previous document here, and saying, it's got to be COVID.
And here's really the thing that gets my gills, Sayer.
They were financially incentivized to do it.
That's the part that's unethical and unacceptable.
So what I'm going to take some heat on...
And I'm ready to take the heat on it, okay?
But what I'm going to take some heat on is this graphic right here that's starting to make the national rounds, okay?
I'm glad we're having the conversation.
I'm just glad we're finally talking about this, really, Sayer, okay?
Because if we had used the guidelines that we had been using without any problems for the previous 17 years for these death certificate coding, if we had just used those, Our assertion is that the total fatality count due to COVID-19, caused by COVID-19, would be roughly about 21,000 Americans.
Instead of the 348,000 that the CDC is publishing in their provisional counts, which is all I go to.
I don't go to their other ones because they can't even get basic math right for the state of New York.
So I can't trust that.
Does that make sense?
Right?
I can't trust that.
So what we're saying here is this.
How many deaths were caused by COVID?
We don't know, and that's a problem.
How many deaths did COVID contribute to?
We don't know, and that's a problem.
How many deaths were due to comorbidities initiated by the SARS-CoV-2 virus?
We don't know, and that's a problem.
And to throw another monkey wrench in the monkey wrenches, We don't know now after December 13th how many of these fatalities involve the COVID experimental vaccines.
Which are still in phase three clinical trial, according to the NIH, right?
We don't know these things.
So we have this incredibly muddied waters.
We need, Sarah, an independent audit of all death certificates.
And we have, we, my team has put together a formula where we can incorporate the medical history, the CT values from any PCR testing, and we can organize these into three distinct categories.
People who died due to COVID, people who died Because of COVID involvement, but due to comorbid conditions and people who are just miscategorized completely and likely because of financial incentives.
And Sayer, just a final thought on this.
You know, we have laws for a reason.
The Information Quality Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Administrative Procedures Act.
We have these things for a reason.
Because when we don't follow these laws, Data gets compromised and people die as a result.
People suffer as a result and it's got to stop.
Enough suffering.
It's got to stop.
Wow.
Thank you so much for that summarization.
This was the primary reason why when those new codes came out and they removed the requirement for testing for virus and just suspicion was all that was required to label someone dead from COVID that I also I was shocked and to see you come through with your colleagues to produce this paper and now shed all the factual light and shed light on the legal violations, if you will, that made that happen.
It's just so, so appreciated.
Commissioner, as an elected official, what do you think about what you just listened to?
Thank you, Sarah.
Well, I do appreciate Dr. Ely's work and it certainly opened my eyes.
I think the most important thing I would take away from this is if we remember to work with the willing, that we're seeing more and more coalitions of people from all different political perspectives coming together to ask some questions because they're saying something just isn't right.
It doesn't feel right.
And even on that level, we can then start to look for the information.
When we get the information presented to us, then we can start to take action.
And the biggest thing that people have to remember is that there has to be that consistent process that Dr. Ely just mentioned.
It can't be selective, and it can't be pick and choose when you want to follow the process.
It needs to be followed, and there needs to be accountability and transparency.
And that's where your elected officials need to be held accountable for following those processes that are in statute and in law.
Thank you so much, Commissioner.
Dr. Jack, I'm sure you have a lot to add from an ethical and scientific perspective.
What concerns about this do you have if it's proven true?
Right.
So back to the question about how this all came about through networking.
I came to understand that Dr. Ely and colleagues had some compelling results that they just couldn't understand.
They weren't making any sense out of it.
I invited the paper to the journal Science, Public Health, Policy and the Law as Editor-in-Chief.
This is not my first stint as Editor-in-Chief.
I founded the journal Cancer Informatics and I was Associate Editor of Applied Bioinformatics.
I serve on numerous editorial boards on a number of scientific journals.
I served for a long time on the journal Cancer Research, a very I'm very proud of that service that I conducted.
Today, I peer-reviewed two papers and journals you'll probably never hear about.
I put a lot of time and effort and energy into making sure that the science that goes forward is validated, is vetted, is looked at as Dr. Ely suggested by experts.
I sent the paper out for blinded peer review.
To this day, Dr. Ely and colleagues have no idea who reviewed his paper.
And in fact, the peer review standards of the Journal of Science Public Health Policy
meet or exceeds those of journals like the New England Journal of Medicine.
So although it's not registered as just was reported today in USA Today with PubMed and these kinds of organizations,
that's because we don't yet have this team.
PubMed has a particular pace of publication that we're not up to.
And we also only publish by invitation.
And there's a good reason for that.
Now, if somebody has a problem with Dr. Ely's paper and think there's something wrong with that analysis,
you can contact me and submit your own reanalysis.
And I'll put it out to peer review just like his.
That's called rational discourse.
But here's my assessment.
I understand the thousands of hours that all of us are putting into this, right?
So Dr. Ely is doing research on this.
I'm doing my own independent research on this and when we get to my slides, I think that's in the next round table, right?
Or do I do it now?
When we're doing this kind of research, we have to understand that we're guessing at motivation.
So I might differ a little bit with Dr. Martin.
Respectfully, deeply respectfully, I respect all the work that he did on it.
I think CDC shipped out the flawed test And by shipping out the flawed test, they realized that the only way they had a chance of getting a hold of this was to create the scenario where the sensitivity of the test was 100%.
They have to catch every case every time they test it, right?
But they forgot, and I believe they totally forgot, that when the prevalence is low, when you do that, you ramp up the false positive rate.
It's done at a cost to sensitivity.
There's a seesaw effect.
The more that you test at the beginning because you have small numbers of cases and you're doing contact tracing, that's fine.
But my other analysis and peer review in other journals show that when you do this kind of thing, and you change to indiscriminate testing, and you start testing anybody, any day, just because you want to test them, when the prevalence is low, you end up with way too many false positives.
And so then you start shutting down society.
And it all goes back to CDC making the mistake of shipping out that flawed test in their rush Right?
They came up with a brand new way of dealing with this that has never been seen before.
I've been fact-checked.
The fact-checking websites have it wrong.
Yes, this paper's been fact-checked.
Dr. Ely and colleagues did, in fact, identify substantial word differences.
Between what was happening before COVID-19 and after in terms of attribution of, not just attribution of death, but diagnosis of disease as well.
So remember, Dr. Deborah Birx in April made the announcement that contrary to how other countries are doing it, CDC is going to count died with as died from, no matter what they died from.
Literally a blanket a blanket determination of death, as if we have one coroner
working in the United States, one person determining the cause of death across all states,
all counties, all deaths.
If you have a positive result on your test and you died, you died from COVID. Now, put on top of
that that the false positive rates might be as high as 11 percent or 20 percent or 50 percent,
then we have a real problem. It's a technical problem. It can be reversed. And we're seeing
that the World Health Organization said, yeah, oops, January 21st, the World Health Organization
said, yes, we dialed it up too high with CTs this high.
We're going to have to dial it back.
The Department of Health of the State of Kansas now has said it.
We're going to dial it back.
We're going to bring these universal CTs.
It's still the wrong approach.
You're supposed to use a negative control every patient, every time.
Calculate the CT for that patient and then calculate the negative control CT and take the difference.
It's called Delta CT.
It blows my mind that we're not seeing Delta, Delta CT or Delta CT in the literature.
We're seeing a single threshold that doesn't make any sense clinical whatsoever.
So that's what went wrong in my opinion.
They set the dial to 100% sensitivity, they gave us a bunch of false positives, and then they're like, okay, well, you know what, we're doing it in the name of good.
We don't want to miss any because the cost of the false negatives are so high this thing will get away from us.
They forgot about the cost of the false positives.
They forgot about the suicides, the deaths of despair, the hundreds of thousands of businesses that have been shut down.
The teen suicide rate is an unacceptable public health tragedy right now in the United States of America.
And unless and until we have a bear all, CDC, come clean and say, you know what?
You're right.
Dr. Lyons-Weiler has it right.
We did it out of the best interest of the country and we made a mistake.
Now we can start putting the country back together.
But are they going to do it?
I doubt it.
It's the perverse incentives that Dr. Martin talked about that places them in a position where they should not be responsible for our public health anymore.
That's why I've created Plan B.
Plan B is a decentralization, depoliticization, and de-incentivization of public health in the United States.
Look up my name, look up hashtag Plan B, and you'll see that I want a big, serious sea change in the United States.
Amazing, Dr. Jack.
I also took a look at your Plan B. I encourage everyone to read this document.
I mean, you've provided a solution to this systemic problem that we're identifying today.
Thank you so much.
Dr. Ely, what encouragement and advice do you give our viewers that are listening?
Well, I think number one is don't believe fact-checkers.
Fact-checkers are just opinions, you know, masquerading as we know everything.
