All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 29, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
58:18
Expert Panel Testimony on Harm to Children from the mRNA Injections - Dec 18, 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
For this presentation, we have a nurse, Laura Demare, that's a nurse in Idaho and Oregon and the scientific team of subject matter specialists.
And we're not here to frighten, confront, or embarrass anybody about the COVID vaccine.
But we do oppose it on any level for the children of the United States without parental consent.
So with that, I'll introduce Laura Demaray.
Please present.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
My name is Laura DeMarais from Idaho.
My words are my own opinion and not any organization or place of work.
Thank you so much for having us here today to contend for life, our health, our children, our military members, our cellular integrity, and no less than the future of humanity.
VAERS is the only public accessible conduit to us public.
The healthcare professionals are 85% of the individuals that fill out VAERS. The CDC U.S. VAERS show over 18,000 U.S. deaths including 188 children from this shot.
Over 18,000 permanently disabled victims, including 615 children.
My colleagues are subject matter experts that will demonstrate very respectfully to you today that the genetic shots do not prevent COVID, its transmission, nor hospitalization, nor death, but instead is distributed by LMPs throughout the entire body.
It can uptake in the human genome, be passed on to your children, promotes and increases cancer chances, and they'll explain how.
It sheds.
It can cause miscarriages and autoimmune and neurological disorders, strokes, heart attacks, and cardiovascular devastation.
The more you take, the more immunocompromised you are.
No study shows when the spike protein is done being produced.
I hope to encourage you today that as lesser magistrates, elected or appointed officials like you, have the authority and the duty to stand in the gap, to interpose and to protect person, liberty and property of the citizens in your jurisdiction.
When the higher authorities of the land fail to do so, it is your historical and biblical precedence, God-given authority, really, that directs the lesser magistrates.
You can mitigate, oppose, resist, unlawful, unjust, harmful, or evil laws or policy.
Not one agency wants to own this toxic shot.
Not one.
In Southwest District Health, they voted to defund the COVID shot and its promotion.
People can still go get it if they want to.
They have not been crushed.
No one is owning it, and no one is saying, please take it, except just a few media outlets.
It falls on each of us to hold the line for humanity, for our families and our communities.
I'm going to introduce my first provider.
He is in clinic right now, so I'm going to have Dr. Milhone.
He's a pediatric cardiologist, world-renowned, and a pastor at that.
Dr. Milhone, are you there, sir?
You have the floor.
Yes, ma'am.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
We can hear you.
You have the floor.
Thank you so much for making time today.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
Well, just for a point of information, I've been a board-certified pediatrician for over 25 years, and I have been a board-certified pediatric cardiologist for 23 years.
My PhD is in cardiovascular inflammation, and so I've been watching and been Very concerned of what the current vaccine product is for COVID-19.
So in a healthy population, especially of children, the risk of COVID is profoundly low, and everyone agrees on that, even the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Therefore, the risk is so low that any preventive measure must have very low risk and be effective in decreasing infection.
What we've seen from the Cleveland Clinic study that showed, that studied 52,000 employees who knew all about how to take protective measures, that their lowest risk of getting reinfected with COVID was those who were unvaccinated.
And for each additional vaccine you got, one was more than the unvaccinated.
Two was, if someone had two vaccines, they were at higher risk than those who had one vaccine.
It went all the way up to those who had greater than four.
So we saw a negative efficacy, that is, you got more vaccines and more boosters, you're actually risk of getting COVID infection was increasing.
Then when we looked at JAMA cardiology and they're looking at the risk of myocarditis in children following the vaccine in four Nordic countries, they looked at 23 million children and they found that the lowest risk for myocarditis was in the unvaccinated, with an increasing risk with more vaccine doses.
So one Pfizer showed increase more over the unvaccinated, two Pfizer was worse than one Pfizer, and Moderna was worse than Pfizer.
Then when we looked at the UK data that just recently came out, they showed that really the unvaccinated, we're not seeing any myocarditis in the unvaccinated from COVID-19 infection.
It's solely in those who have been vaccinated.
Then the reason is, is because the spike protein has been shown to be cardiotoxic.
This is going down the exact pathway that I did my PhD research on over 25 years ago.
And then if you look at the recent Journal of American Cardiology paper, they demonstrated that free spike protein in the plasma, and so the spike protein is the product that they're using in the vaccine to initiate an immune response, but free spike protein in the plasma So we have a very clear line of cause of the myocarditis.
And it is many factors, but we have one exactly through the cardiotoxicity of the spike protein.
If you look at the Lancet study that showed and looked at those who had gotten vaccine-induced myocarditis, and they looked at all the different studies you could do, evaluation studies from EKG to stress test to echocardiogram to troponin levels, and then they looked at cardiac MRIs 90 days after they had been diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis.
