The Defender Show: Vaccine Safety Advocate Tells RFK Jr.: VAERS Protects Vaccine Makers, Not Kids

The following is a transcript of this podcast. Also see related article.

– ♪ Wo-oh-oh-oh-Oh ♪ ♪ Wo-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪

– Good morning, everybody. It’s Bobby Kennedy here, and I have a really good show today. We’re gonna try to figure out what’s happening at VAERS, at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The entire COVID-19 vaccine enterprise, which is an experimental vaccine, everybody acknowledges that. And so it’s really important, since we did not complete the preclinical trials, those are incomplete. They won’t be completed to 2022, 2023. It’s really important that we have a very robust, post-licensing surveillance system that can pick up injuries that can identify different injury profiles of all the different vaccines, which age groups they’re affecting, how many people are actually getting killed, how many people are getting sick, what are all the different injuries that they’re experiencing, and it’s not working. And I want to talk to there’s a long history of VAERS. It’s a broken system; everybody acknowledges that. We’ve acknowledged that for many, many years, since 2010. And a HHS study that you’ll be hearing about, the Lazarus Study, found that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries were reported to the VAERS. And so I’ve got a really superstar panel on today who are all experts in different aspects of the system. And I’m gonna begin with Eileen Iorio, my friend, who is the co-author of the book, “HPV On Trial,” published in 2018. She contributes to research articles for CHD, The Defender. Eileen has a background in accounting and finance, but now occupies her time with vaccine safety research and writing. Eileen, welcome to the show, and let’s get right into it.

– Yep.

– Just give us a little bit of a history of VAERS so that people who are not familiar with the debate can at least understand the landscapes.

– Okay, so VAERS stands for the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. And it was born out of the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Act, which was passed by Congress in order to protect children, ideally, but what it ended up doing was exonerating the vaccine manufacturers from civil liability. So they are not liable in any case if a child, or adults now, is vaccine injured. The VAERS system was set up in order to fulfill a requirement of the Act to report to Congress on safety, which has never really happened. It was supposed to be a biannual report; that’s never really happened. But part of the Act revolved around the CDC creating a system for the public and health professionals to report injuries when they happened. It was really to capture rare events, and events that health professionals thought were unlikely to happen so that they could protect the children. But in all cases, what’s happened is very little has been reported there until 2020, 2021, as we can see from the trends. And I think the difference here is, is the hyper-focus on the COVID vaccination scheme. The fact that all vaccination professionals were told that it’s mandatory to report. So while what we’ve learned from the Lazarus Report was that one to 10% of cases are reported. It may be slightly higher for the COVID vaccine adverse events, which are now trending over 400,000 and only going higher every week. So there’s clearly an issue about, I think the COVID vaccine reports account for about 30% of the total vaccine reports ever recorded since 1990. So that’s where we’re headed. It’s trending very high.

– Well, I’m gonna show a little graph that I have here. I hope people can see.

– [Eileen] Of Wayne.

– [Robert] This is-

– [Eileen] Oh, there you go. Yeah, we have it.

– This is the hockey stick graph lines that show the entries throughout the year. And then we see at the end of 2020, they jump up just astronomically. And we don’t know whether we’re simply getting better reporting now, or whether the injury rates are so momentous and monumental that it’s just the same rate of people are reporting injuries, but there’s so many of them, we’re seeing more of them being reported.

– That graph you showed, I think was the deaths reports, which is now showing at 45% of the entire deaths reported to CDC post-vaccination. And remember, this is a surveillance system. It’s supposed to trigger alerts and warnings. It’s not supposed to establish causation, which we know we’re not expecting it to turn out accurate data, but it is a warning system. And if that isn’t a warning system, then I don’t know what the CDC is doing right now. And I think Wayne will talk about this. We’re always being told, oh, but it’s not supposed to generate causation and blah, blah, blah. However, there are about 67% of those deaths reports reported by medical professionals and that can’t be ignored. The reports are very detailed. They have medical details that can’t be reported by the public. It isn’t as passive as what people think, you know, and it’s being actively investigated by CDC on a weekly basis, which we also know.