The only way to fact-check our work is to do an independent audit of every single death certificate and get them properly categorized, and we welcome that.
I will drive Fly, swim to D.C.
if you need me to participate in that.
Anybody listening at the CDC, I will do it.
I'll be there because we want to get this right.
If you're going to make good decisions, my dad drilled this into me for my whole life, son, if you're going to make good decisions, you need to have accurate data.
Most people can't add, son, and you need to know how to add.
Dad, you're right.
You were right about all of this.
That's why we're here, right?
Because we need that accurate data.
So, I would say, if you want to fact-check me, I'm with you.
Let's fact-check it by getting an independent audit of every single death certificate with medical history, with accompanying PCR CTs, and when they got a positive signal for it.
Let's get all that data and get it right, because we need to get it right, because this can never happen again.
Thank you so much for that.
Absolutely.
We're asking for transparency.
We're asking that our federal agencies do their job that they're tasked with.
And that's all.
It's very simple.
So thank you so much, panelists.
We're going to move to round three, and this is going to include Dr. Bregan, Superintendent Gilman, and of course, Commissioner Starrett.
And we are going to start with Dr. Bregan.
Thank you.
Welcome back here.
It seems undeniable at this point that millions of people have become trapped in a web of collateral damage during COVID-19.
You've been investigating this and particularly the mental emotional aspects.
What can you share with us about what you've learned and how bad it is in your professional opinion?
Well, I want to, I'm not your ordinary psychiatrist.
I've spent a lot of time looking inside the drug companies, looking at the web of organization around the world.
I want to spend a few minutes, I'll divide up my time.
And talk about the kind of material that's in my Coronavirus website, my Coronavirus Resource Center on my website, fregon.com.
I've been involved with legal issues around this virus.
I did 120 page paper with hundreds of references to start the Ohio suit, working with wonderful Tom Renz, who's the attorney doing that work.
So I get called in like the ordinary psychiatrist, but there's a combination here.
I also have a clinical practice.
There's something missing from all the analyses today, and I've been interested in it, and it's exciting because it's what I spend all my time on, in terms of the causation here of where does this start.
It doesn't start with CDC.
It doesn't start with any of that.
I first saw, as Dr. Miller so clearly seen, I'm sure, that all the early research, a lot of it, done in collaboration with China.
That's the word we haven't heard enough about today.
That we were actually building viruses with China.
So they were working in the Wuhan lab, we're working over here in North Carolina, And we're making deadly pathogenic viruses with the Chinese.
We're funding them and you've heard some of the sources of that, starting with Fauci and through various other sources.
And so I began to look at, well, why was nobody saying anything about this?
We finally Went public on this, blew the whistle on it, got the news up toward the Trump people, into the Trump circle, and he cancelled, within two days of our coming out with it, Trump cancelled the collaborations between Fauci and China.
He did not cancel the gain-of-function research that we were still doing, but he saw the China linkage immediately.
So we began looking at all of the people who are making money off of this.
Whether you look at a Gates or a Bloomberg, a Schwab, even the Koch family, if you look at the top 16 billionaires, every one of them but one has deep ties to China, making a huge amount of money in China, and is going to be participating in this gigantic cover up we've seen about the origins of the virus.
And Because they're making so much money from COVID-19.
They don't want it to end.
They don't want the cheap drugs coming in.
They want the vaccine, the vaccine, the vaccine.
They don't want even, they're not even that excited about expensive drugs as much as expensive vaccines.
And the one thing they don't want is cheap drugs.
So who are all those other people?
If you look at the top Companies that are shutting down virus information, six companies, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, YouTube, Google, Apple, they're all connected to China.
Deeply connected to China.
They all are deeply connected to making money off the virus.
Even the Lancet is deeply involved with Hu and with China.
Protecting China.
They set up a commission to investigate China before who did and they put the same echo health guy on that who did.
So we've got the journals, we've got the agencies of all kind and their deep soul goes back to this connection between the United States and China.
And if you don't look into that, if you don't look how all these guys are getting rich off China, anticipated the coming of the virus, that's been mentioned.
It's like four or five, six different ways.
They're out there saying we're going to have a virus in the years leading up to it.
They're preparing to make a killing on an epidemic.
And they're Also, at the same time, and I can't exactly tell you why, they're all working with China, so they're all protecting China, and they're all dumping on the United States of America.
And this will be my last sentence or two about this.
America is a democratic republic.
Schwab, one of the big thinkers in this whole area, what I call the globalist predators, Has said in his newest book that a democratic republic is incompatible with globalism.
But they find China to be very compatible with globalism.
So in the past year, the last year of the 2019, you have a giant conference.
Everybody's there.
The Clintons are there.
I mean, everybody's there.
And it's run by Bloomberg.
And they hold it in Beijing.
You've got to look at China, because otherwise you're spinning your wheels.
This huge collaboration, what I'm calling the global predators, the corporations, the billionaires, they don't have any identification with the United States.
They don't care.
Their identification is power, wealth, self-aggrandizement.
And they see it in China, and China's markets, and China's power.
So I wanted to add that to this conversation, because I felt it would be necessary.
I have a few more minutes left.
How much time do I have to talk about this?
A few minutes is great.
Two or three.
Many of you have already spoken as psychiatrists and psychologists about the terrible toll.
The death rate among adolescents from suicide is literally way beyond that they'd ever get from the COVID virus, the increase in their suicides.
But I want to talk to you about an underlying principle again, rather than all these different diagnoses, we have depression, we got this going up, we got divorce going up, you know, we have all this stuff.
The thing that's being ignored everywhere is that human beings are social creatures.
Public health, oddly enough, does not take it into account.
The entire public health establishment is not interested in collateral damage to The social fabric of humanity.
And neither are, incidentally, the global predators.
There's a lot in common here that's happening in this universe out there.
In human beings, we are so social that, in fact, everything we call mental illness is a social phenomenon.
It's either labeled socially or it derives from social suffering.
It doesn't come from sitting by yourself, it comes from sitting by yourself when you want to be with people.
None of the diagnoses matter.
So what we've done by employing public health measures is we've completely ignored every form of social damage.
We shut down the churches, we shut down the schools, we leave open the bars so that people can be numb.
Human beings, we are born, unlike other animals, into an entirely helpless state.
We're born like fetuses, literally, quite literally.
We can't walk.
It's like you dragged us out of a pouch of one of those bouncy creatures from Australia.
And then for a year, we're brought up, our brain doubles in size, and it doubles in response to our social life.
So your brain is social.
And we grow up needing social relationships, social stimulation, caring, we need love.
I just published a paper that was remarkably well appreciated on what is the deepest common denominator underneath all basic kind of psychiatric, psychological suffering.
And I believe it's a belief that we're not worthy of love, which tells very well with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
People don't feel worthy of love.
They need to feel valuable and worthwhile.
And the public health people and Fauci and the absolute disrespect of all the global predators for humanity is robbing humanity of its feeling that it's worthwhile, deserving of love, deserving of meaning, deserving of caring.
That's this huge destructive process and it all goes back again public health implementing what the global predators want for us.
I wanted to give you that big overview.
I hope it's useful.
It is.
Thank you so much, Dr. Bregman.
It does speak to the spiritual crisis that many of us are facing due, again, to the inappropriate public health policies based on distorted, if not absolutely false, data.
Thank you.
Commissioner, actually, it's Superintendent Fehlman next.
So you've been one of the few people that have taken a stand on behalf of our kids Okay, so what can you tell parents watching about how you did it and the positive impacts in-person education has on every person, including the teachers?
And if you have some stories to share that you would like to around this topic, it would be great.
Maybe a delay here.
Do you hear me okay, Mark?
I don't think we can hear you right now.
Okay, let's see, Mark.
Can you hear us?
Okay, let's... Okay, there you go.
Hi, Mark.
Okay, having trouble hearing you.
We might have a technical issue.
So, I think Jarrett will be addressing that, our sound support.
So, I'll just jump to Commissioner.
What response would you have to what has been shared thus far?
You know, it's funny. I always have to start off with a comment about Dr. Bregg.
He has no idea how much he's influenced my thinking.
I remember something he said 30 years ago.
And he said, and this is from a psychiatrist, that mental illness is a spiritual problem.
And he was not saying it from any particular religious discipline.
He was saying that just what he outlined is that there is a need in all of us to have that connection.
The social connection, the spiritual connection.
And one of the first things we noticed was done, and I'm speaking about the state of Oregon because every state is different, but pretty much the macro is that our churches were shut down.
Our schools were shut down.
Our restaurants were shut down.
Our gyms were shut down.
These are the places where people find connection.
You take that away and you isolate them.
But our cannabis shops were open, our liquor stores were open, and what was resumed was not restaurant capacity now, but was a video lottery.
So the way I look at it is this.
