Senate Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on COVID vaccines and cancer

[2:19] Good afternoon. This hearing is called to order. Just brief explanation of how this hearing came [2:25] about. I met Dr. Sabine Hazen in October of 2021 during really the height of COVID and [2:35] really related to all the work I was doing in terms of early treatment and then the COVID [2:40] injection injured that type of thing and I'm not quite sure how you got on my radar screen but [2:45] we struck up a good texting relationship and immediately I was, Dr. Hazen made me aware of [2:55] how her research which was conducted with, supported by, guided by, overseen by the FDA [3:05] was being sabotaged and with all the hearings and events I had done I was trying to figure out some [3:13] way of how can we, how can we hold a hearing on this because this is really bad for science to have [3:19] research sabotaged. End of last year Dr. Hazen introduced me to Dr. Eldiri who probably a poster [3:29] child for being tormented by I'll call them trolls into science and so we put together this hearing [3:41] um it's kind of predicated on Dr. Eldiri's work that I think prompted all the attacks um that's [3:49] why that's where I'm holding this hearing so let me get into my opening statement uh I want to thank all [3:53] the witnesses I know this is a real imposition take a lot of time and effort and expense to get here [3:59] but today's hearing is titled plausible mechanisms of COVID-19 injections causing cancer and attacks on [4:06] scientific publications and research although it may seem these are two unrelated topics discussing [4:12] them together would help explain why such a large percentage of the public remains unaware of the [4:19] serious adverse events caused by the COVID-mRNA injections. In April the subcommittee held a [4:25] hearing and released a report exposing how how top FDA officials decided to use a safety surveillance [4:33] algorithm that they knew would and in fact did hide safety signals on extremely serious adverse events [4:44] including sudden death. This was a bombshell revelation that unfortunately was dismissed [4:50] by this subcommittee's ranking member and completely ignored by the legacy media. Since 1997 when the [4:58] Clinton administration made America only the second nation on earth to allow mass media advertising on [5:04] pharmaceutical products big pharma has spent billions on tv ads to capture the media and as a result [5:11] the narrative. Prior to 1997 there was serious journalism covering suspected vaccine injuries. In 1997 Mike [5:20] Wallace reported on CBS's 60 minutes about swine flu vaccine injuries. By the way they pulled the swine flu vaccine [5:28] after about 25 to 30 deaths and four to five hundred cases of Guillaume-Barre disease. They pulled it 20 to 30 [5:37] 25 to 30 deaths. We have over 39,000 deaths right now associated with the COVID injection worldwide from [5:45] the VAERS vaccine but I'll move on. In 1982 WRCTV's Leah Thompson reported on the findings of their more than [5:53] year-long investigation into the safety and effectiveness of the pertussis component of the DPT vaccine. In 1985 [6:01] Phil Donahue discussed both the swine flu and DPT vaccines and related injuries during his hour-long show. Since 1997 [6:09] there have been a few reports on hepatitis B, MMR, HPV vaccine safety but the quote safe and effective [6:18] unquote mantra combined with the narrative that adverse effects are quote rare and generally mild [6:25] unquote has overwhelmed any coverage of the harms. Legacy Media is not the only American institution that has [6:33] been captured and controlled. Big Pharma also hires and financially awards former federal health agency [6:40] officials and spends lavishly on lobbying and political donations to lawmakers of both parties. [6:48] It generously funds other members of the COVID cartel, social media, medical associations like the [6:54] American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatricians, international health [6:59] organizations, medical colleges and medical journals. The testimony of today's hearing raises the question [7:06] whether Big Pharma might also be funding individuals who troll scientific research that runs counter to its goals and narratives. [7:14] It should come as no surprise therefore that during the pandemic treatment alternatives using cheap [7:20] and safe generic drugs were not only suppressed but acted actively sabotaged in favor of a liability-free [7:27] and highly profitable experimental gene therapy and that's what it is. The fact that all the institutions [7:35] of benefit from Big Pharma's largesse actively push the experimental gene therapy is also the reason they [7:41] are now working so hard to suppress the reality of COVID mRNA injection injuries. Testimony given in April's [7:49] hearing detailed the safety studies that were not done on the COVID injections prior to their emergency use [7:55] authorization and eventual full approval. This list of omitted studies should shock everyone. Again, these were just in [8:03] testimony, drug-drug interactions, cardiovascular toxicity, central nervous system toxicity, other organ toxicity, [8:13] blood toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity. Those studies weren't conducted. I'm not sure they've been [8:23] conducted even today because it's approved. Now we just don't want to know. Although legacy media, federal health [8:30] officials, and the medical establishment continue to ignore and hide the lies told and the harms done by governments [8:36] in response to the coronavirus, alternate media has been spreading the truth to a growing percentage of [8:42] the global public. As a result, trust in these institutions is eroding. The only way, the only way [8:51] to rebuild that lost trust is for the truth to be acknowledged in a process of public reckoning. The [8:58] hearings I've been holding are intended to contribute to that reckoning. Today we'll hear from highly [9:05] credentialed and experienced doctors and medical researchers who will discuss the plausible mechanisms [9:10] of COVID mRNA injection harms. They will also describe the attacks they are experiencing on their [9:15] research and reputations because they have the courage to expose the truth. I want to sincerely [9:21] thank the witnesses for their courage and the time and effort they put in their testimony and advocacy. [9:26] Let me just end on this note. In a couple of my public hearings, I conclude with the statement that I am truly amazed [9:36] at the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the millennia. I mean, it is amazing what we know and [9:44] how rapidly we're gaining that knowledge. But in spite of that, I would argue that what we don't know [9:52] vastly, and I mean vastly exceeds what we do. And so in any kind of discussion like this, in any kind of [10:00] scientific research, I think people involved need to approach these problems with that level of modesty and [10:11] that kind of humility. So if I'll turn it over to our ranking member Blumenthal. Thank you, [10:21] Chairman Johnson. I'd like to begin my remarks by reminding everybody watching today that the National [10:34] Cancer Institute has concluded, quote, there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer lead to [10:47] recurrence or lead to recurrence or lead to disease progression, end quote. I could conclude there, [11:12] but I think that this hearing really merits a fuller explanation of what is at stake here. [11:23] Because we need more research into finding cancer cures and more research into preventing cancer in the [11:32] first place. Cancer causes fear for everyone. And almost everyone, I venture to say, in fact, everyone [11:45] has been touched by cancer in some way. And so that fear is pervasive. We can't allow that fear to cause [11:53] unfounded attacks on the COVID vaccines or any other vaccine. These vaccines have saved millions of lives. [12:02] And we should all be rooting for similar feats of science to help people who are stricken with cancer [12:09] or help to prevent it. Cancer data is very closely tracked in the United States. And the idea that a rollout of COVID-19 [12:17] vaccines has precipitated a surge in cancer is simply not supported, nor do the vaccines make cancer grow [12:29] faster. According to the American Cancer Society, most cancer doctors recommended vaccination against COVID-19 [12:37] for the cancer patients they are treating. Unfortunately, messages about the safety and effectiveness of [12:47] vaccination are increasingly deluged by myths and misinformation. Immunization rates are declining across [12:57] the country. Diseases like measles are surging. And tragically also, vaccines have been proven to [13:06] prevent certain types of cancer. Those vaccines are facing groundless attacks from top public health officials. [13:15] Maybe not surprisingly, because HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy initially declined to surrender his [13:24] financial stake in litigation against the maker of HPV vaccines, and then only under pressure from Congress [13:31] turned his interest over to his son. There's ample evidence, in fact, that HPV vaccines help prevent [13:42] cervical cancer. A disease that is projected to kill 4,200 Americans this year. And I'm grateful that we have [13:51] Tameka Felder, a cervical cancer survivor here with us today. I really thank her for being here. [13:59] You're doing us a great service. It's stories like yours, Ms. Felder, that remind us of the human impact of [14:08] science's great successes. And I'm also grateful to have Dr. Julie Graylow, the Chief Medical Officer of the American [14:16] Society of Clinical Oncology, who's here to remind us about the absence of credible scientific evidence [14:27] linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer and the safety of these vaccines for people undergoing cancer treatment. [14:36] Very important. And thank you, Dr. Graylow. As just one example of the overwhelming evidence of the safety of [14:43] these vaccines, I would like to submit for the record a study from the Journal of the American Medical [14:48] Association involving nearly 30 million people and finding that four years after vaccination, people who [14:56] received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to die from cancer than those who were not vaccinated. [15:05] I ask that it be under the record if there's no objection, Mr. Chairman. No objection. I'm wondering if that's as good as the [15:09] Commonwealth Fund study entered in the previous hearing, but no, no objection. Thank you. [15:17] It's unfortunate that we need Dr. Graylow to appear before a hearing like this one when there are much more [15:25] pressing threats to cancer patients and cancer research coming from Trump administration policies. [15:34] And that's the big issue here. And the reason that I am expanding on what I said earlier, because the [15:42] administration has put up needless roadblocks that have slowed the flow of grants to cancer researchers. [15:49] Halts to funding imposed early last year caused the American Association of Cancer Institutes to warn [15:56] that the Trump administration policies were, quote, slowing progress against cancer. And the Trump [16:04] administration's obvious animus toward mRNA technology that was used for COVID-19 vaccines threatens [16:13] some of the most promising research for targeted cancer treatments. The studies canceled. The patients [16:22] excluded from trials. The treatments abandoned. Decisions made today about cancer research will impact us [16:30] and our children for decades to come. Just days ago, scientists announced amazing results from the study of a new [16:38] drug for prostate cancer, one of the hardest cancers to treat. These results were possible in part because [16:45] of work done many years ago at the National Cancer Institute, one scientist who helped with that [16:52] research said, quote, this kind of basic research is being greatly threatened by current government policies. Basic [17:03] research is essential. It's not just COVID vaccines. It's not just cancer vaccines. It's all kinds of medical [17:14] treatment that you will find in hospitals today saving lives beginning with basic research that is being [17:22] throttled by this administration. And so I hope we can all agree that advancing cures for cancer and stopping [17:36] the forces that undermine them ought to be a top priority for all of us in Congress. It ought to be a bipartisan [17:42] cause. I hope my colleagues will take up the mantle with me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Senator [17:49] Blumenthal. It is the tradition of this subcommittee to swear on witnesses. So if you all rise and raise your [17:54] right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give before the subcommittee would be the [18:06] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. You're seated. Our first witness is [18:14] Dr. Angus Dalglish. Dr. Dalglish is Professor Emeritus of Oncology at City St. George's University [18:22] of London, where he has pioneered the immunotherapy of cancer. He is known for his work on HIV and cancer [18:29] and received the Joshua Lederberg Prize in 2011 for his work developing cancer treatments. He's been the [18:35] principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy since 2000 and a consultant in general [18:41] medicine, immunology, virology, and oncology since 1986. And by the way, these are very abbreviated [18:47] biologies or biographies. I mean, each one of these individuals on both sides have much larger biographies [18:53] that you should take a look at. But I force them to abbreviate it. Dr. Dalglish. Thank you very much [19:02] for asking me to give evidence on this. I'd just like to point out that I have done, as you say, I've been in [19:08] cancer immunotherapy for over three decades. And I have made big advances in the treatment of cancer [19:18] with immunotherapy. So this sets the scene that I then became aware in early 22 of my patients who'd [19:28] been stable for years, mainly melanoma patients. They'd had several different types of immunotherapy. [19:36] And in six weeks, I saw six patients relapse with melanoma. They had been stable for three to 18 years. [19:45] They felt well apart from the relapse. And being investigative, I asked, you know, what was the [19:52] thing that was common? And the thing that was common is they'd all received a booster vaccine from their [19:59] general practitioners. Now, I know that these cancers are totally controlled by the T cell response. [20:07] So I immediately suspected the T cell response was being perturbated by the cancer. And initial [20:15] investigations show that this was likely to be true. However, there was then a paper published [20:23] by some doctors in Madrid, which I quote, the paper is called the evidence of exhausted lymphocytes [20:30] after the third anti SARS COVID-2 vaccine dose in cancer patients. I mean, this was absolutely staggering [20:38] that they showed across hundreds of patients that you get this T cell suppression. Hard on the heels of [20:44] this were then a numerous reports that the following a booster vaccine, we were getting IgG immunoglobulin [20:53] switching. So you converted the immune system from being aggressive fighting invaders to one of [21:00] tolerization. So therefore, the immune system was tolerating the cancer. And this was the reason that [21:07] we were starting to see it. However, it is important at this stage to say that we were getting reports after I first [21:14] reported this of other cancers. And my initial observation that this was all due to T cell suppression [21:22] started to fade into the perspective that other actors were at work with the vaccine, as it were. [21:31] Colorectal cancer was being reported by my patients, by my fellow surgeons, as reporting, as presenting [21:40] late stage four, not stage one or two, and early in patients in their twenties and thirties and forties, [21:47] in a way that we have not seen before. And then in my own practice, as I was looking for patients [21:56] who'd had other cancers, I noticed that they too had had booster vaccines. And I list them in my report. [22:03] They go from everything from the common cancers, from breast, prostate, et cetera, and all the way [22:09] through to some really unexpected ones, including glioma, and more recently, hematological malignancies. [22:17] Now, looking at the literature as to why this could be, and I'm involved in two big publications, [22:25] ones being accepted prior to changes. And this shows that there are remarkable at least a dozen [22:33] mechanisms where messenger RNA can insert into the DNA and activate oncogenes. And more importantly, [22:43] and especially the long term, they can suppress the suppressor networks, which means if cancer is [22:50] starting to evolve, it would normally be maintained, controlled, and this mechanism is being prevented. [22:58] And the number of people who've shown this is quite enormous. So as an oncologist, who I starting to see [23:05] that it's not only my patients now, it's people I know really well, who are going down with cancer, [23:11] and they're going down more aggressively. And the treatment is not working nearly as well. And I'm used to [23:18] people saying, oh, there's no evidence of cancers increasing and that there's anything to do with [23:23] the vaccine. But I can assure you from the patients that I have seen, that many have seen a dozen doctors [23:31] before, not one of them has ever asked the vaccine history. So of course, they see no evidence. And my [23:38] full detailed research into the messenger RNA vaccines, and I was on the scientific board of a [23:44] company claimed to be the messenger RNA vaccine company for five years and left eight years ago. [23:51] So I know a lot more than the average clinician and make myself and others feel that there is no way [23:58] you can control this technology and its use for future vaccines should be banned. And the COVID one [24:04] stopped now. Thank you, Dr. Dalglish. You stayed right on time. Appreciate that. Next witness is Dr. Wafik [24:11] Eldiri. Dr. Eldiri is a practicing physician scientist, American Cancer Society professor, [24:18] founding director of the Cancer Center at Brown University, and chair of the Worldwide Innovative [24:22] Network Consortium in Precision Oncology. He discovered a tumor suppressant gene he named Waf1, [24:29] and a first of its kind drug approved by FDA last year for the treatment of an aggressive brain cancer. [24:34] Dr. Eldiri. Thank you, Senator Johnson and Senator Blumenthal, and Mr. [24:42] distinguished committee members for the opportunity to speak at this important hearing. [25:00] I am a physician scientist and cancer researcher with more than 30 years of experience studying [25:08] how our body normally fights cancer through a major tumor suppressor called p53 and finding new ways of [25:19] treating it. I've also advocated on Capitol Hill since 2005 for support of research funding, which is [25:28] really vital. My work has focused on how cancers develop within when these normal tumor suppressor [25:38] mechanisms fail, including discoveries involving how tumor suppressors work, and this has become [25:47] foundational in cancer biology and oncology research. I've also studied how viruses and other biological [25:54] processes can disrupt our defenses