It showed that 50% still had positive cardiac MRI findings of late gadolinium enhancement, which is associated with sudden cardiac death.
All the other aspects, echo, EKG, Holter, all these other things that we routinely use to assess risk, even stress tests, all were decreased and approaching normal levels.
So a recent study from Dr. Taylor's lab in Australia showed that cardiac MRI is necessary to assess vaccine-induced myocarditis.
And 30% still had late gadolinium enhancement on their cardiac MRI, which is the sign that there's increased risk for certain cardiac death.
And all of us have known that we have seen much more sudden cardiac death, especially in the teenage and the young adult populations.
It's been something we've never seen before.
And what they further found was that without cardiac MRI, a third of the patients were classified as probable rather than definite myocarditis.
What is difficult in a clinic setting for me is that often the insurance companies are pushing back against cardiac MRIs because they're so expensive.
But I will tell you that what I'm seeing on a daily basis in my pediatric cardiology clinic is not only the issues of remaining myocarditis, but it's this continual issue of arrhythmias and the irregular heartbeats.
That at one clinic I had nine out of my 11 patients all came with these abnormal heart rates that are really upsetting their normal way of life.
So as a pediatrician, as a pediatric cardiologist who's still seeing patients regularly, I am here to say that we cannot mandate harm in any way.
And this vaccine product is harmful to children.
And so I encourage you to stand up and please stop the use of this vaccine that has really no benefit and only harm to our children.
I thank you very much for the time to be able to share my thoughts.
Thank you very much.
So, Laura, I'd just like to thank you for your service to our country.
You were in the Air Force, correct?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Now, Dr. Milhone will not be able to be with us the whole time.
If you had a question for Dr. Milhone, I would say maybe just go ahead, but our whole team will be able to answer pretty much any question you may have, too, at the end.
Does anyone have anything for Dr. Milhone?
My question is just a little bit generic.
With everybody agreeing that, especially in children, that there is no value of having the vaccine.
Why have they, and who knows who they are, said that we need to have our young, young children vaccinated?
I don't understand.
No study that I am aware of in any form or from any institution that says that there is any help whatsoever with children being vaccinated.
Why are they pushing that so hard?
Well, I'm not sure, but there was a FOIA request that was granted, and there was a communication between Dr. Offit, who is a very well-known vaccine advocate out of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, asking that same question to Dr. Fauci, to which Dr. Fauci said, well, we can't confuse the populace.
We know that these children are at very little risk, but we want to have one message for all.
So I think actually some of the vaccine proponents throughout the country brought that question up to Dr. Fauci and he said we just were going to say one for all rather than being subtle like we've always done.
In pediatrics we've always said certain kids need vaccines, certain kids don't.
We've done that throughout my career.
Not everybody got the RSV vaccine, right?
You look at specific things, not everybody gets a rabies vaccine.
But I think the FOIA request that was granted and showed the communication between doctor and Offit and doctor gives the answer to that question.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Dr. Milhoun.
God bless you, and thanks for taking care of all our babies.
So we only have 45 minutes.
If there's anybody that's in the audience that would like a question, please write it down.
We'll give it to Laura, and she will reach out and respond to you.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we'll try to finish a little early so we can get some of those questions too.
Okay, Dr. Christina Parks, who is a molecular biologist for decades now, and Dr. Christina Parks, you have the floor.
Dr. Parks, I have also given them your bio as well, so the commissioners can read your full bio as well, just so you know.
Okay.
Am I able to be seen and heard appropriately?
Absolutely, Dr. Parks.
Okay.
I'm going to try sharing my screen.
We'll see how that goes.
But I do have a PhD in cellular and molecular biology, so I'm very familiar with these gene therapy platforms.
I do want to partly answer the question.
I think Sasha can also answer it.
In terms of the children mandates, once a vaccine is on the childhood schedule, there is no longer any liability.
Now remember, these were under an EUA, so they were an emergency youth authorization.
They were not FDA approved.
Once the vaccines were they to get FDA approval, then they would have a much more stringent guideline for giving them out.
One way to ensure that they still did not have any liability is to get it on the childhood schedule.
So adult vaccines, they have liability for it.
Anything that's approved for the childhood schedule, there's no liability.
So I believe there was a strategy to move these from The EUA onto the childhood schedule and never have any gap of liability protection.
So that explains why this has been moved to the childhood schedule.
One potential explanation.
So I'm going to attempt to share my screen.
We'll see if this works.
If not, I will go without it.
Let's see.
Okay, so let me bring this up and Can you guys see my screen?
Yes.
Okay, perfect.
So I want to start then with this paper, who Anthony Fauci is an author on.
And in this paper, basically, they're saying that you can't really create an effective vaccine for a respiratory virus, okay?
And so here's two quotes from this paper.