– Let me just, let me interject a little here so that people understand why this system is broken. The reason it’s so broken is because of a fundamental design flaw. It is a voluntary system.

– Correct.

– Which means it relies on doctors, generally speaking. Although individuals can report, they’re highly unlikely to do so. They’re highly unlikely to even recognize that their injury was caused by the vaccine. And doctors are taught that vaccines don’t cause injuries, and they also have giant economic and also reputational incentives for underreporting. So if a doctor, a pediatrician, advise a young mother to get an MMR vaccine or a mercury-based vaccine, and tells her that it’s gonna protect her child’s health, two days later that child has a seizure, or a year later the child develops food allergies or a neurodevelopmental disorder, and the mother comes back, even if the injury happens in a week, let’s say a seizure, the mother comes back and says, “My son has syncope, “he’s staring at the wall, he’s had a seizure. “Was it the vaccine?” The doctor is highly likely to tell her it wasn’t the vaccine; it’s a natural thing and phenomena at that age. And that’s what we hear again and again, and again. And doctors are taught in medical school that vaccine injuries are mythology. They also are disincentivized from reporting too many. Doctors who do report them are punished by professional societies, and we see that again and again. And also there’s long-term injuries. For example, food allergies, or ASD or autism, that may not be diagnosed for three or four years, or cancers, after the vaccine is given, and virtually nobody report those vaccine injuries. Oh, we had it in 2010 after years of complaints by medical professionals, by regulatory officials saying this system is broken, is capturing almost none of the injuries. The HHS actually did a study called the Lazarus Study, where they went to one HMO, Harvard Pilgrim, and they had designed a machine counting system. And the way that machine counting system worked, and it’s very rational, this is how we ought to be doing it, it looks at all these HMOs, and all your vaccine records down to batch number, and they have all your medical claims. And so it’s an easy thing today with artificial intelligence to look at all those vaccines from hundreds of thousands of people, and then look at subsequent medical claims and do a cluster analysis, where you can associate diabetes or food allergies, peanut allergies, neurodevelopmental disorder, tics, Tourette’s Syndrome, narcolepsy, and see if certain clusters occur following certain vaccinations or even certain batches of certain vaccinations. And that’s what a subagency of HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research was paid a million dollars. They spent three years on that study and they developed that system. And they installed it at Harvard Pilgrim, which is one of the smaller HMOs. They came back and said, “It works like a charm. “We’re getting probably 90% of vaccine injuries counted. “And guess what we found? “It’s not one in a million children who are getting harmed.” It’s one in every 40 children, I think, one in every 39, 2.7% of children were suffering harms. And the per-vaccination rate was enormous. And so CDC got that report and they immediately shut down the program. ‘Cause that program, that machine counting system, was supposed to be rolled out to all the other HMOs as soon as it worked, and it worked like a charm. And instead of doing that, CDC literally stopped answering its phone calls from the AHR, from their sister agency. They did not wanna install that. They wanted a system that is designed to fail. And that’s kind of where we are today and that’s where we have that same old system that they said they found collected 1%, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries. What that means, put another way, a more, less polite way, 99%, over 99% of vaccine injuries are missed, are not counted. Oh, and to Stan, let me ask you this. When somebody, when a doctor calls up VAERS, who answers that phone? Is that like a teenager somewhere, you know, who has a summer job doing that? Who are these people? Because we never hear from them. Are they locked in a room somewhere and sworn to secrecy? What is going on with VAERS? How come we can’t get in and watch what’s happening?