against cancer. So when the COVID pandemic began, I wanted to help by [26:04] applying our expertise in cancer biology, immunology, and approved treatments to better understand and [26:10] treat COVID. It's been long understood that certain viruses contribute to cancer development by disrupting [26:18] tumor suppressor pathways, including p53, one of the body's most important cancer protective mechanisms. [26:25] Early in the pandemic, I became concerned that the COVID virus might similarly interfere with these defense [26:32] mechanisms, making this an important area for scientific investigation. Early in the pandemic, I also [26:39] expressed uncertainty on social media about the natural origin of the COVID virus. And this is when I first [26:46] started to experience repercussions of speaking out against the mainstream narrative. What I didn't expect [26:54] were the attacks on science itself. By July 2020, my laboratory published findings showing that a class [27:02] of cancer drugs known as MEK inhibitors suppressed ACE2, the cell surface receptor the COVID virus uses to [27:11] infect human cells. By April of 24, we reported findings suggesting that the spike protein associated with [27:20] COVID infection or COVID vaccination could reduce the ability of p53 to activate genes involved in suppressing cancer. [27:29] Based on these findings, we emphasized that effective vaccines against viruses such as COVID should [27:35] strengthen immunity against infection without interfering with the body's natural defenses against cancer. [27:43] These concerns were raised through normal scientific channels, yet the response was not open scientific [27:49] engagement, but escalating attacks. Instead of contributing to scientific dialogue, [27:55] the findings triggered attacks on both the research and the researchers involved. Much of this occurred through [28:03] an online platform known as PubPeer, originally created about a decade ago to identify fraud and scientific [28:11] misconduct. Unfortunately, the platform increasingly became weaponized against researchers whose findings [28:19] challenged prevailing narratives. The platform permits anonymous accusations without meaningful accountability. [28:27] There is no disclosure of conflicts of interest, no statute of limitations, or citizenship requirements. [28:33] These attacks are public, amplified through social media, and can continue indefinitely regardless of whether [28:40] wrongdoing is ever established. This is precisely what happened to us. Although we corrected minor errors [28:47] where appropriate and continue to do so, none altered the underlying results or conclusions of our work. [28:54] Nevertheless, our publications became subject of sustained public attacks that damaged reputation and [29:01] undermined scientific credibility. Despite these ongoing attacks, last summer I agreed to serve on an HHS [29:13] Committee on Immunization Practices working group on COVID immunizations. As an expert, I therefore looked into [29:26] everything we know about cancer and COVID infection and COVID vaccination and by the fall found nearly 70 papers [29:35] as well. The reported cancers occurred near injection sites like sarcomas or lymphomas right at the injection site, within the head and neck region, within and elsewhere, including as Dr. Deglish mentioned, brain tumors and other tumors. [30:04] In some reported cases, spike protein was identified within tumor tissue. [30:11] Our findings were published in January of this year, and shortly afterwards, I was contacted directly [30:18] by former Japanese Minister Kazuhiro Haraguchi, who reported developing a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that later metastasized to his tonsil [30:30] and biopsied and biopsied and they found spike protein. There should be no spike in tumors. [30:35] These observations warrant serious scientific investigation, and as such, a number of unexpected [30:44] observations have been made with the COVID mRNA vaccines that suggest potentially plausible mechanisms [30:54] and connections to cancer. The attacks on my publications intensified and continue to the present day, [31:01] despite no findings of fraud, misconduct or wrongdoing after years of investigation. [31:07] I am for vaccines that are safe and effective. Both our paper and the journal itself became targets of attacks [31:14] through PubPeer and related online campaigns. I remain, in effect, guilty until proven innocent. [31:22] Patients deserve informed consent. Scientists deserve the freedom to investigate legitimate scientific [31:28] concerns. There are many open questions, including who is at greatest risk from these vaccines, and there [31:36] shouldn't be fear of reputational destruction, institutional retaliation, or professional [31:42] ruin. PubPeer needs to be held accountable for making false accusations against physicians [31:48] and scientists that destroy reputations and careers. Thank you. [31:53] Thank you, Dr. Eldeary. Our next witness is Dr. Saskia Mostert. Dr. Mostert studied medicine at VU [32:01] Amsterdam in the Netherlands and conducted a PhD program on compliance and childhood leukemia treatment [32:07] in Indonesia. She then worked as a research coordinator of global health and pediatric oncology research [32:13] programs at Amsterdam University Medical Center and Princess Maxima Center. Her fields of expertise include [32:20] treatment compliance, the problem of corruption in medicine, and hospital detention practices. Dr. Mostert. [32:32] Dear members of the American Senate, in 2024, our team published a study in BMJ Public Health examining [32:41] all-cause mortality data across Western countries between 2020 and 2022. These were government-reported [32:48] mortality records routinely used throughout mainstream public health. The peer review process had taken more [32:56] than nine months. Our study showed that excess mortality remained elevated across 47 Western [33:03] countries, totaling more than 3 million excess deaths. Excess mortality persisted across the overwhelming [33:09] majority of countries studied after the acute phase of the pandemic. We did not claim certainty regarding the [33:17] causes of excess mortality. Rather, we asked attention for three major events that were non-existent before [33:24] the pandemic. The COVID infection, the containment measures, and the COVID vaccines. In addition, [33:30] we acknowledged other overlooked factors. We urged governments and public health leaders to investigate [33:36] the underlying causes and evaluate their policies. During the pandemic, extraordinary measures were [33:43] justified in the name of protecting human life. Public officials and media emphasized that every COVID [33:49] death mattered and every life deserved protection. I believe the discovery of more than 3 million excess deaths [33:57] would prompt the same urgency in investigating their causes. Instead, what followed often resembled what I could [34:04] only describe as blind fury. What could explain this massive outrage? During the pandemic, health policies [34:12] were combined with psychological tactics to influence public behavior. Governments and media implemented [34:19] psychological manipulation and fear propaganda without our awareness or consent that increases conformity and [34:27] reduces tolerance for reason and dissenting voices such as tunnel vision, emotional messaging, polarization and [34:35] important to distinguish the distinction between worthy versus unworthy victims. So, distinguishing [34:42] between important victims who deserve extensive attention or support and other victims who can be ignored. [34:50] Censorship and suppression tactics have been used against doctors and scientists questioning the official COVID narrative. [34:56] I will mention a few. The devaluation tactics, discrediting critics and criticism using labeling such as misinformation. [35:05] Cover-up tactics, hiding censorship, using proxies, fact-checkers, shadow banning and deplatforming. [35:12] Reinterpretation tactics, favorably framing censorship as protection of the public or follow the science. [35:19] Official channel tactics, which gives the censorship the appearance of legitimacy of justice [35:25] and hides political or economic conflicts of interest. And, last but not least, the intimidation tactics. [35:31] Using fear, threats, coercion to silence critics and others. [35:36] Encountered blind and irrational fury after our publication can thus be explained by tunnel vision disruption. [35:43] Not only the worthy victims, the COVID patients, but also the unworthy victims, the lockdown victims and [35:50] the vaccine injured were described. Polarization in society between those who followed the official [35:56] COVID narrative and those who questioned it became visible. Despite a supportive statement from Reuters, [36:03] media outlets used their devaluation tactics and labeled the publication as anti-vax conspiracy theory and [36:10] misinformation. One affiliated hospital publicly distanced itself from the study and announced a scientific [36:18] integrity investigation. Institutional responses are increasingly used as official channel tactics [36:26] to discredit, intimidate, isolate and silence those raising unwelcome scientific questions. [36:33] I resigned. Scientific integrity investigations can be evaluated according to confidentiality, [36:41] transparency, presumption of innocence and fairness principles. To my opinion, [36:46] all these principles have been trampled on. The institutional confidential report about my co-authors [36:51] was leaked to a national newspaper and resulted in a hit piece. This example speaks volumes. [36:58] Be clear, I lost my position after publishing official government mortality data and calling for further [37:05] scientific investigation into persistent excess deaths. Science cannot function when legitimate questions [37:12] become professionally dangerous to ask. When scientists fear professional destruction, [37:18] the public loses access to honest scientific inquiry. The Institute concluded that scientific integrity was not [37:26] violated in our study. No plagiarism, fabrication or falsification took place. Nevertheless, the Institute persists on [37:34] retraction of the paper for containing misinformation about possible causes of excess mortality. [37:40] Ironically, the text on containment measures and vaccines was much shorter in the original version of the paper. [37:48] The reviewers selected by the journal had asked us to either delete the text or provide more evidence. [37:54] As there is evidence available, we included it. All added references concerned peer-reviewed publications from [38:00] well-known institutes indexed on PubMed. My proposed post-publication revision that included a section on vaccine effectiveness [38:10] in reducing mortality was ignored by the journal. Right from the start, it was an unequal battle. [38:17] Our call for investigation of underlying causes had to be censored and erased one way or another. [38:24] The tunnel vision leaves no room for unworthy victims. Yet, the persistent excess mortality remains unexplained. [38:33] Our case is not isolated. Books have documented the suppression of more than 80 Dutch doctors and scientists, [38:40] as well as the removal of 60 professors across Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In recent years, [38:46] the number of removals for ideological insubordination has increased significantly. Similar patterns emerge [38:53] across institutions. After a media scandal, the university distances itself and starts disciplinary proceedings. [39:01] The reason given for dismissal is scientific integrity violation, whereas the real reason appears to be dissent. [39:08] Recently, we established a task force on academic freedom in the Netherlands to investigate censorship, [39:14] suppression and systematic attacks on doctors and scientists, questioning aspects of the official COVID narrative. [39:22] Censorship undermines academic freedom by discouraging legitimate scientific inquiry. [39:28] It narrows the range of perspectives permitted within public debate and stimulates self-censorship among academics. [39:36] Subsequent false scientific consensus can lead to disciplinary policies. [39:40] If we want to restore public trust, we must once again protect academic freedom and the right of scientists [39:47] and doctors to question prevailing assumptions without fear of professional destruction. [39:53] It is time to return to Voltaire's enlightenment commitment to academic freedom. [39:58] I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. [40:04] Thank you, Dr. Molstert. Next, we'll go to Dr. Sabine Hazen. Dr. Hazen received her MD and [40:11] candidate and completed her residency at the University of Miami. She's the first woman [40:15] gastroenterology fellow at the University of Florida and became an expert in the microbiome. [40:20] She is currently the CEO of a private gastroenterology clinic and a clinical trial drug development [40:25] company, as well as Progena Biome LLC, a genetic research lab that studies the clinical implications [40:31] of the microbiome. Dr. Hazen. All right. I'm Dr. Sabine Hazen, a research gastroenterologist. For more [40:50] than three decades, I have done hundreds of clinical trials for leading pharmaceutical companies. [40:56] My work has contributed to bringing biologics, antibiotics, and vaccines to market. While these [41:02] advances have helped patients, they have also revealed critical gaps in our understanding of human health, [41:09] particularly the gut microbiome. The microbiome, your bacteria in your gut, is your immunity. [41:17] In 2019, I founded Progena Biome, which is a research laboratory. And I say research because the [41:23] microbiome research is at its infancy and it's not going to be of my lifetime. My goal was simple, [41:30] to rigorously study the microbiome in real-world clinical settings. My team and I launched 61 clinical [41:38] trials to actively understand the gut connection in various diseases, Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, [41:45] cancer. This is precision medicine taking care to each patient's unique microbiome signature. Because, [41:55] yes, in the microbiome space, we're all different. And if we're all different, there is no normal in the [42:01] microbiome space. So in 2020, I found myself in a very interesting position. I was taking care of high [42:08] profile individuals in Malibu. I had a portal with the FDA that could write protocols and submit [42:14] protocols to the FDA. And I had a research lab that could look at the microbiome. So this unique position, [42:24] I felt I was the best person to be looking at the microbiome and looking at COVID. While exchanging [42:31] information with scientists at NIST, the National Institute of Standards, who were looking at COVID [42:37] in septic tanks. And by the way, for those of you who don't know National Institute of Standards, they [42:42] overlook DARPA, FDA, CDC. So with discussions, Progena Biome became the first lab worldwide to document [42:52] whole genome sequencing of COVID virus in clinical patient feces. Our paper was published in Gut [43:00] Pathogens in 2021 after a six-month peer review only to be retracted in May 2025 without any valid [43:11] scientific justification or even notifying the peer reviewers that approved the paper to begin with. [43:19] I have to point out again that this was a landmark paper that showed COVID in the stools of clinical [43:26] patients. Not septic tanks, but clinical patients. While we were looking at stools, we discovered [43:32] that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin reduced the viral presence of COVID. In other words, COVID [43:40] disappeared on these. However, those drugs also killed the microbiome. And that was the important [43:48] finding during the pandemic that everybody's different and everybody needs a different treatment. [43:55] It is also important to note that during the pandemic, I treated under FDA oversight. I actually [44:02] wrote three protocols on hydroxychloroquine versus placebo and ivermectin doxycycline versus placebo. [44:10] And during my whole time that the FDA was watching, we lost no one. No one died on my shift. And by the [44:17] way, I've treated thousands of patients. Doesn't the public want to know how did I treat? What criteria [44:25] did I use to divide the treatment in patients? We conducted a review of these patients treated and noticed, [44:33] actually, that ivermectin-based multi-drug therapy helped severely hypoxic patients. This data was [44:41] published in 2022 after eight months of peer review scrutiny and then retracted in March 2025. We also [44:50] published cardiac safety data from our phase two trial using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. [44:56] You will remember during the pandemic that there was a concern about cardiac problem from hydroxychloroquine [45:03] and azithromycin. My team risked their lives putting Holter monitors on people's hearts to monitor and [45:11] capture the QT prolongation. And there were no QT prolongation. We published this data in December 2024. [45:18] The paper was retracted in 2025, February. These retractions consistently challenged the feasibility [45:26] of early treatment. Remember, if there was a treatment, vaccines would not have passed. [45:31] Our most significant discovery, however, was on bifidobacteria. What is bifidobacteria? You ask? [45:38] A bacteria that's in your probiotics. When you turn your bottle of probiotics, that's the bacteria. It's [45:44] bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important microbe that helps you break [45:48] down your food so that the sugar comes out and goes into the cell into your mitochondria. Without [45:56] bifidobacteria, the sugar is not going into your cell. Ask yourself, how are you going to metabolize? [46:02] How are you going to have immunity if you don't have your cells working? So bifidobacteria was an [46:07] extremely important finding because we discovered that severe COVID patients lacked bifidobacteria, [46:14] while patients that were high risk, exposed, had a lot of bifidobacteria. We also discovered that [46:22] people with autism, Alzheimer's, Crohn's disease, Lyme disease, irritable bowel syndrome, [46:31] mental health, invasive cancer, lacked bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria appears in the young [46:38] at a high level and disappears as we get older. We found that vitamin C, bovine immunoglobulin and [46:44] ivermectin, a fermented product of a bacteria called streptomyces, could help increase bifidobacteria [46:51] and restore. Is that why we were seeing possibly hypoxic patients improving? I wrote a hypothesis, [46:58] perhaps ivermectin was improving the bifidobacteria. That hypothesis was published and retracted in 2023. [47:05] When a hypothesis is retracted, we've lost science and medicine. We then presented data on the vaccines [47:12] and we discovered that the vaccines killed the microbiome, specifically the bifidobacteria. That [47:18] abstract won the best research award at the American College of Gastro and reached 18,000 GI doctors, [47:25] yet was never published. If you follow the disappearance of bifidobacteria in the gut, [47:29] you start to understand disease. You start to see why the newborns, 1 in 12 kids in California, 12 boys [47:38] in California has autism. If you look at the data that just came out that showed newborns to only 25% [47:48] of newborns are born with adequate levels of bifidobacteria. So if you restore the bifidobacteria, [47:55] like we did in our lab, in kids with autism, you will actually resume speech, which is what we showed [48:03] in two twins where we restored the bifidobacteria. That abstract won a research award at the American [48:10] College of Gastro. In fact, progenic biome has earned four consecutive awards at the American [48:15] College of Gastro. Affirming peer recognition of our work, yet promising observations face problems [48:25] and persistent barriers when attempting to publish and papers pass rigorous review or retracted over [48:30] minor easily correctable issue. The main non-medical scientist that criticized my papers has patent on [48:38] the microbiome. Can you say conflict of interest? So I asked Congress today, should non-physician without [48:46] relevant clinical expertise review and override medical data from practicing physicians? True expertise [48:54] must be challenged by qualified peers, not outsiders. Members of Congress, imagine the possibilities if [49:01] scientists could publish without fear of politically motivated retractions. If we could focus on advancing [49:08] knowledge instead of defending it. The American people deserve transparent, rigorous science. Protecting [49:15] scientific integrity is not just about my work, but it is about securing the future of medicine for [49:21] all. Because ultimately, we're all going to be patients. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Hazen. I was hoping we get [49:29] through all the opening statements before we had to go vote, but I've got a quick vote. So we'll put the [49:33] hearing into recess, and as soon as we get back, we'll open it back up. So no further disruptions. [1:04:05] All right, our next witness is Dr. Asim Malhotra. Dr. Malhotra is a multi-award-winning, internationally [1:04:15] renowned British cardiologist. He served in an advisory role for health policy across governments, [1:04:20] including as an ambassador to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and trustee of the King's Fund, [1:04:25] a health policy think tank. He was ranked the number one doctor in the world influencing obesity [1:04:31] thinking. He was named one of the UK's most influential scientists. Dr. Malhotra. Thank you, [1:04:36] Senator Johnson. In January 2021, indoctrinated with the unlikelihood of any major harm, I took two doses [1:04:45] of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine, unaware at the time that it was, in fact, a prophylactic gene therapy product, [1:04:52] and unlike any traditional vaccine. Although I was at very low risk of serious illness from COVID-19 [1:04:58] due to my age and perfect metabolic health, I was inoculated to protect my patients. As one of the [1:05:04] UK's most trusted doctors, I was requested to appear on Good Morning Britain to help tackle vaccine [1:05:10] hesitancy amongst high-risk ethnic minority groups. Five months later, a personal tragedy triggered a [1:05:17] complete U-turn in my perception of the vaccine. We were dealing with a medical product that was actually [1:05:24] unsafe and defective. My fit and healthy 73-year-old father, honorary vice president of the British [1:05:32] Medical Association, who also happened to be my best friend and last surviving member of my immediate [1:05:36] family, died after suffering an unexpected cardiac arrest. Post-mortem findings revealed severe coronary [1:05:43] artery disease and subsequent published mechanistic evidence suggested that two doses of the mRNA COVID [1:05:49] vaccine likely caused a massive acceleration in atherosclerosis leading to his sudden death. In 2020, [1:05:56] 2022, I published a two-part peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Incident Resistance calling for a [1:06:00] moratorium on these unsafe and defective products. The most damning evidence was a re-analysis of [1:06:06] Pfizer and Moderna's original trials. It determined a frequency of serious harm from the product that was [1:06:11] two to four times more likely than being hospitalized with severe COVID. In my view, if the system had been [1:06:19] more transparent, this prophylactic gene therapy would likely not have been injected into a single human being [1:06:26] in the first place. Although there is now a multitude of high-quality research supporting those analyses, [1:06:33] there has been predictable little to any mainstream media coverage, a symptom of the downstream effects [1:06:39] of how big corporations exert their power by controlling the dominant narrative. I have personal [1:06:45] experience with these downstream effects. Towards the end of last year, at the Reform Party Political Conference, [1:06:51] I quoted Britain's most eminent oncologist, Professor Angus Dalgleish. He believes that the COVID-mRNA vaccine [1:06:58] likely played a significant role in cancers of members of the royal family. Predictably, I was smeared and [1:07:05] misrepresented in the media. Even the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, misled Parliament, suggesting that I'd claimed [1:07:13] that all vaccines cause cancer. In quotes, these dangerous conspiracies cost lives, he said. [1:07:20] I also experienced public smears and attacks from influential sections of the medical profession. [1:07:26] I'm a grieving, vaccine-injured doctor. I've been diagnosed with a persistent autoimmune condition [1:07:31] related to loss of bifida bacteria in my gut. An advanced blood test suggested I'm at slightly increased risk [1:07:38] of cancer in the short term. Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence and what you've heard from eminent [1:07:45] witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear [1:07:52] and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer. Without allowing all scientists [1:07:58] to debate this openly, without fear of censure, we will not be able to identify who is most at risk [1:08:04] and how these risks can be mitigated. When it comes to making money, multinational corporations have been [1:08:11] diagnosed by preeminent forensic psychologist Dr. Robert Hare and law professor Joel Buchan as legal [1:08:18] entities that fulfill the criteria for psychopathy. Characteristics include callous and concern for the [1:08:26] safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit. The evidence [1:08:34] presented here today exposes the corporate tyranny underlying public health practice. This profitability over [1:08:41] people rooted in the neoliberal economic model has led to trust being an all-time low in the medical [1:08:46] profession. A full public apology from government bodies and medical leadership to the vaccine injured [1:08:52] and bereaved is an essential first step in restoring that trust. Tyranny emerges when people are afraid to [1:09:00] say what they think. When you have something to say, silence is a lie. When everyone lies all the time, [1:09:07] the tyranny is complete. To save the health of the American people and to save democracy, it is our [1:09:16] responsibility to expose, resist and dismantle the era of corporate tyranny we currently find ourselves in. Thank you. [1:09:24] Thank you, Dr. Malhotra. Our next witness is Dr. Julie Graylow. Dr. Graylow is executive vice president and chief medical officer for the American society of clinical oncology. [1:09:34] She is professor emeritus of medical oncology and global health at the University of Washington [1:09:38] School of Medicine and the co-founder of two non-profits to support female cancer survivors [1:09:43] and promote cancer advocacy and education in developing countries. Dr. Graylow. Thank you, [1:09:50] Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to [1:09:56] share my clinical perspective on this important topic. As you've heard, I'm the chief medical officer and [1:10:02] executive vice president for the Association for Clinical Oncology or ASCO, a 501c6 organization [1:10:09] established by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019 that represents more than 50,000 [1:10:16] oncology professionals who care for people living with cancer. ASCO works to ensure that all individuals [1:10:22] with cancer have access to high quality care and we're committed to the principle that knowledge conquers [1:10:29] cancer. Through research and education, ASCO works to conquer cancer and create a world where cancer is [1:10:36] prevented or cured and every survivor is healthy. We appreciate the opportunities to discuss the critical [1:10:43] role of mRNA technology in cancer care and the unwavering commitment to patient safety that guides its [1:10:50] development. For nearly three decades prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary driving force behind [1:10:57] mRNA research was cancer immunotherapy. When exploring emerging therapies like mRNA vaccines, oncology [1:11:05] professionals rely on well-designed clinical trials to establish clinical efficacy, evaluate unintended [1:11:13] consequences, and ensure the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Currently, there is no clinical evidence [1:11:21] proving that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or accelerate cancer growth. Cancer is caused by a [1:11:29] series of gene mutations and does not develop suddenly. Rather, tumor evolution is a multi-step process [1:11:36] that generally takes years or even decades to manifest clinically. The appearance of late-stage aggressive [1:11:43] tumors within weeks or months of an injection is biologically incompatible with what we've learned [1:11:48] from decades of research on the causes of cancer. In fact, RNA breaks down quickly in the body and doesn't [1:11:55] enter a person's DNA. In other words, mRNA vaccines do not cause gene mutations. The benefits of COVID vaccination [1:12:04] in patients with cancer are supported by a large and growing body of evidence. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines protect [1:12:12] patients with cancer who often have compromised immune systems, increasing their risk of negative [1:12:18] outcomes if they contract COVID-19. Before vaccines were available, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [1:12:26] found that COVID-19 patients with the current cancer diagnosis were 24 percent more likely to require [1:12:33] intensive care and 58 percent more likely to die in the hospital compared to after the vaccines became [1:12:40] available. In contrast, a 2025 study led by investigators at Vanderbilt University found that cancer patients who [1:12:48] received COVID-19 vaccinations had a 50 percent reduction in their risk of hospitalization. [1:12:54] These data are reinforced by an ASCO study demonstrating a clinically significant relationship [1:13:00] between vaccination and survival in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. [1:13:07] mRNA technology also represents a really exciting and significant clinical advancement for therapeutic [1:13:15] cancer vaccines aimed at treating existing tumors. Unlike traditional treatments such as chemotherapy, [1:13:22] which broadly destroys both cancerous and healthy dividing cells, mRNA technology is designed to teach [1:13:29] an individual's body to recognize tumor markers that are unique to that patient's cancer, encouraging the [1:13:35] patient's immune system to destroy just cancer cells, not healthy ones. While the FDA has not yet granted [1:13:43] approval for mRNA cancer vaccine therapies, clinical trials are actively testing mRNA cancer vaccines and have [1:13:51] reported good tolerability and promising clinical activity. For example, just this past week at our annual [1:13:58] meeting, researchers shared the results of a trial that shows melanoma patients who receive a cancer-fighting [1:14:04] mRNA vaccine, in addition to immunotherapy, had better cancer outcomes than patients who received the [1:14:11] immunotherapy alone. Additional research led by investigators at MD Anderson found that patients who [1:14:17] received the COVID vaccine along with immunotherapy to treat non-small cell lung cancer had better cancer [1:14:23] outcomes than those who were not vaccinated. Existing research provides strong indications that mRNA vaccines [1:14:31] will likely join approved immunotherapies as new options for patients with cancer facing difficult diagnoses. [1:14:38] Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important issues. ASCO remains deeply committed to [1:14:44] advancing safe, evidence-based care for all patients, and I welcome your questions. [1:14:49] Thank you, Dr. Graylow. Our last witness is Ms. Tamika Felder. Ms. Felder is a cancer survivor, award-winning [1:14:57] women's health advocate, author, filmmaker, and the founder of Chief Visionary Officer at [1:15:02] Survivor, Inc., a non-profit that specializes in cervical cancer and advocacy and support. She currently [1:15:19] serves as a co-chair on the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is appointed by President Biden to be a [1:15:24] member of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Ms. Felder. Thank you so much. To you the chair, the ranking [1:15:27] Ms. Felder. Thank you so much to you, the chair, the ranking member, and to all of you here [1:15:33] for having me and especially for including the patient voice. My name is Tamika Felder, [1:15:38] a 25-year cervical cancer survivor. Today, I speak to the safety and importance of vaccines [1:15:43] for all people and to advocate for the open and accurate sharing of scientific information so [1:15:49] that families and communities can protect themselves and future generations. I was [1:15:54] diagnosed in 2001 at the age of 25 while working here in Washington, D.C. as a broadcast journalist. [1:16:02] The disease forced me to confront the fragility of health, and I endured a hysterectomy, [1:16:07] chemotherapy, and radiation, which ultimately led to the loss of my fertility. Today, as a survivor [1:16:15] and patient advocate, I've dedicated my work to education, empowerment, and ensuring that every [1:16:21] person has accurate access to health, medical information, trusted health care, and life-saving [1:16:27] prevention tools. I also firmly believe that the HPV vaccine, which would have offered protection [1:16:33] against the HPV types most commonly associated with cervical cancer, could have changed the [1:16:38] trajectory of my life. The human cost of cervical cancer remains a preventable disease for most people [1:16:44] when prevention and screening are accessible and effectually utilized. Too many lives are cut short [1:16:50] by this disease. June is National Cancer Survivorship Month, and I am one of the 18.6 million cancer [1:16:56] survivors in the U.S. But I also want to recognize, honor, and mourn the individuals whose lives were also [1:17:04] lost to cervical cancer, including Tia Lita Rickenbacker of Georgia, Jennifer Myers of Pennsylvania, [1:17:11] Erica Frazier Stum of Indiana, and Becky Wallace of California. These are just a few in the United [1:17:18] States, an estimated over 600,000 people who projected to die from cancer. This translates to [1:17:26] about 1,700 deaths per day, making cancer the second leading cause of death in this country. Each of [1:17:32] these women were more than a diagnosis. They were mothers, sisters, friends, and contributors to their [1:17:37] communities. Their stories remind us why prevention, vaccination, where appropriate, and [1:17:43] continued research are essential to save others from needless suffering and loss. While other [1:17:48] countries are nearing cervical cancer elimination, the United States is still behind, despite having [1:17:53] the tools needed for elimination. Vaccines approved for the use in the United States undergo rigorous [1:17:58] multiphase testing for safety and efficacy before they are licensed. The overwhelming majority of vaccines [1:18:05] have favorable safety profiles and the benefits reducing the reduction of infectious disease, [1:18:11] prevention of severe illness and death, and protect protect protection of vulnerable populations [1:18:17] greatly outweigh the risk of rare adverse events. Vaccines are not just about one disease. They are [1:18:27] about a standard approach to preventing contagious and deadly illnesses. The safety frameworks apply to [1:18:32] vaccines across the board, routine immunizations for children, adults, and special populations. Cancer [1:18:38] prevention vaccines like the HPV vaccines, influenza vaccines, and vaccines for other preventable [1:18:44] diseases. Science provides the best available evidence and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. [1:18:51] We rely on rigorous research, transparent reporting, and peer-reviewed findings is essential to protect [1:18:58] public health. In an era of rapid information exchange, we must commit to sharing factual science-based [1:19:06] information. Misinformation and fear-mongering about vaccines undermine trust, delay or prevent vaccination [1:19:13] and leave people vulnerable to preventable diseases. Public health communication should be clear, [1:19:19] compassionate, and inclusive. It should acknowledge concerns, provide transparent explanations of benefits [1:19:25] and risks, and connect people with trusted healthcare providers who can answer questions and offer [1:19:31] guidance. Survivors and patients must be at the center of conversations about vaccines and cancer [1:19:36] prevention. We bring lived experiences with disease, treatment, and survivorship perspective that matters [1:19:42] when designing education, outreach, and clinical guidance. As a cervical cancer survivor and advocate, [1:19:48] I see both the devastating toll of cancer and the profound promise of prevention. Vaccines, including the HP [1:19:57] vaccine, are powerful tools when used alongside screening and treatment, and we can reduce the burden. [1:20:04] I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify. I am grateful for your consideration of policies [1:20:09] that protect communities today and for generations to come. And as Lindsay Gillette Lee reminded me yesterday, [1:20:16] she's a three-year cervical cancer survivor from North Carolina. May our stories pave the way so others [1:20:21] don't have the same stories. As much as our stories matter, so do the science. Respectfully, Tamika Felder, [1:20:28] founder of Survivor and 25-year cervical cancer survivor. Thank you, Ms. Felder. I think it's probably safe to say [1:20:38] people on the panel, probably most people in this room, including myself, I mean, we don't dispute the fact that [1:20:44] vaccines can be helpful and save lives. I think you can dispute some of the claims, but again, I've never [1:20:53] been an anti-vaxxer. I think our concern here, and one of the reasons I hold this hearings, is there's just a denial [1:20:59] of the vaccine and the injection injuries. I'll just, again, you had cervical cancer. We had it at our voice of [1:21:07] the vaccine injured. A mother, Emily Tarso, whose daughter, a 20-year-old daughter, died 18 days after she [1:21:15] received her third shot of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. After eight years of litigation, this is how [1:21:20] difficult it is to actually claim compensation through the government fund. Quote, HHS conceded by [1:21:25] preponderance of the evidence, including challenge, re-challenge that her daughter died from HPV [1:21:31] vaccination. They had no alternative explanation for her death. So again, I'm not a vaccine denier. I'm [1:21:39] we're battling vaccine injury deniers. That's part of our problem. But, you know, Dr. Graylow, [1:21:44] Dr. Graylow, you mentioned that mRNA degrades very rapidly in the body. Is it your understanding [1:21:51] and belief that the mRNA in the COVID injections is that type of mRNA? That is my understanding. [1:22:00] Dr. So you don't realize that that's not true mRNA. It's modified. It's modified pseudouridine. [1:22:09] Is that the... So it doesn't degrade. You're obviously not aware of some of the studies that show that the [1:22:14] spike is, is, uh, and the mRNA is, is circulating the body up to two years. We haven't studied it [1:22:21] longer than that, but it's stayed in this body that, that long, attaching to the cells. As long [1:22:26] as I'm on this track, was it your belief that the, uh, the injection would stay in the, the arm? We, [1:22:33] we were told that. It was going to inject in the arm, stay there, uh, create antibodies. The mRNA was going [1:22:39] to degrade very quickly, and that's why it was so safe. Is that your understanding that the, [1:22:44] and your belief that the injection stays in the arm? I think the effects of the injection are total [1:22:51] body. So the immune response, the reaction... So, but I mean the, the actual... So, so you're aware [1:22:58] of the, the modified mRNA was encapsulated in the lipid nanopark, correct? Right. So do you believe [1:23:04] that package stayed in the arm as we were told it was going to do? I, I can't reliably comment on, [1:23:13] on that. So, so, so again, you're, you're saying how safe and effective this is, but you don't know [1:23:18] how it works. I do know how it works. It incites, um, an immune reaction as vaccines do. How, how, how, [1:23:27] how does it incite that immune reaction? What does it do? What, what does it actually do? It brings the [1:23:34] immune cells, um, to recognize the COVID protein. How, how, how, how does it have the, are you aware [1:23:43] of the fact that the lipid nanoparticle delivers its modified mRNA to a cell, that mRNA, that modified [1:23:52] mRNA is injected into the cell, and then it turns the cell into a factory of the spike protein, which [1:23:59] is toxic to the body. Are, are you aware that that's how it creates immunity? The mRNA in the vaccine [1:24:05] does get into cells, and it codes for a protein, um, once it is inside the cell. So, are, are you [1:24:14] aware of the DNA contamination found in, in the, in these vials, that if, if the mRNA is being injected [1:24:20] in the cell, well, gee, gee, maybe some of this DNA, which is way beyond the levels accepted by the FDA, [1:24:25] could also be injected in the cell. Are you aware of that? I, I am aware that the mRNA that is injected [1:24:31] does not get into our own DNA, and I am not aware of reliable data saying that within the vaccine [1:24:39] itself, that the DNA levels are high. So, you, you said that there is no clinical evidence proving [1:24:46] these injections cause cancer. How would you, what would you require for proof? How would you ever prove [1:24:55] that? I believe that we can put some boundaries around how much of an effect could be happening with [1:25:07] respect to causing or accelerating cancer, because we have not seen an overall increase in cancer [1:25:13] rates in the vaccinated U.S. population. In order to prove it, we would need a randomized clinical trial [1:25:22] where patients were equal in both arms. One would have a placebo or no vaccine, and, uh, the other would [1:25:30] get the vaccine, and we would need to follow long-term. So, so, so, so observational studies, [1:25:34] you know, clinical observation carries no weight, has no evidence. I think it's hypothesis-generating. [1:25:41] I do think there are major differences between people who choose to have vaccines who are more [1:25:46] health-engaged and those who choose not to. I, I was, uh, uh, sent a, uh, apparently a study that's [1:25:53] going to be discussed in the June 8th and 9th, the President's Cancer Panel by Chairman Harvey Risch. [1:26:01] And apparently the, and I don't know what this stands for, the U.S. SEER, C, or S-E-E-R. [1:26:08] Surveillance and Epidemiologic Evidence Registry. Thank you. [1:26:12] SEER is actually easy to say. Uh, this is what Dr. Risch wanted me to talk about this. Leukemias [1:26:19] are generally the shortest latency cancers and thus would be the first empirical science to see pandemic [1:26:23] related effects. U.S. SEER cancer instance data for 2023 were recently released. It is clear that for [1:26:31] 2023 there are substantial incidence increases above the trend line for all, both, both sexes, [1:26:39] males, uh, both sexes, uh, for, for every cohort. They have, you know, instant increases above the [1:26:46] trend line. These charts appear to be the first U.S. data showing that the association between [1:26:50] COVID-19 infection and vaccination and leukemias may be possible and should be confirmed by additional [1:26:55] data as they become available. And I think that's a pretty, pretty balanced statement. But, [1:26:58] you know, we, we have, uh, you know, Dr. Eldeary, who has just laid out plausible mechanisms, [1:27:05] you know, concerned. We have Dr. Dalglish, who saw it in his clinic, who was highly concerned. Uh, [1:27:11] again, I, I, I hear from a lot of doctors also see it clinically, observationally. Um, [1:27:17] you know, Dr. Eldeary talked about the cancers seeing, you know, at, at the site, [1:27:21] at the, at the, in the neck. I mean, wouldn't that be indications of causation? Is that something [1:27:27] that we ought to research? I do believe that we should research this. I think just because there [1:27:35] may be some biologic plausibility because we've seen single cases where a cancer is, um, diagnosed [1:27:42] immediately after a vaccine or in the region, that doesn't mean it began developing at that exact [1:27:48] point in time. So let's distinguish between when it developed and when it was diagnosed. So, so let me [1:27:53] address the, the other belief where you thought it just stayed in the arm. Uh, there literally was [1:27:58] biodistribution studies in rats that said the, the lipid nanoparka would biodistribute all over the [1:28:03] body. You know, accumulate in ovaries and adrenal glands, that type of thing. So, so we, we do know now [1:28:09] that they lied to us. It was going to say they are, no, biodistributed all over the body. [1:28:13] And in doing so, then this little package with modified mRNA that wasn't going to degrade, [1:28:20] it's going to enter cells all over the body, in the heart, uh, turning those little heart cells [1:28:26] into manufacturers of a toxic spike protein that, then what does the body do when there's a toxic [1:28:32] spike protein on a cell? Well, I would first of all argue that what happens in mice is not necessarily [1:28:39] what happens in humans. No, no, no, no, no. This, this happened in humans. Okay. We, again, [1:28:43] they knew it before. They knew that when they lied to us, it was going to say, they knew it was going [1:28:47] to biodistribute. That's the point of the, the study in mice. They knew it. And now we know it [1:28:51] because this is disturbing. One, one final question. Does it, does it concern you? It concerns my other, [1:28:58] uh, cancer doctors here, oncologists that spike protein is being found in tumors? [1:29:04] I think we need to further investigate this, explore it, look at how common this is. And I am a scientist. [1:29:13] I do believe that we should research, do the research and have definitive proof, [1:29:20] not single cases or population data where the population is different. I would say there is no [1:29:25] such thing as definitive proof. And we'll get to that later after, uh, Senator Blumenthal. [1:29:30] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Dr. Graylow, uh, you are the chief medical officer and executive vice president [1:29:38] for the Association for Clinical Oncology. And your professor, your clinician, and your organization, [1:29:47] uh, represents more than 50,000 oncology professionals who care for people with cancer. [1:29:54] And your testimony, and by the way, I'm sorry I wasn't here personally, but I have read it a couple of times, [1:30:00] uh, is that, uh, there is, uh, quote, no clinical evidence proving that MRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause [1:30:12] cancer, end quote. That's the predominant view of the 50,000 medical professionals who were part of [1:30:21] your association, correct? Correct. And it's also a statement on our own U.S. National Cancer Institute's [1:30:30] website. A direct quote from the NCI's website. And your testimony based on scientific evidence [1:30:39] now is that RNA, I'm quoting, breaks down quickly in the body and does not enter a person's DNA. [1:30:49] In other words, MRNA cannot cause gene mutations, end quotes, correct? So whatever the need for more [1:30:59] research, that's the science that exists right now, correct? That is, that is the science. And that's the [1:31:08] science that ought to guide clinicians and does now, in fact, guide them in prescribing vaccines for [1:31:16] people who suffer from cancer tragically, uh, because COVID-19 doesn't help them if they suffer from both [1:31:24] cancer and COVID-19, does it? COVID-19 just weakens them. We, we have good data that cancer patients who are [1:31:32] generally more vulnerable. They have weakened immune systems from their therapies. Those who got [1:31:37] vaccinated in a couple of different registries did better, had better survival than those who did not. [1:31:44] Um, the tremendous advances that you describe in your testimony, and you've just come back from a major [1:31:52] conference, so you're about as up-to-date as possible, uh, developing individual personalized [1:32:01] immunotherapy, uh, based on MRNA as a platform, is the result of scientific research that goes back [1:32:13] years, correct? Maybe decades. That's what led to the development of the COVID vaccines. We were [1:32:19] researching MRNA vaccines to treat cancer. The developers of the COVID vaccine, COVID-19 vaccine, [1:32:28] we're standing on the shoulders of that basic research. Correct. So, in your opinion, how, I want to [1:32:36] ask this as objectively as possible, how impactful is the administration's decision ending research [1:32:43] grants for NIH or other government agencies on basic science to the health of this nation? I think, um, [1:32:54] decreasing research funding is a threat that will slow down progress. It will slow down the United [1:33:01] States' preeminence as the hub for research, a really respected hub for cancer research. Um, [1:33:10] ideas like the, you all heard, I'm sure it was on the front page of the papers, this new [1:33:16] RAS inhibitor, um, that's a major breakthrough for pancreatic cancer. That started with basic research [1:33:23] funded by the National Cancer Institute, then taken into industry, a home run, I called it a grand slam, [1:33:30] uh, uh, uh, for pancreatic cancer that's applicable to lung cancer, colon cancer. That is the kind of [1:33:38] basic research. Everybody said this RAS target is undruggable. You could have said, then let's not [1:33:43] investigate it. Let's stop. It's undruggable. But basic research funding from our government is what [1:33:50] pushed ahead and found a workaround and find, found a way that's going to majorly impact. [1:33:54] Stopping it will cost lives, correct? Sorry. Stopping this research will cost lives. Absolutely. [1:34:04] Ms. Felder, um, I want to thank both you and Dr. Greylow for being here today, but particularly [1:34:13] yourself in sharing your personal story. Um, you've had the opportunity to watch some of the [1:34:24] administration's shifts in the CDC's main vaccine advisory panel, uh, when it comes to the, uh, HPV [1:34:34] vaccine. Uh, what do you think is likely to happen to cervical cancer rates in this country if these [1:34:42] baseless attacks on HPV vaccine continue? Sadly, more people will die. And when we look at this two [1:34:52] decades from now, it will be horrendous. And we also know that that HPV vaccine protects from more [1:34:59] than just cervical cancer. And you have been through that moment when a doctor says to you, [1:35:13] and I can't claim to quote what your doctor said to you, but in effect, I have some news I need to tell [1:35:21] you and we think you'll be okay, but this is serious. And here's the diagnosis. How does it make you feel [1:35:32] or how would it make you feel if you knew that these vaccines that could have saved a lot of lives, [1:35:40] including maybe yours, are being attacked? Honestly, it's infuriating at some points because [1:35:50] no one in the United States of America should die of cervical cancer. But yet, as I read just a few names, [1:35:57] people are dying of it. And while we have other countries, Rwanda, Scotland, Australia, who are [1:36:07] working towards cervical cancer elimination, Denmark, there's no reason that the United States of America [1:36:14] should be lagging so far behind. And, uh, there's no reason we should be in lagging competition with [1:36:25] other countries, but most important, that we should forego any kind of treatment or discourage people [1:36:32] with myth and misinformation from seeking treatment that may save their lives, correct? [1:36:40] We, we have to really get a handle on the misinformation [1:36:44] because misinformation causes more deaths and we have to stop that. [1:36:49] Well, thank you very much. I apologize to the panel and, and, uh, Mr. Chairman, to you. [1:36:55] I have a hearing of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I'm the ranking member there. And I, I really apologize, [1:37:03] but I want to thank you for being here today. Thank you. [1:37:05] Okay. Thank you, uh, Ranking Member Blumenthal. Uh, misinformation. Let's talk about one of the [1:37:11] great lies told during COVID. It's been repeated now here a number of times. This is not normal MRNA. This is modified. So, [1:37:20] of the, of the, of the five, uh, five, my five witnesses, who, who's best qualified to describe [1:37:27] exactly what the MRNA was in these injections? Dr. Elidiri. Um, so the, um, the MRNA is, uh, modified with [1:37:40] pseudo, pseudo uridine. [1:37:42] I actually got that right. Uh, this won the Nobel Prize a couple of years ago. Uh, and it was a way to [1:37:50] make MRNA stable because MRNA. It didn't degrade. This doesn't degrade in days. I mean, my, my staff [1:37:57] is just, and we'll, we'll enter this study in the record, showed me the study that I, 700 days it was [1:38:03] studied and found still circulating the body. So that's, that's 700 days. That's close to two years. [1:38:09] And they haven't extended the study beyond that, but go ahead. So I, I think more, more research needs [1:38:17] to be done about the mechanisms of, uh, persistence, uh, but it was unexpected along with a number of, [1:38:27] of other, uh, things that were observed after the, uh, vaccines, um, were rolled out. And, um, so, [1:38:39] you know, so you mentioned by a distribution, um, uh, the contaminants that you mentioned, [1:38:46] DNA and some plasmids. Including SV40, correct? SV40 origin enhancer sequences, not the full [1:38:56] SV40, uh, sequence, but when the SV40 enhancer promoter sequences, if they find their way into the [1:39:06] human genome, they can drive, uh, oncogenes. Um, so if they're containing that lipid nanoparticle [1:39:17] and the nanolipid nanoparticle allows the transfection of the mRNA into the cell, [1:39:23] this DNA contaminant can enter the cell as well, correct? [1:39:27] The lipid nanoparticle. [1:39:29] Certainly possibilities. It's certainly no clinical proof. Talk, talk, talk to me about that. I mean, [1:39:36] is there literally ever definitive proof? This is, by the way, it's driving me nuts. As we [1:39:44] talked to people in the, you know, FDA, NIH, uh, CDC that turned a blind's eye toward the safety [1:39:51] signals that were screaming at them. And they're always, they always go back to what we didn't [1:39:55] have definitive proof. So I, I will say that a number of different laboratories and scientists, [1:40:02] including, I think, one at the FDA that, uh, published a report and, you know, finding the, [1:40:09] uh, DNA was, was not very hard. I mean, a bunch of high school students did it over the summer. [1:40:15] They did. It was high school students, correct? Um, it literally was. I mean, [1:40:19] they were using high school students. And, um, so, but the, um, other, uh, scientists [1:40:26] who found this and, and reproduced it in different labs with different vials, published papers, [1:40:31] uh, Dr. Kevin McKernan, Dr. David Spiker, uh, Dr. Jess, uh, Rose, um, published a paper [1:40:42] that looked at many vaccine vials over a number of years and documented high levels. And they [1:40:49] compared Moderna and, and Pfizer lots and found much higher levels than the FDA threshold, which [1:41:00] was developed or, uh, uh, you know, uh, put into effect decades ago for naked DNA, not DNA [1:41:09] that's wrapped in lipid nanoparticles that will take the DNA into the human cells. [1:41:16] Dr. Dalgleish, you look like you want to add to something. I'm trying to address the definitive [1:41:22] proof because if that's what's required, we'll never warn the public about possible dangers. [1:41:30] Right? I mean, I, I always thought personally that the FDA's role was to search for safety signals. [1:41:35] That's right. Using these incredibly sophisticated algorithms and, you know, this mass database, [1:41:40] you know, looking for the small little safety signals so that they could understand that so they [1:41:44] could warn the public, they could warn medical doctors. They denied the safety signals. And then [1:41:50] as we talked to them, it wasn't definitive proof. So we, we couldn't go to the American pub without [1:41:54] definitive proof. So talk a little bit about that. Thank you very much. The problem is, [1:41:59] is that people thought they understood RNA so-called vaccines. RNA is a natural messenger in the body and [1:42:07] it lasts about 20 seconds before it's gobbled up. So if you were to insert that, it would never be there [1:42:14] long enough to induce an immune response. So what they had to do was make it and put a structure in [1:42:21] it that's the pseudouridine so that it would last a bit longer. And they told us that it would go to [1:42:27] the arm and it would be gone in 48 hours. And just to sum up what we're hearing is this is anything [1:42:34] but the truth, because the important part here is the LNP, the liposomal nanoparticle, because that [1:42:42] takes it into the centre of the nucleus, whereby it can get inserted. And the thing about RNA, [1:42:49] it is like herding cats. You cannot tell it where to go, where to insert. And remember, [1:42:56] I sat on the board of a company developing these things, particularly for cancer. And essentially, [1:43:02] we realised that all the evidence is you will never be able to harness these things. [1:43:08] Because you couldn't control where it went, correct? [1:43:10] You cannot control the production. And just to point out how dangerous this is, [1:43:17] this spike protein, which every single manufacturer of vaccines chose as their antigen, [1:43:24] and