Welcome to the last American Vagabond. I'm happy
to be telling you we're having Brooke Jackson
back on today to discuss the update of
her case, something you guys know we've been
following for a very long time, interviewed her
three times, I think, so far, and the
case has been evolving since then. But as
you remember, to avoid going back through all
of it, and maybe Brooke will wanna get
into it to start a little bit, but
I think the reality is simply that she
had called out Pfizer and Ventavia right in
the beginning when she was a involved with
that and ultimately proved. And I I don't
use that word lightly. Proved with the data
she presented, the information she has, that they
were lying, that there was falsified information, and
so many other things, if she would like
to touch on it, it's up to her.
It's obvious that they got caught lying. Now
there's so many angles of the Pfizer conversation
that everybody out there is aware of. All
the different lies that were sold and and
I and I think we can now prove
deliberate.
Like, well aware that they were lying for
whatever reason you wanna fill in, And, ultimately,
this has come to part, you know, change
of administration now. And I see a lot
of the similar say the same things happening,
and I think it's important to discuss the
update of her case as it changes over
into a new administration
and as we see new things like Stargate
platforms and different mRNA shots and the conversation
of what's changing and where it may be
going. So Brooke is here today to discuss
the update of the case and the current
landscape of the health field and vaccination and
where it seems to be going. So, Brooke,
thank you for joining me again. How are
you? Thanks for having me, Ryan. Good. Thank
you. It is. It's our third interview.
I believe it's our fourth, actually. I guess
fourth. Yeah. Because I was I was thinking
I was thinking so we did the first
one where we we where you broke down
all the original information, then we followed up
on basically when Pfizer I think it was
when they were in court, and I have
that clip actually from Barnes saying that where
they basically argued that it's not fraud if
the government knows we're lying, like, we're working
together. That was, like, their actual argument in
court. Yeah. And then I think we followed
up on just, you know, kinda catching up
on where we were. And, you know, so
your work has been so profound in this
conversation, starting with the British Medical Journal,
which, I mean, it right then showed you
how amazing it is, how propaganda
that basically they referred to as suddenly as
a health blog. One of the most profound
import you know, like, influential platform suddenly becomes
a health blog because they dared to call
out what you were talking about or or
highlight it. You know? And so this has
been such a profound
yeah. Just a profound part of this ongoing
conversation, and I really just wanna shout you
out for that work because it was brave
and clearly it has effects on your life.
So I don't know if you wanna get
into any of the background. Did did you
wanna talk about it? Because my audience is
well aware of it. If you wanted to
give any kind of a starting, you know,
understanding of what you went through beforehand, it's
up to you. Sure. I mean, just just
quickly, just in case, you know, any of
your your new viewers aren't aware, I was
a regional director for
a a company named Ventavia Research Group who
was conducting
Pfizer's phase three clinical trial for their COVID
shot.
And while I was there, which was a
very brief eighteen days,
I saw what
this company and what Pfizer was allowing the
company to do in falsifying data,
not recording all adverse events that patients were
experiencing
during their participation
in the study. And after,
you know, those few weeks of trying to
get my company and and Pfizer to do
the right thing, pause the study, make sure
that we exclude the data from any analysis
of
the overall
safety and efficacy,
I I I contacted Pfizer excuse me. I
did contact Pfizer and contacted the FDA at
the September,
and that resulted in me
being terminated on the spot.
Right. So that's the background
of of what I what I saw,
during during,
you know, my my oversight of the clinical
trial.
After,
doing some a a little bit of research
and and looking at data that was coming
out in, you know, the New England Journal
of Medicine
and viewing the
FDA advisory committee meetings on on the emergency
use authorization,
I realized right away that they they did
not exclude my company's data.
And so because this was
a product that was funded with American taxpayer
dollars,
I knew that I had,
what we call a a false claims act.
Mhmm.
And so for the last almost five years
now, I've been retry I've been trying to
recover
our our money for
a product that's not safe and and effective.
So there's a background.
Yeah. Well and and remember, and this is
really important, that this was our first this
is our your first interview with TLAB, and
I believe it was the first one in
general. And all the information down below,
you can find for yourself. It's all the
direct source documents to documentcloud.org.
All like, literally the the receipts that she
came with right in the beginning that prove
everything she was saying. And I'm still actually
pretty blown away by how I mean, that's
what one of many experiences I've had through
this process of doing this for the decades.
Yes. I have. We recognize, okay. This is
we live in a corrupt society. Like, the
fact that you can have exactly everything,
receipts showing that they were lying, that they
were covering it up, and yet nothing actually
happens shows you everything. And then, of course,
we followed up, and that was when more
information came out, reveals concerns with that integrity,
vindicating your previous claims. And then in 2023,
we Pfizer trial reveals Big Pharma seen as
too big to fail, which is one of
the interesting kind of evolution or, you know,
evolving points around it. But thank you for
the quick Okay, Ryan. So you're right. It
is our fourth interview. I admit I was
wrong.
Screening Pfizer how easy that is. Yes. There
you go.
Yeah. But, you know, obviously, when, you know,
Pfizer is I mean, that that's where just
since I mentioned it, let me play this
real quick. This was just a clip that
I had cut last time, I think. This
is Barnes speaking with you, Afray, about the
case.
And I just and he remember, this is,
Brooks' lawyer. So he's speaking about the case,
and this is what he had to say.
And this is the reality. It's insane that
they could have the argument that the government's
involved so it's not fraud. Present, Brooke Jackson,
who is a whistleblower who exposed that the
Pfizer clinical trials were riddled
not only with error, but with fraudulent and
false certifications to the US gov What's fascinating
is Pfizer has moved to dismiss the case,
and their grounds to dismiss as they repeated
in the scheduling conference we had this week
is that it doesn't matter if they submitted
fraudulent certifications to the government. It doesn't matter
if they submitted false statements under penalty of
perjury to the government. It doesn't matter if
they lied about the safety and efficacy of
these,
drugs mislabeled,
in my opinion, as vaccines.
Because the government was in on it with
them. The government knows what's going on, and
the government still would have given them the
check anyway. So is it really fraud if
the government's their coconspirator?
That is in essence Pfizer's defense so far
to the, to the case.
That was the opening right there for TLAB.
But, yeah, I mean, that's go ahead. Do
you have a comment? No. I was just
gonna say that's crazy, and my hair actually
looks exactly like Viva's tonight.
I got it. It's it was an incredible
defense. You know, it it's,
I I don't I don't even know what
to say. I've run out of ways to
explain Right. You know, just how absurd this
is.
You know? And, again, here we are five
years five years later, and we're we're still
not not just fighting against Pfizer now. It's
Brooke Jackson versus The United States Of America.
It's it I'm not I'm not,
suing Pfizer now.
Now I'm I'm I'm arguing,
that the the justice department,
yeah, has has, you know, violated. So we
can get into that a little bit more,
but I I just don't I don't even
know how to explain it, Ryan.
Yeah. Well, I mean, to to your to
your to your to your exasperation, I mean,
this is what I'm hint hint getting at
is it's like, you know, I think we
all deep down, like, have this at least
hope, maybe a belief, but I think most
mostly a hope today that that this is
not the way the world is, you know,
that this is not the the all the
power structure or all the people out there
in white lab coats or in government or
lawyers or, you know, whatever it is where
you're just going like, I don't wanna believe
that it's this, like because the only way
something like this can happen the way it
has been is if we if I think
more at least in the power structure that
at least the vast majority are not honest.