Surprisingly, little has changed with influenza vaccines since 1957 when they were first administered in U.S. national vaccination programs.
Over the years, influenza vaccines have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains, which means ones that don't mutate.
However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of the influenza vaccines have become apparent.
The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics.
They elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.
So this paper goes to make the point over and over again that because these vaccines do not elicit mucosal immunity so that when you see the virus again it destroys it, they really are not able to prevent transmission.
There's a small effect on transmission in the first couple, maybe two months, and after that there's no protective immunity.
So it begs the question, why is this being used as a public health measure when it's really a therapeutic?
So maybe for some people it was able to prevent viral replication in the lungs, but not in the nose and throat.
We don't, like, mandate that people go get cancer treatments, so why are we mandating a therapeutic?
So this is a therapeutic, not something that prevents transmission.
One of the most effective things at preventing transmission is actually just rinsing your nose and throat with something that, you know, has low amounts of hydrogen peroxide or low amounts of iodine.
And some nasal sprays have been developed with carrageenan and iodine that are actually been shown clinically to be very effective at preventive immunity.
So instead, we're spending billions of dollars on something we think a vaccine prevents transmission.
Many do not.
This is the Cleveland Clinic study that Dr. Milhone was talking about.
And what it shows is here's the unvaccinated.
As you go up, this is how likely you are to get COVID. So the unvaccinated least likely, and these are people who have had COVID, least likely to get COVID again.
And then with each dose of vaccine, red, green, blue, pink, Your chance of getting COVID increases because we know this type of vaccine mistrains the immune system.
One thing that's really important is, you know, as per that paper, Tony Fauci and those at the top knew this.
So this is why we're here because they absolutely knew that this vaccine would not prevent transmission at the very beginning.
They knew that hydroxychloroquine would.
So we have so many moneyed interests driving the policy decisions.
That's why it's absolutely critical for our local boards to take back the power and say, we're not just going to do whatever you tell us, which is based on who's getting the most money from what.
We're actually going to take effective measures to deal with public health.
And the thing is, many of these public health measures that can be taken are actually low tech and they don't require a whole lot like nasal rinses.
So when we are also launching a new technology or a vaccine, there's a need for informed consent.
Our healthcare professionals were not able to evaluate this new technology.
It's very, very complicated.
And so they were not allowing patients, you know, we were having mandates anyway, to have informed consent.
So I want to take a moment and explain why this gene therapy technology is so different than a traditional vaccine.
In a traditional vaccine, you would inject a small amount of viral protein antigen, and it would be degraded in a matter of hours or maybe a day or two, and it would elicit immune response that would either have a therapeutic or in some cases it would prevent transmission.
That's more likely a live viral vaccine.
But in the case of a subunit vaccine, The antigen, in this case let's say the spike protein, would never be inside the cell and it would be broken down.
This is gene therapy.
And so what we're doing is turning cells into a manufacturing plant, a foreign toxic protein.
So the cells are making this spike protein.
It's in the nucleus of the cells, binding to tumor suppressors.
It's in the cytoplasm of the cells.
It's outside of the cells, telling the immune system, hey, I'm infected, please destroy me.
And it's transported all around the body where it's having a hyper-inflammatory response.
So the body will attack cells.
Making a viral protein.
The nanolipid particles target this to really fatty tissues.
The heart is surrounded by fat.
The ovaries are fatty.
The adrenals are fatty.
The bone marrow that has your stem cells are fatty.
And that is where we are seeing those vaccine nanolipid particles go.
And so those tissues are more likely then to be making the hyperinflammatory spike protein And to have their own immune system attack those tissues and in fact that's what we are seeing in terms of myocarditis and some of these other problems.
This is not a surprise and so this is what is so frustrating because taking a gene therapy, a failed gene therapy technology and repurposing it for vaccines is really a very bad idea because The goals of gene therapy are to get the target genetic material which is coding for the toxic viral foreign spike protein into as many cells of interest as possible.
So you're trying to make as many cells of the body as you can making a toxic viral protein.
The mRNA It needs to be expressed for as long as possible for this gene transfer or gene therapy technology.
So it's stabilized.
So it's actually synthetic and it's not treated the same way normal mRNA is.
It's not broken down.
It lasts for weeks, probably months.
And you're trying to get as much of the target protein expressed for as long as possible.
If this were a therapeutic protein, you would see why that is, because you want to have function.
When it's a highly inflammatory toxic foreign viral protein, you can see where that's a really bad idea.
And so, as a molecular biologist, we're thinking, whoever developed this, like, what were they thinking?
This is not a good idea.
None of these are necessary for the efficacy of a vaccine.
So, the spike protein is highly inflammatory.
Your cells or your immune system is going to attack the cells making it.