We have to approach each one of these, and this is what we did.
A number of resolutions, a number of lawsuits.
I testified in federal court in Portland against the governor because of the shutdown of the private schools.
And I had heard a governor's spokesperson say, the reason we're doing this is because if we open up the private schools, the faith-based schools, we'll see a mass exodus from the public schools.
So we use that in a case.
The case in Brooklyn that allowed the churches to open basically said any faith institution, including the faith-based schools, had to open.
And based on that, the schools were open and our public schools are still shut down because the teachers unions are not interested in teaching.
But what we do is we attack it from resolutions, working with the trade organizations like the restaurant associations, and we work on the local level.
We passed a resolution in December, which basically said we need accuracy in COVID data.
And we also are going to use this as a court validated process whereby anybody who is shut down or cited by a state agency like Oregon Occupational Safety Health Association will be able to use this in court as cover for being able to say, hey, listen, we've done everything we should do.
We're not going to be dinged for the COVID citations.
So we have another resolution that I'm asking the board to pass.
And that basically asked the governor to uphold her pledge to support the constitution, lifts orders, restricting our local businesses, considers all our independently owned businesses as essential.
And we also ask that she directs her state agencies like the Liquor Control Commission and the Oregon OSHA to cease her limiting their citations to those infractions that were in place before COVID.
So we're just basically going to encourage our legislators to also get active and start holding the governor accountable for this overreach from the executive branch.
So you do what you can and you hit it from multiple perspectives And that's what we do.
And our constituents are grateful, even though we haven't been able to be effective.
That's amazing.
Thank you so much, Mary.
Mark, are you back online here?
OK.
Yeah, I had to switch to cell.
I apologize.
We're having some Internet trouble out here in rural America.
No problem.
So go for it.
Well, a couple of things.
You know, when you see things like Dr. Bragan talking about some of the global issues and who profits and who wins and who loses.
Our story in LC is in a microcosm.
We were ahead of the game as a small school district.
All our kids had devices.
And so we were one of the first in Oregon to switch to the comprehensive distance learning without even being told.
And then once we, even though we did it very well, it was very clear that it was inadequate.
So we made the decision to open.
And every month, The governor kept changing the rules and she created metrics that said nobody could open.
And fortunately, we reached out to our legislators, Senator Finley and Senator Lifcombe and others, and they created the rule exception.
And we opened with all eyes on us.
We were the only full-time K-12 school open.
We opened in August, west of the Cascades for those who aren't familiar with Oregon.
And we were able to show through a whole bunch of mitigation and safeguards that you could safely operate schools.
It is now February.
And we have still had zero cases of COVID that have been able to be zero cases period.
No cases have been traced to being sourced at the school and yet most schools in Oregon are still closed.
And just so everyone understands that I finally said this to Director Colt Gill
just last week because ODE is now advising districts not to release kids to
the Cal State School District either for our brick and mortar or for our online program.
And I explained to him that's a violation of RS-338.
We are not a virtual charter school.
And according to the law, kids cannot be denied access to our programs.
And we're in the middle of a pandemic.
Kids aren't being educated.
Suicide rates, home stress, domestic violence.
I think we have, I think we need to keep the kids out front.
And I just got an email today saying they're not going to serve kids even if we don't get paid for them.
Things are really bad out there, and I got an email today saying, well, you can go ahead and serve them, but you better not try to get paid for them.
And this is from the Director of Education, and he is appointed by the Governor.
Something is very, very wrong.
I asked Director Gill, why aren't we getting accolades in LC?
Why aren't we being praised as a school that could?
For all the good that we've done, on the huge waiting list we have, the massive number of board members who have come out to LC so they can see what it looks like to open a school during COVID safely.
I can go on and on, but you know, it goes back to what former speakers have talked about.
It's counterintuitive that we wouldn't be held up as an example of what can be done.
So I really want to encourage people get connected and be active.
You know my claim to fame and probably the reason I was asked to be on this panel outside of running a school was I started pushing back and Commissioner Starrett knows I started getting active and I wrote a letter encouraging counties to open up because we had so many kids trying to harm themselves.
The hospitalization rate, visits in the emergency room for students attempting suicide, and then those kids tying it back to not being in school, being isolated, being stuck at home.
And I took it real personally, so I challenged the Oregon Health Authority epidemiologist And boy, did I not know what I was getting into, but I have a science background.
And I said, look, your data doesn't make sense.
We've got as of October 20th, we've got, you know, exponential number of cases being identified.
But hospitalization rates are going down.
That's impossible.
You cannot have a three-fold increase in 10 days of COVID identification cases and expect to see hospitalization rates going down.
Well, what I didn't realize and what came out of it was the hospitalization data comes from a different source.
And so the epidemiologist challenged me about stochastic analysis and I said, well great, where is it?
I don't see it on your website.
And then he just got quiet and he said, why are you doing this?
And I said, listen, I'm being told I have to close my school in January.
We're heading into the winter break.
I'm trying to determine whether or not under these metric rules, I can stay open and I need good data to do that.
And I don't have it.
So the summation of that is, I told him, I said, look, you go back to OHA and report that Superintendent Thielman He needs to have his school open and he needs safe, what we call safe harbor in Oregon, which means we can stay open once we're open.
And I said, they've ended safe harbor.
I've asked them to extend it.
And if they extend safe harbor, I'll get real quiet real quick.
Well, two hours later, safe harbor was extended through an email from Deputy Superintendent Colt Gill, serendipitously.
The next morning I'm driving to work and there was an emergency OHA radio announcement on the radio news, AM radio, that they think we're nearing the end of this most recent COVID spike as evidenced by a reduction in hospitalization rates.
And that's when I realized something's very, very wrong.
Uh, with with that, that's impossible.
You can't be a superintendent, call in and do that and have it on the news the next day.
If the data is scientific, objectively, rationally, it's not.
So I'm kind of upset because More kids are suffering.
Education is not getting done.
And we need to really take a long look in the mirror, our political leaders, and get back to what we're supposed to be doing.
And that is serving kids and families, being here as a state and federal government, serving the people.
Thank you so much for that.
For those listening, remember that this data disaster has such profound implications.
And here's a shining example of a school that could, and your school where you live, can as well, if we can only get this information out.
And again, the call to action at the end of this broadcast will enable you to be empowered to help make that happen.
So, Dr. Breggin, we're running a bit behind, but we'd love for you to close this panel off with just telling us how does this make you feel to hear all of this, and what encouragement can you give our viewers?
Well, the biggest encouragement I want to give has not been talked about again very much, so I want to point out That we have a huge amount of information on the early treatment, the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19.
So I want to give you some resources real quick.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that's all you need to know.
You can even go with AAPS and Google it.
And they have a blue book right up there in front.
on the on the early treatment and prevention of COVID-19 incredibly successful.
It began with hydroxychloroquine.
Now there are other medications as well.
They're all cheap, and the government doesn't want cheap drugs going out to the folks.
So you have to go to the to the people who are really involved with that.
And one of the doctors named McCullough, one is named Salinko, These are people you can find and they're very, very important.
About the children, you know, it's about treating all of us as if we're objects in some, you know, consumer play.
I mean, the kids are consumers now.
They're a market.
That's a better word.
We've all been turned into a market.
And the children is just awful.
And now we're marketing vaccines to them, and we're going to do that without any of the vaccines having been tested on children.
I don't know if anybody mentioned that before.
Vaccines have not been tested on children, but now we've gotten the okay from the good old boys, the FDA, CDC, whoever's vouchee was ever pulling the strings, and we're going to be giving these kids, Mark, you know, these wonderful kids we should protect, we'll be giving them vaccines.
I think that we just have to get another view of kids other than there being a market for crappy videos and violent movies and sex and all the other stuff that I mean I don't think I could grow up today.
I mean a person is full of you know stuff as I am.
I would have been done in by just my own overstimulation with all the things our kids today have to deal with.
So our kids are in trouble.
And COVID-19 is just one more example of the way we just use them to make money now.
That's what the culture's doing.
It's partly the absence of religion, I believe.
It's partly the absence of moral education.
our founders said to have a democratic republic, we had to give moral education to everybody,
to the children especially, everybody had to read.
And by moral education, they also meant the belief in freedom,
which we haven't heard, and there may be enough about today either,
because they've taken away our freedom, and they were taking away the kids' freedom,
they're turning us into a way to make money this way and that, and it's,
we gotta look into that very big picture.
Thank you so much, Dr. Bragan.
That's why we're doing this event, and we are together providing a means for people to take back control of their basic health rights and human rights.
So again, thank you, panelists.
We're going to move on to panel number four, roundtable number four, including Ana Gardner, Dr. Martin, and Senator Linethicum.
So we'll start with Ms.
Garner.