which I was the first to point out, it will be highly dangerous because it's 80% [1:43:29] homologous to human epitopes. The autoimmune responses would be awful. And 131 have been [1:43:36] reported to the FDA. So you have to accept this is an extremely dangerous thing to have pouring out of [1:43:43] your body continually year after year. And you bring forward the chances of every chronic disease you've [1:43:49] got, which is why those of us who've looked at the data, years and years of developing and making [1:43:55] vaccines safe, et cetera, have said, no, it cannot be done. And I rest the case on it. [1:44:02] But there's no proof. Now, was this the second medical professional doctor witness that the [1:44:09] Democrats have brought in here that did not understand that this was not true mRNA? I just [1:44:14] find that shocking. And this is, I knew this from the beginning. I'm not a doctor. You know, [1:44:20] I was schooled in what this mechanism was. That's why there's no way I was ever going to get that [1:44:26] injection. I didn't need definitive proof that it could cause harm. I thought this is dangerous. [1:44:34] This is something I don't want to deal with at all. And now we just have these medical professionals [1:44:41] that are relying on studies. I want to get to this because the big part of this hearing is how [1:44:46] corrupted science has become. Does it surprise any of you who have been attacked because you've [1:44:52] conducted research as a study that's outside the narrative that, you know, disproves the fact, [1:44:59] for example, that the mRNA is not true mRNA, that the studies that show that it has no problems, [1:45:06] those things get funded, right? Think anybody attacks those? Talk about the Surgesphere study [1:45:17] that tanked hydroxychloroquine during the midst of the pandemic when we were just literally, we should [1:45:23] have been doing everything we could to treat the disease. Dr. Hazen, I think you're familiar with the [1:45:28] Surgesphere study that totally bogus data had to be retracted, but didn't really hear much of a [1:45:36] hue and cry in the press, did we? Dr. Hazen, No. And in fact, it was a fraudulent study [1:45:41] that was written by a non-medical and the media went crazy to destroy hydroxychloroquine and create [1:45:48] the narrative that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous when hydroxychloroquine was given to millions of people [1:45:55] with arthritis before, and we never had any problems. And all of a sudden, the study comes [1:46:00] out of nowhere and starts quoting patients that had COVID in Australia. Australia didn't even have [1:46:05] COVID at the time that the paper was published. So, you know, this is the problem. You have these [1:46:11] papers that are coming out, they get into these fancy journals. It was an embarrassment for the [1:46:15] Lancet, frankly, because it started waking up physicians that we cannot trust the medical literature. [1:46:22] That was the first for me. Remember, I come from the world of clinical trials, you know, [1:46:27] and as a clinical trial doctor, my number one thing is, yes, we look at, is the drug better [1:46:34] than placebo? But ultimately, we also look at serious adverse events. And we also look at signals [1:46:42] that tell us this is wrong. There were so many things that happened during the pandemic [1:46:47] that, you know, it changed me as a physician that was doing clinical trials, because all of a sudden, [1:46:52] I'm like listening to this, the vaccine stays in the deltoid, nothing stays in the deltoid. [1:46:58] You know, especially in the microbiome space, you get to see that anything you put on your skin, [1:47:02] you put a topical product on your skin, it has a potential of killing your microbiome. [1:47:09] You know, the skin has blood vessels, has nerves, muscles be underneath. So nothing that you inject [1:47:17] or put topical just stays in that area. [1:47:20] Plus, isn't it true, the lipid nanoparticle was literally designed [1:47:23] Yes. [1:47:24] to permeate, permeate, difficult permeate, it was designed to do that. So they knew that. [1:47:29] Yes. [1:47:30] And they lied to us. That's, that's why we don't have trust in science. [1:47:33] Well, that was, by the way, we also don't have trust in science because of who funds it. [1:47:38] No, Dr. Grayla, I have to ask, who funds your organization? Who's the major funder of your society? [1:47:45] Our society is funded by membership, by registrations to our meetings, [1:47:51] by industry sponsorship of our meetings, by our journal subscriptions from nonprofits and individuals. [1:47:59] And Big Pharma. [1:48:01] That was the industry. [1:48:01] Millions and millions and millions of dollars from Big Pharma. [1:48:06] It goes to support our meetings or our journals. [1:48:09] Right. I know you get millions and millions, just like the media, [1:48:12] gets billions of dollars from Big Pharma, so they don't do investigative journalism on these [1:48:18] vaccine injuries. You know, Ms. Felder, as a survivor of cancer, wouldn't you like to know [1:48:26] if there's a chemical or something in the environment or a drug or a vaccine that would [1:48:35] increase your chance of getting cancer? Wouldn't you like to know that? [1:48:38] Absolutely. [1:48:39] So, you know, Dr. Grayla, again, I believe, and I just want to say, do you agree that the FDA and [1:48:46] the CDC, their job, after giving emergency use authorization for something or approving something, [1:48:52] and they're doing safety surveillance, isn't their job to look at all the data and try and suss out, [1:48:59] try and determine where are those safety signals that we might miss? Without our sophisticated models, [1:49:05] I mean, we've got to find those safety signals so then we can put, for example, warnings on the [1:49:10] Health Alert Network. So to warn clinicians, be on the lookout for this, you know, in case we're seeing more of [1:49:17] this adverse reaction to Vioxx or to, okay, shouldn't it be that way? Isn't that what the FDA ought to do? [1:49:25] Have you? Post-approval surveillance is part of the FDA's job. [1:49:31] Have you read our report from four weeks ago? I have not. [1:49:35] So let me summarize it for you in the audience. On March 1st of 2021, Peter Marks, head of CBER, [1:49:41] that's the group, then FDA that approves, then approves vaccines, then does safety surveillance, [1:49:46] was given a briefing by Dr. Anna Sharfman. She was one of their data mining experts who was working [1:49:52] with the inventor of the algorithm who worked with Oracle. So he was given a multi-page briefing, [1:49:58] some of his top lieutenants, that their algorithm that they're using to analyze VAERS was going to [1:50:04] hide in mass safety signals. And quite honestly, it's very easy to see why, because prior to the COVID [1:50:10] injections, we had on average about 280 deaths per year reported to VAERS associated with the vaccine. [1:50:17] 2021 is 21,000. Again, roughly equal. So let's say there's 10,000 deaths associated with the Pfizer [1:50:26] vaccine, 10,000 deaths associated with Moderna, and then 280 deaths with all the vaccines. [1:50:32] If you look at Pfizer and compare it to Moderna, so 10,000 Pfizer, compared to Moderna, 10,280, [1:50:41] well, they're equally dangerous, but they're equally safe. Turn around, look at Moderna, 10,000 deaths, [1:50:50] compare that to Pfizer, 10,280, equally dangerous, equally safe. So it's obvious to me how that [1:51:00] algorithm, when you've got such an unusual situation, two distinct injections, but compared [1:51:06] against each other, like comparing arsenic to hemlock, that you'd hide the safety signals. So he was [1:51:14] warned that he was going to hide them. 26 days later, Dr. Schwarzman did a dad run with a new [1:51:19] algorithm, up to date, that didn't hide it, didn't max. It showed that the system they were using had [1:51:29] 49 cases of severe masking. Then they show them 25 safety signals. Put up the chart here. This is the [1:51:40] first list, okay? So you've got sudden cardiac death, you've got Bell's palsy, you have pulmonary [1:51:50] infarction, you've got stroke, you've got basal gargoyle stroke. A lot of things I can't... I mean, [1:51:56] this is serious stuff. Senior officials of the FDA were shown this. For three consecutive months, [1:52:05] they kept doing more data runs, showing more cases of different types of sudden death. So again, [1:52:12] I would think the FDA officials would go, you know, thank you, Dr. Schwarzman. Man, [1:52:16] thank you. God bless you for alerting us to this thing, so we can alert the doctors, [1:52:21] the medical establishment. You think that's what they did? No. They told her to buzz off. They told [1:52:28] her to cease and desist. It's not your job. Go away. You're a pest. And they continue to use that [1:52:35] algorithm that they knew were hiding safety signals so they could go to the American public [1:52:40] to this day and lie to them and say, well, we just weren't seeing safety signals. Yeah, they saw them. [1:52:44] They just closed their eyes. And now when we talk to them, this is, I'm asking you because you said, [1:52:52] there's no proof. When we talk to the people involved in this, that's their excuse. Well, [1:52:59] this wasn't definitive proof. So Dr. Malhotra, is there ever definitive proof? I mean, definitive. [1:53:09] I mean, absolutely. No doubt. I suppose if you shoot something in the brain, that's pretty, [1:53:14] you know, there's definitive proof how that person died. But medically, when you, when you die from [1:53:19] all kinds, you have all kinds of, you know, what would you actually die from? It's kind of hard, [1:53:22] isn't it? Yeah. I mean, when you make a diagnosis in medicine, you go on the, on the strength of the [1:53:27] evidence. It's very difficult to get complete and total proof. I mean, look at what happened with [1:53:32] big tobacco smoking and lung cancer. The first evidence that emerged that there was a link [1:53:36] between smoking and lung cancer, uh, until there was actually regulation curbing tobacco consumption. [1:53:41] It took 50 years because the tobacco industry launched a campaign to deny the, you know, the, [1:53:47] the smoking caused lung cancer. They put out research to cancer. [1:53:50] Did the tobacco industry, they buy a lot of ads on TV? [1:53:53] Maybe they did. Yeah. [1:53:54] Did they possibly fund medical associations? [1:53:57] So, so on that. [1:53:59] So again, you know, history maybe doesn't repeat itself, but it sure rhymes. [1:54:02] But, but I think on that topic as well, Senator Johnson, I think there's a few, um, [1:54:06] there are a few real truths that people need to understand to bust some myths here. First of all, [1:54:14] medicine is not an exact science. We keep hearing this, you know, Anthony Fauci uses term, [1:54:18] trust the science, trust the science. And when I heard that, I thought that's the most unscientific [1:54:21] statement I've ever heard in my life because medicine is an applied science. It's a social science. It's [1:54:26] constantly evolving. The father of the evidence-based medicine movement, David Sackett said, [1:54:30] 50% of what you learn in medical school will turn out to be either outdated or dead wrong within five [1:54:34] years of your graduation. The trouble is nobody can tell you which half. So you have to learn to [1:54:38] learn on your own. So that's one thing you have to understand. But what that means is it's open to [1:54:42] manipulation. And if you look at the current status of the medical industrial complex, we have this, [1:54:49] you know, misinformation mess to quote John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford, [1:54:53] the most cited medical research in the world. 2017, he wrote his paper, How to Survive the Medical [1:54:57] Misinformation Mess. And he points out that 20 to 50% of all healthcare activity in the United States [1:55:03] brings no benefit to the patient, is wasteful or harmful. And what is the main root cause of that [1:55:08] problem? Because most doctors are unaware of the poor quality research that drives their clinical [1:55:14] decision making. The pharmaceutical companies, they direct the agenda. They design the trials, [1:55:21] they analyze their own research, they then give, you know, summary results of their research to the [1:55:29] regulators such as the FDA and in the UK, the MHRA. But the problem we've got now is that there's no [1:55:35] open transparency and independence because 50 to 65% of the funding of the FDA comes from big pharma. [1:55:42] In the UK, 86% of the funding comes from big pharma. So what you've created is really a misinformation [1:55:48] mess with biases all the way through down to the, you know, what happens in the consultation room. [1:55:54] And ultimately, what happens is you have an exaggerated safety and benefit invariably of almost every [1:56:00] single drug, you know, that has come on the market. And that's the real problem, the root cause of this [1:56:06] issue they're trying to deal with. So Dr. Ladiri, I'm going to put up a chart that was in [1:56:11] inside of an exhibit you'd presented to us. Again, you've been around for quite a few years. [1:56:21] Dr. Graylow, are you familiar with Dr. Ladiri in the cancer field? [1:56:24] Dr. Absolutely. And I actually serve on the scientific advisory group for his [1:56:30] Wynn Consortium for Precision Oncology. [1:56:33] So would you consider him a highly respected oncologist and cancer researcher? [1:56:38] Dr. I have always respected Dr. Ladiri. [1:56:41] Well, somebody on PubPier doesn't. So Dr. Ladiri, why don't you quick explain what this chart shows [1:56:49] and again, the relationship to when you started publishing things like, oh, [1:56:53] maybe the origin of the coronavirus maybe isn't holding true. Maybe that was man-made. [1:57:02] Is that about when that happened, about 2024? And all of a sudden you started getting all these [1:57:07] requests for information on your past studies? Just kind of describe the torment you've [1:57:13] gone through. Dr. So back in 2020, a paper was published in Nature Medicine around April, [1:57:23] and it has become controversial in terms of pointing to the origins. [1:57:31] Dr. That is when attacks started on social media. But we did some COVID research and, [1:57:43] you know, right from the beginning, as I said earlier, we know viruses cause cancer. The COVID virus [1:57:51] needs to be studied for its links to cancer. And the COVID virus vaccine makes the spike protein. Now, [1:58:01] there's a difference between COVID and HPV. The HPV vaccine- What's a vaccine? [1:58:09] Dr. It helps people- COVID is literally gene therapy. [1:58:12] Dr. But in the case of HPV, you're not vaccinating with E6. E6 targets P53. [1:58:18] Dr. But again, address the ramp up of attacks on you. Give me a timeline in terms of you [1:58:24] publish something, all of a sudden these attacks begin. Dr. So 2024, we published some preliminary data [1:58:30] that if you overexpress the spike protein in human cells, you attenuate, you block the tumor suppressor, [1:58:39] P53. This is the most common tumor suppressor. Dr. And big pharma wouldn't like that, right? [1:58:46] Dr. So all of a sudden, you start getting attacked. I mean, keep going with the- [1:58:50] Dr. We said, maybe if you want to develop a good vaccine, boost the immune system against the virus, [1:58:57] but limit collateral damage to the host defenses. That shouldn't be controversial. Attacks started [1:59:04] and continued. And then by the middle of 2025, I was invited to serve on an HHS [1:59:16] committee. I was doing government service to look into plausible links and found a bunch of things [1:59:26] that are worth studying more. And the attacks took off. We published that work by January. The journal [1:59:36] where the article was published came under a cyber attack. Nobody in the world could access this paper [1:59:42] for at least a week. Dr. Again, this is when I was connected with you and I started hearing just [1:59:47] your- I mean, I would call it torment. You've been tormented. They're trying to destroy your career. [1:59:53] They're doing a pretty good job of it, aren't they? Dr. I'll say a couple of things. You know, [1:59:56] all of these mounting concerns look concerning. They're piling up. What's going on? Most of them [2:00:09] are trivial in my view. I mean, one case was a typographical error in a supplementary table [2:00:18] where we were looking at what does the body produce in people who have severe COVID. [2:00:22] And we spelled the word intubation. It's spelled as incubation. If you read that, that's a concern. [2:00:31] Dr. I want to keep going here, but I'm going to enter in the record a blog post by Marianne [2:00:36] DeMasse that really kind of describes this pretty succinctly, the gory detail of the torment you've [2:00:42] been going through without objection. Nobody's going to object. I also want to make sure I've entered in the [2:00:48] record that Dr. Harvey Risch, the SEER, whatever that stands for, that study. One thing I'd recommend [2:00:55] to anybody watching this, and these all be posted on our website too. There was a [2:00:58] substack piece written by a Midwestern doctor today. He's aware of this hearing. Put up that one. [2:01:09] This is called, again, he's doing it for this hearing. They rigged clinical trials or how they [2:01:15] rigged clinical trials and the price we all pay for it. I mean, I think that's the point. I said, listen, [2:01:20] I feel sorry for you doctors who are paying a very high price for being attacked because you're [2:01:25] trying to convey the truth. You're trying to do real science, which is skeptical, [2:01:29] trying to poke the holes in the consensus, right? But the people who really pay is patients. We don't [2:01:35] have a clue. I mean, the lies told to the public, that's why a growing percentage of Americans simply [2:01:42] don't trust doctors, would avoid the hospital like a plague, which, by the way, that'll be a hearing [2:01:46] we'll have, is the hospital protocols. But this caught my eye in this piece right here. [2:01:55] This is, what kind of chart is this called? There's a name for this. Pardon? [2:02:00] A forest plot. There you go. Yeah, forest plot. And so this shows all the different types of drugs [2:02:06] that people studied to treat COVID. And what's noteworthy about this, if you look at everything [2:02:12] that has a red circle around it or a red dotted deal, they were either in the guidelines or the [2:02:21] red dotted rectangles, they were in the guidelines. And what's notable about them is, I'll just go [2:02:27] down the list. I can't pronounce them. Casavir, $2,100. The other one's $1,200. The next one's $855. [2:02:35] The next one is $1,200. Then Paxlovid, $529. Sotrovivir, whatever, $2,100. Molipirivir, $700. [2:02:47] Remdesivir. By the way, that's what doctors, what nurses call that is run, death is near, [2:02:53] because it knocks all your kidneys. But $3,120. Okay, last one's $5,000. But what's interesting is [2:03:02] that with the forest plot, you get to actually diet. It has a 50% efficacy. Everything else below [2:03:12] that is below 50% efficacy. Ivermectin is up there 62% with 99 different studies, 137,000 patients. [2:03:20] But again, this shows the corruption within our medical system. Random controlled trials, [2:03:29] who can afford to run those? Dr. Hazen. I mean, you spend a lot on