Chronic production of the spike protein is causing chronic immune activation, which is going to dysregulate the immune system, create hyperinflammation in the body, and drive autoimmunity and drive diseases like cancer.
Runaway inflammation is a major driver of almost every disease, and so we're going to see a huge amount of autoimmune disease, a huge amount of cancer.
So, to sum up, genetic vaccine technology causes the body to attack itself because the cells in the body are making a viral foreign protein.
So this technology is not safe for general use.
The people in charge have been driven by the money instead of actual policy that protects the public, which would, again, this is a therapeutic.
It's not a vaccine in terms of its ability to prevent transmission.
They knew at the outset it would not prevent transmission.
What does prevent transmission?
Something as simple as a nasal rinse or a nasal spray.
Hydroxychloroquine clinical trials and ivermectin clinical trials have both demonstrated that these repurposed drugs who have decades of information behind them actually are able to prevent transmission, and that's what our public health agencies need to be focusing on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Dr. Parks.
If you can stay to the end for questions, if we end up with time, we might be tight, but thank you.
Okay, so I'm still having some people get online here.
Sasha Latipova, she's going to show a perspective of how did this happen, who owns this, and it's quite a web.
Sasha Latipova, you have the floor.
Hi, my name is Sasha Lotipova.
My background is in pharmaceutical research and development.
I spent over 20 years working in clinical trials, interacting with FDA on behalf of my clients, also as part of FDA regulatory approval of new drugs.
I did not work in biologics and that's why I was greatly surprised in a very bad way when I started looking into this area.
And let me try to share One or two slides, really.
Okay, I'm not really familiar with this.
This is my PowerPoint.
You have to go all the way over to where it says share entire screen.
Oh, entire screen, okay.
Yeah, and then click on it where it says entire screen and then share.
It was a little bit...
All right, can you see this?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, so this is a page.
It will be better if you can do it in display mode.
It will make it bigger.
Like this?
Yep.
Okay, so this is a page from FDA legal counsel as part of legal preparedness, which preceded by several years the pandemic.
And this is part of pandemic preparedness efforts.
So while they were planning this event, they were also planning how they're going to defend themselves and how they're going to provide immunity from all liability to all participants of this exercise.
As you can see, this is the regulatory pathway or summary of the process by which EUA countermeasures, which is the legal classification of the COVID shots today on the market, and also in addition to COVID shots, any COVID product or any COVID protocol are all classified as EUA countermeasures.
And this is the entire process by which EUA countermeasures go on the market.
First, in the first layer, you can see that DOD secretary or DHS secretary or HHS secretary can issue a public health emergency declaration or some other emergency declaration.
As you know, for COVID, the HHS secretary, in addition to the president, issued a public health emergency declaration and specific declarations for COVID. That declaration was extended now 12 times.
About a week ago, Javier Becerra issued yet another extension of the COVID pandemic emergency declaration, which is now in place until end of 2029, December 31st, 2029. It's ridiculous on its face, but the reason they're issuing this is this.
Because this is critical for these products to be on the market.
There is no other way for them to be on the market and offer liability immunity for everyone involved.
Because after the HHS Secretary issues the declaration, which is, by the way, he has single-handedly authority to do, based on his own opinion, Nothing else is required for that opinion to exist.
He simply writes a memo saying, I believe that there is a viral pandemic in the United States or a potential for viral pandemic in the United States.
And that's how these declarations have been reissued over and over and over again.
After he does that, he asks FDA Commissioner to issue EUA authorizations for whichever products they feel necessary.
And FDA Commissioner can consult with CDC NIH or SPR agency And then they issue these EUAs.
And notice one thing on this graph.
So FDA can issue them, FDA can terminate them, but there is no requirement for clinical trial data for the EUA issuance whatsoever.
It does not have to exist.
In fact, the United States law is explicit that no clinical trial data is necessary to issue an EUA countermeasure declaration.
It's also legally not possible to So let me go here.
It's also legally not possible to even conduct a proper clinical trial as a human protected clinical...
I believe she's trying to forward her screen and it's not forwarding.
We're still on the original screen.
Are you still on the original?
Okay, sorry.
Sorry.
Are you trying to move screens?
Okay, did I stop sharing?
You did.
Stop sharing now.
Okay, let me share this other page.
It's a little strange.
Okay, can you see this?
Yes, thank you.
That's the next one.
Okay.
Yeah, that's the next one.
So, I'm going to speak a little bit about the EUA countermeasures law, and you can look it up in U.S. code.
So, as we've known, COVID-19 injections reach the market as EUA countermeasures.
EUA countermeasures status, you can find it in two places.
Here's, I'm quoting one, 21 U.S.C. 360 BBB. Which describes EUA countermeasures.
Also in the US Food and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Chapter 564 also deals with EUA countermeasures and their equivalent.
It's the same thing.