I mean, I don't know how else to
see that. And so it's really a difficult
almost a cognitive dissonance to be like, I
I guess that's the way it is. And
then every day, we're sort like, I get
in my shows where I'm going like, I
just I don't understand. And I think myself,
yeah. I do. I know what's I know
it's like but you you wanna look for
something that explains why it's not what it
appears to be. You know? So it's it's
incredibly frustrating. But thank you again for putting
yourself out there. And and, you you know,
I mean, a lot of negative things comes
comes around, especially this large of a conversation,
you know, calling out multibillion dollar companies. But
so let let's bring this to the point.
So beyond all of that, a lot has
been continuing. You've been continuing your efforts to
call this out, to hold to assert to
have some kind of accountability for the lies
that you've proven over and over. In court,
they they argue that it doesn't matter that
our fraud's okay because the government's involved in
essence as as even, Barnes was kind of
paraphrasing that but that was what they actually
argued. So this brings us to where we
are today, where now we've seen you know,
the argument being at least hope, I guess,
in some minds that this was largely the
Biden administration or that the current administration left
or right, that they were the ones that
were really doing this. I mean, let's remember
that this started with Trump's Operation Warp Speed.
And, again, I my opinion for those new
to this is it's just the US government.
I don't think there's a difference left and
right when it comes to the core agendas.
And so it was rolled out warp speed.
It handed the baton to Biden's administration, and
it got worse. But I look. I argued
it would have no matter who was in
that position. And now we have a new
administration, and the hope is that this would
have go would this would go in a
different direction. I personally think we've seen kind
of a lot of the same and even
worse, Stargate and so on. We could talk
about that if you'd like. But so now
we have the point of hoping things are
different. So let's discuss well, let's first start
with the actual lawsuit,
where it is today. So give us the
updates from the last we spoke to today
and, like, as you said, why it's now
shifted away from the focal point it had
and now just on the US government in
general, and then we can get into, you
know, what you're seeing in the current administration.
Sure. Sure. Well, just so your audience knows,
I completely agree with everything that you said.
You know, I think, you know, the the
baton was just handed off.
I I don't,
I mean, obviously, I follow politics, but I
don't care one way or another. To me,
either
we talked about this a few minutes ago.
It's like blue versus red. It's it's
same team, different color.
That that's that's kind of been my view,
for for as long as I can remember.
But but, you know, where where we left
off, I guess, when you when you just
played the the clip, that was Pfizer's argument.
We we knew that the fraud
existed,
but, you know, it was okay because the
government said it was fine. However, they Really
quickly, even better. I think Viva Frey said
before that that we we gave them the
fraud they ordered or something like that, which
is a really interesting way to think about
it. Yeah. You know, Sasha Latifova actually did
a today,
you know, a talk, and that was, you
know,
her mic drop moment. We didn't commit or
we didn't,
we didn't order the fraud or however she
explained it, but it's great if you wanna
find it and show everybody.
But, you know, that that was Pfizer's argument.
The Department of Justice, after Pfizer made that
statement,
came in with their own statement of interest
and actually disagreed with Pfizer,
and wrote out,
that while,
our legal theory was a possible way to
to,
induce
a contract,
we didn't spell it out that way in
our complaint.
So
long story real long story short,
we were
dismissed in district court.
And based on the government statement of interest,
we asked the judge to give us another
opportunity to amend the complaint
so we could highlight
the word fraud or phrase fraud in the
inducement. So our claim is that
based on Pfizer's clinical trial, the fraud, you
know, everything that I've claimed,
that that that fraud
induced
the,
contract
and and, you know, subsequently the the emergency's
authorization was given. Does that make sense? Mhmm.
Yeah. It was a fraud in the inducement
theory, and the government,
under Biden at the time,
gave us the instructions
on how to file this claim appropriately to
hold Pfizer accountable.
And, oh, so that one that was when
they this is when basically the the I
think you put the caption
email said that they were interested in going
the DOJ was interested in going after Bentovia.
Is that what you're referring to?
So that was actually during
the during the first,
twelve months that the lawsuit was under seal.
So Okay. The way that false claims act
work,
when you file a complaint, it goes under
seal, and the government,
does that so not to tip-off
the the defendant.
You know? So it stays under seal. No
one's supposed to, you know, discuss,
you know, that there's a lawsuit.
And that's what eventually led me to to
to seek out the
Peter Doshi and and the BMJ and get
this information out,
because, you know, that that that was my
way to inform people
of of the way these clinical trials were
run without revealing that there was an actual
lawsuit against Pfizer. I just wanted people to
have that opportunity
to to understand.
Yes. There were sloppy things that went on
at at my trial
sites, but when you understand how clinical trials
work and when you get the when FDA
is reviewing data, you know, these these percentages,
although, you know, mine only represented four, three,
two, whoever you wanna believe, percent
of the overall study, it certainly could have
affected,
what,
FDA requires to get products,
authorized and approved. So
that's been just an argument that I'm tired
of having with people. If you don't understand
clinical trials and you don't understand,
you know, efficacy and endpoints and all these
things that matter,
then you can't just say, oh, it was
just three sites in Texas. Who gives a
And there's also much on top of that,
which I think we discussed in one of
the previous interviews, is it's not just well,
first of all, as I think you argued,
clearly, this is not just a one off
accident. There's many different actions and choices that
were made that signify, that indicate a much
larger, you know, decision making process being broken
or fraudulent or lying, whatever. But then on
top of that is the reality that they
actively covered it up, and you could prove
that with what you showed. They were hiding
and deleting things. And so there's a level
of criminality or dishonesty
that is clear in all that. And if
that doesn't matter to people out there, then,
you know, to me, people making those arguments
are people that have a clear agenda or
a side they're using, and they feel like
that's brushing up against it. That's the partisan
game today from both sides. So that's I
agree with you completely. This matters. I mean,
even if it even if it's exactly what
their argument claims, how does that still not
how does that not matter? It's still a
level of dishonesty
or fraudulent activity that, as you're saying, does
could have, even a small effect, but your
your picture
fraud, whether it's a little or a lot,
has no business
around our drug approval process, period.
So anybody defending that is immediately
just discounted.
Agreed. You know, we we don't we don't
have time for for any of that.
You know, so,
where were we? Seal, you know, went to
the went to the the British Medical Journal
as a way to kinda get information to
the public and and for them to be
able to make a a fully informed decision.
Right.
And,
my attorneys at the time told me, you
know, you can't, you can't do that. If
you if you tell people that there's, you
know, that this went on or that there's
a lawsuit, the government's gonna come after you.
And I said, well, listen, you know, this
was in,
this was probably around
September when
the military mandates were starting to roll out.
Y'all hear that? It's thunder.
Yeah. I can't hear that. I like slicker
that that's why we have some storms going
through through Dallas, but,
you know, right around the time that the
military mandates
were were being,
illegally ordered,
on our troops and right around the time
that the emergency use was was
being considered
for adolescents, those 12 to 15 year olds.
And my children fell within that age rate
age range, and I I just said, you
know, it's my attorneys.
The the government can make as many threats
as they want to. Let them come after
me, but this is unacceptable.
People deserve to know how these trials were
run. And, you know, that that data
belongs to us. We paid for it. We
paid for these clinical trials. Our tax dollars
stood.
And I just,
that that really just bothers me a lot.
Yeah. Well, I mean, imagine had, you know,
Doshi,
shout out in general, they don't I I
actually don't I haven't followed up. I'm curious
what has changed in his life because of
that. But clearly, had that not happened Nothing.
No. It it was actually, you know, that
I'd followed
Doshi's,
work,
calling for transparency
in clinical trials.
Right.