trials. I mean, [2:03:36] who can, you do a lot of, I would consider more observational trials, correct? I mean, [2:03:41] one's using, you know, ends of N equals one or whatever? Well, right now, because I've kind of [2:03:46] switched my ways into looking more at the microbiome. But I mean, there was a time I was doing clinical [2:03:52] trials for pharmaceutical companies. And yes, pharmaceutical companies pay a lot of money to [2:03:57] do clinical trials. And what most people don't know, and what the public doesn't know, is that [2:04:03] you don't know what's in Paxlovid. For all you know, it's a couple drugs that are off label on the [2:04:10] market, but it's a trade secret. And the problem with that is that now they can bring that trade secret [2:04:19] into the public at a high price. So who controls that price? Really, if you look at the stock market, [2:04:25] you know, you want who's investing in these pharmaceutical companies, these stock, these [2:04:31] stocks, you know, it's all about the price of the stock. So again, let's get back to your, you know, [2:04:36] so you had published out what I consider pretty important papers because, you know, again, we were, [2:04:40] you know, I was, you're keeping me up to date in terms of what you're doing. Pretty amazing stuff. I [2:04:44] mean, you literally have nonverbal autistic children are talking. I've seen the videos. Okay, [2:04:49] we couldn't do it because we couldn't pixelate the faces. But you've got a bunch of patients that you've [2:04:54] treated with different maladies, ALS, you're keeping ALS patients alive. Yes, four and a half years. [2:05:01] But you're, you were putting, again, these are FDA basically approved or monitored trials, [2:05:07] right? And you write the papers on it goes through eight months of peer review. Why do you assume they [2:05:13] were retracted? I mean, again, I don't, there's probably no definitive proof. What's your conjecture? [2:05:21] You can't make a business out of something that's published to the public, unfortunately. And, [2:05:26] you know, pharmaceutical companies do spend a lot of money on clinical trials, [2:05:30] and they expect to make their money back on capital expenditures, right, that they've spent. [2:05:36] Which, by the way, just to plug the Midwestern doctor, read this article because it shows you [2:05:40] how they, how they doctor, you know, how they rig clinical trials. This is, [2:05:45] this is very interesting read. Okay, so if you're watching the hearing, read this one. [2:05:49] I've been in the clinical trial business, Senator, for three decades. I know all the tricks. [2:05:55] I understand. That's why I'm asking you to convey a couple. Yes. So, unfortunately, [2:06:00] you know, good drugs, I've always stood by one thing, good drugs come out and bad drugs stay out. [2:06:07] Okay. When a research is done poorly, it's time to get that drug out of the market. Okay. I think we [2:06:15] can all agree as we still have COVID amongst us, COVID has not disappeared, that these vaccines have not [2:06:22] done what they were supposed to do, right? They have not eradicated the virus, right? We still have [2:06:29] COVID amongst us. So, therefore, we have to kind of look at, well, how do we get better? How do we get [2:06:36] better as society? How do we stop killing the microbiome and how do we improve the microbiome? [2:06:41] You know, science is only as good as science is today until the new technology comes along. [2:06:48] But when you destroy the new technology that's trying to come out, that's trying to say, hey, [2:06:53] look at me, I'm the microbiome, and you're suffocating that and you're censoring that, [2:06:58] you're not allowing it to progress and you just stop science. So, you just alluded to my two twins that [2:07:05] resumed speech after nine months of manipulating the microbiome to improve their microbiome, to get [2:07:12] rid of the bad microbes, to improve their microbiomes. Do you know how many parents are asking me, [2:07:16] can you publish that? I can't publish. Do you want to know why I can't publish or tell the data? [2:07:21] And I have to publish because if I want to convince my peers to do what I'm doing so they can reproduce [2:07:28] the data, I have to publish. So, I can't just be on social media and say, hey, look at what I need [2:07:34] to do. So, why don't you publish it? I can't publish. I've had four papers, you know, science is... [2:07:40] Because they retract them. Well, it's a story, right? Science is a story untold, [2:07:46] right? Imagine you're reading a book and you want to know the end of the story, but somebody removed [2:07:51] chapter four and chapter eight from your story. It's no longer a story anymore. You've lost the [2:07:56] characters. This is a, you know, the microbiome is a story. It's a story of discovery. It's a story [2:08:02] of finding COVID in the stools. It's a story of discovering loss of bifidobacteria in severe COVID [2:08:07] patients. It's a story of noticing that loss of bifidobacteria happened to be in invasive cancers. [2:08:14] It's a story of the messenger RNA killing the bifidobacteria. Therefore, you have to ask questions. [2:08:21] Is the vaccine killing the bifidobacteria? Are these people low in bifidobacteria and therefore [2:08:27] possibly getting... But again, my question is why do you think [2:08:31] your studies were retracted? I mean, what powerful interests were you threatening? [2:08:37] Well, it's... I mean, who didn't want your studies out there? [2:08:42] People that are benefiting from the price of the stock from pharmaceutical products developed. [2:08:50] Treatments that aren't curing the diseases basically. [2:08:52] Yes. They don't want precision medicine. [2:08:54] This is one of the better charts, and this is from way back in 2021. [2:08:59] The blue lines, it looks like one great big blue blob, those are daily new cases. And you'll notice [2:09:06] they peaked about January 2021, just as we started the uptake of the COVID injection. [2:09:13] Now, the pandemic was definitely, I'd call, say, petering out, right? [2:09:20] You would think if the injection was that effective, that would have just continued in [2:09:24] pandemic over, right? That didn't happen. [2:09:27] Now, I do remember, again, contacting all these doctors. There were vaccinologists, [2:09:32] immunologists that were saying that the worst thing you can do in the midst of a pandemic [2:09:37] is do a mass vaccination. It was going to drive variants. [2:09:41] And so we had Delta, then we had Omicron. I mean, is that what happened? I do know probably that [2:09:47] people that were publishing those studies or those papers were probably attacked. They were dismissed. [2:09:52] You know, kooks. But again, does that chart look like the success of the injection? [2:10:00] Dr. Dalglish, what do you think of what happened in terms of the different variants? [2:10:07] And I think that chart says it all. I'd just like to point out that we suffered from people [2:10:15] running this pandemic response to it who clearly didn't understand basic aerosol respiratory diseases. [2:10:24] They always go in cycles and in peaks and troughs till they peter out. So each following wave of [2:10:32] infection gets less dangerous and sometimes more infectious like Omicron, but less of a problem. [2:10:40] And one of the big mistakes that was made in handling of this pandemic is [2:10:44] that I speak from the English data, which I know well, I suspect there's parallels, [2:10:49] is we introduced lockdown just as the first wave was disappearing. So they gave credit to the lockdown. [2:10:58] They introduced the vaccine when the second wave is falling, hence the claim that they save millions [2:11:05] of lives, which is completely utter nonsense because it's only had that wave continued to go on. [2:11:13] And it's all computer modeling has been shown to be completely utterly fallacious. [2:11:17] So let me show you a study that has not been attacked or rebutted other than from me. [2:11:24] And you talked about saving millions of lives. You know, [2:11:26] our ranking member here in a couple of hearings ago and I'll enter this in the record. This is the [2:11:32] study from the Commonwealth Fund claiming that in 2021, 2022, 3.2 million lives were saved. [2:11:40] So I've got a series of three charts here. So the first chart shows actual deaths through 2019 [2:11:47] compound annual growth rate. This is in the US, a little under 1%. So again, population is growing or aging. [2:11:54] So number of deaths per year, but it's going, you know, 2.4 up to about 2.85 in 2019. [2:12:00] Let's let's show what actually happened. So here actual deaths through 2024. So obviously in 2020 [2:12:09] went from about 2.9 to 3.4, about a half a million people died during COVID without a vaccine. Now, [2:12:15] again, I would say the vaccine was effective, you know, particularly when new cases have pretty well [2:12:19] plummeted by January of 2021. You'd see deaths go down in 2021. That's how it happened. We ended up [2:12:26] with 3.5 million deaths, came down a little bit more in 2022 to 3.3. So again, well, where are all [2:12:33] these, where's the 3.2 million lives saved? Next chart. You would have to, in order to make this claim [2:12:43] in this completely BS paper. I mean, again, I'm not a medical researcher. I mean, I'm not a troll on [2:12:50] pub here. I'm just a lowly accountant who can do simple math and produce some charts. [2:12:55] You would have to assume we were gone from 2.85 million deaths in 2019 and expected 5 million [2:13:01] deaths in 2021 and 2022 with a vaccine available that's going to end the pandemic. And this paper [2:13:08] still stands. A United States senator used this as a proof. You know, no offense, but he brings in [2:13:16] doctors who believe that mRNA was actual mRNA and not modified, not to be degraded in the body. [2:13:22] Don't have a clue that it biodistributes all over the body, really doesn't understand the mechanism [2:13:28] that could cause cancer. But again, they just make these make these 3.2 million lives. I mean, [2:13:33] obviously you knuckleheads that are talking about vaccine injuries, you don't understand the benefit [2:13:38] to 3.2 million lives saved. How can you spread this disinformation? I'm sorry, the disinformation's [2:13:44] from the other side. So I said, I don't deny that vaccines can save lives. I'll deny that they say 3.2 [2:13:52] million. There's no way. There's no way. And again, the point, the point being here, this study, [2:13:59] because it conforms to the narrative. I'm sure Pfizer, Moderna love this study because they just got [2:14:07] approved for another booster without any review of the vaccine, of the injection injuries, not a [2:14:15] review, even though Aaron Seary begged them to. Just look at it. Put up, put up the VAERS chart, [2:14:23] one with 21 million deaths. Yeah, that one. So, so this, this shows, this shows VAERS, [2:14:40] the number of deaths reported VAERS associated with the vaccine, going back to the start of VAERS in [2:14:45] 1990. You can see through 2019, on average, about 280 deaths. I talked about that earlier. 2021, [2:14:53] 21,000 deaths worldwide. Currently, the number is 39,000, I think 39. And 24% of those deaths [2:15:05] occur on either the day of vaccination within one or two days. Now, is that definitive proof? [2:15:10] Do some of those people die within two days of something else other than the injection? Probably, [2:15:15] maybe. But that would be something that would concern me. That'd be something as a regulator who [2:15:24] was, had the duty to surveil safety and warn the American public that maybe the American public [2:15:31] should have been warned. But the American public wasn't. And again, they published these studies. [2:15:44] I mean, I mean, it's actually remarkable. The surge of fear, surge of fear was actually pulled down, [2:15:49] but it was so, I mean, the data was completely fraudulent. Listen, I've got, I have so many [2:15:55] questions that I've prepared for you guys. It's really, again, I don't know where you begin when [2:16:06] there's, our side gets, you know, I get accused. By the way, there's not been one thing I've said [2:16:13] during COVID that's been proven just wrong. I'll challenge, I'll challenge any, you know, [2:16:18] anything I've been saying since I've been vilified and ridiculed. And there's not one thing, [2:16:22] there may be a couple of minor mistakes, but the major points I've made, all the conspiracy theories [2:16:27] that I've accused of, they're all true. But yeah, we get accused of misinformation. You know, [2:16:37] Dr. Daglish. I just wanted to add in a couple of comments relative to what you were alluding to. [2:16:44] But the obfuscation of the real data was an absolute disgrace throughout. The fact that it got approved [2:16:51] on being effective on a relatively relative risk of 95% when the absolute risk of 0.84 was ignored. [2:16:59] And as a clinician, I want to know how many people do I have to vaccinate to have benefit in? It was [2:17:05] a one in nearly one in 118. I mean, it's just not worth it. The second thing when it comes to the side [2:17:13] effects that they basically said, well, we don't have side effects for the vaccine until at least 14 days. [2:17:21] Because that's how long it takes an antibody to come. So all the people who dropped down dead [2:17:26] after one or two days went down the list as unvaccinated because they were only included. [2:17:32] Now, I mentioned this because I know... It's how they rig clinical trials, right? [2:17:35] Yeah. Yeah. That's how they rig them. [2:17:37] So, and with regards to the claims that there's no link between the vaccines and cancer, which we [2:17:44] hear repeatedly, like vaccines that save millions of lives, there are a couple of things. One, [2:17:48] I don't know any other cancer doctor except for a few colleagues, once they wake up, [2:17:53] who actually ask for the link. And we were told at medical school, you have to ask for the drugs and [2:17:59] the vaccines if you're dealing with a disease. You don't want to know. But one of the things which [2:18:04] has been pointed out to me who know about these things, the CDC in 24 actually published, it was on [2:18:11] the mainstream media, that there was 18 million people severely disabled by the vaccine in America. [2:18:18] I was amazed to see it's been updated this year to over 30 million. I mean, it's continuing to rise, [2:18:25] rise. And this is the result of the vaccine. If you really want to know about the cancer and the vaccines, [2:18:32] the CDC, I believe, I am informed by people who know about these things, they have separate [2:18:38] registries. Surely they should be merged. Then we would have a much better idea. [2:18:42] Well, first of all, you're never going to find proof when you don't look for proof, right? [2:18:46] Absolutely. [2:18:47] I mean, that's the problem. They're not going to fund the studies. They closed our eyes. I mean, [2:18:51] it was shown them and they still denied it. Talk a little bit about, because I don't think we got an [2:18:56] answer on this. Why is it significant that people with biopsies are seeing the spike protein in tumors? [2:19:02] You know, why shouldn't they be there? I mean, to me, it's not obvious. I don't understand. I'm [2:19:06] asking a legitimate question here. Why is that concerning? Why do you find that so odd that there's [2:19:13] spike protein in tumors? [2:19:14] It's completely unexpected. It shouldn't be there either from COVID infection or vaccine. How does it [2:19:21] get there? What, you know, it's a foreign protein. How does it end up in a tumor that's an expanding [2:19:29] mass where the cells have this spike protein? How does it get there? What is it doing there? [2:19:36] Why is it that it is six years later and there's very little forensic evidence? People aren't looking [2:19:45] in the deceased to see what is happening. By the way, could part of the answer be because the [2:19:53] modified RNA is still circulating the body six years later and when a tumor starts, it's still [2:19:59] attaching themselves to cells and expressing spike protein? That might be one plausible explanation, [2:20:03] right? You know what boggles the mind? You talk about hepatitis, okay? People will get it, [2:20:09] we've got tests. We can see the hepatitis antigens, the antibodies, what happens to them. Six years later, [2:20:16] there's no test for spike protein, for example. Again, they didn't want to know. Talk about, [2:20:22] because this is true, it was very rare to have autopsies during COVID, right? I know people who [2:20:27] had loved ones die and they could not get an autopsy. I mean, who can speak to that? And then also, [2:20:34] what coroners were seeing in terms of the long white clots, the microclotting, you know, Dr. Daglish? [2:20:41] I can speak to that because I saw some horrendous hyper progression of disease. It's a term that's [2:20:49] been applied to people with certain checkpoint inhibitors. It's always, there's a few of them, [2:20:55] but we see this hyper progression dramatically in patients who've had the boosters and I've seen it [2:21:00] in friends of mine. And it's really disturbing. They don't even respond to classical therapy. [2:21:05] And I tried very, very hard to get the tissue checked for spike protein. No coroner would do it. [2:21:14] And we went everywhere. No coroner would do this. So they've been clearly told from the top down. [2:21:19] Now, while we're talking about a test, it is very easy to measure spike protein in the blood. And I have [2:21:27] been campaigning is that the damage this continuous spike production does is so dangerous. It's going [2:21:34] to keep going on and the cancer is going to keep getting worse and worse. We need to be able to [2:21:40] measure the spike protein, simple test, which they deny and say is not needed. And then you can try [2:21:45] some very simple things, which we know help dissolve the spike protein in the body, which natural processes [2:21:53] don't do. And several of these are available and they're quite cheap. Things like natokinase, [2:21:59] low dose naltrexone and ivermectin, et cetera. Why aren't these studies being done and funded? [2:22:05] Because they're so simple to do and they could save an awful lot of morbidity because certainly in [2:22:11] individual anecdotal cases, this works giving these things will bring the spike protein down toxicity. [2:22:17] So I think it should actually be a national program to check this and sort this out. [2:22:23] So Dr. Greer, not to pick on you, but why don't we conduct these studies? [2:22:29] Well, I'll tell you, I had an opportunity to talk to our NCI director, Dr. Tony Latai, [2:22:34] this past week, knowing I'd be coming to this hearing. And he suggested we both support continued [2:22:41] surveillance. We both support continued research in this. He suggested that the NCI has an ongoing [2:22:48] CONNEXT trial with 200,000 Americans who have not had cancer when they enter. And it's looking at [2:22:56] causes of cancer and cancer prevention. There are lots of different cohorts with proposed different [2:23:02] potential causes of cancer. And this could be one, they're collecting blood, they're collecting tumor. [2:23:07] So he is very supportive of studying this in an ongoing cohort of 200 Americans where they know [2:23:15] everything about the patient's history. They're collecting