And when you read it in detail, you will realize a couple of things.
By their legal status as non-investigational product, EUA countermeasures obviate informed consent.
Because informed consent is part of a legally Conducted human clinical experiment investigation.
And if you're using a by statute non-investigational product or device, you cannot conduct legal investigation.
So, informed consent is obviated.
They're not subject to the FDA evidentiary standards for safety and efficacy because they're issued based on opinion of a single person.
And the only criterion on which they're issued on the market is this, may be effective opinion in a declaration that circumstances justify it.
From HHS Secretary himself.
Nobody else needs to be involved.
He can consult whoever he wants to consult, but this is how the law is written.
This is the only thing that's required.
Then, therefore, these products cannot meet the legal standards of properly regulated pharmaceutical products or biologics.
They are also, FDA states that they're legally distinct, and by legally distinct, they have a kind of a fuzzy language around it, but what it really means is they're legally distinct from a real FDA-approved medical product.
And absence of enforceable consumer safeguards In relation to these products makes them potential poisons because an unregulated drug or drug that's not non-compliant with FDA rules for safety and efficacy, which are part of the US law, is deemed de facto poison.
And actually, that's why Poison Control Center would have a lot of information about drug poisonings, which are when drugs are used improperly.
And so that's another case of it.
So we should treat it as poison.
And there is no mechanism currently to rectify this harm because they remain in circulation and they have not been removed.
So while this law needs to be dealt with and needs to be, frankly, my opinion, it needs to be nullified because it enables poisons to reach consumers.
We're thinking that they're properly regulated pharmaceuticals.
But in the meantime, I think the local authorities can also take measures such as, for example, distributing dear doctor letters, educating the public.
So you can have this product still remaining on the shelves as federally owned and distributed, but you can take measures as to educating the local public, educating the local health care providers, and eventually this will fall and eventually the liability will start kicking in.
And, you know, I know about the current discussions, what's going on with this law, and it's very likely that first people who will have liability are providers and administrators of these shots, and they need to be aware of this.
So, at this point, I'm...
Well, actually, one more thing I wanted to tell you about this, so let me stop sharing, is in the contract for For the vaccines signed by Moderna,
Pfizer, Immersion Biosolutions, AstraZeneca, many other companies with the Department of Defense, there is a clause that says that if there is no current PrEP Act declaration for this particular indication such as COVID, then whatever we, pharmaceutical companies, have already shipped to the US government under this contract is not for human use.
So they know that the only way they can maintain this is by these bad laws, illegal frameworks remaining in place.
And they know that what they're shipping is not for human use.
And so as local authorities, I encourage you to find ways to educate your public about the dangers of these shots.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Sasha.
Next, Dr. Thorpe, can you hear us?
And you have the floor.
Yes, I can hear you.
Thank you very much.
I very much appreciate the Franklin County Washington commissioners.
going to share my screen.
You have to go all the way over to a share entire screen.
Okay, you got it.
Got it.
Can you see my screen?
Yes, sir.
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
The CDC and FDA's VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is verifiable and very useful as a monitoring technique and has been so since 1986 under government law.
Despite efforts of disinformation to vilify the database, it is useful Miscarriage and stillbirth rates are increased by the COVID-19 vaccines.
This is irrefutable by six different studies, including a myriad of other complications.
This includes Pfizer's own data.
This includes the New England Journal of Medicine study.
And this includes three separate studies at various time periods of the government's own database.
Pictured here is Pfizer's 5.3.6.
This is their postmarking data.
There was an 81% miscarriage rate.
There was a five-fold increase in fetal death or stillbirth rate.
There was almost eight-fold increase in neonatal death rates and a 13% increase association Breastfeeding complications in the newborns.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ABOG, and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine have all received massive amounts of money from Department of Health and Human Services entering into a quid pro quo agreement.
Receiving these massive amounts of money if they abided by the narrative of the HHS regarding COVID-19.
This resulted in September of 2021 threatening 60,000 OBGYNs.
I was one of them.
If you deviate from the narrative, we will destroy you and take away your state licenses and your accreditations.
This is not speculation, ladies and gentlemen.
This was proven by my research team in a Freedom of Information Act request.
This, as they Separately, guardedly targeted me and threatened me with removal of my state licenses and my board certifications.
I've been honored by these organizations my entire career.
This was how I responded.
I sent them a 98-page letter in January of 2022 that is open to the world.
It's an open publication.
This is just part of that 98-page letter showing the vast increase in pregnancy loss in just 10 months of the vaccine, according to the government's data.
Also in this publication, just 12 months after the COVID-19 vaccines were started, I listed 1,019 peer-reviewed publications documenting death and injury after the COVID-19 vaccines.
I'm still practicing today.
I'm still board certified.
They went dead silent after those threats.