– Well, first of all, they don’t really call up people at the program. They just submit VAERS reports. As far as the officials within the CDC and the FDA who run the program, I don’t know. I haven’t been able to figure that out. But you make an interesting point about the Harvard Pilgrim research. And there’s a line in that paper that people often cite saying that there’s less than 1% of all the adverse events are reported to VAERS. And that’s certainly in the paper, but we should revisit that a little bit, because that whole body of research, and there’s another paper which I’ll get to in a minute, but that was all having to do with the clinical setting. Because patients can submit reports, clinicians can submit reports, the pharmaceutical industry can submit reports, and investigators on studies can submit reports. So there’s a spectrum of people that can send these reports in. So any conclusions that were drawn by that research has to do with the clinical setting. So if we draw any conclusions from that paper, in my opinion, at most, it has to do with the clinical circumstances, not with what patients or pharmaceutical industry is reporting.

– Oh, so you’re saying that the number, the percentage of vaccine injuries, that it’s actually reported, is probably higher than the 1%. Is that what you’re saying? Because it’s coming from other sources, and the 1% is just medical professionals reporting?

– Well, I would say the 1% has to do with the clinicians in the clinical setting. And it might be a good proxy across the board for what’s reported across all the different categories. But I mean, if we’re talking about the reporting clinicians versus the reporting rate of patients, you would think that clinicians would be more inclined, not more inclined, but more, their reporting rate would be higher, you would think. But given how, just like you were saying before, how clinicians are discouraged from reporting because of certain consequences, it’s really hard to know whether or not that less than 1% number is translatable to patients and so forth.

– And so what is the transparency of the system? So my friend, who’s a very famous plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills, had a brother-in-law who he advised to get the vaccine, and the brother-in-law died of a heart attack two days later. He also had a daughter who, on that same day, and he was very pro-vaccine, he had a daughter who, on that same day, had an appointment with a pediatrician in Miami, a young pediatrician, who also took the shot and whose platelet levels dropped to zero, and then he died in the four or five days afterward. And so he knew two people who were likely casualties of the vaccine, and that struck him as very, very unusual. And he reported the injury, but he was not able to determine, first of all, he had a hard time reporting his brother-in-law, and he never succeeded. So that’s one issue. The other issue, user-friendliness, the user accessibility. The other issue was he complained that it was very hard for him to understand whether the report that he made actually was tabulated anywhere. So can you guys, any of you, Stan or Eileen or Wayne, can you talk to that? If I do report an injury, can I make sure that it is reported somewhere? Am I given a number so that I know that my injury is recorded?

– Yeah, I can start with that. When you submit the report online, you’re given an initial identification number that’s sort of an internal identifier to track your case through the system before it’s published online in the downloadable data set. And when it’s published on the downloadable data set, it’s given its final VAERS ID number that you can use to look it up on sites like medalerts.org or CDC WONDER, or so forth. During that phase of submission before it’s published, you’re interacting with people at the CDC and the FDA. If they have any questions, you can fill ’em in on details, and they’ll add details to the report and so forth. And then, finally, when it’s published, it goes to the final data set.

– And let me ask you, so there is some transparency. I’ll be able to see, if I report it to somebody, I will be able to verify that that made it into the tabulation. You’re saying that is happening.

– Yeah, yeah, that’s correct.

– Okay, but recently we’ve seen, it’s very disturbing to a lot of people, is that a lot of those reports are going up in the system and then they’re being subsequently removed. And can you explain why that’s happening and whether that’s something that we should worry about?

– Well, we definitely know that reports are being removed. Now, in the general case, there’s lots of different legitimate reasons why that might be happening. Because in some cases, clinicians submit reports and the patient submits a report for the same incident. And so once the CDC figures that out, they consolidate that into a single report, or delete one and add the information to the other. So there are legitimate reasons for doing this kind of deduplication. That’s perfectly reasonable. But there’s absolutely no transparency as to why they’re doing it on a report-to-report basis. There’s no audit trail. We have no idea why they’re doing it.