blood. I don't know what, [2:23:20] they're probably collecting other things. And then if they get cancer, they're collecting the [2:23:23] cancer. So there is a mechanism that we've talked about where we could further study this. [2:23:27] Dr. Moser, I know I wanted to ask you because you, you did your study, uh, claimed three million excess [2:23:34] deaths. I mean, how did you, how did you come up with your numbers? And again, try and keep it pretty [2:23:39] high level. And so we can understand it and pretty brief and as loud as possible. I really can barely [2:23:48] hear you. You've got to get the. No, uh, in our study, we, uh, assessed excess mortality as the [2:23:55] deviation between the reported number of deaths in a country during a certain week or month in 2020 [2:24:03] until 2020. And, uh, the expected number of deaths in a country for that period under normal circumstances [2:24:12] for the baseline of expected deaths, uh, historical death data was used in a country from 2015 until [2:24:19] 2019. And all cause mortality reports were abstracted for countries of the western world, [2:24:26] our world in database, their reported number of deaths from the human mortality database and the world [2:24:33] data set. And again, all you did is publish your results. Yeah. And so we're not saying anything [2:24:41] caused. It's just, um, this is something that ought to be looked into and rather than looking into it, [2:24:44] they attach you and you end up having to resign and find a new career. I guess. Dr. Odile, you, [2:24:50] you, uh, looked like you wanted to say something. I, I want to make a couple of points, um, and maybe, [2:24:58] um, discuss this with Dr. Grello about, uh, a population signal versus, uh, a risks, uh, uh, risk of developing [2:25:11] cancer or other diseases. So we know in medicine that everybody has different risks. And one of the [2:25:20] questions that I think is important to answer is what is a specific patient's risk of side effects [2:25:30] from the COVID vaccine? And what is the risk of cancer? Uh, however, infinitesimal it is, it, it would be, [2:25:38] you know, the numbers really matter. Um, many decades ago, my daughter was born and she had a hypoxic [2:25:48] brain injury during her birth. And nobody ever told me about what those risks were. Is it one in a [2:25:56] hundred, one in a thousand, one in 10,000? I didn't know. And I'm a doctor and I have to live with those [2:26:04] consequences for the rest of my life. If I knew there was a chance of this that could have been [2:26:13] prevented by a C-section, I would have had that done. And my daughter could be a beautiful person, [2:26:21] functional in society. And so these, these things are really important for the people who are harmed. [2:26:29] What are their risks? We know people have very different risks of developing cancer. It's six [2:26:35] years later, the things need to be nuanced. What is the relationship with the number of shots [2:26:40] as far as the effects of, of, of the vaccine? We need, but again, we're not getting those studies [2:26:47] because the people who just pretty simple say, here's some plausible net mechanisms, how the spike [2:26:52] protein could cause cancer, they're destroying your career. So it doesn't take a dictator, very, [2:26:58] very many people to hang in the, the city square before like people stop behaving, right? And the [2:27:06] same thing with the doctors been attacked, their licenses were threatened, they were fired, they [2:27:11] were sued. That's why you didn't have very many people treating, doctors treating with ivermectin, [2:27:17] did you, Dr. Hazen? I mean, it's pretty, I mean, how many, how many doctors do you know whose, [2:27:22] whose careers were destroyed because they, they've had the courage and compassion to try and treat [2:27:26] patients with, and we showed, I mean, ivermectin was up there in terms of effectiveness. Oh, it's, [2:27:36] it's kind of hard to blame him, isn't it? Very few doctors during the pandemic had the courage to [2:27:42] treat them. I think partly because yes, doctors are afraid of losing their licenses and, um, and [2:27:50] by the way, they often have two, $300,000 worth of debt. Yeah. And then you're looking at [2:27:55] a family take care of, they, they, they went through all this, they want to continue to practice [2:27:58] medicine because they, they wanted people, save people's lives like they saved my daughter's life [2:28:02] for transfers to great arteries. And so I, I, I understand it, but it just shows you how effective [2:28:09] the attacks are. It doesn't take, doesn't, they don't have to make an example of too many people [2:28:14] like Dr. Eldiri, or you, or Dr. Mostert, or Dr. Malhotra, right? Just doesn't, it just doesn't take many. [2:28:21] Dr. Here's the problem. In order to reach a cure, we need to have bravery and courage to practice [2:28:28] medicine. And if we don't have courage, we can't treat, you know, I stood on the front line of COVID, [2:28:37] unaware, really at the beginning, I was kind of scared of the virus. And then I treated my first [2:28:43] patient, my second patient, my third patient, my patient number 1000, 2000, and I'm still standing. [2:28:49] And I learned something. I learned the microbiome, but I realized that I was trained to be in this [2:28:55] position. You know, I was trained as a physician to cross those roadblocks, to have courage, [2:29:02] because I work with the FDA on multi, I've worked with the FDA on multiple protocols [2:29:08] for pharmaceutical companies. So I've developed that courage to say, no, this is a serious adverse event, [2:29:13] needs to be reported to the FDA, and that drugs needs to be shut down. But not everybody, [2:29:19] every doctor has that training, unfortunately. And it, by the way, for me to do those protocols [2:29:26] of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, which, you know, we paid, [2:29:33] I paid, you know, and I asked myself what, you know, that study of the vaccine pre and post that showed [2:29:41] messenger RNA killed the microbiome, that was two Lamborghini Countach, right? Or two, or whatever. [2:29:49] But the fact is, I spent it. And today, I asked myself, what if I didn't spend it? Are we, were we [2:29:56] supposed to get a vaccine every three months, the rest of our lives? Are we a bunch of sheep that are just [2:30:01] going, you know, down the road and listening to pharma and nobody's questioning the data? Nobody's [2:30:06] questioning, you know, what we're supposed to do, how to defend ourselves? I discovered the microbiome [2:30:11] during the pandemic. It was the light at the end of the tunnel. It was hope. And without hope in [2:30:17] medicine, we have no medicine. So part of the problem, as I've seen over the last few decades [2:30:22] here in America, and I think in England, it's been longer with with national health care, but we used to [2:30:29] have independent doctors. And, you know, the doctor has the primary responsibility, the patient, and [2:30:33] they're, they used to sit at the top of the treatment pyramid and practice medicine. By the way, I really [2:30:39] did learn the meaning of the word practice medicine with my daughter with a transphysician. [2:30:44] She had an arterial, she had an atrial switch versus arterial switch because they hadn't practiced [2:30:48] medicine enough to do it the other way. So doctors need to practice medicine, but right now they're being [2:30:54] crushed at the bottom of the pyramid because now they're all hired hands. The hospitals can fire them, [2:30:59] they can sue them. They practice, they practice protocols handed down, not just not by the, [2:31:04] but by people like Anthony Fauci, who out of the blue said no remdesivir is going to be the standard [2:31:10] of care, even though the who said you shouldn't use remdesivir and the nurses sure didn't want to use it. [2:31:17] But man, was it profitable for the hospitals, for the drug companies. Again, that's what the American [2:31:24] public has to understand is the corruption of medicine, of medical education, of science, [2:31:33] of medical, it's, it's been corrupted and it's, it's awful. It's got to be fixed. But the only way, [2:31:41] the only way we fix it is if we own up to it and we admit it. That's, that's really what this hearing [2:31:47] is about is let's come to terms with how broken this system is and how you're only going to get [2:31:53] the studies that's going to confirm big pharma and their patentable drugs that have driven up the [2:31:58] cost of healthcare. We're not curing diseases, we're treating it at a very high profit level. I come from the [2:32:03] private sector. When I first ran 2010, my campaign guy said, never say that again. I'll defend big [2:32:09] pharma and big oil. What am I, am I the only one that wants a new life-saving drug? You know, [2:32:14] we need medical researchers, we need drug companies to do this. But man, we need first and foremost [2:32:20] integrity restored to science because it doesn't exist. I don't think it exists anymore. [2:32:26] And by the way, that's the future. The future is actually robots replacing the doctors. So we've [2:32:33] lost humanity. We've lost the ability to hold the hand of a patient. Think of what happened during [2:32:38] COVID. We were putting gloves on people's hands because we were afraid, doctors and nurses were [2:32:44] afraid of touching these patients because we instilled fear because fear sells products. [2:32:50] I talked to a senior surgeon, you know, older guy like me, would be scared to death of undergoing [2:32:56] surgery now because young surgeons, they don't touch patients anymore. They use robotics and stuff. [2:33:02] They just don't, they haven't got the just depth, the skill of feeling what you need to feel to be [2:33:07] an effective surgeon. It's scary stuff. We need to, you know, here's what also scary, and Ms. Felder, [2:33:15] you understand this, you know, being a cancer patient. Again, having lost confidence, knowing how they [2:33:22] sabotage early treatment with cheap generic drugs, there is a observational study. Actually, Dr. Harvey [2:33:30] Risch is one of the authors, as is Peter McCulloch. And it's apparently 200 cancer patients [2:33:37] treated with ivermectin and mebendazole. So I've got some oncologists here. Is that something you're [2:33:44] willing to take a look at? Because trust me, I know people have cancer, and they are looking for anything [2:33:50] other than the poison that chemotherapy is. You know, it might extend your life a little bit, [2:33:56] but you know, I know we're doing, we're making some progress and stuff, but man, that's a nasty cure. [2:34:02] People are begging for, again, true science. Take a look. I mean, are some of these things [2:34:07] effective? I mean, this, this looks pretty effective, but I'll go to the oncologist here, [2:34:11] Dr. Dalgis. I mean, is that something you think has promise or are there other, you know, peptide? [2:34:16] I mean, I've heard all kinds of things here. You know, Dr. I think it's Brzezinski. Kessler tried to [2:34:21] destroy him, but he's still practicing down in in Texas. Just just talk about alternate treatments [2:34:27] of cancer. Well, one of the things about cancer is that what you can use is very limited to what [2:34:35] big pharma are going to choose and do. And we know that it's not done for the benefit of the patients. [2:34:41] It's done for the benefit of the markets they create. And I've heard three people from big pharma all [2:34:47] tell me they're not interested in cures. They're interested in the markets. And that brings us [2:34:51] to the attention of what the patients actually want. And the patients want sort of cheap, [2:34:56] non-toxic drugs that might work. And the most amazing thing is that if you look and scratch [2:35:02] the surface, we have an enormous number of them that are really quite effective. And I make no [2:35:08] bones about it. I'm very interested in low-dose naltrexone, which seems to enhance people with [2:35:14] cancer to any other chemotherapy, immunotherapy, et cetera. But there are many, many others out [2:35:19] there, artuzanate, et cetera, that have been shown to have interesting anti-cancer activity. So they're [2:35:25] being repurposed. And of course, the two big ones are ivermectin. And people forget this. Well, [2:35:32] ivermectin, we were told we were not to use it, certainly during the pandemic. Now we know why, [2:35:39] because it was the most effective drug by far, with a few competitors. But it was so good. And [2:35:48] in two extreme cases myself, I authorised it to be used. People did not want to go into hospital, [2:35:54] even though they were breathless, because they were convinced they were going to die if they [2:35:57] went in. And I think they were probably right. But within 24 hours, they're both much, much better. [2:36:03] And then Pierre Corey, of course, has written a beautiful book, The Warren Ivermectin. Now, [2:36:08] it looks like some of these people had cancer, and that there is a real role for looking at these [2:36:15] anti-parasite things. But do they have a chance? I mean, I'll go, [2:36:18] doctor, do these therapies have a chance? I mean, with Big Pharma again, demanding random control trials, [2:36:24] you get the observational stuff, you know, only expensive patentable drugs. [2:36:28] I stay open-minded. I mean, just up the road from here at Johns Hopkins, one of my colleagues has [2:36:35] been looking at Mibendazole for brain cancer. I mean, these agents do affect the immune system, [2:36:43] and we need to learn about them and study them more. How are we going to do this? I mean, [2:36:48] we're going to make this available to the people who just want to try something different? I mean, [2:36:53] again, people are having, I know they can't get these kinds of treatments. They have to go to [2:36:58] just a very few doctors who are willing to do it. I mean, the cancer centers won't do it. [2:37:02] Is that largely true? I mean, Dr. Greylo, I'm really not picking any now. What can we do? I mean, [2:37:07] is this something that your society is looking at? I mean, would they look at, you know, cheap, [2:37:11] generic drugs that don't have the type of toxicity that some of these chemotherapies have? [2:37:16] I think this speaks to the role of the need to sustain federal funding. I agree. Industry is not [2:37:25] going to do those trials. They don't have a vested interest in it. These are cheap drugs. These are the [2:37:30] kinds of trials that our government should fund. By the way, I completely agree as long as that funding [2:37:35] isn't corrupted in some way, shape, for, you know. I will tell you that at last year's big annual [2:37:41] meeting, we had very preliminary data in a subset of breast cancer looking at an immune checkpoint [2:37:49] inhibitor with ivermectin added. It showed there were some responses. It did not prove the responses [2:37:56] were any higher than if it was immunotherapy alone, but they proved a safe dose and combination, [2:38:02] and that trial, which is federally funded, will continue to try to see if it was more than the [2:38:09] immunotherapy alone. I'll just tell you, because patients are just begging for it. They really [2:38:13] are. They just, you know, a lot of people just say, I'm not going to be treated at all. Dr. Hazen. [2:38:18] You started the Right to Try Act, and that's exactly why the Right to Try Act was designed for. [2:38:25] Unfortunately, the Right to Try Act is very difficult to allow terminal patients to have access to [2:38:32] anything. Personally, a person that's dying should have access to anything they want. My only concern- [2:38:38] The reason it's not as effective is because we had to water it down so the big pharma wouldn't tank it. [2:38:44] That's the truth. We had to back it way down, make it pretty exclusive, so the primary benefit [2:38:51] rights tries the title. Yes, but the paperwork to get that Right to Trial approved for a patient [2:38:58] is very difficult for a practitioner to do. You know, the other thing that I wanted to say with these [2:39:05] patients is, you know, they have the right, but my concern with hearing about ivermectin and [2:39:12] fanbendazole on social media and not having the right research backing it up is patients that have [2:39:18] an early cancer tend to want to go the route of ivermectin and fanbendazole and could have just had [2:39:24] a surgery to resect that stage one cancer, but now they've delayed the cancer and it's stage four. [2:39:32] So I think this is why we need to do good research and this is why we cannot stop the publications [2:39:37] again of research and we- I want to encourage all these physicians that are out there using ivermectin [2:39:44] and and mibendazole to publish, publish your data so that we the physicians that are doing clinical trials [2:39:51] can criticize it. It doesn't have to be retracted. It could stay there so someone else can come in and say, [2:39:58] you know what, I proved that person wrong and it didn't work. I mean, don't you think doctors themselves [2:40:03] um, yeah, you don't want snake oil salesmen out there, you don't want [2:40:11] uh, you know corrupted science, but you don't want this happening either. Again, I think people admit [2:40:18] that pub peer, the initial- the way it was initially run was- was probably the right thing to do. It was [2:40:25] valid, but then something took it over and it- you know, now the nickname is pub smear. Um, so that- that [2:40:33] again, we're trying- we're trying to at least highlight that to maybe stop that abuse, uh, but there- there's [2:40:38] gotta be- I mean, from my standpoint, it's like, publish the papers and, you know, have your own reputation be [2:40:45] the thing that really guides you in terms of not publishing junk. And if you publish junk, [2:40:51] I mean, pretty soon you're- I mean, I mean, like real junk, not- not being tormented- tormented with a [2:40:55] bunch of, you know, spelling mistakes and stuff. The medical community is very critical of papers [2:41:01] to begin with. And if a paper passes peer review, it needs to stay. But talk- talk about peer review, [2:41:07] because we've talked about this. Yes. That's not exactly pure- pure either, is it? Because you- because you [2:41:12] don't have any control who those peers are and you'll get- sometimes get peers that have a different [2:41:17] patent or a different drug and they want to destroy your research. So I mean, that's part of a problem. [2:41:21] They- there- there's a problem in that area as well. But I mean, for the majority of peer reviewers, [2:41:27] I'll give you an example, the paper that was in Gut Pathogen that was retracted, the landmark paper of [2:41:33] finding COVID in the stools, the journal is now asking me to peer review the- another paper because [2:41:39] I'm considered the expert in the microbiome space. I find it funny that they retracted a landmark paper [2:41:46] on COVID and now are asking me to peer review a paper on long COVID. Funny it's probably not the [2:41:51] attitude if I use it. Dr. Malhotra. Yeah, I just want to- what really important point here is that, [2:41:56] you know, when it comes to randomized controlled trials, when, you know, doctors are making decisions [2:42:00] on non-transparent data, the peer reviewers of those trials don't have access to the raw data. [2:42:07] So they're making decisions on data that isn't