We've known that you've filed impressive legal arguments in New Mexico, Ohio, and federally as well, as suits against the CDC.
So many people are desperate to know that something and someone is bringing the legal challenges.
What can you tell us about the cases you're currently working on?
Compromised data and the misleading data is the thing that is driving the suffering in my state, New Mexico.
And that prompted me to start looking at what lawsuits were happening around the U.S.
And it wasn't until I saw Tom Renz's lawsuit in Ohio, which Dr. Bregan mentioned working with him, and actually he submitted a short affidavit in support of the Ohio lawsuit.
And I started working with Tom.
I called Tom and I said, look, I think you're on the right track.
Nobody else has figured this out yet, except you.
And that is he knew that he had to attack the entire base of this narrative, which is there is no public health emergency.
And the way that we look at this is We're looking at all of the data that came in.
You know, how did this start?
They're basing this public health emergency on the fact that there were modeling assumptions made by the Imperial College of London that were just absolutely so far off the mark that they were ridiculous.
But what did they do?
They instilled a whole lot of fear in a whole lot of people.
Millions of people are going to die, Fauci said.
Remember?
So that started the whole cascade of false information that was being fed to all of the people who only get their information from mainstream news or perhaps the newspapers.
If that's the only place they get their information, they're going to be horribly misinformed.
So that's the beginning of it.
Then we have the cases and the COVID-related deaths.
And Dr. Ely covered that very, very well.
But the COVID-related deaths in New Mexico, we have a population of 2.1 million approximately.
And I just looked at the numbers on the New Mexico Public Department of Health and they said that there are very close to 200,000 deaths in New Mexico due to COVID.
That is not correct.
We've had a data analyst actually get copies of the death certificates and you can tell just from the death certificates that they're miscoding them.
So, in his analysis, he figured that only 15% of these deaths actually died with no comorbidities or trauma.
So, obviously, they're not looking at these things correctly at all.
They know that they're fake, and they're scaring everybody into just, you know, terrible isolation, fear, and depression.
Fake numbers on cases, we have fake numbers on deaths.
These PCR tests, nobody has really come out until this time of event, come out and talked about how meaningless and unreliable the PCR tests are.
Excuse me?
Anyway, the PCR tests, of course, we know have a false positive rate of anywhere from 70 to 90 percent, depending on what sort of cycle thresholds are used, depending on what reagents are used.
There's so many variables, and it appears that the PCR tests were also marketed under the Emergency Use Authorization, which means they didn't get tested, and they were done, they were created in the absence of a virus being isolated that was claimed to have caused these This group of symptoms called COVID.
So we have, we have, you know, meaningless PCR test.
We have the whole myth of asymptomatic transmission that was almost completely and conclusively rebuffed in the, rebutted, I should say, in the almost 10 million person study done in Wuhan.
There was zero, zero asymptomatic transmission.
in this huge number of people so that is not part of the any bit of the truth that's driving this public health emergency and in fact that asymptomatic transmission narrative is driving a lot of very oppressive measures that are being Done by the government.
For example, mask wearing, social distancing, isolation, stay home, stay home so that everybody's safe.
They're quarantining healthy people.
They are claiming that healthy people are now asymptomatic, which implies that we're all walking germ vectors.
That's just not true.
You know, I'm a healthy person.
Pretty much everybody I know is healthy.
In fact, I haven't known, but a couple of people who may have gotten COVID, I haven't known anybody who's died from actually the disease.
I've known people who got sicker from taking flu shots.
So it's, it's just, it's been so overblown that it's ridiculous.
So we're trying to attack it.
Tom and I have been, we've now filed three suits together, we're involved in three suits.
And we are attacking it on the lack of a public health emergency.
If we, and we fully expect to win this at some level, no matter where it's going to be, we fully expect to win this.
When that is won, that there is no public health emergency, all of the measures that have been instituted Fall by the wayside.
There's absolutely no basis whatsoever there to have any of these measures.
So, this is what we're claiming.
We did it in the Ohio suit.
Between the time that the Ohio suit was filed and the New Mexico suit was filed, so much more information came out about the unreliability of the PCR test.
The fact that a Portugal High Appellate Court found that the PCR tests were completely useless at determining whether Traveling people coming into Portugal needed to be quarantined based on the PCR test.
So they've thrown that completely out in Portugal.
Governor DeSantis in Florida recently said that all PCR tests need to have the cycle threshold listed because that will decide if they're really contagious or not.
Because if you can only find it a positive result through a high cycle threshold, Then that means there is so little virus that they could not even possibly be contagious.
A study in France basically said that after 17 cycle thresholds, the reliability of the test falls off dramatically.
And they don't recommend any above 30.
However, all of the existing labs are using cycles, and we found out in New Mexico, they're using cycles of 40 and 45.
How reliable can that be?
So obviously we have to attack this on everything we have.
And we say there's no public emergency, no public health emergency, because the basis on which this was declared, they're all completely fraudulent and fake.
Now we haven't claimed fraud in our case in terms of the governor committing fraud or somebody committing fraud, but we're saying the numbers aren't fake.
The numbers are fraudulent.
So that's the focus that we're doing.
And you know, Dr. Ely talked about the math and everything and that people couldn't do the math.
Well, even the CDC admitted that 94% of all of the deaths that they had coded being related to COVID had comorbidities and that only 6% of them probably actually had COVID.
So how bad an emergency can it be when we're talking about survivability rates of 99 plus percent, depending on your age group.
And the fact that most people have, they say they're either asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms.
Well, asymptomatic people are healthy people.
They didn't have COVID most likely because they never had symptoms.
So it's not like we're all just asymptomatic or positive or, you know, We're healthy or we're positive.
And the positivity needs to be correlated with clinical symptoms, which they have not been.
They have not been tested.
There's no gold standard for this.
But the last suit we filed was the CDC suit that we filed, which is to ask them to stop coding these deaths.
In fact, I just talked to someone this morning about a gross violation of the whole coding thing.
Gunshot wounds in a small county in Colorado.
The coroner there asked the governor to please take those off a COVID diagnosis, a COVID-related death.
And the governor refused.
But these are gunshot wounds.
This is potentially a criminal action of murder or homicide or something else, but now it's being coded as COVID.
What do you do in the legal system when they didn't really die of gunshot wounds, they died of COVID because they had a positive PCR test?
It's absurd.
What do you do when somebody is coded as COVID and their family should be able to get an accidental death insurance policy.
But COVID isn't an accidental death.
It's a contagion.
It's usually excluded from insurance claims.
There's so many ramifications that can come from coding the deaths incorrectly.
Besides the fear and hysteria, lockdowns, masks, social distancing, we have all sorts of problems that arise as a result of that.
The suffering that's happened in Mexico has absolutely been a level that I never thought I would see come in To the United States.
And that's what prompted me to get to come out of retirement, basically, and start fighting these things.
And we're seeking other attorneys who are health and freedom liberty lovers, as we are, because we know the next step from this is mandatory vaccines.
And that's another thing that we want.
I'm going to call it the, what Dr. Ely calls it, the experimental biologic, experimental Biologic, technology, something like that.
But at any rate, we know that that's the next battle that we're going to have to fight here, because that is the natural consequence of what we're doing and where it's all going, and we see that.
So, I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to tell people, you know, educate, provide something that I've learned about, and all of us have learned about, and get people to thinking about this.
That, what if this whole narrative is totally false and totally incorrect?
Then what?
Do we go back to living normally?
I think so.
You know, that's my goal.
And I'm doing everything in my power to make that so in New Mexico, because it will have a far-reaching effect in other places.
Wow, that's a credible summary of all that you've learned and are doing on behalf of us all.
Thank you so much.
So, Senator, you've been involved in some very interesting cases concerning COVID public health policy.
What do you think about what you've heard?
And what do you think about calling for a formal investigation?
And what would you personally want to see investigated?
I think You're still muted, Senator.
I think we'll get assistance with that.
Here we go.
Hi, Senator.
Okay.
Well, first, at the federal level, and for the CDC in particular, the Information Quality Act was meant to ensure that policies were backed by valid scientific and technical information.
And there's a requirement.
Okay, I'll start up again.
At the federal level, and for the CDC in particular, the IQA, the Information Quality Act, was meant to ensure that policies were backed by valid science and technical information, along with the requirement that it be rigorous, precise, and useful for constructing sound public policy.
It also codified the public right to see the source data, the models and the algorithms employed, and the internal and external standards for the review process.
This is not optional.
This is an agency obligation, and it clearly has not been done.
Sayer, you asked me, what would you like to see investigated?
And quite frankly, everything needs to be reviewed.
Not only audit the data, but review the assessment processes, the determinant factors for policy discussions, that weeded out relevant items in favor of promoting irrelevant data points.
This, in 2020 hindsight, all of this has happened, and we here are asking these questions, and the public deserves the answers.