– And we do know that, because I think Eileen has done a very good job of, and I don’t know if you were involved with this, Wayne, but Eileen has a team that’s actually been hand-tabulating all of the missing VAERS reports. And I think there’s 100,000 or more of them.

– Well, I haven’t been dealing with that. That was a report online that we were looking into, but I’m not sure where that 100,000 comes from. Stan may know-

– But what I was gonna say is that there are a lot of reports missing, and there are some people saying it’s 100,000. We know a lot of those are legitimate.

– Yep.

– Those weren’t dupes where, as you say, the doctor reports, the family reports, and that should be one report, not two. So it’s legitimate to go through and cull out the dupes, but we’ve also been able to identify a number of them, and I think it’s in the thousands, of places where there is no explanation.

– Right. I think, and that’s, to the point of transparency, we have no idea why. So it looks to be, and we couldn’t analyze the thousands, but we have identified maybe a few-hundred death reports that were deleted, some with no apparent reason, brain bleed reports, massive heart attack reports. Now, they could have genuine, what I call replacement records, where two doctors might have filed the same one. But there were then, just from just looking at them without knowing why, just some reports just missing and we can’t find a replacement. And, unfortunately, we don’t have the data to look as efficiently as we want to. We don’t have the name, we don’t have the exact location. So we don’t know what’s going through CDC’s mind as to why. So and there were a couple of serious cases. There was one thrombocytopenia case in Florida that sounded similar to Dr. Michael, but it wasn’t, and it was a different date, different manufacturer. So there’s things there that we’re wondering, well, why was that removed? Because that clearly, and it had a lot of detail. So there’s a couple of questions, but again, we’re just really working from a flawed system, trying to make sense of it. And it’s not making a whole lot of sense, except that it’s not a passive system from their perspective. It may be from the public’s perspective, but they are definitely going in amending, they’re looking for allergies, they’re going back, what it seems like, amending records, which might feed into the thousands that we’re talking about. So every time they amend a record, it seems to drop off the system, but you have to go through the wayback system every time they do an amendment on it. So it may seem to some like it’s dropping off or deleted, but it’s actually there. And it looks like they’re flagging for allergies, so that’s one thing, is the patient allergic to something, which might explain their reaction. So that could be them looking to pin it on something or blame, or account for these reports, but again, no transparency in the reports for cause.

– If there’s a report where a doctor reports an allergy, that they’re gonna go in, take a look at that and maybe remove the report, ’cause they say that’s not the vaccine; it’s an allergy.

– No, I think what they were doing was going back to each report or doctor and saying, is there an allergy in the patient that we should know about, and updating. That’s what I saw. The records that were removed for no reason, it looked to be either the patient or the reporter was not contactable. I mean, that’s not a reason to delete a record immediately. I mean, I have firsthand knowledge of making a report and they would send you a letter in the mail that would take two weeks, you know, and there’s turnaround. And then we found a few more deleted records from other vaccines as we were looking, and very strange. Why are they deleting records, let’s say for Gardasil or things like that, that again, we just don’t know. But it’s not a passive system by any stretch of the imagination. They’re working on data, you can tell, from behind the scenes.

– They also, and, Wayne, you can speak to this, too, or Eileen or Stan. There’s also kind of a legitimate function where you want people, if there’s a really crazy report, like I took a vaccine and I turned into The Hulk, or I took a vaccine and I grew a third arm out of my forehead, which is an actual report, there’s a legitimate reason to remove those. But the weird thing is those ones don’t get removed. The Hulk one is still up there. The arm in the forehead is still up there, and it’s clearly people who are trying to discredit the system. And yet ones like you’d say with thrombocytopenia, which are very plausible, are getting removed. And that’s a weird thing.