There's a whole I mean, we could talk
for hours about,
FDA and, you know, clinical trial failures, and
we'll probably get into that a little bit
with, you know, this new gold standard requirement
for
placebo controls and vaccine trials. But Mhmm. You
know, it it wasn't him. It was, you
know, Paul Thacker who did the investigation.
Right. You know, everything that that I gave
them was,
you know, verified and, you know, I was
background checked and all that good stuff. You
know, it was a peer reviewed article. Right.
And still, I think today, the second most
downloaded, download downloaded BMJ article. Right. Which shows
shows you everything. I mean, like, it's it's
just because see, this is every time this
happens, that shows you the average people want
that truth. And every time it shows you,
they're trying to keep these things away. But
shout out to both Dacker and and and
Doshi for putting themselves out there. You know?
My point was had that not happened, had
you followed the direction of the lawyers, whether
right or wrong, people wouldn't even know about
this. You know? Like, think about trying to
fight this without having the kind of momentum
and and following and people that are trying
to help you. I mean, that would be
that's that's what the government wants. You know?
Because then then there's no real accountability. They
can just toss you to the side. No
one cares.
So the whole time, it's under seal. The
Department of Justice is telling me that they're
investigating this.
You know, they're,
people that are DOJ that are considering
actual criminal charges against Bentavia.
And,
you know, then I I just couldn't
it was like they were just yanking my
chain, seriously. And it and it was, I
I believe, in an attempt to get this
stuff into as many arms as they possibly
could while keeping me, you know it's like
they were giving me a snack, and I'm
waiting on, like, the full course. Like, we're
gonna hold this,
clinical trial company responsible,
and then we're gonna hold Pfizer responsible and
everybody else who is involved. So And what
year are we at right now? Were you
talking about this? What year are we at?
So this is
2021.
Okay. So after after the BMJ article came
out in sep or excuse me. That was
November of twenty twenty one.
Very shortly after that, the Department of Justice
made the decision
to
decline to intervene. So at that point, they
were investigating
the allegations,
supposedly.
They could have intervened and taken over the
litigation of the case, the entire case,
or they could have moved to dismissed
the case if they felt that it lacked
merit,
or they could,
or or they could have done what they
did. And that was decline to intervene,
which allows me,
the whistleblower, the relator,
to move forward on the case move forward
with the case on my own, and that's
what I chose to do. So they stayed
out of it. They wanted to be updated
on any, you know, progress that was that
was being made.
So we said, okay. We'll do that.
And
then so what is that? That's '22
to February of twenty two, they made that
decision.
And then
for the next, you know, two two plus
years,
I'm in court
arguing Pfizer,
and Pfizer's Pfizer's
blaming it on the government and saying it
didn't matter.
You know, there there may have been fraud,
but it was just a little bit. It
didn't matter.
And the judge isn't isn't having that. I
feel like we were really close to,
showing,
which
time did that.
You know, I I this is this case,
I guess, has taught me, you know, one
friendship, the value of that. Right? Because I
made some amazing friends, you included,
and and patience because Mhmm. You know,
we didn't know
everything that we know today Right. When I
filed this lawsuit.
So so patience is certainly something that that,
you know, I'm I'm happy to
have learned a little bit.
A lot a lot has come out since
then. I mean, people, you know, I people
I think it was clear early in this
conversation, but even to there's so many other
things going on the world right now. And
every day, there's still more information coming out.
I was just I think you just referenced
a
who was it? Somebody I I greatly respect
him. I can't remember the name now, but
he would have another oh, McKernan, but another
study showing that the the contamination, you know,
and it's like every day these major developments
from peer reviewed science and people just falls
by the wayside. So just adding to your
point, like, it has only gotten more clear
that this is a bigger problem. Yeah. When
they stop hiding things and and, you know,
censoring people,
I I mean, it's it's coming to light.
We we are actually following the science now.
Right. Yeah. You know, one thing that,
Kevin,
kinda pointed out,
not too long ago, is that there's there's
not a consensus.
It's an ongoing,
process. You know, we're always learning. Science evolves.
That's the definition of science. Right? It's a
never ending pursuit of truth. We I appreciate
that, you know, and and it's okay to
be wrong.
It is. Right. But it it it needs
to be okay to say that out loud,
and that's what we haven't been able we
haven't been able to do. Yeah.
I agree.
Yeah.
Well, so bringing this into, you know, so
after 2022, really just more so, like, let's
just say, like, around the time of changing
over from the mid the administrations.
So you're still fighting this. So now is
there any more updates from that point to
now that change before we get into, you
know, the what you know, really the the
the hope and the what's happened in regard
to the new administration before we go to
that? Yeah. Not not not really. I mean,
you know, Pfizer Pfizer arguing that it didn't
matter. We saying that it did. DOJ saying,
yes. It certainly could matter. Here's what we
would like to see you, you know, potentially
claim.
And and it's all just legal stuff. It's
like format, and they wanted us to highlight
things, and it's just really, really dumb.
So we did that.
And it wasn't until
we actually
laid out
the complaint the way that the Department of
Justice
instructed us to that they decided to make
a move
to
dismiss the case. That's interesting. Had since January
eighth of twenty twenty one to dismiss this
case if they felt that it was,
you know, again,
not a not a case that is is
likely to,
be successful. They could have done that. They
call it merit. It didn't it's not that
it didn't lack merit. It certainly did.
Or you could have claimed national secure I
mean, they could have dismissed for for a
bunch of reasons. They chose not to. I
think in a hope that Pfizer's big wig
attorneys were gonna beat my attorneys in court,
and they couldn't. We were winning.
And and either administration,
Biden's or Trump's, you know, they they cannot
they could not afford discovery. Not that it's
gonna cost a lot to get that. It
certainly will. But what it would expose
would expose
either party.
Right. All of it. Is it yeah. The
US government and everybody else included. And, yes,
that that's something like David Martin, for example,
has pointed out a lot. You know, this
is an all encompassing problem. And, you know,
so what's what's crazy to me that you
pointed out right there is literally they say,
do it like this, you know, to have
whatever, to be more effective, to get more
and then you do it like that, and
then that's what that's what you know, it
it it seems clear that the way you
even explained this and based on the information
you had to begin with and the overlapping
ancestors' relationship with these companies and the government,
that this, in my opinion, was clear that
that was just the excuse or rather maybe
recognizing that you were gonna have more traction
than he wanted to remove this. And so
it just all of it's dishonest, in my
opinion. And so here, this was a post
you put out on April 28
where this you say DOJ claims Pfizer's vaccine
is effective. So we're coming all the way
back around, and now this isn't the Trump's
DOJ. And so explain this, and I have
the actual, document here where I'll just show
where it says, and in the FDA's view,
Pfizer's vaccine is effective, which, I mean, look.
Let's be real. Fundamentally, that's not true. You
can prove that today with the peer reviewed
science. So what are your just give me
your your thoughts on that, and then we
can go into the the point where, I
mean, you you you say that Trump sides
with Pfizer on this. And I think it's
an important thing to get into and explain
why you think that and what that means
to the, you know, again, the hope that
things might have been different with this new
administration and your thoughts on, you know, how
that, you know, contextualize that for us. Is
Trump being played? How do you think that's
playing out?
Yeah. So after after we filed this amended
complaint, we're winning in court. The DOJ
the DOJ comes in and says, okay. We
can't have this.
We we have to we have to
get rid of this case. And the way
that they did that
was
based on a SCOTUS ruling
in 2023.
It was
a a a False Claims Act case,
and you can look at it, Ryan. I'm
sure you'll want to. It's it's a case,
Polanski.