The New England Journal of Medicine itself indicted itself with their publication in April 21st, 2021. They documented, they advertised a 12.6% miscarriage rate.
It was not 12.6%.
This was a ghost written article and they had received large amounts of money from the HHS to publish this.
The miscarriage rate was 82% on par with the abortion pill, RU486. See for yourself, ladies and gentlemen, this is right out of the abstract.
Any 10th grader can do the math.
The miscarriage rate was 82%, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the second peer reviewed medical journal publication by these groups of authors after 18 months of the vaccine, looking at 17 adverse events associated with pregnancy.
Every single one of these adverse events, the COVID-19 vaccine's safety signal was vastly breached.
This is a phase two, phase three trial.
This is Pfizer's own trial, randomized to pregnant women to vaccine versus placebo.
Look at the eight outcomes, ladies and gentlemen.
This has been buried.
Nobody has discussed this.
These are disastrous outcomes in newborns from a randomized phase 2-3 Pfizer trial.
This is a third study published by these groups of authors this last summer, demonstrating 40 months of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy in the government's database.
The authors looked at 37 adverse events, ladies and gentlemen, every 37 event, 27 before birth and 10 after birth, Far exceeded the government, CDC and FDA's own safety signals.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the sister article, separate publication this summer, outlining the bribe, the collusion of money flow from the Department of Health and Human Services to the New England Journal of Medicine to publish This.
It also documents the CDC and the FDA's attempts to hide the disasters, the danger, the catastrophic outcomes, not just in pregnant women, but in their entire database.
This is not speculation.
This is proven.
This is published.
This is the government flow of bribe money from the Department of Health and Human Services through the Massachusetts Department of Health to the Massachusetts Medical Society that owns the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been going on for decades, but this is a culmination of the ultimate exposure of corruption of the pharmaceutical, medical journal, hospital, and healthcare complex.
In the same publication of the New England Journal of Medicine, April 21st, 2021, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, yes, Eric Rubin and the managing editor,
Stephen Morrissey and Rochelle Walensky threatened pregnant women that if they didn't take the vaccine, they would die or their babies would die before or after birth when they knew the exact opposite were true.
Pregnancy inferred a significant protection and the pregnancy was associated with a 75% reduction in maternal mortality compared to non-pregnant women.
Ladies and gentlemen, this product, this genetic product is not safe.
This is not a safe product for human use and it must be taken off the market immediately.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Dr. Thorpe.
We're still waiting for Dr. Cole to get home.
His flight was late, so if we're able to fit him in, fantastic.
But I do have Dr. Moon, a pediatrician, for a short comment as well.
Dr. Moon, are you there?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am.
You have the floor.
Yeah, thank you to all the commissioners and to the audience for inviting us to speak today.
I'm Dr. Ranney Moon.
I've practiced pediatric medicine for over 25 years.
19 years of that I have practiced in the state of Washington with a clean record of patient care.
I'm board certified as a general pediatrician and also as a pediatric hospital physician.
I've not had any lawsuits against me or any actions against me, except for one, and I'll tell you about that at the end of this presentation.
I think my words today are very clearly my own.
I'm not here representing any entity, any employer, past or present.
I think we would clearly all agree that any product we give to a child has to be safe, right?
It has to be safe, especially when we have a situation like this one where our children thankfully were spared from COVID infections.
We can all agree, the data shows very clearly that they had a statistical zero risk of a fatality from COVID. From the infection itself.
Now, it wasn't a perfect zero, but it was a statistical zero.
So let's look at the numbers in Washington State.
These are all from the Washington State Department of Health data.
We have approximately 1.8 million children in Washington State.
How many fatalities do we have each year?
On average, we have all-cause mortality in children averaging around 720 children per year.
That's from everything.
Accidents, poisonings, everything.
How many flu fatalities do we have each year?
Anywhere from zero to six children die of the flu.
So of those 720 fatalities, zero to six of those children die from the flu.
How many fatalities do we have from COVID infections?
It's right around six.
The number that was cited in the most recent document from February 15, 2024, Washington State Department of Health says 6.5 fatalities from COVID per year in 2022 and 2023. I wish we had a product that could stop those fatalities.
Any pediatric fatality is tragic, but we do not have that product with this mRNA shot.
We have a dangerous product, as you've heard The speakers prior to me discuss.
But let's move on and say very clearly that we have had no emergency with COVID in children.
Again, there was no emergency for our kids with COVID. We weren't seeing them admitted in huge numbers.
We just weren't seeing what they had told parents that we were seeing.
The fear-mongering was intense.
Were children hospitalized with COVID? Of course they were, just like they're hospitalized with other viruses during the year.
But look at the fatality numbers.
We have a product that we know, this COVID shot, we know has caused harm.
That's documented.