– The Hulk one was removed, because that was 2004. It was way, way back. And in that case, the CDC did their job. They called the guy up and said, come on, this is ridiculous. In the end, he said, “Okay, “I was just doing it to test you,” without acknowledging that that’s a federal offense. It’s like wasting police time. And the one with the arm growing out of the forehead was just input two weeks ago. And you have the likes of the infamous UC Hastings professor sharing it online gleefully without acknowledging that it’s a federal offense. You’re spreading the misconception that this is a system that can be abused. Well, who is abusing it? The people who are posting these kinds of reports. The lines in the highway needs to be kept clear for analysis and using it for its true purpose, which is to find rare events. And they are just muddying the waters for the benefit of headlines that go counter to our movement, which is trying to find the truth and trying to protect what’s coming down the line, the children.

– One of the things that you would expect in a post-licensing system was that whenever there was a reported vaccine injury, the family would immediately contact somebody at the CDC, go in and say, okay, what is it about your child that made them vulnerable? Or that maybe these children have a genetic composition or a genetic flag that we ought to know about to protect them. Maybe they are kids who have comorbidities. Maybe they are kids who, by race or by age, or by gender, or by diet, have a special vulnerability. And we want our public health officials then asking those questions and trying to make the determination so we understand better what the risk profile is for these mandated, highly-subsidized, liability-free, experimental products. You want that kind of knowledge. And yet in all the people I’ve known who have suffered vaccine injuries in the families, I’ve never met anybody, not one person, who has ever gotten a follow-up call, either from CDC or from the pharmaceutical company that’s making that product. Wayne, do you wanna address that?

– Yeah, interesting, couple things. One, my son now is 23, and he was vaccine injured at 13 months by the MMR. Four years ago, I entered a VAERS report just to see if the system would take it. It took it. I have never heard from the CDC. They’ve got all my contact information. I’ve never heard, no letter, no calls.

– I received a letter.

– Yeah. And then the other thing is, is that when I was researching for my book, in the second book, “Vaccine Court 2.0,” which was just released last week, and thank you, Bobby, for writing the Forward to it. I really, really appreciate that. I interviewed over 285 families who had family members, mainly children, but a couple of spouses, and I only found two out of the 285 families that had any communication with a clinician, a doctor, or a nurse or something like that, that would help them file a VAERS report. The rest of ’em, the common theme was, “I can’t help you “because if it’s found out, I’m gonna be terminated. “I’ll lose my job.” So you have this pressure, peer pressure, I would guess it is, within the clinician world, the medical world, that we aren’t gonna help report, that let these families report that. Now that’s changed as of COVID. When COVID, there was a push by CDC, and FDA especially, to the vaccine administrators, those who are actually administering the vaccines or overseeing ’em, you must report. Now they’re reporting to VAERS. They’re also reporting on what they call the V-safe, which is that other system that CDC’s got out there. And it’s quite interesting, is that we’re seeing a tremendous number of reports. And it was just verified about 10 days ago from a report, a Canadian study group that is tied to the United Kingdom, a university over there, Queen’s. And they did a total VAERS data dump of the whole system, and they screened out April. And they looked at April, and about 2/3 of all reports are reported by clinicians. It’s interesting is that when you file a report, you can, you know, who are you? You identify. But when the public tries to run these reports, that data doesn’t come back out. So when you do summary data for maybe the month of May, you don’t know if it’s a public or a clinician. So therefore that gives the ammunition for our detractors and the media to attack us when we report from VAERS. And another concern I have, and we’ve got examples of this, this is where family members will enter in VAERS reports and it’s legit. We have one where she won a major court case for the death of her daughter from Gardasil, and it was proven, the government conceded it. And yet we find examples where the pharmaceutical company has deliberately gone in and entered in VAERS reports to distract from it, a total lie fabrication of what actually happened. They’re claiming that the daughter died of a viral infection and the source was the girl’s doctors. Yet the doctors said, “No, this is what actually happened. “This girl died-

– I think, was it Emily Tarsell’s case.

– That’s correct.

– And her pediatrician said, “We told Merck “that she died of the vaccine.” And Merck put a report on the public database “saying the pediatrician had told them “that she died of a viral infection.” So that was just a lie to blame her, trying to conceal the, you know, trying to lie to the public about the risk profile of their product.