And so in that case,
the
and and how the DOJ was able to
move into my case is by claiming that
based on this SCOTUS ruling in Polanski,
that the government can do whatever it wants
to do,
period.
They think they have this unfettered right to
just jump in at any point in any
case
and
dismiss it if they don't like it.
You know, this is interesting to me. Now
I it, it's important to me that this
is not seen as a partisan conversation today
because I think we both agree this is
a government issue from all sides of it.
But I do note an interesting shift today
in at least the presentation
in a lot of different factors from the
current administration of just sort of being like,
you know, we have the power to do
x, y, and z regardless of whether it's
unconstitutional
and just, like, asserting that from an executive
branch dynamic. And that so do you notice
difference between the shift from administrations to where
they at least the way they're engaging with
you like that comparatively?
No.
So the Sanders dismissal. They because it sounded
as if it was more so like they're
asserting more of an ability to say we
can get rid of whatever we want versus
before maybe be more, you know, tactful. But
either way, it's the same outcome is the
point. So it's just the Yeah. Exactly. So
so that would be the reason that I
say no. Right? Yeah. I think the the
goal was the same. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Well,
so then So that was their that was
their basis for dismissal, that we have this
unfettered right to come in to any case
and dismiss it if it if we don't
like it.
And, unfortunately,
the the district judge in Texas and the
fifth the fifth just where is that?
It's,
Eastern District Of Texas. Sorry.
Agreed with the government that,
you know, they they do have this right,
so my case was dismissed.
And so fast forward to where we are
today. We filed,
an appeal,
with the fifth circuit,
and we just got a response
from the unit from the government
just a few days ago.
And they're still claiming I have to get
my notes here, Ryan, because it's so absolutely
ridiculous,
their reason
for
for wanting this case to remain
dismissed. Oh,
that
the burdens of discovery I don't know if
you have this up and wanna pull it.
I think you started two minute ago. The
burdens of discovery,
they believe the case lacks merit,
and
the case does not align with public health
policy.
So there those were their three
Is this in the ruling the the actual
the court document I pulled up? Is that
what you're referring to? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I
can pull it back up if you wanna
show it in there. But, yeah, the the
that's an incredible statement.
Right? So what the argument being on page
19. Right? If you'll go if you'll go
there.
Elsewhere it was. Yeah. So what was the
state read it out again.
The burden. What'd you say? Yeah. So right
there. So the government explains
that
There we go.
Is that The current discovery
and litigation
obligations associated with the case would place significant
burden. You know, this argument kills me. The
idea that, like so even if it's a
this they've made similar arguments in the past
where, yes, this may be a problem, but
because this or here's a good overlap to
the the globalist dynamic of saying that, well,
we need to stop using oil and different
things, but we're gonna allow ourselves to do
it because national security. Or in this case,
saying that the burden would be too hard
on the companies or the the FDA HHS
Department of Justice, but we're gonna do it
at you know, allow the bad thing because,
otherwise, it would hurt the system that's allowing
the bad thing. Splendid my mind. Actually, start
start up a little bit. After the ROA
4 5 2 6 Dash 2 7, it
says, first, the FDA was aware. Okay. Right
there. You can start there. Yep. Yep.
So they're saying that the FDA was aware
of of what I reported.
Well, duh. I I filed a complaint with
them. Right?
I I I written and I spoke to
someone at,
FDA for an hour plus.
Let her know about everything I was seeing.
So, certainly, they know. But but our our
argument is, what did you do with that
knowledge? Mhmm. Did you investigate
these clinical trial sites? Did you exclude what
did you do?
So they they failed to,
give us any kind of evidence.
FDA
refuses to go on the record and say
that they investigated the allegations, that it it
it was
not
material
to their decision to approve the stuff.
The government explained that it has had continued
access to Pfizer's clinical trial data. That's funny
because remember how many years they wanted to
hide that from the American people? They would
have all gone dead by the time,
Pfizer and FDA got around to showing the
American people
who who paid for these trials and these
products
what the evidence actually showed. Well, this is
what's so frustrating to me about this when
I saw this statement. We we we put
this out on Twitter on the twenty eighth.
You said Trump side with Pfizer. DOJ explained
to the court that it has continued access
to the Pfizer trial, and they're saying it's
effective. So to me and let me explain
let me know if you think if I'm
off base here. It sounds like they're trying
to argue that, you know, not without saying
it, that, yes, the data before did look
bad, but we've had continued access to it.
And now we've decided because of all the
full data that it that you can't see,
that it is effective. Is that essentially what
they're trying to do, argue with that? Isn't
aren't vaccines supposed to be safe and effective?
Yeah. Yeah. Right. They're We exclude it.
That's obvious. The you know, the you know,
getting rid of the one that probably matters
the most in that conversation. But to me,
it just seems like they're trying to argue
with data that now we don't have access
to that that it is effective when we
can literally prove to this day that that's
not the case. So do do you think
so give give me your breakdown on that
as it applies to the new administration.
Right? So this is
the same thing in your mind. Right? Is
there any difference? Is there any, you know,
light at the end of the day? I
mean, absolutely
not. You know, the Biden administration
had had access to the same data that
Trump does.
You know, I there it's the same position.
Nothing has changed.
Why do you think that is? I mean,
let's in the sense of, like, look. I
can I can be the first to point
out that, you know or, like, everyone else
would in in the hope here that RFK
Jr does have a lot of fantastic and
amazing work before? I think a few things
that if you wanna get into, we can
that I think are wild deviations,
but I will still point to his work
forever that was monumentally important that had a
positive impact. And so I had hope that
instilled maybe due that there might be some
positive change, or Trump has said things in
the past that seem to align with a
different direction. And so do you think there's
any chance that they're they're being played, or
there's something else going on, or do you
think it's just you say as we said
earlier, the, you know, you know, new boss,
same as the old boss kind of a
dynamic? Well, I do feel that. Right? But
I also
know I have I have hope, first of
all. But I also know
that,
with with Kennedy being in the position that
he's in
and the appointments that are being made within,
you know, NIH and
CDC and FDA,
that we will
be
a healthier America
for the next few years based on what
they're doing and the changes that they're making
to
what what they're able to. But when when
a product's on the market
that they know is
it they know it doesn't work.
Right. But worse, they know that it's hurting
people.
This is not something that is just gonna
go away once it's recalled. We're talking about
a product that's going to affect generations.
Right. And it it
there's no excuse.
So how can you have,
a little bit of good
without
trying to stop
the bad? I I it just doesn't it
just doesn't,
it just doesn't work for me. Yeah. You
know? But
think they're they're good things. They're good changes.
And these people that, you know, that I
that I know were in in this administration
have been trying to get these things done
for decades.
Mhmm. You know? So maybe it's, maybe it's
a win for them that they're these things
are happening. It's just it's a loss for
the American people that other things are not.
Yeah. And I just I just want I
just want us to not forget that. Yeah.
You know? What I think is so important
of this is to not is to we
need to pull away from the partisan left
right, you know, he's guilty there on your
you know, all that should be they obviously,
those are relevant things to consider. But when
you're coming down to something like we're talking
about, like, okay. So this just happened. They're
they're clearly going in the same direction. Whatever
the narrative change, whatever who maybe somebody's being
played, the point is it's there and it's
happening. Like, that's what we can all agree
on. Right? So it should the problem is
that we tend to try
to manufacture reasons to why it's different or,
you know, this might go a different direction
because we want to believe in someone versus
the other, and I just think that's dangerous.