And this COVID shot has caused fatalities.
We have a product out there that's dangerous.
How can we possibly be administering this to our nation's children?
I'm going to encourage you to look.
I wasn't able to screen share this in a way that would be effective, but I want you to look at the CDC website.
It's called COVID-19 Monthly Death Rates Per 100,000 Population by Age Group, Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.
It's an interactive webpage where you can scroll through and look at the fatality rate in kids and convince yourself that we never had an emergency for a nation's children.
Even the Washington State Department of Health says that.
They have a section that is labeled COVID-19 hospitalizations deaths by vaccination status in Washington State.
And they don't even show the pediatric data on the graph.
They have a quote, though.
It says, due to a small number of COVID-19 deaths, the death rates in certain age groups may be unstable.
And then it says deaths only shown for Washington residents age 35 years and older.
So have we caused harm to our children by giving them the shot?
I lose sleep over this every night.
Absolutely we have.
We are seeing harms out in our population.
We are seeing an increase in myocarditis that was related to the administration of these shots.
Now I say was because many parents are wise now and they've stopped giving these to their children.
They've stopped listening to the safe and effective mantra that we've been asked to push as physicians.
But clearly the studies have shown that there has been harm.
How much have we harmed our nation's children?
You heard Dr. Milhoun speak about the Nordic study.
That looked at 23 million citizens and clearly showed an increase in myocarditis with an increased number of shots.
So I just want to briefly go back to the 1990s.
When I first started practice in the 1990s, I watched my federal agencies pull the rotavirus vaccine, the original one, off the market out of what they called an abundance of caution because they had less than 100 cases of a rare intestinal problem in kids.
Across the country.
And they pulled it off the market.
They did the right thing.
Flash forward to now, where we literally have thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands of reports of injuries and even fatalities, and no one has pulled anything off the market.
We are living in crazy times.
Crazy and terrifying times for our nation's children.
I'm going to give you four examples.
M is the name of the patient.
A person, a young person in his 20s who developed myocarditis within a week of his second shot of the COVID-19 shot that was given to him in the military.
He's been on disability for a year and a half since that shot was given.
E is a 16-year-old patient who died a week after this shot was administered.
He died on the basketball court just abruptly, no symptoms until he died.
On autopsy, he had an enlarged heart and was clearly harmed by this shot.
V is a young man in his early 30s who died in Seattle, just also abruptly 16 days after he'd had this shot administered.
His aorta dissected.
The aorta's a huge vessel.
It literally fell apart.
He had inflammation throughout the entire cardiovascular system when his parents sent his pathology's tissues off to pathology testing.
They had to send it elsewhere.
They had to send it out of the state of Washington.
And Kay is a young lady, also in our military, in her 20s, who has had three heart attacks, a mini-stroke, and now has a pacemaker in place following her second dose of this shot.
She was completely healthy when she joined our military.
You know, we clearly have a massive problem here, and we have been silenced.
Dr. Thorpe mentioned how he has been attacked Many of the physicians speaking today are doing so at risk to our careers because we've been attacked.
I simply as a concerned pediatrician with a clean record of patient care in the state of Washington, I spoke as a private citizen at a Senate hearing in Washington D.C. back in 2022 where I expressed my concerns about the dangers of these COVID shots for our nation's children.
As a result of my testimony there, I was actually reported to the Washington State Medical Board, and I was investigated for unprofessional conduct simply for raising the question, why in the world are we giving this to our nation's children?
This silencing of physicians and our citizens has to stop, and it's been a huge part of why we sit here today with the catastrophe that's unfolded in front of us.
So we're turning to you.
The problem we've had in America is that everyone thinks this is someone else's problem.
Everyone thinks someone else is going to fix this.
Our federal government high up is not going to fix this.
They are A huge part of the problem.
We're looking to you, our community members, who are in elected positions of power to do the right thing and to put a stop to this.
This has to stop.
We have patients looking at these webpages, seeing the word safe and effective and believing that to be true.
I still have moms as I travel around the country and work in different locations now.
I still have moms who hand me shot cards and are very proud that they have the COVID shot on there because they're following what Their local health department has told them to do.
This is dangerous.
It's a dangerous product, and it needs to be pulled.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Laura.
We have extended our time by five minutes already.
Yes, sir.
I'm just asking, would we be willing to go another ten minutes?
Because is Dr. Cole on?
I'll check real quick.
I have a...
David there, and he hasn't got to speak yet.
Um, he's, he's my backup in case somebody didn't get to speak.
Yes.
Yeah.
He's, he's graciously backing us up.
Um, so, uh, I had a three minute testimony of a Washington state worker to kind of give you an insight of what, uh, um, workers are dealing with.
This is a Washington state.
Yes, sir.
It's a Washington state employee, but, but I can, and Dr. Cole will actually be on in about five minutes, but.