– Right, and that report’s still in there, in the data set. The Merck’s report is still in there, according to Emily Tarsell.

– And you mentioned the V-safe system. And I don’t understand the V-safe system. Now, my understanding is, let me tell you what my sophomoric understanding is, which is it’s a cell phone system where they give you, certain people, and I think it was a very small number, whether it was 10% or fewer, who got the vaccine in the early days, was it during the clinical trial or after the clinical trial?

– I think it was the first 90 to 120 days, or first 90 days, they were-

– Okay, if you got the vaccine during that period, you got an app.

– Right.

– And you were told that if there was an injury or if you felt sick or whatever, and this is actually a pretty good innovation, you report it on that app. But they’re not collating the app with the VAERS system.

– Right.

– And they’re not publicizing what the data coming from that app is, so it’s another secret, it’s more another total absence of transparency. But furthermore, it all relies on self-reporting. And so if you have a vaccine and you died, nobody self-reports their own death. And so it’s a system that is designed to hide any kind of mortalities that may occur from the vaccine because they’re not gonna get reported.

– Well, the other thing that I’ve noticed here is, is that long-term, and you talked about this a few minutes ago, and that is, long-term or what we call autoimmune disorders take a long time to manifest or develop. There is really a huge drop-off of VAERS reports after a week to two weeks from the administration of a vaccine. And we don’t track that in the VAERS system. So it’s a huge problem, because a majority of the vaccine injured that reside in the United States today are the result of autoimmune disorders, and you can tell that. Whether it’s in the NVICP or in the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, these people had a vaccine, and then three months later and six months later, it manifested into transverse myelitis or Guillain-Barre or some other autoimmune disorder, ITP or whatever, those aren’t being captured as frequently as we think we should, because they’re just being discarded.

– Yeah, and let me add something to that. Because since the vaccination program exploded, and particularly the Gardasil vaccine, which began in 2006, we have seen an exploding epidemic of autoimmune disorders among Americans, that they’re really beneficial to the drug companies, ’cause these are permanent lifetime diseases that are very, very lucrative for Big Pharma. And they’re listed on the manufacturer’s inserts as side effects, and we know they’re being caused by the vaccine. And you’re not allowed to list them. FDA is not legally allowed to list, to allow those companies to list them unless the FDA believes there’s a high probability they’re coming from the vaccine. And when the Gardasil trial happened, they looked at the girls for a full year. They didn’t look at them very carefully, and they discouraged them from reporting. But nevertheless, I think 2.3% or 2.6% of those girls got autoimmune disease within a year. And that is about one out of every 37 girls. The CDC’s official propaganda is that those kind of injuries occur one in a million, but they’re actually occurring one in every, four in 37. And if the public knew that, nobody in the world would take that vaccine. ‘Cause the vaccine, the injury that it’s protecting against supposedly is cervical cancer, which doesn’t kill anybody until you’re 58 years old. Historically, that’s the average age of death. So why would a nine or 11-year-old girl take a one-in-40 chance of getting a lifetime, absolutely debilitating disease to avoid a one-in-100,000 chance of dying from cervical cancer 50 years later. Nobody would do it. Of course, cervical cancer’s completely treatable if you catch it. So the risk/benefit profile to that vaccine is god-awful, and nobody would take it if they knew the truth. But they hide the injuries in order to stop people from having informed consent.