You know? It is still happening. And like
you said, like, I can understand the logic
behind an argument around why, you know, like,
from a like a trying to maybe, like,
a greater good dynamic for why you might
argue these things should be allowed, but I'm
not okay with that. And I'll and I
don't think anybody should be when we're talking
about something that we all know is hurting
people and and has continued to and that
we know and can prove, again, pointing at
David Martin's work, for example, that they knew
what they were doing. And so I don't
find I I don't think there's any valid
argument, moral or political or otherwise, that justifies
allowing that to keep being used. And one
more point about the liberty and freedom of
choice, this is a very different dynamic. If
this was something growing in the field, that's
a different conversation. This is a manufactured product
with US tax dollars that they're in many
ways mandating. So, yes, pulling that off. It's
like pretending arsenic being sold at stores is
somehow, well, it's their choice. You know? No.
You're killing people. You know? So that Yeah.
It used to be that that shift. You
know? They're like, oh, president Trump doesn't believe
in mandates. Well, cool.
But why does he believe that allowing a
product to stay on the market to benefit
who? Right. Who who who's being helped here?
You know?
They're just
book, I guess. You know? I don't I
I don't know. I don't I don't have
the answers,
for for why this is being allowed. But
at what point does it become the people's
responsibility
to actually stand up and do something? I
don't know what that looks like, and I'm
not I'm not saying that we need to
have some kind
of violent revolution.
Yeah. But but we we have to do
something. The people have to do something, and
I think all of us have a responsibility
to do that, whether it's, you know,
local government, you know, writing,
doing, you know, these these podcasts, what whatever
it is, whatever your whatever your
thing is, just keep doing it. You know,
we have to we have to keep talking
about these things and, you know,
that that's kinda that's kinda where I stand
on Yeah. I appreciate
I do the things that Kennedy has done
over over his life,
you know, the things that,
you know, look at, who am I thinking
about? Andrew Wakefield. Mhmm. You know, I I
talked to him recently, and he said, Brooke,
you know, maybe, you know, come and meet
these people, and and maybe it'll be cathartic
for you
to to be able to share your experience
and listen to theirs. And I I really
didn't wanna go because
I just
it's so depressing.
It is. And and it certainly wasn't,
it certainly didn't do what he thought it
would do. But, again, I I I'm I'm
appreciative
of of their
sacrifices
because that's what's happened. You know? They've lost
careers. People have lost homes.
You know? People,
you know, couldn't serve their country anymore because
they just, you know, didn't wanna get it
or were fired or you know, there's there's
so much wrong with what happened, and I
think one of the things that I think
would
would support
the Maha movement if there were if there
was some kind of accountability for the things
that we know are true. We don't we
don't need more investigations on the origins of
COVID. There have been plenty of those. What
we need is some accountability,
not pardons.
We need we need sentences.
Exactly. Sentences.
Right.
And fines,
you know, with Pfizer. You remember there not
too long ago, they received some kind of,
I don't know, dumb,
like, integrity
award?
Yeah. That's insane. Remember that? They were under
a freaking corporate integrity agreement with the Department
of Justice
for their crimes,
and then they get an award for integrity.
It's just Obvious. I mean, your your case
explains why that's happening because, obviously, this is
not I mean, they're they're separate things, but
there's an incestuous relationship here where they were
watching this kind of fascistic blob become real
and whether it's techno technocratic or, like, the
technology,
directions or medical, health. It's it's very clear
how these overlaps are just kinda merging together.
And I'll I'll include this, which I've I
remember I pointed this out, like, every other
day during the midst of the COVID illusion,
which is and funny enough how it never
seems to change even though and it only
starts in the year February, which is more
than before that. A hundred and seven different
records on this violation tracker for Pfizer. I
mean and these are look. You know, what
it's over $11,000,000,000
in fines, and the most important ones I
point out are false claims act. 22 times
they've been caught with false claims. You know,
these things should matter. You know? But to
your point, it's there's a relationship which protects
them.
Not just a relationship, but, you know, the
media too. Right? And that's kind of, I
think one of the things that's kind of
revealed itself is just how complicit
media is, journals are,
you know, our own agencies,
medical schools. I mean, it's just it's and
I guess here's another thing to to be
appreciative of is that,
that coming to light.
Yeah. You know? Because now
now I question everything.
Good. And I also have a shirt that
says that. Thank you, Ryan. You're welcome.
You know, and that's kinda you know, we're
we're we're bonding.
I I don't know if her,
prior legal,
services
with Pfizer
matter.
May maybe maybe maybe they don't in the
grand scheme of things. But what we've learned
over the last,
you know, five years is that
we can't we can't allow
any kind of conflicts of interest
in government,
period, anywhere. I mean, this obviously matters. I'm
just I have it on the screen for
the podcast of of Pam Bondi and her
different connections and one of them being Pfizer.
And there's probably more. I'll dig through this
later. There's probably more that matters. I mean,
the the point to say is that this
doesn't necessarily have to prove
that there's some kind of a criminal act
going on, but, of course, it matters. Right?
There's overlap to these companies, which means there
could be more of an allegiance there. There
could be, you know, more of a willing
to ignore their problems. Maybe they have an
offer for them after they come out government,
the whole revolving door, or maybe none of
that. But it obviously matters. You know? And
so it's the
continuation of this, in my opinion, just shows
that it's the same problem that never really
stopped. That the the different people in different
positions are continuing the same problem as we
just showed. That's just an indication of maybe
why. You know? And I think we can
see that Pfizer and or Moderna or CureVac
or all these different entities that are part
of it, BioNTech, are all clearly on the
same path. As I briefly I I accidentally
just showed, and I'll just show it again
since I brought it up, that,
Mary Talley, Mary Talley Bowden Bowden, excuse me,
Bowden. Yeah. She put this out just showing
here's what Grok has to show you that
these are all the mRNA shots that are
in the pipeline. You know? Moderna's got 48
of them. And that's not to say the
government's involved with all of them, but I
think we know that there are government contracts
there. You know? Even with the bird flu
one that happened on the overlap to the
Trump administration. Right? And then they continued the
funding, and they added more. And now there's
a bird flu shot, an mRNA platform, and
they just rolled out another NIH.
What was it? The
it's not coming up for me. It was
the,
universal flu shot platform. Oh, yeah. I can
try and grab that, but that just got
reported. They've been working on that for a
really long time. Exactly. You know? And that's
what I said is that this is not
and I honestly don't know, not to get
off on a tangent here, but I don't
know how you can have a platform without
mRNA. I'm not the expert, but I wonder
whether that's still part of it. They're not
showing that. But either way, it's the same
direction. Fauci was talking about a universal flu
shot for the longest time. To To me,
it's the extension of the same problem, you
know, which is what's so
disconcerting,
you know, because we did you know, even
I as much as I don't think these
people are different, I still had hope that
it would be, you know, and I think
we all should. So With the appointments with
the appointments, you know, with with Jay, Bhattacharya.
I mean, I'm I'm quite like, I I
I know
these are good men,
you know, and and they're smart.
They're talented.
They know
how clinical trials are designed. They know how
they're supposed to be run.
I mean, they
they're scientists. They're medical doctors.
So how can you call for, you know,
a a a change in how vaccine trials
are run that they need to be complete
compared to a placebo,
a true placebo, an inert placebo,
but then not not talk about clinical trial
data, not not call out Pfizer for cheating
in their trials.
You know? And I hope that Marty Macri
understands
how data gets
from
a
a a patient
to a sponsor like Pfizer
over to the FDA
and then into a patient's arm.