The hardest area and maybe the most important area would be to review the moral hazard that has been instigated and promoted by federal health care funding models and the counterproductive and not only counterproductive but moral hazard associated with COVID-19 incentives on death certificates, for example, what Dr. Ely was describing.
Here in Oregon, actually across the U.S., but especially here in my state of Oregon, states like New York and Michigan, information is slowly surfacing that shows the breadth of misinformation and the severity of modeling errors.
And these agencies, quite frankly, must be held accountable.
The public has to understand and recognize the soundness of the quality, the objectives, the utility, the integrity, the scientific and technical, even statistical information that the agencies are adopting and disseminating for public policy.
All of these appear to be a one-sided if you will, top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.
And we, the public, should know this by now, and it's about time we relearn this saying from Lord Acton,
power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And we are in the midst of trying to figure out, how do we promote liberty, regardless of our race,
our gender, our political affiliation, how do we create a bridge to the future
that can unite all of us in the common cause of defending our liberty to pursue our own medical choices?
Without the nanny state stepping in and forcing us to do one thing or the other.
So we need to vigorously defend our values by not being deceived, by not allowing us to fall prey to new definitions or inaccurate assessments of the real facts.
And more than anything, we simply need to stand and defend the truth.
So all of it needs to be investigated.
Bring them tab to my office and I'll see what we can do within our budget.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Senator.
So, Dr. Martin, we have some questions for you.
Same questions, actually.
What do you think about what you've heard, and is a formal congressional and or special grand jury investigation warranted?
What would you want to see investigated?
Well, a couple things.
First of all, Dr. Jack and I, just so everybody knows, are actually not at all on opposite pages or even I'm at all conflicted with respect to the RT-PCR.
The CDC patent on the RT-PCR is largely to blame for the fact that the CDC chose to take a path that the rest of the world didn't choose, and that was because they could force others not into the market because of their patent, which gives rise to a very fundamental requirement for investigation.
Under the Bayh-Dole Act that was debated in 1979 and passed in 1980, science in this country got hijacked by Industry.
And this is regulatory capture.
This is old school corruption.
This is racketeering.
This is antitrust violations.
This is price fixing.
Remember that Anthony Fauci sits as the purveyor of an industry that was built on universal in-sequence HIV, influenza, and now coronavirus vaccine promotion.
His business, $191 billion of public funds, has been used and hijacked.
$191 billion.
Under his leadership, has passed through his fingers to achieve three failed objectives.
First, HIV vaccine.
Second, pan-influenza vaccine, which he said was going to be an infant imprint vaccine.
And third, the coronavirus vaccine.
Let's call it what it is.
This is racketeering.
This is antitrust violations, and it's being perpetrated using taxpayer dollars.
This is, in fact, a criminal conspiracy, and it needs to be called what it is.
And what Dr. Jack is going to talk about with RT-PCR, I just want you to know I'm fully, fully endorsing what he's going to be describing because the issue is simple.
By filing patents on the use of RT-PCR for coronavirus, We do not have an independent gold standard anywhere, not in the US or around the world.
And the reason why we can debate the application of RT-PCR is because CDC, under the Bayh-Dole Act, was allowed to preclude anyone from independent inquiry into doing any form of diagnostics.
So this is actually something where going back to 2003, the ability to have independence has been blocked By the illegal and unethical use of the Bayh-Dole Act from 1980.
There has to be an investigation into the racketeering.
There has to be an investigation into the antitrust violations.
And this fundamentally brings criminal, not just civil, complaints.
And that's the important thing.
We need to show that this is not an oops, I got it wrong.
This is a criminal conspiracy.
It must be treated as such.
And we must have leaders who have the courage To get U.S.
attorneys and district attorneys and attorneys general in states to actually bring the appropriate legal action, which is not civil, it's criminal.
And we must address this issue because this is a $191 billion criminal crime syndicate.
And in any other place, we would actually have people cuffed and doing perp walks.
And right now we're handing those people awards Presidential medals of honor, and it is an absolute assault to everything that we stand for in this country.
So I am all about congressional investigations.
We have delivered the Fauci dossier by hand to every one of the senators in the United States, taking a playbook from 1911 and 1912.
We're calling for a Peugeot Commission-like investigation, which, as you probably know, historically gave rise to the Clayton Act, which is the reform Of the antitrust acts in the United States.
We are calling for exactly that same thing now, which is a Peugeot commission for COVID that the Congress takes on to bring about a investigation into an ultimate legal reform, which ultimately will constrain the abuses of the ninth and 10th amendment of the constitution.
And with that, I could go on forever, but I appreciate having the opportunity.
I look forward to hearing.
The rest of this presentation, but I really want to cede the ground to people who are much smarter than me.
And let's get the next panel on.
Thank you so much, Dr. Martin, for that.
So, Ms.
Garner, you have the floor for final thoughts.
I do think that certainly filing a criminal action is a very appropriate thing because I think that this has been a criminal enterprise.
We felt that filing the civil actions, and Tom and I are both civil attorneys, we're not criminal attorneys, and those type of actions need to be brought by attorney generals or by district attorneys.
But in filing the civil actions, we feel that we are taking the most direct path to freeing up our liberties that have been completely taken away from us.
Our liberties of freedom to move around, freedom of association, freedom to worship, freedom of expression.
We have so many freedoms and liberties that have absolutely been shredded during this declared pandemic.
And that is the time when our constitutional rights are the most precious and need to be upheld the most.
It's during times of emergency.
That was what our founding fathers envisioned, and that's what we're going after.
These are constitutional law cases that we're presenting, and that's why we're in federal court.
But we are, we're doing everything we can to get these types of draconian measures reversed so that we can go back to living our lives normally and save whatever businesses are still able to hang on throughout these considerable restrictions that have been imposed on them.
So we're really, we want prayers.
We need prayers.
We feel that this is also a spiritual battle in many ways.
We ask for prayers and we ask for support from people for what we're doing here.
So thank you.
Thank you so much, panelists, for this very powerful roundtable.
So we'll be moving to our final roundtable for the evening.
We have Dr. Jack, Dr. Ely, Superintendent Thielman, and Dr. Bregan.
So we'll start with Dr. Jack.
This PCR test seems to be one of the biggest problems with trusting the data being reported by the CDC.
What can you tell us about the problems we've been hearing about the COVID PCR test?
Yeah, first, I absolutely will.
I'm going to give you guys some slide presentation in detail that you'll never forget.
But first, I want to address Dr. Martin's view and my view on this.
You see, if society wakes up and says, based on Dr. Henry Ely's paper, that there's a massive conspiracy theory and epidemiologists, state epidemiologists, every public health official all across the country are all in bed with Wuhan, This is not going to fly.
What we have to do is we have to say, Dr. David Martin's dossier is a stunning indictment on people who set this up.
And what I meant by disagreeing was on the very specific motivation, specifically on why they won't budge on the fact that we have a flawed PCR test.
They screwed up the tests They stumbled all over themselves.
They would have had the cat in the bag 100% if they didn't ship out that test.
They wouldn't need any commercial tests at all.
It was Anthony Fauci, in fact, who said, I guess we're going to have to turn to the commercial test.
So if CDC flipped out a test, they'd have the license on it.
Everybody would have the license to CDC, and they'd be the richest organization on the planet.
So it's absolutely willful misconduct at the highest levels.
And I totally support Dr. David Martin.
Because the way that information propagates through social networks and so on, your head can be spinning on how could there possibly be such a massive conspiracy.
The people in the middle, they really don't know what's going on.
They're good soldiers, there's an emergency, you have to run the test this way or it's going to get out of hand.
And that's the distinction, it's a subtle distinction.
But I'm going to cut right to If I may, cut right to the presentation that I have here.
Thank you.
Okay, so what I've done, and this is IPAC Research, an independent research organization.
When we talk about deaths and diagnosis, and when the middle ground epidemiologists say that there's no false positives, there's such a wide Different number of definitions of types of false positives.
You can have the false positive of the test.
You can have the false positive of the test in the lab with artificial sequences.
You can have the false positive of the test in the field on real patient data.
And you can have a theoretical estimate of the false positive just by doing BLAST, which is what FDA asked for.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to show you every factor that has to be considered to understand the accuracy of the assessment, the ascertainment of death.
So this is about the diagnosis in the situation where there's a death involved.
It also is directly applicable.
I was on top of this way back in April, and you can go watch the Unbreaking Science episode, CDC's Deadly Testing Fiasco, and you'll find there that Chris Meekins is a whistleblower that came out and said that CDC actually lied to the President of the United States over readiness of tests.
They were stumbling all over themselves.
But here we have the, this is going to be a big decision tree.
We have somebody who's died.
They have a COVID-19 test before or after their passing.