– I’ve got a couple hypothesis that I’ve been kind of thinking about, and Bobby, you got me onto one of ’em awhile back. The high-dose flu shot is given only to seniors above the age of 65, and the trivalent flu shot, which has been licensed in the United States for, I think since 2009, the high-dose; and then the quadrivalent, which has been licensed since November of 2019. What I’ve noticed, and I can’t track it in VAERS, and it’s been difficult, but I’ve noticed in the NVICP, or what we call the Vaccine Court, the petitions filed for injury due to the high dose, the injuries are more severe than the injuries of a comparable population set of a regular flu vaccine. Because a high dose is four times the titers. My concern is now that we’re gonna have co-administration of COVID vaccines with other vaccines, which is, there’s no data, no science to prove that it’s safe, they’re gonna start doin’ this, this fall when we start ramping up flu shots again, and they’re gonna start doing if they do a booster for the COVID, will the seniors have even greater severe injuries because of this high dose? And I notice that you had some data put up on an Instagram, and I grabbed that a while back, but I’m now wondering if we could, and this is where one of the problems we have with VAERS and any reporting system is, is that we’re now having some new combinations that is gonna be extremely difficult and worrisome to detect. And they might just go undetectable for a couple years. And I’m just, this is-

– Well, that’s the thing, that the post that you’re talking about, I think it was for flu-

– The clinical trial data of the high-dose, the Fluzone, I believe it’s called.

– Yeah, it was Fluzone, and it was the high dose, and it showed that within, I think, within three months of getting the vaccine, you had a 2.6% death rate among people and I believe it was over 65.

– Yep.

– That is huge.

– Yes, it is.

– And it actually is than getting the flu. So the death rate for the flu among that age cohort is lower than the death rate if you get that flu vaccine. So it’s better for a person that age to get the flu, it’s less risky, than it is to get the flu vaccine. And I posted it, this is all CDC data now, and I posted it. I didn’t transcribe it. I posted photographs of the CDC website, where it looked at the death rates from the flu and the manufacturer’s insert from the flu vaccine. It was really pretty extraordinary, because the death rates of that vaccine were you would be better off getting the flu, if you’re in that age cohort, than you are taking that vaccine, if you wannna live.

– Yeah, this is gonna be some real scary stuff. I pray to God that it doesn’t happen ’cause we don’t need people perishing because of this, but I think it will. And the concern is, is that how’s it gonna be tracked and will we be able to report it? And you have the folks, the great folks like Eileen and Stan that know the inner workings of VAERS and how to get the data. It’s, how do you report a person’s death? Well, you’re gonna have to have a spouse. Well, if the person’s 75, is there a spouse living?

– No, the spouse isn’t gonna report it and the doctor’s not gonna report it. They don’t do an autopsy. They say, well, that’s just a natural death. And so, Stan, one of the things I wanted to ask you, Stan, and I’ll come back to you, Eileen, is what is, there are a number of other databases that have all the data in them, these HMOs that have all the data we need to be able to make these kind of assessments. You go into the HMOs, and they have the insurance claims for all the VAERS entries. They have the people who’ve died. We have the vaccination records. Is there a way ever that we’ll be able to, that we’ll be ever to actually get into those, the Vaccine Safety data link and the HMO data, and actually get answers. That’s, I think, the scary thing for them. If they ever open up those databases, the independent scientists, the amount of mayhem that these vaccines are causing is gonna be laid out there for the public.

– Absolutely. The Vaccine Safety data link is notoriously opaque. They keep it locked down pretty well. But in that vein, the one thing I wanna bring up is that the Harvard Pilgrim research, it deployed a system called ESP. This is an open source, free software system that anyone can download and experiment with. In the early days of the Harvard Pilgrim research that Lazarus wrote up that report for, they make reference to that system. And the intent was to, like you said before, to distribute that system to different HMOs to make this a nationwide thing. They never really got there. But a few years later, in 2015, a journal-quality paper was published describing basically running that same experiment again in an HMO in Ohio. And you can actually go to the ESP page to get information. It’s an organization, and they’ve been doing this for years. This looks like a fairly mature software system. It’s only been deployed in a handful of places, but in 2015, they wrote a report on the results of the Ohio, basically the Ohio experiment. And they word their results a little bit differently, but essentially, the way it reads is that roughly about 3% of the adverse events, according to how they were automatically detecting the adverse events, the clinicians were catching about 3% of them.