If you
study that process of of data collection,
he he would understand
that
we should pause everything
until we have an FDA
investigative
workforce, an inspection workforce
that's able to verify,
and do clinical trial investigations
of not just manufacturing
sites, but data collection sites, where the data's
actually coming from. Because if FDA doesn't get
or get get to the clinical trial sites
and verify the data
that Pfizer's using,
then they'll tell you on their own website.
They're using
and trusting the data
that's coming from Pfizer. Why would you trust
a company to,
it to provide you with accurate
data, not fraudulent data, when you can look
at their history?
Right. I mean, why would the United States
government contract
through Operation Warp Speed with a company
that was under
a,
a a confidentiality
agreement?
Excuse me. Not a confidentiality agreement.
It was a,
oh, gosh. What was it?
It was, they were for for being in
trouble. It'll come to me in a second.
I'll think of the name of it. But,
I mean, Pfizer was in trouble.
Corporate into SCIA, a corporate integrity agreement is
what Pfizer was under,
for for for crimes.
Why why would the government wanna contract with
them
to develop a vaccine
to prevent a pan to, you know, to
help, in this pandemic? Why? As you just
showed, because they wanted the fraudulent
they they they ordered the fraud that they
delivered. Right? Because this this is, you know,
same we were just saying before. It's like
you ask, you know, like, I don't understand.
You know, it's a clearly the point is
that They're horrible. They don't believe that that's
the reality, but it is. You know, that
they wanted to work with the group who's
willing to be fraudulent. That's my opinion, but
I think the evidence clearly shows that. And
I would also argue and I I hope
I'm wrong as always in this case, but
I the FDA is is a captured agency
as far as I'm concerned. So if we're
gonna have some real accountability, I argue we
need to find a way to not, you
know, keep running through these same broken institutions
or at least somehow verify that it's not
the same old broken thing. But I agree,
you know, that this is just one more
step of this. It's the same problem that
never really stopped. You know? And it's if
if we can't see that or the continuation
of the same shots or the Stargate platform
doing the same thing, you know, it's it's
a question of whether they're being played somehow
or knowingly continuing the same problem. And I
don't know how they could be missing information.
So to that point, I want your thoughts
on on that very thing. As as Barnes
pointed out, in his opinion anyway, he says
a key set of saboteurs
against the Trump reside in the bowels of
the justice department where lefty attorneys undermine the
Trump administration policies and to overturn twenty twenty
four elections. DOJ filed a brief opposing Brooke
Jackson claiming
claiming, Biden policy to prevent accusations of fraud
concerning COVID vaccine is still the policy when
Trump admin publicly averse that policy. Okay. So
what are your thoughts on that before I
comment?
No. Well, I don't necessarily agree with with
Robert Barnes here, and he he may have
been able to contact people within the justice
department, but I just you know, Trump is
our our commander in chief. So I don't
I I I I don't wanna think that
anything gets past that man.
Mhmm. Yeah. Well, I mean, I I think
the concern for me is that this is
the
reactionary
kind of benefit of the doubt. Right? Which,
obviously, that's certainly possible. Right? There could be
somebody. But I'm I did this whole lefty
hang holdover thing keeps being used for all
these conversations, and yet we never see anyone
arrested. We don't see any real point. No
one gets called out. You know? So I
I I I obviously possible. I'd like to
see some names or some evidence to back
that up. Otherwise, it seems to be, you
know, anything that goes against what we want,
so we can just assume that it's not
what he ordered because they want to believe
that. And, again, it could be. But I'm
very worried about that because
that allows people to ignore what we've been
highlighting here, which is that this is whether
being tricked or not, the same problem continuing.
And, I mean, I find it hard to
believe that makes sense with the Stargate platform,
you know, an mRNA
cancer platform, or or we could touch on,
as we get done here, the MMR discussion
where RFK Junior has now done a complete
one eighty. And I do think it's not
hard to under it's easy to see that
things have shifted in regard to what he's
saying, and then the argument becomes, well, he's
playing some kind of a game, and he's
trying to It's strategy. Going. And that goes
back to the same point of Trump and
the shot is I don't agree with that
logic. I think that's immoral, if not dangerous.
You know? So let's if you give you
any more thoughts on that point and if
you think there's more there, otherwise, let's let's
talk about the kind of evolution of all
the other points around this conversation, MMR, Stargate,
anything else.
Yeah. I'd I I don't you know, I,
I just don't under I don't understand
how how
Kennedy could advocate for the things that he
has for as long as he has
and,
you know, allow these things allow these allow
these things to stay. And I don't think
it's him again. I think that he's a
good man
and,
maybe a strategy, but
I guess,
I just I don't I don't like it.
Yeah. Well, I mean, that's that's that's the
important thing to highlight is that this is
wrong. Right? So, yes, the narrative could be
what they're claiming, but let's not lose sight
of the fact
that we need to resist this. I also
point out that I see a lot where
people will make an argument like that to
say, oh, well, it was a old, you
know, person left in the FBI.
And then because of that, not call out
that problem.
Like, well, hold on. No. We all agree
that's a bad thing. Like, let's you know?
But as if it's only important to to
hope that it's somebody else instead of recognizing
we need to keep stopping the thing that's
happening regardless.
Remember when everybody on x was like, stop
saying stop the shots until Kennedy's elected.
I'm like, no.
Because they need him. I'm not gonna stop
saying anything. Right. Right. True. See, that's just
integrity, Brooke. It's about consistency in your principles,
you know, and there's there's far too many
and and far too many good people, by
the way, who have just been convinced by
our argue partisan screamers out there on the
team sport politics game that they've been convinced
that this is more you know, it's a
lesser of evils. Like, we have to not
talk about this because when he gets in,
it'll be better in the long run. It's
like, well, maybe. You know, I just I'm
not gonna sacrifice my principles for your hopeful
and you know,
I argue partisan driven perspective. You know? But
that's it's it's hard. But as you wrote
here,
Biden covered for Fauci, Trump covered for pharma,
two presidents, zero accountability. Right? So I think
we can clearly see that this is an
ongoing and we would agree. You wrote, don't
ask why, ask how many. And this I
think this is a great point, Brooke. Since
how many times since February the US government
has dismissed pharmaceutical fraud cases? So just again,
it's nonpartisan.
Back as you wanna far back as you
wanna look, continuation of covering for pharma. How
many times have I asked why today?
I don't I don't know. Like,
you don't understand.
You wanna know why,
but you you already do. It's just what
comes out of your mouth to explain how
absurd this situation is. Exactly.
We just talked about Pam Bondi's connection, which
is relevant. I know you've just tweeted about
RFK Jr, but back from 2023, right, where
he said, Donald Trump owns Stockton Pfizer and
J and J who bought fancy tickets to
his inauguration and placed pharmaceuticals high in his
administration. That's how Washington works. I think that's
relevant to where we are right now. You
know? And then lastly, this on this point,
you said that, as as, HHS and RFK
Jr are now the legal client of the
DOJ on all PrEP Act, EUA, and vaccine,
related litigation, this means the DOJ represents him
in court. He sets the policy. He decides
whether PrEP Act shields stands stand or fall.
He has the power to end the COVID
emergency declaration today. That's an important that we
we don't focus on. Right? No more excuses.
So just kinda showing that he the buck
stops with him at this point. So If
that's and I I think that I'm so
glad that you pointed out.
The DOJ
is his client.
They do what he says.
Right.
They're saying
or excuse me. Kennedy
is saying
that the burdens of this case
are are too much for the American
people,
that
this shot or excuse me, this lawsuit
this lawsuit, which is about fraud,
goes against
public health policy.