The test is positive or they were tested and it was positive.
This implies that the virus is present but that actually in this situation it means yes in this particular patient the virus was in fact present.
In this particular patient the virus was in fact viable and in this particular case the virus caused the death.
We know from other published research, this is not my research, but other published research, that the CT value itself, if you set the CT threshold too high, you're going to end up with false positives.
And non-transmissibility, you're going to end up with deaths that are not attributed, that are attributed as causal, but they're not causal because even though it tested positive, the person didn't die from it because the virus wasn't even viable.
And the World Health Organization has recognized that the PCR CT scores have to come down.
This is their notice.
This is the Sentinel article showing that Kansas actually did the same thing.
They're bringing their CT scores down and I expect state after state is going to start dialing back their CTs.
So in this decision tree, if the virus was present and the virus is viable, it still could be unrelated, such as in the situation of a person that has COVID-19 who's killed by a shotgun blast.
So that death should not be attributed.
We just heard about that.
That was a brilliant point.
We also have, in that case, would be a false positive.
So in the very first category, we have the true positives.
And then in the second category, we have a false positive because the virus was viable but unrelated.
And then we have the virus was present but not viable.
That's another category of false positives.
And then we also have the fact that the test might have a false positive rate itself.
This is the clinical test false positive, the technical false positive rate that we're talking about.
Everybody else talking about false positives hasn't even addressed the other two categories of false positives.
So with the virus actually being absent, but the test scoring positive, those are the rates that are published by
Basile and Lee and Wernicke, and they're a stunning indictment on the use of PCR just to
detect the virus, let alone to do the clinical diagnosis and the mortuary analysis. So here we
have an example where, yeah, the person's tested, but the test was negative. And then we
have, of course, the possibility, well, the virus isn't there, but there's consequences there.
Another category that joins that test negative are people that aren't tested at
all.
There are people that die, they're given a COVID-19 test.
No, they're not given a COVID-19 test.
So we're going to call those test negatives as well.
And then this is where the presumed positives come in.
This is where Dr. Ely was referencing earlier that the test is assumed to, regardless of the test result, if they're not tested, you can go ahead and assume any respiratory illness.
That is going to turn out to be something where it's complex because in fact it could be a true positive because they weren't tested.
We don't know.
The virus could be present.
So we're going to put that back to this category where the virus is present and it can either become a true positive or still two categories of false positives.
Here we have the presumed coronavirus fatality, but the virus is actually absent, and that's going to be a false positive.
And that also plays into enhancing these false positive rates, because these, again, are just the clinical, the technical false positives of the test.
Now, if you have a negative test, either because you weren't tested or The test turned back negative.
If you don't presume, if you overrule the prescription, the mandate to presume all deaths due to COVID-19, if otherwise specified, if you have another reason like Dr. Scott Jensen estimates 25% of his cases that he's looked at that died should not be considered COVID-19 at all, Then the virus could still be present.
You could be wrong.
And then comes the question whether or not it was a causal factor or not.
And then the other category is the virus is present, but it was unrelated anyway.
And then, of course, if it's not presumed and the virus is truly absent, we have the true negatives.
What I've done here is fleshed out the entire tree of possible combinations, and you can see there's the true positive.
There's one route to two positives here, a circuitous route through the presumption pathway.
There's, I count, four Different categories of false positives, a false negative, and then two categories of true negative.
What this represents is an irreconcilable number of ways to get this wrong with CDC's algorithm.
CDC's algorithm should absolutely have invited public comment so people like me and the hundreds or thousands of other people around the country that are involved in clinical diagnostics Have developed clinical diagnostics and biomarkers.
Could point this very scenario out to the CDC way back in March and ask them, what are you thinking?
This is madness.
Look at what's going to happen to you.
You have to make sure that you have zero false positives and you can't just claim that you have zero false positives because the prevalence is low.
This is the reference I wanted to say about we need to basically replace the CDC.
Plan B, public health infrastructure and operations oversight reform for America.
The CDC is not in any way, we heard it tonight, interested in any other cause of morbidity or mortality in the United States other than pathogenic illness that they might be able to prevent the diagnosis of with a vaccine.
This is a massive, massive mistake.
on the part of the United States of America.
So I'm asking, my ask, is that every American citizen contact their congressman and their senator and say, take a look at this.
Send them this paper.
It's freely available online.
It's peer-reviewed.
Send it to your representatives and say, we really need to find out what the major causes of morbidity and mortality are in the United States and how do we reform the way we conduct ourselves in the United States of America that take all of those concerns into play.
I'm not going to go into details, but basically what we end up with is a neural network arrangement of entities scattered across the country that can't do anything but learn.
But the most important point here is that at the end, this is depoliticized.
It is distributed all across the country in a way that is decentralized.
And the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States This president pro tempore of the House is informed on what the policies are so it can never become public health.
Your public health, your wellness, your medical wellness can never again become a political commodity.
It is already a financial commodity.
But look into Plan B. That's an absolute essential reform in the United States.
And our goal To help out here, Dr. Ely is on it now.
We were not collaborating before the publication.
We are now on a committee that is overseeing this particular nucleic acid technology evaluation consortium.
We're going to outfit Dr. Singhang Li with a workflow Access to clinical resources throughout New England, access to the resources he needs to actually sequence more of the clinical samples.
There's not enough sequencing done in the United States and everyone knows it.
To do sequencing by his method, which he assures us will actually tell us what's present in the sample and not just tell us it's COVID-19 or not.
It will also tell us Based on my prompting to include primers for other pathogens so we can see if it's influenza A, B, and others as well.
Dolores Cahill also prompted this.
There are many people on the consortium.
It's at the IPAC website.
Our initial goal is $133,000 to just fund Dr. Lee.
The overall consortium is the goal is $300,000 so we can outfit him with a next generation sequencer so we can do the whole genome sequencing of pathogens as well.
And so you can find the Nucleic Acid Testing Evaluation Consortium at the IPAC website.
This is the pictures of the people who have joined on the consortium.
We're a pretty close-knit group.
I'm all business about science, and I hope to make these things a reality, and we need your help.
Wow, Dr. Jack, thank you.
And I commend you for diving so deeply into the most granular of levels with the data disaster we're revealing today, as well as providing a solution now.
So that's what's so encouraging about your work.
And of course, this event is we're going to empower you listeners with a way to contact your elected officials and disseminate this information very easily.
So stay with us.
The call to action is coming soon.
So, Dr. Ailey, you've done a lot of work in helping people understand this asymptomatic transmission, right?
And in your upcoming paper, I think it's going to be also highlighted.
What we'd love to hear from you is a little bit more about that concept, as well as safe and effective treatments that are available, but they're getting almost no mainstream coverage.
Well, Sayer, thank you so much for that, and what I want to say first and foremost is I'm very passionate, and I'm also very optimistic, and I believe that there are good people in these institutions.
I believe that there are good people at the county level, at the state level.
I've been very fortunate to talk with the head epidemiologist on an expert forum just last week about nutrition.
And he agreed with me that nutrition, that people who get the nutrition we're about to talk about
have much better outcomes and that we have to do a better job of getting that information to the people.
And so I'm openly pressing to collaborate with him.
And our intention is always to collaborate with the good people who don't have an agenda,
don't have a financial motive or a conflict of interest and so forth.
So to that end, I really commend what Dr. Martin is saying, because it's so passionate.
And what Dr. Jack is saying, because it's so just passionate.
And I think what Dr. Jack just said, that as a doctor it makes me go, this is exactly why we do, say, our confirmatory lab testing.
We don't rely just on one test as the key and only diagnostic.
We rely on viral load testing.
We rely on antibody testing.
We take a sample and we put it in a live cell culture and see if it can infect the cell and therefore prove infectivity in the person.
But in medicine, we don't rely on one test ever.
We always have confirmatory tests and that's what helps us get to what's so important, what's called the definitive diagnosis.
Now, as it pertains to nutrient deficiencies, the CDC has known via their NHANES studies
for over 20 years that 35 to 45% of Americans are deficient in vitamin A, 37 to 46% of Americans
are deficient in vitamin C, 65 to 95% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D, 60 to 84% of Americans
are deficient in vitamin E, and 11 to 15% of Americans are deficient in zinc.
It's not a coincidence that each of these nutrients I just mentioned are key biochemical
players in a well-nourished and effective immune system.
You need to have these nutrients in order for your immune system to do its job, so that if even one of these is missing, then you run the risk of an immune system that is not able to correctly deal with infections, including SARS-CoV-2.
We've culled the research there.
My team has just crushed it on this level, finding hundreds of evidence-based clinical trials specifically for COVID.
I'm going to read just a couple of them to your viewers.
Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Iodine were administered to 107 moderate to severe COVID patients.
All of them fully recovered within seven days of treatment.