transparent. And that's- so we have to go [2:42:10] further upstream- upstream, Senator Johnson. In my view, with everything that's happened over the last few [2:42:16] decades, we see the excessive use of medications. We have estimates, you know, the third most common [2:42:21] cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer, according to one senior Cochrane reviewer, [2:42:27] is prescribed medications because of avoidable side effects. I mean, that is extraordinary. [2:42:32] And that can be corrected if in the future we say, enough is enough, drug companies can no- they can [2:42:38] develop drugs, but they can no longer test their own products and we just rely on their results. [2:42:44] That has to change. Until that changes, you know, medical knowledge will still be under commercial [2:42:49] control. I've kind of run out of questions. We've covered an awful lot of ground here. I guess [2:42:55] what I'll do is I'll give everybody a chance. If there's something that you want to get off your [2:42:59] chest here, it's something we haven't discussed and you want to discuss, so let's do it. You know, [2:43:03] keep it reasonably short, but we'll start with Dr. Dalglish. [2:43:05] I think we need to just reiterate the great difficulty, the censorship that we've experienced. [2:43:13] I mean, right at the beginning, my colleagues and I noted that the sequence of the virus clearly [2:43:19] had positive inserts into it. And this meant that it'd come from the laboratory. There could be no [2:43:27] other explanation. And we submitted it to all the journals and they all rejected it with exactly the [2:43:33] same thing. We have no problem with the science. It is not in the public interest. How come an [2:43:39] ancient science cell of virology and the Lancet all used the same words? It was like they were expecting [2:43:45] it and to be buried. My university told me we were not allowed to research the origin of the virus. [2:43:53] This is a suppression, something that I thought was probably going into Stalin's communism or something. [2:44:01] We were no longer allowed to discuss the truth, to discuss science, even if it was flawed, to [2:44:07] discuss other people. It was completely verboten. I've never thought that I would ever come to see [2:44:12] that, but it has not stopped. It has not stopped. It still continues. We can't get papers published on [2:44:18] things they do not want. They come back and with a peer review, they nitpick absolutely to the point [2:44:25] where, you know, what's the point? They clearly don't want good data being published. So we must not forget [2:44:30] that here we have had people who have lost their jobs. They've been totally targeted. And the big [2:44:36] thing is, why? Why? And I must say, when you get into a dystopia like this, you have to say, [2:44:42] cue bono. You know, who is benefiting? And I think... [2:44:46] An insight I can give you from our investigations, what we've seen in talking to folks, [2:44:51] is a very major goal causing this is you cannot create vaccine hesitancy. So anything that, you know, [2:45:02] any truth, you know, any injection injury that might align the public that just could cause vaccine [2:45:08] hesitancy, they'll rely on that. Say, well, no, I mean, okay, we maybe should have warned the public. [2:45:15] Okay. But had we warned the public, that would have created vaccine hesitancy. And again, [2:45:19] because we saved 3.2 million lives, we certainly can't deny people that injection because, okay, [2:45:27] that's, I mean, I think that is driving a lot of this. And of course, why don't you want to create [2:45:33] a vaccine hesitancy? Because you don't put billions of dollars in the big farmers' pockets because they [2:45:38] have no liability for these vaccines. And it's just a big money-making center. So yeah, and they've got the [2:45:46] money and then they buy the ads and they, you know, they invest in, invest in medical journals, [2:45:55] medical associations, you know, medical colleges. That's the, that's the, the grift that's going on here. [2:46:01] My, my one sentence answer to that is it is time to withdraw the 1986 Vaccine Identity Act. [2:46:08] But no, I, I agree. I agree. Dr. O'Deary. [2:46:13] Dr. O'Deary. Well, I've got a few things I want to get off my chest. Okay. Keep it short. [2:46:21] Dr. O'Deary. Yes. So in science, we need to be able to think creatively and talk with each other [2:46:31] and discuss things in a civilized manner, you know, with mutual respect and not being dismissed as [2:46:41] irrelevant or, or, or whatever. Um, and that's, that's a big problem these days. Um, I, I think some [2:46:50] of the issues we're talking about also have to do with informed consent. Um, a lot of things, I don't [2:46:58] believe we have informed consent for COVID mRNA vaccines. I do want to clarify, you know, the comment [2:47:06] was made that we've been doing mRNA research for decades. It should be clear to everyone, the [2:47:13] pseudouridine modified mRNAs were used for the first time in the population in the COVID pandemic, never [2:47:22] before, first time ever. Um, and so, you know, there needs to be more oversight of these things and more, [2:47:30] uh, modern regulations of what's allowable as contaminants, you know, with the lipid, uh, nanoparticles. [2:47:39] Um, the comment was made about elsewhere about how fast these tumors grow after the COVID, uh, vaccines. [2:47:50] And I will say that we've known for a number of years, one of my colleagues, Dr. Rozelle Kurzrak, [2:47:56] one of the premier clinical trialists in the world, um, notice that people who get cancer [2:48:04] immunotherapy, a small percentage of them, their tumors grow. It's called hyperprogression. I don't [2:48:11] use the term turbo cancer, but hyperprogression is understood. And, uh, there's also pseudoprogression [2:48:19] that happens when people get cancer immunotherapy. And you have to tell the difference between those [2:48:25] two because the pseudoprogression is a mass that looks like it's getting bigger because the immune [2:48:31] system is fighting it. Um, and so, you know, some of the things that have been reported of these tumors [2:48:39] that seem to be popping up and growing really quickly, that may not all be tumor cells that are [2:48:45] dividing. I mean, it's the immune cells that are going in there. You get these swellings. And in, [2:48:52] in the end, most of us probably carry cancer cells in our body that are being eliminated by our immune [2:49:01] system. And so, you know, we just need to understand more. We need to do science. We need to let scientists [2:49:09] do science, ask questions. We need to support it. I am all for support of biomedical research. And, you know, [2:49:16] if we want to be America first, we need to do that. But the, um, environment is pretty toxic as far as, [2:49:24] uh, how people are disparaged. I mean, you know, there's certain, you just can't ask the questions. [2:49:30] Oh, I'm glad you brought up informed consent. You know, one of our events we had, uh, Dr. Renata Moon, [2:49:35] uh, show the package insert for the injection. It was a great big piece of paper. All was written [2:49:41] and intentionally left blank. So yeah, that, that is not, uh, informed consent. Um, you know, you [2:49:47] talked about boosting your immune system. I think that's Dr. Sun Xiong's technique with Anctiva and, [2:49:53] you know, trying to boost T cell production and stuff. Again, these are, these are theories. He's [2:49:57] got approval for a certain type of, uh, bladder cancer, can't get approval for some of it, which [2:50:01] kind of is crazy to me. So he's got, I don't know how many people on the waiting list. They've got to go to [2:50:06] LA to get treated. So, I mean, you know, I, like many of my colleagues believe the immune system is [2:50:11] our last hope if we're going to cure cancer. Um, and by the way, you know, we discovered a drug. We [2:50:18] did basic science that was funded almost 20 years ago. The drug was approved for treating brain cancer [2:50:26] and it boosts our innate immune system. The same type of natural killer cells that Dr. Sun Xiong [2:50:33] is trying to, uh, use to help patients. So, and most chemo, most chemotherapy, [2:50:40] therapy knocks out T cells, right? I mean, really harms your immune system, correct? [2:50:44] Dr. They do, but there's also data, you know, when people have combined chemo with immunotherapy, [2:50:51] and I've asked this question, you know, 10 years ago, it doesn't make sense. And then the answer [2:50:55] comes back, but the data shows it works better. So, you know, we have to be open-minded about what's [2:51:01] observed and the data speaks for itself. Yes, of course, the immune system is so important. It's [2:51:07] known people who are immunosuppressed are at risk for cancer. People have had organ transplants. [2:51:13] You stop there or you, you know, you, you take away their immunosuppressive agents and they, [2:51:22] their immune system comes back and, and can, uh, eliminate, uh, the cancer. [2:51:27] Dr. Okay. Dr. Morelstreet. Dr. Well, what I would like to add is that from early, uh, 2020, [2:51:36] I think there was a major shift in public health policies. In the past, we had a system where the [2:51:42] public health was based on weighing costs and benefits, including short and long-term harms, [2:51:48] and disease burden was assessed on estimates of life years lost or impaired. And what also was taken [2:51:55] into account was that low socioeconomic status was linked to lower, uh, life expectancy, [2:52:01] especially in low and middle-income countries, but also in high-income countries. And therefore, [2:52:07] at that point, it was clear that, uh, should not, uh, implement border closures, lockdowns, [2:52:14] no restrictions on health people. And then something changed, apparently. And I think that has to do with [2:52:21] the rapid growth of certain industries that brought unprecedented wealth to a few individuals who [2:52:28] have greater assets than some medium-sized countries. And the direction of part of this wealth to health [2:52:35] through philanthropy, uh, particularly public-private partnerships, I think that is what changed, uh, [2:52:42] the public health policies that we are facing now. And you have to realize that there are significant [2:52:48] conflicts of interest stemming from massive crossover between private wealth investments, [2:52:54] philanthropic initiatives, and global health policy directives. So if you want to change, I think, [2:53:00] for the future, uh, something, then it's important to address this influence of public-private partnerships [2:53:08] on international organizations, such as health organizations, governments, but also very important [2:53:14] on the media, uh, who, uh, they, they sponsor grants to journalism and media outlets, and of course on [2:53:21] science with regard to their funding of universities research. That's a major point. And another major point, [2:53:29] referring to my testimony, I think what also needs to be learned from the COVID pandemic is that we are [2:53:37] in need of legislative and regulatory frameworks to address, uh, the psychological manipulation, [2:53:45] the fear propaganda, and the censorship that has been implemented to protect the public in the future, [2:53:52] and, uh, also to assure that science is not adjusted to political ideologies or corporate interests. [2:53:59] Okay. Thank you. Dr. Hazen. [2:54:01] I think the first thing, uh, for me is to stop these retractions because they stop the science, [2:54:09] period. Uh, I think we need to encourage scientists to ask questions, and we need to debate the narrative [2:54:17] a good scientist. A good scientist is humble to know that they may be wrong. And that was me during [2:54:24] the pandemic. Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't know, but I'm willing to look at it. And then I'm willing [2:54:30] to speak about what I saw for others to prove me wrong. Um, you know, what we need to realize is chronic [2:54:37] disease is increasing. Cancer is increasing. Neurological diseases are increasing. ALS is increasing. [2:54:45] One boy out of 12 in California has autism. What is it going to be in a hundred years from now? One [2:54:52] in one kid born going to be autistic? This is why I'm up. This is why I'm here. This is why I've done [2:54:57] my research. I think we need to stop the destruction of microbes. Our lab has discovered that less than 5% [2:55:05] have good bacteria that help absorb sugar. And one out of 4,000 samples that we've analyzed [2:55:12] have a bacteria that is able to break down calcium to get into the cells. What happens when those [2:55:18] microbes disappear? What are we doing? We're creating an increase in disease and we're not [2:55:24] stopping to see what we are doing to damage the disease. And when somebody comes out and says, [2:55:29] look, we're doing this and it's, you know, counter a narrative, they're being stopped. [2:55:33] When we should be encouraging, you know, the research and the science to see if that person is right, [2:55:39] and analyzing in depth, what are we doing? So, I think more humility in science, [2:55:46] more freedom of speech to the scientists, more protection to the scientists, and, [2:55:51] you know, stopping the retractions. [2:55:52] I couldn't agree more. Dr. Malhotra. [2:55:55] I just want to reiterate what Dr. Ildiri said really around the issue of informed consent. [2:56:01] And I'll give you one example that a lot of people may resonate with. [2:56:05] Dr. Malhotra. So, and this is my area of expertise where I've done research specifically. [2:56:10] Between 200 million and 1 billion people globally are prescribed a drug called statins. [2:56:16] These are cholesterol-lowering drugs. Now, if you are a low risk of heart disease, [2:56:21] which is most of these people prescribe statins, your benefit over a five-year period, [2:56:25] looking at the totality of evidence, is 1%. There is a 1 in 100 chance if you take that drug [2:56:30] religiously, it'll prevent you having a heart attack or stroke, but without prolonging your life. [2:56:34] If you are older, if you are older than 75, and I use the example, and if you'd allow me to do so, [2:56:41] on publicly available data, we know that President Trump is in excellent health. [2:56:46] But what I find a bit confusing is the fact that we look at people, somebody like President Trump [2:56:51] is over 75 without any evidence of significant vascular disease, no evidence of significant [2:56:55] heart disease or stroke, etc. The benefit for someone like President Trump taking a statin is 1 in 446. [2:57:01] So we have to treat 446 people over 75 to prevent one heart attack. He's also taking aspirin. And I was [2:57:08] looking at this recently released data on President Trump, what he's taking. And again, if you don't have [2:57:16] any significant vascular disease, your risk of a fatal bleed is significantly higher than preventing a heart attack. [2:57:23] The point I'm making here, and I'm hoping President Trump is aware of this, but I suspect he isn't, [2:57:29] is no one is immune to medical misinformation, not even the President. So the system is actually more [2:57:36] powerful than any individual. And that's what we're dealing with. So collectively, we have to sort this [2:57:40] out together. Dr. Gray Law. I think every single one of us on this panel wants what's best for our [2:57:52] patients. And I think our 50,000 members of our professional society of physicians who treat cancer [2:58:00] patients want what's best for our patients. I think we also agree that we need to understand the risks and [2:58:08] the benefits of any vaccine, of any drug, of any treatment. And the risks and benefits can be [2:58:15] different depending on the person as well. They can be individualized. We believe in shared decision [2:58:21] making, which means a discussion between the patient and the clinician, understanding the patient's [2:58:28] goals and wishes and desires. And true informed consent is difficult when you don't have the numbers. [2:58:37] You cannot use hypothetical or kind of unproven without numbers kind of information about either [2:58:44] the benefits or the risks. Wearing my cancer hat, I would have to say that the evidence at this point [2:58:51] in time shows overall that COVID vaccines have more benefits and they outweigh the risks in our cancer [2:58:59] population. I never got to speak on this piece of the hearing, but I fully believe that [2:59:07] we should have respectful and open scientific discussion. We should be able to disagree but [2:59:15] then back up and do the research or the studies to prove it. It should not be done on social media [2:59:22] and it should not be done in an anonymized way as has been done. Thank you, Dr. Graylow. Ms. Feller, you are [2:59:31] in the anchor position there. Thank you all. Again, I just want to say the patient voice is really [2:59:37] important and I'm really happy to be here to represent cancer patients. June 14th is the 25th [2:59:45] anniversary of my surgery that I had just up the road at Johns Hopkins. I'm very thankful to the [2:59:52] medical team there. I'm thankful to my oncologist. And even though treatment is tough, it's hard on the [2:59:59] body and it does damage cells. I'm very thankful for that advancement because I wouldn't be here [3:00:06] without that treatment. I want science to continue to advance so that we have more options for patients. [3:00:14] And I'd like for the federal government to help those scientists and back that science and also the [3:00:22] research. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, it's about the patients. In the end, it's about the [3:00:28] patients. And as a potential one myself, I don't know what to believe. That's part of the problem. [3:00:36] It's like, who do you believe? Who do you turn to? And so, as I've said repeatedly, I think the number [3:00:41] one job of RFK Junior is to restore integrity to science. And that's really the main purpose of this [3:00:47] hearing is to just show that there's been corruption. It's not good. And I agree with you completely, Dr. [3:00:53] Graylow. Again, I was hoping this could be as collaborative between you experts here as [3:01:00] possible. And I just find a lot more areas of agreement than disagreement here. And that's [3:01:04] encouraging. And that's what we need to keep seeking for. But don't just dismiss. Don't try [3:01:10] to destroy people's lives when they disagree. If there's a one-word definition of science, [3:01:15] I think it's skepticism. It's what's driven science throughout history. You need the skeptic. [3:01:22] You need somebody looking like, okay, I know you guys are pretty concerned about that, but [3:01:26] not looking good to me. I'm seeing something else. And then, you know, give that person a [3:01:32] shot without just going to destroy them. We've seen way too many people destroyed during COVID. [3:01:37] So, again, I truly appreciate this. I know it's not easy. It's not cheap to come here. It's a lot of [3:01:44] work to prepare these testimonies and stuff. And I truly appreciate it. I think it's been an excellent [3:01:51] hearing. The record will remain- the record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days until [3:01:56] Thursday, June 18th, 2026 at 5 p.m. For the submission of statements and questions for the record, [3:02:02] this hearing is adjourned.