Make that make sense?
It's just it's more legal arguments. I mean,
I I don't wanna pull this into another
conversation, but there's plenty of overlaps in the
world today from this administration, again, just the
US government. They were continuing to make similar
arguments where it's just too much of a
burden. Well, it's not about whether it's a
it's about right and wrong, principles, integrity, constitutional
rights. Like, you can't just make an excuse.
We we all made this point during COVID
nineteen where you can't say, you know, there's
no asterisk on the constitution. There's nothing except
when there's a pandemic. Right? That's not how
it works. But we're seeing a lot of
these arguments continue, which it's not unique to
left and right. It it's I've seen Biden
and Bush and Obama and everybody else do
the same kind of thing in in their
context. And so I worry that we're falling
for similar things.
I I didn't want your thoughts on on
the MMR shot in general. You know? What
do you think is dry a lot of
people had the conversation about whether he's being
blackmailed, which I can't find any evidence to
back up, but wouldn't surprise me. What are
your thoughts on the one eighty on MMR
shots? We're seemingly telling you us now it's
and then it followed up again saying it's
safe and effective, essentially.
I just don't know what to say to
that other than
somebody's got him.
Yeah.
It wouldn't surprise me. I've had a really
difficult time trying to reconcile that. And, like,
I'm not gonna say I know. I wouldn't
argue we can prove that, but his work
has been profoundly important before this. And I
don't it just there was just this weird
shift. And, yes, it was after a very
certain event, and I just think that
something it does seem like something happened there.
And but it's also possible that it was
all a long term ploy. I just don't
think that adds up. So I think it's
worth considering that. But either way, our point
to say has been the same, that it's
still something we call out regardless of who's
driving or who's holding them, you know, as
you've written point. Agree 100%.
We don't know what's going on behind closed
doors. I just know
what his stance has been
for his whole almost adult adult life. You
know, I I know that he's a brilliant
attorney. I've read his briefs.
I know the MMR case very well. He
said just recently
that,
there was a False Claims Act case against
Merck for
what they did in the clinical trial. They
rigged the clinical
trial, and he didn't say that. He said
it was,
dismissed on a technicality.
Well, that technicality is that the government knew
about the fraud, but chose to purchase it
anyway.
Right.
I mean, it's just it's insane. And all
these cases, it doesn't take I mean, you
can I don't know if you like using
AI or you don't, but a quick Google
search or duck duck, whatever your favorite search
engine is,
all you have to do is type in
false claims act cases
pharmaceuticals,
and you can do your own research? And
I encourage that
I encourage people to do that. You know,
it's not hard to look these things up,
but the government has been doing this,
for a long time. You know? This this
Pfizer case, the Merck case,
you know, there there have been many, many
false claims that cases against pharmaceuticals
where there's alleged fraud in the clinical trial,
and the government says
get rid of it. Yeah.
Right.
Which I said I'm saying the same point
as before is that just very important to
see the long term linear it's it's not
left and right in all this, and that's
the point that really matters. It's just this
is something that needs to stop. And every
single time of a change of the guard,
people make up new arguments for why something
will be different. And I'm all with the
hope. I I hope that's gonna happen, but
I'm I'm more critical than ever. But then
things happen the same, and then there's a
narrative built around why it's not the same
thing or why it'll end a different way.
You know? And, again, I hope so, but
we can see it hasn't really stopped. And
so this is the the largest problem is
that this we're coming to a point where
these things are intersecting with much larger problems
or actually, they're much larger, just different, like
like a you know, the technological advancements that
I think will apply to this that make
this possibly already even there that really terrify
me. You know? So we people need to
stand up and put their foot down and
stop you know,
ignore for the moment the the the people
that you think you're following or believe in
and just focus on the policy and the
integrity and the principle of it all. And
I think it's pretty clear that this is
a problem.
And I I'd like to end with talking
about the the gain of function point because
I think this is a really interesting and
this is just recent as of yesterday to
today, which is another example of something that
we all, like, championed by like, I would
say more so than anybody, the right of
the conversation. Right? Calling out the problems around
this, calling out gain of function,
Pfizer, COVID nineteen,
and are now with this administration
continuing just like Biden did and everyone before
them, I argue the same problem under a
guise of something else. And this is what,
Tom Renz put out saying, Trump allows gain
of function research to continue, but in certain
aspects, when the framing is out as if
this is stopping gain of function. Now give
me your thoughts on that. I know, yeah,
we're not going deep on this. I've only
just come you know, been reading about it
today. Do you have any perspective on that?
Well, I I use
x
as kind of, like,
my diary almost.
And I don't know if you caught the
little
pardon me joke there,
but, you know, I I follow, Emily Copp,
and she's the one that actually pointed pointed
me to this.
And so you you go look at the
executive order, you read it, and then you
compare it to what was in place in
2017.
And and what has actually changed?
Not a lot.
So I I just I wish people and
I'm guilty of this myself too. I get
excited when I see something that, you know,
means something to me. You just wanna go
repost it,
quickly to let people know. But I encourage
people to to to to read the executive
order.
And once
this administration
finally puts out what
these changes
in policy are gonna look like, because they're
it's just a tease right now. They don't
they haven't they haven't,
spelled that out for us yet.
But but in what I've read, there there
isn't much change. You know, what I would
have liked to see right away,
just going, you know, based on the most
recent
disaster with gain of function is what happened
with COVID.
You know? How about we not allow people
that participate in these activities, whether it's on
our soil or not,
that, you know, we find some way to
hold them accountable, but especially if if they're
on our soil. Why did why did Fauci
get a pardon? I mean, he's, to me,
just, you know, the most evil person,
out there. But
why did he get a why did he
get a pardon? Why did the American taxpayer
dollar have to pay millions American
taxpayer have to pay millions of dollars
for his his personal
chauffeur service and his security. Like, why are
we protecting him? Yeah. Right. It's an important
question.
For
for part of this.
So I would have liked to see some
stronger language, some enforcement mechanism within that executive
order to hold people accountable for the things
that they say
are not allowed anymore or little tweaks that
they've made here and there. So,
anyway
Well, there's important points to add is that
ultimately, let's remember that the last time, which
went through both administrations,
you know, in the recent recent memory,
where they said they were stopping and they
didn't. We can prove that. Right? So let's
just be clear. Just because they say these
things or, you know, actually sign an executive
order as opposed to legislation, by the way,
which is always the way this is gonna
go, so it's it's it's not really applicable
to the world or even more than the
executive branch, which is how they actually work.
You know, they they could just lie about
that. But, secondarily, let's not forget that even
Fauci tried to roll out the whole e
e e e or e p p p,
like, the new name for it. And so
how we know they're not gonna use that
Full function use. That's exactly there are loopholes
Exactly. Within what we've been shown
that will allow the same thing to continue
as my points. Exactly. And as you as
you rightly pointed out, here's one thing that
concerns me, referencing what, Tom Rentz was highlighting.
The new executive order does ban civilian funded
or civilian funding for dangerous bioresearch unless it's
for war games. So even that alone could
just be, well, that's every time they do
it now will be called a war game.
It's easy to see if this can apply.
No change. That's that's always been allowed. Just
Exactly.
Know. But, you know, I mean, it kinda
feeds into
how the Department of Defense
used this prototype
contract
with,
you know,
Pfizer to get their product. You know? I
mean, it it it is the vaccine.
So
they were able to use these kinda carve
out carve outs to,
you know, direct their weapon at
the people.
Right. It's just mind blowing. I know. I
know. And I wish I I wish I
had, you know, like, all the time in
the world
to sit down and
and and access to data that I'm certain
that they've scrubbed. Right? Even even since.