And this was actually published on Dr. Jack's independent peer-reviewed journal, IPAC.
A Chinese hospital in the epicenter in Wuhan took on 50 cases of moderate to severe COVID-19 and used IV vitamin C. And what they found was that not only was there no morbidity, But that the stay in the hospital was on average three to five days shorter than the people who didn't use intravenous vitamin C therapy.
There was no mortality in the IVAA group.
There were no side effects from the IVAA group.
And there was a successful 100% management of cytokine storms.
Huge!
Vitamin D3 in another study significantly reduced ICU admission rates, as well as reduced the severity of COVID-19 disease.
Of the 50 total patients who received vitamin D3, only one was admitted to the ICU.
That makes up 2% of their study.
Of the 26 patients who were not administered vitamin D3, 13 were admitted to the ICU.
Of the 50 patients treated with vitamin D3, zero deaths occurred and all 50 patients were eventually discharged without complications.
Just a couple more.
Vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased hospitalizations and increased mortality.
Severe cases of COVID-19 were 64% more likely to be vitamin D deficient than mild cases of COVID-19.
Their conclusion, Sayer, vitamin D deficiency is associated with higher infection rates,
increased instances of sepsis, and increased mortality risk among critically ill populations.
Last one for you, Sayer, on the studies.
A total of 191,779 patients were included in this study.
Median age was 54 years, 60% of the enrolled participants were female.
The SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was higher in the 39,190 patients with deficient levels of vitamin D, that's under 20 nanograms per milliliter, than the 27,870 patients with adequate.
1,870 patients with adequate and adequate was just considered 30 to 34 nanograms there.
From a naturopathic doctor standpoint, that's still deficient.
Okay?
But when we get to over 50 nanograms per liter of vitamin D when they do a blood sample, only 5.9% of the people who had that high level of vitamin D circulating their bloodstream even contracted it.
Now here's their conclusions there.
SARS-CoV-2 positivity is strongly and inversely associated with circulating vitamin D in the bloodstream.
A relationship that persists across all latitudes, all races, all ethnicities, both sexes and age ranges.
What did I say earlier?
The SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care what the color of your skin is.
It cares about your nutrient status.
Alright?
Their final statement on this, our findings provide impetus to explore the role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease.
Now, what I want to say to that, Sarah, is my team has authored now a definitive guideline based upon evidence Based research, real science into determining what amount our seniors, adults, teens, our school-age kids, and even all the way down to one year of age need to have on a daily basis to protect themselves so that we can have a safe return to in-person education, a responsible reopening of small businesses, and a getting back on with our lives.
Because I don't know about you, Sarah, but for me, Americans don't let Americans die alone, but that's been happening.
Americans don't let American children suffer alone, but that's been happening.
Americans, at our core, we are good.
We are good people, and what's going on right now is not good.
So, to that end, Sarah, I'll answer your final question about the asymptomatic transmission and build off of what Ms.
Garner had said earlier about the Wuhan study.
There was one study done about asymptomatic transmission.
This is going to blow your mind if you're watching this at home.
It's going to blow, it blew my mind.
It was published in November in Nature Journal.
The Wuhan participant study had 9,898,828 enrolled participants.
Almost 10 million participants that they tested using the PCR.
Only 300 possible asymptomatic carrier candidates were identified.
So then they took those 300 and they said, let's put there, let's get confirmatory lab tested.
They're doing what should happen.
Of the 300 possible asymptomatic carriers, all were tested using live cell culture to determine if their PCR samples could produce replication-competent virus.
A phrase you've heard Dr. Fauci say repeatedly.
All 300 of those people that they thought were asymptomatic carriers, not one of them could produce a live cell culture, meaning that none of them were infectious.
So what that told us was that out of the 9,898,828 people tested in the largest study ever conducted
in a single year with enrolled participants, there was a 0.000000% chance of asymptomatic
transmission.
It has, to this day, never been proven.
Our fifth paper proves that.
And all of these studies that you see coming out, funded by the NIH, funded by the CDC, that are published in JAMA, they are nothing more than projection model studies with zero enrolled participants.
They are, in essence, scientific fraud.
And it's something that is absolutely disgusting and that we have to denounce as a culture so that we can get to the heart of the matter and get on with ending the suffering that our brothers and sisters are going through right now.
I can not abide by the amount of suffering that the people that we love so much are enduring.
It's been too long.
It's enough.
Let's get on with it.
That is so beautiful and so resonant.
And I, yeah, I just, I really appreciate that you communicated that to everyone listening.
It's super helpful.
So Superintendent Thielman, given what you've just heard, what's going on through your mind right now, and what are the implications of what you heard for in-person education and athletics for our children?
Yeah, there's just been a tremendous amount of information and a lot of it mirrors what we've experienced here being open as a school.
The narrative that we've been told didn't, and the data that was being posted, Didn't relate to the experience we were having in real life.
And you know, I'm a school superintendent, so I kind of give the qualitative side, not so much the quantitative side of this.
But I really want to emphasize, and I think it was Dr. Bragan also said this, and you know, Dr. Ely talking about just simple vitamins and nutrients.
I mean, these are no-brainer things that we ought to be doing.
And I just really want to highlight the why.
So, you know, Dr. Reagan talked about children need connection and love.
Children need to be in school.
And I live about 65 miles away from the place I work, and I was talking to a mother after church.
She was in tears because her son wanted to drop out of high school, and I said, well, hey, let me talk to your kid, and I'll see if he would be interested in coming out to LC, because I'm driving there anyway, and I'll just pick him up in the morning on each school day.
So, sure enough, I went and marketed the And the young man said, yeah, you know what?
Okay, I'm going to come to this little tiny school.
And within six weeks, you know, he's a new kid and totally bought in.
Every day, he's waiting at six o'clock in the morning, never been late, always on the porch, absolutely engaged in school because he had been out of school so long.
The long and short of it is sometimes we have late nights because I have late night board meetings once a month and my daughter also comes to school here and so it's usually a crowded car.
We got out about 10.30 and my daughter fell asleep and this young man fell asleep and then all of a sudden he woke up and he was talkative and he started telling me and it's hard to talk about because this is the real human side.
He started talking to me about how he was planning on Ending his, you know, doing harm to himself.
Attempting on his life.
And then this guy showed up and said, hey, come to school.
And then he just thought, well, why not?
And he said, and he talked about how his entire life has changed because he's been able to come to school in person.
And that he's got a superintendent that picks him up.
And of course, I'm listening to this.
And what do you say other than listen?
And he said, and I cannot wait.
I've never played a sport in my life and everyone wants me to play football.
Well, this young man is a very, very big, big kid.
And in a small school, he stands out and he's popular and he has friends.
And I'll tell you, I didn't sleep that night because we have a governor who up until very, very recently, and only under tremendous amounts of pressure, largely produced by people like myself, said no to sports.
And, you know, I just finally, you know, threw down with our decision makers.
They can have football or funerals.
To date in Oregon, the state of Oregon, kids zero to 19 years old, We have lost zero kids, age zero to 19, to COVID.
But all of the schools are closed, at least the vast majority.
Kids have been isolated and they're doing harm to themselves.
And it's not just the ones that end their lives, it's the ones that cut, it's the ones that are succumbed to anxiety and depression, who withdraw, who get engaged in things that are okay because they're on the computer all day.
These are the qualitative aspects of some of the other things that some of the other speakers have done a better job of quantizing.
And that's what I want to leave the audience with.
Why should we push forward and investigate this?
That's why.
We're talking about the next generation of kids that we are failing and we will continue to fail if we don't bring this out into the light and we don't make a course correction.
Very, very quickly.
Thank you so much for that.
So, Dr. Bregan, you're our final panelist for this roundtable.
You know, at the risk of asking an obvious question, why is it so important for children to be back in school immediately and without undue restriction?
And what can we expect throughout society if this questionable emergency continues on for much longer?
Well, I'd like to make a few summary remarks, since I'm the last person as well, briefly.
And I want to start out by thanking Stanford Health Freedom.
I mean, this is amazing what you've done.
It's just marvelous.
We haven't seen Leah Wilson here on the film anywhere, so I want to just give her a shout out and say thanks for having me here, along with all these other distinguished guests.
About our children, we're probably setting them way back.
It's a potential catastrophe.
We're teaching them to be afraid of each other.
We're teaching them to be afraid of their government.
We're teaching them that nobody cares enough about them to risk getting COVID-19 to teach them.
We're bringing them up in a paranoid world.
We're going to make them more scared.
None of this is taken into account by the public health people.
Zero.
You just don't find any discussions.
I haven't in public health literature.
Certainly in the medical literature, I haven't found any.
I'm a physician.
I haven't found any.
We need to open the schools up.
We don't have a medical crisis.
We have a politically induced, with the excuse of COVID-19, social crisis and political crisis.