– And nobody would get most of these vaccines, depending what the illness is, most of the vaccines you’re gonna now, if you have a 3% injury rate, that’s one in 33 people that you bring in, of your kids that you bring in to get that pediatric vaccine are gonna get injured, and you gotta take 72 doses, and you’re gonna have that injury, you’re basically got 100% chance of getting injured at some point, suffering a vaccine injury. Nobody in the world would take that if they actually looked at the risk from chickenpox. What are the risks that I’m gonna have a permanent injury from chickenpox? If I’m gonna get autoimmune disease, if I have a one-in-30 chance of getting an autoimmune disease from taking a Varicella vaccine, it makes no sense; it makes no sense. And I think if we’re ever given a real cost/benefit analysis, that people are gonna be shocked that we ever did this, for most of these vaccines. Vaccines may be good for some risk groups, but to do mass vaccination, cookie-cutter in the entire population of healthy children and healthy kids, with 72 doses of these very, very risky medical interventions that have no liability, no accountability, no responsibility to make them safe, no incentive to make them safe, how much sense does that make?

– One thing to understand about the ESP system is that when they deployed it in the 2015 study, they actually got the system automatically submitting reports to VAERS. One of the goals of the system is to automate the reporting process for the clinicians. Because they had mentioned it in the first paper where one of the barriers to reporting was it’s a pain for the clinicians to take the time to do it. So one of the goals of ESP was to automate most of that and reduce it down to a really simple set of questions, so that the system detects the adverse event that’s potentially caused by the vaccine. And the system says, hey, Dr. So-and-so, do you wanna submit the report? It’s all filled out; here’s the data we have. Do you wanna submit? Yes or no. That’s what they built. And one of the intentions was to streamline the clinician’s workflow, because the clinicians are complaining about it.

– Okay, well, this comes out, that really covers the last question that I was gonna ask you guys, what can we do to redeem VAERS? And it sounds like that’s the solution, to have that kind of automated machine counting system. Are we ever gonna get to see the data from that system?

– Well, the thing about the system is, is that they built it to automatically submit the reports to VAERS. So, of course, it’s great to have internal access to the data, but what we want is automatic submission to VAERS, and maybe an indication of if the report was automatically submitted or not. That would help immensely because-

– Is that happening today?

– It was happening in the 2015 paper, that they described that there were a handful of the reports that were automatically generated that the clinician said, yes, please submit this. And a few of them were actually automatically generated and sent off without consulting the clinician. Because some of the reports are so, there’s a higher level of certainty with regards to if the vaccine caused the adverse event, it just automatically sends it off.

– Hey, Bobby, I did a little background on that, and it was only for a time period. It was kind of like their own trial, if you will. So that, I think the process stopped in 2015 or 2016, the automatic generation. And it was only done-

– Well, the automatic submission or the automatic-

– Yeah.

– Yeah, automatic.

– From that system in Ohio. Our conversation today really begs the question, is VAERS credible? Is it worthy of working with it? And my conclusion, and I’ve been this way for several years, is no, it’s not a worthy system because it doesn’t track a lot. It’s missing quite a bit, especially what’s happening with COVID and what’s happening with autoimmune disorders. It really needs a new system. And you’ve been fighting CDC for years and the corrupt cabal, if you will, it needs to be done independently. We need to move vaccine safety science out of our government, as far as CDC and HHS. And I truly believe that’s where it needs to go to have a better perspective of looking at this honestly and transparently.

– Well, thank you all so much for joining me. Eileen Iorio, Stan Gotshall, Wayne Rhode, thank you for being warriors on this issue and trying to bring order out of the chaos. That’s what God asks us to do on this earth. And you guys are doing God’s work and your work in defending the children. So thank you very much for everything that you do and thank you for joining me here today.

– You’re welcome.

– Thank you.

– Thank you, I appreciate that.