He's texting me as he's rushing home.
But he is also always available to you.
I mean, if you guys needed a 10-minute for him to come back or something like that for just him, he would do it.
Well, I would just like to say this probably won't be the end of this.
I just wanted to get this introduced to the Tri-Cities.
I tried to get it before the Board of Health.
And, of course, you know they didn't want it.
I want the people to hear both sides of this.
And I think that the testimony that we've heard today was powerful.
And I, along with the last presenter, I just want to say the courage that they're showing by standing up is incredible.
Because of their faith and their belief in God, they will prevail.
They're standing tall.
And I want to know, they've been protected by the U.S. law, but where is the international law?
Crimes against humanity.
Is Fauci protected from that also?
I think Sasha has the answer to that.
Go ahead, Sasha.
Short and sweet.
Yeah, very shortly.
So internationally, this is...
This can be classified, characterized in my opinion and opinion of other researchers as a racketeering exercise of weapons, biological weapons racketeering exercise, coordinated through NATO and Pandemic Preparedness International Consortium.
We have very detailed evidence from Australia, for example, that they use the same frameworks as the US. And the same mechanisms, and I'm happy to prepare and provide that evidence.
We also have evidence now in the Netherlands.
The health minister admitted that purchases of these COVID shots were NATO commitments.
By the Netherlands.
So it's purchases of weapons.
Again, it's my opinion.
Some people will disagree, but this is how it's been conducted internationally.
As far as Fauci ever being prosecuted, I highly doubt it because he has been given full liability, immunity, backed by the sovereign power of the United States of America.
So he is used as largely a distraction.
So every now and then somebody will yell at him in Congress to vent.
The frustrations of the public and it goes nowhere.
And the reason for that is that Fauci wasn't even in charge of this because HHS wasn't in charge of this, but National Security Council was in charge of pandemic response, which is an advisory boarded to the US president.
It consists of heads of military and intelligence and HHS has nothing to do with them.
It's not even in the room.
So it remains to be investigated.
I have compiled lots of material.
Again, I can share that as appropriate, but it's all published.
But that's what it is.
So that's what's going on.
They're internationally coordinating the sale of these products and Internationally coordinating these declarations of pandemics continuously because they need them to offer liability protection to everyone for these products.
And I would like to point out that on a county level, even though, you know, I submitted a resolution.
It's a very short and simple resolution that it's just an idea.
For instance, what we did in three counties in Idaho That essentially recommended publicly against this genetic shot on the child's schedule and asked for a forensics investigation in our state and a forensic audit of our state health-wise regarding these shots.
It's essentially just a recommendation, but it's something that makes sort of like a...
I would say it's a profound statement publicly.
And I'm obviously not pressuring anyone, but I'm just saying in Idaho we did that.
And then it gave legs to the board members at the health district.
It gave these three counties that saw this material and said, hey, we want a vote at the health district level.
And that's kind of what happened.
And so we presented again at the health district level, even had pro-shot and against the shot.
Everybody got to ask questions on the board.
It was astounding, and it became the first health agency, after hearing what you guys have just heard, and also hearing the pro-shot argument, we crushed it.
And they voted publicly, became the first agency in America to say, we are not giving this anymore at our health district, and we are not promoting it.
If somebody wants it, they can go to Wally World or CVS or something like that.
But the health district said, no, not here.
I do know that our fellow commissioner that I sit with on the health board is listening to this right now.
Oh, excellent.
So we will go from there, and I want to thank you.
And Mr. Bauman, do you have anything to add?
I just was doing a little bit of math here.
Yes, sir.
One of the presenters said that there's 1.8 million children in Washington State and and that's.0001% roughly and and for them to they keep pushing it forward under a under a opinion of an individual versus going through the process there's been plenty of time for them to go through the process and to prove or disprove and we know why that they have are continuing in the route they are
because they can't prove it to be safe and effective and and so i would be interested in in having some further information you referenced a resolution i would be interested in seeing what that is and i'm unsure at this point of what our authority is of a county i do appreciate you sitting on the the board of health and and that might be Avenue to identify would like to Certainly see that and have an understanding and thank you for
everybody that was willing to give up their time and to present testimony today Thank you so much for having us.
And I have thumb drives for you that not only has that resolution on WordDoc so you can change things, and also just tons of studies.
Just so much of this information, it would take you two days to get through it.
But I wanted to make sure you had it because most of this is censored.
It's very challenging to find.
Also, if you ever want us back, Dr. Cole would come back just for himself and communicate with you guys.
He tried very hard to be here.
He's probably on here now, but I told him that it's about to button up.
Well, again, I want to thank all of your presenters and yourself for the courage to stand up and be recognized.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, colleagues, so much.
Very well done.
▲
Export Selection