One of the things that has not been mentioned enough, I think, is that America is in a state of political crisis.
We have been cowed.
Our children have been cowed.
I was reading an article, a letter by a fellow physician, and she was describing sitting in her office and seeing a line of 5 years old, 4 years old, 3 years old, that would have ordinarily been holding hands, and they had their hands behind their backs, and their heads were bent, and they had masks on their faces, and they weren't relating to anybody, And it brought to her mind and mine images of the gulag.
This is what we're preparing our children for.
We are preparing them not to be citizens of a robust democratic republic, but to be citizens of global predators, a bizarre kind of global governance that's going on right now, outside the hands even of the governments.
So, that's enough to say about the kids.
I want to say that we need all the approaches we can have to looking at this.
I'm not concerned about somebody saying I'm giving a conspiracy theory.
I'm not interested anymore in people when they're saying that.
We need to take an overview look at what the heck's going on.
And then we need to take the scientific look.
I mean, I started out being given this giant task.
I guess what most people are seeing is my little affidavit, but, you know, write this paper for the legal case.
And it started out with, oh yeah, the effects on the children.
And then I looked at Fauci.
We've talked about Fauci.
I've been studying Fauci.
But Fauci leads to China.
Directly to China.
And we need to be able to listen to that.
Because America is in a war with another country.
We haven't declared it.
They declared it decades ago.
They have a policy of undermining America, getting their scientists into all of our laboratories, into all of our schools.
And they are the ones that released, whether accidentally or not, COVID-19.
They then spread it around the world with all their might.
With the cooperation of all the major medical journals, nobody holding their feet to the fire.
The World Health Organization, nobody saying, why did you shut down travel in China and send your airplanes out?
For weeks spreading the virus.
So we're looking at something large.
It's not really as vague as I may be sounding.
It's economic.
It's political.
And I think we just need to be seriously looking at every level now because this is, I think America's in as much danger as prior to the Civil War and prior to the Revolutionary War right now.
We really need to take it seriously.
I'll give you a couple of examples of the stuff that I've been working on, writing about.
A study is created in Brazil where people are given hydroxychloroquine in multiples of the toxic dose for older people and for sick people.
It's put up online.
And in one day, it's covered in the New York Times as, don't take hydroxy, it kills people.
On one more day, it's put up online by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
And on and on from there.
Lancet has done the same thing.
New England Journal of Medicine has done the same thing.
Who is doing the same thing?
All of our major agencies, the CDC, it's acting like it's got medical jurisdiction, telling us how we're supposed to be treated.
The FDA has way overstepped its legal bounds.
NIH tells us that we can't treat people with COVID-19.
I can't.
I'm a doctor.
I can treat a person if I wanted to.
I'm a psychiatrist.
When one of my family members got sick, I had to put them in charge with the frontline doctors.
Again, it's important to know about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
And in one day, she and her partner were well in the middle of a severe beginning of this case of COVID-19, and she had many, many vulnerabilities.
She wasn't that young.
So, and a lot of it involves things that Dr. Earley was talking about, the physicians, because, you know, we have to give drugs, you know that, and I'm very sympathetic to your viewpoint, because everything you're talking about is pretty much what they're combining with the Medications they're using.
So who knows what it is?
We got to study all this.
We need everybody working on these issues from every branch of medicine.
So I want to just leave you that we're really looking at something that is so much bigger than COVID-19.
We are looking at the death of freedom in science, the death of freedom in our chat rooms and in our Twitter and then on YouTube, all these companies and all these companies want to continue COVID-19.
They'll take anybody down they feel like it who's got a good idea about it, literally.
So this thing's being kept up, it's being upheld by a huge number of collaborating, roughly collaborating agents around the world.
Including almost every billionaire that I could check out and all the big companies.
So I want to leave you with the overview and thank you so much for giving us all a voice here.
And one last message.
I'm 84 years old.
I'm going on 85.
By the way, my mind seems to be gotten a little better.
I think because I just keep having a happier and happier marriage for 35 years.
My mind keeps getting better and better under my wife's influence.
And with Stand for Health Freedom, we created elders who don't want the schools closed, elders who don't want the restaurants closed.
So my message, my final message now as an elder, And I signed this petition first, and then my wife, Ginger, signed it.
She's 79.
I'm 84.
Going on five.
She's 79.
And then her mom, Elizabeth, signed it.
She's 94.
And then we have thousands of people.
And this is all because of... Health.
Stand for health.
Freedom.
And I want to say, even if it killed me, I wouldn't want this being done to our children.
And that's what we say.
And it isn't going to kill me.
Probably going to be something else.
Something else.
Actually, we think we had it.
We had the loss of taste and smell and the cough and everything way back in January.
I have Chinese friends and Chinese community in Cornell.
I'm not at Cornell.
They'll have a heart attack if I imply that.
So, we elders want you all to go free, and then we'll take care of ourselves, because we're the only vulnerable people, and we may be hardly vulnerable at all, because as you heard today, the whole medical establishment is a pack of liars right now.
Live.
Live.
That's my concluding remark.
Live!
That's a great way to conclude, Dr. Bregan.
Thank you.
Before we close the panel off and also close with final remarks as well as the call to action, Dr. Ely would like to make one last comment here, so feel free.
Dr. Ely will be on here in a minute.
I want to acknowledge that each of you... Okay, are you here?
Yeah, I'm here.
I was talking.
Sorry, I didn't hear you.
Yeah, it was my fault.
That's as bad as my having my snack of mixed nuts in the middle of the show.
Dr. Bregan, we're cut from the same cloth.
It was just user error, buddy.
So, what I wanted to say first and foremost, there, was thank you so much for doing this.
And I wanted to say, on behalf of all the panelists, and to all the panelists, thank you.
for coming up.
It shouldn't be an act of bravery to speak truth, but for whatever reason, it is.
And Sayer, you, your team, have been amazing.
I just want to say one final thought out to anybody watching this, and I mean this, and this might come out as a little kitschy or whatever.
I don't care, all right?
Like what Dr. Bregan just said, we're at a moment where we need some kitschy stuff.
But I encourage all of my black brothers and sisters, all of my Anglo warrior mamas and papas, mi hermanos y hermanas, mi kupuna kanes and kupuna wahines, as well as my Asian uncles, Arabic aunties, and Hebrew cousins, to join us in taking action.
We can't sit on the sidelines on this one.
Please do what Sayre asks you to do after this.
Join us in calling for formal investigations into the CDC's conduct.
We've all been through so much and we deserve to know the truth.
That's what Dr. Martin is advocating for.
That's what Dr. Jack is advocating for.
That's what me and my team are advocating for.
And I just want to say, it's our time to call in our ancestors and say, in the words of the great First Nations peoples, Aho Mitakwe Oyasin, which means for all of our relations.
That's our call to action and our call to service.
It's not about skin tone.
It's not about your culture.
It's not about who you voted for.
It's not about your religion and where you worship.
It's about our children and our humanity.
That's what it's about.
That's why we're doing this.
Beautiful.
Thank you so much.
And thank you so much, panelists.
I just want to acknowledge that every single person that came here tonight to share their experience, knowledge, and what they've already been doing on our behalf is contributing profoundly to humanity.
And I have so much respect and admiration for each and every one of you.
And I think by showing up in this way, we are inspiring so many of you now who are also taking the time and interest to really learn about The facts of how we ended up in this situation, we have presently experienced around the world the suspension of fundamental civil liberties, basic human rights, economic destruction that has wrought
Far more damage than any specific virus could be capable of.
And so what we're asking people to do is to join us and be part of really taking back control of our destinies on a very basic level.
And what we have, thankfully, is the Stanford Health Freedom Advocacy Platform.
All you have to do is go down below, if you're watching from Stand for Health Freedom, if you're on YouTube, there'll be a link to this page, and you can go to the Take Action tab, then scroll down to our new CDC campaign.
This is a very effective way to send a direct message.
Stand for Health Freedom exists so that there are no barriers to entry, so that anyone can contact their elected officials and go ahead and make a A clear statement that you stand for everything that we've discussed here today as far as transparency as far as affirming informed consent parental rights and again very basic human rights are at stake in this situation.
After you click on it, on the tab take action, it takes a click of a button to send a pre-drafted customizable email to key congressmen and women asking for formal hearing and investigation into the CDC's conduct during COVID-19, specifically on the lawfulness of changing death certificates.
Once you act on campaign, please share this video and the call to action link with at least three people.
This network effect will literally grow this into a movement that will affect change at a very high and significant level.
It's all of us coming together.
Taking action together and standing together that makes a difference.
So once again, thank you so much panelists.
Thank you everyone that's here.
Let's spread this far and wide together.
We are going to make a beautiful difference in the world.
▲
Export Selection