That's my concern about the Stargate or just
one of the different overlaps. So let's not
forget that that included
Larry Ellison, right, who is Oracle, who Oracle
was overlapped with COVID nineteen, and Montsef Salawi
and the pharmacovigilance.
And so there's a whole database that he
remember that they promised wouldn't be used exactly
like this, and now it's being used exactly
like this, which is the point is that,
ultimately, that was data we never got to
see. Right? That was a that was a
whole different thing where they Mount Sefzelawi, under
the original warp speed, said they would follow
people for up to two years for, you
know, pharmacovigilance
if they took the shot. And that that
that that we never got to see that
as far as I can tell. And so
now it's being overlapped with this and, you
know, obviously, with SoftBank and and AI, Sam
Altman, and everything else. But I'm worried about
how that overlap continues and really just shows
you this dovetail with the technocratic direction. And
I think it's important to highlight, as we
just said, plenty more mRNA shots coming out.
She, she also pointed out 2024 to 2045.
This is Mary Talley Bowden. COVID shots for
ages six months to 11 years are authorized
under emergency use authorization by the US FDA,
not fully licensed, yet are on the CDC
pediatric schedule. Now we've got a lot of
talk about shifting things. You mentioned the placebo
thing. You know, there's a lot of things
being stated.
I don't see any actual material changes in
earnest just yet. I I really hope we
see them. I do think some of them
will probably happen to one degree or another,
but I think it's important that we hold
back our cheering until we actually see these
things materialize. Because because even the placebo point,
you know, that's been going on a long
time, and I don't necessarily see it begin
to take place. But, you know, just as
wrap up to end, you know They haven't
even they haven't even come out with their
policy, Ryan. Like,
they're just saying that they're going to do
this.
That's not been written out anywhere.
So what is the what does that look
like? Is that only gonna apply to new
vaccines? Is that gonna apply to,
you know, everything else that's on the childhood
and adult immunization schedules. Good point. I that
that that's another thing that I just wanna
point out really quickly. You know, we we
can call for, you know, a a ban
on these mRNA products for our children, and
I think that's super important.
Absolutely.
But
we know that it's
injuring and killing people.
So why would we just recall it for
kids? What about who's who's gonna take care
of these kids when their parents get shot
and are killed or injured? Or, you know,
I I I just it's
we just have to do what we know,
is the right thing, what's required by law.
And that that's kind of sorry. I just
wanted to point that that out really quickly.
I agree.
You know, of course, we worry about the
babies. Yes.
But
we adults matter too.
Well, it it comes down to a principle.
I mean, again, it's the same point. If
you're aware of the real problem, there's no
world in which you would allow that to
continue to be used. And, especially getting into
all the deeper points that the average person
has no idea about, I would argue, about
whether, you know, any number of very crazy
topics we can get into around the overlap
of these shots. But just the the the
even the basic peer reviewed science at this
point. I mean, we can clearly see that
these things let's not even remotely benefits outweigh
the risk. Like, it's shockingly to the other
side. And and I I frankly, my opinion,
the evidence shows that there's not even remotely
effective and whatever that even actually means unless
the effectiveness is what they're designed to do,
which is hurt people. Because I I and
so you can't pretend like we can just
let that continue because that is the very
problem. And, you know, this is how it
goes back and forth and the things continue
down on the same path. And I think
that what we can see is that the
same thing is going forward, the same schedule,
a lot of like you said, the statements
about things that I really do hope come
to pass or, for example, on the placebo
point, like, what what about if they have
do what they've always done, which is, yeah,
we'll use a placebo, but we'll use a
meningitis vaccine, you know, in a way that
makes it clearly seem as if there's a
less disparity between saline and something else. Now
that they use they argue those are placebos
in the conversation. You know, we have to
wait to see things actually happen before we
start making these claims. But And just one
more time. You know, you can you can
change
make all these changes
to the design of clinical trials,
but FDA needs to get out to the
clinical trial sites Yes. And do their job
and and enforce,
excuse me, get these inspectors out to the
sites to to verify the data. Otherwise,
it's just a rigged placebo controlled trial.
Well, I I'm glad you said that because
I was gonna say this before. To your
the point that's important there is that, you
know, yes, you can have all this conversation
about every part of the process, but if
they're simply relying to begin with on data
that's that could be fraudulent,
then everything else doesn't matter. You know, like,
that's that's the core of it, you know,
or at least the very at the very
least, it could be manipulated. And this has
been your whole point from the very beginning,
you know. And it's why, again, I think
your work is profoundly important in this conversation
or just in a health focused conversation in
general. I hope people That's I mean, I
focus on that, you know, that that's kind
of what affected me,
personally.
And I just you know, find your space,
ma'am, whatever it is. You know, whatever you
whatever is important to you, stay focused,
there, but take the time to learn about
these different areas of of concern,
and and keep doing what you're doing to
get the information out. We do reach people,
you know. Definitely.
And if I just reach one a day,
you know, if somebody's like, what? That's crazy.
I didn't know that. To me, like, I
feel like I've done my job because
I don't really have one anymore because Pfizer
got me fired.
Right. Right. Well, I agree completely, and I
think that's the best way to look at
this. You know? It's I and, obviously, I
think we're reaching way more than that, but
I agree with you is that, you know,
just that if you change one person's mind,
you don't know how that will cascade through
the future. I'm actually not even gonna change
your mind. I just wanna inform you of
what's actually happening. You know, I'm glad you
said that because I I completely agree. It's
not about well, the way the way I
mean that is ultimately give you information to
potentially change the way you see things. But
I agree. It's not about that we want
you to think the way I think. It's
just if we can influence with facts more
people every day, that will most definitely change
things. And they tell their friends and they
grow up and they tell their family. You
know? It's it's profound. So thank you for
saying that. And, you know, I again, I
think it's important that people support your work,
to reach out in front and I I
I'll include everything we discussed today, including, oh,
you know, I'll I'll show you afterward. I
was gonna show you something. And I'll I'll
include your links here for people to check
you out, and just please support her work
because she is doing amazing things out there.
Anything else you wanna leave us with before
we take off today? Any updates or things
coming up in the future?
Oh, well, we do have our re, reply
brief due,
in just a few weeks. We'll probably we'll
likely request an extension. So it may be
a month, maybe more before,
we're able to get get that filed with
the circuit court
or, excuse me, the appellate
the appellate court. But, oh, I just I
have fun coming on here. I appreciate the
opportunity to to give an update, and thank
you for doing what what you do and
getting the information to the people so that
they can make an informed decision.
And,
I do. I love I love your saying,
like, question everything.
That's so important to me. And, you know,
one of one of my friends on x,
told me a long time ago,
trust no one.
So I trust no one and I question
everything. So I just I appreciate that for
sure. Well, thank you. And, you know, I
I can see your friend, Brooke, and I'm
I'm glad you came back on and let's
connect again in the future because I don't
think this is gonna get less important as
time goes on. So let's stay in touch.
And as always, everyone out there, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
We should be having a public dialogue, and
it should be something that rises to the
level of legislation. We should not allow the
National Institutes of Health or the Department of
Defense to allocate funding to amplify these agents
so that, allegedly, we can study them in
the case that they fall into the hands
of bad people. Because the evidence
has shown us
that the bad people who actually have unleashed
these pathogens
since 1991
and by the way, if you go to
miscellaneous memorandum seven and other documents,
we can go back to the nineteen fifties.
The bad people who unleashed these things on
the population
are us.
It is The US who's doing it.